"

 Recent rename to Relationships between American Jewish religious movements 

I don't understand why this article renamed. All of the major movements involved  Orthodox, Conservative, and Reform  have both international histories and a contemporary international presence. The current article content does unduly reflect an American point of view, but this can be fixed. Best,  
I did this because, after reading the page over several times, it only had US denominational connection. True we might all be aware that each of the denominations has an international counterpart - but that isn't reflected on this page, by its creator or subsequent, numerous editors. Of course if this was not the proper thing to do, it can be changed back...but the whole page would need to be heavily added to. It is a shame this couldn't be purged entirely and a new section added to the denomination page. Best wishes,  

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

Before we worry about the world-wide perspective - which I agree would be interesting - perhaps we should focus first on getting a well sourced WP:NPOV article on the USA.  There is a huge amount of material on the US alone to sort through.   

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

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

(outdent) The following aspects of the article are not limited to internal USA relationships:
 Haredi views of Modern Orthodox, generally 
 R. Feinstein on non-Orthodox Jews
 Haredia on ""heretical intent and the 1800s widespread denigration of religion.""
 Modern Ortho on non-Orthodox generally
 R. Soloveitchik  not discussing American non-Ortho alone
 R. Lamm saying ""non-Orthodox rabbis and laypeople may possess spiritual dignity"" etc
 R. Berger: ""The Jewish loyalties and observances of non-Orthodox Jews are decidedly better than nothing."" etc
 Conservative views of Orthodox are not limited to American Orthodox, and general view is held by Masorti/Conservative too
 R. Schorsch: ""claimed that Orthodox organizations in Israel politically discriminate against non-Orthodox Jews"" obviously not US
 The Reform section is not only USA, mostly historical
Given this content, I would like to undo the recent move and switch the burden of proof for changing the name of this long-standing article. This can be done either as a BRD move or as a Requested Move. Thanks. [[U