Talk:Reform Judaism/Archive 1

Reform in different countries

Reform movements grew up very differently in the USA, the UK, and Central Europe. This page seems to deal primarily with American Reform. I think there needs to be much more about the other types - maybe even separate articles. At the very least, the entries on this page need more geographical qualification. Any thoughts? Nomist 09:54, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

All Wikipedia articles are biased toward the background of their contributors. I imagine that UK/European/Israeli Reform aren't being 'ignored' here, but that the editors just don't have the background to write about it. Please feel free to add such information according to your knowledge - I for one would find it very interesting to read about. -Joshuapaquin 16:09, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Polydoxy and non-theism.

In the list of acceptable theological positions, two terms confuse me. What exactly are "polydoxy" and "non-theism"? How is non-theism different from atheism?

Hmm. Good point. These should be described! Polydoxy is a theology (of sorts) invented by Reform Rabbi Alvin Reines, a teacher at the Reform movement's Hebrew-Union College, its primary rabbinic seminary. He defines the word "God" to mean "the enduring possibility of Being." Since there is no being without its possibility, whenever we experience Being, we experience God. In this view, anyone who admits that existence is real in fact believes in God. Even atheists believe in God. I have it on good authority that many Reform rabbis believe this to be true.

Rabbi Reines attempts to legitimize this wordplay by pointing out that in the history of philosophy and theology, there often isn't any one totally agreed upon meaning for all terms, including the word "God". Therefore, he concludes, it is fair to define this word in any way we choose. For him, all definitions by their nature are a priori propositions, and therefore cannot true or false. The problem, of course, is that this is totally meaningless, and it makes every person in the world out to be a believer in God, which is totally ridiculous.

Further, definitions of words are not a matter of true or false. For example, I can define water as "dry" and sand as "wet". Since these are definitions that I choose, they cannot be true or false. But they certainly can be misleading, especially to those who already have heard these words used in different ways. The same is true for people who make up new definitions of the word "God". Further, it is a myth that people could never agree on the meaning of the term "God". There has always been some general agreement among Jews (and Christians and Muslims) on what the word God means. Although people have envisioned God in a number of ways most of these ways had many things in common, including the fact that God is, for lack of a better term, _actual_. God has always been conceived of as a creator and a source of morality, and has the power to intervene in the world in some fashion. The term 'God' thus corresponds to an actual ontological reality, and is not merely a projection of the human psyche. Prof. David Ray Griffin and Rabbi Louis Jacobs, among many others, have addressed these points. They point out that these such redefinitions of the word "God" are not intellectually honest; because they are non-theistic beliefs garbed in theistic terminology - this phenomenon has been termed'conversion by definition'.

Non-theism is a polite euphamism that some Reform Jews use for atheism as agnosticism. Many Reform Jews see the word "atheist" or "agnostic" as dirty words, which they (rightly, in my view) reject as being non-Jewish. But many Reform Jews are atheists or agnostics, and struggle to find ways to name their beliefs without really naming them. RK

Thanks, this is very helpful. I hope at least some of this can be incorporated into the article, or even developed into a separate article on polydoxy.

Reform Temples and gentiles stat.

"88 of Reform Temples allow gentiles to count as Reform Jews by being synagogue members if they are married to Jews" or "88%"? - Jeandré, 2004-04-25t15:28z

Patrilinealism

"1983 American Reform Jews formally accept patrilineal descent, creating a new definition of who is a Jew." I believe this is misleading. See Reform Judaism Website: "Reform Jews consider children to be Jewish if they are the child of a Jewish father or mother, so long as the child is raised as a Jew." So patrilineal descent is now accepted, but matrilineal descent also continues to be accepted. Note also the condition "so long as the child is raised as a Jew" - does this apply only if the father is a Jew, or in all cases? If the latter, that would make the Reform definition of who is a Jew more restrictive than the Orthodox definition in one way. Since I am neither American nor Reform I leave the editing of the actual article to someone more knowledgeable than myself.

Your questions expose serious problems and controversies within Reform Judaism. Unlike any other form of Judiasm, Reform does not hold by any understanding of Jewish law and tradition; they hold as their highest principle something called "personal autonomy". As such, they hold as if it were a religious principle the one rule: No Reform rabbi must follow any rule or hold any belief. (This is no joke). As such, it is left to each individual Reform rabbi what to believe and how to interpret any position. Result? Anarchy. Some reform rabbis do not accept matrilineal descent! Others do. The only thing keeping the Reform community together, as has been noted in various Reform journals, is the fact that Reform Temples simply do not ask such questions of people who ask to become members. Anyone who says that they are a Jew is accepted as a member, whether they meet Reform's standard of Jewishness of not. RK 14:40, Aug 11, 2004 (UTC)

That's not entirely accurate, RK. The Reform movement's official bodies have always emphasised both monotheism and the truth of Jewish ethical teachings (i.e., ethical monotheism) in their official documents -- more so than the other movements, for that matter. Furthermore, members of the CCAR are required to accept those who are Jewish under the CCAR resolutions on conversion and on patrilineal descent as Jewish. (And yes, that does mean that there are people who are Jewish halachically, but not by Reform standards.) Savant1984 07:21, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

(A) I take exception to the claim that Reform stresses ethics more than Conservative/Masorti Judaism. Perhaps the percent of writings on the topic is greater, but that is only because Reform doesn't teach halakha to any significant degree.

(B) I believe it is an error to say that that members of members of the CCAR are required to accept those who are Jewish under the CCAR resolutions on conversion and on patrilineal descent as Jewish. Please provide a reference for this claim.

In the USA, CCAR refuses to to make any such binding rules on its members. But are you saying that there are such rules elsewhere, such as in British or Israeli Reform Judaism? RK 00:44, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

The section has been changed and seems to address the commenter's concern. -Joshuapaquin 16:13, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

You should note that the reform definition of a jew is not accepted in the state of israel. The state also only recognizes orthodox conversions. Any one who is considering converting should be warned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.233.247.246 (talk) 16:01, 23 May 2005

POV edits from the above anonymous editor have been reverted. Please discuss first. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 00:01, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

The Israel-related comment is appropriate for the article, provided it is in a proper context and presented appropriately (i.e. NPOV). -Joshuapaquin 02:08, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

Anti-reform Links

There are two links "Why be Reform" and "Reform Judaism compared to other streams of Judaism" which are strongly anti-reform POV, rather than being encyclopedic in any way. I think these links should either be removed from the page, or they should have some sort of health warning. Anyone care to comment? Otherwise, I'll do something about them (probably just remove) at the end of the week. Zargulon 10:34, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

I reverted the page vandalism (who would vandalize a page on Shabbat!!!) and removed those links, putting the demography issue in context.Zargulon 15:06, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Phrasing for UK Reform Judaism

It might say In the UK, Reform denotes a more conservative approach than in the states, and shuls adopting similar policies to American Reform are generally referred to as Progressive. that's the best I can do. I pretty much agree with what you said. I don't know if it will be necessary to have 2 pages, or 2 completely distinct sections, on British and on American Reform, but they do seem to be pretty different. There is an important thing linking them though, and that is the emphasis on personal autonomy in interpreting the Bible and Oral Law. So perhaps that should be the basic defining principle at the top of the page. Your statement about distinct bodies is true in the sense of being different, but distinct also tends to imply discrete whereas I see more of a continuum. This may be related to the fact that in movements based on personal autonomy, institutional organising bodies tend naturally to be less significant. Lets keep talking, feel free to edit. Zargulon 14:22, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

I have been doing some research on the subject and there is quite an interesting account to how the Reform movement started in the UK. The first British Synagogue Bevis Marks Synagogue in London's East end was used by Sephardi Jews all over London. The wealthier West end families wanted a separate synagogue in West London but the leadership of Bevis Marks discouraged it because they needed the financial support from the wealthier West end families. The West end Jews, nevertheless went ahead with their plans and established the West End Synagogue breaking away from Bevis Marks. With their new freedom the made minor changes to their prayers and services, but even today, the siddur of British Reform more closely resembles the Sephardi prayer book on which it was based. What is interesting though is that while most British and Irish Reform is based on Sephardic liturgy most of its adherents today are in fact Ashkenazim. I'll do a bit more googleing and see if I can find some websites on the subject. GrandfatherJoe 14:55, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

I go to the synagogue they founded in the West End. It is called the West London Synagogue. It is highly notable in the history of British reform Judaism and should probably have a Wikipedia entry. I heard (can't remember source unfortunately) that they made a deliberate effort to incorporate Sephardic and Ashkenazic elements, although I'm not educated enough to give examples! Zargulon 15:29, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

You can find out about your congregation here. What is the synagogue like? I'm assuming that everything is grand and fancy because it's so old and the West end Jews were so rich; but I don't know. I've been to the synagogue at the Steinberg Centre but that one is quite simple. It just has the Aron Kodesh and the raised platform from where to read the Torah (it has a name, but I can't remember it now), its still nice though. If you read this you'll see that your synagogue, the West London Synagogue of British Jews certifies all the marriages performed according to the Jewish Usage in all Reform Synagogues of Great Britain (RSGB). They have changed that group's name now haven't they? It is now the Movement for the Reform of Judaism or something like that. Also, all Reform, Liberal and Masorti Rabbis in the UK train at the Leo Baeck College in London from where they receive their semicha don't they? In addition, Reform and Liberal Rabbis can function in both group's congregations. Do you think that we could use all this in the article? I don't think that there should be a separate article on British Reform, a paragraph in this article will do. And, I agree with you, there should be an article on the West London Synagogue. GrandfatherJoe 19:17, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Those links didn't come up.. will try again in the morning. Yes, it is quite an elaborate building.. it has a balcony and a section for the choir behind the ark, and is architecturally quite decorative. I recently started the page for Movement for Reform Judaism (RSGB now redirects there) but it is still a stub so feel free to expand. I didn't know that Leo Baeck was the only place that Ref/Lib/Mas rabbis could get a recognized semicha.. if you say so I believe you. They must at least accept foreign semichas though because WLS main rabbi is american (Mark Winer). I think they are fairly tolerant about who presides over services.. they often give trainee rabbis and even members of the congregation a chance, so I guess that would extend to liberal rabbis (and probably orthodox ones too if they wanted to). That's just speculation though. Also this Saturday morning WLS is hosting a delegation of ambassadors from the Vatican to commemorate nostra aetate, and they may well get up and say something. Zargulon 19:58, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

That's odd, those links should work, they are correct; maybe the server is temporarily inactive. I forgot about the anniversary of nostra aetate, I should really do my homework; I have no idea what this document says about Jews, and the local Catholic Bishop is coming to our synagogue this Shabbat to say a few words about Jews and Christians. Do you know what its main conclusion is? As for the Leo Baeck semichot, that is not the only place where Ref/Mas/Lib Rabbis can get semicha, if there were another Rabbinical training college in the UK they would no doubt accept their semichot as well, but Leo Baeck is the only one. Its just that those three Jewish movements fund Leo Baeck together and all their Rabbis just happen to train there. The Orthodox Rabbis train at the Jews' College in London, they don't recognise the Leo Baeck semichot, but Leo Baeck recognises theirs. Non Orthodox Judaism is a relatively small movement in the UK, about 20% of synagogue affiliated Jews are members of non Orthodox congregations. That is why it is necessary for all three movements to fund Leo Baeck together, its students get better education that way. I like the fact that Progressive Judaism forges links with other faiths; Orthodox Judaism doesn't do that, I doubt that there are many, if any, Catholic leaders visiting Orthodox synagogues this Shabbat. I suppose it is the difference in approach: Progressive Jews want to intergrate with the non-Jewish world while retaining their Jewish identity and Orthodox Jews (especially the Haredim) avoid being influenced by the non-Jewish world. It's a matter of personal preference really, this is one of those cases where there is no right or wrong. I find it nice that Mas/Ref.Lib Rabbis all train together and study the same syllabus and this points out that there is only difference in approach, the faith is the same, the Torah, the other books of the Tanakh and the Mishnah (Oral Torah) will always be the same. How long the Shabbat service lasts makes no difference. What I would like to know is which version of the Torah is the genuine one: the Ashkenazi or the Sephardi. Both are identical except just one letter is different (I don't know which one). In our synagogue we have three sefer Torah: two are Ashkenazi and one is Sephardi. The Sephardi one is from Bulgaria, I don't know where tho other ones are from. What happenes when whoever is reading the Torah reaches that ambiguous letter is a mystery to me. Anyway, I've been babbling for quite some time now: I've found the website for your congragation, it is http://www.wls.org.uk/. GrandfatherJoe 21:00, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it is quite a nice website isn't it, understated. I also think the collaboration between movements is a good thing and have on the whole been impressed by graduates of Leo Baeck. Nostra Aetate is mainly to do with respecting Jews and explaining that modern Jews don't bear culpability for Jesus' death (it actually says everybody bears culpability for Jesus' death, but that Jews don't specifically). I didn't know about the one letter difference, hopefully it isn't an important letter. I heard that the Dead Sea Scrolls raised interesting challenges for people who thought the Torah had been immutable since its birth, but again, I don't know the specifics. Zargulon 21:34, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't know much about the one letter difference either, I just heard it mentioned; I can't even remember where or who from, just that the Ashkenazi and Sephardi versions of the Torah differ only in one letter. If it is true, I'm assuming that it's a typo. The question is who made the mistake if there is one. Anyway, I glad that we now have the Nostra Aetate, we could have done with that 1,500 years ago, but better late than never. Have you seen the website of the World Union for Progressive Judaism? I don't know if it is an umbrella organisation for all Reform, Liberal and Masorti Jewish congregations or not. Masorti is not usually classed as Progressive, is it? What "Progressive" refers to here is beyond me. In its lists of affiliated synagogues it does not include the New London Synagogue, the primary Masorti synagogue in the UK. It does however include the West London Synagogue. I'm assuming now that "Progressive" does not mean "non Orthodox". GrandfatherJoe 22:58, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. wupj looks likes like a non-denominational, almost cultural organization. Zargulon 23:16, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

I've been thinking, what do you think of saying this:

In the UK and Ireland, the Reform Judaism refers to a more conservative form of Judaism than in the USA and more correctly corresponds with what in the USA is called Conservative Judaism (British Masorti Judaism is even more conservative; eg in their synagogues, unlike in the USA, women are segregated). The branch of Judaism that corresponds with American Reform Judaism in the UK is known as Liberal Judaism and is altogether more radical. It emphasises egalitarianism and boasts some women Rabbis of note, such as the writer and broadcaster Julia Neuberger.
I know its not perfect but it can be improved on. If you like it could you please put in on the article after you have made some changes you think should be made (if any). Perhaps it could be under its own heading? GrandfatherJoe 18:29, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Do you merely mean that their prayer services are more traditional, or that they are theologically and halakhically more like Conservative Judaism? Please clarify, as this is an important distinction! RK 00:50, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

I used a lot of your material, and improvised slightly. Couldn't work out how to put in Julia Neuberger.. actually there are a lot of women U. K. reform rabbis (including one at West London Synagogue), and there was even a famous gay reform rabbi (Lionel Blue), although one could probably argue that his affiliations were predominantly liberal.. Zargulon 19:43, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

I see that you started a West London Synagogue article. Very good. I may be able to find some free domain pictures of some more information to add. As for the Rabbis, I don't know. It's up to you. I'll probably like what you do anyway, I liked the way you used my proposal. GrandfatherJoe 17:56, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Is British Liberal Judaism more like Reform or Conservative?

I am having second thoughts about adding that in the UK Reform Judaism is called Liberal Judaism. In fact American Reform, British Reform, American Conservative, British Masorti (Conservative) and British Liberal are all distinct bodies. There is no British branch of American Reform called Liberal, what I added is an inaccuracy. It is just that British Liberal seems ho have almost identical policies with American Reform. British Reform seems to be more close to American Conservative and British Masorti are more orthodox that the American Conservatives. For example in British Masorti Synagogues, women are segregated whereas in American Conservative Synagogues, they are not. Also, British Reform started off in a different way than German (and later American) Reform. So they are all distinct bodies. I am confused now, someone please comment; anything you know will be useful. GrandfatherJoe 13:31, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Please clarify! Are you claiming that British Liberal Judaism teaches that Jews must accept halakha as normative, like Conservative Judaism does? Or are you merely saying that the prayer services in British Liberal Judaism are less radical than American Reform, and more like those in Conservative prayer services? These are two totally different claims. Please clarify, and if possible, please bring sources. As I understand it, British Liberal Judaism agrees with American Reform that halakha is not binding, and that one's personal autonomy takes precedent over codes of Jewish law and the responsa. Thus, while it isn't part of American Reform Judaism, it is one type of Reform Judaism. Note that the British Liberal Movement has not joined with the UK Masorti Movement, the UK branch of Conservative Judaism. RK 00:50, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Intro, October 2005

Hi KaiserHatner, I think your recent edits are fine. I would still prefer the structure of the introduction to be

• German-type reform is X
• British-type reform is Y, and British-type liberal is like German-type reform

whereas at the moment it is

• German-type reform is X
• British-type liberal is like German-type reform, and British-type reform is Y

But I leave it to your judgement. Zargulon 16:06, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I see your point; someone looking for info about "British Reform" should hear about it before an explanation of Liberal Judaism, etc. How about something like, "The term Reform Judaism can refer to two distinct denominations of modern Judaism. In the United States of America, where Reform Jews comprise approximately 45% of the Jewish population, the term refers to the first major modern branch of Judaism that originated in Germany in the 1800s, and is characterized by a....etc.... In the United Kingdom, the term describes a more traditional type of Jewish observance most closely resembling Conservative or Masorti Judaism, and the philosophy of German Reform Judaism is incorporated into Liberal Judaism. We should achieve a balance between defining "Reform Judaism" as it is most commonly known (ie ortho/conserv/reform) and listing all of the nomenclature issues, so as not to obscure the definition of the former without omitting the important references to the latter. Let me know what you think! And P.S., I'm Kaiser Shatner, not Hatner.  :) Kaisershatner 16:54, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Fine, are you related to Captain Kirk by the way Zargulon 19:31, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

The term Reform Judaism can refer to either of two modern branches of Judaism that arose in the 1800s as a way of integrating the intellectual ideals of The Enlightenment and the cultural freedoms brought by Jewish emancipation with the demands of traditional Jewish observance. - This is not true.. British Reform started largely because of a dispute about ritual at a particular synagogue.

The first of these, and the larger - didn't understand what larger meant here.

rapidly became - I think this is subjective.

British Jewry had enjoyed comparatively greater freedom and cultural mobility than comparable communities in Europe - This is somewhat subjective even at the time, and don't forget that Jews had previously been barred from the UK for 400 years. I was also a bit confused about what were comparable communities in your mind, and what you meant by cultural mobility. This needs more discussion so perhaps it would be better off in the main body rather than the introduction (although it is already dealt with quite well there).

I also took the opportunity to re-style the introduction somewhat (basing it on your edit), keeping the words, sentences and paragraphs to a size that I thought was appropriate for readability. I suppose you will make it longer again, but please at least take note of the above points. Zargulon 08:31, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Zargulon, thanks for correcting my inaccuracies, you're obviously more well-versed than I in the details of UK Judaism. About the other points,

(1) by "larger" I meant that there are more adherents of American/German Reform Judaism than there are of British Reform Judaism.

(2) I can try to state it objectively if you don't like "rapidly", but Reform Judaism took hold in America as congregations were founded between 1825 (Charleston SC) through 1858 (Baltimore, NY, Albany, Cincinnati, Philadelphia, and Chicago), and "By 1880, over 90% of American Synagogues were Reform."[1] That is in my opinion FAST but instead I can write something like "within 50 years it became the dominant form..."

(3) About the different circumstances of British Jewry, I was trying to make the point that British reforming took place in a different context - the ghettoes, pogroms, and discrimination were much less severe than in Europe, so the Reform movement was different, but we don't have to debate that in the intro, for now.

Finally, we may never agree on style, and that's ok. I'll try to accommodate your preferences if you try to do the same for mine. Cheers, Kaisershatner 14:37, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

British Reform, Liberal, Progressive, etc.

According to The Soc.Culture.Jewish FAQ

"The confusion about the terms "Reform" or "Liberal" comes from a split in England's Reform movement. In 1842 the English Reform movement split into two factions, one of which was more traditional, while the other was more liberal. The more traditional Reform Judaism faction called themselves simply 'Reform'. Their prayer services are much more traditional than the faction that split off, and their laity is in general more observant than the other faction. Thus their prayer services are much like American Conservative shuls and English Masorti shuls, but they still are what we Americans call Reform (i.e. Classical halakha is not considered binding by its rabbinate or laity.) The more liberal Reform Judasim faction seceded, and renamed their movement as "Liberal Judaism". They are are more in the mode of Classic German Reform. They generally have less Hebrew in their services, and are less observant."

Kaisershatner 14:42, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Note that this reference to an 1842 split is an error in the s.c.j faq (as noted on the Talk:Liberal Judaism page). For corrected info see Liberal Judaism.

It's perfectly valid to make the point that American Reform has more adherents than British reform (though possibly the introduction is not the best place for it; maybe the point is already made implicitly by the fact that American is described first). If you do decide to put it in the intro again, just please make sure it's clear you're talking about modern-day adherents, rather than the initial size of the movement, which is a less concrete notion and more subjective.

Yes, I vastly prefer the with 50 years.. formulation. As an aside I think the point about rapid development is not for the introduction, but I don't feel very strongly about it.

The ghettoes and pogroms were indisputably a different backdrop to the situation in England. However saying Europe also includes the Iberian Peninsula, the low countries, France Turkey (arguably) and indeed Germany itself. I'm not sure these countries really provided such a sharp contrast to Britain in their treatment of Jews at this time in history. Furthermore, the main point that is often made is that German reform arose out of the Jewish enlightenment, which was less strong in locations where Jews were severely persecuted, so I wonder if making a distinction between countries' treatment of Jews really helps to present a consistent story about the origins of the reform movements.

Re: the FAQ quotation.. I'd never heard of this, and I'm not sure it is correct.. As far as I was aware, the vast majority of British Jews at that time were Sephardi, and I wonder if what the author of this really heard was that there was a split among England's Sephardi Jews, which resulted in some breaking of to form a reform movement. I am happy to be proved wrong though. Zargulon 15:15, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Here's another detailed article about Reform Judaism that addresses the difficulty in defining the term "Reform Judaism." :[2] Let's work on the intro here; I'll paste a new idea in a moment or two. About Europe, I guess from my POV on this side of the duck pond it all seems pretty much the same... ;) ...but I see your point about over-generalizing. Kaisershatner 15:43, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

UK Reform Jews are less observant than Orthodox Jews

I would like to point out that the link used by Kaisershatner above says that Liberal Judaism in Britain and Classic German Reform are less observant. Isn't that so from the Orthodox point of view only? From the Liberal point of view, it is an acceptable level of observance. For the size of the movements, figures show that roughly 20% of British Jews belong to what is called (in the UK at least) Progressive Judaism and can be subdivided into 13% belonging to the Movement for Reform Judaism and 7% belonging to the Union of Liberal and Progressive Synagogues. Given that there are roughly 326,000 Jews in the UK, that means that there are 42,380 Reform Jews and 22,820 Liberal Jews in the UK. So (in comparison th the adherants of American Reform) British Progressive Judaism is a relativly small movement. It must be emphasised that British Reform does not share a common origin with German or American Reform, whereas British Liberal Judaism does, Lily Montagu and Claude Montefiore in fact moddeled their form of Judaism on German Reform (when they founded the Jewish Religious Union in 1902 and called it Liberal Judaism in 1912), but still, British Liberal Judaism is an offshoot of British Reform. What is interesting, is that Liberal Judaism is what the less radical branch of German Reform was called. Anyway, in my opinion, given that British Reform is such a small movement within the wider movement of Progressive Judaism, it should not be given too much attention in the heading, but should be included in a separate section altogether, where it can be gone into in much more detail. GrandfatherJoe (talk • contribs) 15:45, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

GJoe, you are confusing two totally different claims. The FAQ is only pointing out the indisputable and measurable fact that UK Reform Jews are less observant than traditionally observant rabbinic Jews. It is not saying that they are insufficiently observant. Let's not confuse these two distinct points! (A) There is simply no doubt whatsoever that UK (and American) Reform Jews study halakha less, and observe much less than Orthodox Jews. (B) There is, however, a dispute as to whether or not this is a good thing. Reform Jews believe that Orthodox standards of study and observance are excessive, and many even believe that such observance is detrimental in some way. Orthodox Jews, in contrast, believe that such standards of study and observance are both mandatory and meritorious. RK 00:56, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

GrandfatherJoe, good points. I'm not endorsing their view, I just thought it was useful information. My proposed intro below avoids conflating German/American with British Reform, calling it separate and contemporaneous. This will open the way for the article to discuss all of these subjects in detail, I think. Kaisershatner 16:13, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

In what ways do you believe that British Reform Jews have theological beliefs that differ from their American counterparts? Can you offer any concrete examples? Other than the style of prayer services, do you believe that British Reform Jews have attitudes towards the acceptance of halakha that differ from their American counterparts? Please clarify. RK 00:56, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Intro proposal

Reform Judaism can refer to (1) a modern branch of Judaism that originated in 19th Century Germany as a way of liberalizing Jewish observance in conjunction with the social changes associated with The Enlightenment, Haskalah, and Jewish emancipation, (2) the American Jewish denomination derived from this movement, which is one of the world's largest denominations of Jews, or (3) a separate and contemporaneous reforming movement in the United Kingdom with a comparatively traditional style of practice.

Modern American Reform Judaism, like its German forebear, is based on the principles of:

• valuing individual autonomy over traditional Jewish law and custom
• allowing individual decisions about which Jewish practices, if any, to adopt as binding,
• employing less traditional textual analysis as well as rabbinic modes of study to learn about the Hebrew Bible and rabbinic literature,
• learning the Jewish principles of faith through non-religious methods,
• emphasizing the local language, rather than Hebrew for liturgical and ceremonial use, and
• embracing modern culture in customs, dress, and common practices.

Kaisershatner 16:13, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

That is basically OK.. I particularly like the fact that it is short. But, in my opinion,

• If the three definitions are to be in order of common usage, I would rather see American reform, then British Reform, then classical German Reform. Without calling GrandfatherJoe's statistics into question, British Reform is the face of Judaism to most non-Jewish people in th U.K., with significant representation in public life, and it is also the movement which American Reform Jews are most likely to turn to while they are visiting in or living in the U. K. German reform is however mainly interesting in an historical context.

I agree. In fact, we should say very little about classical German Reform in the introduction. RK

• It would be better to say learning.. through non-religious as well as religious methods.. in order not to sound rejectionist,

Well, that's polite, but not accurate. Reform Jews generally do reject classical methods of studying the Bible and rabbinic texts. In fact, most do not study them, and more than a few believe that much of rabbinic literature should not be studied. RK

• It would be better to say putting the local language on an equal footing with Hebrew for liturgical use (also remove ceremonial, since liturgical means ceremonial language).

In most places in the USA Hebrew is far from on an equal footing. Hebrew's footing is far inferior to that of English. In fact, most Reform Jews I know approve of this, and strongly reject the incorporation of more Hebrew into the services. RK

• Since British Reform shares all those principles, I think it would be ok to describe them as principles shared by American and British Reform. German reform on the other hand was based on more rejectionist principles, so perhaps it would be better not to say that American reform shares these principles with its German forebear.

In terms of their attitude towards halakha or theology, are there any differences at all between American and British Reform? If so, could these be described explicitly? RK 00:47, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

• I think contemporary is a more usual word than contemporaneous, which sounds a little overdone. I don't think that any small difference in the meanings of those two words warrant using contemporaneous. Zargulon 22:29, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

I made your two bold changes, although I toned down the bit about Hebrew. I don't think it's rejectionist to state the fact that Hebrew is used much much less in Reform services - that's objectively true, isn't it? Also, I was using "contemporaneous" in the sense of "evolving at the same time," not contemporary as in "modern," but if you hate it, delete it. Finally, I agree in principle with your view of the order of the three definitions (common usage) but I had lots of trouble finding a way to make it flow, and I thought (1) German, (2) American derived from (1), and (3) British, made the most sense. I'll think about how to restructure the sentence, or if you have an idea that's great, since I do agree that Reform Judaism most commonly refers to the American kind rather than the German/historical one. Cheers, Kaisershatner 00:51, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Figured out, I think, how to get them in the order you prefer, also the order of common usage. I hope you agree that's better, and welcome your feedback (genuinely). Kaisershatner 01:03, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

• At the moment (1),(2) and (3) are still in the old order, but your last comment suggested you were going to change them to America, British, German order.. not sure what is happening with that.

See the new order. Kaisershatner 12:28, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

• I didn't use the word rejectionist about the Hebrew issue, but I still think it should be changed. It is objectively true that Hebrew is used less in Reform services than in Orthodox services, but it is not true that Hebrew is generally used less than English in Reform services (it is true in some synagogues but not in others). It should simply say putting them on an equal footing to indicate that the vernacular is constitutes a valid liturgical language in Reform.

My mistake, I see above you used it about the prior point. Sorry. I think we should be making the point that Reform Judaism explicitly elevates the local language to the same status as Hebrew, and may use comparatively little Hebrew in prayer. Isn't that as major a point of (American) Reform as gender equality (see below)? Kaisershatner 12:28, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

• I don't hate contemporaneous, or anything else for that matter, although I don't agree contemporaneous contains a notion of evolving, and I don't agree that contemporary would have meant modern if it had been used instead of contemporaneous in its original position in the article. When you have finished updating the order of the first three sentences, I will propose a replacement.

I meant "Reform also refers to a contemporaneous (occurring at the same time as German reform) reform movement in Britain." Kaisershatner 12:28, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

• I think that gender equality in ritual is an important principle in Reform. It could replace one of the first two bullet points, which are redundant at the moment. Zargulon 07:50, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

That's a good suggestion. Kaisershatner 12:28, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Ok, fine. But (1) (2) and (3) still seem to be in the old order. Maybe your edit isn't getting saved right. I agree it is valid to say that Reform services may not use much Hebrew, but again, I wouldn't put it in the intro, and I don't think it constitutes a principle. The only matter of principle, in my opinion, is that the local language has equal status to Hebrew. What behaviour individual congregations take to implement this principle is an interesting topic for the later discussion. Zargulon 12:55, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

This version [3] has (1) American (2) German historical reform, which inspired American, (3) British, which is totally different from (1),(2). Reviewing the stated principles of RJ at a few of the websites, I have to agree with you that use of the vernacular is not really a principle, and even if it typifies RJ services in general, it doesn't have to go in the intro. Kaisershatner 17:16, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I think there is a misunderstanding. My preference is for American-British-German order, and when you said "Figured out, I think, how to get them in the order you prefer, also the order of common usage," I thought you intended to put them in American-British-German order. Now I think we just misunderstood each other; perhaps I didn't make my preference clear enough. Zargulon 22:19, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Reform in Israel

This article doesn't say much about Reform/Progressive Judaism in Israel. Do you think it should? Izehar 12:00, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes. Zargulon 12:54, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

I just added something. Izehar 21:35, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Reform Judaism in Britain

I added a new section to the article about Reform in Britain. Please comment, and feel free to edit. It needs a LOT more than what I have written. I can't find much on Reform in Israel, but I will. Izehar 17:15, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Great so far, keep up the good work Zargulon 19:44, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Added a bit more on the organisation of British Reform. Feel free to edit and comment. Izehar 16:56, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Do any Reform movements teach that practices or beliefs are normative?

Hi.. I would just encourage you to start a new topic down here since I wasn't involved in the debate up above and can't really comment. Your point about whether or not British Reform Services are "theologically and halakhically" more like US Conservative Services.. can you specify what halakhic practises in particular you are referring to? Also I'm not sure what exactly you mean by the theological content of the service; the only thing that springs to mind is yigdal, which is theological in the sense that it is a dedicated description of God's attributes. But of course even some of the most liberal congregations say yigdal.. please clarify Zargulon 01:40, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

I am referring to all of halakha, not just any one or two customs or rules. As far as I know, all versions of Reform, Liberal and Progressive Judaism explicitly deny that halakha is normative. That includes the laws of tzitzit, tefllin, laws of family purity, niddah, kashrut, deveining of meat, the hundreds of laws and customs pertaining to the festivals, the hundreds of laws and customs pertaining to the Jewish lifecycle events, the laws of tzedakah "charity", etc. Instead of accepting the rabbinic Jewish tradition as normative, all forms of Reform hold that each person may pick and choose which rules to follow, as described in depth in this article.

Also, I was not referring only to the theology of prayer services. I am referring to Jewish beliefs in general. That is to say "What must a Jew believe?" In America, Reform Jews teach that Judaism has no set beliefs. Rather, each individual Reform Jew must decide for themselves what one should believe. (The only rule I am aware of seems to be monotheism, but a few years ago almost half to CCAR voted to include an atheist Reform synagogue into the Union for Reform Judaism. They lost, but not by much.) For instance, CCAR President Rabbi Simeon J. Maslin wrote a pamphlet about Reform Judaism, entitled "What We Believe...What We Do...". It states that "if anyone were to attempt to answer these two questions authoritatively for all Reform Jews, that person's answers would have to be false. Why? Because one of the guiding principles of Reform Judaism is the autonomy of the individual. A Reform Jew has the right to decide whether to subscribe to this particular belief or to that particular practice."

As this article makes clear, American Reform has a suggested set of principles, but even these are subordinate to one's own personal autonomy. This is in stark contrast to Orthodox Judaism, which not only teaches that Judaism has set beliefs, but that also one can point to a specific list of said beliefs. The works of Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan are instructive in learning the Orthodox point of view.

In between the views of the various Reform movements and the various Orthodox movements lies the position of Conservative Judaism. Like traditional rabbinic Jews have always taught, Conservative Judaism teaches that a Jew must hold certain beliefs. However, the Conservative rabbinate also notes that the Jewish community never developed any one binding catechism. It affirms belief in God and in God's revelation of Torah to the Jews; however it also affirms the legitimacy of multiple interpretations of these issues. Atheism, Trinitarian views of God, and polytheism are all ruled out. All forms of relativism, and also of literalism and fundamentalism are also rejected. It teaches that Jewish law is both still valid and indispensable, but also holds to a more open and flexible view of how law has and should develop than the Orthodox view. RK 02:44, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree with RK, while noting a couple of things. 1) The American Reform movement remains monotheist in a very real sense. No prayerbook of which I'm aware has CCAR imprimatur and is not liturgically monotheist. (Yes, there's that one service in the later Gates of Prayer, but it had God in the Hebrew.) An atheist Reform Jew would thus be lying every time he went to Temple. 2) Even within Orthodoxy there remains disagreement about what normative Jewish belief is. Even Rambam's articles never gained universal acceptance even among the Orthodox, much less any one interpretation of them. Compare varying views on reincarnation, mysticism, and so forth. Savant1984 07:37, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, and our article on Jewish principle of faith agrees with you. The study and teaching of Jewish theology is just not as simple as many Orthodox Jews seem to believe. On the other hand, Jewish beliefs do exist, and it is very surprising that Reform Judaism seem to have no required beliefs other than ethical monotheism. Reform Judaism's new and revolutionary view that Jews do not have to accept any particular set of Jewish theology is why the Orthodox view them as more like Unitarian-Universalism than rabbinic Judaism, and why Conservative Judaism is continually challenged in its engagement with them. RK 15:10, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Good point savant. Anyway the original comment was about British Reform. Our Rabbis sermons always contain Halakhic material.. I have heard mentioned many of the topis you raised. RK are you really saying that most American Conservative (male) Jews wear tefillin? This is not my experience Zargulon 10:16, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Allow me to clairfy (A) No one disagrees that British Reform sermons and books, or even American Reform sermons and books, will often mention some halakhic material. Rather, I am asking about Reform Judaism's beliefs and teachings about such material. Do British Reform Jews teach that Jews must accept such halakhic teachings as normative, i.e. to be accepted upon oneself as binding? Or do they teach that these are options, and that the individual may choose whether or not to follow them? Do they give one's personal autonomy a veto over their own teachings, as does American Reform? (B) I never implied that every Conservative Jew lives up to all the teachings of Conservative Judaism. They don't. In fact, many Reform Jews don't live up to the teachings of Reform, and many Orthodox Jews don't live up to the teachings of Orthodoxy. Nonetheless, Conservative Judaism, in both theory and practice, does teach that the observance of halakha - including tefillin - is normative and expected. Conservative synagogues have regular minyanim where men wear tefillin. RK 15:10, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Some of British Reform does not teach that halakha is normative

In British Reform, full observance of halakhah is encouraged and in theory expected. However, in practice, British Reform Jews are more lax over which teachings to observe and which ones not (most Orthodox in Britain behave in the same way). In British Reform, one's personal autonomy does not take precedence over those teachings. That is what Liberal Judaism does. Izehar 16:52, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

This claim is mistaken. You seem to be describing British Reform as being identical to the UK Masorti movement, and much of UK's Modern Orthodoxy. (Most people who go to Masorti and Modern Orthodox synagogues in the UK are somewhat lax in their observance.) Nonetheless, the Union of Progressive and Liberal Synagogues (British Reform) explicitly teaches that halakha is not binding. For instance, a very large part of halakha is the large set of laws and customs pertaining to kashrut, yet the Union of Progressive and Liberal Synagogues states clearly that "Liberal Judaism recognises a religious dimension to the consumption of food and encourages blessing and thanksgiving to God before and after meals. At the public level a reasonable degree of kashrut is observed - on our Synagogue premises and at the headquarters of the ULPS - but at a personal level the Liberal Jew is free to choose observance or non-observance of kashrut in accordance with the dictates of informed conscience."

That view is identical to American Reform Judaism.

Where We Stand: Kashrut

In other areas of halakha, British Reform actively discourages Jews from observing halakha. In regards to the halakha of burial and mourning, their website states "Surrounding all these customs there are laws and traditions, and superstitions, some of which are actively discouraged by Liberal Judaism. An example is the prohibition on anyone from the priestly class (Kohanim) going to the funeral or out into the cemetery...."

Where We Stand: Death & Mourning

They also reject halakha on the issue of "Who is a Jew?" (Same wesbite.) They also reject halakha on the issue of gittin and Jewish divores. (Same website.)

As such, I think you have been misled as to what they teach and practice. RK 19:59, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't think I've been misled. According to their website:

• Do Reform Jews practice mitzvot?:

Reform Judaism attaches very great importance to the concept of covenant and the obligations, duties, commandments, mitzvot which flow. But we are not constrained by a list of 613, frozen in time. We encourage within our synagogues the study of mitzvot, the dynamic development of both the concept and its practice. We encourage individuals to deepen their Reform Jewish lives by increasing the number of mitzvot they practice and in so doing coming to hear the voice of God behind the covenant and its many obligations.

It doesn't say anywhere that they are options which can be followed if the adherent so chooses (like in American Reform). Izehar 20:12, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

All Reform movements teach what you quoted...yet all of them also hold that halakha is subordinate to one's own personal autonomy.

How can you keep confusing Orthodox Judaism and Reform Judaism? Not only are they non-halakhic, they actively discourage much of halakha. They teach that each person must determine for themselves which mitzvot to follow, and even their own rabbis are only partially observant of Jewish law. Here is what I see as a key quote: "Living Judaism recognises the existential truth that individuals are free to make their own choices. But authentic Jewish choice can only be exercised responsibly – in dialogue with the needs of our people, the teachings of our dynamic tradition and the promptings of God as we experience God in our individual and collective lives."

Well, that quote is the doctrine of personal autonomy which charactizes Reform Judaism as non-halakhic. That is also the view of American Reform Judaism!

You are not quoting the Movement for Reform Judaism's website, that's Liberal Judaism's website. That's a different body altogether. Izehar 20:14, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

See my above quote. They too reject halakha as normative, and instead substitute "responsible autonomy". In our post-enlightenment world they have every right to make this major split with traditional rabbinic Jewish understandings of halakha. But please do not paint them as if they are traditional rabbinic Jews or Orthodox. RK

RK, the Union of Progressive and Liberal Synagogues has nothing to do with British Reform (except that it is British). Izehar is looking at the correct website. The movement which represents British Reform is the Movement for Reform Judaism, up till quite recently called the RSGB (Reform Synagogues of Great Britain). I'm also still not sure about your idea of binding vs. options, since the Halakhic doctrine of free will teaches that sinning is an option, albeit one that incurs some kind of punishment (directly from God or otherwise). If your distinction is related to whether or not there is punishment, well, do non-tefillin wearing Conservative Jews really believe that they have some sort of punishment due to them for it? Yet again I invite you to clarify. Zargulon 20:23, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

(A) See the new quotes I just added. (B) We should not conflate the fact of free will (Of course someone can refuse to follow a law) with the teachings of a religion! Orthodox and Conservative Judaism teach that Jews must live by halakha, yet they do so in a non-coercive way. Even Orthodox Judaism holds that a person could decide not to follow a particular halakha, but Orthodox teaches that this decision would be wrong. In contrast, Reform teaches that one must decide for one's own self which halakha to follow. RK

Let's see if I can clarify the way things are (or I think they are):

Country	Traditionalist-radical axis
USA	Ultra-Orthodoxy	Modern Orthodoxy		Conservative		Reform	Reconstructionist
UK	Ultra-Orthodoxy	Modern Orthodoxy	Masorti		Reform	Liberal

I may be wrong of course... Izehar 20:34, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

As you can see RK, not everything is black and white. Of course British Reform is not Orthodox, but they do have a slightly more conservative approach to Halakhah than American Reform, however they are more "radical" than American Conservative. BUT, British Masorti is even more conservative, however, it is still more liberal than Orthodox Judaism. They are all different shades. You cannot fit every branch into the marked slots of Reform-Orthodox. Even each congregation is different. In turn, British Masorti is more conservative than American Conservative (women are segragated, there are no women Rabbis etc). Izehar 20:40, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

I only mean to point out that all forms of Reform (that I have known) deny that halakha is normative. Even the Movement for Reform Judaism that you mention seems to hold this way, and allow individuals to follow Jewish law based on their own individual, personal autonomy. RK

.

I totally agree with you that there are many shades of observance. One can plot a trend from Haredi Orthodox to Modern Orthodox to Conservative to British Reform to American Reform to Classical German Reform. But that doesn't mean that there are no clear differences bewteen these groups. Some clear differences do exist, and one of them is the acceptance or rejection of halakha as normative. To accept halakha as normative, 'by definition, means accepting the inherited corpus of Jewish law and the Jewish hakkhic system as holy, necessary and something that each should strive to live by on a daily basis. RK

[[User::RK|RK]], I really think you should calm down. We are all trying to get at the truth here. Actually, although free will seems to be an obvious fact, halachically the situation is complex. Halchically, gentiles do not have free will. The optional nature of sinning is unique to Jews, by halacha. Halachically, a gentile can always use the excuse "Hashem made me do it". A Jew cannot. No-one is saying that Reform Judaism is the same as Orthodox Judaism. Izehar, I really think there is considerable overlap between British Reform and US conservative. It is hard to do a table showing that though. Zargulon 20:45, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

How's this?

Country	Traditionalist-radical axis
USA	Ultra-Orthodoxy	Modern Orthodoxy		Conservative				Reform	Reconstructionist
UK	Ultra-Orthodoxy	Modern Orthodoxy	Masorti		Reform			Liberal

I'm not sure about all this though... Izehar 20:50, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi RK, the idea that gentiles don't have free will is not my personal view, but it is the view of halacha. I am in total agreement with the suggestion that most Conservative and Reform Rabbis would not approve. Zargulon 21:05, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, perhaps I was being uncharitable and hasty. RK

Overlap between one group and another

RK, you do realise that no Jews observe Halakhah in its entirety. Ultra-Orthodoxy, Modern Orthodoxy, Masorti/Conservatism and British Reform all hold that Halakhah is binding (in theory). British Reform and Masorti/Conservatism seek to interpret it in the light of modern scholarship though, THAT's the difference. American Reform, Liberalism and Reconstructionists believe that Halakhah is optional. So, as I've said, there are all different shades. We could ask the movements directly what their opinion is if you like. Izehar 21:06, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

No-one is saying that Reform Judaism is the same as Orthodox Judaism. Izehar, I really think there is considerable overlap between British Reform and US conservative. It is hard to do a table showing that though. Zargulon 20:45, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I agree with you on this. I just want to very careful with our descriptions. I want to avoid conflating the existence of overlap (which no one denies) with the existence of identity. As you say, the range of practices and beliefs among Reform Jews overlap with Conservative Jews. I don't want to hide or minimize this overlap. Yet, to me, they still appear to me substantially different groups. Let me know what you think of this analogy: Look at the far left of the political spectrum: Communists and Socialists. Look at the far right: Fascists. Comapred to these extremes, there is a significant amount of overlap between (in America) Democrats and Republicans, or in Israel, between Labor and Likud. In fact, to those on the far left, such as Ralph Nader, or on the far right, they see essentially no difference bewteen these two groups! I disagree; I would say that despite the indisputable, significant overlap, Democrats and Republicans have some significant key differences which end up defining them as separate groups.

.

Perhaps we should say that the same is true for UK Liberal and UK Reform, and for UK Reform and Conservative, and for Conservative and Orthodox. I totally agree with you in each case that signficant overlap exists between each of these. I am willing to listen to you and learn from you. Perhaps the UK Movement for Reform Judaism really doesn't fit into the same category as American Reform! RK 21:12, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

The best thing to do would be to find sources, our POV should stay out of this. Izehar 21:28, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi all, how about we basically make the point that British Reform is closer to American Conservative than it is to American Reform, this doesnt contradict that American Conservative may be (as far as I know) closer to British Conservative/Masorti than to British Reform. It is saying British Reform is most like American Conservative, but not saying American Conservative is most like British Reform. Hope that made sense. I accept the need to find sources but I think it wouldn't be bad to put that in as a placeholder, after all it reflects the opinion of 3 people who take Judaism seriously. Then if any future editor thinks it is untrue, they can kick it out and say "removed POV edits". Zargulon 21:32, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Agreed! My major concern is that "Progressive Judaism in Israel" section. All we have now is a cross-section of its history. I really should finish the job and expand it. Izehar 22:41, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Should we make a slight change to the introduction? It currently says that "Reform Judaism can refer to (1) the largest denomination of Judaism in America and its sibling movements in other countries, (2) a branch of Judaism in the United Kingdom, and..." It seems that this intro should say something like "(2) two distinct branches of Judaism in the United Kingdom, and..."

Table illustrating the range of Jewish denominations

This table illustrates the range of Jewish denominations. Those denominations that are more conservative in their theoloy and understanding of Jewish law are shown on the right, while those on the right are progressively more liberal in their theoloy and understanding of Jewish law are shown on the left. However, caution must be used in reading this table. There are many Jews who have a liberal view of theology and Jewish principles of faith while having a strict understanding of halakha, and vice-versa.

Country	Radical-liberal to conservative-Traditional axis
USA	Reconstructionist	Reform		Conservative	Modern Orthodoxy	Haredi Orthodoxy
Israel		Progressive (Reform)		Masorti (Conservative)	Modern Orthodoxy and Traditional Sephardic Judaism	Haredi Orthodoxy
United Kingdom		Union of Progressive and Liberal Synagogues	Movement for Reform Judaism	UK Masorti (Conservative)	Modern Orthodoxy	Haredi Orthodoxy

Well there is a mistake here. In Israel, "masorati" has nothing to do with Conservative Judaism. The Israeli name of Conservative Judaism is "Masorati" so this is the reason of the confusion. But in Israel, masorati means "people who keep part of the tradition" and it ranges from almost secular to almost religious (they represent between 25% to 50% of the Jewish population depending how you count them). These people, by US standards, would be classified as Orthodox because when they practice Judaism they only do it the Orthodox way. You can observe the same thing in the French Jewish community or in fact most smaller Jewish communities around the world. Benjil 08:58, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

By his own admission, Benjil is just wrong when he says that in Israel, Masorati "has nothing to do with Conservative Judaism." "Masorti" IS the official name of the Conservative movement in Israel. Benjil is right when he says that the word also refers in the Israeli context to "traditional," nominally Orthodox Jews. That is, admittedly, a source of confusion. But it does not change the simple fact that Conservative Jews in Israel call themselves "Masorti." Some folks, I think, distinguish between "Masorti" (as referring to Conservative Jews in Israel and the UK) and "Masorati" (as referring to "traditional"). But that distinction is probably too subtle and slippery to hang much on.P.D. 12:31, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

You seem to misunderstand the point. Conservative (and Reform) Judaism in Israel hardly represent anything. They claim together some 30,000 members out of 5.5 million Jews. Most people in Israel have *never* heard of the Masorati branch of Conservative Judaism (in fact many people never heard of Conservative Judaism, Reform yes mostly because they know how to make some noise in the media). So in the Israeli context, when you speak about masorati, it has nothing to do with the Conservative movement. Benjil 13:09, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Four points:

(1) All over Wikipedia, the Conservative movement outside of the U.S., including in Israel, is referred to as "Masorti." For example, see Masorti and Jewish Denominations. That is a consistent usage that should be respected.

(2) What should we call the Conservative movement in Israel, if not Masorti? It has to have some name, and the name should be in Hebrew. Wouldn't it make the most sense to call the movement by the name that it uses?

(3) I understand that there is some confusion between Masorti as the name of a movement and "masorati" as a relatively imprecise adjective in modern Israeli Hebrew. That confusion can be avoided by distinguishing, at least in English sources, between "Masorti" (capital-M and no "a") and "masorati" (lower-case-m and an "a").

(4) Some linguistic confusion and overlap is inevitable. Would anyone say that the Conservative movement in the US should not be called "the Conservative movement" because, after all, most Americans who call themselves conservative are politically conservative and aren't even Jewish, and most Conservative Jews in the US are, in fact, neither politically nor even religiously all that "conservative"? Groups and movements often appropriate general terms and turn them, at least in context, into proper nouns. Consider, for example, "Republican" and "Democratic," as distinguished from "republican" and "democratic." Or consider, in Israel, the "Kadmima" party. Is Kadima the only political party that claims it wants to move forward? No, of course not. But that is its name.

P.D. 15:49, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Once again you completely miss the point. The point is that the "Masorti" movement in Israel is so tiny and minor that hardly anybody knows it. Using the word "Masorti/masorati" in the Israeli context means something else entirely. I just want to change the table in order to avoid the confusion between the two. I also think weird to speak about conservative and reform Judaism in Israel but not traditionalists (masoratim) who are much more important in the Israeli reality. So we need to change the table and add the masoratim or clearly specify this is different from conservatives. Benjil 16:05, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Two Reform movements in the UK

RK, are you referring to the UPLS as the second British Reform movement? If so, is there any evidence that either they or anyone else calls them Reform? Zargulon 08:50, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

The Union of Progressive and Liberal Synagogues is referred to as a version of Reform Judaism in the Soc.Culture.Jewish FAQ, which is under the editorship of an American Reform Jew, and has been built and peer-reviewed by contributions of many Jews from all denominations of Judaism. That does not mean, of course, it is without error, yet I have found it to reliable. As I curently understand it, they avoid using the name "Reform Judaism" to avoid being mistaken for the American group, but not because of any major doctrinal differences.

As far as I can tell (from the above quotes and discussions) the ULPS is more theologically liberal than the British "Movement for Reform Judaism". The official positions listed on the ULPS website seem to match the American Reform movement very closely. Unless others object, I think it is appropriate to describe ULPS Judaism as one form of "Reform Judaism"; within this article we can distinguish between (a) the Movement for Reform Judaism (which is more traditonal than the ULPS), (B) Modern day American Reform, (C) the ULPS, (D) Israeli Progressive/Reform, and (E) classsical German Reform. (Also, we should note that most of American Reform was identicial to classical German Reform up until the 1960s.) RK 20:03, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

• SCJ FAQ: How is Reform Judaism structured in the rest of the world?

Completely agree that ULPS is very similar to Reform in the states. Don't think they avoid using "Reform" to avoid being mistaken for the American group.. rather it's because the British vocabulary for Jewish movements is different, and in Britain, they simply *aren't* Reform. (Of course they are reformers with a small 'r'.) I guess I can understand that American observers have some good reasons for calling UPLS "Reform"; but I always feel in these confusing instances, that the least confusion is caused if Wikipedia sticks with the name and categorization that the movement uses to describe itself, unless it is wilfully perverse. If Israeli Reform is different from American Reform, fine, but if it is just the same thing in another country, then no.. I don't know enough about it personally. But the subtopic "Israeli Reform" might be better called "American Reform in Israel" Zargulon 22:22, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Oh, I totally agree that we should use the termonology that the groups themselves uses. RK 00:18, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

I think factual inaccuracies and original research are running wild on the article now. Perhaps it would be best to discuss Progressive Judaism in the UK; after all, that is what (British) Reform and Liberal Judaism are collectively called in the UK. We will be able to discuss the radical wing (a.k.a. the ULPS) and the conservative wing (a.k.a. the RSGB). This movement is called Progressive Judaism in Israel anyway. Also, confusingly enough, while Liberal Judaism refers to the radical Progressive wing in the UK today, in used to refer to the conservative wing of old German Reform. Izehar 14:11, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't understand! Specifically what "inaccuracies" are you talking about? And who is doing origianl research? I honestly can't follow you. In any case, you are factually wrong that the phrase Progressive Judaism refers only to Reform Judaisms in the UK. I can assure that this term is used equally often in the United States and Canada. Amonf Reform Jews in the US and Canada the terms "Reform", "Progressive" and "Liberal" Judaism are all used interchangably. This is also the useage of the reknownen Encyclopedia Judaica. I can assure that this is not original research. That is how people really use these terms. RK 16:39, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. I'm sure RK is trying to make the page better, but talking about two reform Judaisms in the UK is totally original research/POV. Much of the other material added belongs properly on the Movement for Reform Judaism page, the Progressive Judaism page or the UPLS page. Let's start again. Zargulon 14:31, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

What are you talkig about? I don't think you know what the term "original research" means, literally. You seem to be trying to hide the fact that the World Union of Progressive Judaism includes ther ULPS and the British Movement for Reform. Both are forms of Reform Judaism, and always have been. This is a simple fact. RK 16:39, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Actually, they are both forms of Progressive Judaism. Maybe that's why the WUPJ includes both of them - it's inaccurate to say that there are two forms of Reform Judaism in the UK (Reform Judaisms). Let me quote: C. M. Pilkington in his book "Judaism" (1995):

About 20 percent of synagogue affiliated Jews in Britain belong to what is sometimes called Progressive Judaism. This includes not only Reform who number about 13 per cent but also Liberal Jews who constitute the remaining 7 per cent. The Liberal movement started in 1902...

As you can see, it is inaccurate to say that there are two "Reform Judaisms" in the UK. There is Liberal and there is Reform, who collectively can be referred to as Progressive Judaism. Izehar 16:55, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

I am still accurate. The confusion is that many people think that "Reform" and "Progressive" are not synonyms, but in common useage they often are.

Started a ULPS page and moved stuff into it. Kept as much of RK's stuff on Reform Judaism page as I reasonably could. Tried to clarify situation about ULPS. There is still some unsourced stuff (no-one's fault).Zargulon 15:24, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Note that ULPS decided to rename itself "Liberal Judaism" a few years ago. The page Liberal Judaism is currently mostly about the Liberal Movement in the UK -- Jheald 23:15, 27 November 2005 (UTC).

Disputed claim: Is Reform really the largest USA denomination?

I take exception to the claim that Reform Judaism is the largest religious Jewish denomination in the USA. Many American Reform Jewish synagogues actually count non-Jews, including active Christians, as "Reform Jews" as long as the non-Jew is married to a Reform Jew. (See the references within the Reform Judaism article) Also, many surveys identify a "Reform Jew" with any American Jew who doesn't observe Judaism. In recent years American Reform rabbis have begun complaining about these definitions themselves: Random telephone surveys were showing huge numbers of people at first identifying as "Reform Jews", but slightly more sophisticated surveys show that the term was being used by many American Jews who are not religious, and who say that they are not connected in any way with Reform Judaism. In practice, if an American Jew doesn't observe Judaism, and doesn't convert to Christianity, that American often self-identifies to surveys as a "Reform Jew", even though she/he doesn't belong to a Reform synagogue or observe Judaism as their religion. Real American Reform Judaism is large enough; if we are going to make the claim that they are the largest denomination we also need to state which surveys show this result, and explain these major controversies. RK 17:13, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Dispute about terminology

There are some terminology problems with the articles on and related to Reform Judaism. In the USA, Canada and Israel, the terms "Reform Judaism", "Liberal Judaism" and "Progressive Judaism" are often (not always) used interchangably. This is also the useage in many articles in the official publications of the Central Conference of American Rabbis. Even more importantly, this identity of terms is highlighted in the reknowned Encyclopedia Judaica (Keter Publishing.) Our articles sometimes confuse the general phenomenon of Liberal Judaism (also known as Reform Judaism) with the name of a website: There happens to be a website known as Liberal Judaism, which is the website of the Union of Liberal and Progressive Synagogues. This group is one of the two Reform (or Progressive) Jewish groups in the United Kingdom.

The many Reform Judaism all across the world coodinate through the same group, the World Union of Progressive Judaism, and this umbrella group includes the Union of Liberal and Progressive Judaism, the British Movement for Reform, and American groups like CCAR and the Union for Reform Judaism. We need to recognize that in common useage the phrase "Progressive Judaism" and "Reform Judaism" are actually synonyms, even among Reform and Progressive rabbis. They themselves see their groups as part of the same denomination.

On the other hand, some Reform Jews (or Progressive Jews!) use these terms more restrictively. The official website of the World Union for Proressive Judaism defines "Progressive Judaism" as a larger body, and Reform Judaism as a sub-set of it. Below is an excerpt:

The World Union for Progressive Judaism, established in London in 1926 is the largest body of religious Jews in the world. Its basic aims are, first, to create common ground between its constituents and, second, to promote Progressive Judaism in places where individuals and groups are seeking authentic, yet modern ways of expressing themselves as Jews.

The World Union for Progressive Judaism serves congregations and communities in nearly 40 countries, encompassing more than 1,200 Reform, Progressive, Liberal and Reconstructionist congregations and more than 1.5 million members throughout the world. ...

So for many Reform Jews the terms Reform Judaism, Progressive Judaism and Liberal Judaism are synonyms, while for many others the term "Progressive" is the larger umbrella term! Apparently this lingusitic confusion is not our fault, and the confusion is due to real world inconsistency in terminology. Somehow our articles need to reflect this. RK 17:19, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

In other words, Pilkington may be right - Progressive Judaism is used to refer collectivly to both Liberal and Reform in the UK. The problem is, that in Israel, this type of Judaism is called Progressive Judaism. If you like, we could rename the Reform in the UK section to Progressive Judaism in the UK - just like Progressive Judaism in Israel, right below it. There, both types of this Judaism can be analysed. Izehar 17:24, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Halakha and Jewish law: Terminology dispute

RK - Jewish law is not the same as halakha.. the Karaites have Jewish Law but not halakha. That paragraph is about Jewish Law! The other changes are unacceptable.. If you would help us resolve issues here in the talk before drastically changing the page it would save both you and me a lot of time. You are right about one thing: the claim that Reform constitutes majority in the USA needs to be sourced, and can be removed until it is sourced. Zargulon 18:16, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

That's just silly. Do Progressive and Reform Jews really accept Jewish law and tradition as binding and normative, much like Orthodox Jews do? Obviously not, and their own literature and websites explicitly say so. They are full of rejections of the system of Jewish law, aka halakha, as normative. You are trying to get around this with an argument that Halakha is somehow not Jewish law, and that the customs of other groups, like the Samaritans and Karaites is also "Jewish law", and that the practice of Reform Jews is also "Jewish law". By such a linguistic trick one is then forced to conclude that Reform Jews are observant of Jewish law. But that is simply not so! Please note that most Reform rabbis throughly agree with me. Most Reform rabbis that I have spoken to explicitly admit that Reform teaches that Jewish law and tradition (i.e. halakha) is not normative (to be taken upon yourself as binding) - and most admit that Reform Judaism actively discourages certain elements of halakha. Please see the quotes I have added in the Progressive Judaism and Reform Judaism articles for proof! RK

For some time it has been a settled useage on Wikipedia that (a) halakha is often usefully translated as "Jewish law and tradition", or something like that, (b) the practice of Karaites and Samaritans is not usefully or accurately described as "Jewish law"; they are quite different groups! and (c) Reform Judaism does not accept that halakha is normative. Yet in the last few weeks the article has been slowly rewritten to make parts of Progressive Judaism (also often used synonomously with Reform Judaism)look as traditional as Orthodox. As I see it, this may be a diservice to both Reform Judaism and to Orthodox Judaism. It also will confuse the majority of people who read our articles. I would beg of you to stop writing about Reform using the rhetoric of Orthodoxy. That path does not lead to clarification, and only smacks of inter-denomination public relations debates. Let's allow Reform to speak for itself...and no form of Reform (other than possbily the "Movement for Reform Judaism" in the UK) teaches that its adherents must study and observe Jewish law and tradition (aka halakha) as binding. In fact, all of them explicitly and repeatedly explain why most of it is not binding, and why personal autonomy takes precedence. RK 00:23, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying that JHeald. RK, Halakhic law is a subset of Jewish law (also called rabbinic law). Orthodox rabbis make a distinction between e.g. something that is 'biblically' forbidden or permitted (in the chumash) and something that is 'rabbinically' forbidden, (by halacha). The paragraph in question refers to Reform's position on both, not just halacha. Zargulon 08:46, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Halakha and "Jewish law" are synonyms; while Orthodox Rabbis might differentiate in some ways between "d'oraisa" and "d'rabbanan", they are still both part of halakha. Reform, as a movement, actively rejected halakha. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:54, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

JayJg is correct. More to the point, both early reformers and those that started the Union of Liberal and Progressive Synagogues (UK) used the terms "halakha" and "Jewish law" interchangably. As both JayJG and Zargulon note, there certainly are many parts of halakha, such as laws that are d'oraisa and d'rabbanan; parts that considered binding statutes as opposed to customs (minhagim), and even more distinctions have been formulated. But none of this contradicts the basic position that Jewish law is halakha. RK

I think you both should know that Reform in Britain, unlike in the USA, has not made any statements regarding their observance of halakhah - it in an extremely controversial issue, and no formal announcement has ever been made (ie no Pittsburgh platforms etc). The Reform leadership think that it's best to not take a stance and have not done so, so far. As a result, Wikipedia cannot say that they observe the halakhah fully, or completely disregard it. We should simply say that there is a Jewish movement in Britain, which calls itself Reform and has reformed certain traditional Jewish practices. It is not as radical as American Reform, but it's beliefs and practices correspond more accurately with Conservative Judaism in the US. In other words, only what is sourced. Izehar 17:03, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Good point - I agree. Zargulon 17:22, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree with both Izehar and Zargulon, and simply wish to note that if anyone finds any clarification from the UK's Movement for Reform Judaism on this issue, then we should incorporate that into this article. RK 19:15, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Jayjg, British Reform didn't.. or can you provide a source? I disagree that they are synonyms, and so, apparently, does the author of the introduction to the Halakha page.. maybe you should start there..? Zargulon 18:17, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't see what you are talking about. It seems to me that this page explicitly does identify halakha as Jewish law. It, of course, denies that "Jewish law" is a literal translation of halakha, but the article does make clear that halakha is about Jewish laws and customs. Here are the essential quotes:

"Halakha (Hebrew: הלכה; also transliterated as Halakhah, Halacha, Halachah) is the collective corpus of Jewish rabbinic law, custom and tradition....The term Halakha may refer to a single rule, to the literary corpus of rabbinic legal texts, as well as to the overall system of religious law."

Also, note that it says "Broadly, the Halakha comprises the practical application of the commandments (each one known as a mitzvah) in the Torah, as developed in subsequent rabbinic literature".

Most forms of Reform Judaism reject the idea that Jews must accept the commandments in the Torah, and the subsequent rabbinic elaborations. RK

What does all this have to do with this article? The question was whether British Reform Jews accept halakhah as normative. The answer is... the Movement for Reform Judaism (formerly known as the RSGB) has not made it clear whether they do (like American Reform) or don't (like American Conservatism). That question cannot be answered with a single yes or no. It is a controversial issue, and it is well known that each congregation is different, so practices may vary. Izehar 19:27, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

RK - As you showed, the word Halacha has different meanings depending on the context. In a particular context, it can be used interchangeably with "Jewish Law". That is not called being a synonym. Could you please sign your edits? Zargulon 23:57, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I have to disagree; it certainly is a synonym. And Reform Jews themselves often use this same terminology. I still can't understand where you are coming from. It sounds like you are trying to create an argument that Reform Jews observe Jewish law, yet don't observe halakha. I can't make anything of this other than to see it as wordplay, using Orthodox terminology to make Reform sound more traditional than it is. RK

I agree that there are situations where the terms can be used interchangeably. The passages you quoted above make clear that there are also situations where the terms may not be used interchangeably. The Reform Judaism's attitude to Jewish Law paragraph is an example of a case where it is important to make the distinction between the attitude to Halacha (Jewish Rabbinic Law as per definition on Halacha page) and the biblical law which it interprets and elaborates. Zargulon 23:57, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Be careful! It almost sounds as if you believe that Reform accepts biblical law as normative, but rejects assigning a normative stance rabbinic law, such as the Mishnah and Talmud? That doesn't hold. If that were true then Reform Jews would kill homosexuals and adulterers and Sabbath violators. (Without Judaism's oral law that would be the conclusion.) The Reform theology that you are quoting does exist, true, but it is part of a throughly discredited Reform theology that was born and died in the late 1800s. In the late 1800s Reform Jews tried to get away from what they saw as excessed in Talmud law, and excesses in the susequent codes of Jewish law. Fair enough.

But their early attempts at developing a theology to justify this stated that the Torah was authoritative and binding, but not later rabbinic works. Reformers themselves found the fatal flaw in this presentation - the teachings and customs that Reform Jews chose to keep actually existed within the rabbinic law, and many laws that they found immoral were found in the Torah! As such, their own theolgians today have different ways of understanding this issue.

It seems better to say that Reform Judaism assigns equal importance to both the Torah's law and the later interpretations and customs of rabbinic Jewish law, and teaches that the ultimate arbitor of what to follow and how is the individual, not the rabbi or community. RK 03:46, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I disagree...seems to me that there isn't as much study of gemara as TaNaKh in the vast majority of Reform institutions. --Yodamace1 18:28, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Izehar, I completely agree. Zargulon 23:57, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

RK - I am not sure why you feel it sounds like I believe that. Zargulon 08:19, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Zionism

In the section on Zionism, someone wrote that most official Zionist groups are "staunchly Zionist." The use of the word "staunchly" is much too opinionated and should be edited.

Thank you.

• Agreed, it sounds a little strange. Zargulon 09:00, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Speaking of that section, am I alone in thinking that it makes rather sweeping generalizations, wholly without citation -- though I'm not sure what would constitute a proper source for the kinds of statements there -- that doesn't make with his or her own understanding of the history? The extent to which early Reform Judaism was anti-Zionist, as opposed to generally indifferent to Zionism per se but against many of the particular reasons that underlay the zionism of "Orthodox" Jews? Czrisher 20:01, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Good point. Zargulon 08:36, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Anonymous edits on 9th March

I wouldn't ordinarily have reverted but with the editor being an anonymous IP, there was no way to flag his/her talk page. Anyway I am reform and I think it is perfectly fair to mention that there were worries (among the reformers themselves) about making sure that these reforms should be consistent. The next paragraph says 'to resolve this..' there is no implication that the principle of reform is inconsistent or modern reform is inconsistent. I think that paragraph should stay, with perhaps minor modifications. Zargulon 10:36, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Synonyms

It doesn't make sense to have different articles about things that are the same, or have very slight similarities. The ideas that the sects share should be described in an umbrella, and the differences should be voiced. Very few people know the difference, and it should be discribed within an article shared between Progressive, Reform, Liberal, etc. The distinctions are not clear.--Cocopuffberman 23:29, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I disagree; I think each of the sects has enough uniqueness, and there are enough people who are interested in the differences between them, that each should have a page of its own. Zargulon 10:28, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Why all the confusion?

Discourse about "streams" in Judaism is too complicated - perhaps on purpose. Christianity has a much more fortright view. Whereas catholics, protestants, baptists, greek orthodox, mormons, etc. are all Christians they belong to different religions. Clarity is helped even by simple things like religious leaders not all called by the same title. Reform Judaism, too, is a different religion from orthodoxy and even conservative Judaism. --LPfeffer May 30, 2006

That's entirely the point. Reform , Masorti, Orthodox - they're all the same religion just different viewpoints. Fragmenting Judaism in countrys with small communities (eg 250,000ish in the UK) would be a disaster! Anon - March 15,2007 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.47.24.169 (talk) 23:42, 15 March 2007 (UTC).

Maybe you should inform the people at the Christianity article (which begins "Christianity is a monotheistic religion") about how sadly misled they are.

I don't quite get this ... (sarcarsm?) --LPfeffer May 30, 2006

What's not to get? You said that e.g. Catholics and Protestants belong to different religions. The Christianity page says they belong to the same religion. So why aren't you correcting them? Is it because you think this page is an easier target? Maybe you're right..time will tell. Zargulon 14:11, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Suggest not making this personal since that is counter-productive. --LPfeffer May 30, 2006

Agreed. So are you going to answer my question? Zargulon 22:44, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

You perked my interest and I plan to research this - beyond the Wikipedia page on Christianity. The key issues seem to be to get a rigorous definition (from an acceptable source) of when a new "religious" innovation splits off the prior practice creating a new "religion" and, in contrast, when an innovation spawns a new "denomination"/"stream" within the origial "religion". For example, is a "liberal religion" (i.e. very open ended and open to individual interpretation and source religion) like Unitarianism a "stream" of Christianity, is it a new "religion", or a hybrid of both? Would a new practice of Christianity without baptism, Christ and a few key Christian dogmas/practices still be a Christian "denomination"? Where are the "red lines" demarking bounds of a "religion"? At a simpler level clarification is needed on whether "denomination" and "stream" are synonyms or not. I plan to post the findings on this page once I have them. --LPfeffer May 31, 2006

By the way, why do you think that the word "stream" is too complicated? Zargulon 10:22, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Complication is not due to the term but its semantics in this context. For rivers it is an excellent term. In the context of Judaism the term is poorly defined and is perhaps designed to blur and confuse. I never heard the term "stream" from those practicing "core Judaism" ("haredi" and orthodox). The further a group innovates away from Judaism the more it uses terms like "stream", "pluralism", "personal interpretation" - which are, in fact, no more than intellectual floats and fuzz. In recent times Judaism is especially prone to splits ("streams"?) - including the recent crop of those practicing "secular worship" and "hybrids" like "Catholic Jews", "Hindu Jews", "Buddhist Jews" ... In Israel it is even more complicated. Many of the "secular stream" (whose dogmas are atheism, multi-culturalism and deep disdain for "Judaism" and "religious Jews") feel that being an Israeli superceeds being "Jewish" in the classical sense (which one of the secular leaders calls just "old folkways") - very similar to the fundamental Christian dogma of "supercession" of Judaism.

Note: Christianity, too, started out as a "stream" of Judaism ... in fact its founder was a practicing orthodox Jew who spoke and prayed in Hebrew ... It took only a few generations for the "stream" to mutate into a "super-stream" and Jews' most vicious enemy for two millenia (which is only recently changing). The founder, Jehoshua, could not have imagined the negative future impact of his innovations on his people.

The article on Reform Judaism presemts an unstable and vaccilating fad rather than a theology, religion. Is "Reform", then, an "enlightened stream" (if instability and radical twists and turns are "enlightened")? Does "Reform" exhibit "stream switching" where the initial "streams" dried up and new "streams" are started as fads change?

--LPfeffer May 30, 2006

I'm having difficulty extracting your fundamental point from all that. -- Zargulon 14:11, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

"What's not to get?" --LPfeffer May 30, 2006

People can call themselves what they like, including "Buddhist Jews". -- Zargulon 14:11, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Just because a dog calls itself a horse that doesn't make it one ... Also, just beause a cat calls itself a ZQ5DA65 it doesn't mean that is a coherent concept ... --LPfeffer May 30, 2006

If there are enough of them, they get a page on Wikipedia. -- Zargulon 14:11, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

"Getting a page" on Wikipedia, or in any publication does not create reality ... or make a fuzzy concept crisp. The fact that that "Reform Judaism" is documented on Wikipedia is, of course, legitimate - after all it is a social/group practice and perhaps also a religion of sorts to many. The key point is that in many ways it is distinct from what many call "Judaism" and due the way it defines "Jew" (passing of Judaism by father vs. mother) its practioners are guaranteed to be at best questionably Jewish even now and surely in a few generations. --LPfeffer May 30, 2006

Reform/Liberal/Buddhist Jews are considered Jews by Orthodox Jews, unless they were converted by someone who wasn't an orthodox rabbi, or don't have a Jewish maternal line, which is a minority. -- Zargulon 14:11, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

If the terminology and basic concepts are confused anything derived from them is even more so.

A "Reform/Secular/Buddhist/Hindu/Catholic/Sunni/Antisemitic/Whatchamacallit/Mambojumbo/Postmodern/Deconstructionist/Polyreligious ... " person is considered to be a Jew (by the orthodox - due to "halakhic law") if his/her mother was Jewish. That doesn't mean that what they practice is Judaism ... An Icelander or even a Martian can "celebrate" Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor Day and Thanksgiving Day --- that doesn't make her/him an American ... There is only one relatively well defined set of circumstances whereby one is an "American". Not very different in Judaism.

Since "Reform" is not opposed to intermariage and since it defines "Jew" thru the father (vs. mother as in orthodoxy and even conservative) it has by definition split off from Judaism both in terms of "Who is a Jew" and religios practice (since reform innovated itself away from Judaism.) It should be noted that the Samaritan and Karaite religious groups are much closer to core Judaism than Reform, but Karaites and Samaritans are not considered to be Jews and their practice is not Judaism.

I can undersand that some groups abhor attention to detail, rigor and intellectual integrity, but they served Jews well in many other ways than religion. --LPfeffer May 30, 2006

What's the big deal? Zargulon 14:11, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

In mathematics, science and also in Judaism (perhaps not in Reform) definitions and boundaries are "big deal". This served Jews well - both during life in Israel thru the ages and in the Diaspora. --LPfeffer May 30, 2006

I still don't understand what you are trying to say. Zargulon 22:44, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

OK --LPfeffer May 31, 2006

Definition in intro paragraph

Hello, the article starts out by defining Reform Judaism as "the largest Jewish denomination in the United States". Is this a definition of Reform or merely a current fact about it? Reform Judaism was the largest U.S denomination in 1890, but it wasn't the largest from the mid-20th century through about 1990, and who knows what it will be in 2020? Suggest defining the denomination in terms of something related to its beliefs, practices, or history that remains common to it through its various evolutions including waxing and waning from time to time. Best, --Shirahadasha 10:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. if want to mention its largestness, say "has been the largest in the period xxxx-yyyy". Zargulon 10:40, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

NPOV?

God, the Law giver, clearly held the moral and the ceremonial to be of equal weight, making both equally obligatory

Isn't this a POV statement? Doesn't it imply that Traditional Judaism is more correct than Reform Judaism? Couldn't considering God the lawgiver also be taking a theistic POV? (I guess it could also just be the definition of the term within the "stream.")

---trlkly 22:04, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello. As background, this phrase as well as much of the paragraph containing is a direct copy from the public-domain 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia article Reform Judaism From the Point of View of the Reform Jew. I believe the Reform Judaism Wikipedia article was originally started by copying this Jewish Encyclopedia article verbatim, and then modifying it. Although it's now been modified quite a bit, pieces of the original article still remain, including this example. As the example illustrates, the Jewish Encyclopedia article was quite opinionated, and some of its opinions are now dated. Hope this helps. Best, --Shirahadasha 04:33, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Intermarriage

An edit today on the inter-religious marriage section highlights that the whole section is basically lacking in any verficiation. Given the contentious nature of officiation at interfaith marriages, the statistics and claims (40%... vast majority...) need to be backed up with verifiable sources or they should be removed. The Religious Center for Research and Counseling (RCRC) publishes a fair number of "results" and they do good work, but their methodology for coming up with their numbers and their NPOV status are very much in doubt. However, I'd ratherr use their numbers than not use anything. I encourage someone to do some real work verifying the claims and stats or perhaps they need to all be stripped down into what it verifiable rather than the conjecture that is here. JerseyRabbi 14:21, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi JR, I agree with you. Zargulon 14:57, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Unless I hear otherwise, I intend at some point to edit down this section until someone puts forth fair cited material to back up numbers and claims. JerseyRabbi 15:33, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Orthodox Judaism's position on Reform Judaism today

I question the inclusion of this section (and I am appreciative of Zargulon changing the title and intro to that entry). In short: Should I add a section to the Orthodox Jewish page on what Reform thinks of Orthodoxy? I do not see the need for such a piece on either page. Are we now going to add what Conservative Judaism thinks of Reform? (And then, of course, what Reform thinks of Conservative Judaism on that page). Where does it. I do not believe in a brief article such as the ones on Wikipedia, the perspective of outside groups are necessary. If Reform were a fledgling group and Orthodoxy was the "voice of Judaism" then perhaps a comment on what the mainstream thinks of the fringe might make sense. But Orthodoxy is not the voice of Judaism and Reform is by no means a fledgling fringe group. Why add the perspective on one movement about another except as a way of publicly trying to discredit Reform Judaism? Please help me understand why this section should remain - and if it does remain, will you help me with posting Reform Jewish views of Orthodoxy on the Orthodox Judaism article? Thanks! JerseyRabbi 15:32, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I think this has to be handled carefully too. The relationship between Reform and Orthodox has been a permanent issue in the lifetime of Reform Judaism, whereas it hasn't been a permanent issue in the lifetime of Orthodox Judaism, so perhaps that makes the situation asymmetrical and less appropriate for the orthodox page than for the reform. I also note that the source for Orthodox's negative opinions of Reform is a *reform* source and feel that source is trying to discredit Orthodox, rather than Reform! If this section stays it should be supplemented with sources on both sides (and yes there are plenty of orthodox sources) which are more conciliatory. Zargulon 15:42, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Maybe this whole issue is more appropriately placed in the Who is a Jew? article since it deals with that topic and really centers on the theme of inter-denominational issues, not just about one specific denomination. DMacks 15:48, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate the sentiements, but I am not convinced. What concerned Reform Jews once upon a time doesn't concern Reform Jews. I do not believe that currently Reform Jews are really that interested in what Orthodoxy thinks about them. (I know Robinson wrote the book recently. He is also listed in the Wikipedia article as a "reformer" which is inaccurate in several different ways. And his book is long with lots of room for such nuanced discussion) As one of the 2 dominant movements in the US, what the minority Orthodox say about Reform really isn't of much interest today. In a longer article detailing the history of the movement, I'd agree - but in these summary articles, I think it lends undue weight and importance to Orthodoxy from the Reform world. I advocate moving it to another article or removing it. JerseyRabbi 20:02, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I freely admit to knowing nothing about Robinson beyond what I scanned from his homepage and hope you will not hesitate to correct my mistakes. His quote seemed quite polemical and I allowed myself to build up an impression of him which supported that view - I apologise. As for keeping the section, editor Drosenbach put it in in good faith afaik, and it is not manifestly unreasonable, so I personally wouldn't delete it wholesale. On the other hand it also needs considerable work to make it complete, balanced and relevant, and if that is too hard then maybe deleting it wouldn't be a bad idea. It might be nice too if the original editor who put it in participated in this discussion. Zargulon 22:34, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi! It's worth mentioning that religious criticism articles are well-established parts of Wikipedia. See for example, Criticism of Conservative Judaism and Modern Orthodox Judaism#Criticism, as well as Criticism of Islam, Criticism of Christianity, etc. Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy requires including critical as well as supportive viewpoints on controversial subjects, and for better or for worse religion tends to be a controversial subject. It might be worth changing the section title to "Criticism" for consistency with how criticism is handled in other religion articles. Unsourced content (including content based on sources which don't meet the reliable sources criteria) can be tagged ("{{fact}}") and removed after a couple of weeks if appropriate sources are not provided. However, if legitimately sourced and worded with an appropriate encyclopedic tone, criticism and critical content seems to be part of the territory of Wikipedia articles on religious denominations. Best, --Shirahadasha 03:16, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I am very much against the move to Criticism section. It may be that we eventually have to have a "criticism" section, but this doesn't seem like a good basis to start it on; it is a non-orthodox source documenting alleged orthodox criticisms at second hand. It invites a "straw man" interpretation. I am reverting (only once).. it's not personal. Zargulon 08:53, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

If the quoted statement remains, I'd prefer it as it is right now - in a section called RJ relationship with ORJ - than in a criticism section. I still disagree with its inclusion and feel that it comes from an approach that Orthodox Judaism is "right" and Reform Judaism is a breakaway aberrant sect. I think Reform Judaism is well established and large enough that it gets to stand on its own right even if there are lots of Jews who don't like its belief and practices. Frankly there are lots of Reform Jews who aren't fond of things in Orthodox Judaism. This isn't a question of right/wrong, but of approrpiate info to include in a brief encyclopedia article. I do not feel that a contemporary criticism of RJ is well placed here. But if it is to remain - as the limited user response has stated, I'd prefer to remain as it is currently listed than in a separate criticism section. JerseyRabbi 12:41, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

It might be useful guidance to read the explanation of the neutral point of view policy. Best, --Shirahadasha 04:24, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

NPOV demands that criticisms be fairly represented, not that criticism should have its own separate section. These quotes might be better dispersed in already existing sections, particularly as one is modern and one is historical. Zargulon 07:01, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

The argument of those who claim that Reform Judaism is entrenched enough in American society to not care what the minority Orthodoxy thinks of it is a frivolous one. Orthodoxy is mainstream Judaism, derived from the fact that Orthodox Judaism is the original Judaism and Reform is a reformation to suit those who did not want to follow the proper path. The issue here is that viewers of this article will leave feeling they have all the information, when in fact, they have been misled into believing that Reform Judaism, because of the very fact that it incorporates the majority opinion, is necessarily the more correct opinion. It is imperitive that the regulators of the initial doctrine explain their take on the "opposition to halakhah," as termed by George Robinson. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 12:32, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for participating DRosenbach. I agree it would be a mistake to imply that reform judaism is "right" on the grounds of being a majority in the United States. As a reform jew I have no problem with anyone who views conservative or orthodox as the mainstream or as the original judaism, or uniquely authoritative or "right". I think it is already pretty clear on this page that the reform movement changed things (both exegesis and ritual) while the conservatives changed fewer things and the Orthodox changed very little. If you feel this needs to be elaborated, please make some suggestions or edits. Zargulon 12:58, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Contra Zargulon, with all due respect, I don't think that DRosenbach's view is correct or NPOV. That Orthodoxy is identical to historical Judaism in good faith with the tradition has been disputed by Reform and Conservative leaders since the haskalah, and is the very point of the Jewish works of rabbis like Frankel and Hermann Cohen. DRosenbach's view is certanly the mainstream Orthodox one and deserves presentation as such, but it is certainly not an undisputed or transparently obvious fact. Further, the fact that a religious movement has majority support, both clerical and lay, is grounds for granting it some deference in presentation of the religion as such. See Christianity: the article is essentially about Trinitarian Christianity because that's what is dominant, regardless of whether the Mormons or Jevohah's Witnesses et al. are actually right about what Christianity was originally. Orthodoxy is not so marginal within Judaism as non-Trinitarian Christian groups are within Christianity, to be sure, but the same principle applies. Savant1984 18:51, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure he was claiming to be NPOV.. is any of us ?? Zargulon 18:57, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

The claim that Reform "has majority support, both clerical and lay" is dubious at best. The only country in which Reform is the largest movement is the United States, and even there, there's no question that there are far more Orthodox "clerics" (i.e. Rabbis) than Reform. In almost all other countries in the world "establishment" Judaism is Orthodox. Moreover, simply because a Jew is "secular" or "agnostic" or "atheist" or "non-observant" or "doesn't keep kosher" etc., that does not mean that they are Reform. Reform is a specific ideology, not a catchall for "all non-Orthodox and non-Conservative and non-Reconstructionist Jews". If you measure "Reform Jews" in America in terms of synagogue/temple membership, it turns out that they are a small minority of American Jews as well. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:13, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

We are getting way off topic here. Zargulon 19:26, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi! Wanted to remind folks of the talk page guidelines: article talk pages are solely for discussing the contents of articles, and any article content has to be based only on reliable sources. Please don't use this talk page to present or discuss an editor's own personal views. Best, --Shirahadasha 20:02, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Jayjg, Zargulon, and Shirahadasha. Back to something immediately relevant: I tweaked the intro to the Hirsch quotation, mostly stylistically. I also deleted the bit about the Reform Hirsch was talking about is different than the Reform of today. It seems to me that, despite the introduction of many traditional practices into Reform life, Hirsch's comment is still entirely applicable. Savant1984 23:40, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, fair enough. Zargulon 23:49, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

deleted the word largest

I deleted the word largest because it takes the POV all Reform Jews are Jews. Which is the POV of Reform Jews. This POV is not shared by other Jews therefore making it not NPOV. 210.84.40.154 21:45, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Jpgordon: the problem is NPOV. Do please try and understand it before you give anymore counter arguments. 210.84.40.154 23:15, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

• The problem is WP:UNDUE. Reform Judaism is considered Judaism by the predominance of sources; if their not Jews, they shouldn't even be called Jews in the article at all; if they are called that, they're the largest denomination of it. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 23:22, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps something like the following minor tweak would satisfy our anon editor? Change "the largest denomination of American Jews and its sibling movements in other countries" to "the largest branch of Judaism in North America and its sibling movements in other parts of the world". Would something like that be agreeable? --MPerel 23:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

NPOV isn't about satisfying me. You could say largest liberal sect. or something like that but saying plain largest is not NPOV. 210.84.40.154 00:24, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's not just the largest "liberal" sect, it's recognized as the largest branch of Judaism and there are plentiful sources with numbers and statistics to back that up. --MPerel 01:02, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Exactly, that is the POV and not the NPOV. I meant the largest Jewish liberal sect. Some people wont be shocked if they learn reform is the largest liberal sect... lol. 210.84.40.154 01:14, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I'm following your point, but if you're saying what I think you're saying, that there is a pov among some Orthodox that Reform is not really Judaism, that is already adequately covered in the section Relationships with other streams of Judaism. If you're saying something else you'll need to clarify. --MPerel 01:26, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Reform Judaism is not the largest branch of Judaism, not even in the USA (where is it the unaffiliated Jews who are the biggest group). Worldwide, there are more Jews who identify with Orthodox Judaism than Reform. Outside USA, Jews do not usually belong to a "branch" of Judaism but define according to their level of (orthodox) religious practice. In Israel alone, 30% of the Jewish population is religious, and at least another 25% is traditional. This represents more people than all Reform Jews all over the world. Benjil 06:19, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

That is the wishful thinking of the Orthodox. Wikipedia is not a soapbox; please don't remove sourced material. Zargulon 06:46, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

What ? That is exactly he contrary. The claim that Reform Judaism is the largest branch of Judaism is totally unsourced and is wishful thinking. You got it backwards. Benjil 09:50, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

No. You have it backwards. You couldn't even take the trouble to read the first paragraph of the first source in the reference listexternal links. You are totally discredited. Please go away, this page is for serious people. Zargulon 10:22, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I did not read the first paragraph of Chaim Stern, ed., Central Conference of American Rabbis. Gates of Prayer - for Shabbat and Weekdays. A Gender-Sensitive Prayerbook 1994 ? Is this a joke ? Are you a troll ? Do you even have a serious argument to propose ? Reform Judaism claims around 1.5 millions members in the USA. They claim around 10-15,000 in Israel, and we can add a few dozen thousands in the rest of the world (including French and English liberal Judaism that are not the same as reform). In Israel alone, the religious orthodox population is over 30% of the Jewish population of 5.4 millions - you have the stats at Religion in Israel. And that is - only the religious. As we count as Reform all the people that identify as Reform Jews even if they go to the synagogue once in a year, there is no reason not to do the same for Orthodox Judaism - and then we get the majority of Jews in Israel, France and most countries. So yes, by far, Reform is not the biggest branch of Judaism in the world. And indeed I did not even speak of the fact that part of the 1.5 million reform Jews are not Jews. Benjil 11:42, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

That is complete nonsense, please, please go away. Zargulon 12:02, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

So you are indeed a troll, and you will go away. People that are unable to discuss and give rational arguments are not welcome on Wikipedia. Benjil 12:06, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

People who can't read need to go to school. I can recommend you some good ones. Come back when you have graduated. Zargulon 12:39, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

You are really pathetic. Now will you be able to give *one* rational argument. I remind you the subject: is Reform Judaism the largest branch of Judaism in the world and in the USA. We were first discussing the first part and proved that Reform Judaism is not the largest branch of Judaism in the world. Now is it in the USA ? It's trickier. They claim 1.5 million, but according to the UJC survey of 2000, the number is much smaller: out of 5.2 millions Jews, 4.3 have a "stronger jewish connection", and out of them 46% belong to a synagogue. That's a little less than 2 millions. They divide as follows: 38% Reform, 33% Conservative, 22% Orthodox, 2% Reconstructionist, and 5% other types. So here we have only some 750,000 Reform Jews. So the largest branch of Judaism is indeed the non-affiliated Jews who are at least 2.3 millions (if we do not count the 900,000 who don't have a "strong connection" to Judaism. Even is we accept the claim that the number of Jews in this study is underestimated by some 10%, it really does not change anything. Reform Judaism is not, also, the largest branch of Judaism in the USA. Benjil 13:07, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Where did you get the idea that "non-affiliated Jews" constitutes a "branch of Judaism"? It is a pretty absurd thing to say, isn't it? Like if we were arguing about which was the biggest building around a parking lot, and you insisted that the biggest building *was* the parking lot.. only worse, because at least a parking lot is 'built'.. Zargulon 13:23, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Where did you get the idea that only "Reform/Conservative etc..." are branches of Judaism ? Never heard of secular Judaism ? And what is the meaning of being the "largest branch" is over 60% of Jews are excluded from the count ? This is truly absurd. Benjil 13:27, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Why do you think I have "never heard of secular judaism"? What does that have to do with your strange and meaningless statement that "the largest branch of Judaism is indeed the non-affiliated Jews"? Does this mean that you are "not welcome on Wikipedia"? Zargulon 13:36, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the main question is now "how you able to participate in a discussion" because I have some doubts ? So let's go back - we have 2.3 millions US Jews with a strong connection to Judaism and who do not belong to a synagogue. These Jews form the largest group, and who are you to say that secular Judaism is not a legitimate branch of Judaism ? They are the largest branch, not Reform or Conservative Jews who *together* are still a minority. So writing that Reform Judaism is "the largest branch" is POV pushing, and anyway irrelevant to the article (Conservative Judaism is anyway very close and it could be a simple statistical mistake that places Reform before Conservative in the survey). Benjil 15:21, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I think you have a big chip on your shoulder and should take a cold shower. Alternatively you could educate yourself and follow the link to "Secular Judaism" where you will find it is not a religious branch (although if you were not completely illiterate you would have realized this from the word "secular"). The statement which you reverted on such a bogus and confused argument was about branches of the Jewish religion, not numbers of Jews in a particular category. If you don't believe me, go to the historical version before your revert. While you are at it, click save, and make amends for your destructive behavior. Zargulon 15:43, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

You really have a big problem, and you should see someone to help you. You obviously have no place on Wikipedia as you are incapable of intelligent discussion and you are apparently a bigot. We never spoke of "religious movement" but "branch of Judaism". Many people believe that Judaism is not just a religion but a culture and a civilization. The introduction of the article is so lying by implying that Reform Judaism represents the leading movement of American Judaism when it represents only 750,000 to 1.5 million Jews in the USA . Benjil 17:14, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I and other editors of this page do indeed have a big problem, it is called you. You do not understand that "secular" means "not religious". You do not understand that "unaffiliated" means "not part of a branch". You do not understand that, on the "Reform Judaism" page, "Judaism" refers to religion, not culture. You do not read sources before yelling "unsourced POV". You refer to yourself as "We".. are you schizophrenic as well? Please, please just go away and gnaw at your armpit. Zargulon 18:48, 27 July 2007 (UTC) 18:47, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Judaism refers to the same thing everywhere. There is no special meaning for Judaism on this page and another for the other articles of Wikipedia. You should be wise to go to the discussion on Who is a Jew and Jew to see that there is a vast consensus opposed to the idea of Judaism as just a religion. Your sources are invalid on Wikipedia - newspapers are not academic sources, and the website of the Reform Movement, is highly POV and in consequence cannot be a serious source for data and numbers. "Unaffiliated" means not affiliated to a specific organization. In case you don't know - only US Jews affiliate themselves to synagogues. Would you say that there are no branches of Judaism outside America ? Can you understand that not being affiliated to an organization does not mean you are not part of a branch of Judaism ? I doubt it, but your view being the minority on Wikipedia, you will have to comply. It is now very clear that you do not understand how Wikipedia works. This article does not belong to you, so thats should be clear - I will make sourced changes if I see he need to. Your attitude is aggressive and you refuse any view that is different from yours - all that because I reverted the article to its previous state - changing *one* word... Benjil 07:11, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

How about "The largest denomination of Judaism in North America. Currently predominantly a North American phenomemon, it has roots and sibling branches in other parts of the world." This language would convey the reliably sourced information of its size in North America, while also conveying the (also reliably sourced) information that it is not the largest everywhere in the world. If we keep discussion civil, language addressing the issues raised should not be difficult. Best, --Shirahadasha 21:51, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I feel you are bending over too far to satisfy irrational objectors.. I also feel your proposed wording would be difficult to integrate into the current framework of differentiating between the American Reform, British reform and Classical German reform which I feel works well. I still don't have a clue why anyone would think that the current wording suggests that Reform Judaism is the largest branch anywhere except North America. Zargulon 12:23, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Footnote-style citations

Hi! Wikipedia, in an effort to improve the quality of the encyclopedia, has created a template to suggest movement to footnote-style citation throughout Wikipedia. I've added it to this article. Footnote citations should give enough information to enable a non-expert to verify a claim, including edition an page numbers for off-line publications. See WP:CITE for more information. Because verifiers can't realistically go through a large list of books etc. to verify an individual statement, controversial statements which do not have footnote-style citations can still be challenged as unverified until they have a footnote provided for them despite the list of references at the bottom. Best, --Shirahadasha 22:12, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Changes to Origins section

Hi! I would urge anyone adding material to this sections to source and footnote explanations for historical developments. For example, a recent change claims that positivism was the basis of 19th Century Reform thought. There were many 19th century intellectual developments. We need a source for the claim that positivism was the driving impetus. Best, --Shirahadasha 04:30, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Should we be Quoting the Entire Principles?

This quotes the entire text of the Reform principles. I didn't see a disclaimer of copyright on the page[4]. It should be removed as a copyright violation. --Thalia42 23:48, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if its a copyright violation since it is attributed, but it certainly doesn't fall in the category of good writing to quote large items without commentary. Egfrank 04:10, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

WUPJ

In reading through this talk page, I noticed that someone concluded that the World Union for Progressive Judaism was a cultural and social organization. I'm puzzled by this conclusion. I wonder what on the website lead to this? Is this a response to an older version of the website?

It is my understanding from personal acquaintence with the organization (and its website), that the WUPJ is the umbrella organization for progressive congregations around the world. It provides a forum to discuss common concerns, work on joint projects, exchange ideas and so forth. For many years it paid the salaries of progressive rabbis in Israel and Brazil. It has provided funds and technical support to build synogogues in Russia. It currently provides youth training, leadership development, as well. See http://wupj.org/OurWork/WhatWeDo.asp for more information. Egfrank 17:05, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Article Length

This article is now well over 50K - I wonder if it might be time to consider moving some material to sub-articles, as per WP:SIZE? Egfrank 21:32, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

The section on the relationship between Reform Judaism and other movements

This section does not belong. It only describes the point of view of the Orthodox community, and only certain segments at that. There are other segments of the Orthodox community that actively cooperate with Reform congregations in the USA and possibly other countries. There isn't even a discussion of the Reform reaction or its long term significance - a relationship involves two parties. This section describes a monolog, not a relationship.

In addition, the current section suffers serious POV problems - mostly through omission:

• It ignores those who among orthodoxy who agree to disagree and still consider Reform Jews as Jews (at least those of matrilineal descent or those halakhically converted)
• It ignores the significant level of cooperation between movements in some areas
• It ignores the rather significant critique by Progressive Judaism of Orthodoxy
• It implies that Conservative Judaism also agrees with the "Progressive Judaism isn't Judaism view". This is a result of the total absence of information about the Progressive/Conservative relationship. It is also patently untrue.
• It provides no perspective on the importance of the conflicts or their political or historic context.

If the material should be retained at all, it should be moved to a section of Orthodox Judaism discussing Orthodox Judaism's relationship to other movements. All cited sources are orthodox sources, hence this section is about Orthodoxy, or more specifically how certain parts of Orthodoxy feel/believe. It goes without saying that it should be expanded to encompass the range of opinions within Orthodoxy.

If we really do feel the need to discuss this topic as a relationship amongst movements, I suggest those interested develop an article dedicated to the relationship amongst Reform/Progressive/Liberal, Conservative, and Orthodox Judaism. This would be more conducive to a balanced NPOV discussion since it wouldn't give the appearence of one "legitimate" movement passing judgement on another "illegitimate" movement.

If this section remains at all (and I have my doubts), it needs to be rewritten according to the following standards:

• it should represent the relationship from the reform perspective (articles on other movements can address their perspectives). There is plenty of material available. The German Reform Movement started as a critique of traditional Judaism and that critique has continued to this day. In the name of pluralism it is often understated, but it is still present. Reform Judiasm has oft expressed concern that the legal focus of traditional Judaism has sacrificed ethics, tikkun olam, and the vision of the prophets in the name of law and tradition.
• it should explicitly provide historical and/or political context to any dispute discussed. Religious ideas do not exist in a vacuum.
• quotes from thinkers outside of the body of Reform Jewish thinkers should only be included if their statements can be demonstrated to be of current or historic importance to progressive Judaism - e.g. Katzav's refusal to refer to Eric Yoffie as a rabbi would be relevant since we could easily discuss the Reform response and quote sources explaining why Reform Jews cared about this. We also have ample material available to place interaction into its political and historic context. On the other hand, a rabbi, even a g'dol, whose words evinced no public comment from UK or US Reform Jews would not be.
• it should be carefully cited, not only because that is good scholarship, but also because this is an emotional issue for many readers and a strong academic slant would signal that this is not for casual or opinionated contributors

I am not the first person to express deep concern about this section (see above - #Orthodox Judaism's position on Reform Judaism today). Unfortunately, the discussion degenerated into a POV discussion on the legitimacy of Reform Judaism and the initial issue was forgotten.

This page has been very quiet, perhaps because of the Chaggim. I am going to wait a week after Simchat Torah. If no one steps up to the plate offering to rework this section in a more balanced manner, I am going to delete it, as per the suggestion of User:Zargulon above. Egfrank 04:55, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly with User:Egfrank and User:Zargulon. The section needs to be ditched. My recent edit took out one particularly biting NPOV attack on George Robinson. I will blank the section for want of anybody else deciding to build it again from scratch. It appears that at least some of the text is the same as the equally disturbing page 'Relationships between American Jewish religious movements', of which I have previously added the word 'American' to the title, as it only addresses US-based Jewish denominations. That page mostly dumps on Reform and is highly incomplete anyway.

Now that I'm on the subject, if I may also point out that the entire Reform page was riddled with sly little comments, innuendo, etc. and I have made lots of small edits to bring out a neutral feel. A Sniper 15:51, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi! A little background. This section was originally a "Criticism" section but was renamed. I suggest renaming it back to criticism. But I believe it must be kept. Religious denominations criticize each other, Judaism is no exception, and Wikipedia's Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV) policy requires that all notable viewpoints to be sympathetically presented. As a result, I believve a criticism section is an inevitability for an article on a major religious denomination. See e.g. Criticism of Conservative Judaism, Modern Orthodox Judaism#Criticism, Criticism of Christianity, Criticism of Islam, etc. I suggest renaming the section back to "criticism" and have most content in a subsection called "Criticism by Orthodox Judaism" or similar -- we should label the material in a way that clearly identifies that it involves issues of theological disagreement, rather than organizational issues. With this in mind, I don't believe removing or "toning down" this content is consistent with WP:NPOV. It's a notable viewpoint. Per WP:NPOV this criticism should be from the point of view of the criticizers and therefore I believe it is appropriate to use notable Orthodox sources to represent the Orthodox viewpoint. I would also note that there currently is very little material on Reform's criticism of e.g. Orthodox Judaism, and Haredi Judaism currently has no criticism section at all. Best, --Shirahadasha 02:39, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi there. With respect, I don't agree. What if there isn't any written criticism of other Jewish denominations within Reform? Reform doesn't bash the other denominations - in fact, it offers them respect; just doesn't agree with them. However, traditional Judaism can't help but criticize Reform since traditional Jews appear to believe in things literally - that can only mean that Reform is some sort of foreign object or watered-down something. Besides, what was there was hyper-critical, not just critical. Considering that the entire page was slanted against Reform, I personally can't see the section's necessity. Perhaps it is for the existing Relationships between American Jewish religious movements page. In order to place a criticism section means that the rest of the article must be completely from the perspective of Reform, and that wouldn't be encyclopedic. I think that the narrative adequately states that Reform is a reaction to traditional Judaism, which therefore suggests that traditional Judaism wouldn't agree. My thoughts anyway. Peace A Sniper 21:46, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I also respectfully disagree. As stated above,

• the section was POV even from the orthodox perspective. Several cities in the USA have joint conservative-reform-orthodox bet dins for conversion (Denver, Washington DC, Minneapolis - Note: partial list based on memory - someone needs to check sources for exact cities). There have been several organizations that promote joint cooperation among reform-conservative-orthodox rabbis (the Synogogue Council of America, NABOR are just two such organizations. Changing the name will not address that issue.
• the section lacked historical context - for example, the quote from Hirsch is a response to the 19th century German reform movement. If it belongs anywhere it belongs in an article on the German Reform Movement, not in an article on US/UK Reform Judaism. Changing the name will not address that issue either.

Furthermore, I question the wisdom of any of these "Criticism" sections. I can't help but note that *all* of these sections are all the right criticizing the left. And why is it that the only movement article missing such a section is the one on Haredi Judaism? Doesn't that raise at least a slight concern of systemic POV? When people disagree there is naturally criticism on both sides, yet the voice of the left is notably absent in all of these sections.

Please don't think I am asserting a kabal here. There are several reasons why this imbalance might naturally occur:

• structural: by spreading the criticisms among several articles, it is much harder to monitor criticism for balance.
• religious: out of a religious sense of obligation to klal israel, some editors on the left may be uncomfortable with writing criticisms of other movements. Modern Progressive criticism of other movements tends to focus on the issues and positions rather than black balling movements as a whole: agunot, mistreatment of gerim, corruption and payoffs in the Israeli conversion process, drug dealing and smuggling by members of certain Jewish sects who believe they are above the law and anything is acceptable provided their Yeshiva has the funds to continue (the actions and the belief that Jews are above the law is criticized, not the sect), etc, etc. The aversion to wholesale criticism of movements is so strong that when Shinui (a political party in Israel) went out on a Haradi bashing political campaign, Israeli progressive rabbis preached sermons cautioning against joining in the fray, despite the on-going Haradi bashing of the Jewish religious left.
• educational: the preponderence of editors may be editors on the right who are simply unaware that their viewpoint is not neutral. An awareness of neutrality is an acquired skill. This is a particular problem within Jewish scholarship. Judaism in particular is such a huge body of knowledge that one can learn and learn and learn and still never get past the perspective of a particular community. Scholars of the Bavli don't necessarily know the Jerusalmi, let alone the Geniza contents or the manuscript history of the Talmud. Readers of Kahati may not be familar with Rambam or Albeck's commentary on the Mishnah. Experts on Rashi and Tosphot may know little about the Rif or Ibn Ezra. Need I go on? Why should it be any different when commenting on movements? Egfrank 06:03, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:NPOV requires presentation of all notable, reliably sourced points of view, and this is a notable, reliably sourced point of view. Best, --Shirahadasha 13:20, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Since the section appears to have been deleted, I've restored it, modified the tone, and relabeled it "Orthodox criticism". --Shirahadasha 13:43, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I can live with this, User:Egfrank and User:Shirahadasha. Robinson's quote wouldn't have made any sense there. But couldn't there be a better quote to represent the Orthodox perspective than one from Europe in the nineteenth century? In the meantime, I am going to try and find nice, critical quotes about traditional Judaism from the Reform side to stick on the Haredi, etc. pages. A Sniper 11:23, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Serious discussions about using the names Reform vs. Progressive Judaism

Please see the present discussions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countering systemic bias/open tasks#WikiProject Judaism needs help - geographical bias concerns. Your input would be greatly appreciated. (They are the result of discussions that unfolded at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism#Concern about duplicating Reform and Progressive labels.) Thank you, IZAK 09:15, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Reform movement in Judaism

I'm going to add slightly to the intro with the following rationale. Currently, the dab Reform movement links to this page as "Reform movement (Judaism)". In addition, other article in Wikipedia link here when discussing the reform movement. Finally, the article content covers much of the gamut of the Reform movement, including its history and US-UK-Isr and global (national) scope/differences. Therefore, I'm adding the point, taken for granted up until now, that this article is about the Reform movement in Judaism. Some further editing improvements may be needed to complete this picture. (Incidentally, we may want to consider renaming this article, "Reform movement (Judaism)" or this like.) Thanks. HG | Talk 13:12, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Removing refactored material

I am invoking WP:BOLD and removing material that has been refactored into sub articles. Leaving the material in two places for any length of time will only make the clean-up harder when we ultimately decide what to do with the Reform Judaism article - we run the risk of a new editor adding material in one place and not the other. Therefore I am going to reduce the following sections to a brief synopsis:

• Reform Judaism in North America (now refactored to Reform Judaism (North America)
• Reform Judaism in Britain (now refactored to Reform Judaism (United Kingdom)

To be extra sure we don't lose material I am going through line by line and comparing this article to the new regional article before removing the material.

The removal will also make it easier to manage any up-coming debate about the relative status of Reform Judaism and Progressive Judaism since we will be able to verify how much of this article was really

• just "4 articles on one page" (User:Jheald and myself)
• an umbrella article providing an overview of a movement (User:HG and User:IZAK).

Egfrank 11:26, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Additional note - Orthodox criticism - the Orthodox criticisms have been refactored to the appropriate articles:

• German Reform movement (Judaism) - Hirsch
• Reform Judaism (North America) - critique of patrilineal descent
• Progressive Judaism - one summary sentence stating long-term general opposition to beliefs and practices

  On second thought, readded single summary sentence (the goal of this refactoring is to see what is left after region specific info has been removed). Egfrank 15:46, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

• Disclaimer: This copying in no way endorses these sections (I have made my objections clear above and on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Judaism) but we do not yet have an alternate way of handling these criticisms. Egfrank 13:52, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Additional note - References - the reference section appears to contain only books that were used to construct the sections on US Reform. They are also duplicated on the Reform Judaism (North America) article. Accordingly, they have been removed from this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Egfrank (talk • contribs) 14:15, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Relationship of Israel, UK, US to German Reform Movement

I just removed a line (which I wrote) claiming that the German reform movement provided the intellectual roots. After researching the matter, it seems that the relationship of this movement to UK, US, and Israeli reform is not that simple:

• UK - some argue that UK Reform began independently as response to the British environment; others (e.g. Meyers) see UK reform as an outgrowth of German Reform - for further discussion, see A Question of Backbone: Contrasting Christian Influences upon the ...;
• US - liturgical reform began in Charleston, SC about 10 years before the Hamburg temple and is explained as a counter-response to Christian missionizing and possibly UK influence (via Bevis Marks) by at least two sources:
  • Gemma Romain. The Jews of Nineteenth Century Charleston: Ethnicity in a Port City (American Historical Society, 2003, accessed November 6, 2007).
  • Meyer, Response to Modernity, 228

There is also evidence of US-German and UK-German interaction at a later date:

• UK Reform began when a congregation broke away from Bevis Marks after asking for reforms along the lines of Hamburg in 1838
• in the 1840's onward, US Reform was directly influenced by a large number of German immigrant intellectuals.

Thus it appears that the beginning of reforms in all three countries (US, UK, Germany) had indigenous causes (with UK in dispute), but as reforms progressed all agree that German thought provided further intellectual inspiration. Egfrank 13:20, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

There's a book Tradition and Change; A History of Reform Judaism in Britain 1840-1995 by Jonathan A Romain and Anne Kershen (RSGB, 1995) which might be the best source for how Reform got started in the UK. I haven't read it; but a short history summary by Romain can also be found on UK Reform's website [5]. A similar, slightly more detailed account also appears in his book "Faith and Practice: A Guide to Reform Judaism Today" (1991). Whereas he sees German Reform as having been kick-started by emancipation,

"Reform Judaism in Britain started for entirely different reasons. The trigger was the desire of a number of Jews who belonged largely to the Spanish and Portuguese Congregation of Bevis Marks in the City of London, but resided some distance away in the West End of London and requested permission to hold prayers in a branch synagogue more locally. However, the Bevis Marks authorities objected - fearing the loss of wealthy members, which would cause financial difficulties for the main synagogue. The result was that a group of twenty-four families decided to act independently and establish what became known as the West London Synagogue of British Jews. It was only at this point that they also decided to take advantage of their new freedom to exercise changes in religious matters also. They therefore introduced a few minor liturgical reforms and some calendrical alterations, such as omitting the extra days of festivals not prescribed in the Bible which had been added in later times. The first minister was David Woolf Marks. After this initial burst of activity, the next hundred years of Reform in Britian were relatively uneventful. Although West London grew in size, it did not make strenuous efforts to attract new members, nor to establish branch synagogues. The birth of the second Reform synagogue - in Manchester in 1856 - was almost completely independent of West London, and, like its genesis, was brought about by local factors.

"The seeds of the subsequent growth of Reform did not occur until the 1930s, thanks to the immigration of refugees from Germany and elsewhere on the Continent, many of whom were Reform, and either swelled existing Reform congregations or led to the birth of new ones. Even more important was the arrival of a large number of Reform rabbis who were able to serve the new communities and provide a level of religious leadership to which the Reform movement could not otherwise have aspired. Prior to that point, the handful of Reform synagogues had been led by Reform rabbis trained in the United States, or by English ministers who had trained at the Orthodox seminary, Jews College, but later switched to the Reform."

In Faith & Practice Romain also notes a "growing disillusion with Orthodoxy" as another factor leading to the rapid growth in UK Reform in the 1930s. This may be a reference to the start of the end of the traditional theological inclusivity and toleration (or in the eyes of its critics to the right "latitudinalism") of the United Synagogue, ultimately leading to the infamous Jacobs Affair of the 1960s, as the United's power structures, particularly the London Beth Din, came to be more and more dominated by Yeshiva-trained hardliners.

D.W. Marks had declared early on that only the written law was binding, not the oral law; hence the freedom to cull the additional days of the festivals. This was amended by later UK Reform Rabbis, who regarded parts of the Bible as also obsolete (but some parts of Rabbinic literature as still valuable and enduring). But it seems that it wasn't until much much later that they really started to regard themselves as a movement apart.

Romain makes a point of identifying himself and Reform today with the "dynamic, reforming process" characteristic of the first stage of Rabbinic Judaism, which became diminished with the end of Sanhedrin; the faith ultimately becoming "ossified" by prescribed conformity with the publication of Shulchan Aruch in the 16th century and its rapid dissemination by printing. He thus emphasises Reform as a return of Judaism to its roots, rather than necessarily a new or even a C19 development. Jheald 15:55, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Ooops. I hadn't read the Daniel Langton article you cited when I wrote that, [6], which is considerably more in-depth. Jheald 17:21, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like you are well on your way to writing up something for the one or more of the UK progressive articles (hint, hint). Egfrank 18:12, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I just wanted to comment that Jheald is on the money. UK Reform, as an organization, does not claim a connection to the German reformers or to North American Reform (URJ). As stated in the texts, it was a procedural situation and synagogue bylaws that led to the split, and with an injection of Ashkenazim the new group was born. During that time, news of Hamburg allowed for suggestions to changes in liturgy and, eventually, adopting more liberal practices (such as single-day High Holiday observance). However, this was mostly an independent move towards liberalism. Today it most certainly resembles North American Conservatism (United Synagogues), and I know this from experience in both regions. The UK Liberals, on the other hand, were connected in every way to the German reformers, at least in theology and philosophy, and today profess a connection directly to North American Reform. This is actually more fuel to the debate that all of the above is part of international Progressive Judaism. By the way, I hope to get in more editing sometime soon. Best, A Sniper 13:19, 07 November 2007 (UTC)

Though I haven't read as much of the history as I might have done, I think that's true only up to a point. The reforms of the 1840s are sometimes charcterised by an anglicised elite wanting to (a) assert their political independence, and (b) make their religious practices seem more decorous and less alien to their non-Jewish English peer group. That done, the movement seems to have settled down into a comfortable continuity for much of the next hundred years. In particular there seems to have been no appetite for the German historico-critical endeavours, and little interest in any further changes to the liturgy and practice of services once they had established it. This is what made Liberal Judaism so distinctively different (and criticised by UK Reform) when it really got going in the 1910s.

But that story of UK Reform really only holds up to the 1930s, when the American rabbi Harold Reinhart came in as a dynamic new broom at West London Synagogue, and did all he could to find ways to include German refugees, and notably German rabbis, into the organisation. This altered the intellectual direction of UK Reform (including leading ultimately to the setting up of Leo Baeck College in the 1950s); it also marked the start of a period of rapid increase in congregations and membership.

Today, as you say, Liberal Judaism is very close to North American Reform - consider eg how widely the siddur Gates of Prayer adopted by the ULPS was also taken up by North American Reform in the 1970s. There is more surface traditionalism in UK Reform - in its worship, in some of the ways it goes about things. (And, as in other branches of Progressive Judaism, the 1970s saw moves back in this direction). Yes, I know I've stressed the differences in talk forums here in the past. But one can make too much of this. Both in his article on the UK Reform site [7] and on the BBC site, [8], Jonathan Romain identifies today's Reform movement as starting with the German reformers, even if UK Reform had independent beginnings.

Liberal Judaism does take some pride in its intellectual roots and less traditional heritage; UK Reform tries to advoid differences from tradition (and from other branches of Judaism) when it can help it. Nevertheless, these are largely for the most part differences in emphasis and style. Both organisations are firmly in the mainstream of Progressive Judaism in their attitude to halacha and biblical text, and rabbis seem to move quite easily between Liberal and Reform pulpits. David Goldberg, a leading UK Liberal rabbi, makes an interesting comment interviewd in a somewhat journalistic book called The Club by Stephen Brook (1989) looking at various aspects of the Jewish community in the UK in the late 1980s. Asked about the 1985 moves towards merger, he says he can see really no great differences of outlook between the LJS (where he was rabbi) and Reform's West London Synagogue; the objections had mostly come from congregations further away from London, some of which were less comfortable about being associated with the Liberals.

But I'm interested in your experience, as to why you associate UK Reform more closely with the US Conservatives? Jheald 11:17, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Synthesis tag

The Reforms in Belief and Practice section is a mismash of things from different regions and different time periods, rejected ideas and accepted ideas, organized in a way that makes it look like a cohesive position.

• section doesn't distinguish between proposed and accepted reforms
• mixes up correct information about the early 19th german reform period with later traditions in an ahistorical fashion
• neglects to describe the changes and flip flops in belief over time
• treats all regions as monolithic - some reforms mentioned were adopted in some countries but not others, material in Progressive Judaism should include only shared beliefs and practices
• nothing is cited

Should we nix it? Redistribute it?

Any suggestions? Egfrank 15:53, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the section has serious problems, but since the articles are undergoing heavy editing, please leave in the materials for now. Ok? Meanwhile, I may move it to a spin-off. Thanks, HG | Talk 16:28, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Spinning it off (or leaving it in place) doesn't make it less of an uncited synthesis and both are impermissable within Wikipedia (see WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, WP:V). If you think any of this is salvageable without violating the aforementioned policies, fix the problems. Egfrank 18:50, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I started the spin-off and moved the tags, at least to some sections. Revised or deleted some text there. Hope we can all pitch in and fix the problems. Thanks. HG | Talk 19:49, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Wiki

213.79.50.48 20:02, 11 November 2007 (UTC)hello213.79.50.48 20:02, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Summary style, please

In our guideline on summary style, it is expected that any main article continue to provide summaries of the spin-off articles. "When there is enough text in a given subtopic to merit its own entry, that text can be summarized from the present entry and a link is provided to the more detailed article." Currently, 4 regional sections have been spun off but left without summaries. Would the folks who implemented the spin-off please finish the summary style by putting summaries into this article? (If possible, it would be good to summarize in a way that gives the article some narrative or descriptive coherence, but at this juncture any reasonable summary would be helpful.) Thanks. HG | Talk 04:32, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Disambiguation page?

I'm being bold and changing this to a disambiguation page:

• the relationship between movement section is essentially a disambiguation statement
• the beliefs and criticism section applies to *all* progressive movements, not just those that are sometimes called reform
• there is no real relationship between these four items other than the commonality of name:
  • one is historical and had no denominational present; the other three current and corresponding to a denomination
  • of the three current ones:
    • beliefs: they have no common beliefs beyond the common "progressive" identification
    • history: two have indigenous beginnings (US, UK) and one is a product of the WUPJ (israel)
    • organization: they have no collective organizational ties (US-UK-Israeli) other than worldwide progressive movement bodies such as the WUPJ and ARZENU.

The alternative to a disambig page would be a redirect to Reform Judaism (North America) and a {{dablink}} on top of that article. I'm OK with that but I thought the disambig page would be less drastic. Egfrank 14:29, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Please don't do that. I disagree and would like further discussion. HG | Talk 14:33, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Discuss away. In the meantime I'm reverting it back since you didn't give any reasons why you disagree. Next time, please explain. Are any of the claims above incorrect? Egfrank 14:48, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, a disambiguation page deals with topics that are often or basically unrelated except that they share a common name. (Granted, one may be named after another for aesthetic etc reasons.) For example, Mercury (planet), Mercury (automobile). However, I dispute your contention that "there is no real relationship between these four items." Instead, I believe there are historical, ideological, biographical, and likely other relationships. Do they, as you claim, "have no beliefs different than 'progressive' identification"? That's hard to say, because most sources on the subject (except recent halakhah) deals with "reform" not "progressive" beliefs and practices. For instance, I haven't seen any belief sources that integrate "Reconstructionist" beliefs but I've added those in to the beliefs article out of good faith, despite the WP:OR problems, to collaborate with the advocates of Progressive Judaism. In any case, "Reform Judaism" or "Reform movement (Judaism)" is a notable coherent topic, easily verified covering at least some of these allegedly "no real relationship" articles, and the narrative coherence of the topic may be told (I'm not sure) differently than under the name "progressive". So far, I haven't seen secondary literature that provides this narrative coherence other than through the Reform Judaism or the reform movement.

In order to evaluate the narrative coherence of this article, I've asked you to do summaries. I'm trying hard, very hard, to assume good faith on your part. You said you'd do a spin-off but you didn't finish the job. You're discussing the article names (as WP:JUDAISM, but then you do a dab. Please put in the narrative so we can see how the reform article would look and evaluate it properly then. Since the spin-offs, this article has been under construction (in reality, if not by tagging), and required summaries. I'll be busy until next Wednesday, so please stop dab-ing this page, leave up the under construction sign, and do the summary editing and name discussions in a manner that (as a result) doesn't even have the appearance of putting your good faith under question. Thanks. HG | Talk 10:59, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for having good faith and providing an explanation. I can't speak for others involved in the split, but the reason I haven't done summaries, is that I *can't* see a similarity beyond what is generally true for almost all non-orthodox Judaisms - the range of beliefs and practices for that particular subset(US+UK+Israel) is *too* large. Also I don't think the movement/denomination historic/current distinction is superficial. Please have good faith that we have a genuine disagreement, probably based on our different reading and life experiences.

For a better understanding of that last point I recommend Borowitz's Liberal Judaism - if you haven't read it already. It will give you a framework for seeing how US Reform/Reconstructionist/Conservative fit together. If you have some reading you would like to recommend to me in return, please feel free.

I think your intuition that there needed to be a beliefs article separate from the Progressive Judaism was right and if you want to capture your sense of commonality, that is the place to do it. Whether it is called "Reform movement beliefs", "Progressive movement beliefs" or "Non-orthodox beliefs" is really a judgement call that depends on the ultimate scope.

This conversation is very related to one that is likely to develop on the beliefs article, so I would recommend that we continue it there. Egfrank 11:17, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I've tried to show the historical narrative for 19th century, which I don't think should be splintered into regions, because of much cross-fertilization of ideas, practices and people. Plus, it's impossible for readers to put this picture together by a bunch of unsummarized links or dab links. Of course, what I'm about to say relates to the naming dispute, but the histories I've seen constantly provide this narrative in terms not of "progressive" (well, occasionally) but (almost entirely) of "reform" or reformist, etc. This history can't be entirely segregated into spinoffs, because history deals with ideas and organizations and people, and readers expect an encyclopedia to do some work (aka allowable synthesis) for them. HG | Talk 13:02, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) Thank you User:HG for your hard work. What the editor above has added is normally called the "Reform movement in Judaism" (cf. Meyer and Philipson). It is not called "Reform Judaism" because (a) this movement influenced many denominations not called Reform (b) it was never organized as a denomination and functioned only as a movement. As Meyer states:

The methodological difficulties that confront the historian of Reform Judaism begin with the name itself. "Reform Judaism" designates a particular position on the contemporary Jewish religious spectrum represented by a broad consensus of beliefs and practices and a a set of integrated institutions. While suited to the present the term tends to limit and obscure its subject when it is employed historically. Not all Jews who advocated significant religion reforms during the last two centuries identified their position as Reform Judaism. In Germany the radicals took possession of the term as a self-designation; in England it identifies the more conservative movement....Clearly another term than Reform Judaism is therefore preferable... It therefore seems most adequate to speak of a "Reform Movement" which eventually produced Reform Judaism. The capital "R" in this case does not at the beginning represent institutional identity, but simply a unity of purpose." Meyer, Response to Modernity, viii (bold is my addition - Egfrank 15:15, 14 November 2007 (UTC))

I've moved the material to Reform movement in Judaism where it

• is named in a manner consistent with notable historians of this period
• can be shared and have space to grow and expand properly

The moved material has been replaced by a brief description. Egfrank 15:50, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the appreciation, I really would like us to end up with some decent article(s) here. As I say also below, the distinction drawn by Meyer is fine, he's welcome to define as he wishes, but his distinction is not determinative. Reform Judaism and reform movement are often used synonymously, and by plenty of reliable sources. Wikipedia is not making academic distinctions like this, it's reporting on how terms are used generally and Wikipedia is not in a position to enforce a distinction to exclude such synonymous usages. Of course, for this reason, I don't have much of a problem with moving the material to Reform movement in Judaism -- but not with any precondition of this artifial distinction. HG | Talk 00:09, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

When academics, historian or otherwise, go to great lengths to clarify terms it generally means the "common" usage hurts more than it helps when trying to explain things. Since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and encyclopedias are about explaining things, we only make our job harder by ignoring those academics.

The goal of wikipedia is not to reinforce common knowledge or ambiguities, but rather to use them as a starting point and to build a bridge from the "common" to the "educated". So the real question is, what does that most effectively?

I don't think lumping everything that uses the same name into a single article accomplishes that goal. Rather it is better to have separate articles for each meaning and then use a disambiguation page to create a "bridge" from the common to the precise:

• each separate topic needs room on its own to grow. No one likes to add material to an already overstuffed article.
• articles linking to the material can do so in a more precise and reliable way. By linking to the article dedicated to the topic, they can link to the precise meaning they want, and not to all meanings at once. Furthermore, linking to subsections of articles is problematic because there is no easy way to detect a broken link. If the subsection is renamed or moved, the link will still be blue. Precise: articles usually mean only one of the meanings when they link
• a brief (or even extended) disambiguation page is an educational tool in its own right. It helps the user "learn" that the word indeed has multiple meanings.

What do others think? Egfrank 04:09, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you haven't quite understood me or I didn't express it well enough. A scholar like Meyer can and should be precise in choosing a single, specific set of mutually exclusive terms. But Wikipedia can't simply make such (original research) choices when there are significant overlapping usages or meanings. Let me draw your attention to part of the Meyer quote above: "While suited to the present the term tends to limit and obscure its subject when it is employed historically." Meyer is saying that he wants to limit the meaning for the purpose of his book -- which is good scholarship btw -- but he here acknowledges that historically -- meaning various other folks -- do not impose such a precise definition. Rather, in common usage the terms are obscured. That's how it works in the world, and it's not up to Wikipedia to side with Meyer's point of view, no matter how smart and good Meyer is. HG | Talk 04:40, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

What original research decisions do you feel Wikipedia is making when it disambiguates a word and redirects the reader to more specific terms? Since disambiguation works by identifying a context, e.g. Foobar (magazine) vs. Foobar (religon), should we not rely on reliable sources within that context to determine the correct term *in that context*? Egfrank 05:07, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

The multiple "common" meanings of Reform Judaism

In the specific case of "Reform Judaism" we have a massive problem with ambiguity. How do we know this? Four editors have been discussing the meaning of "Reform Judaism" ad nauseum for over two weeks. If there were no ambiguity why the fuss? *Everyone* involved is of good faith and just wants to see the best article. So the natural conclusion is that there *are* multiple meaning that need to be distinguished one from another. These are the meanings we have been fighting over:

• US Reform - we all know 800lb gorilla or not the US is not the same as the world - we certainly don't inform by claiming that something "precise" to the US applies to the world.
• UK Reform - ok this is a baby chimp next to US Reform - but it is *very* different. Again we are not informing anyone by claiming it is the same as "US Reform".
• Israeli Progressive Movement - another autonomous denomination not to be confused with "US Reform" or "UK Reform" - no matter how much the israeli press and public would like to lump the Israeli movement in with the US, these are not the same.
• world-wide movement - whether we call this Progressive Judaism or "mumble foo" - it still wouldn't help us much to confuse the world with the US or the world with the UK.

And more recently:

• Reform movement in Judaism - casual historians typically project the name of their organization back into the past, so we will commonly find "XXX Judaism" in casual histories. But as Meyer points out such anachronistic usage only serves to confuse because more than one thing grows out of a particular historical moment and anachronistic usage obscures and confuses this point.
• non-orthodox Judaisms - The vast majority of thought studied by UK Reform, US Reform, Israeli Progressive is studied in common with non-orthodox Judaism. The commonality is further evidenced by the fact that there is a *huge* amount of intellectual exchange among the non-orthodox Judaisms. They frequently exchange faculty among themselves and with academia. Young people in the US considering rabbinic school frequently apply to two or more of the following: JTS, RRC and HUC or spend a great deal of time trying to decide which will be best for them. Other thinkers more specifically "Reform" in popular conception, are actually just US Reform.

Best, Egfrank 04:07, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Somehow what you've said here makes much more sense to me that what was going on above. Maybe I can read this one easier, I don't know. Oh, now I see. Above, you seem to favor the academic approach rather than the common usage. But in Wikipedia, we need to privilege the most common or prevalent usage. So maybe "Reform Judaism" should (re)direct to article XXX and, either in that article or thru a subordinated dab, link to the various other meanings. The question is, what is XXX? I think it's either US (aka N Am) Reform or the Reform movement in Judaism. What concerns me is that we may just enter a vicious circle. HG | Talk 04:52, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't "prefer" the academic POV - I do respect it however. Those folks earn their living trying to sort out NPOV issues and confusions created by "common" understandings. They have something to tell us, especially on those issues. WP:NCON has two policies for non-self identifiers that sometimes come in conflict: (a) if there are two names that are unambiguous for the same thing - use the most common. (b) if there are two or more meanings for the same name, use a disambig page or add a hat note to an article describing the most common meaning of the name. Egfrank 06:23, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Now that the old content of Reform Judaism has been moved (and maybe improved) to Reform movement in Judaism, are the "progressive" POV editors going to turn that article into spin-offs and a dab too? After all these intensive moves and reworkings you all have been doing, I'm finding it hard to agf that you're going to let Reform movement in Judaism remain either. So, I'd like to know in advance your intentions regarding that article before this article is obliterated. Thanks. HG | Talk 04:52, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

There are no "Progressive POV" editors anymore than there are "Reform POV" editors - only editors with different opinions, reading histories, and experiences who try their best to argue from reason and verifiable sources. As for your fear that people would spin off or try to rename the Reform movement in Judaism? On what basis? It is a verifiable, notable term, appropriate to context, well accepted by academics who specialize in that period, recognizable to anyone that regularly reads Jewish history on that period, meaningful to those who don't and self-consciously neutral. Until someone even more reliable and respected then Meyer comes up with a term that is even more neutral, Reform Movement in Judaism is the right NPOV term to use.

At present Reform movement in Judaism doesn't come close to WP:LENGTH problems and even if it did it is a historical article, so spin-offs would have to reflect the best historical organization. The main challenge I think we are likely to have is that some of the larger regional denominations have their own history sections. We can't just move them to Reform movement in Judaism because then we would have WP:LENGTH problems in that article. On the other hand, I can't think that anyone would dispute the rather obvious claim that those sections are also part of the Reform movement in Judaism.

My own recommendation is to spin off the history sections from all of the "Judaism" articles into articles named Reform movement in Judaism (XXX), e.g. Reform movement in Judaism (United Kingdom). Then both the main Reform movement in Judaism and the "Judaism" article can link to it. This accomplishes two very good objectives:

• information is easily sharable without having to do those awful section links (I *really* don't like links to article sections).
• WP:UNDUE - These history sections get long and having a large history section on an article dedicated to a modern denomination raises questions of undue weight. It also crowds out more important things - like the ins and outs of that particular denomination's belief system and how it differs from non-orthodoxy in general (or in the case of orthodox subgroups from orthodoxy in general) or the denomination's relationship to the surrounding culture (always an issue for Jews).

As for the term progressive: the only situation I can see where its going to come up is for the portion of the Reform movement in Judaism that specifically relates to the development of international cooperation or in synopsises of regional histories for denominations that currently consider "Progressive" their primary identity: Australia, Israel, and parts of Europe. But even there we would, of course, want to avoid anachronistic terminology, and use "reform movement" whenever we are talking about something that is of general interest. Example: In a well written German history we would use the term liberal during times where there was a form "Liberal Judaism" denomination and "Progressive Judaism" during times when there was a real live "Progressive Judaism" denomination and if we know in advance that something influenced more than one denomination we would stick with "reform movement" because anything else would be POV - essentially claiming that one denomination had greater claim than another.

As for the history of worldwide cooperation, we should probably treat it the same way as everything else: create an article Reform movement in Judaism (Progressive Judaism) and have both the Reform movement in Judaism and Progressive Judaism both use it as sub-articles. We might also want to use the article on international cooperation as a sub-article or link for general background on the WUPJ and Arzenu articles as well (detailed history of these organizations should probably be on the WUPJ and Arzenu articles - I don't think a general history needs to be concerned with who gave an earth shattering donation in 19XX). There are probably other approaches that are worth considering. Reasons in support of this approach are (a) consistency (b) same reasons as given for regional histories (UNDUE, linkage).

The other issue we may want to consider down the road is how the Reform movement in Judaism article will relate to the article on relationships amongst the denominations. It seems to me that this article gives us a solid historical basis for exploring that issue and allows us to take into account changes over time. On the other hand, there is a current relationship that should probably have greater weight and coverage in that article, so maybe the relationship is the same as with the denomination articles: link it in as background material but let the "Relationship amongst the denominations article" focus on the present.

Hope that helps - BTW - feel free to cut and paste this over to to the Reform movement in Judaism article - we should probably continue the discussion over there so those who are interested (especially any Wikipedia historians who recognize the term!) can come and join us. Egfrank 06:23, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Ha'aretz

I'm interested that it's asserted the Ha'aretz article [9] indicates that the phrase "Reform Judaism" is a particularly pejorative wording in Israel.

To me, the article doesn't read that way. To me, it seems that the Orthodox critic cited is angry about any form of non-Orthodox Judaism; and the Ha'aretz columnist is urging tolerance for diversity generally in religious expression of Judaism. I don't see this article as indicating, by itself, anything more than "Reform" being the word most commonly associated by Ha'aretz readers and Israelis with non-Orthodox Judaism. Jheald 20:58, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

The article appears to me to be about secular Israeli attitudes towards Reform/Progressive Jews. I think I was reacting to the line: The words address the "Reformim" with the same dismissive contempt once reserved for Arabs, or for Jews who came from the other side of the Ashkenazi-Mizrahi divide. Have I misread that? Egfrank 23:02, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

It's interesting to run a Google search for 'site:www.haaretz.com "progressive judaism"'.

What comes back are phrases like:

• "The Reform movement (officially known as the Movement for Progressive Judaism in Israel) ..."
• "Progressive Judaism - known in the US as Reform Judaism - ..."
• "the World Union for Progressive Judaism, the international umbrella organization of the Reform, Liberal, Progressive and Reconstructionist movements... ...the formula suggested by the Reform movement..."
• "the World Union for Progressive Judaism (the official name of the world Reform movement)..."
• "the World Union for Progressive Judaism, the international umbrella organization of the Reform movement..."
• "the Movement for Progressive Judaism (Israel's Reform movement)..."

It's almost as if Ha'aretz's style guide says that whenever the term Progressive Judaism is used, this must be glossed by relating it to Reform Judaism.

On the other hand, if you do a search for 'site:www.haaretz.com "reform judaism"', that phrase doesn't need to be glossed. Instead we get

• "Yom Kippur 2007: Jews who hate Reform Jews", as cited by Egfrank
• "Reform leaders vow to increase influence in Israel" [10]
• "The meeting yesterday with leaders of Britain's Reform movement..." [11]

-- (not "Britain's reform movement, one of the two U.K. branches of progressive Judaism")

What this suggests to me is that in Israel the term most automatically associated by Ha'aretz's readers with non-Orthodox Judaism is "Reform". I don't think that reflects an Orthodox push to demand "Reform" be used as some kind of smear term -- from what I know of Ha'aretz, I don't think that would cut much ice. Instead, I think it's just a straightforward indication of how things are on the ground. Furthermore, if in some other quarters there is a push to use "Progressive" to distance Israeli non-Orthodoxy from U.S. Reform, I don't think that should cut much ice with Wikipedia.

Our job here is to serve our readers. What is needed is a survey article on the Reform/Progressive movement worldwide, and whatever term our readers are most familiar with for that concept - whether it be Liberal Judaism, Reform Judaism or Progressive Judaism - should primarily link to that article.

That's my 2c, anyway. Jheald 20:58, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I would agree with your assessment about the HaAretz style guide and I'd add that the Jerusalem post style guide is probably the same. It *could* be that no one recognizes the term "Progressive", but I doubt it. The Israeli Progressive movement here may be small but it is very high profile and constantly in the news and its been that way for at least the last 20 years ever since Uri Regev started IRAC. IMHO it is more that the word "reform" gets reader interest better than "Progressive" - it is more politicized; it raises hackles; it is associated with Americans, money and power. It doesn't sound like such a big deal to say "Progressive leaders around the world..." - that sounds like a small party of bureaucrats. But "Reform leaders from around the world ..." gets invested with all the aura of US muscle and money. That's news! Egfrank 23:02, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

So the hypothetical style guides might regard "Reform" as (i) being more specific; and (ii) connecting more deeply with their audience? If that's true, those would seem like 2 quite good reasons for us too to maybe include the word "Reform" in our front-line article title. Jheald 23:10, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't know about "more specific" - unless you mean more specifically American - and weighting the article to the US gets us into problems of geographic and systemic bias. As for "connecting more deeply" - yes, but I'm not sure we want those connections - they're loaded and are arguably POV. The wiki policy for articles on things with self identifying names is to stick with the facts - e.g. the name the organization actually uses for itself.[12].

By more specific I meant that it is a more characteristic word -- in general, things can be "progressive" in lots of ways, it's a not uncommon English word; things can be "reform" in fewer ways, used quasi-adjectivally it's a less common English word. In that sense, as a word, reform rather than progressive is more specific to this domain. Jheald 09:00, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

As for moving the article to "Reform/Progressive" or "Progressive/Reform", Arzenu does something like this so arguably it could count as self-identifying, but User:HG was right about the most prevalent when it comes to words that really do have the same meaning and are both self-identifying (see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names)) -e.g. Bill Clinton is preferred over William Jefferson Clinton. And when we consider frequency, Progressive Judaism=global is a *lot* more common than either of the combo names (by a factor of 40!), so even if all of the names below were self-identifying, "Progressive Judaism" is still the winner. (Test: Google hit counts - (total) - meaning distribution of top 30): \

• "Progressive Judaism"(81500) - 50% global movement, 50% local "Progressive" movement ==> global=40,000
• "Reform Judaism" (578,000) - 90% US, 10% UK, 0-4% maybe global (first 50 hits sampled) ==> global=10-20,000
• "Reform/Progressive Judaism" (903)
• "Reform and Progressive Judaism" (819)
• "Progressive/Reform Judaism" (408)
• "Progressive and Reform Judaism" (7)
• "Reform/Progressive" (15600) - 20% US, 20% global, 60% political
• "Progressive/Reform" (148,000) BUT ALL of the top 30 have to do with labor reform.

So, as much as I'd like to end this...Egfrank 00:14, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names) really applies. As User:HG and/or our Ha'aretz sample have shown, the most common name for the worldwide point of view is probably "Reform Judaism".

For various reasons we've much discussed, "Reform Judaism" by itself is probably not the best title for the article. Luckily, like Liberal/Reform/Progressive halacha, this Wikipedia rule is binding only to the extent that it should hold only if there aren't good reasons to do something else... Jheald 09:00, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I think its time (for me) to let others comment. Hits aren't everything, but for the record: (see above for google hit details): est. 40,000 Progressive Judaism=global, est. 10-20,000 "Reform Judaism=global". Egfrank 09:19, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi y'all. Don't have time to comment now. I do see that the 90% is based on the first 50 hits. But, aside from wondering how each instance is interpreted (within its semantic context), it's not clear to me that a 50h sample works because it's not random and it's only 1/10,000th of the dataset. As I work on this article, I can't quite decide whether we've got two different articles each with a different hermeneutical horizon (Gadamer) and narrative, or one to be merged after a vicious ;-> fight over the name. Perhaps the most interesting part is the relationship of Reconstructionism (and did you once say another more secular humanist group, too?), which is affiliated with Progressive but doesn't show up the same way in many conceptions of the "reform movement" histories etc. I hope you won't take advantage of my absence to resolve things in line with your view, but rather allow things to remain under construction and under discussion this coming week. Thank you. HG | Talk 13:12, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

It shouldn't matter if the results of the first 50 hits are representative of the total. Worrying about hits 100 pages further on is a little like worrying about a 10th degree term in a Taylor series for x < 1. Google ranks listing based on what it thinks users most likely mean when they use a search term. So the later the listing the less weight it would have in the total. As it is the above stats are generous in the weight they give to Reform=global. If I were to have weighted the pages (i.e. make the first page count more than the second, etc) the weight would have been even less. As for how I determined the content - I read the page. If the page was specifically for a US movement organization or if it described the history of only the US movement (and ignored current day movements in other countries) it counted as US. If the page described a current day movement outside the US, UK, or Israel it was classified as "global". If a page gave no indication I classified it as global. However, the only page that fell in that category was a page from beleifnet which is a US social networking site based on spirituality and could have been presumed US but was counted as global anyway. Best Egfrank 18:02, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Masorti Movement

The description of the history of the masorti movement incorrectly makes it appear that the European Masorti movement was an independent simultaneous development from the US Conservative movement and was directly connected to Zacharias Frankel. This is not the case:

• in the UK, the Masorti movement developed in the 1950's when the Chief Rabbi at the time refused to appoint Louis Jacobs as principal of Jews College and refused to allow him to return to his former congregation. A crisis ensued and the majority of the congregation left and formed the New London Synogogue. Other synagogues later joined the New London Synagogue and formed the Assembly of Masorti Synagogues.[13]

1960s. New London opened in 1964. Further syngogues didn't get going for some time, eg New North London (1974). Jheald 17:16, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

• in the Netherlands, a small congregation affliated with the Assembly of Masorti Synagogues was founded in the town of Almere. See [[14]]

• in Israel, the Masorti movment was founded by the US Conservative movement in the 1950's.

Furthermore, the above information is more pertinent to the Reform movement in Judaism than it is to any of the current day denominations that refer to themselves as "Reform" or are commonly referred to as such by others (e.g. Israeli Progressive Movement). Therefore I am moving this material to Reform movement in Judaism.Egfrank 16:54, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Intro paragraph changes

The following changes have been made to the intro paragraph:

• Rephrased: 'Reform Judaism refers, generally, to a reform movement in Judaism that originated in 19th-century Germany. ==> Reform Judaism refers to the spectrum of beliefs, practices and organizational infrastructure associated with Jews in the North American Reform and Reform Judaism (United Kingdom). The term is also used by the Israeli press to refer to the Israeli Progressive Movement.

  A movement and a Judaism are quite the same thing. "A judaism" refers to a particular stance towards Judaism. A movement is the opposite - dynamic rather than static. Examples:

  • Meyer, Response to Modernity, viii: "Reform Judaism" refers to a "particular position on the contemporary Jewish religious spectrum represented by a broad consensus of beliefs and practices and a a set of integrated institutions. Note: in the remainder of his book Meyer is quite specific about where he uses the phrase "Reform Judaism" - it is used only in connection with the US Reform and UK Reform dominations.
  • The Shul of New York: We teach a Judaism of the heart; a Judaism that is grounded in our unique history, yet is open to the spiritual wisdom of the world.
  • Who is a Reconstructionist Jew?: Only a combination of searching, questioning, and self understanding within the Jewish tradition will create a Judaism that speaks convincingly to the contemporary Jew.

• summary of belief has been replaced by link to Beliefs and practices in Progressive Judaism. The summary is uncited and there are so many ways to define US/UK/Israeli Reform belief that there is no way this can avoid being POV - for some examples of radically different "essential" definitions of "Reform Judaism" see Jewish_beliefs_and_practices_in_the_reform_movement#Describing_beliefs:_Essence.2C_tensions.2C_and_process —Preceding unsigned comment added by Egfrank (talk • contribs) 19:25, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Um, if you don't mind my saying so, this sounds like angels on a pin. There are many reliable sources, both within and unrelated to reform/Reform/Progressive Judaism, that use "Reform Judaism" and "r/Reform movement" interchangeably. It's fine if some scholars want to draw a distinction, but that doesn't efface one of the most common usages of both terms. Plus, you're starting to carry on our naming dispute by the way you're writing up the article. It makes the articles come off in a weird way. The typical reader isn't interested in our little article naming squabble, so don't let it interfere with the actual article, please. HG | Talk 00:02, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

To give a what I think is a harmless example, we don't need to cite the Israeli press etc sources for usages in a lead paragraph. If it's contestable, a footnote will do; but it's not like we're claiming that nobody else uses the phrase this way (which is somewhat how it reads now). I'll try to adjust the paragraph in what I think is a neutral way, ok? HG | Talk 02:38, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

When a claim is disputed it is appropriate to document and provide citations a claim made in a wikipedia article. Removing citations is inappropriate. Egfrank 04:13, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

The usage of "Reform Judaism" to the refer to the Israeli Progressive movement is against the wishes of the Israeli Progressive Movement. It is not a self identifying term, but rather represents a POV. For those who don't believe this, they can call their press office and ask which term they would prefer be used in articles. Egfrank 04:17, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

It's ok to have the citations as footnotes. But we're just trying describe how the term is used. If it's used for or against their wishes, that hardly matters to the average reader. Or, if you think it matters, create a subsection about the name controversy or something. I don't happen to think it's notable, but in any case it's not appropriate to the lead paragraph. Or, just take Israeli Progressive out of it, if you prefer. But don't muck up the lead with these nuances over naming when the reader wants to know what Reform Judaism means etc. See what I'm saying? HG | Talk 04:26, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

The only factual term of a "live" organization or living person is the terms they themselves use. Any other term imposed on them is POV. It is definitely notable and can be documented in Wikipedia, BUT the point of view of the speaker should be noted. However the current copy reads better than the old copy and expresses it in the netural language of disambiguation "may refer" (i.e. not implying that the organization itself likes the term) so I'm satisfied. Egfrank 04:35, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I see and you are right, at least in part. If Israeli Progs don't want to be called reform (verifiable etc), then Wikipedia editorially does not use the term. I agree. It's just that you had documented the usage yourself (not the opposition to the usage, is that right?), so I figured just to describe it more simply. Anyway, it sounds like you're satisfied and we can breathe easier, almost collaboratively even ;-) HG | Talk 04:57, 15 November 2007 (UTC)