Talk:Relationships between Jewish religious movements

Haredi views of Modern Orthodox Judaism

I think that JayJG is sugar-coating the views of Haredi Judaism towards Modern Orthodox Judaism. In Judaism's Apocalyptic Horsemen Tzvee Zahavy notes the following:

In right-wing Orthodoxy the attitude of triumphalism often is acted out in aggressive assaults on the nearest competition, the modern Orthodox and the Conservative Jews. The primary means of aggression and attack of apocalyptic Orthodoxy normally takes the form of character assassination rather than physical violence, and commonly is directed against weak and select targets....

The modern Orthodox remain the favorite targets of apocalyptic Orthodoxy. Chaim Dov Keller provides an apt illustration of this posture, "Years ago, my sainted Rebbe, Reb Elya Meir Bloch zt"l, Telshe Rosh Yeshiva, made a remark which I vividly remember since the occasion was my own wedding: We no longer have to fear Conservatism - that is no longer the danger. Everyone knows that it is avoda zara [idolatry]. What we have to fear is Modern Orthodoxy.

Modern Orthodoxy: An Analysis and a Response, in Reuven P. Bulka, ed., Dimensions of Orthodox Judaism, New York, 1983, p. 253 reprinted from the Jewish Observer 6, no. 8, June, 1970, pp. 3-14.

In a recent instance a writer in the Jewish Press called Rabbi Aharon Lichtenstein, son-in-law of HaRav Joseph Soloveitchik, scion of Orthodoxy, "evil" for allegedly making overtures to conservative and reform Jews. Lichtenstein, who has a Ph.D. in English from Harvard, is a favored target of the apocalyptic Orthodox, for he represents the liminal Orthodox scholar and Talmudist who has obtained a higher education.

In May, 1987, Orthodox rabbis in Israel inspired by Rabbi Eliezer Shach, head of the Agudat Yisrael Council of Sages and mentor of the Shas party, forbade under threat of excommunication, study in a Kollel program run by a former American rabbi, a graduate of Yeshiva University, in which a woman [the venerated Orthodox biblical scholar, Nechama Leibowitz] taught. Rabbi Ovadia Yosef, ruled that the woman could continue to teach from behind a screen. Nevertheless, many students left the program as a result of the encounter with Orthodox pressure.

Historian Jonathan D. Sarna writes the following in The Future of American Orthodoxy

The Future of American Orthodoxy

The problem is that, in the absence of broadly respected leaders, the fault lines between modern and right-wing Orthodox Jews have deepened. In one particularly vitriolic attack, Rabbi Elya Svei, a prominent member of the right-wing Agudat Israel, characterized Yeshiva University's President Norman Lamm as "an enemy of God" - a charge that he subsequently refused to retract. More broadly, Modern Orthodox Jews - including, recently, Senator Joseph Lieberman - have found themselves written out of Orthodoxy altogether by some right-wing critics. No wonder that Professors William B. Helmreich and Reuel Shinnar, in a recent analysis, described Modern Orthodoxy as "a movement under siege."

Consider this excerpt from A People Divided: Judaism in Contemporary America, Jack Wertheimer, Basic Books, 1993

An adver­tisement for an evening of denunciation and expose captures the tone of the right-wing attacks: "Hear how centrism and many of its propo­nents are breaking with masora [Jewish tradition].... Hear about their latest proposals which will encourage intermarriage through improper conversions, and how to stop them."(67)

New groups such as the Coun­cil for Authentic Judaism, seek to "expose" prominent Orthodox lead­ers identified with the left as pagans and teachers of Christianity; they are convinced that centrism "is no longer Judaism, but another reli­gion."(68) When Rabbi Steven Riskin, the founder of one of the largest Modern Orthodox synagogues in America, embarks on a speaking tour, flyers branding him a "heretic" are posted in synagogues. (69)

And when a member of the centrist Rabbinical Council of America wrote an Op-Ed piece in the New York Times challenging the propriety of the Lubavitcher Rebbe's intrusion into Israeli politics, he was castigated in print as an "enemy, destroyer, and devastator of Israel," harassed with anonymous telephone calls, and warned that Lubavitchers were "watching and following" him. (70) These and many other incidents make abundantly clear that the triumph of the Right has been achieved in part by coercion and intimidation.

...The new elite religion of Orthodoxy not only writes off the folkways of traditional Jews, as well as the practices of non-Orthodox Jews who are unprepared to become baalei teshuva,(78) but it also insists that any compromise with modern culture is to be rejected as un­-Jewish and inferior. The shift to the right may also be interpreted as a symptom of deep insecurity and retreat into insularity, of fear that the corrosiveness of modern American culture will eat away at the Orthodox population just as it has sapped non-Orthodox movements. Thus, even as it revels in its success in retaining the allegiance of its youth, the Young Israel Viewpoint publishes such articles as "Why Are Young Israel Children Going Astray?" (79) And even as what was formerly Modern Orthodoxy moves to the right, a symposium is held at a Young Israel convention that poses the question: "The Lifestyles of the Modern American Orthodox Jew - Halachic Hedonism?" (80)

Footnotes for above text

67. "Spotlight on Centrism," an advertisement in the Jewish Week, february 9, 1990, p.39

68. Jonathan Mark, "Modern Orthodox Rabbis Claim Assault from RCA Right Wing," p.29, Jewish Week, July 13, 1990. See also idem, "Orthodox Rabbis Disciplining 8," Jewish Week, June 7-13, 1990, p.4; and numerous letters on "The RCA Controversy," Jewish Week, July 27, 1990, p.22.

69. Gary Rosenblatt, "Religious McCarthyism," Baltimore ,Jewish Times, November 22, 1991, p. 12.

77. Menachem Friedman, Life Tradition and Book Tradition in the Develop­ment of Ultra-orthodox Judaism, in Judaism from Within and Without: Anthropological Perspectives, ed. Harvey Goldberg (Albany: SLINY Press, 1987), pp. 235-55.

78. Note the observation of Norman Lamm, president of Yeshiva University: "Witness the readiness of our fellow Orthodox Jews to turn exclusivist, to the extent that psychologically, though certainly not halakhically, many of our people no longer regard non-Orthodox Jews as part of Kelal Yis­rael." Lamm, Some Comments on Centrist Orthodoxy, Tradition, Fall 1986, p. 10.

79. Reuven Frank, Why Are Young Israel Children Going Astray? Young Israel Viewpoint, September 1984, p. 24.

80. Young Israel Viewpoint, September-October 1988, p. 20.

While the Rabbi Bloch quote is somewhat relevant, many of the rest are not. The criticism of Rabbi Aharon Lichtenstein for allegedly making overtures to conservative and reform Jews is a criticism of him for his actions, not of all Modern Orthodoxy. The threat of herem on a particular course is about the program allowing a woman to teach (and even then, as you point out, not universal among Haredi Rabbis); it was not a criticism of Modern Orthodoxy. The other quotes are generally unattributed, and in any event about indiviuals. If you want to quote prominent Haredim criticizing Modern Orthodoxy as a movement and/or philosophy, that would be valuable, but criticisms of individuals for their statements or actions aren't particularly relevant in this context. Jayjg 17:56, 15 August 2004 (UTC)

The edits are flying fast and furious, I can't get mine in. My revised statement is: While the Rabbi Bloch quote is somewhat relevant, many of the rest are not. The criticism of Rabbi Aharon Lichtenstein for allegedly making overtures to conservative and reform Jews is a criticism of him for his actions, not of all Modern Orthodoxy. The threat of herem on attendees of a particular course is about the program allowing a woman to teach (and even then, as you point out, not universal among Haredi Rabbis); it was not a criticism of Modern Orthodoxy. The other quotes are generally unattributed, and in any event about individuals. If you want to quote prominent Haredim criticizing Modern Orthodoxy as a movement and/or philosophy, that would be valuable, but criticisms of individuals for their statements or actions aren't particularly relevant in this context. You've titled this section "Haredi views of Modern Orthodox Judaism"; let it be about that, then, and not about "Individual (often anonymous) Haredi opinions about the actions of various Modern Orthodox Jews". Jayjg 18:05, 15 August 2004 (UTC)

Are you joking? When you claim that these are criticisms only of a few individuals, and not of Modern Orthodoxy, then you are making grossly incorrect claims which mispresent Haredi Judaism. We must reject your quite unique interpretation of these facts; I know of no sociologists or historians which share your view. This article should not present our own personal interpretations. The facts are that many historians of Judaism, and Modern Orthodox Jews themselves, understand all this as clear attacks on the validity of Modern Orthodox Judaism. NPOV demands that we present the information in this way. RK 18:04, 15 August 2004 (UTC)

In general it's probably safest to assume I am not joking. As for the criticisms, they relate to specific actions and statements of individuals, not to the movement as a whole. The personal interpretations are, in fact, the theses being presented around those quotes. Now it would be perfectly reasonable to mention that a number of Modern Orthodox leaders have been criticized for various actions (e.g. women teaching Yeshiva courses), and point out that some authors feel that this indicates a criticism of the movement itself. As always, I recommend brief summaries of the positions, rather that lengthy quotes. Jayjg 18:11, 15 August 2004 (UTC)

P.S. I recommend that you avoid using the royal "we" when writing (e.g. "We must reject your quite unique interpretation of these facts"), as you so often do. Please remember that you are neither royalty, nor speaking for Wikipedia, nor even anyone but yourself. Jayjg 18:11, 15 August 2004 (UTC)

That's valid; I agree. I am only saying that Tzvee Zahavy, Jack Wertheimer, Jonathan D. Sarna, Norman Lamm and others believe that these quotes rejection and criticism of Modern Orthodox Judaism as a whole. This article should summarize their reasoning and conclusions. RK 21:23, 15 August 2004 (UTC)

Now, I am not claiming that all Haredi Jews feel this. They do not. Nor do I claim that every Haredi rabbi feels this way. They do not. However, I am pointing out that over the last 30 years, this has been the dominant trend within Haredi Judaism, and a trend that is not being fought by any significant faction with Haredi Judaism. This article needs to note this! Of course, I would be in debt to anyone who brought forth quotes and references from Haredi groups, rabbis, leaders, etc., who have publicy refuted or criticised any of the above attacks on Modern Orthodox Judaism, or who have openly spoke of it as valid and legitimate. Any significant other side to this issue should be heard from as well. RK 17:58, 15 August 2004 (UTC)

Trends are interesting, but please make sure that analyses are presented as theses, not as facts, and please make sure any quotes reflect the thesis being presented. Jayjg 18:13, 15 August 2004 (UTC)

That is fine by me. RK 21:23, 15 August 2004 (UTC)

At the risk of starting things up again, I just wanted to point out a couple of things.

1. The term "Modern Orthodoxy" was in disfavor until recently, and was not used by the mainstream left (Y.U., the O.U., the R.C.A., Mizrachi). The term tended to refer to the far left of Orthodoxy, or to the marginally Orthodox. It is only recently that the mainstream left again took up the mantle of "Modern Orthodoxy". So references made to Modern Orthodoxy may not be what they seem.

2. I think there is a conflating of Orthodox attitutes towards Conservative Judaism, and Charedi attitudes towards Modern Orthodoxy. There is a difference between viewing a movement or philosophy (in Jewish terms, a "derech") as wrong, and not considering, for example, their rabbis as rabbis. For example, would a convert automatically be rejected by a Chareidi rabbi because the conversion was done by a Modern Orthdox rabbi? (I didn't say they would automatically be accepted either, but contrast that with the view of Conservative conversions.)

3. Rabbi Svei was responding to what he viewed as an attack. When, as an alumnus of Yeshiva University, I received a letter introducing the term "centrist" (I believe this was the same period), I myself was upset, as I felt that this marginalized the mainstream right. I am glad that "Modern Orthodox" is replacing it.

4. I realize that we may not count, but the attitude here in Baltimore is not like that. For example, Rabbi Frand, who teaches at Ner Israel, a respected Chareidi Yeshiva, and whose lecture tapes are widely desseminated, quotes Modern Orthodox rabbis, and has for years.

5. Anyone who actually has a NPOV would view an attempt to present the above quotes as NPOV as laughable. "Judaism's Apocalyptic Horsemen"? Please!

Michael Zvi Krumbein --71.166.122.129 (talk) 02:46, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Primary and secondary sources

HG, I've always supported the idea that views be attributed to individuals or organizations. No Jewish movement is monolithic and speaks with a single voice. Even if a viewpoint comes from such an official body as, say, the Conservative Rabbinical Assembly, it is still more helpful to attribute it to its source rather than to "Conservative Judaism". — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 06:14, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Malik: Please note that in general law there are written codified constitutions and unwritten constitutions, just as in Judaism there is a written Torah as well as an oral Torah, so that it is not always possible to find or even rely on "official" statements, when often the facts and realities about phenomena and movements come not from what is "written" but rather, from what is oral and "unwritten." IZAK (talk) 09:52, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with IZAK - but I also agree entirely with Malik on principle - we need sources to avoid violating NOR. Malik, my intention was neither to waste anyone's time nor to violate policy. My hope was that if any of this sounds familiar to anyone they might actually know of a source or know where to look. Websites I believe will be unhelpful because crucial documents will predate the web era. But I cited three books editors with more time than I could refer to, which would be a start. I think an author called Gil Rosenthal - I am really not sure about the last name - wrote a book called Four paths to one God about the four major movements and that would be a handy verifiable source for anyone working on this article. i am sorry that at this point I can at best suggest sources and ideas to look for but with all due respect to Malik's important point, I hope this is still constructive. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:47, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

To respond to IZAK, HG and Malik more specifically, I see no problem with relying on three types of sources (and I agree with Malik that they should be properly sourced): (1) scholars - historians or sociologists of religion - who are nominally non-partisan like Gil Rosenthal; (2) official spokespeople for official organs of the movements, like the Rabbinic Assembly or United Synagogue; (3) notable figures within movements. I agree that Joseph Solovetchik doesn't necessarily speak for all Orthodoxy, but surely there is a place for views of people of his stature in this article as well. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:54, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I find it very hard to believe that there isn't a great deal written on the historical and current relationship between American Jewish religious movements - from both within and without the movements, from reliable sources such as Slrubenstein has described. Plus there are also press releases of various joint initiatives, on synagogue mergers (or splits), on academic appointments, etc, etc. Are we concerned here with the existance of sources or access of our editors to sources? Egfrank (talk) 11:31, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

An interesting source, from the sociologist's point of view: Chaim, Waxman. Changing Jewish Communities: Winners and Losers in Denominational Memberships in the United States (Jerusalem: Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, 2005(?)). In addition to a review of opinions and surveys, the article has a bibliography that may be helpful for those interested in getting this article out of WP:NOR territory. When sources don't show up easily in key word searches, a good strategy is to start with the bibliography of the few books you know are on-topic and then hop-skip from book to book until one has collected a nice set of sources. Kol tuv, Egfrank (talk) 11:57, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Egfrank: Instead of making loaded and unhelpful charges against this article, could you please tell us very specifically in point form right here, what in the article needs to be sourced better so that it not be in "WP:NOR territory" as that would help, rather than beating around the bush. Thanks. IZAK (talk) 09:37, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Though not historical sources, I'd point out that various teshuvot on homosexuality stake out ideological claims about what the Conservative movement and make statements about its history and traditions in a way that highlights the multiplicity of the threads that have gone into it. Roth's responsum articulates the quasi-Orthodox influence; Tucker's articulates the quasi-Reform; and Dorff et al. attempt to bridge the gap between the two in a way that, arguably, is neither. Because of its multiple nature, the fact that from its inception it reacted against and wanted to distance itself from Reform, and the fact that it had (and has) a substantial traditionalist wing which thought of themselves primary as preservers of tradition rather than reformers and who were in practice and temperatment arguably closer to Orthodox than Reform, I do think that Conservative Judaism should be treated as sui generis in general rather as a kind of Reform view. What IZAK is saying does describe a substantial wing and I think is partially correct (Although a decline in the proportion of traditionalists is supported by statistics on both views and day-to-day-observance, I don't know to what extent traditionalists are leaving for the left wing of Modern Orthodoxy, staying where they are, or liberalizing their views and practices). Best --Shirahadasha (talk) 14:58, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments Shirahadasha, but my concerns about "WP:NOR territory" is not a statement about the article's truth or falsehood, but rather the fact that it is 15K plus and it has all of 2 footnotes - both from the same source (which is a spokeman for a POV rather than an academic who is objectively surveying the situation). Without objective sources how do we know that anything we write is true? Without citations I have to assume that the content is drawing on personal experiences and perspectives. Personal experience can hint at truths that don't necessarily show up in citable sources, e.g. IZAK's point about "oral tradition". But personal experience is also wildly vulnerable to sampling errors. This is true, even when the personal experience is from someone as well respected as Avi Shapir. He doesn't claim to have done a thorough study - in both citations he speaks from personal experience and relies on annecdotal evidence.

Without research, empirical studies, and the like it is very hard to know if our personal observations reflect reality or not. Another way to understand my concerns might be to compare this article to the Waxman article. I'd do a point by point comparison, but I don't know where to begin - its like comparing apples and oranges. This kind of divergence in both structure and content, especially in a Wikipedia article with minimal footnotes, raises red flags.

I think it especially important in an article like this that we be scrupulous about WP:V and WP:RS. What I would like to see us do is

• put together a list of sources on this topic divided into two groups:
  1. context/framework/synthesis providers: e.g. sociologists, historians, and organizational policy/spokespersons statements for each of the denominations
  2. illustrative annecdote providers (used only to add color to claims citable from the first group): e.g. press releases, blogs/quotes of thought leaders for each of the denominations
• review and summarize those sources rather than our own opinions, however valid

I think an article built out of that two step strategy would be far more reliable and more consistent with Wikipedia policy than what we have now. Egfrank (talk) 15:48, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

It seems like the thread has shifted to sources, so let me try putting in a section break. Readjust if you disagree. Thanks. HG | Talk 16:33, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Regarding sources, I agree that sources are a real problem here. We all seem to have well-informed impressions, but nobody is suggesting that we write a joint opinion piece. However, there is some uncertainty about sources. Let's differentiate between primary source -- such as official documents, texts by notable leaders, etc. To the greatest extent possible, we should avoid building the article out of our own interpretations of primary sources. Instead, we should rely on secondary sources such as those listed by Egfrank above (and Slrubenstein) -- scholarly interpretations, synthesis etc., by historians, sociologists and the like. If secondary sources are lacking for any section, then that section should be cut or greatly pared down.

I think it's also important to consider the scope of the sources and article. The article would seem to cover two types of relationships: (a) how one branch views another branch, (b) how much one branch interacts with another branch, e.g. cooperation, exchange of personnel and constituency, rejection and separation, mutual political or cultural activities, etc. I would like to see us list any sources, primary and secondary, that focus predominantly on either (a) or (b). Otherwise, we're stuck sifting through and cherry-picking general sources, which can easily result in original research temptations. Thanks. HG | Talk 16:33, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Added to the article some sources, mostly on (a) views, with some (b) interactions. Thanks. HG | Talk 05:41, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Question for Egfrank: Frequently the "context/framework/synthesis providers: e.g. sociologists, historians, and organizational policy/spokespersons statements for each of the denominations" and the "illustrative annecdote providers (used only to add color to claims citable from the first group): e.g. press releases, blogs/quotes of thought leaders for each of the denomination" that you mention are not strictly speaking Reform, Conservative or Orthodox themselves as that is a very academic approach that is dominated by secular non-religious and even anti-religious POV academics and spokespeople. So that the true views from within Reform, Conservatism and Orthodoxy by its own leaders is often-times distorted, misunderstood, twisted or unknown. I can vouch for the case of Haredi and Hasidic leaders who mostly do not themselves say much in public and yet they are the paramount leaders of Haredi and Hasidic Jews and Judaism who cannot be understood or disconnected from the views and teachings of their Rabbonim, Poskim, Rosh yeshivas, Rebbes, and simply the voices of the Seforim and Gedolim of all ages that guide Haredi Jews through the Shulkhan Arukh, and the words of the Rishonim and Acharonim -- so it would be a joke and an impossibility to rely on the writings of "sociologists, historians, and organizational policy/spokespersons statements" who are ignorant and often violently prejudiced against Orthodox, and even all religious Jews. This is but one major problem. As far as Reform and Conservatism goes, they have changed their tunes to suit each age. There was a time when the Conservatives were aligned in their views with Orthodoxy in official allegiance to Halakha such as on the issue of forbidding female rabbis. Once the Reform broke that barrier 30 years ago, the Conservatives swung around and joined them fairly quickly, albeit with great inner turmoil. The same thing with same sex-marriages, gay clergy, interfaith ceremonies, which mitzvot to abandon or to try to resuscitate. In the case of Conservatism and Reform what will be written about them and their efforts at the present time will not be true of what they were up to ten or twenty years ago, and certainly not what the situation was 50 or 100 years ago, so which version of the academics would one believe? There has to be a way to set up a consistent JUDAIC standard -- agreeable to all of us -- that while incorporating mainstream academic views based on the last 100 years, that will not not bend to the POV writings of academics and sociologist who bend to the winds of political correctness more than they do to any branch of Judaism, and often as they work within one or other branch of it, they do not speak for it but rather for prevailing and changing secular non-Jewish, and even anti-Jewish and anti-Israel, social and societal shifts that are not bound to nor do they respect Jews and Judaism. To illustrate this point in reverse: Would it be acceptable if in articles about sociology, history, and society, the views and writings of rabbis would be inserted so that their voices be heard? After all, the Torah has much to say or that can be deduced, on every topic that faces us. Therefore, just as rabbis are not really allowed to poke their noses into the subjects of sociology, history and academics, likewise, the voices of secular sociologists, historians, and academic thinkers cannot ever become the final arbiters of subject matter that relates to matters of faith and religion. IZAK (talk) 03:38, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

There seem to be several issues above - some of which go to the heart of wikipedia policy. I'm going to try to sort them out with bullet items and reframe in terms of the wikipedia implications. If I get this wrong, please feel free to strike out and rephrase any of the bullet items:

1. Wikipedia favors academic sources, if available - see WP:SOURCES. There is a point of view that academia is itself a POV and is hostile to religious POV. If this is true, how can we trust these sources as reliable sources? How can we write a wikipedia policy compliant article that is also WP:NPOV?
2. ?Even if these academic sources are reliable, much important information about the haredi community never gets written down or even studied by these academics. Even if the academics were unbiased how would we have enough information to record their position? Wouldn't cutting down or eliminating sections without reliable secondary sources mean making haredim invisiable? And if so, don't the demands of WP:UNDUE (which would say significant viewpoints need to be represented) and WP:NPOV conflict with the policy WP:SOURCES and the guideline WP:RS
3. How does one define a "religous POV" in the first place? If Reform and Conservative are "changing their tune" which time slice in history is the real "Conservative"? the real "Reform"?
4. What should be a reliable source on religious topics? How can academics even be considered reliable sources on a religious POV?

These are all very important concerns but the fact remains Wikipedia policy does privilege academic sources when available. So I think we really have no choice but to use them -- when available. If there is not enough academic information on the haredi community or we can make compelling arguments that the available information is biased, then of course we need to consider other sources. However, even those arguments of bias shouldn't come from our personal opinions - they should be supported by spokespeople within those communities who have complained of bias or academics who have identified methodological weaknesses in the study of those communities.

As for the academic sources themselves, I think we need to assume good faith. Most academics, especially these days, go out of their way to be neutral. And they spend a lot of time critiquing their own methodologies. Academics make mistakes of course - we are all vulnerable to believing that our personal sitz-in-leben is normative for all. Neutrality is a learning process - each new voice that enters the dialog changes our idea of the range of views that are possible. In some cases, the new voices do more than that: they help us rethink inherent biases in currently accepted methodology. Slrubenstien is much better read in anthropology (and I think sociology) than I am. Perhaps he will speak up on the issue of methodology and bias. If I recall correctly, shirahadasha is a statistician by profession - perhaps she too will have something to say on methodological questions.

Beyond that, if we are serious about writing a wikipedia policy compliant article and we are concerned about academic bias, we may need to look outside of our usual project circle. Finding sources that critique research or methodology is never as easy as finding the research itself. These kind of commentary don't usually show up in key word searches. They are buried in the forwards of books or in lit reviews or in book reviews or in the introductory material of a research study (which often contains at least a partial lit review) or even in letters to the editor in academic journals. But that difficulty doesn't give us permission to go write joint opinion pieces. It means we need to either learn the research skills/methodological issues ourselves or find fellow wikipedians who have those skills and methodological maturity and are willing to help out. Egfrank (talk) 06:57, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Egfrank, thanks for taking the time to answer. There is no need to preach the "gospel" of Wikipedia to me or to anyone, I am well-aware of the policies and I have never diverged from them. I would like to respond with a few points here:

1. Wikipedia is more than happy to rely on the primary sources of Judaism from whichever direction as long as full citations are given. How else are articles about the 613 Mitzvot or any area of Category:Jewish law and rituals written if not from Judaic sources only? Academics cannot create nor sit in judgment of texts and decisions that create Jewish law and Jewish life. An academic may be an observer perhaps, but can never be the source of Judaism's religious teachings and for those Wikipedia relies on what Jewish primary texts state not what academics write. Feel free to create an article about Academic view of Judaism, but it will never equal Judaism. So much so, that Wikipedia encourages projects that preserve the classical texts of Judaism. User Dovi (talk · contribs)'s page lists some important examples: "Hebrew Wikisource is building the Wikisource edition of Arukh Hashulchan. The Arukh Hashulchan is an important and relevant halakhic work on all four parts of the Shulchan Arukh. The Wikisource edition is edited and formatted for accuracy and user-friendliness. So far over 200 simanim (chapters) have been completed... a list of haftarot according to the order of the books of Nevi'im, which may be found here as part of the Wikisource Vayavinu Bamikra project... contribute content to the Hebrew Wikisource Mikraot Gedolot...content to the Hebrew Wikisource Vayavinu Bamikra project (for media relating to reading the Tanakh with cantillation)...content to the Hebrew Wikisource Open Mishnah Project" so far from "favoring academic sources" Wikipedia actually has vast projects to preserve, enhance and utilize the classical sources of Judaism.
2. I have absolutely NO idea what you are saying with this: "Even if these academic sources are reliable, much important information about the haredi community never gets written down or even studied by these academics. Even if the academics were unbiased how would we have enough information to record their position? Wouldn't cutting down or eliminating sections without reliable secondary sources mean making haredim invisiable? And if so, don't the demands of WP:UNDUE (which would say significant viewpoints need to be represented) and WP:NPOV conflict with the policy WP:SOURCES and the guideline WP:RS" as you are just citing a string of policies with applying to anything real. Can you explain please.
3. (I'm skipping over a few points) but you have sheer chutzpa to say this: "It means we need to either learn the research skills/methodological issues ourselves or find fellow wikipedians who have those skills and methodological maturity and are willing to help out." Will we call in some editors from the Christianity or Evolution departments to "help out" how to edit Judaism articles? Has anyone made such a suggestion ever from other fields? Imagine all those editors of articles about Islam obviously written from a very Islamic POV meandering over here to ask for help with sorting out their articles. How can you even contemplate such things and keep a straight face in these discussions? Do you think that the editors you have encountered here cannot do that? My assumption has always been that the editors involved in the Judaic sections are all highly qualified professionals in their fields who have spent many years in colleges and universities of higher learning and hold advanced degrees. Please stop patronizing everyone and get on with the job of saying how you would like to chop and hack articles as I know you would like to do based on what you did to the Reform Judaism article/topic and when things did not go your way you had no problem taking the discussion to a place where you thought you could get help but in reality you were just wasting everyone's time there at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countering systemic bias/open tasks#WikiProject Judaism needs help - geographical bias concerns, and in the end you just did what you wanted in any case with the Reform articles so why level accusations, demean others and complain here before before anything has even happened? That is no way to do business. We can all face the music here and so can you. IZAK (talk) 08:58, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

IZAK - didn't you not too long ago suggest that User:Swatjester consult with Wikipedia:WikiProject Judaism before deleting an article[1]. Surely you weren't intending to demean or insult his expertise?

I see nothing demeaning in suggesting that we reduce the research burden on ourselves by cooperating with other projects. If someone on the Judaism project is a whiz at finding citable sources that critique sociology studies or the methodology they use, then by all means lets get them involved -- if they aren't already :-)! Of course, we are a multi-talented and richly educated group. But you know, we can't know everything. In fact, one sign of a true expert is that they know what they don't know and respect and rely on the expertise of others rather than trying to "do it all themselves". Egfrank (talk) 13:41, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Above Egfrank makes a mistake when he writes, "Without objective sources how do we know that anything we write is true?" Wikiipedia is concerned with veriviability, not truth. We do n9t claim what is objectively true, we provide multiple views of the so-called truth. Now, I think Shirahadashah and IZAK are perfectily reasonable to calling attention to many sources that provide valuable and relevant views. If you are looking for more academic sources, I already recommended Rosenthal's Four Paths to One God which is at least non-partisan on the movements. On specifically the Conservative movement, there is Sklar's Conservative Judaism which is sociological. I still think Waxman's book and Dorff's book are valuable and appropriate sources from within the Conservative movement. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:46, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Just for clarification - "How do we know what is true?" doesn't imply by any stretch of the imagination that there is one knowable version of the truth or even for that matter that there is one truth. I was simply making an observation about the nature of verifiability - e.g. the emphasis was on the word "know". My only point is that we can never hope even to get to "multiple views of the so-called truth" if we rely only on our subjective experiences. Our subjective experiences, however well informed, are notoriously vulnerable to observer and sampling bias. The same applies to any WP:V, WP:RS source that relies on annecdotal evidence or personal experience.

Take the generalization you learned in school that "Reform Jews seek their authority in the prophets" - well yes that is true for a certain strain of US Reform and I can think of several books based on that line of thinking. But it is only a partial view. I can also think of several examples that call its general applicability into question. First, I think there is widespread recognition these days that the prophets were not democrats or preachers of personal autonomy or endorsers of Kantian universal ethics. They spoke from their time and their frame of reference and to a certain extent we read our modern values and expectations back into those texts. Second, we have well respected thinkers like Borowitz that start with a faith assumption of human dignity and then build up their judaism from that vantage point using the full range of biblical and rabbinic literature (see Borowitz, Renewing the Covenant). His dominant metaphor is not the prophetic voice but the relationship of covenant. Third, modern US Reform rabbis are as likely to quote later rabbinic texts and chassidut as the prophets in their sermons - probably more so. Even the dominant catch-phrase of the day,"tikkun olam", comes from rabbinic, not biblical, literature. Fourth, if the prophetic tradition was really the "source of authority" - why it is so little in evidence in this recommended reading list from the URJ[2]? My point isn't to contradict you or your teachers. Only to point out that quick summary statements comparing movements are vulnerable to over generalization or partial awareness.

We need formal academic sources, such as the historians and sociologists you named, because their methodology is designed to get us past bias issues (though of course we can debate whether or not they are successful in their goal). Other than that I agree with everything you have said. I don't think anyone has objected to primary sources. However, WP:SOURCES means that we can't use them (in most cases) to provide synthesis and analysis. For that we need secondary sources. Egfrank (talk) 15:22, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with everything you say. I would only add this: given the title of this article, how the Conservative movement and Orthodox movements, and others, voew one another is an important part of the article. In short, I am suggesting that in addition to a relatively thorough account of the historical relations among movements, drawing on non-partisan secondary sources as well as enough partisan or partial sources to provide a balance of notable views about each movement's self-representation, there must also be room for ccounts of how each movement situates itself vis a vis the others and how each movement represents the others even if such representations are partisan and partial. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:38, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed completely, Egfrank (talk) 17:54, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh Egfrank, you forgot to mention that maybe we should all become proficient with the writings of famous Jews who spoke out and wrote about Jews and Judaism from time to time (even if they dropped their Jewishness, I mean if Kant can be good why not these guys?) like Sigmund (Shlomo) Freud, Karl (Levy) Marx, Leon (Bronstein) Trotsky and lets' not forget that Judaism cannot be understood without Sholem Aleichem (Rabinovich) and Isaac Bashevis Singer -- what kind of "Judaism" would come out of that broth? IZAK (talk)

Aside from Isaac Bashevis Singer I'm not aware that any of these authors spoke or wrote on US Judaism of any form, let alone the specific topic of relationship amongst movements. As for Isaac Bashevis Singer you raise an interesting point. One POV we have completely left out of the discussion is the portrayal of the relationship between the movements in the eyes of novels and literature. I don't know if Singer has anything relevant, but I know the issue of how relationships amongst the movements might affect literature is notable enough to have made it into the New York Times book review section [3] Egfrank (talk) 07:39, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Eg: If one starts looking for non-traditional sources, often the line is not drawn to exclude other influences. Often, religious writers will draw on prominent outside sources just as the West's women's rights and gay rights movements have spawned copy-cat endeavours in Jewish and even religious sectors. Likewise, the impact of environmentalism, liberation theology, and plain Liberalism, continue to have a direct influence on Jewish religious movements who mimic those same non-Jewish agendas with lame justifications, rationalizations and proofs that they are derived from classical Jewish sources when they are not coming from those sources at all but from the secular and even anti-religious political and social movements in gentile society external to the Jews. As is often the case, the ones making the case against classical Judaism are secular Jews out to demolish "the old order" they have denounced or that has rejected them. Marx wrote On the Jewish Question and his writings have quite a few of his hateful views and attitudes to Jews and Judaism. As is well known the Jewish masses who came over from Europe were preponderately favorable to Socialism, as with the Jewish Bund, and this tainted the nature of Jewish life in America until the rise of newly affluent Jews, it's probably also tied in with the rise of Humanistic Judaism and secular Jewish culture as a reaction to the former "old-fashioned" Jewish religious way of life. So yes, Marx is important because he is the secular "prophet" of most Socialists. Same with Sigmund Freud and his appeal to Jewish intellectuals in America many of whom abandoned the religious way of life of their parents. I remember reading a book in my teens (I will not tell you how many years ago) by Reform Rabbi Henry Enoch Kagan called Six Who Changed the World: Moses, Jesus, Paul, Marx, Freud, Einstein (1963) [4] [5] [6] a brilliant investigation for similarities between "Moses, Jesus, Paul, Marx, Freud, Einstein." Trotsky gave birth to Trotskyism and like Marxism it held great sway over the Jewish masses worldide who viewed him in a "messianic" light, a great liberator, and the role of his thought in drawing Jews away from Judaism. As for the Yiddish writers and the Yidishists, they gave birth to a seemingly "Jewish" literature that, like the writings of Marx, Freud, and Trotsky, drew Jews away from their traditions and caused great near-mortal harm to Judaism. IZAK (talk) 09:10, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

You are right that we need to keep this article focused. Do you see the relationship amongst the movements as portrayed in literature off topic for this article? If so, why? Egfrank (talk) 09:36, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Eg: Well it's encouraging that you are not clamoring to include the views of Marx or Freud and their ilk on Jewish religious questions. As for the influence of literature, especially Yiddish literature, while that may have had a strong influence in the sense of popular Jewish culture, they are really non-starters as far as having a serious, or any impact, in the formulation of Jewish religious thought or practice. So for now, the focus should remain on Judaic sources and Jewish religious thinkers, scholars and of course rabbis and their works. IZAK (talk) 10:25, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Meanwhile, back at the ranch...

While noone was looking, User Egfrank (talk · contribs) stalked off and opened a new front by attacking User IZAK (talk · contribs) see Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts#User:IZAK, rather than debating the issues and facts here, User:Egfrank would rather conduct personal vendettas against editors who disagree with her. How pathetic. IZAK (talk) 04:56, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Recent rename to Relationships between American Jewish religious movements

I don't understand why this article renamed. All of the major movements involved -- Orthodox, Conservative, and Reform -- have both international histories and a contemporary international presence. The current article content does unduly reflect an American point of view, but this can be fixed. Best, --Shirahadasha 23:38, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I did this because, after reading the page over several times, it only had US denominational connection. True we might all be aware that each of the denominations has an international counterpart - but that isn't reflected on this page, by its creator or subsequent, numerous editors. Of course if this was not the proper thing to do, it can be changed back...but the whole page would need to be heavily added to. It is a shame this couldn't be purged entirely and a new section added to the denomination page. Best wishes, A Sniper 21:20, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Agreeing with Shirahadasha, I don't think it makes sense to limit this article to American movements. Better to fix the content, because the geographic limit is quite artificial. For instance, what about Israeli Orthodox commenting on American movements, or vice versa? We certainly don't want to have this "relationships" topic segmented for UK and Germany and Hungary, because movements and individuals constantly interact and comment across geographic boundaries. We need to revisit the title. HG | Talk 05:45, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Before we worry about the world-wide perspective - which I agree would be interesting - perhaps we should focus first on getting a well sourced WP:NPOV article on the USA. There is a huge amount of material on the US alone to sort through. Egfrank (talk) 07:24, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Several problems. (1) Many sources and notable figures do not limit their remarks to a geographic denomination. Hence, when R. Feinstein or Joel Roth comment on other movements, they don't refer only to Jews and organizations within the US. (2) Accordingly, the current article's content is not limited to the US. (3) The discourse of the movements cannot be segregated geographically enough to justify segregated articles. For these reasons, I will would like to move it back and open the discussion here. Thanks. HG | Talk 17:48, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

1. There is plenty of material available (e.g. historical, socialogical, literary) that is indeed region specific. This article hasn't even begun to scratch the surface of that material.
2. Why is it relevant that Joel Roth says things that are worldwide? If claim A applies to US and claim A applies to Israel, then A is appropriate in any of the following three articles: (a) an article on the US (b) an article on israel and (c) an article on the US and israel.
3. The material on other areas (e.g. israel) is volumous - Israel deserves its own article.
4. If we write a good article on the US and then start writing one on Israel, and while writing the one on israel notice that we need to reuse material, then we can always add a third article with the shared material.
5. Even if we need shared material (e.g. for Israel and the US) it does not change the fact that both countries have denominational relationships that are complex enough and sufficiently sourced to each need their own article.
6. Finally, its better to do a little well, then try to do too much and do it poorly. Egfrank (talk) 19:08, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) The following aspects of the article are not limited to internal USA relationships:

• Haredi views of Modern Orthodox, generally
• R. Feinstein on non-Orthodox Jews
• Haredia on "heretical intent and the 1800s widespread denigration of religion."
• Modern Ortho on non-Orthodox generally
• R. Soloveitchik -- not discussing American non-Ortho alone
• R. Lamm saying "non-Orthodox rabbis and laypeople may possess spiritual dignity" etc
• R. Berger: "The Jewish loyalties and observances of non-Orthodox Jews are decidedly better than nothing." etc
• Conservative views of Orthodox are not limited to American Orthodox, and general view is held by Masorti/Conservative too
• R. Schorsch: "claimed that Orthodox organizations in Israel politically discriminate against non-Orthodox Jews" obviously not US
• The Reform section is not only USA, mostly historical

Given this content, I would like to undo the recent move and switch the burden of proof for changing the name of this long-standing article. This can be done either as a BRD move or as a Requested Move. Thanks. HG | Talk 01:01, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok, finally implemented the move back to prior name. Sorry about the delay, though at least it left plenty of time for further disagreements to be stated. Thanks. HG | Talk 06:10, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Joseph B. Soloveitchik Responsum

The year given for Joseph B. Soloveitchik's can't be correct. It says it occurred in 2010,but he died in 1993. I don't know the correct year. Farside268 (talk) 17:46, 17 November 2015 (UTC)