![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | The contents of the Haskalah page were merged into Haskalah on 26 February 2018. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
![]() | This article contains a translationofתנועת ההשכלה היהודית from he.wikipedia. |
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignmentbyPrimeBOT (talk) 22:10, 17 January 2022 (UTC)Reply
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Sarahp1959.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignmentbyPrimeBOT (talk) 23:07, 16 January 2022 (UTC)Reply
I am not sure why someone would be concerned about NPOV in the article. Could you explain your concern? Take a look at the references if you want further backgroumd. --Goodoldpolonius2 14:35, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Add the detail you want. The only way it would be NPOV is if you said something like "The German Haskalah movement was run by idiots" or something. --Goodoldpolonius2 02:20, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Should that page simply be a redirect to this one? Rmhermen 00:23, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)
Oh, come on. This is absurd. Now Jews want to take credit for the Age of Enlightenment, too?
Do Wiki's referees require ANY evidence for these preposterous claims? Gutenberg's invention of the printing press surely would have SOME documentation that Jews had their private, secretive Enlightenment, while America and Europe waited for instructions from the "underground?"
The Documentary Hypothesis illustrates Jews plagiarized the Tank-ah. Fine. It's not literal history, but a document of tribal faith of a nomadic peoples long ago non-existent. But to claim Jews were part of the Enlightenment is so bizarre it can only be ridiculed.
But no one -- other than Baruch Spinoza in Amsterdam -- drew any PUBLIC attention toward Enlightenment ideas. He was "excommunicated" by Amsterdams rabbinical authorities for his blasphemy, idolatry, and heterodoxy. But he was also a baptized Christian, as well as nominal Jew, in which Jews now want to capture him as their own? Holland's tolerance to pluralism was in fact one of the reason Jews migrated to Holland. Next they'll insist he was baptized against his will, that the rabbis were consumed that Dutch "intolerance" would have none of an unorthodox Christian/Jew? Please.
But, here is an undocumented, unsupported entry on Wiki of such preposterous, undocumented nonsense, not even a rabbinical or Jewish publisher can be cited for "independent verification." Are we to await as they manufacture it? Wait until the scrolls are unraveled?
Wiki's referees don't even understand Karl Popper, apparently a Jewish emigre, but more importantly, a man of impeccable standards. No evidence. No validity. Unable to be falsified, incapable of being verified. That from a nominal Jew who never thought his "identity" counted more than reason, science, logic, and evidence. I am sure he would find this entry outlandish, preposterous, and appalling. And perhaps, guiling. At some point, contributors to Jewish hegemony write their own anti-Jewish reactions. Of 0.2% populations, Jews were always the first?
No wonder Evangelicals, Rabbi Eckstein, and Fundamentalists find gullibility. Wiki is so gullible or lacking criteria, "making it up" works as PostModernists insist it will.
Dshsfca (talk) 01:13, 13 April 2008 (UTC)dshsfcaReply
I'm not a big expert on this, but this sounds a bit biased to me:
"Haskalah produced such groups as the Reform movement, which deviated from authentic Judaism with the relaxation of Jewish law which was based on denial of Divinity of Oral Torah in particular.."
Does Wikipedia take the stance that Reform Jews are not authentic Jews? --Jfruh 05:19, 22 February 2006 (UTC)Reply
This isn't my field, but I found the article fascinating. One question, though - is there a way to incorporate the map *into* the article? The link is a bit awkward. Thanks. 86.29.110.26 00:36, 24 July 2006 (UTC)Reply
I think this can be easily changed by saying "traditional Judaism." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.0.233.30 (talk) 21:28, 23 November 2007 (UTC)Reply
I was under the impression that Haskalah was for Yiddish and "against" hebrew, since it was associated with religion and culture based on religion?--24.203.108.54 (talk) 18:29, 15 May 2014 (UTC)Reply
Hi, I am planning on contributing to this page by adding more content to the “Effects” section of this article with material from a scholarly source by Dan Cohn-Sherbok, particularly expanding on the religious effects. If anyone wants to comment on these changes, please let me know on this Talk Page or on my Talk Page. (Sarahp1959 (talk) 18:07, 5 May 2016 (UTC))Reply
Not wholly true - it actually produced a schism between Haredim and Modern Orthodox Judaism. The latter is as much as product of the Haskalah as "the Reform" is. 62.190.148.115 (talk) 11:12, 25 August 2016 (UTC)Reply
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Haskalah. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:57, 31 October 2017 (UTC)Reply
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Haskalah. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:55, 9 December 2017 (UTC)Reply
What precisely is S. Feiner's assertion about an alleged "collapse" of the Haskalah movement?
As far as I know, the gradual emancipation of the of the Jewish populations in the various newly formed nation-states throughout Europe in the 19th century and between the two world wars in the 20th century made the Haskalah movement finally obsolete. But some of its basic goals continue operating among Jewish populations up to this day. There was never a "collapse" of it, as you state.
As for the removal of the very useful wikilinks to the 19th century salonist women from the page, I don't think the removal is warranted, mainly because it does not "improve" the page. On the contrary, it just makes the page less rich in encyclopedic content. So, unless you reply specifically here to my question and to my comment about the encyclopedic content of the page, I will restore those wikilinks.
Actually, instead of simply reverting me with a provocative edit summary about "statements" you should have discussed my revert of your removal here first. Thank you, warshy (¥¥) 20:36, 1 January 2022 (UTC)Reply
Is it ok that there are so few references in this article? Pngeditor (talk) 19:23, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply