Talk:Off the derech

Deletion

Should be deleted. Not neutral.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Pualsonese (talk • contribs)

Merger

Completed merger from Ex-Haredim page. This page still needs a lot of work. Please help edit and expand. Lokshin kugel (talk) 21:50, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Notability

It seems to me a very notable topic. It has received coverage by most major orthodox Jewish publication plus a book by this name has been published. User:Pualsonese has a good point that the article must be NPOV. Joe407 (talk) 11:02, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This article should belong in Urban Dictionary, not on Wikipedia. 2.124.207.31 (talk) 22:47, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely not. This article references a significant sociological shift. Lokshin kugel (talk) 21:12, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

History

We should add about Jews who went "off the Derech" throughout History. There are many publications about that - some also focus on the "problems" these caused to the Religious communities. Take Russia for example. The problem is that it is very difficult to find valid reputable sources for this topic in general.Caseeart (talk) 06:29, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

I will link some wiki pages Lokshin kugel (talk) 21:12, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Hasty deletions

@Sir Joseph: You are at it again. Please do not wipe pages at your discretion because you decide what is and isn't worthy of being on the page. Your job is to ask for sources, not to delete. You are expected to give time for editors to find sources to material.

Your deletion of the list of books as per Wikipedia:External links directory issues is wrong. That page specifically mentions external links. This is not a listing of external links.

If you continue to run through pages deleting without first asking for consensus I will be forced to report you.Lokshin kugel (talk) 21:09, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a directory. If you have a problem with being bold then report it. You should look at BRD, and I'm not at it again, I've been at it since 2005 or 2006. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 21:21, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Sir Joseph here. If there is one or two very notable books, we can add them to the Further reading section, but we do not need each and every publication listed here. See WP:NOTEVERYTHING. Debresser (talk) 21:50, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

As long as you have Faroneke (sp)'s book, I don't think we need other books. Other books are just autobiographies, not necessarily a scholarly read for OTD. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 21:54, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

If you mean Faranak, we had that already in the Further reading list, and why was it added a second time? So it was rightfully removed. Debresser (talk) 21:59, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Very much disagree. This is not an endless list. These are several of the most cited books in the genre. I believe at this size, this is a fair reading list of influential works. They are all prominent. It seems the two of you like to have overly minimalist WP pages. I disagree with your approach. Please add the list of books back in, whether as its own section or in the further reading section.Lokshin kugel (talk) 22:40, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Please add the list of books back into the article. They are all prominent and notable. It is not an endless list, but a fitting bibliography of the genre. Lokshin kugel (talk) 22:43, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

WP is not a directory of books. The article already has a list of a couple of see alsos. We don't need a list of every book written by an OTD'er, especially if one of the books is fiction. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 22:58, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

WP is a directory of significant information. Your use of directory, pulled from a page about external links, is irrelevant. You are being overly minimalist and draconian in your censorship, in contradistinction to WP's standards in Wikipedia:Content removal.

I will be reverting it. If you want to synthesize it with read also, that is fine. But removing information you simply don't like is not bold, its censorship. If you have an issue, bring it up on the talk page and wait for consensus. Otherwise, please show me your exact source which says WP is not a directory of books. Lokshin kugel (talk) 23:41, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with censorship. Wikipedia is not a directory. WP:DIRECTORY for starters, and as Debresser pointed out WP:NOTEVERYTHING. Furthermore, some of those books are fiction or NPOV. Don't revert, discuss. If you continue to revert without discussing, you are engaged in edit warring, and will be reported. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 23:46, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

@Lokshin kugel Oh, but if you revert against consensus and Wikipedia policies and guidelines, you will be reported. No way you will try to WP:OWN this article. And please also review WP:COI, because I see from your edit history and behavior here and at List of notable former Orthodox Jews that you seems much too personally involved. Debresser (talk) 23:48, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

It is interesting how you believe your reverts don't need consensus, but mine do. I built out these two pages. I should be congratulated for that, not accused. Please don't engage in incitement. I am trying to keep this conversation based on substance. Please don't respond. I will not engage you any more on ad hominems.Lokshin kugel (talk) 19:01, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Your quote from WP:DIRECTORY is wrong. It says nowhere on that page that WP is not for lists. It says:

• Wikipedia is not a directory... Wikipedia articles are not: Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics such as (but not limited to) quotations, aphorisms, or persons (real or fictional). If you want to enter lists of quotations, put them into our sister project Wikiquote. Of course, there is nothing wrong with having lists if their entries are relevant because they are associated with or significantly contribute to the list topic. Wikipedia also includes reference tables and tabular information for quick reference. Merged groups of small articles based on a core topic are permitted. (See Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists#Appropriate topics for lists for clarification.)

The page you quote actually states the exact opposite of what you quote it saying. I am therefore going to revert unless you can show me the exact place where WP says there should not be a list of important literary contributions to a field on that subjects WP page.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Lokshin kugel (talk • contribs)

Precisely: you created these two article, and now you think that gives you permission to do with them as you please, against Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Please read WP:OWN that this is not the case.

WP:DIRECTORY says precisely what I claim it does, that you should not add indiscriminate lists of information to articles, only the really relevant items. Which is precisely the point Sir Joseph and I have been making here. Debresser (talk) 19:16, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Just FTR, OTD has been here for quite some time, Lokshin Kugel has just merged some other article into it and made it a big mess and then claimed it as his own, together with the List article. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:20, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for correcting me there. Apart from the first two paragraphs, the text is basically his, and he has made tens of edits these last days. Debresser (talk) 19:28, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Same here: If it was removed for a reason, you should state it here on the talk page. According to Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary My version should be left on the page until consensus is reached. It is therefore you who are engaging in an edit war, not me. Consequently, it is also you who think you WP:OWN the page. As for directory, give me exact quote. I quoted where it states the list should be in place. I expect exactly the same, otherwise I do not consider your claim relevant. Lokshin kugel (talk) 19:41, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

I will be reverting unless you post an appropriate sourced reply--with exact verse-- as to why it is you who is acting appropriately and not me. Lokshin kugel (talk) 19:41, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Same applies here:

From BOLD, revert, discuss cycle:

• Bold editing is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia. No editor is more welcome to make a positive contribution than you are. When in doubt, edit! Similarly, if you advance a potential edit on the article's talk page, and no response is received after a reasonable amount of time, go ahead and make your edit. Sometimes other editors are busy, or nobody is watching the article. Either the edit will get the attention of interested editors, or you will simply improve the article—either is a good outcome.

• Revert an edit if it is not an improvement, and it cannot be immediately fixed by refinement. Consider reverting only when necessary. BRD does not encourage reverting, but recognizes that reverts will happen. When reverting, be specific about your reasons in the edit summary and use links if needed. Look at the article's edit history and its talk page to see if a discussion has begun. If not, you may begin one (see this list for a glossary of common abbreviations you might see).

• Discuss the edit, and the reasons for the edit, on the article's talk page. Leave the article in the condition it was in before the Bold edit was made (often called the status quo ante), but don't engage in back-and-forth reverts because that will probably be viewed as edit-warring.

• Cycle. When the discussion has improved understanding, attempt a new edit that may be acceptable to all participants in the discussion.

According to this, the page should be left in the status quo ante. Period. Lokshin kugel (talk) 19:50, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Since you simply copied your reply from the list article, let me do the same, because my reply from there applies here as well, mutatis mutandis: ::: That exception is not applicable, because 1. there is a consensus against the edit 2. there is no consensus-version, since you created this list just recently.Debresser (talk) 19:56, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Lis of notable people

The list of notable people who became less or non-religious is IMHO indiscriminate/not relevant to the article, since that fact is not the reason these people are notable. I would understand a list of people notable for becoming less or not religious, like Spinoza (just that he changed to Christianity, so he doesn't really fit the criteria either). I propose to remove the present list from this article. Debresser (talk) 15:49, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

I think that this is not indiscriminate because it's a list of notable people who exemplify the article's subject. None of the four categories at WP:INDISCRIMINATE applies here. I have added some language to clarify that these are just examples and not a comprehensive list. --Albany NY (talk) 17:52, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

For the record - Spinoza did not convert. He was in Cherem with Dutch Calvinists and on Catholic Church's forbidden book list for being too pantheistic --Shanac (talk) 21:50, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

@Albany NY You are correct. It is a discriminate list. And it is of course relevant, since these people are examples. The exact guideline that applies is WP:LISTBIO, which means that a source needs to be provided and WP:TRIVIA applies.

It is my opinion that this article is not in need of a list of examples. The fact that these people are not notable for being "off the derech" people practically means, IMHO, that such a list does not contribute anything significant to this article. For these two reasons, and in accordance with the guideline mentioned above, I think the list should be removed. In addition, I will now remove all entries that are not reliably sourced, per standing WP:BLP policy. Debresser (talk) 11:04, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

I have removed the list and replaced it with books and movies about OTD. Dainybernstein (talk) 01:34, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Name of article

It looks as if "Off the derech" (="off the path") is a more Haredi term? In Israel they seem to self-identify as "Yotzim" (="leaving") link

Should we perhaps move this article to "Yotzim"? Huldra (talk) 23:22, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Huldra, no, the more common name in English is OTD. As all the English FB groups and support groups show, OTD is the common usage. If there is an article on the Hebrew Wikipedia, we can always link to that article with whatever name they use. Also, in Israel, many English speakers use OTD, and finally they often use the term, "chozer b’she’elah" to refer to themselves. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 23:45, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Never mind, it is already linked. https://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/יציאה_בשאלה and it has a redirect from chozer b'she'elah as well. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 23:50, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Ok, "Off the derech" get 47,100 google hits, while gets "Yotzim" gets 28,400. That doesn't mean everything, though. (This word gets 25,400,000 hits :( ). My concern is that "off the path" is a rather Haredi-centric view, And יציאה בשאלה (=the he.wp article this article is linked to) means "Exit question", according to translate.google, Huldra (talk) 23:55, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Huldra, yotzim is a common word in Hebrew so you're getting tons of hits as you said. The term is used by all English speakers, not just in the US and it's not Haredi-centric, it's English centric. If someone leaves Orthodoxy in an English speaking community, they will refer to themselves as OTD. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 00:04, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Never heard of "yotzim" in this context. Debresser (talk) 00:23, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Debresser, also, the organization linked even clarifies that yotzim means leaving, not that people who leave religion are called yotzim, but that they chose to name their organization, Yotzim L'Shinui because of what it means, "Leaving for a change" not that the OTD in Israel are called "yotzim", as the Hebrew article is titled, they refer to themselves as Yetzieh b'she'elah . Sir Joseph ^(talk) 00:26, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Indeed. Debresser (talk) 14:02, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

The ~27000 Google hits for "yotzim" include many which are completely unrelated to our topic (e.g. "yotzim letayel") and many more which do not support the use of "yotzim" but rather "yotzim beshe'ela" or similar. Of those sites which use "yotzim" alone for what is here called OTD, they seem to generally be related to a single organization - Hillel (seemingly unrelated to Hillel International?) - which indicates that "yotzim" is not mainstream usage. Ar2332 (talk) 05:24, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

External Links

I stripped all the External Links from the resources section since it was starting to look like a directory and EL. The main section has what resources are available, I don't think we need to list all resources. We have Footsteps and Makom and then mention FB groups, as well as others are available. Once we start listing more, we then have issues with determining what to include, and of course, EL and DIRECTORY. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 00:01, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Sure. Agree. Debresser (talk) 00:23, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

To take away the facebook-links, instagram, etc: ok. But totally unacceptable to take away the links to organisations, IMO, Huldra (talk) 20:56, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Huldra, we aren't a directory of organizations. This violates DIRECTORY and EL. Perhaps if some of those organizations have a link, it might be acceptable but you can't just revert. You don't have consensus. Wikipedia isn't a resource guide. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 00:19, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Well, it wasn't listed as EL; so WP:EL obviously isn't relevant. And I cannot see anything in WP:DIRECTORY that is relevant, either. These links have been in the article for ages; it is not me who need consensus to re-insert them: it is you who unilaterally removed them.

Ah well, I guess this goes to a RfC, unless you can come up with better arguments than WP:IDONTLIKEIT, Huldra (talk) 22:23, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Huldra, This isn't the IP conflict, please don't try to bring hostility into this area. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 22:30, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Sir Joseph Could you please answer my argument, or rather, could you please give any argument (based on policies) which tells us to remove what you just removed? Huldra (talk) 22:34, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Huldra, because Wikipedia isn't a directory or resource guide. I answered that quite a few times, and @Debresser: agrees. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 22:38, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Sir Joseph, please point out what in WP:DIRECTORY is relevant? (And Debresser states on his user-page that he is a Lubavitcher rabbi: I see a certain COI here), Huldra (talk) 22:47, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Huldra, for starters, "Wikipedia is not a directory." I'm not sure why you care so much about this topic. I don't care too much to include or exclude, I just don't think it belongs here and once we start including, we run the risk of having to include every org under the sun. We aren't a directory, nor are we a resource guide for people. I also am not sure why Debresser would have a COI about this topic. Let's not start to play games here. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 23:01, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Sir Joseph, there are 7 points listed in WP:DIRECTORY: I cannot see any of them relevant to this case. Since you removed the info: I want to know which point you found relevant for this article? Huldra (talk) 23:06, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

I posted a notice at the project talk page so hopefully more people will come and give an opinion one way or another. As I said, we shouldn't clutter the article up with links to external organizations. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 23:21, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

In other words: you don't have any policy-based argument. And then you post for help on..[[Category:WikiProject Judaism]]?? Ok, so I have placed a similar note on [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Atheism]], Huldra (talk) 23:34, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

That is generally one of the steps in a content dispute. As I said, this isn't the IP conflict area, please don't bring your hostility into this area. As you can see from this page, WT:JUDAISM is the proper place to post a notice, not help, so please don't cast aspersions. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 23:43, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

@Huldra: User:Sir Joseph is correct, Wikipedia is not a directory. There's no need to include the links. Ibn Daud (talk) 03:51, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

@Huldra: You know very well that Wikipedia is not a directory, so your claim that there is no "policy-based argument" for removal of these external links is laughable. By the way, I didn't appreciate your baseless claim as though I would have a conflict of interest on this page, and find your behavior here altogether rather disruptive. Debresser (talk) 20:35, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

intro wording

Is this not a more accurate description? it will also possibly help to shorten the whole section...

“Off the Derech is a modern expression meaning one who left a traditional-Orthodox Jewish lifestyle and embraced a non-observant or less-observant one” (Green, 2017). source: Nancy Steinberg's study. Albertinon (talk) 22:30, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

WP: RELEVANCE

WP: RELEVANCE Victims within the Ultra-Orthodox community and their families reporting sexual abuse to authorities, are said to often be shunned and quietened by community members and leaders.

Perhaps we can move it to legal Battles (in "communities response") Albertinon (talk) 10:01, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

removed Albertinon (talk) 11:30, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

list of reasons for leaving

WP:CHERRYPICKING Albertinon (talk) 00:13, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

converting to other religions not called OTD.

Wouldn't that be "shmad" ? Almost sure one who leaves to another religion will not be called OTD by orthodox people unless they're unaware of his new religion. and the person themselves, would they refer to themselves as OTD if they have a new religious identity? highly doubtful. I recommend removing "other religions" from intro. Albertinon (talk) 08:07, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

I have deleted. Albertinon (talk) 20:54, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Faranak margolese

I'm trying to work out why contributors/editors have given so much weight to her book. it is at best insightful, and at worst possibly delusional. it is not academic research. anyone? Albertinon (talk) 16:06, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

calling it delusional is the definition of biased. In any case, I've deleted some references which weren't necessary, and it doesn't seem that reference to her book is overpowering any other references. The problem was that other sources were not published until recently, after this article was created. Now that there are more sources, it's great that they were added. Dainybernstein (talk) 01:38, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

@Dainybernstein I'm (mentally, now visibly) referencing this article https://www.jpost.com/Arts-and-Culture/Books/Where-did-it-go-wrong which questions her WP:RELIABILITY.

I understand your point. Albertinon (talk) 14:56, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Oh wow, that's... fascinating. Thanks for sharing the review. Dainybernstein (talk) 15:29, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

@Dainybernstein you're very welcome. have you noticed the other topics I mentioned you in? important re your edits. Albertinon (talk) 18:34, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

I did! I will respond soon and will implement your comments (I'm grading student papers now, which takes precedence). Dainybernstein (talk) 18:35, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

lol. no problem. thanks again for your contributions, its been awfully quiet here, then someone who does things right... Albertinon (talk) 18:37, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi, If possible please review two new pieces I added to the lead section. Edit if needed for [WP:MOS]. Albertinon (talk) 20:02, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

etymology of יציאה בשאלה up for deletion

I have hidden this paragraph (terminology section) because it refers to etymology of a different wikipedia article, it should be in an English translation of that page. I'm awaiting consensus, if there is no response I will delete. WP: RELEVANCE Albertinon (talk) 19:27, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Proposal for Major changes in the §reasons for leaving

Hi. I am in the midst of compiling a few studies, based on the nature and results of the studies, I would like to make three subheadings in Off the derech#reasons_for_leaving;

~Influential narratives - this would show results of studies that have found circumstances such as exposure to mass media, OTD siblings etc that contribute to disaffiliation

~Causes and Reasons/rationales - this would be much like the current list, but a FULL list, compiled from alll the studies, with references by each and every item

          sub sub header~Categorizations - various ways that the researchers categorized the given reasons, e.g. intellectual, emotional, implementational; push pull;  ;

~Psychology in decision to leave - this would show the psychology in the active decision to dissafiliate, found by sociologist and psychologist researchers, such as immigrant theory, etc

I am currently working on this, and expect fellow editors to react asap to avoid conflict.

I appreciate. Albertinon (talk) 20:50, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

If you're still working on this, please note that I've edited the reasons for leaving section so that it reads less like a list. More sources for each reason would be great! This list was compiled based on the Nishma study, which was all that was available at the time. Dainybernstein (talk) 01:41, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

@DainybernsteinI understand. How about a table with a full list? perhaps a collapsible which is default hidden? Albertinon (talk) 14:51, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

WP:MOS please

there is a lot of information that doesn't flow so well. it's sourced, but it should read better. Albertinon (talk) 19:47, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

@Dainybernstein Fantastic job! I love the new look , and it reads so much better. thank you for WP:BOLDLY cleaning it up. Thanks for the beautiful table.

I disagree with a few edits.

-the term "At risk" must be mentioned somewhere (perhaps in the lead section), along with the discussion re its meaning.

-The start of the subsection "context" regarding the context of how reasons are viewed (which wasnt relocated to "post dissafiliation"), is important, as stressed by the studies. I can and will add the sources once its reinstated. Further, Margolese's point about how the insularity makes it less likely to choose a different lifestyle, is relevant.

-Sexual abuse in the Haredi community is not really relevant here, but sexual abuse reported by OTD people is highly relevant as it is one of the prevalent reasons listed in all the studies.

Thanks Albertinon (talk) 14:45, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

added these back in, mostly in the Orthodox views of OTD people section, a bit in the Reasons for leaving section. I tried to make all of these bits of info flow together as a sort of narrative. Go ahead and edit more if you think it's necessary! Dainybernstein (talk) 03:15, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

@Dainybernstein umm... See my edit re orthodox views. Albertinon (talk) 16:08, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Transliteration of "יציאה בשאלה"

The article uses the term "יציאה בשאלה" directly in the original Hebrew script; would it be possible to transliterate it for those of us who cannot read that script? Automated tools come up with "Ytzh vshlh", "yṣyʾh bšʾlh" and similar which (obviously) are missing vowels; can we have something more readable for English speakers? — The Anome (talk) 09:57, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Hello. I added the tranliteration requested. But also, as I clicked the interlanguage link it turns out the the Hebrew WP does not have such a page. I also think the more commonly used expression in Hebrew is actually chazara besheelah, "return in question," which the direct opposite of chazara beteshuva, "return in repentance", i.e. the original expression invented to name the phenomenon of those becoming religious. I didn't have time to check the Hebrew WP on this matter. Regards, warshy ^(¥¥) 18:37, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

@Warshy Thank you for the transliteration. The link is correct, and the format is per H:FOREIGNLINK. Here is the external link to the hebrew article https://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/יציאה_בשאלה. Albertinon (talk) 13:37, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

@Warshy I have now edited it to link directly to hebrew page. Albertinon (talk) 13:52, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Albertinon, OK, thank you. The link is now correct. I will defer to Hebrew WP on the matter, of course, although in my informal talking about the subject I've always used chazarah besheelah instead of yetziah besheela, because it emphasizes the contrarian direction of the original expression chazarah biteshuva. I guess it makes it more of a funny pun is simple colloquial language. Thank you, 15:50, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

@Warshy Sure. You would need a source though. The source in this article says;

This phenomenon, often referred to in North America as going “Off the Derech” (Off the Path, OTD).The Hebrew term Yetzia BeShe’ela, literally translated as “exiting with questions” is built as a “counter” name to “Hazara Be’Teshuvah,” used to describe non-Orthodox individuals joining Haredi groups.

Albertinon (talk) 11:54, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

I just made a passing comment. The fact that the word teshuvah has two meaning in modern Hebrew, one traditional rabbinic/religious (meaning "repentance"), and one modern/colloquial (meaning "answer") can lend itself to some "philosophizing" and other puns on the side, but never mind. The aticle is fine as it is. We can leave it at that. Thank you, warshy ^(¥¥) 17:10, 9 August 2023 (UTC)