Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jews in Apostasy

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep, rename, stubify. Moreschi If you've written a quality article... 17:09, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jews in Apostasy[edit]

Jews in Apostasy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Note, this article has been moved to:

Jews in apostasy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 10:01, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article, tagged for neutrality since April of 2007, provided only a single general reference - and "reference" links to to Wikipedia articles. There is no evidence that such a thing as 'Jews in Apostasy' even exists. Some of this information, if it can be cited, might be useful in an Apostasy disambig page - but I think the article establishes, if nothing else, that the world 'Apostasy' is not used in Judaism. AvruchTalk 20:48, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Avruch: Of course the English word "apostasy" is not a Hebrew word, but the translation of the word "apostate" is very much a word that's part of classical Judaism. Usually, a Jew who converts to another religion that Judaism terms an apostate, in Hebrew that would be meshumad as he has undergone shmad. One who denies God's existence is an apikores, a min, or mumar -- variances of this idea of "apostasy." These are very complex yet very solid issues that cannot be brushed away. The notions of "apostasy" and "heresy" in Judaism are very real. Wikipedia is not here to judge matters of theologies based on "popular usage" and you are therefore urged to withdraw your nomination since it is based on an entirely faulty assertion. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 03:33, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've read the Jewish Encyclopedia article you reference (which is not listed as a reference in the article), and it reads like something we would delete pretty quickly if it were a Wikipedia article. Even its own rating gives the article a 2.75 out of 5. If there is no common usage of the term 'Apostasy' then it is considered original research to have an article under that name rather than the words actually used. AvruchTalk 11:48, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is no question that the JE is the most notable and reliable of sources, nor that anything that is notable enough for it is notable enough here. Lobojo (talk) 11:49, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? Having read the article about Apostasy, I question whether your statement 'most...reliable of sources' is true. Aside from the inherent issue of a tertiary source quoting a tertiary source, it suffers from an extreme tone problem and is apparently written from a very strongly held point of view. This doesn't necessarily bar it as a reference, but when it is the ONLY reference? AvruchTalk 11:56, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Avruch: You are also overlooking the fact that the article was created over three years ago when many such articles were started from scratch by being cut-and-pasted from the JE by some WP Judaic editors to get the ball rolling on Wikipedia and then presented for further editing (it still happens.) Again, I repeat that, since I have never cut-and-paste anything from the JE, the article was part of another longer WP article and because of space issues it was put here by me (something that happens on WP.) The fact that it was primarily derived from the JE should not be disparaged because at the JE it was created as a group effort of many scholars many of whom were not even particularly observant of Judaism but were nevertheless recognized as academic scholars in the field, so your critique is off the mark. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 01:12, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable & unverified article per WP:N and WP:V. Mh29255 (talk) 21:00, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - seems to survive WP:N the reference and an external link to the Jewish Encyclopedia seem reliable. I did have WP:NOR concerns but I consider this article worthy of inclusion here. A good clean up, footnotes etc. Sting_au Talk 22:20, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Mh29255. The reference is an encyclopedia article about Spanish crypto-Jews, not apostates. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 22:58, 17 December 2007 (UTC) Weak keep and rename It wasn't at all clear that the Jewish Encyclopedia was a source. I've corrected that. There's potential for an article about Apostasy in Judaism. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 23:00, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment You are looking at the wrong reference. There are two JE references in the article including a reference to APOSTASY AND APOSTATES FROM JUDAISM. Jon513 (talk) 13:24, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, he was looking at the references correctly. The Apostasy article from JE was an external link, not a reference (inaccurately so). AvruchTalk 19:18, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was looking at the only reference. I fixed the article to indicate that the Jewish Encyclopedia article on "Apostasy and Apostates" was also a source. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 23:00, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename A simple Google search establishes that the current title is not a common phrasing. However, the words "mumar", "meshumad", etc seem to be the standard/notable words in describing Jews who converted. See [1] on naming issue Joshdboz (talk) 23:17, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because this article is based on the Jewish Encyclopedia article about APOSTASY AND APOSTATES FROM JUDAISM: so it is notable and well sourced, and the claim that it "only" links to articles in Wikipedia is not true. This is solid Jewish Encyclopedia material, that should actually be expanded and not hounded for deletion simply because the notion does not sit will with some folks. As far as I can recall, all the material in this article was once part of the very long Jew article (it might have been part of another article, as I can recall setting it up as a spin off due to the length of another article -- it has been three years, so I do not recall exactly), and when that article became too long and cumbersome parts of it were split up. At any rate, the article is about a valid and key concept and subject in Judaism (regardless if Jews know about it or do or don't use it) and there is absolutely no reason for this nomination that makes no sense. IZAK (talk) 03:33, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. IZAK (talk) 03:33, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - When a user like IZAK creates an article, it takes a bold person to nominate it for AfD, and that is for good reason. Why would he create an article if it was not on something notable? He knows all the rules, and works for wikipedias best interest. But mainly it is clearly a notable topic, it was in the Jewish Encyclopedia, though I am not sure that the A in Apostasy should be capital. Lobojo (talk) 04:43, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Lobojo, while I truly appreciate the praise, the truth is, as I have stated, that this article is basically from the Jewish Encyclopedia and I did not "create it" I simply moved it from another article that it was attached to, and since this was over three years ago, I can't remember exactly which one, but I think it was the Jew article. Anyhow, the topic of the article is more than notable and well-sourced because it's mostly from the Jewish Encyclopedia. Thanks again, IZAK (talk) 06:16, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: should this article be merged with Heresy in Orthodox Judaism or is there a distinction? --MPerel 05:54, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep though the title should be changed to something more idiomatic in English. This is different from heresy. There is some overlap, in the sense that if one is sufficiently heretical one is no longer a Jew. But in modern use at least the concepts are very different.DGG (talk) 08:43, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hi DGG, see my response [2] to User:Miri, above. Thanks. IZAK (talk) 09:45, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep given that the Jewish Encyclopedia is a reliable source. Capitalistroadster (talk) 10:05, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Jewish Encyclopedia is enough for a keep. Bhaktivinode (talk) 13:17, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak keep The article overlaps with Heresy in Orthodox Judaism a bit too much and the distinction is not well defined, but AFD is the not place to establish order on a series of article. I hope that these articles can be merged or renamed to cover the subject better. Jon513 (talk) 23:44, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and merge First, the concept of heresy in Orthodox Judaism has many grey areas but also has plenty of reliable sources available discussing it. Second, "apostasy" may not be the best article term for current usage. Given that other editors have pointed out several other articles which have substantial overlap and which could probably be merged, I believe the issue of the appropriate article name should be discussed as part of a merge discussion including Heresy in Orthodox Judaism and Minuth. Note that Apikorus redirects to Heresy in Orthodox Judaism. I agree the concept here is principally one within Orthodox Judaism and should be clearly described as such, rather than ascribed to Judaism generally. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 02:17, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Egfrank has pointed out below that Reform Judaism also has boundary issues and related questions about the limits of Judaism, different from Orthodox Judaism, which include matters such as interfaith syncretizations in contemporary society. For this reason, discussion may result in a broader article which is not limited to Orthodox Judaism. However, my recommendation that this AfD result in a keep and a separate merge discussion address how to combine the overlapping articles still stands. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 18:27, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per IZAK. Culturalrevival (talk) 05:14, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Although this topic is notable and deserves an article, there are serious long standing problems with this article and the article Heresy in Orthodox Judaism with which a merger has been proposed. None has (yet) committed to dealing with them, not even among those here defending the article. If someone is willing to commit to dealing with these issues, then my recommendation would change to Keep, merge, rename to "Apostasy in Judaism".
  1. WP:SYNTH - the article defines apostasy very differently from the JE article from which it is allegedly sourced. The JE article defines apostasy as "rebellion", makes no claims of denominational ownership and takes a historical approach to its changing significance in the Jewish world. Apostasy in Judaism defines apostasy as an orthodox only term, narrows the definition to adoption of a second religion and makes no acknowledgment of changing perceptions over time.
  2. WP:V - apostasy (more politely called "converting out" or sometimes "secularism"[3]) is a deep concern of all religious streams of Judaism yet both articles present this as exclusively an orthodox issue and provide no citations to support this denominational exclusivity. Nor could they: all of the material in Jews in Apostasy predates the denominational splits within Judaism and ample material exists indicating that this is not an exclusive orthodox issue. In 2004 the US Reform movement lodged formal protests against Presbyterian funding of missionary activities targeted at Jews[4]. The conservative movement publishes counter missionary materials on its website[5]. In fact one of the guiding motives behind the 19th century Jewish religious reformers whose thought spurred the creation of today's non-orthodox Judaisms was the desire to fight against apostasy - Jews converting to Christianity because they saw it as a purer more modern religion or because they simply found being a Christian more convenient.[6] See also Meyer, Response to Modernity pp 44, 65, 68, 97, 204.
  3. WP:NPOV - this rule requires that all points of view be represented yet there has been no significant editorial effort in that direction. There is no way that an encyclopedia article written in 1906 can adequately cover a topic that continues to be of deep concern to the Jewish people. RAMBI has 427 (academic quality) sources listed[7] almost all of which were written after the JE article. They approach this issue from almost every point of view and academic discipline imaginable: psychology, sociology, social commentary, theology, halakhah, ethics, history, among others. A lot of social and historical water has passed under the bridge since 1906 and much of it has significantly affected the attitudes towards apostasy and heresy. Among them: the holocaust; Jewish-Arab tensions; the rise of Jewish denominationalism; the increasing acceptance of the belief that religion is a personal choice rather than a biological identity; the development of hybrid religions such as Judaism+Buddhism, Judaism+Native American Spirituality and Judaism+Christianity; and the increasing acceptance of secularized forms of Judaism. Egfrank (talk) 08:46, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Points 2 and 3 in particular could be copied helpfully to the article Talk page. HG | Talk 00:49, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I agree that both (a) The article has received unsourced edits which have caused its contents to veer from its cited source, and (b) the 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia, while a reliable source, is only one opinion in a subject where there are multiple opinions, and this is one of many areas where what it has to say is rather dated. However, AfD concerns subjects rather than articles, so the question is whether a reliable article on this subject is possible, not whether the current article content meets this goal. Bad articles can be improved. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 18:14, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bad articles can be improved - in fact, they ought to be either improved or deleted. It doesn't appear that anyone has taken the initiative (including a keep voter, IZAK, the author) to improve it beyond its sorry state. AvruchTalk 18:51, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:DEL#REASON and the listed bases for deleting an article. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 04:36, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Include, but not limited to..." It probably should also list "Crap, not otherwise classified" but this fails for more than just that, as you see in above discussion. Avruch talk 15:24, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On religious matters sources, as you noted, can be opinionated. I think there's a difference between deleting an article as crap because it isn't notable, sourcable, etc., and deleting an article as crap because an editor doesn't like what the sources have to say. I say this as a person who is not a big fan of the Jewish Encyclopedia, has often found its views opinionated and outdated, and has sometimes inserted "According to the editors of the Jewish Encyclopeda" into articles to avoid presenting their opinions as fact. But on many matters it provides reliable information and the viewpoint it offers is generally a signficant one. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 18:28, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can we at least agree that "apostasy should not be capitalized? Click on that link to see how it's used in the article. I requested a non-controversial move at wp:requested moves and I think it's fairly clear. The title seems to be capitalized the way it is because of previous edit conflicts between Apostasy in Judaism and Jews in apostasy.
Oh, and in response to Avruch, editors my be awaiting a resolution of this discussion before spending time and energy improving an article that's been nominated for deletion.--Steven J. Anderson (talk) 18:57, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps - but it isn't a new article, and its been tagged for cleanup since May of 2006. AvruchTalk 19:01, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway, keep is my vote. I have a little problem with one encyclopedia using another encyclopedia as a source, but the fact that JE has an article on the subject shows that it's notable enough for an encyclopedia article. Since the article seems to deal more directly with Jews who are or were in apostasy than the concept of Apostasy in Judaism, I think the article is best kept under its current title (with the exception of downcasing "apostasy", which I believe is uncontroversial).(refactored for clarity) --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 19:09, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On further reflection, I think that "Apostasy in Judaism" seems like a more elegant solution to namind, but would require a rewrite of the article so it focuses on the concept rather than the people associated with it. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 10:05, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but rename, perhaps as per User:Malik Shabazz. StaticElectric (talk) 05:37, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but rename because the emphasis of the article should be on apostasy, its various types and historical manifestations. While it may be helpful to mention notable individuals, esp those who shed new light on the subject matter, the specific Jews (or former Jews) can mostly be covered in bio articles and listed in the See Also or by category. I might lean toward "Apostasy and Judaism" insofar at it's a more flexible scope than "Apostasy in Judaism," but either is fine. Thanks. HG | Talk 17:02, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wanted to add that apostasy and heresy are quite different. Apostasy means abandoning the religion. Conversely, heresy means attempting to 'keep the religion, except that some authorities reject the attempt as too far afield. Apostates are typically self-identifying, even if they don't use the word apostate. Conversely, heretics typically do not self-identify as heretics, because they still consider themselves within the fold. In rabbinic discourse, moreover, there are terms for various types of non-believers and non-observant Jews, who are not quite apostates or heretics. Hope this is useful. HG | Talk 18:15, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note. Has anybody mentioned that this article is set up as the spin-out from Apostasy#In_Judaism? As such, most of the AfD deletion arguments, as given above, don't seem plausible or applicable. In addition, the summary style arrangement does indicate the need for an appropriate rename. Thanks. HG | Talk 18:57, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jews_in_Apostasy&oldid=1140748730"