Talk:Ger toshav

July 2021

This article states that according to sources 9,15, and 16 advocates of ger toshav and noahide category are mostly racist and supremacist. This seems like a highly subjective interpretation of these articles which are themselves somewhat suspect. This category in Judaism is somewhat akin to People Of The Book in Islam--race is not a major factor. The dog whistle about Jewish supremacy harkens to Hitler who used exactly the same term. Source nine does not mention race, only that Kahane did not believe Palestinians should be allowed to live in Israel. But, I presume this only referred to non Noahides and applied equally to all other ethnicities. It would be unfair to paint Chabad with Meir Kahane's terrorist brush in any case. The only mention of race in 15 is anecdotally when an tribal elder states that white people rule the world and are therefore lucky. In source 16 it states that chabad has essentially laid down an ethnic hierarchy according to Feldman. But, imho this view is only viable if Jews are thought of as a race and not a convert-accepting world religion, a classic antisemitic trope. Directly prior it states the liberal view of Jewish philosopher Herman Cohen that the Noahide laws contain a general moral outlook that transcends the fate of the Jewish people. Surely some articles exist on Jewish subjects that don't promote the notion of everything related to Judaism as a colonialist project while leaving silent the racism inherent in Christianity and Islam's classical interpretations and respective understandings of their own nonbelievers.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.122.119.215 (talk • contribs)

Exclusion of ger toshav from ger toshav article

I hate to point this out, but after all this talk we still have the problem of a user 1. deleting academic sources and 2. forcibly excluding the original use of the term (Leviticus), from which all other tradition follows, from the article. In ictu oculi (talk) 18:15, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

No. We don't. The academic sources weren't pertinent, which made them a violation of WP:RS in the context of this article. The tradition doesn't follow from the verse. It uses the verse to hang the law on. And the context in which you referred to the verse made it a violation as well. I have no problem with mentioning a verse. Find me a reliable source that says something along the lines of "The choice of the term ger toshav for this status is based [or appears to be based]] on the phrase ger v'toshav, as used in Leviticus." - Lisa (talk - contribs) 18:20, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Slight correction. There is a difference of opinion within tradition was to whether the Talmud primarily derives from the Bible or tradition. And, of course, outside tradition they often just claim it was made up. Which is the point, of course - such claims are POV and not that useful.Mzk1 (talk) 22:03, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Lisa,

That's the same sort of argument Christians make to exclude their "Old Testament" from Wikipedia articles, but unfortunately in this case the academic sources you deleted say quite clearly that Rashi and the Rambam were citing ger toshav (identical phrase) from Leviticus. If the sources didn't disagree with you, then why did you delete them? :) In ictu oculi (talk) 18:58, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I added a section about the etymology, covering some of IIO's deleted material. Does this satisfy everyone's concerns? Musashiaharon (talk) 06:58, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Musashiaharon, thanks. I haven't looked at the edits yet, but based on your response/approach with other articles, I imagine it'll be progress. Can you please review the 15 or so books which were deleted and see which ones could be restored? In ictu oculi (talk) 07:04, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't see how it could. It began by asserting that the "etymology" of the term ger toshav was a verse in Leviticus that talks about ger ve-toshav – precisely the problem that has plagued this article in the past few weeks – and went on to insert a bunch of other original research, essentially unsourced. Please ensure that you use only modern, reliable, secondary sources when adding material. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:51, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Jayjg, as before the above is simply a more sophisticated form of WP:personal attack, little different in intent from the other incessant PAs. "Original research" isn't there to be thrown out as a self-proving justification for supporting the deletion of WP:RS, the burden is on the person making the accusation to demonstrate that there is OR, or indeed synthesis. And "a bunch of" is a bunch of, indicating that the actual deleted sources are not being considered individually - or it would have been noticed that the Hebrew ger toshav without the waw-conjunctive does actually occur, identically, in the Leviticus source, just as ger v toshav with the waw-conjunctive occurs in rabbinical sources. As modern secondary WP:RS deleted from the article indicated. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:30, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

The key here is to cite reliable secondary sources that make this connection. In this context, that would generally mean late 20th or early 21st century academics. One certainly could not cite ancient religious texts, whether 3,000, 2,000 or even 1,000 years old. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:16, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not really sure why "in this context" we should limit secondary sources to the late 20th or early 21st century, especially since the concept is so old. Could you explain your reasoning? If you really want me to cite recent sources interpreting ger toshav, I could cite the Artscroll translation of Rashi and any translated Chumash I happen to have on hand, but essentially it is the same text. (If you say that Rashi is a primary source, see the Policy statement at WP:Primary regarding "straightforward, descriptive statements". Otherwise, he would be a secondary source, and permitted anyway.) Musashiaharon (talk) 23:05, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Jayig, If ger toshav doesn't come from Leviticus, then from where? Since both Rashi and the Talmud understand the ger toshav in Leviticus to refer to the legal concept, it seems proper to include it; it relates directly to the halachic usage. This is no more original research than similar material in the articles on tzitzit or tefillin, for example. Perhaps the first verse and Rashi I put could be removed, because ger toshav appeared instead as toshav, but even that is a stretch, because Rashi evidently understands it to be the ger toshav, and it therefore has relevance to the topic. Certainly the second verse and Rashi could remain, because that verse contains ger toshav without the vav splitting the words apart. Musashiaharon (talk) 01:37, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't think the sources have to be modern. Rabbinic sources are sufficient. Tosfot, maybe. The Gemara. There are two verses in Leviticus that use the phrase -- 25:35 and 25:47. Here's a list of places in the Babylonian Talmud where those two verses are cited. It's almost Shabbat here, so I don't have time to look them up: Baba Metzia 71a and 114a, Erchin 30b, Kiddushin 14b and 20a, and Yevamot 46a. Odds are, at least one of those will do it. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 21:59, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I have stated specific issues with some of your RS's, and with your methodology, which you have not addressed. I don't blame you for not having time to get into this, but I am stating this in response to your continual claim that your sources are all RS.
Also, you keep on stating that we are following our own POV's. Actually, my POV states that the Bible does refer, in many cases to Ger Toshav. I am trying not to use it. And you still don't address the issue that Jewish Law is its own discipline.Mzk1 (talk) 22:01, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi Mzk1, is this paragraph addressed to me? Actually I haven't seen you making edits or deletions which I would describe as POV. Of course Jewish Law is its own discipline, just as Hellenistic Judaism, Reform Judaism or spurs from Judaism such as Christianity and Islam are their own discipline; but any take on the Leviticus ger toshav should be relevant to an article entitled ger toshav. Excluding Leviticus from an article on a term originating in Leviticus falls under WP:POVFORK. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:00, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Someone once told me something that happened to him while he was in the police force. There was some criminal group that had barricaded itself in a building and was resisting arrest. The National Guard was called in, and both the police and the Guard surrounded the building. My policeman friend said to the Guardsmen, "I'm gonna go in. Cover me." In police talk, "cover me" means "have your weapons up and be ready to fire; defend me." But, in military jargon, "cover me" means "give 'em everything you've got." So my friend started running towards the building, and from behind him he hears RA-TA-TA-TA-TA! (Machine guns.) BA-BOOM! BA-BOOM! The Guardsmen were firing RPGs!

Moral of the story: Same term, different meaning. As the Rambam often asks, "In what context were these words said?" In other words, context is critical.

Same thing goes here. It's not POV; it's a completely different usage. Musashiaharon (talk) 01:37, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Musashiaharon, are you sure your friend was really ever a policeman? And it really happened to your policeman friend - which precinct was he at and what year was this? This is surprising because this WP:RS source descrives this anecdote as an "urban legend", in other words, it isn't true, and it never happened to your policeman friend, he's letting his Bud talk. Or he read it in the same urban legend source I've linked above. It's a good urban legend, the message being that National Guard are trigger happy idiots who behave on the streets of America as if they were in Iraq, but if this was real there would be a Wikipedia article on National Guard incident in wherever, and there isn't. Maybe we should start a cover me (urban legend) article?

Anyway..

That aside, what does a bar story from some guy who may never even have been a policeman, repeating an unlikely urban legend have to do with deleting Kaplan, Fraade, Eichhorn, Rashi (boxes above) etc comments about the usage/change in usage in ger toshav from the article ger toshav? In ictu oculi (talk) 02:59, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh, boy. I'm wondering now if you are keeping this up just to play around with our heads or something.

Rest assured, it happened. But even if it didn't, the point is that the halachic usage ger toshav is a specific status with a body of literature defining it and codifying the laws regarding it. In contrast, "stranger and sojourner" outside of this context can apply to anyone who is a wandering foreigner in some way or another; it's not that specific. In that context, it's used to create feelings of pity, humility, comradeship and/or a sense of community; its primary purpose there is not the specialized legal meaning, but rhetoric. The point is that these usages are different enough that they merit different articles per WP:NOTDIC.

About my story, if you really want to argue it's accuracy, that same google books search showed two+ sources (1 2, and see footnote, word usage supported by 3) that give it a time and place in the 1992 LA riots. In Talmudic logic, when two kosher witnesses say "maybe" and two kosher witnesses conflict them and say "definitely", the ones that say "definitely" are accepted. Your source, if you read it carefully and in context, effectively says "maybe": "the following example that is more urban legend than real event (at least I hope so)." Besides, my sources are books about the military or by written by the military itself (aside from my encounter and conversation), while yours is at best a third-hand account mentioned in passing in a book about healthcare management. I really hope you don't take undue offense, but all in all, it's not exactly a shining example of WP:RS. Musashiaharon (talk) 07:41, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Musashiaharon

Please WP:AGF (I am not messing with your head), just as I WP:AGF that "someone once told me" is 100% the truth, I don't doubt someone pretending to be a policeman or actually a policeman told you that. I also found the anecdote a welcome light relief. Especially the RA-TA-TA-TA-TA! (Machine guns.) BA-BOOM! BA-BOOM! The Guardsmen were firing RPGs!. I have no problem with this excursus at all :) In ictu oculi (talk) 11:57, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Hey Musashiaharon. Well, I'll eat my hat. Turns out your Budweiser friend may have been telling the truth, or almost. If he was from LA, and was a senior officer of the LAPD in 1992, and in charge of the specific LAPD unit described in retired Major James D. Delk's account of the incident at the basis of the story in 1992, then he was the senior police officer who said "I'm gonna go in. Cover me." An interesting friend to have :) In ictu oculi (talk) 12:40, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Review of In Ictu Oculi's material from 12 Nov 2011 for Re-inclusion

In ictu, I'm in the middle of reviewing the sources you added on 12 Nov. While there is some good material there I'd like to see put back, there are some instances where I am noticing worrisome research patterns similar to those in our most recent exchange here. I do not mean any disrespect, but if I may presume upon our mutual goodwill, I would like to be clear and honest about it.

Specifically, it looks like you are primarily using searches on Google books, reading maybe three or four lines before and after the hit, and assuming that it is WP:RS if it looks good enough from that review. It appears that little, if any, research is made on the author's history, credentials and specialties, and sometimes the author's alignment on the issue is taken or assumed to be one way, when it is actually not so. In short, little attention is given to the context of

1. the statement, or
2. the book.

For example, referring to the note numbers of your edit dated 12 Nov 2011, note 20, titled Islam and Global Dialogue. It provides an overview of the ger toshav, but fails to give any comparison to dhimmis, as suggested by the location of the ref link in the article body. It looks like you assumed a comparison to dhimmis based on the title of the source, but that particular chapter was actually discussing the Jewish attitude towards other religions.

Reference 14, titled Autonomy and Judaism is a bit more subtle. It was used to support the statement it was attached to, but the reliability of the source - with regard to this particular aspect of Jewish law - was questionable. Firstly, the ger toshav is mentioned in only one sentence and never again. Furthermore, it is a short comment on a quote from another author, Cohen, who is attributed with having an agenda to demonstrate the cosmopolitanism of the Torah, rather than giving a description of the ger toshav in particular. Also, rather than understanding ger toshav to refer to a class of Gentiles, Frank apparently believes that it refers to Jews themselves (probably based on a simplistic reading of the verses in Lev. 25, focusing on v.23, without reference to traditional Jewish commentators or the halachic codes on the later verses there). In short, it is a cursory mention of a cursory mention of the ger toshav. My assumptions are borne out by his heavy quoting of Scripture without any of the traditional legal Jewish interpretations - surprisingly, not even Maimonides, whom Frank directly contradicts, usually widely studied in Dr. Frank's specialty of Jewish Philosophy. Probably he was feeling pressed for time, and therefore neglected to research the ger toshav in depth because it was, after all, an ancillary point. Frank's statements at the end of the sentence in question suggest a high likelihood that even his Scriptural citations were taken from Cohen. (Google says the book comes from a meeting of "The Academy for Jewish Philosophy", and further research about the organization suggests that it is an interscholastic group that publishes books and meets roughly once a year to discuss Judaism through the lens of modern philosophy. They have neither a website, nor brick-and-mortar building that I could find. It appears that their primary expertise is philosophy and history rather than halacha, but that impression may be incorrect. Dr. Lenn Goodman, an acquaintance of mine who is well-known for his expertise in all matters Maimonides, seems to be one of their number.)

A discussion of your citations from the Jewish Encyclopedia is above, where similar concerns are raised.

I think that the above were honest mistakes, and made in good faith. Howevery, ideally, a source should:

1. Be devoted to the topic under discussion and not merely mention it in passing, and
2. Be written by someone with expertise on that particular subject.

I do not believe that your research is "in ictu oculi." I can see that you devote much time to it, as evidenced by the sheer number of sources you bring. However, if I may, I humbly suggest that you use the time to produce fewer sources, but research a bit more deeply and acquire a little more background knowledge before writing. This is especially so if a certain topic is rarely-studied and in the domain of an unfamiliar field. As anthropologists say, to know a culture, you have to live in it - and even then one doesn't really know. Myself included. Musashiaharon (talk) 07:41, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I did a bit more work on reviewing the sources. Still not finished, but I thought I'd post what I have so far. See also my entry in the re-inclusion section, below.

Note 12: Walzer only mentions "sojourners and tenants" here to show that the earth belongs to G‑d, rather than to man; and only since it happens to be in his prooftext. This is apparent in how he never again mentions ger toshav in any form at all as a specific term in and of itself. He is not describing the halachic status of the ger toshav, but rather addressing the treatment of land acquisition and ownership in Judaism. (This reminds me of the famous, strongly-worded Rashi to Genesis 1:1, but I digress.) The usage here is merely to indicate that "the land and all that is in it belongs to Hashem." It is quite different in meaning from the halachic usage of the term. [ Omit ]

Notes 15-18: This section of the article was about the biblical phrase as understood by another religion. It is not related to the halachic usage of GT. Probably good for WP, just not in this article. Should probably be moved to Strangers in the Bible or a similar article. [ Omit x4 ] Musashiaharon (talk) 16:09, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

For Re-inclusion

On a brighter note, I believe there are some sources there that meet the reliability requirements of WP:RS.

While reference 20 does not appear linked to the topic of interfaith comparison, reference 19 does in fact suggest it, based on a Karaite POV. This seems to be worthy of inclusion, but in a section devoted to interfaith comparisons at the end of the article, as originally and appropriately placed by IIO (regarding interfaith comparison material, see my comments on Lisa's or IIO's talk page).

Reference 13 also appears worthy of re-inclusion. Musashiaharon (talk) 07:41, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi Musashiaharon

I welcome this discussion. :) Yes it may well be that not every source is germane or the best source available. Is so much more difficult to actually add good sources than just delete (no surprise).

And it's so much nicer to actually talk about it than just have knee-jerk deletes followed by shouting and personal attacks for being so wicked divisive and disruptive to ask for a reason for a delete. There's a certain kind of intolerance that treats "Talk" as edit warring. But Talk is Talk. What happens here on the Talk page is that, Talk. Evidently you understand the difference between the article page and the Talk page, and I am delighted. For that reason I'm not going to pick and cavill at your responses above. I don't agree with them all, but, goodness. Someone is actually looking at academic, or Reform, sources. It's great. Thank you. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:04, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm glad, because I've tried to make this argument to you for a while, basically without response. I even repeated the use of a quote from Rabbi Kpalan (an extremely respected traditional source, BTW) as a particularly troubling point, where you did not include enough to even have a page number.

Forgive me, I disagree. It is much easier to pull a bunch of unchecked scatter-shot stuff out of Google Books / Scholar (if that is what you did; I never got an answer on that either), then to try, while still having a life, to see if it really belongs there and end up having to guess whether the source is really germane, one item at a time, with no idea as to whether there is more there than meets the eye. (Here AGF backfires.) It appears there is not more than meets the eye, but I never did get an answer from you. (I am not assuming this was on purpose.) Honestly, would a University accept a thesis researrched this way? I hope not. (No offense intended, I wish everyone else was as polite and co-ooperative; I am just pointing out the problems with the methodology and my problems in trying to deal with the results.)Mzk1 (talk) 17:53, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Note 13 was about the status/existence of geirim toshvim in the time of Moshiach. It seems this author has a few decades of experience, but he phrases his statement as a conjecture. (And a surprising one, to me. Maybe I'll look for other sources about this in Sefer Sheva Mitzvot Hashem and Shaarei Geulah.) However, fits WP:RS. [ Include ] Musashiaharon (talk) 16:01, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I actually did find an opinion to the contrary from the Lubavitcher Rebbe in Shaarei Geulah. I added it to the article, while leaving note 13 in place. Musashiaharon (talk) 07:02, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Additions from code from Chabad

I appreciate the additions from the Chabad Code and all of the hard work from the editor. However, I see two possible issues here:

1. There are already articles entitled Seven laws of Noah and Noachide. Does all of this material belong here? Wasn't it cut down in one of the other articles?

2. Perhaps there is an undue weight issue here? It is only one opinion, even if the form is unique. I am especially interested regarding circumcision as separate from conversion. Classically - and I am not referring to rabbinic sources specifically - circumcision meant conversion. Also, is it clear that a Gentile not descended from Ishmael is even allowed to circumcise? I can think of a copule of sources that would put this into question.

I look forward to responses.Mzk1 (talk) 17:37, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

1. Yes, I think some of this material may work better over on the seven laws article. I wasn't aware that anything was "cut down" in the other articles, though.

2. I do think that having so much information from only a few sources seems a little strange. On the other hand, "the words of Torah are rich in one place and sparse in another," as the Talmud puts it. Also, keep in mind that Sefer Sheva Mitzvos Hashem is the first comprehensive, detailed work about the Sheva Mitzvos. As far as I am aware, there is no other book in existence similar to it. The closest I can think of are the last several chapters of Hilchot Melachim in the Rambam, but that primarily addresses the laws that apply to Jews, as opposed to the laws that apply to Gentiles. Also, it isn't nearly as detailed (but, I haven't seen the traditional commentaries on the chapters there yet).

I already knew that Rambam considered circumcision obligatory on Muslims because of a doubt (as to whether they were actually descended from Ishmael or from Esav Keturah's descendants, who married into Ishmael's family), so the fact that other Gentiles had the option to circumcise without converting was only slightly surprising to me. Still, because of the usual connotation of conversion, at first I thought that's what the Sefer Sheva Mitzvos Hashem meant. But, from the context, and from the chapter about the subject later on, it is clear that (according to SSMH) circumcision does not necessarily indicate conversion to Judaism, and may be undertaken by any Gentile, even if not an Ishmaelite. In the chapter mentioned, it discusses the motivation and procedures for Gentile circumcision without conversion. There are also some differences between Gentile and Jewish circumcision.

By "Chabad Code" I think you mean the Sefer Sheva Mitzvos Hashem. I think that "Chabad Code" is a bit of a misnomer, though, because it was accepted and endorsed by the Ashkenaz and Sephard Chief Rabbis of Israel - in other words, it's not just Chabad. Although many of the footnotes come the Lubavitcher Rebbe's talks, I think that this is simply because the Rebbe devoted a lot of effort to the subject. (This is understandable, because he was (and arguably still is) a driving force in the campaign to publicize the Sheva Mitzvos to Bnei Noach. Before the Rebbe, I am not aware of any modern figure who pioneered as much in this area as he did.) There are also notes and sources from Ran, the Ra'avad, the Kesef Mishna, Tosafos, the Rashbam, and many other authorities that I had never heard of before. In his approbation to the book, I think that the head of the Beis Din of Jerusalem (or one of the chief rabbis? I forgot) mentioned that he was extremely impressed with the varied sources the author brought forth and discussed. Musashiaharon (talk) 07:27, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

OK, but perhaps give it its own sub-section? Also, the big paragraph should be split in two, I think, starting with "In the code". Regarding milah, I would oppose this with the medrash that mamreh died because he circumcised himself, and perhaps the Rambam's opposition to gentiles taking on commandments, although I need to recheck the latter.Mzk1 (talk) 07:43, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

OK, makes sense to split the paragraph.

Re:milah - Rambam's opposition to Gentiles taking on commandments stems from the prohibition against innovating a new religion. Therefore, in general, they only violate this prohibition by observing a Jewish commandment if they believe that they themselves were Divinely commanded to observe it. If, on the other hand, they only perform the relevant action for some other reason, there is no prohibition. Ex. sitting in a sukkah for the shade, eating matzo because they like the taste, eating matzo because of honor for their Jewish host, observing a day of rest in a nonreligious way. (Sheva Mitzvos cites Hilchos Melachim 10, and notes that Rashi on Sanhedrin 58b and the Radbaz on the Rambam dispute this, ruling that even observing a Sabbath merely for rest is forbidden to Gentiles.)

A large, essay-like footnote in Sheva Mitzvos I:3 #56 discusses in depth the various opinions about the permissibility of observing Jewish mitzvos. After proposing a few relevant, alternate interpretations of the nature of the ger toshav, Sheva Mitzvos concludes that these lines of reasoning are docheik (forced), for various reasons. (Interestingly, the Chida, who was certainly aware of the Rambam's ruling, writes that he told a Noahide to recite Shema morning and evening; certainly he would not tell a Gentile to violate a mitzvah.) Sheva Mitzvos also cites Avodah Zara 64b, which permits a Gentile to circumcise, even though he is not commanded to do so. Therefore, Sheva Mitzvos rules as stated above, that Gentiles may (usually) take on Jewish mitzvos, provided they don't believe that they are commanded in them. (Regarding the exceptions of affixing the mezuzah, laying tefilin, wearing tzitizis, and writing a Sefer Torah, mezuzah or tefilin; and also the reason for these exceptions, see there, 3:7.)

In the main text of Sheva Mitzvos itself, it summarizes that a Gentile receives reward for circumcising, but is not commanded to do so.

Off the top of my head, there are several other examples from which it appears that Gentiles may be circumcised:

• The case where the city of Shechem was made to circumcise
• The medrash that Yosef circumcised the Egyptians during the famine there
• Also, non-Jewish slaves must be circumcised.

I am surprised about the medrash you cited about Mamre. Could you give the source or context? Musashiaharon (talk) 05:27, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

NO WP:CONSENSUS to remove sourced content

74.70.220.192, did you read the reliable sources cited throughout the article before starting your ridiculous edit warring? No, you didn't. GenoV84 (talk) 19:03, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

These sources, as I stated in my edit summaries, do not support the sentence I removed. Furthermore, the sentence is clearly written from a non-neutral POV, and frankly an ignorant one. As 99.122.119.215 noted in the very first talk comment on this page, and as the page Jews as the chosen people clarifies, the idea that chosenness is necessarily a racist or supremacist notion is a fringe one mainly expounded by antisemites. Regardless of your personal opinion on the topic, stating it as fact is not appropriate for a Wikipedia article. I am clearly not the only one who thinks this way, as the edit history shows[1][2] that you've been camping this page and Noahidism and repeatedly and aggressively reverting all edits that attempt to improve the article. 2603:7081:4E0F:920D:7D96:CE0D:6FBE:256D (talk) 21:57, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Everyone is welcome to improve the article, but deleting sourced content supported by multiple reliable references because you personally disagree with the content of those sources is a form of disruptive editing and also a blatant attempt to censorship of encyclopedic informations on Wikipedia, and the same disruptive behavior of other vandals has been reverted multiple times by me and other longstanding editors on this article for the exact same reason.

Moreover, before accusing me of racism, antisemitism, and all kinds of offensive stuff in a failed attempt of character assassination, you should check the article better next time, because David Novak himself, a renowned Jewish academic and professor of Jewish theology and ethics at the University of Toronto, has denounced the modern Noahide movement by stating that "If Jews are telling Gentiles what to do, it’s a form of imperialism"; the same thought can be found in the other sources mentioned above. Are you trying to say that Novak, Feldman, and Ofri, which are all Jewish and Israeli researchers, are also antisemites? Seriously? GenoV84 (talk) 23:15, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Btw, you accused me without evidence, among all other things, to believe that the concept of Jews as the chosen people is necessarily a racist or supremacist notion. Where did I ever state something like that? Exactly: nowhere. I wrote this article in accordance with the cited sources which state exactly that, all of which have been written by Jewish and Israeli researchers, not me. GenoV84 (talk) 23:28, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

The quote from David Novak is in the article and I did not remove it because it's clearly flagged as the personal opinion of David Novak. As for the other authors, you could certainly try to preserve NPOV by directly quoting their opinions rather than stating them as fact, but a closer look at the sources will reveal that they don't appear to actually hold the views stated in the article. You've dramatically misunderstood the sources you're citing, and linking them every third sentence is not going to change that. While some Noahides are themselves quoted as holding racist views, it's inaccurate to attribute those views to Chabad-Lubavitch, religious Zionists, Orthodox Rabbis, or chosenness in general. Furthermore, this article is about Noahides living in Israel; your sources are related to Noahides living in the Philippines. Feldman writes, "While each international Noahide community should be considered within its own particular historical and political context, this case study highlights some of the implications of Noahidism in the third world and global south." In other words, even though she believes her work can be extrapolated beyond the Philippines, it is still specifically about international Noahidism rather than gerim toshavim.

On another note, since you seem to like linking Wiki guidelines, I recommend taking a look at WP:TE, in particular the sections titled "Wrongly accusing others of vandalism", "Adding citations that are inadequate, ambiguous or not sufficiently explicit", and "Repeating the same argument without convincing people". 2603:7081:4E0F:920D:7D96:CE0D:6FBE:256D (talk) 00:01, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

You clearly can't see that your ridiculous complaints and arguments are flawed and inconsistent with your own modus operandi, both on this article and the one on Noahidism ([3]). I provided several reliable sources that support everything that I wrote in both articles, including the close links between the Noahide movement and Orthodox Jewish rabbis, as well as Chabad rabbis and Religious Zionist activists, while you can't prove any of your dubious claims about them and the movement itself. Unless you find reliable references that support your claims, I have no reason to take your arguments seriously. You can complain as much as you want; Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and is NOT censored:

Attempting to ensure that articles and images will be acceptable to all readers, or will adhere to general social or religious norms, is incompatible with the purposes of an encyclopedia. GenoV84 (talk) 01:22, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

I have no desire to censor Wikipedia or sanitize it. I want it to be accurate and abide by its own guidelines. In order for your sentence to be acceptable, you need to not only demonstrate that it is supported by reliable sources, but also write it from a neutral point of view. I have already demonstrated that the Feldman source is inappropriate for this article, and the fact that you didn't realize this yourself should indicate to you that your understanding of these sources might be insufficient to synthesize them the way you have attempted to. This is exactly why it's a better practice when writing articles on subjective topics to stick to formats like "X says Y is true" rather stating "Y is true". Please provide a new and better argument than attacking me and citing the same misunderstood sources ad infinitum. Again, even if your sources were impeccable and you understood them perfectly, you would still have the problem that you are writing from a hostile point of view rather than a neutral one. (I'm using the term "sources" very generously, by the way. In reality, you have a single source -- Feldman's work -- and two articles writing about her work.) 2603:7081:4E0F:920D:7D96:CE0D:6FBE:256D (talk) 01:34, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

And yet, you forgot to read the abstract from the very first page of Feldman's research on the Noahide community in the Philippines (2018), which was founded by Orthodox Jewish and Religious Zionist rabbis from Israel who have decidedly instructed the Filipino Noahides to believe that they are racially inferior to Jews and are forbidden from reading Jewish scriptures and performing Jewish rites and customs, as well as to support their messianic, supremacist movement in order to rebuild the third Jewish temple in Jerusalem:

Today, nearly 2,000 Filipinos consider themselves members of the ‘‘Children of Noah,’’ a new Judaic faith that is growing into the tens of thousands worldwide as ex-Christians encounter forms of Jewish learning online. Under the tutelage of Orthodox Jewish rabbis, Filipino ‘‘Noahides,’’ as they call themselves, study Torah, observe the Sabbath, and passionately support a form of messianic Zionism. Filipino Noahides believe that Jews are a racially superior people, with an innate ability to access divinity. According to their rabbi mentors, they are forbidden from performing Jewish rituals and even reading certain Jewish texts. These restrictions have necessitated the creation of new, distinctly Noahide ritual practices and prayers modeled after Jewish ones. Filipino Noahides are practicing a new faith that also affirms the superiority of Judaism and Jewish biblical right to the Land of Israel, in line with the aims of the growing messianic Third Temple Movement in Jerusalem.

And despite all of this pile of racist and supremacist brainwashing shit perpetrated by Orthodox Jewish and Religious Zionist rabbis from Israel with ties to the Third Temple movement in the Philippines, you still have the nerve to come here, delete the sourced content with reliable references from the article, complain about me for reverting your deliberate disruptive behavior, accuse me of being an antisemite, a racist, and all other kinds of bullshit when the cited academic source clearly speaks for itself, and the aforementioned academic research was conducted by a JEWISH scholar!!! Unbelievable. I have no words to describe your dishonest propaganda and misrepresentation of the cited sources, which you clearly have NOT read. The only thing that I know, and of which I am completely sure of, is that you are not here to improve this encyclopedia. GenoV84 (talk) 02:12, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm happy that you finally have a new argument! Before I address it, let me quickly remind you that gerim toshavim are Noahides living in Israel, not the Philippines, and therefore this source is not relevant to the article on gerim toshavim. Reading the paper should make it very clear that the physical distance of these communities from Jewish ones is very significant. Also, no matter how angry you are personally about this subject, lack of NPOV is still a problem.

Now then. Feldman writes "According to their rabbi mentors, they are forbidden from performing Jewish rituals and even reading certain Jewish texts." Later, she writes "Conversely, other groups of religious-nationalist rabbis in Israel encourage Noahides to freely adopt Jewish traditions and holiday observances." Clearly there is diversity on this topic on the Jewish side of the movement. In addition, the reasoning for forbidding Noahides from performing these rituals is not related to their race -- it's because they haven't converted. Consider a Chabad rabbi's view on this very topic: "To say that this is ethnocentric is absurd for one simple reason: anyone from any ethnic background can convert to Judaism and become chosen. Jewish chosenness is not a gene, it is a state of the soul. Anyone wishing to take it upon themselves is welcome — as long as they are ready to have their bubble burst." ([4]) Feldman draws the notion that Jews are "racially superior" from the teachings of the Noahide leaders. She writes: "While Noahides have latched on to a seemingly universal principle inside Judaism, it is important to note that their interpretation of Judaism is constructed around an essential categorical difference between Jews and Noahides: the two groups represent different divinely sanctioned categories of humanity and are meant to serve different spiritual functions in the world and the coming messianic era." Notice that she's not referring to rabbinical leaders here, but the Noahides themselves, who are perfectly capable of having independent opinions on the topic. (In fact, a major point of the paper is to explore the intersection of Jewish beliefs with those of these Filipinos, whose religious history also includes evangelical Christianity and traditional folklore.) Even among the Noahides, this belief about hierarchy is not universal: she interviews a man named Diego who "was well aware that any person, regardless of ethnic background, can become a Jew, and that he did not believe that Jews were a racially superior people."

And finally, it is incorrect to link an idea that "affirms the superiority of Judaism and Jewish biblical right to the Land of Israel" with "Jewish supremacy". This is simply a loaded way of saying that Noahides believe Judaism is true. Every follower of a religion believes that their religion is true; that's what it means to follow a religion. 2603:7081:4E0F:920D:7D96:CE0D:6FBE:256D (talk) 02:45, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Chabad's website is definitely not a reliable source, and religious propaganda is not allowed on Wikipedia, regardless of what you think about it. This is a free encyclopedia for everyone, not a religious encyclopedia that endorses or attempts to defend the doctrines of organized religions. Everything that I wrote is supported by the reliable sources cited in the article, all of which are online and verifiable. You continue to make claims above claims without verifiable evidence from independent, non-partisan reliable sources, which is totally pointless on this encyclopedia where unverifiable claims from propagandistic religious organizations mean nothing. All of your arguments are flawed and inconsistent, as your deliberately disruptive behavior and intentional removal of sourced content on the articles Noahidism ([5]) and God in Abrahamic religions ([6]) demonstrates; both this article and the one on Noahidism are well-sourced with multiple, independent, non-partisan reliable sources, and there's nothing you can do about it. You're wasting time. GenoV84 (talk) 08:26, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Chabad's website is a reliable source for what Chabad believes, which is part of what's in dispute. My claims above come from the paper that you yourself are touting as reliable. You don't have multiple sources, you have a single source presented by three different people. The source does not say what you think, and even if it did, it should be presented on Wikipedia as the view of that author, not as universal truth. If you have a problem with my arguments, explain them instead of making the same unsubstantiated claims over and over and over again like a broken record. You can't make something true just by repeating it a million times. 2603:7081:4E0F:920D:7D96:CE0D:6FBE:256D (talk) 12:45, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

IP vandal mimicking Manafeistlanguage's disruptive edits, which was indefinitely blocked yesterday for the same disruptive behavior on multiple religion-related articles, do you know what Wikipedia is or not? Because Chabad's website doesn't meet the requirements to be considered a reliable reference, at all. In fact, other longstanding editors such as User:Warshy and User:Iskandar323 have deleted every link to Chabad's website on this article and various other Judaism-related articles for the very same reason. Your persistent edit warring and disruptive behavior clearly demonstrates that you are not here to build an encyclopedia, and you're not fooling anyone ([7], [8], [9]). GenoV84 (talk) 17:58, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_or_questionable_sources_as_sources_on_themselves. Of course it would make little sense to use chabad.org as a source on, say, history or current events. But if you are making claims about Chabad's own views, their website is certainly an appropriate place to look. Also, this is a talk page; I'm not using it as a source for anything in the article. If you have a real argument, stop with the WP:PA already and make it. 2603:7081:4E0F:920D:A5AD:A58F:13D:FF53 (talk) 20:05, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

As I already said above, Wikipedia relies on secondary, independent, non-partisan reliable sources. Using Chabad's website (or any other organized religious movement' affiliated website, for that matter) as the main source of this or any other article would mean to rely on dubious, unverifiable references which evidently don't meet the requirements to be considered reliable, as they are rather primary, non-neutral, unreliable sources. Your opinion suggests to do completely the opposite of what the WP editing guidelines tell us to do, therefore it cannot be taken seriously by any user on this encyclopedia. To put it simply, this is not the way Wikipedia works. Once the block has expired, try to do something more productive and collaborate with other editors in a civil, appropriate manner on Wikipedia, and remember to avoid provoking and using personal attacks against other editors, as you already did many times, both here and on your own block log. GenoV84 (talk) 23:43, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Then it's a good thing I'm not using it as the main source for this article, isn't it? I used it as a source on Chabad itself, which is clearly allowed by Wiki guidelines, to supplement an argument on a talk page, which is different from the body of an article. As a reminder, the substance of my argument is this:

- The sentence in dispute is written from a non-neutral POV.

- The source cited does not support the information stated in the sentence.

- The source cited is not about the topic of this article, gerim toshavim; it's about Noahides in the Phillipines.

Listing a bunch of unrelated guidelines is not a replacement for a real argument about content. It's just a transparent attempt at bullying other users who are trying to fix your mistakes. 2603:7081:4E0F:920D:CDE4:D44:195E:7E22 (talk) 22:43, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm not the one attempting to censor encyclopedic informations on Wikipedia, while the same couldn't be said about you, who seem to be extremely offended about it and have already been blocked three times with three different IP addresses for your persistent disruptive behavior. Everything that I wrote is supported by the reliable sources cited in the article, all of which are verifiable, secondary, independent, non-partisan reliable sources. Moreover, deliberately removing sourced content with references with the purpose to censor the aforementioned content and/or attempting to right what the IP perceives as wrongs is a violation of the WP policy WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS:

This is because we only report what is verifiable using secondary reliable sources, giving appropriate weight to the balance of informed opinion. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it. So, if you want to:

• Expose a popular artist as a child molester, or
• Vindicate a convicted murderer you believe to be innocent, or
• Explain (what you perceive to be) the truth or reality of a current or historical political, religious, or moral issue, or
• Spread the word about a theory/hypothesis/belief/cure-all herb that has been unfairly neglected or suppressed by the scholarly community...

on Wikipedia, you'll have to wait until it's been reported in mainstream media or published in books from reputable publishing houses. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought or original research. Wikipedia doesn't lead; we follow. Let reliable sources make the novel connections and statements. Finding neutral ways of presenting them is what we do.

GenoV84 (talk) 17:47, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

As I already said, religious propaganda is not allowed on Wikipedia, regardless of what you think about it. Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia for everyone, not a religious encyclopedia that endorses or attempts to defend the doctrines of organized religions, therefore it is not censored. Everything that I wrote is supported by the reliable sources cited in the article, all of which are verifiable, secondary, independent, non-partisan reliable sources. None of those sources imply that all of the rabbis involved in the Noahide movement are Religious Zionists or have ties with the Third Temple movement as well, they simply report that some of those rabbis do have such connections. Furthermore, the imperialist and supremacist characteristics of the Noahide movement have been highlighted both by Ofri and Novak; see Feldman for all the informations regarding the racist and racialist ideology within the Noahide movement. As you can see, the sourced content referenced in the article is not based on my personal opinion, as you falsely claimed, but on the sources cited in the article, all of which have been written by Jewish and Israeli researchers, journalists, and scholars. There's nothing to fix here, except for your ridiculously arrogant behavior. I made no mistakes, while the same couldn't be said about you, who were blocked three times with three different IP addresses. GenoV84 (talk) 17:58, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

The Ofri article is simply reporting on the Feldman paper, as I already pointed out. I'm not going to repeat myself regarding your reading of Feldman, which you haven't addressed. I have no problem with including the Novak quote in the article as long as it's clearly attributed to Novak, though I will point out that the source goes on to say: "To him, the Seven Mitzvot are a set of rules that Judaism prescribes for non-Jews while assuming any civil society or moral individual will reach these conclusions on their own, without prodding. The Noahide laws, in his eyes, are valuable as a moral foundation that allows Jews to get involved and speak out on issues of public morality, a universal ethical code with which to engage larger societal issues–and are not a religion around which non-Jews are expected to structure their daily lives." So his criticism is more narrow than the quote alone implies, particularly coming right after a sentence that criticizes chosenness.

Since you are now saying that the sources don't imply that all rabbis involved in the Noahide movement are Religious Zionists, Third Templeists, etc., then you should agree that having a sentence in the article implying it is WP:SYNTH and needs to be changed. 2603:7081:4E0F:920D:8D3E:2051:420C:46C8 (talk) 18:24, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

I agree with changing that sentence, but the cited sources will remain, and Novak's analysis that you just quoted should be added to the article as well. Let me know about your proposals to improve the sentence, we'll find an agreement together. GenoV84 (talk) 18:38, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

The following rewording of the sentence directly mentions the cited sources; I think that it may be a good point to start:

"According to a research paper written by the Jewish academic Rachel Z. Feldman (2018) and an investigative report published on the Israeli newspaper Haaretz, some of the religious Zionist and Orthodox rabbis involved in the modern Noahide movement, which are also affiliated with the Third Temple movement, expound a racist and supremacist ideology which consists in the belief that the Jewish people are God's chosen nation and racially superior to non-Jews, and mentor Noahides because they believe that the Messianic era will begin with the rebuilding of the Third Temple on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem to re-institute the Jewish priesthood along with the practice of ritual sacrifices, and the establishment of a Jewish theocracy in Israel, supported by communities of Noahides. David Novak, professor of Jewish theology and ethics at the University of Toronto, has denounced the modern Noahide movement by stating that "If Jews are telling Gentiles what to do, it’s a form of imperialism".

GenoV84 (talk) 19:16, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Feldman is more relevant to Noahidism since this article is specifically about Noahides in Israel and her work is on Noahides in places with no easy physical access to a Jewish community (hence why they don't convert). On the Noahidism page, I would write something like:

According to anthropologist Rachel Z. Feldman, many of the rabbis involved in mentoring Noahides are supporters of the Third Temple Movement who believe that the messianic era begins with the establishment of a Jewish theocratic state in Israel, supported by communities of Noahides worldwide. Feldman describes Noahidism as a "new world religion" that "carv[es] out a place for non-Jews in the messianic Zionist project" and "affirms the superiority of Judaism and the Jewish biblical right to the Land of Israel". She characterizes Noahide ideology in the Philippines and elsewhere in the global south as having a "markedly racial dimension" constructed around "an essential categorical difference between Jews and Noahides". David Novak, professor of Jewish theology and ethics at the University of Toronto, has criticized the modern Noahide movement, stating, "If Jews are telling Gentiles what to do, it’s a form of imperialism." Novak views the Noahide laws not as a religion for non-Jews to structure their lives around, but as a universal ethical code which any civil society or moral individual will reach on their own.

For this page, I would include only the Novak quote, since he's criticizing Noahidism as an organized movement in general:

David Novak, professor of Jewish theology and ethics at the University of Toronto, has criticized the modern Noahide movement, stating, "If Jews are telling Gentiles what to do, it’s a form of imperialism." Novak views the Noahide laws not as a religion for non-Jews to structure their lives around, but as a universal ethical code which any civil society or moral individual will reach on their own.

2603:7081:4E0F:920D:8D3E:2051:420C:46C8 (talk) 21:26, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestions, I find your first rewording suitable for both articles. I will add the related notes and wikilinks later on, if you agree to apply it to both of them. GenoV84 (talk) 23:10, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

That's fine with me. 2603:7081:4E0F:920D:8D3E:2051:420C:46C8 (talk) 23:57, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

References