text:
Talk:Reform Judaism

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
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): Rebekah3152, KyleCee17.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 07:56, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
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 assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 07:56, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
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): Aasherian.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 07:56, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
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): Gisellen.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 07:56, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 August 2020 and 16 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Alexa114258.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 07:56, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Clear up terminology
This article seems to be stuck about half-way between doing disambiguation and explaining the history of the reform movement and its terminology. This isn't helpful. The problem seems to be that there are at least three different meanings of the term "Reform Judaism", all of them closely related now, strictly based on the content of the various linked articles, "Reform Judaism" (UK) corresponds to "Conservative Judaism" (US), and "Reform Judaism" (US) corresponds to "Liberal Judaism" (UK). This split in terminology developed in the early 20th century. In the 1920s, the problem was addressed by introducing the new term "Progressive Judaism" meant to include all of "Reform" (both meanings), "Liberal", "Conservative" and "Reconstructionist" branches, i.e. anything connected to the "reform movement" as opposed to Orthodox Judaism.
 * 1) generic "reformed Judaism", i.e. anything to do with the Jewish reform movement
 * 2) "Reform Judaism" (North America)
 * 3) "Reform Judaism" (UK)

Keeping his story scattered over half a dozen pages isn't helpful to the uninitiated reader. I see two possibilities, either merge this entire page into Progressive Judaism and compile a section dedicated to coherently explaining terminology there, or else reduce this page to a simple disambiguation page, as follows, "Reform Judaism" may refer to: --dab (𒁳) 11:13, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * the reform movement in Judaism
 * Reform Judaism (North America)
 * Reform Judaism (United Kingdom)
 * Reform Judaism (magazine)
 * See also
 * Progressive Judaism

 * dab, your use of the term "terminological nightmare" is absolutely correct. What happened here is that someone attempted to "clear" the matter, turning this page into a virtual disambig. while moving much data to Jewish beliefs and practices in the reform movement, an article which is in shambles. In addition, there are also Progressive Judaism and Reform movement in Judaism. Everything is a total mess, the citations are very poor. I'll attempt to answer:

 * 1) UK Reform Judaism is NOT Conservative at all. It adheres to the basic principles of its American counterpart, though it's less radical. British Liberals are indeed tending toward the American model.
 * 2) A a bit of history: the basics of Reform - these include progressive revelation, universalized Messianism and so on, too complex to explain right now - were laid in 1830-1840s Germany by Abraham Geiger and his supporters, like Samuel Holdheim. Jewish communities in Germany remained unified by law (one city, one congregation) until 1876, and the Reformers - known there as "Liberals", though this title was quite ambiguous - had to accommodate conservative ,with a small c', elements. Some of Geiger's disciples, David Einhorn (rabbi) etc., moved to the US, where religious freedom was mandated by law and anyone could set up congregations. American Reform was free to be as radical as it wished, and turned into a huge success.
 * 3) Englishman Claude Montefiore, strongly influenced by Geiger, was the founder of British Liberal Judaism. German refugees fleeing Hitler viewed it as too radical and set up British Reform Judaism, which reminds the compromising attitude of German communities, in the 1930s - though the first synagogue calling itself "Reform" in the UK was established in 1840 (a long story involving neo-Karaites but having no relation with German Reform Judaism and its American derivative). Ahh, in 1926 people from around the world who basically shared the original convictions of German Reformers - progressive revelation and so forth - met in Berlin and founded the World Union for Progressive Judaism; they chose "Progressive" while Americans were "Reform" and Europeans mostly "Liberal". Both UK Reform - whose rabbis, like Jonathan Romain, affirm the tenets of "Geigerian" thought - and Liberal joined in.
 * 4) The WUPJ remained a Reform-only club until 1990, when Reconstructionist Judaism (something utterly different; among others, instead of a progressive revelation, Reco.'s believe there was NO revelation. They're an offshoot of Conservative Judaism) entered. Today, The American Union for Reform Judaism is by far the largest member of the WUPJ, with 1.5 Million congregants out of 1.8M worldwide (including 100,000 Reco.'s). Sorry for making this looong comment, but I hope it clarifies the relations between the terms "Progressive", "Liberal" and "Reform". There is one "Geigerian" world branch (which underwent much development, but just as Karl Barth is still a Calvinist, so is Eugene Borowitz still within Reform) and there is Recon'. Both may use the title "Progressive" today.
 * 5) After dealing with US and UK Reform Judaism and "Progressive Judaism", let's move to the Reform Movement in Judaism. As mentioned in the title of that article, it was coined by D. Phillipson and used again by Michael Meyer in their histories. As Meyer, the most important historian of Reform Judaism, writes in his Preface:Considerations of Historiography (in the book Response to Modernity: A History of the Reform Movement in Judaism), both wrote about Reform Judaism, but you can't write about it without alluding to the all-engulfing changes sweeping Jews in late 18th Century Europe. Therefore, he used the terminology of "Reform movement" from which "Reform Judaism" developed; he bequeaths the title "founder of RJ" upon Geiger. The book also alludes to two other movements who confronted the new realities and made SOME changes: Zecharias Frankel's Positive-Historical School (=antecedent of Conservative Judaism) and Samson Raphael Hirsch's Neo-Orthodoxy (more or less today's Modern Orthodox Judaism). However, as he stressed there on page ix, they're there mainly to provide contrast. If I had my way, Reform Movement in Judaism would have been renamed to something like "History of Judaism in the 19th century" to avoid confusion, but whatever.
 * 6) And to the conclusion: Reform Judaism has over 13,000 views a month, as compared to some 1,700 by either Liberal Judaism and Progressive Judaism, each. "Progressive" could have the ideal name for the mother-article until the Reconstructionists joined the WUPJ. "Liberal", while here it refers to the British variant only, means also the historical Liberal Judaism in 19th Century Germany and other groups thus named in modern-day Germany, France, Netherlands etc. Reform Judaism (North America) alludes much to its German antecedent (which Meyer calls "Reform", and refers - as wikipedia does - to Geiger as founder of Reform).
 * 7) I therefore suggest that:
 * Reform Judaism become the parent article,
 * Progressive Judaism become either a redirect or merged into World Union for Progressive Judaism
 * Liberal Judaism become a redirect to Reform Judaism while it's subject matter named Liberal Judaism (UK)
 * Reform Movement in Judaism be rewritten and possibly renamed, but no rush
 * Jewish beliefs and practices in the reform movement be deleted and the relevant info there salvaged and stored in the appropriate articles.

 * If you or anyone reached until here and didn't dose off, I congratulate you. Sorry for making it long, but couldn't help. AddMore (talk) 14:36, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

 * Sounds like a plausible plan, though I haven't thought about the basic details. Several years back, there was a push toward using the term Progressive, based more IMO on the intellectual or ideological views of editors rather than the WP policies, e.g. use of more prevalent or common name. It also may have shaped the scope of what reliable sources would ordinarily consider unified, e.g., is the Conservative movement best situated as a subtopic of Progressive etc. B'hatzlakhah, Probably the first step is to do a formal proposed move or merger of the articles involved, as I think you've indicated above, and then gradually edit them within an improved encyclopedic structure. HG | Talk 16:51, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

 * These proposals actually make some sense. The recent redirects don't, though!
 * I agree that Reform Judaism should be the central article.
 * I agree that Progressive Judaism should be merged into World Union for Progressive Judaism and then redirected there.
 * I agree that Liberal Judaism should be a redirect to Reform Judaism, while the present article should be renamed Liberal Judaism (UK) (analogous to Liberal Judaism (Netherlands)).
 * Reform Movement in Judaism was redirected to Reform Judaism, which makes much sense.
 * I agree that Jewish beliefs and practices in the reform movement is a rather worthless article, and should be merged mainly into Reform Judaism and deleted, but since people dislike to delete it could be redirected to Reform Judaism as well.

Since the previous was unsigned, I'm not entirely sure whom I am responding to here.

All of this is a tempest in a teapot, if you ask me (which you haven't). For the most part, I think that AddMore der Zweite has been handling this situation fairly responsibly, and I can certainly assume good faith on that user's part. I can appreciate concerns, though. All of this is happening about ten months after AddMore posted a query at WT:JUDAISM, so it's not so fresh in people's minds. And one certainly must err on the side of (editorial) conservatism in vastly overhauling an article as long and as longstanding as this one. AddMore, I think you should probably post one more time at WT:JUDAISM. While it's fine for most of the description to remain here at Talk:Reform Judaism, you ought to provide a little bit more detail at WT:JUDAISM so people know what the question is. (That didn't really happen the last time you posted there.) After that, I think I'll be ok with your approach to untangling the terminology issues, provided that the following subjects don't get lost in the sauce:
 * 1) Somewhere there is still a description of what the term Progressive Judaism does—and doesn't—mean, and accordingly how far the grouping per se does—and doesn't—go.
 * 2) Where two separate Geigerian (let's call them) movements developed in parallel (such as UK Liberal and UK Reform), make sure we don't lose the fundamental differences between them.
 * Do please make sure that your descriptions of the distinctions are well-sourced. I noticed a comment somewhere that suggested that UK Reform was more like US Conservative, and you disagreed. I don't really know the answer, but just make sure that distinctions are well-sourced and not based only on your opinion. (Also, if a comparison will be made with US Conservative, remember that there are some pretty substantial differences, too, within that movement, and between the US and ex-US branches of that movement.)
 * 1) Finally, somewhere in the tangle of these explanations, at least one comment (not yours, I don't think) suggested that Conservative Judaism was part of the Progressive Judaism tangle. De facto, parts of that movement are not very far away. But the reality is that Conservatism has formally and theologically been quite separate from Reform for over 100 years, so my judgment is that it should not be included. StevenJ81 (talk) 18:37, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * User:Debresser, I don't think any more comments are coming. What now? AddMore der Zweite (talk) 19:36, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Personally, I think you should do what you proposed. Be WP:BOLD, especially since you have no objections. The only thing you have is a couple of mild constraints, per my comments, and I feel confident you will live within those constraints.
 * Do you mind editing out the word "confessional" in the lede, though? That's such a Christian term in this setting, and though at a certain level it is appropriately descriptive in English, it just doesn't feel right here. StevenJ81 (talk) 20:19, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with Steven that you should start doing this. But take it easy, one step at a time. If it will take a week, a month, that is fine. If there are any troubles, refer to this discussion. Debresser (talk) 20:39, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Tone
User:Dave314159, excuse for bothering you. That tone template, is the style overly flamboyant, or non-factual? I'll correct it at once.AddMore der Zweite (talk) 16:06, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

 * I was noticing sentences like: "Quite haphazardly, he instituted a major innovation when introducing family pews in 1851, after his Albany congregation purchased a local church building and retained sitting arrangements, a feature unknown in synagogue design until then." and "The Eastern Europeans came from backward regions, and had a pronounced ethnic tinge and a self-consciousness of a national minority, while the natives were assimilated and long accustomed to civil equality."
 * So, both florid and not completely NPOV.
 * It sounds as if it were lifted from something written in the early-to-mid twentieth century, though a quick Google search didn't turn up anything.
 * --Dave314159 (talk) 19:48, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Dave314159, the abyss which gaped between the Eastern immigrants and the natives, of all shades, is a well-known detail of history. Not just in the US, but in Europe as well (cf. Michael Meyer, Response to Modernity, pp. 290-295). For an online source, check this, p. 6 (second paragraph). I did dry up the style, though.AddMore der Zweite (talk) 06:36, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
 * --Dave314159 (talk) 19:48, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Dave314159, the abyss which gaped between the Eastern immigrants and the natives, of all shades, is a well-known detail of history. Not just in the US, but in Europe as well (cf. Michael Meyer, Response to Modernity, pp. 290-295). For an online source, check this, p. 6 (second paragraph). I did dry up the style, though.AddMore der Zweite (talk) 06:36, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Dave314159, the abyss which gaped between the Eastern immigrants and the natives, of all shades, is a well-known detail of history. Not just in the US, but in Europe as well (cf. Michael Meyer, Response to Modernity, pp. 290-295). For an online source, check this, p. 6 (second paragraph). I did dry up the style, though.AddMore der Zweite (talk) 06:36, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

History - Beginnings Section
I have noticed that in the History section and subsection Beginnings that there seems to be some editorializing and polarizing language. I propose changing language that presents bias, as has been proposed by previous editors for different sections of the article, and refocus the rambling tendency of this subsection. I will also provide more citations throughout the section to back up what the article is saying. I'd also like to alert other editors that there are some terms and names that are undefined and make comprehension of the article more difficult. If someone opposes to the proposed changes, please comment here or on my talk page. Rebekah3152 (talk) 17:50, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Rebekah3152, I wrote everything here. Could you be more specific? AddMore-III (talk) 19:31, 1 May 2016 (UTC):
 * AddMore-III, I noticed that after I had made a few edits that you deleted the edits I had made. I hope to understand why you decided to remove my edits. I am a college student who decided to improve this article for a class assignment, but the source I used was a reliable one, not a "general introduction". Dan Cohn-Sherbok is a Rabbi of Reform Judaism and has written several books about Jewish life. The information I drew from came from Chapter 44 - The Origins of Reform of his 2003 book Judaism: History, Beliefs, and Practice. You indicated having issue with the edit that Jews were "no longer separated from the mainstream life of non-Jews", but directly from Cohn-Sherbok's source it said "No longer were Jews insulated from from non-Jewish currents of culture and thought". As for the "Orthodox Jews who believed" section, Cohn-Sherbok states that "a number of Orthodox Jews asserted that any alteration to the tradition was a violation of Jewish heritage". I understand that some of the Hamburg information would be better served elsewhere in the section. I understand you have invested time into this article and the Wikipedia community thanks you, but I am hoping to contribute positively to the Reform Judaism article and I feel I had done that with my edits. I assure you that the source I used is far from a general introduction and that the information I added would be of value to the article as a whole. Rebekah3152 (talk) 03:21, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

- I would like to add on to what Rebekah3152 has said. The article is a little bit vague on the original intent of Reform Judaism in the late 18th and early to mid 19th century in western Europe: ignoring the omission of Haskalah, there is no mention of the basic core of either modernizing the Jewish religion within the scope of European rationalism, i.e. as the editors of 'Modern Judaism' have noted (Nicholas de Lange & Miri Freud-Kandel) "This movement [Reform Judaism] decried the insularity, Talmudic focus, and kabbalistic orientation of early modern Ashkenazic Judaism, and it urged a twofold reform: (1) broadening and reorienting the curriculum for purposes of internal Jewish cultural renewal; and (2) training Jews with new skills for purposes of reapprorchment and participation in the Gentile world.[https://blackboard.chapman.edu/bbcswebdav/pid-274708-dt-content-rid-777671_1/courses/SPRING2016S-HIST-234-01/Dubin%2C%20Enlightenment%20and%20Emancipation%20-%20DP.pdf Modern Judaism: an Oxford Guide; from pg. 33] This seems like a reasonable adjustment in clarity in the article, unless anyone objects to this change (AddMore-III included)?KyleCee17 (talk) 04:23, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * KyleCee17, as mentioned in your source, that sentence concerns the Haskalah. This article is about Reform Judaism. By the time Reform (and again, not reform in the generic sense, but a specific denomination) consolidated in the 1840's, even the Orthodox in Germany moved waaay beyond the maskilic program, communicating almost exclusively in German etc. I bulked this article with some irrelevant info just so people could differentiate between - as Michael A. Meyer wrote - "reformers (in the generic sense)... a broad stream that embraced all opponents of the premodern status quo" to the "more clearly marked current which rejected not only the religious mentality of the ghetto, but also the modernist Orthodoxy which altered form but not substance." I've seen several Wikipedia users making that mistake. One must mention the former, and I've done so quite thoroughly, but they're totally different concepts. If you really want to understand the historical background, read Meyer's Response to Modernity. AddMore-III (talk) 05:13, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I get that you two are some sort of college freshmen who draw your info from general introductions. I use specified sources, check the bibliography of this article. "Breakdown of traditional patterns" is far more accurate than "no longer separated from the mainstream life of Non-Jews" (what does that even mean? And they were still separated to a great degree). The process here is little related to France, mainly in Germany. You also put the Hamburg Temple right in the beginning, though it's mentioned below. There is nothing non-traditional about vernacular in prayer and the Orthodox turned this issue into a red line only after Hamburg. So is the organ. The "Orthodox Jews who believed..." section is faulty at best. The Orthodox wanted civil rights as much as the proto-Reformers, Reform rabbis appeared only decades later, and it's not "believed deviation from tradition was a violation of Jewish heritage", but something like "omission of prayer for restoration of the sacrificial cult in Jerusalem by the Messiah was contrary to Jewish dogma, and severe heresy." AddMore-III (talk) 05:30, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Rebekah3152, I'm less than thrilled by your and your fellow classmates' edits. As I've already wrote, ideally you should have relied on specialist literature. However, as I'm both loathe to argue and aware you need those grades, I will not interfere here until you've passed your course. AddMore-III (talk) 06:23, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

New Changes!
Hi! I am a college student and am assigned this article in my writing and composition class. I am working on expanding and adding some sections on the article on Reform Judaism. So far, I have added a subsection on Reform Judaism post World War II and how the war has affected Reform Judaism. I also added a subsection on feminism, and talk about how Reform Judaism and feminism go hand in hand. I also added a subsection on "Tikkun Olam", or social justice, because it is important in Judaism, but especially in Reform Judaism. Lastly, I added a section on Reform Judaism in Israel, and how it has both started and evolved there. There is nothing that I would delete. However, I would place the "History" section in the beginning of the article rather than the end. I believe the structure would be more comprehensive that way. Please let me know if you have any questions or advice! Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aasherian (talk • contribs) 22:34, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

A Vital Addition
Hi, I am a college student, and I feel this article encapsulates very well what Reform Judaism is and the history of it. I would love to add a section expanding different movements within Reform Judaism. I feel adding a section to this article explaining Women of the Wall While this movement isn't strictly a Reform Jewish movement, the primal leaders, especially Anat Hoffman, as well as several other women, are central to the movement and are also Reform Jews. I feel this would be a nice generalized addition to this article. The values of Women of the Wall are unmistakably parallel to the values of Reform Judaism. Providing this information within this article will also give a real-world situation that shows controversy in light of Reform Judaism within all of Judaism as a whole. I would explain what the movement is when it was established but specifically provide information on how this movement for a lot of Orthodox Jews, interferes with the importance of tradition but for Reform Jews, forwards an agenda of equality and prosperity. My main reference will be a Journal Article entitled, "Feminists in the Temple Orthodoxy. The Struggle of the Women of the Wall to Change the Status Quo". It was written by Shofar which is an Interdisciplinary Journal of Jewish Studies. If anyone would like to provide feedback or constructive criticism, I would love to hear anything. Gisellen (talk) 16:46, 16 November 2017 (UTC)GisellenGisellen (talk) 16:46, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

 * Hello, Gisellen, and welcome to Wikipedia. I recommend that you read WP:Verifiability and WP:No original research before you make the changes you propose. Unless reliable sources describe Anat Hoffman and Women of the Wall as part of Reform Judaism, they don't belong in this article (except possible in the "See also" section). The fact that you or I may see parallels in their philosophies is interesting, but Wikipedia is supposed to be based on what reliable sources say about a subject, not on its editors' theories and analysis. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:09, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

 * Thank you, for your in-depth explanation! , I don't think that this addition would fit here as the organization considers themselves to be multi-denominational and do not consider themselves to be lean more towards one denomination than another. What this means is that even though the organization may have a lot in common with Reform Judaism (RJ), they're not specifically Reformist and as such would be kind of off topic in this article. The organization pertains to the topic of RJ in an offhand manner, but not in a way that would really justify putting it in the main RJ article, if that makes any sense. Now with the topic of whether or not they could be considered a RJ organization aside, I'm also concerned that the topic as a whole would be considered a bit of a reflective or persuasive essay, since the premise seems to argue that the WotW is a beneficial organization for Reform Jews even though it may interfere with traditionalists' viewpoints on religion. :My recommendation would be to look at the main article for Women of the Wall and see what can be improved there. Offhand it does look like the history section needs work, as it needs to be organized and broken up into subsections to make it easier to read. You could also potentially re-work the public and critic response sections to form a more cohesive reception section. The article as a whole is slightly hard to read because of its layout, so I'd argue that this needs quite a bit of work. (Pinging your professor .) Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 21:25, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you, and . I'm Gisellen's instructor in the Wiki Edu course (https://dashboard.wikiedu.org/courses/Chapman_University/3,000_Years_of_Jewish_History_(Fall_2017)/home). I agree with the concerns you both raised. I do think there's something vital to be added here, though, regarding the Reform movement's relationship with WOW. The Reform movement has taken a stand on WOW, at times supportive and at times in criticism. To give just one example, Rabbi Gilad Kariv, the leader of the Reform movement in Israel, expressed disapproval at the WOW's campaign to gain rights to pray at the main wall, citing that their request for 11 hours a year did not warrant an overhaul of policy. On the other hand, Kariv has supported WOW on other occasions, as part of the Reform movement's efforts to combat women's exclusion in Israeli religion. This ambivalence is described by the source Gisellen mentioned, which is a secondary source and a trustworthy one at that, in the sense that it is by a professor and in a peer-reviewed journal. Please let us know if this sounds all right to you. Thanks! Chapmansh (talk) 19:30, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Not really, this is a marginal issue. This article is good precisely because it sticks to the big issues and avoids the "live-feed on news events" attitude which bedevils Wikipedia. A section on the relationship between RJ and a small movement is irrelevant and superfluous. AddMore-III (talk) 19:47, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your input AddMore-III. Actually, WOW is hardly marginal movement; it is in the Jewish news (e.g. The Forward & Haaretz) almost weekly, and is integrally tied to Reform Judaism. There should at least be a short mention of WOW.Chapmansh (talk) 21:51, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

 * I think what means isn't that the organization is minor, just that most religion articles do not have subsections about specific groups in the article. For example, I can think of several Christian groups who either specifically identify as fundamentalist or have a visible portion of them members who identify as such who end up in the news on a weekly basis (albeit for different reasons than WOW), yet they do not have a specific subsection about them in the main article for Christian fundamentalism. (IE, no subsection named after their group.) At most they may be mentioned in passing in a section that gives a general overview about organizations. What I think that AddMore-III and  are saying is that in order to really justify a section in the article specifically for WOW the organization would have to be extremely well-known and major within the religion to the point where people don't mention one without mentioning the other and would almost have to be on par with say, the Union for Reform Judaism within the religion. By that I don't mean that they would have to be a congregational arm, but that they would have to be as major within the religion as the URJ is in Reform Judaism. It's incredibly rare that an organization reaches that level within any religion. They're also likely concerned that putting that much focus on WOW would put undue weight on the organization over others that may be more closely tied to Reform Judaism.
 * A good compromise here may be to work on a section that goes over organizations similar to WOW (ie, nonprofits and the like) that either identify solely as part of Reform Judaism or have a large consistency that identify as such. I would not put a huge emphasis on WOW in this section and instead only give them about 1-2 sentences about this. Now where you could put a huge emphasis on Reform Judaism and WOW is in the article for WOW, as a section that covers their impact on Reform Judaism and vice-versa would definitely be justified there and you could go into the details that wouldn't really fit here. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 20:14, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Ok, I see your point. Hoping Gisellen sees this before she makes her contribution. Putting this relationship into the WOW article would make sense. Thanks to everyone for your input. Chapmansh (talk) 20:20, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Reform Judaism. 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/20151222093658/http://synagoguestudies.org/files/S3KReportFall2006_MembersAndMotives.pdf to http://synagoguestudies.org/files/S3KReportFall2006_MembersAndMotives.pdf

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) 02:27, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Ongoing revelation
My edit was taken out; among other things reviewer claimed that what was written was not substantiated by the reference; but I quote reference here directly: "Reform Jews accept the Torah as the foundation of Jewish life containing God’s ongoing revelation.." Ongoing-continuous have same meaning in this discussion. I believe reference is necessary as continuing revelation is a major difference from other branches of Judaism/Mwinog2777 (talk) 19:48, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Far superior references are already cited in the appropriate section. As I wrote, there is no need for citations in the opening paragraph, which is supposed to summarize the rest. Your claim is wrong, btw, most Conservative thinkers espouse a very similar position. AddMore-III (talk) 20:08, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

"responsa"
Regarding spontaneous minhag, the article continues "The advocates of this approach also stress that their responsa are of non-binding nature." What are "responsa"?--Richardson mcphillips (talk) 03:16, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * "Responsa" is the article about the general idea, with a specific section regarding the Judaic context. I added a link. DMacks (talk) 03:31, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

What's the copyvio?
Why have you tagged this article as copyvio? The toolforge links in the template do not work ("source(s)" is not a valid URL) and the link to Copyright problems/2022 May 31 lacks an entry for this article (which also means that it is somewhat unlikely that anyone is going to address the violation, seeing as June 7 has come and gone). Where specifically was text copied from? Should we re-list the article? -- N Y  Kevin   06:35, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Female leaders and rabbis
Add a picture of a black female rabbi leading, to quickly illustrate what's it all about for those who don't bother reading. 24.225.138.50 (talk) 14:40, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't see anything in the article about race. How is this idea "what it's all about"? DMacks (talk) 15:53, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

User making multiple attempts to insert partisan statements
@חסיד צום רבי'ן made an edit on 21:29, 4 August 2023, adding statements calling Reform Judaism "not real Judaism" and "was created when people became too lazy to keep real Judaism but still wanted the benefit of being called 'Jewish'." Their edit was reverted, and on 18:00, 6 August 2023 they reverted the reversion. This has now been reverted, making this post in case they continue. Sufferingbanana (talk) 18:45, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Honors World Religions
— Assignment last updated by Ashleeyy (talk) 10:50, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Lack of citations in very long lede
I will be tagging this article with Unref unless the very long lede starts including at least one citation for the claims being made. Right now, it's three paragraphs long without any citations. 57.135.233.22 (talk) 16:30, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Reform Judaism


text:
Anne Hathaway's Cottage

Anne Hathaway's Cottage is a twelve-roomed farmhouse where Anne Hathaway, the wife of William Shakespeare, lived as a child in the village of Shottery, Warwickshire, England, about 1 mi west of Stratford-upon-Avon. Spacious, and with several bedrooms, it is now set in extensive gardens.

History
The earliest part of the house dates to 1463, when it was still a three-roomed building with only one floor; the higher part is 17th century, being built between April 1610 and October 1624. The house was known as Hewlands Farm in Shakespeare's day and had more than 90 acre of land attached to it; to call it a cottage is arguably a misnomer, as it is much larger than the term usually implies. As in many houses of the period, it has multiple chimneys to spread the heat evenly throughout the house during winter. The largest chimney was used for cooking. It also has visible timber framing, typical of vernacular Tudor architecture.

The Hathaway family moved there in 1542, with John Hathaway, grandfather of Anne Hathaway, being the first Hathaway to live there.

After the death of Richard Hathaway (father of Anne Hathaway) in 1581, the cottage was owned by Anne Hathaway's brother Bartholomew, who began to expand the building starting on 1 April 1610 and continuing until his death on 28 October 1624, and was passed down the Hathaway family until 1846, when financial problems, which began in 1700, forced them to sell it. However, it was still occupied by them as tenants when it was acquired in 1892 by the Shakespeare Birthplace Trust, which removed later additions and alterations; William Baker was the last to live in the property and he left when his mother Mary Baker died in 1911.

In 1969 the cottage was badly damaged in a fire, but was restored by the Trust. It is now open to the public as a museum.

Gardens
In 1920, horticulturist Ellen Willmott was commissioned by the Shakespeare Birthplace Trust to advise on design and planting in the garden around the cottage, following the introduction of a large sewer which destroyed the previous garden. Her designs for the flower garden and orchard were intended to complement the buildings. Many of the plants chosen were mentioned in Shakespeare’s plays, with pastel combination in borders that remain colourful throughout the year. Much of her layout and plant choices are in place today, including the three flower beds near the cottage entrance, named Miss Willmott’s garden.

Replicas
Full size replicas of Anne Hathaway's cottage have been built around the world:

 * Elizabethan Village, Bedfordale, Western Australia, Australia
 * English Inn, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada
 * Grove Park Inn, Asheville, North Carolina, United States
 * Odessa College, Texas, United States
 * Staunton, Virginia, United States
 * Wessington Springs, South Dakota, United States

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Anne Hathaway's Cottage


text:
Talk:Christian Goldbach

Untitled
"Goldbach studied jura and mathematics." Does "jura" mean "law", a mountain range, or something else? -phma

 * It's the German way of describiing law as an academic subject... I've changed it now VivaEmilyDavies 07:36, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Imperial Russian History
— Assignment last updated by Soviethistorian (talk) 19:29, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Christian Goldbach


text:
Talk:Thomas Jefferson

Discussions of slavery
The language used in this article in respect of enslaved people is outdated. The preferred terminology is “enslaved person” (versus “slave”), and a person “enslaved by” versus “owned by”, in each case emphasizing the humanity of the enslaved individual by divorcing the circumstances of bondage from their being. Tjembers (talk) 01:41, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

 * There were only two uses of "owned" in reference to slavery in-text, which I changed to "enslaved". (I changed "slaves" to "people", however, in these cases, solely to avoid repeating myself excessively, although it really does highlight the evil of slavery.) CitationsFreak (talk) 03:03, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Did some more edits, and I see what you mean. I'll try to change every instance of "slave" to something with an adjective and "people", although I would hate to make the article sound worse to my ears. I'll see what I can do. CitationsFreak (talk) 08:48, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Thomas Jefferson


text:
Sharon Kay Penman

Sharon Kay Penman (August 13, 1945 – January 22, 2021) was an American historical novelist, published in the UK as Sharon Penman. She was best known for the Welsh Princes trilogy and the Plantagenet series. In addition, she wrote four medieval mysteries, the first of which, The Queen's Man, was a finalist in 1996 for the Best First Mystery Edgar Award.

Her novels and mysteries are set in England, France, and Wales, and are about English and Welsh royalty during the Middle Ages. The Sunne in Splendour, her first book, is a stand-alone novel about King Richard III of England and the Wars of the Roses. When the manuscript was stolen she started again and rewrote the book.

Her work was generally well received, with the more recent novels reaching the New York Times Bestseller List. Critics have praised her meticulous research of settings and events presented in her fiction, as well as the characterizations.

Penman died from pneumonia on January 22, 2021, at the age of 75.

Career
Born in New York City, Penman grew up in New Jersey. She received her bachelor's degree from the University of Texas at Austin, where she majored in history. She also received a Juris Doctor (J.D.) degree from Rutgers University School of Law, and worked as a tax lawyer before becoming a writer. While a student, Penman researched and wrote The Sunne in Splendour that chronicled the life of Richard III. When the 400-page manuscript was stolen from her car, Penman found herself unable to write for the next five years. She eventually rewrote the book and by the time the 936-page book was published in 1982 she had spent 12 years writing it, while practicing law at the same time. Of practicing law, she admitted she "considered it penance." Penman lived in New Jersey, and in the early 1980s moved to Wales to research her second book, Here Be Dragons. She had a second home in the Welsh mountains where, she said, the history inspired her and provided material for her novels.

Writing career
The Sunne in Splendour is about the end of England's War of the Roses. In the book, Penman characterizes King Richard III as a healthy, if misunderstood, ruler. She chose to write Richard's character in such a way after becoming fascinated with his story and researching his life, both in the United States and in the United Kingdom, which led her to believe that "his was a classic case of history being rewritten by the victor."

Once finished with The Sunne in Splendour she claimed to have become "hopelessly hooked" on writing. She had plenty of material to be written about the "rebellious sons and disgruntled brothers and conniving kings and willful queens" of the Plantagenets and hoped to write as many as a dozen books on the subject. After the publication of The Sunne in Splendour, Penman began work on the Welsh Trilogy, set primarily in Wales. The "Welsh Trilogy" was followed by the "Plantagenet series", which presents the events of the life of King Henry II and Eleanor of Aquitaine.

Penman's settings are all in the Middle Ages; the Welsh Princes trilogy is set in the 13th century, two centuries earlier than The Sunne in Splendour. During her research for Here Be Dragons, the first book in the series, she became fascinated with the complexity of the role of women in medieval society; for example, Welsh women at the time had a great deal more independence than the English women. Whether in Wales or in England, a noble wife had responsibility for a household, complete with household knights, whom the wife relied upon to keep the household safe.

In 1996, Penman published the first in the series of medieval mystery novels. Penman's first mystery, The Queen's Man, was a finalist for an Edgar Award for Best First Mystery from the Mystery Writers of America. Penman explained her reasons for turning to the mystery genre after writing only historical novels: "By the time I'd finished researching and writing When Christ and His Saints Slept, I was in danger of burning out. For the first time in nearly two decades, my boundless enthusiasm for the Middle Ages had begun to flag. So I decided I needed a change of pace, and since I am a long-time mystery fan, it occurred to me that a medieval mystery might be fun to write. Once that idea took root, it was probably inevitable that I'd choose to write about Eleanor of Aquitaine, surely one of history's most memorable women."

Set in the 12th century, Penman presents the young Justin de Quincy as a medieval sleuth. In the first book he is elevated to the status of "queen's man" by Eleanor of Aquitaine. The Queen's Man and Cruel as the Grave depict the period after King Henry II's death, as Eleanor, about age 70, rules the Angevin empire with one son (Richard) in captivity, and another son (John) hovering at the edge of power. The third novel in the series, The Dragon's Lair, is set during the same period, but Penman shifts the locale to northwest England and north Wales. And finally, in the most recent novel of the series, Prince of Darkness, Penman continues to show the conflict between mother and sons, and weaves in de Quincy's conflicts as well.

In addition to the Edgar Award, Penman was the winner of the 2001 Career Achievement Award for Historical Mysteries from Romantic Times.

Welsh Princes trilogy
Here Be Dragons (1985) is the first of Penman's trilogy of novels about the medieval Welsh princes of Gwynedd. Of the novel, Penman stated, “I think Dragons is so popular because it was virgin territory for most readers. The saga of the Plantagenets was much better known, but not many people were familiar with medieval Wales or its princes. And then, too, the story of Llewelyn the Great and Joanna, King John's illegitimate daughter, is a remarkable one, which struck an emotional chord with many readers.”

In Falls the Shadow (1988) Penman chronicles the family relationships of King Henry III and his brother-in-law Simon de Montfort. Falls the Shadow is a bridge novel as Penman uses the Simon de Montfort rebellion to lead her to the conclusion of the trilogy in The Reckoning. As Penman explained: '“After I'd finished Here Be Dragons, I knew I wanted to continue the story… At first I'd planned to write one book in which Simon de Montfort would share top billing with Llewelyn Fawr's grandson, Llewelyn ap Gruffydd, who later wed Simon's daughter. I soon realized, though, that this was too much to tackle in one book, that Simon and Llewelyn each deserved his own novel. So I decided to devote Falls the Shadow to Simon and The Reckoning to Llewelyn".

Penman's characterization of Simon de Montfort is that of a man increasingly disillusioned by his sovereign, who rebels in 1263, becomes regent to Henry III, and attempts to re-establish rights granted under the Magna Carta. In addition to the story of Simon de Montfort and his wife, Eleanor the Countess of Pembroke and sister to King Henry III, the novel presents characters such as the Welsh ruler Llywelyn Fawr and London's FitzThomas.

Of her research for Falls the Shadow, Penman explained: "I did a great deal of on-site research, visiting the castles and battlefields that figured in Falls the Shadow, visiting the Reading Room at the British Library, the National Library of Wales in Aberystwyth, and local reference libraries… Here at home, I made use of the University of Pennsylvania Library in Philadelphia, which has an excellent medieval selection. But it really helped to see the scenes for myself. At Lewes, we actually walked along the same path that Simon de Montfort and his men would have followed. It was breathtaking to stand on the Downs, gazing out upon the same view that he would have seen".

The Reckoning (1991) chronicles the reign of England's King Henry III in Penman's final volume of the series that began with Here Be Dragons. The conflict between the Welsh prince Llewelyn ap Gruffydd who is the grandson of Llewelyn the Great of Here Be Dragons, and England's King Henry III is one subplot. Additionally, Penman chronicles the life and character of Ellen, daughter of Simon de Montfort and niece to Henry III; her betrothal to Llewelyn (negotiated prior to de Montfort's death); and the conflict between Ellen and her cousin Edward, soon to become King Edward, who opposes the betrothal.

Plantagenet series
The Plantagenet series focuses on the Angevin King Henry II and his wife Eleanor of Aquitaine, beginning with the sinking of the White Ship, the marriage of the Empress Maude and Geoffrey of Anjou, and Henry's birth and childhood in When Christ and His Saints Slept. Of Henry and Eleanor, Penman explained: Henry II and Eleanor of Aquitaine were larger than life, legends in their own lifetimes. He was one of the greatest of the medieval kings, and she was the only woman to wear the crowns of both England and France. They loved and fought and schemed on a stage that stretched from the Scots border to the Mediterranean Sea. Their children were branded by contemporaries as "The Devil’s Brood," but they founded a dynasty that was to rule England for three hundred years.

My first novel in their trilogy [sic], When Christ and His Saints Slept, traces the beginning of their tempestuous union. Time and Chance continues their story at high noon. From the greenwoods of Wales to a bloodied floor at Canterbury Cathedral, theirs was an amazing story, and I very much enjoyed being along for the ride!

When Christ and His Saints Slept introduces the genesis of the Plantagenet dynasty as Empress Maude fights to secure her claim to the English throne. In the 15 years she spent writing three novels and four mysteries set during the period of Henry II and Eleanor of Aquitaine Penman claimed she found no villains. Instead she focused on the human characteristics: she believed Henry II was a brilliant king but a bad father. Of Eleanor of Aquitaine, she claimed she was a "law unto herself", and Penman was intrigued by the role of a medieval queen.

Time and Chance (2002), a New York Times Bestseller, continues the story of Eleanor of Aquitaine and her husband, and focuses on the rift between Henry II and Thomas Becket.

Time and Chance spans a 15-year period from 1156 to 1171 as Henry II became estranged from his wife (although Eleanor and Henry have eight children during thirteen years), and from his close friend and advisor Thomas Becket. King Henry's decision to elevate Becket to the Archbishop of Canterbury becomes a fulcrum for discord between Henry and Eleanor.

Devil's Brood (2008) opens with the conflict between Henry II, his wife Eleanor of Aquitaine, and their four sons, which escalates into a decade of warfare and rebellion pitting the sons against the father and the brothers against each other while Eleanor spends the period imprisoned by Henry. Penman places the characters against a tightly woven tapestry of medieval life, personal conflict, and dramatic characters.

The Devil's Brood was supposed to be the final volume in Penman's Plantagenet series, but the "Angevins were not ready to go quietly into that good night." Lionheart (2011) is about the children of Henry II and Eleanor of Aquitaine. The book focuses on Richard the Lionheart's Crusades in the Holy Land, and on what happened to Eleanor when she was finally released after spending sixteen years in a confinement that was ordered and enforced by her husband. A King's Ransom is about the second half of Richard's life, during and following his imprisonment, ransom, and life afterward.

Writing characteristics
Penman's approach to her novels is to present meticulously researched medieval life and history as everyday life, and to present the nobility as fallible. Set against a backdrop of political tension, power struggles, war, and hardship, the main characters confront personal drama such as conflict in love, conflict between family members, conflict with God, and conflict in friendship, as well as conflicted loyalties between family, self, king and country. A Library Journal review praises Penman's attention to detail in which she "combines an in-depth knowledge of medieval Europe with vivid storytelling, re-creating the complex events and emotional drama of the 12th – 15th centuries."

Although set in the 12th and 13th centuries, Penman sets the characters and narrative in her novels in medieval sites that still exist and can be visited, including castles, churches and archeological areas. Areas such as Aber Falls and Dolwyddelan Castle have important scenes in Penman's novels. In Devil's Brood, Penman sets the characters in scenes in a variety of medieval royal residences, castles and abbeys, in England and present day France, many of which still exist such as the Château de Chinon, Fontevrault Abbey, and Château de Loches.

Welsh Princes trilogy

 * Here Be Dragons New York : Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, c1985 ISBN 0-03-062773-7 London: Collins, 1986 ISBN 0-00-222960-9
 * Falls the Shadow New York : H. Holt, c1988 ISBN 0-8050-0300-2 London: Joseph, 1988 ISBN 0-7181-2923-7
 * The Reckoning New York : H. Holt, 1991 ISBN 0-8050-1014-9 London: Joseph, 1991 ISBN 0-7181-2948-2

Plantagenet series

 * When Christ and His Saints Slept New York: H. Holt, 1995 ISBN 0-8050-1015-7 London: Joseph, 1994 ISBN 0-7181-3585-7
 * Time and Chance New York: G.P. Putnam's Sons, c2002 ISBN 0-399-14785-3 London: Joseph, 2002 ISBN 0-7181-4308-6
 * Devil's Brood New York: G.P. Putnam's Sons, c2008 ISBN 978-0-399-15526-0 London: Joseph, 2009 ISBN 0-7181-5465-7
 * Lionheart New York: G.P. Putnam's Sons, c2011 ISBN 0-399-15785-9 London: Marian Wood Books/Putnam, 2011 ISBN 978-0-399-15785-1
 * A King's Ransom New York: Marian Wood Books/Putnam, c2014 ISBN 978-0-399-15922-0 London: Macmillan 2014 ISBN 978-0-230-76805-5

Justin de Quincy mysteries

 * The Queen's Man New York : H. Holt, 1996 ISBN 0-8050-1015-7 London: Joseph, 1996 ISBN 0-7181-3981-X
 * Cruel as the Grave New York : Henry Holt, 1998 ISBN 0-8050-5608-4 London: Joseph, 1998 ISBN 0-7181-4307-8
 * Dragon's Lair New York : G.P. Putnam's Sons, c2003 ISBN 0-399-15077-3 London: Penguin, 2005 ISBN 0-14-025098-0 (pbk.)
 * Prince of Darkness New York : G.P. Putnam's Sons, c2005 ISBN 0-399-15256-3

title: Sharon Kay Penman


text:
Diophantine set

In mathematics, a Diophantine equation is an equation of the form P(x1, ..., xj, y1, ..., yk) = 0 (usually abbreviated P($\overline{x}$, $\overline{y}$) = 0) where P($\overline{x}$, $\overline{y}$) is a polynomial with integer coefficients, where x1, ..., xj indicate parameters and y1, ..., yk indicate unknowns.

A Diophantine set is a subset S of $$\mathbb{N}^j$$, the set of all j-tuples of natural numbers, so that for some Diophantine equation P($\overline{x}$, $\overline{y}$) = 0,

 * $$\bar{x} \in S \iff (\exists \bar{y} \in \mathbb{N}^{k})(P(\bar{x},\bar{y})=0) .$$

That is, a parameter value is in the Diophantine set S if and only if the associated Diophantine equation is satisfiable under that parameter value. The use of natural numbers both in S and the existential quantification merely reflects the usual applications in computability theory and model theory. It does not matter whether natural numbers refer to the set of nonnegative integers or positive integers since the two definitions for Diophantine sets are equivalent. We can also equally well speak of Diophantine sets of integers and freely replace quantification over natural numbers with quantification over the integers. Also it is sufficient to assume P is a polynomial over $$\mathbb{Q}$$ and multiply P by the appropriate denominators to yield integer coefficients. However, whether quantification over rationals can also be substituted for quantification over the integers is a notoriously hard open problem.

The MRDP theorem (so named for the initials of the four principal contributors to its solution) states that a set of integers is Diophantine if and only if it is computably enumerable. A set of integers S is computably enumerable if and only if there is an algorithm that, when given an integer, halts if that integer is a member of S and runs forever otherwise. This means that the concept of general Diophantine set, apparently belonging to number theory, can be taken rather in logical or computability-theoretic terms. This is far from obvious, however, and represented the culmination of some decades of work.

Matiyasevich's completion of the MRDP theorem settled Hilbert's tenth problem. Hilbert's tenth problem was to find a general algorithm that can decide whether a given Diophantine equation has a solution among the integers. While Hilbert's tenth problem is not a formal mathematical statement as such, the nearly universal acceptance of the (philosophical) identification of a decision algorithm with a total computable predicate allows us to use the MRDP theorem to conclude that the tenth problem is unsolvable.

Examples
In the following examples, the natural numbers refer to the set of positive integers.

The equation

 * $$x = (y_1 + 1)(y_2 + 1)$$

is an example of a Diophantine equation with a parameter x and unknowns y1 and y2. The equation has a solution in y1 and y2 precisely when x can be expressed as a product of two integers greater than 1, in other words x is a composite number. Namely, this equation provides a Diophantine definition of the set

 * {4, 6, 8, 9, 10, 12, 14, 15, 16, 18, ...}

consisting of the composite numbers.

Other examples of Diophantine definitions are as follows:
 * The equation $$x = y_1^2 + y_2^2$$ with parameter x and unknowns y1, y2 only has solutions in $$\mathbb{N}$$ when x is a sum of two perfect squares. The Diophantine set of the equation is {2, 5, 8, 10, 13, 17, 18, 20, 25, 26, ...}.
 * The equation $$y_1^2 - xy_2^2 = 1$$ with parameter x and unknowns y1, y2. This is a Pell equation, meaning it only has solutions in $$\mathbb{N}$$ when x is not a perfect square. The Diophantine set is {2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, ...}.
 * The equation $$x_1 + y = x_2$$ is a Diophantine equation with two parameters x1, x2 and an unknown y, which defines the set of pairs (x1, x2) such that x1 < x2.

Matiyasevich's theorem
Matiyasevich's theorem, also called the Matiyasevich–Robinson–Davis–Putnam or MRDP theorem, says:

 * Every computably enumerable set is Diophantine, and the converse.

A set S of integers is computably enumerable if there is an algorithm such that: For each integer input n, if n is a member of S, then the algorithm eventually halts; otherwise it runs forever. That is equivalent to saying there is an algorithm that runs forever and lists the members of S. A set S is Diophantine precisely if there is some polynomial with integer coefficients f(n, x1, ..., xk) such that an integer n is in S if and only if there exist some integers x1, ..., xk such that f(n, x1, ..., xk) = 0.

Conversely, every Diophantine set is computably enumerable: consider a Diophantine equation f(n, x1, ..., xk) = 0. Now we make an algorithm that simply tries all possible values for n, x1, ..., xk (in, say, some simple order consistent with the increasing order of the sum of their absolute values), and prints n every time f(n, x1, ..., xk) = 0. This algorithm will obviously run forever and will list exactly the n for which f(n, x1, ..., xk) = 0 has a solution in x1, ..., xk.

Proof technique
Yuri Matiyasevich utilized a method involving Fibonacci numbers, which grow exponentially, in order to show that solutions to Diophantine equations may grow exponentially. Earlier work by Julia Robinson, Martin Davis and Hilary Putnam – hence, MRDP – had shown that this suffices to show that every computably enumerable set is Diophantine.

Application to Hilbert's tenth problem
Hilbert's tenth problem asks for a general algorithm deciding the solvability of Diophantine equations. The conjunction of Matiyasevich's result with the fact that most recursively enumerable languages are not decidable implies that a solution to Hilbert's tenth problem is impossible.

Refinements
Later work has shown that the question of solvability of a Diophantine equation is undecidable even if the equation only has 9 natural number variables (Matiyasevich, 1977) or 11 integer variables (Zhi Wei Sun, 1992).

Further applications
Matiyasevich's theorem has since been used to prove that many problems from calculus and differential equations are unsolvable.

One can also derive the following stronger form of Gödel's first incompleteness theorem from Matiyasevich's result:

 * Corresponding to any given consistent axiomatization of number theory, one can explicitly construct a Diophantine equation that has no solutions, but such that this fact cannot be proved within the given axiomatization.

According to the incompleteness theorems, a powerful-enough consistent axiomatic theory is incomplete, meaning the truth of some of its propositions cannot be established within its formalism. The statement above says that this incompleteness must include the solvability of a diophantine equation, assuming that the theory in question is a number theory.

title: Diophantine set


text:
Talk:Plato's Apology

Apologize for the language (By Demian Yacussi, Buenos Aires, Argentina)

In fact, this is a linguistic enigma about English language but related with Plato’s Apologia. I include a little summary of that text.

There is very common word in English: "apologize", commonly used as "an admission of error or discourtesy". Visiting the Britannica internet site, I found that this word comes from Greek's "apologia". The most famous use of that Greek word appears at Plato's "Socrates' Apologia". Socrates did not write because he thought that conversation was much better than writing.

Atenas law allowed him a defense speech, and that is the Apologia, as told by Plato. In that writing, Socrates essays a defense, he did not want to disobey the laws nor tried to avoid the judgment. He was a very right and just person. During his exposition, he pleaded not guilty of the charges, he tried to demonstrate that by telling the people about his life and beliefs (a very right and coherent life). He wanted to show that there was not illegal behavior in that. He believed that the accusations were based upon the anger felt by his prosecutors because of his dialogues.

Apologia is a construction between Apo and Logos, two words of difficult meaning (too many meanings), and I like the similarity with Apollo, because Socrates felt like led by this god. He was very informal (like an ancient Hippie!), always hanging around and talking with the people and making some special questions. He used a dialectic method called "mayeutica" or "Enlighting' spirits art"; he wanted the other person to get his own truths (!!). A friend (Cherefon) told him that the Delfos oracle said that no one was wiser than Socrates. That was a problem for him, because he did not feel like being the wisest guy but he knew that a god couldn't lie. So he met a "wise" neighbor (as called by himself), but after a few questions, Socrates realized that this guy didn't know so much. That's the reason for Socrates saying "I only know that I don't know anything", in fact something like "At least I know something: that I don't know anything, the others did not even know that they did not know anything!" (!!). Obviously, this neighbor went upset after that, and so on with others neighbors... And then, the accusation came. Three charges: 1) Ruthlessness with one of the prosecutors: Melitos (or Meletos), causing him to fall in contradiction. 2) To corrupt young people, because of those he was teaching, 3) because of the introduction of new divinities: sort of an interior voice that led him (That's weird!).

Socrates was found guilty by 281 votes versus 220. At that moment, he might have proposed an exile for himself. He did not want to do that. So, he played his last joke: He proposed to pay a little fine (100 drachmas), so little, because he did not have any possessions. Some friends offered to multiply that by 30 and pay it for him. Socrates’ provocation, obviously, upset the Heliastas' court, so he was condemned to death by 360 votes against 140.

Many days passed between condemnation and execution. The day before the judgment a ship had left Atenas; this ship had gone to Delos to commemorate Minotauro's death by Teseo. During that peregrination no execution could be done.

During that period of time, Socrates could have escaped easily from Atenas, as suggested by his friends (some of Plato's "Dialogues" describes those previous days to the execution). Maybe this should have been the best solution; in fact, his death was a very big problem for whole Atenas, even for his prosecutors... Melitos was murdered after the execution.

Socrates accepted stoically his destiny and drank that poison called "cicuta". He was not afraid of his death and never could have cheated justice. He never meant to be out of law; in fact he considered himself as a Law (in capital letter) guardian.

Then, "apologia" comes from this defense, nobly tried by Socrates in the midst of all that adversity, giving true evidence of the conviction and rightness that he carried all his life, always looking for the Truth.

Ironically, "apologize" is most commonly used to express guilt or to admit an error. Socrates never admitted being guilty, so far from that! So, the mystery is: When did this meaning invert? Why?

I have found in an etymological dictionary (http://www.etymonline.com/a5etym.htm): “The original Eng. sense of "self-justification" yielded a meaning "frank expression of regret for wrong done," first recorded 1594.

But there is no information about the possible reasons.

Anybody could know something else?

title: Talk:Plato's Apology


text:
River Avon

River Avon may refer to:

Australia

 * Avon River (Mid-Coast Council), New South Wales
 * Avon River (Wollongong), New South Wales
 * Avon River (Gippsland, Victoria)
 * Avon River (Grampians, Victoria)
 * Avon River (Western Australia)

Canada

 * Avon River (Nova Scotia)
 * Avon River (Ontario)

New Zealand

 * Avon River / Ōtākaro, in the Canterbury Region, where it runs through Christchurch.
 * Avon River (Marlborough)

England

 * River Avon, Bristol, running from Acton Turville to Avonmouth (also known as the Bristol Avon).
 * River Avon, Devon, running from Ryder's Hill to Bigbury (also known as River Aune).
 * River Avon, Warwickshire, running from Naseby to Tewkesbury (also known as Shakespeare's Avon).
 * River Avon, Hampshire, running from Pewsey to Christchurch (also known as the Salisbury Avon).
 * Avon Water, Hampshire, running from Holmsley in the New Forest to Keyhaven.
 * Little Avon River, running from Wickwar to Berkeley, in Gloucestershire.
 * Tetbury Avon, a tributary of the Bristol Avon (also called Little Avon).

Scotland

 * River Avon, Falkirk, running from near Cumbernauld to Grangemouth
 * River Avon, Strathspey, running from Ben Macdui to Cragganmore
 * Avon Water, running from south of Darvel to Motherwell

title: River Avon