Talk:Reform movement in Judaism

message: I have no problem with the article name necessarily, except that the opening definition seems to be somewhat polemical (i.e., from within an ongoing Wikipedia dispute over article names and scope). AGF, I gather that the lead can be revised and the genealogy of the term can be moved to a subsection (e.g., definitions). While I'm not going to look up sources this sec, I think it's quite common for "Reform movement" to refer to "Reform Judaism," in all of the latter's multifaceted and disambiguable meanings. HG | Talk 20:13, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  the opening citing Meyer and Philipson establishes reason for notability of the term (used by definitive authors.  A substantial article could be written on the term itself.  The term is notable enough on its own for an article, even without the history.  But yes, in addition to the intro, we might want to consider a section elaborating why (I consider this low priority). Egfrank 13:10, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Article name

message: I had to remove this section (moved from Reform Judaism) - the use of a large block cite and the sentences before it were too closely paraphrased for comfort and I don't have time to research this period to correct the problems.  Will editors please remember to put content into their own words?   Close paraphrases should be avoided.  Block citations may be used to illustrate a historical observation, but they shouldn't be used in place of our own text to further the narrative.  To avoid this problem, it sometimes helps to work from multiple sources when documenting a country or time period.  Thanks, Egfrank 13:15, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, HG, for taking care of that. It would have been a pity to leave out the Danes. Egfrank 16:55, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Denmark section 

message: I've modified the original leads to reflect a dual origin in the US and Germany.  There seems to be little evidence that initial reform efforts in the US had much to do with German reforms and later reforms (1840's onward) reflect both American and German trends:
* Of US reform, Meyer states The rise of the Reform movement in America after the initial Charleston episode must be attributed to both Germanizing and Americanizing trends.  Neither trend alone will explain it. (Meyer, Response to Modernity, 235-36).  He cites two sources in support of this claim: Jick, The Americanization of the Synagogue and Cohen, Encounter with Emancipation.
* As for Charleston, South Carolina(1824) - the predominant influence in Charleston was British.  Charleston was a major center of trade with England and Bevis Marks in London even sent a rabbi in the late 18th century or early 19th century.  However, the reforms at Beth Elohim (1824) predate any reform attempts in the UK - the formation of the West London Synagogue under the leadership of Moses Montifiore did not occur until 1840.
*Furthermore, the liturgical reforms instituted in Charleston (1825) predate German reforms by about 20 years: The Society's manuscript prayerbook represents the first radical liturgy produced in the Reform movement anywhere, preceding by twenty years the 1845 prayerbook of the Berlin Reform Congregation, the earliest European liturgy to which it can be compared. (Meyer, Response to Modernity, 231).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Egfrank (talk • contribs) 09:53, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Origins in Germany and North America 

message: It would probably be helpful to get more input on the dispute over the scope of this article. Let's try to formulate an RfC. (We can also utilize or refactor some of the discussion above in the article naming and popularised threads.) For an RfC, maybe we can present different viewpoints (at least Egfrank and HG) and an overarching question. I think the overarching question could be What is the subject matter and scope of this article? or, move specifically, Should the scope of this article be XXX or YYY?
As an exercise in reflective listening, let me try to state what I take to be Egfrank's view. 
# "Reform movement in Judaism" is a notable term in historiography coined by Philipson and further developed by Meyer. 
# The term refers to a modern socio-historical process involving Judaism. 
# The term has a different meaning and hence a notably different subject matter, for an article, than would either "Reform Judaism" or "Reform movement" as it applies to Judaism. Specifically, the Reform movement of Judaism is similar enough to merit a redirect to Reform Judaism. 
# The term does not cover the denominations/Judaisms themselves, such as Reform Judaism. Egf (ital added): "this particular phrase is a notable phrase often used by historians and other students of the non-orthodox Judaisms to distinguish between the historical process and the denominations that grew out of it". (Likewise, Egf removed from the article "The term is used to describe both the historical process and its expression in various Judaisms, including Liberal, Progressive and Reform Judaism.") 
Let me state my view:
# If it is a term of art used by historians, "Reform movement in Judaism" is not especially noteworthy. However, the term is not used in a manner exclusive of the more common term, "Reform movement," even by Philipson and Meyer. 
# I agree that the subject matter is a modern socio-historical phenomenon in Judaism, however,
# I do not see how or why this movement can be written without describing and including its expression in Reform/Progressive Judaisms. Specifically, I disagree that there is a notable distinction, within the secondary literature or the primary sources of the movement, to justify articles on both Reform movement in Judaism and Reform movement of Judaism. 
# I am open to the possibility that the Reform movement in/of Judaism may merit a different article than Progressive Judaism and/or Reform Judaism, but I'm not sure.
I hope my articulation of these two views will help us frame an RfC question. I invite Egfrank esp to correct my on any misimpressions in the above reflective exercise. Thanks. HG | Talk 17:24, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi. If you are not getting where I'm coming from, let's look at your first statement. Egf: "this article is seriously missing in content even before we expand the scope to include denominations" (emph add) Here you assume that the article has a given scope ("the scope") and that I'm proposing to expand it. However, I'm disputing that it has the given scope you ascribe to it. I think, if you don't jump to the conclusion that your view of the scope is correct, you'll be able to read what I wrote above more clearly. Let me know if I need to clarify more. Thanks. HG | Talk 01:17, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, I find your last bullet point unhelpful. It seems like an unrelated issue and, placed here, simply a way to heap on your criticism of me (i.e., personalizing the discussion). Please strikeout and move it to the other article or my Talk page, if you wish. Thanks. HG | Talk 01:17, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC preparation 

message: Regarding the denominations. It sounds like Egfrank agrees that the "formation of the denominations" will be discussed in the article. And I would agree with Egfrank that, due to length (and topic), denominations should not be "fully described" here but wikilinked. Or, I'd say they could be summary style links. (Except Orthodoxy, which isn't commonly thought to be "spawned" by the Reform movement in Judaism. Maybe not ConsJud or Recon, but let's not get distracted.) So, as you say, the question is where do we draw the line? It would be great if you'd answer your question. Since you would like this to be historical, discussing the "formation" of the denominations/Judaisms, how far would the narrative of the ever-forming denominations proceed? Do you have cut-off date in mind, or some other way to draw a line? HG | Talk 01:28, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the best way to handle this is to play it by ear.  Without all the material before us, it is hard to know in advance what will serve the article's flow best.  I'd prefer to let that decision flow form the sources rather than make it a priori.  RAMBI has 150 or so sources listed.  I haven't even begun to scavenge these for material.  But if you would like to look at the list with me and prioritize it/divy it up based on who has access to what/interest in reading what I think that would help us move forward. Egfrank (talk) 05:28, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

text: And of course if you have already read some of these, then perhaps you can add in what's relevant and we can cross them off the list. Egfrank (talk) 05:32, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Denominations and RAMBI 

message: I came across this article while looking up the various movements in Judaism.  Can someone who is developing this page consider a "theology" section similar to the one in the Reconstructionist Judaism page?  This article has extensive history, but no concise section detailing what makes the Reform movement distinguishable from Reconstruction or the Traditionalists.
Perhaps this would be impossible if Reform has evolved too much over time to give it a good general description like that in the Reconstruction article, though a theological description might be broken down into major movements or evolutionary stages if necessary.
Thanks. 24.176.17.212 (talk) 09:27, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Theology Section

message: The article indeed refers to the books of Phillipson and Meyer, yet both make clear that they did not write about just any "reform in Judaism" but of the way in which Reform Judaism developed historically. I refer you especially to Meyer's "Preface:Considerations of Historiography", and also to Phillipson's treatment of other non-(or perhaps not fully)-Orthodox phenomena. For example: "religiously they are practically on the same footing. Religious Reform as conceived in Germany and realized in the United States is unknown" on Neolog Judaism (p. 396); "not a reform congregation in any sense when judged by changes in doctrine or in the content of the prayers" on Isaac Noah Mannheimer's Vienna Rite (p. 108). As Meyer writes (copied it in the opening paragraph) the Conservatives appear mainly to provide contrast. Reconstructionist are virtually unmentioned. Therefore, I suggest that this article would either be renamed History of Reform Judaism (with other elements removed) or even deleted, with the content that does not appear in the relevant articles merged into them. AddMore (talk) 18:29, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I would support either outcome (rename and prune, or delete and merge). — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 04:38, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Malik Shabazz, pardon me for tagging you. No one, except User:HG, seems interested in commenting. I'd like to turn this page into a redirect to Reform Judaism, but I'd like to achieve a consensus. If answering won't bother you too much, how could this be done? AddMore der Zweite (talk) 12:31, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

text: The redirect was made with a feeble consensus, but after the fact I support it as well. Debresser (talk) 20:33, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC: redundance?