Talk:Reform Judaism (North America)

message: I have a real problem with this name. It should be North America. Thanks. A Sniper
:Fixed - Reform Judaism (USA) now redirects to Reform Judaism (North America).  Hope no one eats me alive for this. Egfrank 21:20, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Relax, these are everyday things on Wikipedia, IZAK 02:38, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: USA vs North America

message: I blanked the warning after completing the new FUR template for the photo. A Sniper 15:05, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Explanation and FUR listing enhanced per warning. A Sniper (talk) 06:53, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I don't think its use in the page here is fair-use. The page is about the Union and other Reform things, and only mentions this magazine in essentially a list of items. The image is nothing more than a thumb for a paragraph about all sorts of Union programs. The place the cover-scan is fair-use is in the article about the magazine, given that we have such a page. You and I edit-conflicted a bit here...I removed the image but linked the magazine's page directly. DMacks (talk) 07:03, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree entirely. There is absolutely nothing wrong with, from either a Wikipedia or a US copyright law standpoint, including the photo (a greatly reduced magazine cover shot) in an article about the publisher/owner of that very magazine. The FUR is intact, makes its case, and was filed accordingly. Both are not-for-profit, tax exempt organizations located at the same address. Wikipedia's FUR wasn't designed to be used in draconian fashion for this type of purge. However, I won't press the issue for now - you can take some time, look at other examples where a religious group's organ is involved, and perhaps revert yourself. Remember that this article is meant to be an encyclopedic piece about everything involving this religious denomination, and the photo of the denomination's own publication enhances the credibility.   Best, A Sniper (talk) 07:24, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright, I've thought more, and came to my same conclusion. Consider Fair-Use Policy, "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic", the associated image guideline, "Cover art from various items, for identification only in the context of critical commentary of that item (not for identification without critical commentary)". We need to be clearly discussing the magazine itself (per "critical commentary"). Or this mag needs to be the primary identifier for the topic of Reform Judaism or for the Union, which it's not. We're actually two steps removed here...an article about a topic (RJ-NA) which mentions a group (URJ) that has a separate page, and that group publishes a mag that also has a separate page. I can understand Reform Judaism and the Union and understand that these groups produce and lead many things without seeing the magazine cover. The magazine cover is not the primary means of recognizing RJ or the Union, merely of recognizing this publication, which is one part of one part of the topic, hardly iconic. The music and TV world fought this battle a while ago and WM declared quite strongly (with much yelling among editors, but now we're stuck with it) that we can't use album-covers in discography lists and similar pages, but can on an album's own page. DMacks (talk) 15:18, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough - it was late at night and I actually thought I was at the UNION article :( I would state that, if there was additional, significant material within the Union article about the mag, that would be one thing, but I agree with you that this is a two-step separation, and it doesn't qualify. Best, A Sniper (talk) 17:49, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Reform Judaism Magazine.jpg

message: The article states, "a minority of Reform rabbis and laity have come to affirm various beliefs including theism and deism." How is theism different from monotheism in the context of Judaism? Dynzmoar (talk) 17:23, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that this sounds unfounded and silly - please get rid of it if there is no reference. Best, A Sniper (talk) 22:07, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Theism 

message: Although the ACJ is an interesting footnote to the history of the Reform movement in North America (despite it being US-centered), without proper references it would appear POV to include information on it within the body of the article. Using weasel words (small but vocal) isn't helpful, either.  Best, A Sniper (talk) 00:00, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: American Council for Judaism

message: It seems odd that the only reference to this is an external link pointing to a position statement quoted on a newsgroup.  In Reform Judaism women have taken more active roles, including as rabbis, and there have been numerous other changes related to how they participate in worship.  Surely such developments deserve discussion in the main part of the article.--Parkwells (talk) 14:14, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Role of women in Reform Judaism

message: 192.12.88.7 (talk) 12:22, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Guitar music in Reform Judaism

message: User:WalkerThrough has been adding lines to the Bible article asserting that it is the revealed word of God (fact).  The section on the Hebrew Bible stated that some Jews believe that God revealed all the commandments at Sinai, and other Jews think they were revealed during the wanderings in the desert (no sources).  I find this a little off, but certain, not all Jews, not all rabbis, hold to just these two views.  I think it excludes the views of most reform Rabbis and I added that some scholars believe that the laws were composed at later times in Jewish history. WalkerThrough deleted this as Original Research here.  I restored it with a couple of citations, but now Walker Through is calling me an unbeliever and that Jesus is the truth.  I hope that better informed watchers of this page might keep an eye on this as I do not wish to enter a revert war.  I would also ask watchers of this page to look at the last section on the talk page, and, if you have something constructive to add, consider it. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 17:19, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  God's word?