Talk:Apostasy in Judaism

This article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:

keep, December 6, 2006, see discussion.
keep, 17 December 2007, see discussion.

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

[[History of the Jews in Spain#Forced conversions and the "New Christians" (1391 to 1492)|systematic conversion of Jews to Christianity]] The anchor (#Forced conversions and the "New Christians" (1391 to 1492)) has been deleted by other users before.

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

Apostasy Nonsense

The article is baseless intolerance because it narrowly defines the definition of a Jew to one who practices Judaism (presumably Orthodoxy) and ascribes a pejorative term (Apostate) to that individual who doesn't meet the narrow definition. Unlike a Christian who can in fact become a non-Christian (an Apostate if you will), a Jew who ceases to practices Judaism (e.g. an Agnostic) is still a Jew although they might considered to be non-observant by observant Jews depending on the background of the particular Jew making the observation. If the author wishes to retain the article, than the definition of a Jewish Apostate should simply be one who claims to longer be a Jew. If the author wishes to state that according to a particular sect of Judaism (e.g. Orthodox), an apostate is..., that's fine assuming the author has an appropriate citation to make the claim.

Hi, Firstly, why have you not signed your named with the four tildes ~~~~ which will automatically produce your user name? Secondly, while your reaction is understandable, nevertheless Judaism itself does contain within itself an internal set rules that have been in effect for thousands of years that do define the nature of any of its adherents' abandonment of Judaism itself. Thus historically, there have always been and still are Jews, who, because of certain factors have either placed themselves or have been place into the classic status of being "apostates" (apikursim, minim, kofrim etc) these facts of Jewish history cannot be ignored. Finally, yes, according to Orthodoxy the term "apostate" has more potency and meaning, but even if the term is relegated only to the Orthodox domain, it is still a very important notion. IZAK 18:14, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for correcting my oversight and since you're aware of WP protocol, you should know that Wikipedia requires articles to be sourced (not original research) and with a neutral point of view. WP is an encyclopedia not a platform to write essays about personal viewpoints. Your article is also a likely POV fork because your definition of Apostasy is different than the one contained in the main Judaism article. As I mentioned above, you should as a minimum, state that according to a particular sect of Judaism (e.g. Orthodox), an apostate is... Also, include a valid verifiable source with a citation. Even IF various sects of Orthodox Judaism believe as you do, you are not a credible source to make the statement on their behalf. Other statements you make in the article also seem to be original research or your personal opinion. For example,

"Other terms used are meshumad, meaning one who has abandoned his faith, or min and apikorus which denote the "negation" of God and Judaism implying atheism."

Other than yourself, give any credible source (with citation) that linguistically agrees with your Atheist implication.

"The first recorded case of apostasy in Judaism is referred to in the words of the prophet Ezekiel (Ezek. xxxii, 23,24) about Jason and Melenaus who deserted their religion and their nation to the horror and hatred of their contemporaries."

The first apostates? Provide a source for this factoid. Using your personal definition of Apostasy, why not use those Children of Israel who forsook God and took to worshipping Baalim as noted in Judges 2. That quibble aside, the more relevant problem is your personal, inaccurate & inflammatory interpretation of the text from Ezekiel. Again, besides yourself, give any credible source that makes such an extrapolation.

"During the Spanish inquisition, a systematic conversion of Jews to Christianity took place, some of which under threats and force. These cases of apostasy provoked the indignation of the Jewish communities in Spain."

Source please, especially for the 2nd sentence. Was the indignation provoked by being forced to convert or was the indignation provoked by those who converted under threats and force? Also, your example would seem to infer that you need to expand your personal definition of Apostasy to include forced conversions to other religions.

"Several notorious Inquisitors, such as Juan Torquemada, and Don Francisco the archbishop of Coria, were descendants of apostate Jews. Other apostates, that made their mark in history by attempting the conversion of other Jews in the 1300s, include Juan de Valladolid and Astruc Remoch. Some Spanish Jews, however, converted to Christianity only on the surface, and remained "hidden" Jews. They are called Marranos."

Your personal research has apparently taken you on a tangent with respect to the article. You're suddenly focusing on the Spanish Inquisition and forced conversions. Based on your personal definition of Apostasy, you could certainly come up numerous modern day examples of Apostates - Albert Einstein for example would probably fit your unique definition but your personal definitions do not belong in WP.

Your article needs far more change than just a clean-up and the NPOV dispute tag is going back on the article.24.27.202.53 20:55, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ezekiel xxxii: Jason and Menelaus

The book of Ezekiel doesn't mention these names. For self-evident reasons, it doesn't mention any Greek names. I'm thinking the writer of this article has located a tradition by which the curses that the writer of the book of Ezekiel lays on some nations contemporary with the book (or consistent with the book's context, regardless of when it was composed) are said to be prophecies referring to two Hasmonaean priest-kings of the first century B.C. That is, the writer has written into this article as fact the belief that Ezekiel foresaw historical people and events of some centuries after his book was composed, and named them cryptically or allusively.

I believe that someone with the requisite scholarship and a bit of free time ought to revise the entire article. It could have been much better.

66.135.106.50 01:18, 28 September 2006 (UTC) Cy

Though I am a newcomer, it is clear to me after reading the entire history of both the article and it's discussion, that the only reason the work still stands as an independent entry is IZAK's personal interest in maintaining his personal creation. Though IZAK was the creator of the original entry, I don't see why the community continues to tolerate his lingering as a self-interested and self-appointed guardian of this material--material which should be culled and merged into one of many suitable comprehensive entries found elsewhere. 204.111.247.149 06:57, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/sort with Alternative Judaism

Alternative Judaism seems to contain a similar content. It would be great if someone knowledgeable merged/sorted them out. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 20:37, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking as an ethnically Jewish atheist, I don't think my atheism is an "alternative Judaism". And while "apostasy" may be a somewhat loaded term, it is probably slightly closer to the mark, at least in my case. Still, I think we should look for a better term than "apostasy", for two reasons: (1) it is a disparaging term and (2) it implies prior belief. For example, my family on my father's side has been essentially secular (although still following a few ritual practices) for at least four generations, dating back to 19th century Lithuania. "Apostasy" implies an abandonment of a previously held belief, which, in my case at least, would be true only in an intergenerational sense. (Yes, I realize that this is not an article about me, but I fall precisely into the class that one paragraph attempts to define.)

In any case, if the articles are going to be merged, we need a different title, because neither current title embraces the other. - Jmabel | Talk 06:47, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirected to Apostasy#In_Judaism ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:04, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jossi: I have reverted your move. You should have elicited more discussion first. Did you not see above that a vote was held and it was voted to KEEP this article, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jews in apostasy. Thank you. IZAK 09:02, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Keep" does not mean "do not merge:, Izak. This article is better merged with Apostasy. Unless there are objections, I will m erge the content there. If there are objections, please state your arguments. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:42, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the merge proposal, which IMO would also solve the problems raised above. While "Jew" can refer both to religion and ethnicity, "Judaism" specifically refers to the religion. As such, this fits under Apostasy: Judaism and IMO not really as a separate article. However, if the decision is not to merge, perhaps the article should be renamed "Apostasy in Judaism". SociableLiberal 17:18, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Footnote to my own remark above: on reflection I am more strongly of the same opinion. This article looks to me like a POV fork from Apostasy. The previous discussion of deletion focussed on WP:NOR, which could (still) be corrected. "Apostasy in Judaism" should redirect to Apostasy#In_Judaism. I agree with the comments above that even the title "Jews in Apostasy" implies a point of view. SociableLiberal 17:08, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Though I am a newcomer, it is clear to me after reading the entire history of both the article and it's discussion, that the only reason the work still stands as an independent entry is IZAK's personal interest in maintaining his personal creation. Though IZAK was the creator of the original entry, I don't see why the community continues to tolerate his lingering as a self-interested and self-appointed guardian of this material--material which should be culled and merged into one of many suitable comprehensive entries found elsewhere. 204.111.247.149 06:58, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Jewish Encyclopedia

...is not a reliable source. The bias is just as apparent as in CE 1913 and Britannica 1911. There's no way we can base an entire article on this "source" of outdated scholarship. If additional sources are not provided to expand the article fairly soon this may as well be merged into Apostasy. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 17:30, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Older articles do have to be read carefully, but age alone does not make a source outdated or unreliable. If you have more recent articles that update the historical work upon which the JE article is based, by all means update the content of this article and add footnotes. Egfrank (talk) 05:39, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fully agree with Egrank, just because its old does not mean its not a reliable source. JE was written by people, while not particularly observant, were recognized as academic scholars in the field. Epson291 (talk) 05:46, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was move to Apostasy in Judaism --Lox (t,c) 20:46, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apostasy from Judaism → Apostasy in Judaism — Makes more grammatical sense, and most natural, also for instance Apostasy in Islam and Apostasy in Christianity are phrased that way, —Epson291 (talk) 05:46, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

Support

Support as nominator. Epson291 (talk) 05:48, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support move to Apostasy in Judaism. The first unilateral move seems to be based on ideas of grammar that are both prescriptive and wrong, and should be reversed. The second seems to have occurred without discussion or support, and should also be reversed. Apostasy in Judaism was also supported by the previous AfD discussion. See discussion below for further arguments. Andrewa (talk) 04:25, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support move to Apostasy in Judaism. See discussion below concerning AfDs. Egfrank is right: one becomes an apostate from a religion; but the article can discuss the concept of apostasy in Judaism. In other words, since one can be considered a Jew even if she or he fails to perform most religious practices, what does Judaism consider to be apostasy? See, for example, Apostasy in Islam#What constitutes apostasy in Islam. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 06:15, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support move to Apostasy in Judaism for all the reasons above. Any list of so-called Jewish apostates will necessarily get mired in the NPOV questions of "according to whom, and by what criteria?" Now, some people will say that the criteria and authority to declare someone an apostate has been clear and constant within Judaism for thousands of years. This however is as we all know at Wikipedia a point of view and we have an obiligation to include other points of view. So we inevitably need an article on different views as to the criteria for apostacy, who has the authority to declare someone an apostate, the normative and actual processes by which, and consequences of, someone being declared an apostate ... and the proper name for such an article is, Apostasy in Judaism. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:53, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

The current title is the one that is grammatically correct. Apostasy (apo + histanai=stand away)[1] is always a defection from something, hence "apostasy from Islam", "apostasy from Christianity", "apostasy from Judaism", "apostasy from Torah", etc. If other titles use "Apostasy in ..." they need to be changed. Egfrank (talk) 05:53, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The Greek is somewhat irrelevant to the task at hand, but Apostasty means "renunciation of a religious faith" in English, and this article is talking about "renunciation of a religious faith" in a particular religion, which in this case, is Judiasm. Epson291 (talk) 09:07, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And I want to point out this article was moved to its current location yesterday (from Jews in apostasy without so much as discussion here. Epson291 (talk) 09:07, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please review Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jews in Apostasy for the consensus to rename the article. Except for people who have commented in both places, the rename "votes" at that discussion should all be counted here. Or, as an alternative, everybody who weighed in at the AfD should be invited to comment here. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 17:12, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:I think from the wording and from what they have said elsewhere, that Egfrank is opposing the move to Apostasy in Judaism, but that neither Epson291 nor Malik Shabazz are opposing the move (and nor am I of course). Please try to use this section only for oppose votes; Comments can be made in the discussion section, or if that's not possible should be clearly marked as comments. Andrewa (talk) 04:20, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Any additional comments:

And there's now been another unilateral move! MWOT. Andrewa (talk) 22:21, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From oppose above: Except for people who have commented in both places, the rename "votes" at that discussion should all be counted here. Or, as an alternative, everybody who weighed in at the AfD should be invited to comment here. According to the banners on this page, there have been two AfD discussions. Agree that these should be taken into account, but the two banners seem to link to the same page. And it's not a vote-counting exercise. Perhaps you would like to summarise the consensus that was reached previously? Andrewa (talk) 23:18, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The first AfD took place in December 2006. The consensus was to keep the article, which was then named Jews in apostasy. Shirahadasha recommended renaming the article Apostasy in Judaism.

The second AfD took place earlier this month. The consensus was to keep the article, then called Jews in Apostasy, and rename it Apostasy in Judaism. Of the 16 or so people who wanted to keep the article, one half said it should be renamed and the other half said nothing about the name. A few editors pointed out that the phrase "Jews in apostasy" is awkward and rarely used, whereas "Apostasy in Judaism" is parallel to other articles such as Bereavement in Judaism, Honorifics for the dead in Judaism, Confession in Judaism, and Shaving in Judaism. The closing administrator's summary was "keep, rename, stubify". — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 00:01, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, in your view there was consensus to rename to Apostasy in Judaism. That is also consistent with the names of the Apostasy in Islam article and the stub at Apostasy in Christianity, and also with the section headings in the apostasy article. Hopefully we will get the same consensus here, and then there's no problem. Andrewa (talk) 01:44, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes looking over even the most recent AFD there was consensus to rename to Apostasy in Judaism, including by the article's original creator. I also did not realize it was briefly moved to Apostasy in Judiasm on October 3, but was moved back. Epson291 (talk) 05:31, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

PAGE MOVED per discussion above; cheers. -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:31, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The apostasy of these conversos provoked the indignation of the Jewish communities in Spain.

After describing the forced conversion of Iberian Jews, the article has the following sentence:

The apostasy of these conversos provoked the indignation of the Jewish communities in Spain.

Epson291 added a reference that seems to say the exact opposite of what the article does.

The history book in question, by Salo Baron, says that rabbis publicized two letters from abroad "demanding severe punishment for any Jew reminding a repentant converso of his former transgressions and calling him a 'renegade.'" Baron also says that such behavior had previously been outlawed in the 10th century, and that the Jews of Candia enacted a similar rule in their own name.

To me, what this says is that Jews recognized that some of their fellow Jews had to convert to save their lives, but if they returned to Judaism when the danger had passed, they were never to be reminded of their conversion. That is the complete opposite of "indignation" over "apostasy" — that phrase would suggest that Jews were outraged that their fellow Jews had betrayed them by converting to save their own lives, when Baron shows that the opposite is true.

Despite the brevity of his Wikipedia article, Baron was one of the most pre-eminent Jewish historians. Unless somebody can find another source that suggests that Jews in Spain were indignant that their fellow Jews had become "apostates" by converting under force, or if somebody can reconcile the sentence in the article with Baron's history, I think I'm going to delete the sentence from the article. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 09:51, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have modified the statement consistent with the source, the use of epithets by Jews towards conversos was the reason for these demands. Epson291 (talk) 03:07, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

clean up

I have cleaned up the very minor edits this article required, and have removed the notice Chasnor15 (talk) 10:22, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The 'Criticism of religion' frame

Isn't it out of place? This article is about a group of religious practices and attitudes, not about perceived abuses or controversions potentially resulting from them. There isn't even a 'Controversies' or 'Criticism' section, where it would be more understandable. 37.190.158.177 (talk) 13:48, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The "Criticism of Religion" template was probably added because it includes a link to Apostasy. Be bold and remove it if you don't think it belongs here. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 16:44, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Editing "In the bible section"

I changed the reference their to the one in Exodus which refers to apostasy. the previous reference was in reference to an ENTICEMENT to apostasy, not apostasy itself. Allonyoav (talk) 07:41, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]