Jump to content

Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Fringe theories

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by ZucherBundlech (talk | contribs) at 19:42, 31 July 2024 (→Presenting the POV of Orthodox Jews as unvarnished truth: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

"WP:FTN" redirects here. For nominations of featured topics, see Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates.
    Fringe theories noticeboard - dealing with all sorts of pseudoscience
    Shortcuts
    Before posting, make sure you understand this short summary of relevant policies and advice and particularly the guideline on treating fringe theories. Also, check the archives for similar discussions.

    We can help determine whether the topic is fringe and if so, whether it is treated accurately and impartially. Our purpose is not to remove any mention of fringe theories, but to describe them properly. Never present fringe theories as fact.

    If you mention specific editors, you should notify them. You may use {{subst:ftn-notice}} to do so.

    Deploy {{talk fringe|the fringe theory name}} to articles' talkpages under discussion.

    Please also notify any relevant Wikiprojects to encourage an increased visibility for the discussion.

    Search this noticeboard & archives

    Lowercase sigmabot III will archive sections older than 20 days


    Additional notes:

    To start a new request, enter the name of the relevant article below:

    Article alerts


    Articles for deletion

    • 01 Dec 2024 – Plant perception (paranormal) (talk · edit · hist) was AfDed by Psychologist Guy (t · c); see discussion (2 participants; relisted)
    • 30 Nov 2024 – List of references to seer stones in the Latter Day Saint movement history (talk · edit · hist) AfDed by Howardcorn33 (t · c) was closed as delete by Just Step Sideways (t · c) on 07 Dec 2024; see discussion (9 participants)

    Categories for discussion

    Good article nominees

    Requests for comments

    Requested moves

    Articles to be merged

    Articles to be split

    Evolution of human intelligence

    Editors more familiar with the subject might want to evaluate Evolution of human intelligence#Social exchange theory. Currently [1] it includes mention of one of Satoshi Kanazawa theories followed by how others have found no evidence to support it. (Something similar but in more detail is mentioned at G factor (psychometrics)#Other correlates where it seems to much more belong.) There is other R&I stuff which frankly seems out of place to me. Nil Einne (talk) 09:45, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Kanazawa is a red flag for sure. That section does a very poor job of explaining 'social exchange theory'. It also cites economist Thomas Sowell for claims that are (being extremely generous) way, way too simplistic. This should use reliable WP:IS to summarize instead of dancing around primary sources of wildly varying quality. Grayfell (talk) 08:13, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Feldenkrais method at RSN

    Watchers of this board are no doubt familiar with the article on the Feldenkrais Method, which has been discussed here several times. There has been some recent activity at that article, which has given rise to a discussion at the reliable sources notice board. You can find that discussion at WP:RSN#Inclusion of medical evidence review at Feldenkrais Method. MrOllie (talk) 21:38, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Now WP:RSN#Inclusion of Kinesiology Review at Feldenkrais Method. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:18, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Decided to rewrite the lede myself a bit. Kept it short and punchy, we'll see how this goes. Allan Nonymous (talk) 19:04, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Expect more new editors coming to support Hancock after a recent tweet

    Following the post of a rather odd video by someone titled "Archaeologist John Hoopes Corrupts Wikipedia" Graham Hancock tweeted the video to his almost 500,000 followers saying "University of Kansas Professor John Hoopes contributes ZERO to science in his own work but spends much time pouring scorn on the work of others. By weaponising his editor role at Wikipedia to push his own agenda he brings archaeology into disrepute:" This may involve a number of articles. I've already seen one on Hancock's talk page. Note that Hoopes is an editor here. Doug Weller talk 09:02, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Which articles might this affect? ꧁Zanahary꧂ 00:59, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    National Post on climate change at RSN

    Something that may be of interest to this noticeboard is the topic of the reliability of Canada's National Post on the subject of climate change. It came to my attention that in a recent journal analysis of the publication it came out worse even than the likes of the Daily Mail on the topic, with ~30% of its output assessed as wayward of the scientific consensus on the subject. See this thread for more details on the potentially relevant issue. Iskandar323 (talk) 21:26, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Family Constellations

    Cancel the "pseudoscience" description, it's all proven now! [2] --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:00, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Family Constellations jps (talk) 22:40, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bert Hellinger jps (talk) 22:44, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Abd-ru-shin

    This is about [3]. Please chime in. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:19, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    List of common misconceptions

    Please see Talk:List of common misconceptions#Split proposal. Thank you. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:35, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Could someone look at these changes for Phoenix Lights please

    [4] I don't think they are right but I'd like another opinion, and am trying to deal with a complicated CU right now. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 08:50, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Just took a look -- the flares are absolutely discussed in the cited source. Removed the newly added tags. Feoffer (talk) 09:08, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    intifada

    Not a WP:FRINGE matter, discuss it on the relevant article Talk page(s).

    I hope this message finds you well. I am writing to bring to your attention a matter of concern regarding the terminology used in an Arabic article related to the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising here in wikipedia.

    Recently, I a Wikipedia editor made an edit eich says the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising is refrenced as "intifada" in an Arabic. However, historically, the event has been described in Arabic as "tamrrod." For instance, in an article from Yad Vashem, the event is referred to as "تمرّد (tamrrod)," where it is stated that "أصبح تمرّد غيتو وارسو رمزا لمقاومة اليهود للنازيين," translating to "The Warsaw Ghetto Rebellion became a symbol of Jewish resistance to the Nazis."

    https://www.yadvashem.org/ar/holocaust/about/third-stage-the-final-solution/warsaw-ghetto-fate.html

    The reason for my inquiry stems from the concern that this terminology choice may lead to misinterpretations or politically charged comparisons. I recently encountered an individual who used this article to draw parallels between the suffering of Jews during the Holocaust and the Palestinian experience under occupation. This comparison, as articulated by British novelist Howard Jacobson, can be seen as a distortion of historical events and a form of moral manipulation.

    I would appreciate it if you could provide insight into the decision to hide the political context behind calling that event "انتفاضة" (intifada) instead of "تمرد" (tamrrod) in the article regarding the word intifada. Thank you for your attention to this matter. I look forward to hearing from you soon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.66.58.30 (talk) 15:25, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Jinn: RfC: Proposed additions of text 1

    Jinn (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

    User inputs and comments are requested at:

    Bookku (talk) 14:26, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Jordan Peterson

    A guy who denies that there is such a thing as climate, and still there are users who think he is not a climate denier. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:49, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Three users all arguing that a known far-right personality is a centrist? Looks more like a matter for AE. 208.87.236.180 (talk) 19:42, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Dosha

    There's edit warring at Dosha. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:28, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    The wording of the first sentence does not seem to be as concerning as the entire Principles section, based on a book that "reveals to us the secret powers of the body, breath, senses, mind and chakras". Reconrabbit 16:46, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not opposed to describing what that pseudoscience entails—we just do not pass it for valid. tgeorgescu (talk) 05:26, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Renee Dufault

    Someone knowledgeable with medical research, mercury and autism care to review Renee Dufault? Aside from some questionable promotional edits, there's some fringe stuff being pushed here. Ravensfire (talk) 18:11, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Baishideng Publishing Group, publisher of the immediately suspicious World Journal of Psychiatry (cited twice in the article), is on Beall's list. Square One Publishers, who published Dufault's book Unsafe at Any Meal, also published a book called Dressed to Kill: The Link Between Breast Cancer and Bras. There are so many red-flag sources in this article I don't even know where to begin. I'm busy with other things at the moment but someone really should take a hatchet to any section of this article sourced to these or other suspicious sources. I'll do what I can, when I can. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 00:24, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking at the article history, there seems to have been quite a bit of input from accounts now blocked for sockpuppetry or promotional editing. Brunton (talk) 07:17, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I slapped a bunch of unreliable source tags on it. Anti-vaccine blogs should not be used to support claims of a diet that prevents autism. Reconrabbit 19:48, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Related to this, Nutritional epigenetics. Lots of bold claims and marketing-esque language. The longer I look at this the worse it gets. Reconrabbit 20:06, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Bringing attention to Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ashkenazi_Jewish_intelligence_(3rd_nomination)

    Apparently its gone through 3 (or maybe 6... or maybe 9 depending on how you count it) AfDs.

    Current deletion discussion is favoring deleting it altogether, but it keeps getting relisted. Would like more eyes on this. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 03:12, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Jewish deicide

    Described in the lede as a "notion". The whole lede has a "some-say-this-some-say-that" tenor. "Maybe they are all god-killers and we should slaughter them, or maybe not. Who knows? Let the reader decide" seems to be the motto.

    Jewish deicide is pretty clearly an antisemitic canard. Are there any non-Jewish sources for that? It seems that "Jewish advocacy sources" have a conflict of interest on the question of whether they should be all slaughtered or not, so they cannot be used. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:06, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I can't see anything there about anyone slaughtering anyone. Can you point it out? Zerotalk 05:32, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The accusation that the Jews were Christ-killers fed Christian antisemitism[5] and spurred on acts of violence, directly after the "some-say-this-some-say-that" first paragraph. --Hob Gadling (talk)
    Afterthought: I hope you will not stop reading after the word "violence". --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:29, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That paragraph is a true statement; why are you objecting to it? Neither the first paragraph, nor the lead as a whole, has the nature you claim. It is a fact that over history some people believed that rubbish and some didn't. If we don't report that, we aren't doing our job. Zerotalk 06:52, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've made some edits which I hope will address these issues, including adding what I believe will be a less contentious source. Generalrelative (talk) 06:47, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Why raise this beef here? Jewish deicide was not, for over a thousand years, a fringe idea. It lay at the (dead)heart of a religious worldview. It died out in Western states (though not in Eastern Europe), and for centuries their Christian populations probably never heard much about it, and only then did it become what one could call a 'fringe' idea. One cannot tinker with historical articles thinking that there is only one thing worth keeping a sharp eye out for, traditional Christian enmity for Jews, and calling everything relevant to that trend, an antisemitic canard. Linguistically, a 'canard' is 'a false or unfounded report or story'. Both St. Augustine and the greatest Jewish medieval philosopher Maimonides subscribed to the belief that Jesus was killed by Jews, and they founded their belief on an interpretation of (a) ancient documents which lent support for the notion. Of course, 'Jews' did not kill Jesus anymore than 'Americans' committed genocide in Cambodia or 'Russians' committed the Holodomor. A belief, however stupid or inane or false, often has its roots in reports or misreports, which supply the foundational 'evidence'. One despairs when encyclopedic articles are tweaked by a browsing which itself appears to draw on a general principle or idea that ignores the complexities of history, and which assumes generic clichés and tired boilerplate keywords (which ring an emotional bell) can somehow serve an explanatory function that allows us to dispense with the hard yakka of actually examining the weight of scholarship to ensure we get things nuanced to capture, as here, a transition from infra-Jewish polemics (all those non-Romans present at the crucifixion, Christ included, were Jews, (b) those who wrote the gospels did so within a Jewish cultural milieu and (c) the gentilization of what was a Jewish reform movement and competitiveness with traditional Jewish communities, transformed these polemics over time into an accusation of Jewish (not 'Judean' as earlier) responsibility for Jesus's death. Maimonides, as said, endorsed this as what he, like Christian theologians for a millenia and a half, as a fact, which it wasn't. But this is a long way from modern dumbed-down dismissals of a lethally powerful idea as an antisemitic canard from the very outset.Nishidani (talk) 08:25, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I am inclined to agree with Nishidani. It's a theological viewpoint (i.e not an objective factual statement, and thus not a "canard") that had wide currency in Christian thought for over a millennium. The fact that it is widely viewed as antisemitic can be discussed in the lead without being heavy-handed in the opening sentence. Hemiauchenia (talk) 08:42, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Jewish deicide was not, for over a thousand years, a fringe idea. Neither was astrology. Now both are fringe. If you want to turn this into one of those boring "this should not have been posted here!" discussions that lead nowhere, I'm out. --Hob Gadling (talk) 04:13, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Presenting the POV of Orthodox Jews as unvarnished truth

    This is about [5]. Please chime in. I don't think they edit in bad faith, but they have absolutely no idea what Wikipedia is about.

    Are they kidding me that my edits aren't the view of Judaism? Just count how many rabbis I have WP:CITED at [6].

    But: they are not the rabbis from this editor's sect. To be sure, my edits are not the POV of their sect of Judaism. tgeorgescu (talk) 15:52, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I gotta say, your edit is full of typos and awkward phrasings, and also many of the sources seem kind of irrelevant to the topic at hand. What the Bible says and what Judaism says are two different things. Judaism is a living religion that did not stop evolving several thousand years ago when the Tanakh was written.
    If you want a broader view than just Orthodox Judaism, you need to cite modern Reform and Conservative Jews, not a millenia old book that is famously open to interpretation. Loki (talk) 16:00, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @LokiTheLiar: That nothing has changed for more than 800 years isn't my claim; it is the claim of my opponent. And, yup, I think I have WP:CITED several Reform of Conservative rabbis. If you read the quotes, they speak about the Bible, but they also speak about Rabbinic Judaism, i.e. post-Bible Jewish religious authorities. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:09, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I went in and fixed it so you can see what I mean: [7] Loki (talk) 16:22, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @LokiTheLiar: Much better, but Orthodox Judaism believes that the Bible Outlaws premarital sex (Deuteronomy 23:18)(Maimonides, Hilkhot Ishut, 1:4 sorry, I only found a hebrew edition Maimonides...) It's true that it is not as explicit as most other forbidden relationships.
    The part about lesbians was almost accurate; it is only an outcome of the commandment "After the doings of the land of Egypt, wherein ye dwelt, shall ye not do" (Leviticus 18:3)(Maimonides, Hilkhot Issurei Biah, 21:8). ZucherBundlech (talk) 16:46, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've always found that one a very impressive leap in reasoning. What about human pyramids? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:55, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    >:)
    Good point...
    I'm sure you realize Judaism has a little deeper meaning than that.
    I will do a little bit of research, and would be happy to notify you of my findings. ZucherBundlech (talk) 11:03, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @ZucherBundlech Don't take my word on this, but I think I heard that the interpretation that this was about lesbianism was based on some supposed Egyptian religious cult/practice where women had sex with women. I find it interesting that it's so vague compared to "If a man lies with a man as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them." etc. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:32, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The reason is simple. The emission of semen for no reason, or as it is called: "wasting seed", is one of the worst transgressions or the worst transgression in Judaism, up to the point where the Zohar says there is no repentance for it. (actually, even the Zohar agrees there is a way to repent, and that statement is only to show the severity of the sin; learners of kabbalah cite this as an example of why inexperienced people should not learn Kabbalah on their own.)
    Therefore, death is only prescribed in places where there could technically be an emission, (even if there actually was no emission).
    There is debate what the punishment for Lesbianism is; some say whiplashes, some say there is no punishment, but that the Court should punish them with whiplashes out of their own volition (called Makkoth Mardut). ZucherBundlech (talk) 19:44, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If "the emission of semen for no reason" were a capital offence/mortal sin worthy of death, quite literally every single male on the planet would be put to death (ie masturbation). And any male that says "nay" is not telling the truth. So that explanation is ludicrous in its face, and I very highly doubt that any modern, mainstrean rabbis make such claims. (I don't doubt some 1000 years ago did; this is why you're being told 1000 year old sources are useless for what MODERN Jews believe).

    (Btw, as for Onan, his offence was not merely "wasted seed": when HE pulled out and "spilt his seed", the act of doing so caused him to become guilty of rape (and of a virgin to boot), because he only has consent to do her for no other purpose other than sperm donation). 73.2.106.248 (talk) 05:11, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The emission of seed is a sion worthy of death, but it is not punished by the court. It's in the hands of God... And yes, that's right, almost every single male on earth is guilty of it, if he doesn't repent. And as for Onan, what you wrote is not true, that's certainly not what Orthodox Judaism has to say about that.
    And you're right a lot of "modern" "mainstream" Rabbis claim it is not forbidden; that's precisely the reason why most sources given on Wikipedia are not accurate when talking about Orthodox Judaism; For the record: ORTHODOX JEWS BELIEVE THAT NOT ONE SINGLE LAW HAS CHANGED IN THE LAST 3500 YEARS; like it or not, I don't care. ZucherBundlech (talk) 09:15, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's silly, even going only based on halakhic sources, most rabbinic literature is nothing but disagreements on how to interpret laws (plus the massive update to the religion writ large once the temple sacrifices became impossible due to exile) and firmly established that halakha is to be interpreted and adapted by humans. After all, Rabi Yehoshua amar: "lo bashamayim hi" (w/ commentary from Orthodox Union rabbis [8]).
    You can stipulate the point of view that all of this is simply interpretation of the same underlying divine law, but the rabbinic discourse leaves quite clear that this interpretation was not self-evident or straightforward even for scholars, let alone Wikipedia editors. signed, Rosguill talk 15:39, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    All of these disputes are only between Rabbis in the same era, e.g. Tannaim, Amoraim, Rishonim, Acharonim etc. No Orthodox Rabbi in th present times would dare deviate even slightly from the words of a Rishon, except if there is a disagreeing Rishon, of course. And even then there are rules: Sephardim follow the Shulchan Aruch who generally follows Maimonides and other Sephardic Rishonim, Ashkenazim follow the Rema who generally follows Rashi and Tosafot. And so on... ZucherBundlech (talk) 16:27, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We can't use your personal opinion or knowledge to decide what an Orthodox Rabbi in present times would or would not dare to do. We have to rely on scholarship for that, and that means we cite modern, reliable sources. See WP:NOR. MrOllie (talk) 16:43, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    True. However, if I would source that claim to a modern, reliable source, that would prove that other new sources are inaccurate, and at best simply not about Orthodox Judaism, but rather about the Modern Orthodox. (not the same thing) ZucherBundlech (talk) 16:51, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Even If you sourced that claim, you could not then use that claim to build an argument for something else (again, see WP:NOR). I could cite a source that says Jews follow the 10 commandments. I could cite a source that explains the 10th commandment. I could not then write 'No Jew has ever coveted a neighbor's house.' MrOllie (talk) 16:58, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Personally I think that No. 5 ergo "no Jew has ever disrespected their parents" is the best example for making this point signed, Rosguill talk 17:17, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    But you could say "Jews believe a person shall not covet their neighbours hous". ZucherBundlech (talk) 19:31, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Additionally, there actually is debate if the what the Talmud calls נשים המסוללות זו בזו (Women ..... with each other) refers to Lesbianism. ZucherBundlech (talk) 19:54, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That is true, but what they say about Rabbinic Judaism isn't true. ZucherBundlech (talk) 16:22, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We can't rely on your own opinion of what's true or your interpretation of documents that are 900+ years old. You're going to have to work with modern scholarship, the kind found in secondary WP:RS. MrOllie (talk) 16:36, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @MrOllie: I can source what I'm saying.
    Please read Halakha. ZucherBundlech (talk) 16:47, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There should be enough * University Press WP:RS which tell matter-of-factly what Orthodox Jews believe. There is no need to WP:CITE centuries old texts. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:49, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry, but nothing is as accurate as the first-hand material itself. I'm beginning to feel that you are somehow opposed to Orthodox Judaism's views, especially after what you wrote me on your user talk page ZucherBundlech (talk) 17:01, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia isn't based upon first-hand material, but upon WP:SECONDARY sources. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:03, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Tgeorgescu: "first hand material" refers to the editors own research. Sorry... ZucherBundlech (talk) 17:12, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If this is the "editors doing their own research is the best source" argument, then you're going to want to edit somewhere else. That's not how Wikipedia works. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 17:49, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That is not what we say about WP:PRIMARY and WP:SECONDARY sources; as a rule we prefer the latter. Primary sources are important for research, but that isn’t what we do on Wikipedia. Repeated failure to recognize that this is part of our no original research policy is going to result in a loss of editing privileges if continued. signed, Rosguill talk 17:05, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Rosguill: If you didn't notice, I quoted the Bible (the primary source) as well as Maimonides ( secondary source) precisely because I am aware of this. I would welcome an accurate later source. However, none have been provided. I will continue to search for later sources. ZucherBundlech (talk) 17:11, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Maimonides in this context, as part of the Jewish theological tradition and as a pre-modern text, is considered primary with respect to the topic. signed, Rosguill talk 17:14, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As I said, I'm searching for later sources. The problem is, not many Jewish Orthodox books have been written about the topic less than 200-150 years, since we tend to follow earlier sources in any case. The best I will probably find is a short summary or something similar. ZucherBundlech (talk) 17:18, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I expect that you’ll have a very easy time finding authoritative sources on the contemporary beliefs of Orthodox Jews on Google Scholar, as it is a topic that has drawn a fair amount of scholarly interest. signed, Rosguill talk 17:19, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Here's some potentially useful sources:
    signed, Rosguill talk 17:27, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The real question is if they read such sources, or they consider these sources as attacking their religion. I was a fundamentalist myself, so I know they see higher criticism and religion studies as attacks upon their worldview. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:40, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That is NOT true. Please stop attacking Jews and Orthodox Jews. Wikipedia is not a platform to promote your beliefs of Orthodox Jews being "anti women", "outdated", and as seeing criticism and religion studies as "attacks". You are free to make these accusations on social media; not here. ZucherBundlech (talk) 18:36, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Where are those quotes coming from? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:15, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Check the editors Talk Page ZucherBundlech (talk) 21:25, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Check Fundamentalist–modernist controversy (yup, it's about Christianity, but the same has played out in Judaism, and other religions) and https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/biblical-topics/hebrew-bible/free-hebrew-bible-course-with-shaye-cohen/ (from 0:29:00 to 0:30:00, for more detailed: 0:27:00 to 0:30:00). Shaye J. D. Cohen confirms there that that controversy applies to Judaism, as well.
    Also, the card of attacking Jews should not be played lightly. tgeorgescu (talk) 09:20, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What am I missing? I can't find the term "anti woman" used and the only use of "outdated" is by you. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:27, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    My edits can be construed as anti-fundamentalist, but I don't indulge in hate speech. In respect to my own emotions: I do feel emotions such as jealousy, envy, anger, but I don't feel hate. I never learned that emotion. Let me be very clear: the previous three emotions are not about fundamentalists or the Jews, I was speaking of my own psychology. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:06, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry T, thats a response to ZucherBundlech. I don't find your editing to be particularly anti-anything, no comment on whether core emotions are learned or not. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:14, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "They are not Orthodox Jewish rabbis, but they are rabbis nevertheless. Yup, women can be rabbis, too."
    "Wikipedia listens to modern mainstream WP:SCHOLARSHIP, not to Ancient or Medieval scholars. You are in the wrong place: this isn't Orthodox Jewish Wiki." ZucherBundlech (talk) 19:58, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe I'm just over-sensitive, but this is a lot like other attacks I've been subjected to (not on Wikpedia) ZucherBundlech (talk) 20:00, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm still not seeing "anti woman" or "outdated" where are those quotes from? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:14, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Saying "Yup, women can be rabbis, too" (which is totaly unnecessary) is insinuating that I refused to accept her view because she is a women. Especially after what the editor wrote at the beginning of the discussion: "Maybe you work under the assumption that you should only trust scholars of Judaism who are male and halachically Jewish." ZucherBundlech (talk) 20:21, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As for the outdated part, it was never explicit, but I got that feeling after repeatedly challenging me that "not to Ancient or Medieval scholars" "Orthodox Judaism does, Wikipedia doesn't. See WP:SYNTH. Medieval or early modern texts are not WP:RS for making claims in the voice of Wikipedia"
    The fact is that Orthodox Judaism believes the Torah to be inflexible, the same today as it was 3000 years ago. I tried making that clear to Tgeorgescu, but the editor constantly circled back to the fact that it was long outdated.
    But you're right; I should not have mentioned it. The discussion got a little bit too heated. I apologize for that, @Tgeorgescu.
    Forgive me? ZucherBundlech (talk) 20:31, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It isn't that the Torah is outdated; it is that Orthodox Jews in the present day do not interpret the Torah in the same way that Orthodox Jews 1000 years ago did. And it IS a subject of subjective interpretation, if it weren't there wouldn't be any reason for rabbis to exist at all! So the Torah can be used as a primary source only for its exact text. For the contemporary beliefs of Orthodox Jews, you need contemporary texts. Nobody 1000 years ago can be a source for what anybody in the present thinks. This should be patently obvious... 73.2.106.248 (talk) 05:35, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That is what Reform Judaism is all about. Not Orthodox Judaism. ZucherBundlech (talk) 09:17, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It is true that Rabbis are there to interprete the Torah, but they cannot change anything that was already said. All they do is interprete current circumstances which was never spoken about before (such as the laws applying to electricity, modern medicine, etc.) according to what the Torah says. And the other thing they do is tell people who haven't learnt the entire Torah yet what they should do. But Orthodox Judaism does not believe in revisionism! That's one of the core principles of Judaism. ZucherBundlech (talk) 14:04, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The simple truth is that I don't think I have a right to voice here my opinion if Maimonides' work is outdated. It's just the way Wikipedia weighs WP:SOURCES. See WP:FORUM for details. tgeorgescu (talk) 14:57, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That is true. However, it is a pity if that would render Wikipedia inaccurate. Maybe this case should be evaluated, to guarantee better accuracy with regard to Orthodox Judaism.
    What would the rules say if I would bring sources ascertaining that in fact the Orthodox Jews even today follow the Shulchan Aruch? Actually more than that: the very definition of Orthodox Judaism is that they don't deviate from an earlier ruling, and that time has no effect whatsoever on the Torah? ZucherBundlech (talk) 16:47, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If our sources are inaccurate, we're fine with Wikipedia being inaccurate as well. Have a look at WP:NOTTRUTH. MrOllie (talk) 16:49, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:NOTTRUTH is talking about something that is not verifiable. What I'm saying is definitely verifiable... worst case you could always go around and poll Orthodox Jews... ZucherBundlech (talk) 16:57, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No. You need to cite a modern source to verify something. See WP:V. I could theoretically count the grains of sand on a beach. But I can't then publish the results of my count on Wikipedia. MrOllie (talk) 16:59, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    worst case you could always go around and poll Orthodox Jews
    No, we absolutely cannot. That is original research. Zucher, I think you need to accept that your ideas on sources are completely at odds with Wikipedia's, and you need to go edit elsewhere. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 19:30, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If Orthodox Judaism does not engage in revisionism, where did glatt kosher come from? signed, Rosguill talk 15:49, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no prohibition to be more stringent. ZucherBundlech (talk) 16:09, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You've moved the goalposts--I wasn't asking whether glatt kosher is heretical, I was asking whether it represents a change in actual practice by the self-describing Orthodox community. signed, Rosguill talk 17:23, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Practice yes, laws no. ZucherBundlech (talk) 19:34, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Certainly they don't believe they believe in revisionism... but they do.
    The penalty in the Torah for putting out someone's eye is to have your own eye put out. And it's very clear about that, says it in multiple places, and never once says that it means any kind of fine or monetary penalty. However, the penalty in the Talmud for the same offense is the monetary value of an eye. Clearly, even the oldest rabbis were not always going by the literal word of the Torah. Loki (talk) 16:55, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    For editors interested in reading more about the intertwined development of orthodoxy and revision, I found Henderson 1998 very accessible and illustrative. signed, Rosguill talk 17:14, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Nobody revised the Bible. Judaism believes that the Written And the Oral Torah are unseparable. Instead of quoting a piece of Talmud you obviously never read inside, how about you really learn it? If you don't understand something don't hesistate to ask..
    עין תחת עין אמר רחמנא אימא עין ממש לא סלקא דעתך דתניא יכול סימא את עינו מסמא את עינו קטע את ידו מקטע את ידו שיבר את רגלו משבר את רגלו ת"ל (ויקרא כד) מכה אדם ומכה בהמה מה מכה בהמה לתשלומין אף מכה אדם לתשלומין ואם נפשך לומר הרי הוא אומר (במדבר לה) לא תקחו כופר לנפש רוצח אשר הוא רשע למות לנפש רוצח אי אתה לוקח כופר אבל אתה לוקח כופר לראשי אברים שאין חוזרין הי מכה אילימא (ויקרא כד) מכה בהמה ישלמנה ומכה אדם יומת ההוא בקטלא כתיב אלא מהכא (ויקרא כד) מכה נפש בהמה ישלמנה נפש תחת נפש וסמיך ליה (ויקרא כד) ואיש כי יתן מום בעמיתו כאשר עשה כן יעשה לו האי לאו מכה הוא הכאה הכאה קאמרינן מה הכאה האמורה בבהמה לתשלומין אף הכאה האמורה באדם לתשלומין והא כתיב (ויקרא כד) ואיש כי יכה כל נפש אדם מות יומת בממון ממאי דבממון אימא במיתה ממש לא סלקא דעתך חדא דהא איתקש למכה בהמה ישלמנה ועוד כתיב בתריה כאשר יתן מום באדם כן ינתן בו ושמע מינה ממון ומאי אם נפשך לומר תו קא קשיא לתנא מאי חזית דילפת ממכה בהמה לילף ממכה אדם אמרי דנין ניזקין מניזקין ואין דנין ניזקין ממיתה אדרבה דנין אדם מאדם ואין דנין אדם מבהמה היינו דקתני אם נפשך לומר הרי הוא אומר לא תקחו כופר לנפש רוצח אשר הוא רשע למות כי מות יומת לנפש רוצח אי אתה לוקח כופר אבל אתה לוקח כופר לראשי אברים שאינן חוזרין והאי לא תקחו כופר לנפש רוצח למעוטי ראשי אברים הוא דאתא האי מבעי ליה דאמר רחמנא לא תעביד ביה תרתי לא תשקול מיניה ממון ותקטליה האי (דברים כה) מכדי רשעתו נפקא רשעה אחת אתה מחייבו ואי אתה מחייבו שתי רשעיות ואכתי מבעי ליה דקאמר רחמנא לא תשקול ממון ותפטריה א"כ לכתוב רחמנא לא תקחו כופר לאשר הוא רשע למות לנפש רוצח למה לי ש"מ לנפש רוצח אי אתה לוקח כופר אבל אתה לוקח כופר לראשי אברים שאינן חוזרין וכי מאחר דכתיב לא תקחו כופר מכה מכה למה לי אמרי אי מהאי הוה אמינא אי בעי עינו ניתיב ואי בעי דמי עינו ניתיב קמ"ל מבהמה מה מכה בהמה לתשלומין אף מכה אדם לתשלומין: תניא ר' דוסתאי בן יהודה אומר עין תחת עין ממון אתה אומר ממון או אינו אלא עין ממש אמרת הרי שהיתה עינו של זה גדולה ועינו של זה קטנה היאך אני קורא ביה עין תחת עין וכי תימא כל כי האי שקיל מיניה ממונא התורה אמרה (ויקרא כד) משפט אחד יהיה לכם משפט השוה לכולכם ZucherBundlech (talk) 19:29, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, stop. You do not get to dictate what the facts are based on your understanding of the facts. You clearly do not care to adhere to Wikipedia's reliable sources rules, so why are you here? — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 19:31, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @HandThatFeeds: I agree with you in the point you made that Wikipedia requires modern sources. I will not change any article without providing sources that adhere to WP:RS. What I'm trying to do now is explain what Orthodox Judaism really believes, so that when all of you go out to the big, wild world and edit Wikipedia, you will know what to look out for. If you see a source that blatantly ignores what I discussed now, that would mean it either is about Modern Orthodox Judaism, or plain inaccurate; and if you truly are interested in the truth, you might want to look for a better source.
    That's all. ZucherBundlech (talk) 19:42, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Rosguill: Thanks. I'm aware that source do exist, and I will quote them; however, I prefere sources in the Jewish Orthodox world itself, which I have found to be more accurate. ZucherBundlech (talk) 18:29, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What kind of source are you thinking of, exactly? By definition, sources that contradict the majority of reliable sources on a topic will be considered WP:FRINGE at best. signed, Rosguill talk 19:00, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yup, search for WP:IS, i.e. third-party observers. See emic and etic. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:23, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Rosguill: I'm sorry, I just reread my post. It is quit misleading. I apologize for that. ZucherBundlech (talk) 17:14, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard&oldid=1237846512"