Talk:Gender roles in Judaism

This article was nominated for merging with Women in Judaism on 18 March 2014. The result of the discussion was The result of this discussion was to merge the "Gender roles in Judaism" into the "Women in Judaism" article..

Merge proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was to merge the "Gender roles in Judaism" into the "Women in Judaism" article. GHcool (talk) 17:33, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is already a long-existing, well-documented and well-cited article on Women in Judaism. I see this current article as largely a duplication of that article. Any material that exists here that is unique and not already covered should be merged to Women in Judaism, but the retention of both articles would represent a content fork. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:17, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Further, I note that this present article relies largely on Jewish sources, which would lead to a more prescriptive article on the role of women in Judaism (what roles women should take), rather than on more neutral, sociology-based sources that would provide a more descriptive article (what roles women actually do take). WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:28, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree with you. Let's merge it. --GHcool (talk) 18:18, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that I can add components to "Gender roles in Judaism" that will differentiate it from this article. For example, I will include more about the role of the man and the interaction between the two. -Brandenlevine

I believe that any development of this article separate from Women in Judaism can only be considered a content fork. If you have information specific to the roles of men in Judaism, perhaps you should create a new article called Men in Judaism. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:11, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. It would be a fork. I also think that a "Men in Judaism" article would be silly and pointless. "Women in Christianity" and "Women in Islam" articles exists, but there is no "Men in Islam" or "Men in Christianity" article and for good reason. --GHcool (talk) 17:16, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I agree that those articles don't exist "for good reason". I don't know that there is sufficient material to cover, but I think the fact that there are "women in..." but not "men in..." (or, as this article's title goes to, "gender roles in...") reflects a systemic gender bias within Wikipedia that the community is trying to root out. But I don't know that a content fork is the proper way to address that issue. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:23, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think that if I shift the focus of "Gender roles in Judaism" away from men vs. women, and focus solely on the interaction between the two, that a content fork can be avoided. -Brandenlevine — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brandenlevine (talk • contribs) 17:53, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, it doesn't represent a systemic gender bias in Wikipedia to have a "Women in Judaism" but not a "Men in Judaism" article. If anything, the "Women in Judaism" article corrects the real systemic gender bias on Wikipedia: "Women are underrepresented on Wikipedia .... Research suggests that the gender gap has a detrimental effect on content coverage: articles with particular interest to women tend to be shorter, even when controlling for variables that affect article length."

A "Men in Judaism" article would essentially amount to a fork for the main Judaism or Jews article since male gender has been the "default position" of Jewish practice for most of history. There is even a tractate of the Talmud called Nashim (literally "Women"); there is no tractate called Geverim (Men). Indeed, the masculine form of the word nashim (women) is anashim (people); the Hebrew language itself treats women as exceptions to the rule that "people" generally are assumed to be men. --GHcool (talk) 22:17, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I can see that point. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:09, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.