Talk:Louis Jacobs

message: The phrase "completely ostracised by orthodox rabbis" is problematic. Someone attempting to elucidate it via Wikipedia would probably go to Ostracism, then Shunning, then Cherem. We really shouldn't imply a rabbi is in cherem unless we're very clear about the matter. I'm changing "completely ostracised" to "marginalised" (I hope that's correct en-GB). --Hoziron 03:58, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ostracised?? 

message: I have removed the phrase 'on occasions this has appeared petty', because for those who understand the Orthodox position, granting someone such an honour is fraught with halakhic issues. From an orthodox point of view, The public Reading of the Torah is the fulfilment of a religious duty; as such one needs to do it in accordance of the laws as codified in the Codes of Law. Granting an Aliyah to Louis Jacobs for several reasons would not fall into these criteria.
:This is highly disputable. Effectively it is a POV, as many would interpret halakhah in a quite diferent way. I have therefore once again removed your comment from the article. Please try to undertand how Wikipedia works, and refrain from giving your interpretation of a situation as indisputable. Also if you wish you regularly edit, please sign up as this makes it easier to discuss issues such as this.--Smerus 12:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I added "However, Orthodox law maintains that someone who denies the Divinity of the Torah may not be accorded this honour for a variety of reasons." This is true according to the conclusions of the Shulchan Aruch and its commentaries; if this is not how you are defining 'Orthodox law' (it seems to be based on the wikipedia entry) then I am happy to take suggestions as to what this should be called. If this is a good (basic) definition of Orthodox law, then I have not added a POV. I take the comment re different interpretations of halakhah; however I did try to avoid that issue. Also, to say my line was a POV and "on occasions this has appeared petty" is objective is unfair. Garry Wayland 16:32, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You might perhaps say 'according to some definitions of orthodox law, someone who denies...' etc. But I query whether you can simply say 'this is true according to the conclusions of the Shulchan Aruch and its commentaries'. I don't have a Shulchan Aruch with me at the moment (am working abroad) but I would be surprised if you could quote me any part of it that unequivocally substantiates your comment as 'true'. Some commentaries on the SA may come to this conclusion; others may not. That is why the whole issue was one of dispute, in the columns of the Jewish Chronicle and elsewhere. The correspondence in the JC is I think objective evidence that this action 'appeared petty', at least to some. I took care not to say that it was petty. I have tried in my contributions to this article to avoid opining whether Jacobs, or those opposed to him, have been 'right' or 'wrong'. But I also think that an article on Jacobs is not the right place for a dicsussion on the laws of aliyah. Perhaps your interest might be better served by creating a Wkipedia article on aliyah laws and referencing it to and from the Louis Jacobs article, so that readers could form their own conclusions.With best regards--Smerus 06:23, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re being denied Aliyah  

message: Could someone with the knowledge about Jews' College please start a post about it.
I am very curious about its history and current state of affairs. Thank You GZee 21:05, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Jews' College

message: I noticed that someone had removed this title from Louis's full name at the beginning of the lede. I have reinstated it as wikipedia cab do without this sort of sectarianism. (Writes someone whose move towards atheism was helped by Jacobs telling an Irish joke during a sermon during the High Holy Days.) --Peter cohen 13:08, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title "Rabbi" 

message: This badly in need of a section that describes Jacobs attempt to reconcile the DH with tradition. If anyone has read the book it would e good if they can give a brief summary.Wolf2191 18:19, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  DH work 

message: The following section doesn't make sense:
"The purpose of Jacobs’s book ‘We Have Reason to Believe’ is clearly stated in its Introduction.
    A true Jewish apologetic, eschewing obscurantism, religious schizophrenia, and intellectual dishonesty, will be based on the conviction that all truth, ‘the seals of the Holy One, blessed is He’, is one, and that a synthesis is possible between the permanent values and truth of tradition and the best thought of the day.[1]
Jacobs therefore places himself in the line of expositors from Moses Mendelssohn onwards who have sought to reconcile, or at least clearly contextualise, the concepts of Judaism with the prevalent thought and society of the modern world. "
The quote clearly states that trying to completely reconcile permanent values of truth of tradition with "the best thought of the day" - ie modern thought - is intellectual dishonesty and apologetic!  How can you go on to say that "Jacobs THEREFORE...sought to reconcile...the concepts of Judaism with the prevalent thought...of the modern world".  This is a striking contradiction to the quote.  So, either the quote is wrong, or the paragraph underneath is completely inaccurate about the man's motives.  Please can someone who has the book fix this.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by LemonLion (talk • contribs) 00:42, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See also Apologetics.  Jheald 15:46, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thank you. I have linked the text to this article which I hope may prevent any misunderstanding.Smerus 16:59, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradiction 

message: There is a lot of general misunderstanding about this.  The Gemara - which is where Orthodox thought comes from - gives two opinions on the torah been given.  They both say that it was given completely at Sinai UP TO THE POINT OF TIME that it was given.  The rest of it was given either (depending on which of the two opinions you are going by...) at regular intervals until Moses died, or in one large chunk just before moses died.  The whole idea of the whole torah been given at Sinai probably arrises from some Kaballistic idea of a part of the torah being infinite or something, leading to the popular phrase din Moshe m'Sinai, (law given to Moshe at Sinai).  The point is, no one, not even orthodox philosophy, believes that the torah was given in it's entirety on Sinai.  To that end I have replaced:
"as some Rabbinical (but not all) traditions have it,  complete in its present form by God  to Moses on  Mount Sinai."
with...
"as Orthodox Rabbinical traditions have it,  complete in its present form by God to Moses during the period beginning on  Mount Sinai and ending with Moses's death."
I have used the term Orthodox, because it is more specific and relevant.  Conservative, reform, liberal and obviously Mazorti philosophy doesn't have a problem with these issues in the first place. LemonLion 01:04, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  When the Torah was given 

message: This article has been rated by the project as  'importance:low'. You define 'importance:low' as This article is of little importance to this project, but it covers a highly specific area of knowledge or an obscure piece of trivia
I know the subject is controversial, but whichever way you look at it, to imply that he is obscure or trivial is surely unjustified. Whether or not you agree with him, Jacobs's opinions have had a profound effect on British Judaism.
It is also rated as start class, which means that it only has very basic information and lacks reliable sources. Although the first of these criteria is perhaps subjective (you will gather that I do not agree), the second certainly does not apply.
I do hope this evaluation is not a case of someone working off their own prejudices!! I would appreciate comments, or better still, a re-evaluation.--Smerus (talk) 15:53, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Part of the problem with a lot of importance ratings is that the boilerplate language you quoted above becomes harder to really apply when a given project has about 6000 articles, like this one does. As one of the coordinators of the (possibly adversarial, to some) Christianity WikiProject, it seems to me that we would all be better off if we came up with guidelines which are clearer given the kind of material we deal with. I am not the person who performed the assessment in question, but I tend to think that the subject in question, Louis Jacobs, may have been counted as such because of his status as the first leader of Conservative Judaism in the UK, in effect making him a subject of basically "local" interest (UK) to basically one of the then-current groups of Judaism, Conservative Judaism. If anyone is interested, I could set up the Judaism project banner to provide separate assessments for the various extant if inactive Judaism groups, thus allowing those editors whose primary interest is in one of the "branches" to have a better idea of what kinds of articles, both in terms of quality and importance, they have out there. In general, though, it is often best to leave a message on the talk page of whoever performed the assessment, which can be determined by the talk page's history, to ask such questions. John Carter (talk) 16:03, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Smerus, I was the editor who made the assessment. When I assess articles, I try to think of the following scenario: if someone has zero knowledge of Judaism and was given a course in it, is it likely that this article would be on the syllabus if it was a 1 hour crash course? 1 day crash course? 1 week? 1 month, etc. If it's likely the article would come up in a 1 hour crash course, then it's usually of Top importance. If the course could go an entire semester and the article is unlikely to ever come up, it's usually Low. That being said, I have re-assessed it as "Mid". As far as the class goes, I have re-classed it as "C" because, as you mentioned, it fails to meet at least one of the criteria to be a "B". It's important to note that these assessments aren't set in stone and ANY project member is free to re-assess it at any time. I see that you've been a contributor to that article and I regret that it has upset you, and I hope you don't take it personally. shirulashem (talk) 21:10, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I have been around too long on WP to take anything personally - Please be assured that I was not upset, just had a broiges :-}. I am most grateful for both your comments and your re-assessment (and also for the comments of John Carter (talk)). With best wishes for a kosher Pesach, --Smerus (talk) 02:45, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Assessment discussion 

message: Substituted at 22:29, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Louis Jacobs. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151002014427/http://louisjacobs.org/about-rabbi-louis-jacobs/levin-interview/ to http://louisjacobs.org/about-rabbi-louis-jacobs/levin-interview/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110904032716/http://www.ansheemet.org/COSGROVEVOLUME1_FINAL1.pdf to http://www.ansheemet.org/COSGROVEVOLUME1_FINAL1.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110904032747/http://www.ansheemet.org/COSGROVEVOLUME2_FINAL1.pdf to http://www.ansheemet.org/COSGROVEVOLUME2_FINAL1.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070209001415/http://www.newlondon.org.uk:80/rabbis/?biography=1 to http://www.newlondon.org.uk/rabbis/?biography=1
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:29, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Louis Jacobs. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151002014427/http://louisjacobs.org/about-rabbi-louis-jacobs/levin-interview/ to http://louisjacobs.org/about-rabbi-louis-jacobs/levin-interview/
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.newlondon.org.uk/rabbis/?biography=1
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:51, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Louis Jacobs. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061018173102/http://www.forward.com/articles/%E2%80%98greatest-british-jew-%E2%80%99-85-synthesized-faith/ to http://www.forward.com/articles/%E2%80%98greatest-british-jew-%E2%80%99-85-synthesized-faith/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:09, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The Reading Rabbi Jacobs project doesn't appear to be active. Is there anything there which justifies retaining it? Mcljlm (talk) 11:47, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Louis Jacobs online