Talk:Judaism and violence/Archive 1

New article

The majority of this article was originally in the article Criticism of Judaism, but there was some concern over that location, expressed in the discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard in Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Section on "Violence and conflict" deleted from Criticism of Judaism. --Noleander (talk) 04:13, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Similar to Christianity and violence

This article is intended to have coverage similar to the article Christianity and violence. Other similar articles/sections include:

• Criticism of Islam#Violence towards critics of Islam
• Criticism of Christianity#Christianity and violence
• Mormonism and violence
• Militant Hinduism
• Criticism of Catholicism#Crusades
• Sikh extremism
• Criticism of religion#Holy war and religious terrorism

...--Noleander (talk) 04:13, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Noleander—you say, "This article is intended to have coverage similar to the article Christianity and violence," to which I have to respond—Intended by who? Certainly not intended by Wikipedia. Wikipedia does not provide for articles to have "coverage similar" to other articles. Articles on Wikipedia exist independently of one another. There is no Wikipedia guideline that ties in one article to another. Articles do not provide "coverage similar to" other articles. Such similarities if they are found are merely coincidental. Bus stop (talk) 15:42, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Merge with Jewish religious terrorism?

There is some, but not much, overlap with the existing article Jewish religious terrorism, and a merger should be considered. It appears that Jewish religious terrorism is a subset of this article, so perhaps the Jewish religious terrorism article could be deleted? --Noleander (talk) 04:13, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

"Recentism" tag

The biggest problem I see with this article is that it is framing it self as an article on a thousands of years old religion and focusing 80% of its text on the past 80 years. This smells like POV-pushing.

There is a real article to be made here, "The view of Judaism towards violence", but it needs to take a broader view than just the modern state of Israel and the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Potential topics include: Biblical verses sanctioning war on religious grounds (Deuteronomy 13:13 among others), the biblical commandment to offer peace before attacking a city, debates in the Talmud regarding war against the Romans (Bar Kochba and others), how Jewish scholars have related to the above in writings through the ages. More recent topics include, split opinions within the jewish communities as to the proper response to attacks during the crusades (1100 AD), rulings on interpersonal violence in the jewish community, opinions on the proper response during the holacaust (warsaw ghetto and others), religious rulings regarding the Arab-Israeli conflict and wars, religious rulings regarding the Rabin assassination and religious rulings allowing land-for-peace swaps.

This is in addition to incidents currently cited in the article and would put them in a larger context. Joe407 (talk) 18:21, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree. There is already a section on "Ancient violence" which could be expanded to address the many violent episodes in the Tanakh. And, as you say, Rabbinical scholars have much to say on violence in general, and in specific situations, and that would certainly fall within the scope of this article. It sounds like you've got some good ideas: I encourage you to add the material. --Noleander (talk) 06:40, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

What sources support overall topic?

What sources support the overall topic of this article? This article has no sources that I can see in support of the overall topic that it purports to reflect. It is in fact attempting to establish a topic that doesn't already exist outside of Wikipedia. It is only cobbling together those sources that in the opinion of Wikipedia editors belong in an area for investigation that they are entitling "Judaism and violence." This constitutes the using of Wikipedia to break new ground. If the topic ("Judaism and violence") in its overall scope is not supported in reliable sources then we should not have an article on it. Sources need to be shown to support the parameters chosen by editors for the topic of this article. I hope involved editors will present supportive sources below so that they can be examined. I don't think that piecemeal support in a variety of sources is a substitute for the overall support that I think is required as a prerequisite for establishing an article. Bus stop (talk) 15:15, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

In essence you are saying that this article is WP:SYNTHESIS. I need to give it more thought but I'm tending to agree. Joe407 (talk) 03:24, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

After re-reading the article, I feel that it is in need of a "just the facts" treatment. There are way too many phrases of "Some claim" in this article. I've rewritten the section regarding biblical violence to address the question of "What was/is violence mandated/endorsed by Jewish religion" rather than "What violence has been perpetrated by religious jews". Maybe it's a start. The edit cycle shall clarify I'm sure. Joe407 (talk) 04:04, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

This article is an embodiment of a variety of problems. This article is an example of a very bad direction that Wikipedia is going in, in which articles are set up to explore areas that at first glance seem legitimate, but in fact are missing the crucial ingredient of a clearly laid out definition in reliable sources. No one has the foggiest idea what belongs in an article such as this. Editors can argue and ultimately "consensus" can provide a direction. But even consensus is just whim in the absence of sources clearly establishing the parameters of the article. It has been argued (at the Criticism of Judaism article) that the specific Wikipedia violation is that of WP:MADEUP. Others say that no, this is not an instance of a violation of WP:MADEUP. I don't think that recourse to specific policy is necessary to point out the problematic nature of such articles as these, but policy clearly does say that, "If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." (Found at WP:V.) The sources in this article do not in any way establish the ostensible subject area of this article—therefore this article should not exist. An article has to have a scope. If that scope is not provided by sources then all that we have is a general suggestion of the sort of things that belong in an article such as this. That is not good enough. An article such as this is irremediably a dumping ground for negative associations between Judaism and violence. Sources do not establish an overall area for investigation described as Judaism and violence. Separate instances of sourced information relating Judaism to violence are being cobbled together. But no source is establishing the overarching topic. Bus stop (talk) 04:05, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

What source or sources support that? Bus stop (talk) 08:34, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Some sources include:

• "War and Peace in the World's Religions" , J Ferguson - 1978 - Oxford Univ Pr.
• War and Peace in the Jewish Tradition, M Walzer
• War and peace in the Jewish tradition, LH Schiffman, JB Wolowelsky - 2007
• Judaic Sources of and Views on the Laws of War, GB Roberts - Naval L. Rev., 1988

Marokwitz (talk) 08:39, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I propose that this article will be renamed and scope changed to "Peace and War in Judaism". Marokwitz (talk) 08:03, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Swapping one bad article title for another is not going to solve the underlying issue: the attempt to mix religious belief (Judaism) with human behaviour (violence) or politics (peace and war) contravenes WP:NOT#ESSAY. It is common practise to mix topics in high school essays with titles such as "Judaism and Womens' rights" or "Literature and violence", but to the important point to note is Wikipedia is not the venue for such writing. We have to distinguish between articles that contain encyclopediac content about notable topics on the one hand, and topics that are a synthesis of sources that are brought together in a Essay to reflect an editors point of view. As Bus Stop has pointed out, articles that are madeup because some editor thought it was a good idea at the time are without scope and act are a dumping ground for soapboxing. Wikipedia is neither essay mill, nor is it a platform for original (primary) research. I would support deletion of this article for these reasons. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 08:44, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

But Peace and War in Judaism is not a made up topic, see my above list. Marokwitz (talk) 08:49, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Other religions have similar articles, such as Christianity and violence, and the connection of religions to violence is widely discussed, see Criticism of religion. Changing the title would be white-washing and using weasel words. Why should Judaism be treated differently from the other religions in this encyclopedia? --Noleander (talk) 08:42, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Noleander—you say immediately above, "Why should Judaism be treated differently from the other religions in this encyclopedia?" Judaism need not be treated differently from "the other religions in this encyclopedia." You compare this article to the "Christianity and violence" article. Bear in mind that you are at liberty to nominate the "Christianity and violence" article for deletion. But also bear in mind that no Wikipedia principle or guideline ties together Wikipedia articles. If you know of such principles or guidelines, would you please present them here? Bus stop (talk) 17:05, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Other stuff exists.Marokwitz (talk) 08:49, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Furthermore, many of the events discussed by the sources are not "wars", they are violent acts allegedly committed outside of war situations (e.g. Purim, settler violence, etc). Perhaps the "War and peace" article could be a new article that focuses on just wars? --Noleander (talk) 09:00, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

You are not acknowledging my point that this article contravenes WP:NOT#ESSAY. Even if there are lots of essays about Judaism, peace and war in existence, that does not mean that their essay style is blindly copied into an article; rather we have to examine the coverage in these essay and establish which topics are being addressed directly and in detail.

Perhaps an analogy might serve to illustrate this point. Tea is a commonly drunk beverage, but there are no essay type articles about Tea and milk or Tea and two sugars. Coverage of tea related topics may well make reference to Tea and milk, but Tea, Milk and Sugar are distinct topics in their right, and are not brought together in essays. The same applies to Judaism, Purim, War and Peace: they are distinct and seperate topics. Published essays about Judaism, peace and war must tbe treated as sources for these distinct topics, not as a justification of essay style articles. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:27, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I hear what you are saying, but the fact is that associations of religion with violence is a HUGE topic with tons of sources. See the "References" section in this article for sources that relate Judaism to violence. If you think this article should not be in the encyclopedia, perhaps you should submit a request for Deletion? --Noleander (talk) 09:34, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Re-reading this again and the discussion during my lunch break. I'm more and more supporting BusStop & Gavin that this is WP:ESSAY and WP:SYNTH. Noleander raises an interesting point that there are WP:RS discussing the topic. I'm still not sure that that means that this is a topic that belongs. I'd like to hear more opinions especially about Noleanders question. If sources exist, does that make it encyclopedia-worthy? Joe407 (talk) 11:28, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I can see that that associations of religion with violence is well sourced topic, but that topic is still an essay topic that contravenes WP:NPOV: essays are essentially a medium for soapboxing, and as such their inclusion is prohibited in Wikipedia. The purpose of an essay is to promote a particular idea or point of view - usually the author will seek to establish a "commonality" between the two distinct topics, i.e. a unifying theme. For example in an essay on religion and violence, the writer might try to establish such unifying themes as "Religion causes or promotes violence" or the other way around, say, "In the face of violence, religion is a defence".

Either way, it is not appropriate to base an encyclopedic article on a one-sided or even two-sided argument, e.g. "violence is bad, therefore religion is bad", or "violence is bad, but religion is good". Violence and religion have to be viewed as seperate and distinct topics, and we can only provide balanced coverage about them within the context of seperate and distinct articles in which content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, proportionately, so that, as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources are represented. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 13:58, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

The topic "Judaism and violence" does not preexist outside of Wikipedia, rather Wikipedia is giving it an existence. Where is the source for "Judaism and violence?" What is the definition of "Judaism and violence?" How would we know what belongs in an article on "Judaism and violence?" No source is available to provide guidance on what is "Judaism and violence" and what is not "Judaism and violence." Please show me the source outlining the general topic. Please show me the source telling me what is not to be considered as properly falling under the heading of "Judaism and violence?" This is not a question for consensus. Nor does it matter what other articles exist: Noleander says, "Other religions have similar articles, such as Christianity and violence." Articles on Wikipedia are independent of one another. They are created independently. That which is particular to an article determines whether that article should exist or not. I have no comment on the "Christianity and violence" article nor am I in any way obligated to pass judgement on that article in order to say that this article is improper. This article is breaking new ground, creating an entity that doesn't have a prior existence outside of Wikipedia. Any material that is presently in this article can find a proper home on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not censored. More to the point, I don't think I have any objection to anything that is in this article. Articles are organizational elements of Wikipedia. Conceptually, at issue, is the organization of the encyclopedia. This article should not provide the organizing principle for the presentation of this material. To the same degree that this material remains scattered in the real world—that is the same degree to which this material should be found scattered on Wikipedia. An important principle of Wikipedia is the close adherence to sources, and sources have not been presented supporting the overall scope of the topic that this article purports to be about. As an organizing element of Wikipedia, this article is presently serving as a beachhead for advancing a position associating Judaism with violence. Reliable sources don't uphold that view in its entirety, and that is something that matters: there is a difference between the partial presentation of that view and the complete presentation of that view. We shouldn't be running roughshod over what sources actually say. The technique that this article is using to advance the view that Judaism is associated with violence is the cobbling together of a variety of sources. Each source is somewhat related to the wider subject which the article has pretenses of being about—but importantly—no source describes anywhere near the entire subject. The overall subject of the article remains unsourced. Furthermore, though Judaism and Jews may be two different things, it is inevitable that all Jews be smeared by this sloppy editing, especially since this article is not adhering to any defined overall topic. The article facilitates the coalescing of a variety of threads of thoughts. That might be "advocacy," or that might be "activist," but that isn't supposed to be the way Wikipedia works. Wikipedia is not supposed to trail blaze where reliable sources haven't gone before. Let the real world (outside of Wikipedia) first write about "Judaism and violence" and then a Wikipedia article can legitimately follow. No source is outlining the general topic, therefore no article on the topic should exist at all. Bus stop (talk) 15:42, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Why is assassination under Isr-Arab section?

Why is "The assassination of Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin " under the Isr-Arab Section? I understand that there is some tangential relationship between the two, but most readers of the encyclopedia would be misled into thinking that the assassin was an Arab. I suggest that it be moved into another section. --Noleander (talk) 19:08, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Surely it forms part of the violence generated by the Arab-Israeli conflict. Chesdovi (talk) 10:18, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Nonsense

That extremist writer Chomsky (pov) has no authoriy of Judaism, the Israeli military is secular by in large and by its policy. No connection to religion at all. please add also why almost all Haredim ultra orthodox Jews do not serve in the IDFEvengee (talk) 02:07, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Modern Israel

In this article, the Jewish religion seems to be synonymous with the modern state of Israel. Is this article about Judaism and violence or "Modern Israel and violence"? Joe407 (talk) 04:08, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

In keeping with other similar articles, like Christianity and violence and Mormonism and violence, this article should focus mostly on the religion: its doctrines, texts, and leaders. --Noleander (talk) 08:52, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Ovadia Yosef

I think that the case of Ovadia Yosef incitement is just that, an individual Rabbi which was quoted with inflammatory remarks and curses against Arabs. Yosef himself said he was referring to terrorists and was misquoted. Even though he is an important Rabbi, I don't think this case of a misquotation blown out of proportion by the media reflects anything about the views of Judaism toward violence. The article doesn't say anything about which Jewish precepts or reasoning he used. Sometimes even Rabbis say things based on their own political views or personal feelings, not everything they say is the word of god. No source has made the connection between the sermon and the general views of Judaism to violence. Therefore, I am removing this section. Marokwitz (talk) 08:09, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

He is not "an individual rabbi". He was the chief rabbi. When a leader, even a former leader, of a religion says or does something, it reflects on the religion. --Noleander (talk) 08:50, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

That's your opinion. Please provide a reliable secondary source linking Ovadia Yosef remarks with the topic of "Judaism and violence". Otherwise it should stay out. Especially since he completely denied that this is his view. Marokwitz (talk) 08:54, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

See WP:Common sense. If the leader of a religion makes comments about violence, it may be included in an article about the religion. Just as the article has, for example, material from the Columbus platform, we do not need a source connecting the Columbus platform to Judaism. Likewise, we do not need a source connecting the Chief Rabbi of Judaism to Judaism. --Noleander (talk) 08:58, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Of course he is a figure in Judaism, common sense also says that he wouldn't deny saying it if it was really the view of Judaism , right? Marokwitz (talk) 09:00, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

That aspect of his thoughts could be included in the article, but it is no reason to delete the Chief Rabbi's comments. For example, if Joseph Smith made a comment that reflected negatively on Mormonism, would we delete it from the article on Mormonism? or add material that explains the context of JS's comment? --Noleander (talk) 09:02, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Imagine we had an article called "Mormonism and Violence". If Joseph Smith was quoted as saying "Russians should die", and later he said this was a misquotation, and says that he doesn't by any means hold the view that "Russians should die", and what he actually said "Russian terrorists should die", then yes, it doesn't belong to an article called "Mormonism and Violence", since it has nothing to do with the views of Mormonism towards violence. The topic of this article is about the views of Judaism, and this isolated controversy is hardly representative of anything. Whether it really reflects on the views of Judaism towards violence (which in my view it most certainly does not), we should let reliable sources to judge. The above passage doesn't even correctly represent the views of Ovadia Yosef himself towards violence, and even less so the views of Judaism. Marokwitz (talk) 09:14, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay, perhaps an RfC would be in order to get more input? --Noleander (talk) 09:35, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I have no objection to RfC. Marokwitz (talk) 09:56, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Yosef can definitely be used as a source of Judaic incitement to violence. The job of a rabbi, a mainstream one no less, is to spread the word of Judaic teaching and its applications today. I feel that unless this phenomenon is found to occur with more frequency among a larger group of mainstream Jewish leaders, we can not highlight this one person’s rants as of representive of Judaism on a whole. Chesdovi (talk) 11:46, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

We could used him if he actually held that position. However he denied this is his position, said it is a misquotation, and his Halakhic position is actually contrary to that quote. According to the Wikipedia article about him, Rabbi Yosef has long been a distinguished rabbinical authority advocating peace negotiations in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and has done so since the late 1980s. His main justification is the halakhic principle of Pikuach Nefesh, in which all the Jewish commandments (excluding adultery, idolatry, and murder) are put on hold if a life is put in danger. Rabbi Yosef claims that the Arab-Israeli conflict endangers human lives, thereby meeting the above criteria and overruling the priority of commandments pertaining to settling the land of Israel. Therefore, Israel is permitted — even obligated if saving lives is a definitive outcome — to make serious efforts to reach a peace settlement as well as to make arrangements to properly protect its citizens. Marokwitz (talk) 12:47, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Extra sources on Purim

I don't see the Purim link to violence recorded in the extra sources. Chesdovi (talk) 10:25, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Indeed the quoted source says "evidence for repetitive Jewish violence on Purim through the centuries was exceedingly meager", which was for some unknown reason ignored by the contributor, just another example of an editor citing sources while completely reversing their meaning. The source says that 3 deaths were attributed to Purim in over 1000 years. That is less than one death per 300 years. This editor used the source in a way that suggested that Judaism is a violent religion and Purim is a violent festival. Good faith? I am required by policy to assume so. Marokwitz (talk) 10:47, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

The stone throwing, the spilling of 'rancid oil' on a Jewish convert, while of a violent nature, are not linked in the source to religion. They just happened to have happened on Purim. We do not know the context of these events. Mockery of the Christian cross is not a violent action, and were the 3 deaths carried out by religious conviction? Further, is the "practice of burning Haman in effigy on 'a form made to resemble the sainted cross'" a violent, if not offensive or mischievous, occurrence? Ridicule does not equal violence. Chesdovi (talk) 11:04, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

The source cited the above examples as "exceedingly meager" evidence that there was Jewish violence on Purim. That's exactly the point of the author, and the one that the original contributor chose to ignore. There is exceedingly meager evidence for the existence of any Purim related violent incidents. Marokwitz (talk) 11:17, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I think any mention of Purim as instigating or celebrating violence is WP:UNDUE. The festival celebrates victory over foes and instigates merriment and drunkenness, not violence. Chesdovi (talk) 11:39, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

It does seem to take up an awful lot of space for not much subject matter. 3 deaths in 1000 years? Other religious holidays can rack up those numbers on a bad night (I'm looking at you, Carnival and Mardi Gras). On the other hand it nicely highlights that Judaism is not a particularly violent religion. Sol Goldstone (talk) 20:00, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

This wikipedia entry is the first time I see any link between Purim and violence, I know alot about Judaism, never heard of it, but sometimes, anti-Jewish forces claim to "know" more, go figure.Evengee (talk) 12:26, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Who is Elliott Horowitz? Besdies, I think this section does not carry enough weight for inclusion on an article about violence. Chesdovi (talk) 12:17, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Gibraltarian Jews used to send sweets to their gentile neighbours on Purim. (They were not laced with rat poision). Chesdovi (talk) 23:16, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, Purim is taking up a lot of space for a holiday with the mortality rate of paper cuts.If choking on sweets (or however the 3 deaths occurred) is the biggest danger of a religion's holiday that's something to proud of. Sol Goldstone (talk) 01:24, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

"distorted" word?

Chesdovi: why do you use the word "distorted" in that context? It seems to carry a lot of implications ... what sources suggest that the word "distorted" is accurate? --Noleander (talk) 10:29, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Jewish texts use the verse in Exodus 22, which describe the actions of a burglar penetrating a home at night with homicidal intent, to introduce the concept of self-defense. The account recorded in Genesis 48 talks of thievery of land, with no murderous intent. The Bible does not prescribe the killing or maiming of thieves. To use Exodus 22 as a justification to murder “thieves” is “using” the verse, but it is also distorting it. In any case, this is better placed in the Bible and violence, as these people were most probably not religious in practice, so it was not Judaism which prompted their actions. The same for the secular Zionist leaders. Secular people who use the bible are not all of a sudden full of religious zeal. They are using the text as a cultural history book to prop up their claims, not its. Chesdovi (talk) 11:26, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

True, but there are also many sources that say the contrary: that the Bible does encourage violent acts in this context. Perhaps the best solution is to say something like "but some authorities consider this a distortion of ...". Can you find a secondary source that in some way repeats what you said? Since you seem so certain about it, there must be secondary sources that repeat your sentiments, true? --Noleander (talk) 19:28, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

So are you in agreement that these bits be moved to The Bible and violence? And how am I expected to find secondary sources on a primary source quote? Chesdovi (talk) 22:33, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I must have missed your suggestion to move the material to another article. No, I was simply talking about the use of the word "distorted" in relation to the expulstons/massacres material. I'm sure there are many sources that describe it as a "distortion" of the Tanakh's principles. I was asking you to supply a source so we could put the source in a footnote next to the word "distorted", so readers that want to follow up would have a place to go to. (PS: this is not related to the assassination section, which has the word "distortion" in it). --Noleander (talk) 20:11, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Jericho in War section?

Would a mention of the Battle of Jericho be appropriate in the War section? (BTW: I think the recent changes to the "War" section are a marked improvement) --Noleander (talk) 19:32, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

No. As I explained in the edit summary when I removed it, Jericho and the other battles in Joshua were political wars not religious. Yes, the conquest of Canan was done by people who were religiously motivated but it was not a religious act, it was a political act done to secure a homeland. This is in distinction to the war against Amalak, which even when there is no political need, exists as a religious command. Joe407 (talk) 03:51, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay. I found additional sources that directly relate the Battle of Jericho to religion, and I supplied those and restored the sentence. I understand that there may be sources that say "the battle was political, not religious" (although I could not find any) but if you have such sources, we can include that information in the sentence to help the readers get a fuller understanding. --Noleander (talk) 22:23, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Joe407: could you comment on the sources that on Jericho/Joshua that were recently added to the article? --Noleander (talk) 19:46, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Um.... No I can't. The sources cited are all books that I do not own. If you would like to post a excerpt or two I am happy to offer an opinion. Joe407 (talk) 08:12, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Current edit

Religious vs non-religious in current Israel. Mufti and killers of Dehaan founders of conflict. Controversial [1] Even left oriented LATimes categorized him as such [2] extremist Chomsky is not a RS on Juadism. Yigal Amir - Rabin's assasin is within the context of radical-zionists/settlers section.Evengee (talk) 12:26, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

This inflated page

Joe407 has a point, I also want to know how come this peaceful religion that was always the victim is double the size of let's say larger religion like: Christianity and violence page for example?Dutyscee (talk) 15:51, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Shorter section title possible?

There is a section title "Foundation of Arab-Israeli conflict: Secular Zionists and Islamic leadership in Palestine" ... The title is a bit long (may wrap-around to a 2nd line in many readers browsers). Is a briefer title available? --Noleander (talk) 19:54, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

How about: Arab-Israeli conflict's foundation: Secular Zionists and Islamic leadership I hope that whoever wrote that title doesn't mind.Llistasonis (talk) 12:14, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

It is possible.Dutyscee (talk) 20:05, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

See Also section a bit large?

The See Also section seems rather large, and many of the articles are only tangentially related. See WP:See also policy for guidance. If the consensus is that all those links are useful relative to this article, then the best solution may be to create a WP:Navigation template to hold them: that way it can be compressed into a horizontal bar. For an example of such a template, see Template:Religion topics. These "footer templates" normally go at the bottom of article, and they can have a "show/hide" option. --Noleander (talk) 19:44, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

It is an important portion, you mean the actual violence against Jews is large in past and present? you bet. Though there might be some consensus of shorting it in this entry. I hope.Dutyscee (talk) 20:04, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Purim/Book of Esther section

Joe407: There is no consensus to delete the Purim section. In fact, the sources are quite clear about it. What is your specific concern? That the sources are not adequate? Or that there is undue weight attached to it? Or that the sources are misrepresented? --Noleander (talk) 23:18, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

My apologies. In reading the above section #Extra sources on Purim, I felt that consensus had been reached. The section is in violation of WP:UNDUE. As Sol said, 3 people in 1000 years doesn't merit a mention as "religiously inspired violence". Perhaps the paragraph about a possible motivation for Goldstien can be put in the article about the 1994 Hebron massacre but to put it (a theory about possible motivation for a lone murderer) here would also be a violation of WP:UNDUE. Thoughts? Joe407 (talk) 08:07, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

After re-reading WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE it seems clear to me that Horowitz's theory and the 3 deaths over a millennium are fringe and to include them in this article is to give it undue weight. In a day or so I would like to remove this section.Joe407 (talk) 14:12, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

(1) The point Horowitz and others is making is not simply that there is incidental violence during celebrations, it is also that the Purim celebration is essentially violent in nature, because it is rooted in the violence of the story of Esther. (2) There are several sources, besides Horowitz. To quote one of them (describing Purim): " The decision of Queen Esther, a hidden Jew who comes out of the closet, turns the tables on her people’s persecutors, setting the stage for a massive score-settling in which those who planned to murder the Jews are instead the ones who are killed in a preemptive war of self-defense." This indicates that the origin of Purim itself has a significant relationship to violence, regardless of violence incidental to later celebrations. (3) Purim is also discussed in contemporary settings. Here is a quote from a blog on the Internet "At the bottom of the poster [a poster found in modern Israel] are words from the Book of Esther, 'To the contrary, the Jews dominated those who hated them.' Esther is read on the holiday of Purim, which falls a few days after the planned march. The poster is a call to celebrate the holiday early with a march of angry young men into an Arab neighborhood – with a pogrom. To emulate the Jews who defended themselves from hate-enraged mobs in ancient Persia, Jews will become a hate-enraged mob in the sacred city. It would be simplest for me to say that this is a modern aberration, a twisting of Judaism with no precedent. That’s half-wrong, though: It is indeed a grotesque distortion of Judaism, but it has historical roots." (4) What makes you say Horowitz is "fringe"? He is a professor at Bar-Ilan University. Are there a large number of other scholars that say that Purim is not associated with violence? --Noleander (talk) 13:59, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Your point's 1&2 are valid reasons to include this information in the Purim article. Regarding the subject of this article, it is a violation of WP:UNDUE. Regarding item 3, it sounds like, again, FRINGE. Not that it is a fringe theory about the facts but rather a perspective of a fringe of the Jewish population (the subject of this article) and to put their perspective in this article is to violate WP:UNDUE. (Additionally, you would need a WP:RS for this.) Regarding #4, I am not saying that Horowitz is not a legit scholar, rather the view he expresses is a fringe one if not a lone voice. As such to include it in this article is to violate WP:UNDUE. Joe407 (talk) 15:42, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

The WP Undue policy relates to mainstream-vs-minority viewpoints. One viewpoint is "Purim is associated with violence". Is that a minority viewpoint? Are there sources that say Purim is not associated with violence? If we have such sources, we can see which seems more mainstream. Even if the view were somehow in the minority, the Undue policy simply gives guidance to how much material should be present in the article: the policy suggests that the amount of material should be reduced (but not eliminated). Finally, the Undue policy relates to "top level" articles that cover the full breadth of viewpoints (e.g. an article that includes both "Purim is peaceful" and "Purim is violent", such as the Purim article), but in an article about the minority viewpoint (such as this article on violence) the Undue policy does not apply. --Noleander (talk) 01:07, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Noleander—what ever became of your much vaunted sources? If this article has sources supporting its overall scheme, what do those sources have to say about whether or not Purim is included under the topic of Judaism and violence? We shouldn't be deciding what to put into this article by editorial fiat. Sources should underpin the overall scheme of this article. Could you please bring even one source that supports the overall topic of "Judaism and violence"? I believe I asked you this once before. Can you please take the time to show us sources for the topic of Judaism and violence? Bus stop (talk) 10:09, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

That Purim is "violent in nature" is absurd. It is "rooted in violence" as much as Hanukkah and Passover are. The 4 main obligations of Purim are scroll reading, sending food gifts to friends, giving charity to the poor and eating a festive meal. Where is the violence in that? There is no zanjeer (ritual flagellation). Neither devotional crucifixions. Or violence anything on the scale of what takes place during Ashura. Chesdovi (talk) 10:59, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

The sources are quite clear that there is a strong association between the Purim festival and violence (and also between The Book of Esther - which is the basis for Purim - and violence). Many, many sources discuss hanging in effigy, etc. Your personal opinions on the matter are not relevant. See WP:Idontlikeit. If there are additional sources that describe Purim as a primarily peaceful festival, those should be included in the section for balance. In fact, I believe that that balancing material is already included. --Noleander (talk) 14:53, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Noleander—where is there a source for "Judaism and violence" that includes within it the mention of Purim? This article is not to be a free-form essay. That would be original research. "Judaism and violence" is the topic of the article. Does "Judaism and violence" have a source? If not, why not? Does that source include Purim in the topic of "Judaism and violence"? If not, why not? Bus stop (talk) 15:21, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

You are mistaken. There is no WP policy that requires a single source that covers the breadth (and all material in) a given article. If such a policy existed, 90% of WP material would have to be removed :-) What policy are you relying on for your opinion that there must be a single book that includes all the material in a given article? --Noleander (talk) 15:26, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Very simple. What is the source for the subject of this article? Do you have one? Present it here, please. We don't write articles on just anything. Anything that an article is written on has to have a source. Please begin by showing us a source for "Judaism and violence," or is that not the topic of this article? Concerning Purim, the source establishing "Judaism and violence" as a topic recognized in reliable sources, should also be establishing for us that Purim is a component, recognized by at least some sources, as a component of the overall topic—"Judaism and violence." Bus stop (talk) 15:32, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I see. You are confusing two different issues: (1) Should Purim be included in the article?; and (2) Should the article exist? This Talk page section is titled "Purim" so it is addressing (1). I'll open a new Talk page section (below) for issue 2. For the "Purim" section: I'll presume that you are not opening an AfD, and thus you are resigned to the existence of this article. So my questions for you are (a) What do you think the scope of this article is? (b) Why do you think Purim (and Book of Esther) does not fall within that scope? --Noleander (talk) 15:49, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Noleander—I am asking you for a source for "Judaism and violence." Bus stop (talk) 15:54, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

My answer is: There is no book titled Judaism and violence. There is no single source that covers all the material in this article. Nor is there any WP policy that requires a single source to correspond to the topic of an article. Now, questions for you: (1) Do you think this article should exist? (2) if not, why have you not submitted an AfD? (3) If you are resigned to the existence of this article, what do you think the scope/definition of the article is? (4) Do the sources for Purim (Horowitz and the other sources in the section) fall within the scope/definition of this article? (5) If Horowitz et al do not fall within the scope/definition, why not? I've answered your questions, now please answer mine. Or, you are welcome to leave the Talk page if you are not interested in constructive dialog. --15:59, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Noleander—you say, "I've answered your questions…" But I am not sure you have. My question has been what source establishes the topic of the article? I have not mentioned any requirement that it be a "book" or any other specific form. I believe the onus is on you to present sources that support the existence of a topic that you obviously feel belongs on Wikipedia. As I see it, most other editors are only lukewarm on this topic. I don't see enthusiastic support for an article for which as yet not one source has been presented for its overall topic. I think we have articles on every topic touched upon in this article. Arguably, all you are really doing is bringing together in one place complaints against Judaism involving a notion of associated violence. But are sources doing this compilation or are you doing this compilation? I think you should be bringing sources for the topic "Judaism and violence." I am not sure that the real world has yet recognized the topic "Judaism and violence." I think the onus is on you to show that outside sources establish this topic. We would be using Wikipedia to create reality if prior existence for this topic can't be demonstrated. I don't think it is at all clear that "Judaism and violence" has an existence outside this article. Sources are obviously necessary to establish that this subject even exists. The test is whether sources can be found. I think that places the onus on you or other editors to show that sources establish the topic "Judaism and violence" outside of this article. Bus stop (talk) 18:04, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Busstop: The only sources I have found are the ones listed in the article's Reference section. That is it. There are no more. I have no source titled "Judaism and violence". I have no more sources to offer you. None. If you feel those sources do not provide enough justification to overcome your Synth and OR objections, please file an AfD. Repeating your question over and over and over is not helpful. Now, will you please answer my questions? --Noleander (talk) 18:19, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Busstop: Your concerns above seem to be directed to the article as a whole (that is: it violates OR and Synth policies). So, let's continue that discussion in the Talk page section below. Regarding the Book of Esther/Purim section: you have not provided any information about why that specific section has problems. In other words, whatever argument you are applying to that section, could be applied to any section in the article. If you have a specific problem with the Book of Esther/Purim sources (Horowitz et al) please bring it up here. --Noleander (talk) 14:33, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

This seems to be about Noleander's own interpretation what constitutes violence. Effigys are burnt on Guy Fawkes Night, a non-violent celebration recalling a violent occurance. I noted before that many instances highlighted by the sources are not violent in nature. Chesdovi (talk) 15:05, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

My own interpretation is not relevant. The article should reflect what the sources say. Are you suggesting that Horowitz's book Reckless rites: Purim and the legacy of Jewish violence is not about violence? Or not about Judaism? --Noleander (talk) 15:15, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

One would have to provide extracts. A mere book title does not suffice. Horowitz aside, we can not use the quotes from Auerbach, Jerold S. or Boustan, Ra'anan S. Chesdovi (talk) 15:33, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Please provide quotes that clearly describe the "strong association" between the Purim festival and violence. The "many, many sources" which discuss hanging effigys, etc, are not, in my mind, violent acts, and unless described so by the sources, cannot be used here to link the festival with violence. Chesdovi (talk) 16:05, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Sure, quotes are a good way to help us figure out what to do with the material. Here are a handful of quotes from Horowitz's book. The entire book is about Purim, violence, and the Book of Esther, so I just grabbed a few quotes from the book's Introduction. Some chapter titles:

• Chapter 5: Amalek: The memory of violence and the violence of memory
• Chapter 7: Mild men or Wild men? Historical reflections on Jewish violence
• Chapter 8: Ancient Jewish Violence and Modern Scholarship
• Chapter 9: Purim, Carnival, and Violence

Some quotes:

page 16: "This book deals not only with the theme of Amalek and responses - Christian as well as Jewish - to the book of Esther over the centuries, but also with Jewish violence connected with the holiday of Purim, from the early fifth century to the late twentieth."

page 19: "The first [part of this book] is devoted .. to the book of Esther … Was it a book that promoted cruel vengance…? Since according to Jewish law the Amalakites, including women and children, had to be utterly destroyed, thinking about Amalek involved … thinking about the possibilities of, and justifications for, Jewish violence. [The second part of this book includes discussion of] one specific form of Jewish violence over many centuries - the descration of the cross and other Christian images…. [chapter 8 is] devoted to violence against Christians, sometimes within the context of the Purim festiviy, in the 5th-7th centuries. Chapter 9 carries the subject of Purim violence into the medieval and early modern Europe, especially against the background of the often violent rites of Carnival.

page 4: "On [Purim in 1994] Dr. Baruch Goldstein .. opened fire, with his army-issued semi-automatic rifle, on dozens of Muslims who were praying inside the mosque at the Tomb of the Patriarchs in Hebron, killing twenty nine. At the time [I was writing] a Hebrew version of an article about the history of Purim violence … as I saw the raucous celebrations in the center of Jerusalem continuing unabated, that there was a clear connection between past Purims and the present one was both exhilarating and disturbing… And the Sabbath before Purim … opens with the command to 'remember what th Amalek did' and concludes with .. the … exhortation to 'blot out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven'. …

page 6: "On Purim in 1986 … one of the settlers … placed a kaffiyeh on the effigy of Haman which was being hung. The local Arabs took offense, and only the timely intervention by [the military] prevented a violent confrontation. …

page 8: In 1996 after a bus blew up.. a reporter heard a passerby exclaim 'This is all due to the leftists of Meretz. We will take care of them. For us they are Amalek'… In a public address … shortly before the holiday of Purim, Rabbi Yosef compared [Sarid] to Haman adding 'he is wicked and satanic and must be erased like Amalek'.

page 11: In 1995, "when a procession of Armenian priests was making its way, with a large cross, … a Jewish resident of the city spat conspicuously as the procession passed… it occurred on .. the Sabbath before Purim."

page 12: "Martin Luther [wrote] how much the Jews 'love the book of Esther, which so well fits their bloodthirsty, vengeful, murderous greed and hope'.

page 12: "[the author of the Book of Esther] went on to report .. that they 'smote all their enemies with the sword, slaughtering and destroying them, and did as they pleased to those who hated them.' with the consequence that 75,000 of these 'enemies' were slain"

page 16" For Jewish scholars … wrtiging about Jewish violence against Christians … was … no simple matter. Chrisitan scholars, of course, discussed these matters more openly." [Horowitz then discusses Oxford Dean Arthur P. Stanley's book Lectures on the History of the Jewish Church.]

page 18: "[I]nfuriated … Jews in the Holy Land are still avenging 'the old and the new quarrel' against those they consider to be 'Amalekites', but their malice is hardly as impotent as it was … and the concept of Amalek has been amplified to include not only 'Nazarenes' but also Ishmaelites and even some Israelites."

According to Google-Books, there are several hundred secondary sources that refer to the book. Here is a typical one: Abby Schnacter: The Problem with Purim [3]

Yet in recent years Purim has come under criticism from some Jewish thinkers in large measure because of the bloodiness of the triumph at its conclusion (the Jews kill 75,000 Persians in a single day). Elliott Horowitz of Israel’s Bar-Ilan University devoted his Reckless Rites: Purim and the Legacy of Jewish Violence to the questionable claim that Purim has long been the occasion for outbreaks of Jewish animosity and even violence toward Christians. Horowitz based this bizarre thesis largely on the fact that Baruch Goldstein’s massacre of 29 Arabs in Hebron in 1994 occurred on Purim. In his review of the book for Commentary (June 2006), Hillel Halkin pointed out that the incidences of Jewish violence against non-Jews through the centuries are extraordinarily few in number and that the connection between them and Purim is more than tenuous."

One possibility for this material is to treat it primarily as a commentary on the Book of Esther and treat the associated Purim festival as a subsidiary topic; and then it could be located in article adjacent to the Midianite/Amalekite material (but we would have to somehow make clear that there is some discussion of violence in post-biblical times) --Noleander (talk) 16:57, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

---

In response I would suggest:
page 19: "The first [part of this book] is devoted .. to the book of Esther … Was it a book that promoted cruel vengance…? Since according to Jewish law the Amalakites, including women and children, had to be utterly destroyed, thinking about Amalek involved … thinking about the possibilities of, and justifications for, Jewish violence. [The second part of this book includes discussion of] one specific form of Jewish violence over many centuries - the desecration of the cross and other Christian images…. [chapter 8 is] devoted to violence against Christians, sometimes within the context of the Purim festiviy, in the 5th-7th centuries. Chapter 9 carries the subject of Purim violence into the medieval and early modern Europe, especially against the background of the often violent rites of Carnival.

This part of the intro states “Jewish violence over many centuries - the descration of the cross and other Christian images”, yet later on there is a clear distinction made between the two: “For Jewish scholars living in Christian countries writing about Jewish violence against Christians or abuse of Christian symbols on Purim.” So we cannot view “the desecration of the cross and other Christian images” as violent in nature. Also, Chapter 6 provides material reporting on the alleged abuse of the Christian images while making scant mention of its link to Purim.

page 4: "On [Purim in 1994] Dr. Baruch Goldstein .. opened fire, with his army-issued semi-automatic rifle, on dozens of Muslims who were praying inside the mosque at the Tomb of the Patriarchs in Hebron, killing twenty nine. At the time [I was writing] a Hebrew version of an article about the history of Purim violence … as I saw the raucous celebrations in the center of Jerusalem continuing unabated, that there was a clear connection between past Purims and the present one was both exhilarating and disturbing… And the Sabbath before Purim … opens with the command to 'remember what th Amalek did' and concludes with .. the … exhortation to 'blot out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven'. …

Violent action.

page 6: "On Purim in 1986 … one of the settlers … placed a kaffiyeh on the effigy of Haman which was being hung. The local Arabs took offense, and only the timely intervention by [the military] prevented a violent confrontation. …

Not violent.

page 8: In 1996 after a bus blew up.. a reporter heard a passerby exclaim 'This is all due to the leftists of Meretz. We will take care of them. For us they are Amalek'… In a public address … shortly before the holiday of Purim, Rabbi Yosef compared [Sarid] to Haman adding 'he is wicked and satanic and must be erased like Amalek'.

Not violent.

page 11: In 1995, "when a procession of Armenian priests was making its way, with a large cross, … a Jewish resident of the city spat conspicuously as the procession passed… it occurred on .. the Sabbath before Purim."

Not violent.

page 12: "Martin Luther [wrote] how much the Jews 'love the book of Esther, which so well fits their bloodthirsty, vengeful, murderous greed and hope'.

Not violent.

page 12: "[the author of the Book of Esther] went on to report .. that they 'smote all their enemies with the sword, slaughtering and destroying them, and did as they pleased to those who hated them.' with the consequence that 75,000 of these 'enemies' were slain"

Historical account

page 16" For Jewish scholars … writing about Jewish violence against Christians … was … no simple matter. Chrisitan scholars, of course, discussed these matters more openly." [Horowitz then discusses Oxford Dean Arthur P. Stanley's book Lectures on the History of the Jewish Church.]

Not linked to Purim

page 18: "[I]nfuriated … Jews in the Holy Land are still avenging 'the old and the new quarrel' against those they consider to be 'Amalekites', but their malice is hardly as impotent as it was … and the concept of Amalek has been amplified to include not only 'Nazarenes' but also Ishmaelites and even some Israelites."

Not linked to Purim. Chesdovi (talk) 18:04, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Book of Esther & Purim: arbitrary section break

It is not clear what you are recommending in the above comment. The book, which is widely cited by a large number of secondary sources, inter-relates the Book of Esther, Purim, and violence. One of the biggest themes in the book is that the Tanakh suggests that Amalakites are suitable targets of violence, and that some modern groups of people are viewed as Amalakites (and Horowitz does not discuss that specifically in relation to Purim). The proposal is to include material from the book (and secondary sources commenting on the book) that relate violence to the Book of Esther and Purim (not just Purim alone). No one has suggested including material unrelated to violence. Are you suggesting that the content of the book is not a reliable source? or that certain portions of the book are not within the scope of the article? --Noleander (talk) 18:49, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Also, why do you say the Auerbach source is not relevant to this article? It is: Auerbach, Jerold S, Hebron Jews: memory and conflict in the land of Israel, Rowman & Littlefield, 2009, p 137. Quote: "Aside form an alleged 'great slaughter' of local Christians by Galilee Jews after the Persian invasion of Jerusalem in 614 CE, which other scholars believed to be dubious, evidence for repetitive Jewish violence on Purim through the centuries was exceedingly meager: occasional episodes of stone throwing, the spilling of 'rancid oil' on a Jewish convert, mockery of the Christian cross, and a total of three recorded Purim deaths inflicted by Jews in a span of more than 1,000 years…. Then, during the annual Purim parade in Hebron five years later [in 1986] a Jewish settler placed a keffiyah on an effigy of Haman, infuriating local Arabs." --Noleander (talk) 19:03, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I put the most recent version of the Book of Esther / Purim section in a subpage of the Talk page here Talk:Judaism_and_violence/BookOfEstherPurimDraftText. It seems to have most of the "balancing" information that has been brought up. Anyone is free to work on it in the interests of achieving consensus. --Noleander (talk) 19:18, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

The secondary source you provided above in review of the book refers to Horowitz's thesis as a "questionable claim", hardly the hard facts needed to substantiate Purims link to violence here. Auerbach records violent acts purportrated on purim, but the link is still missing. There is no evidence in the qoute which suggests that it was the "violent nature" of the festival which induced the mockery. Indeed, the context of each event is not mentioned. I want to know why stones were thrown. Chesdovi (talk) 19:47, 21 September 2010 (UTC) This should not include material about speculation, but of actual evidence. "Mr X claims there is a P/V link." But without supporting evidence, why should this view be included? Chesdovi (talk) 14:10, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

It is not our job as editors to evaluate the merit of assertions made by sources - see WP:Truth. If reliable sources make the association between violence and Esther/Purim/Amalek, then it is appropriate material for this encyclopedia. If there are sources that deny the association, those sources should be included (and already are included) to provide balance. --Noleander (talk) 14:32, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

And besides from the intro, where is the P/V link asserted in the actual book? Chesdovi (talk) 20:17, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Does the entire article violate OR/Synth policy?

Busstop, in the "Purim" section above, has suggested that the entire article violates OR and Synth (and perhaps Notability) policies. I'm starting this new section of the Talk page is to focus on those issues you've raised. My reply to Busstop on this issue is: If you believe that this article violates those policies, you should open an AfD. Continuing to repeat the same material over and over again here on the Talk page is Disruptive Editing. --Noleander (talk) 15:49, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I do think there is a problem here with article structure. It is a list of very different thing loosely tied together under a common theme. That makes it read more like an essay than an article about a specific thing. I don't particularly care for these kinds of articles because it's very hard to decide what should be included, what is a neutral stand to take, how to source things, and so on. I'm pretty sure there are enough sources out there to establish notability for the connection between Jewish religion / philosophy / culture / history and a Jewish conception of violence, actually enough for an article on each of these subjects, which I'll call JRPC-V. There is an obvious tendency to engage in WP:SYNTH because to be sourceably related to this article something must not only be (1) Jewish, and (2) violence-related, but also (3) confirmed by the source to be related to the subject of JRPC-V. However, any source that draws this connection is usually doing so in editorial and conjecture mode, not simply reporting an event. An article might say "[incident x] is but the latest of a string of events in [country] that drew attention to the Jewish conception of violence", but in making that statement it is doing something more than just reporting on things. Given the subject matter it is a lightning rod, sure to attract concern - is this article covered by the Palestine article probation? But they are here to stay so the best we can do is be careful. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:51, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikidemon: Your concerns are valid. Similar issues have been raised at the other articles, such as Islam and violence, Mormonism and violence, Religion and violence, and Christianity and violence. However, in all cases, the articles have been found to be notable, and the Synth issues have been addressed by ensuring that the sources are reliable secondary sources, and that the article is structured in a neutral manner. If you refer to the References section in this article, you'll see a large number of sources that do discuss the association of Judaism and violence. Are there any particular Original Research or Systhesis issues you can identify in the article, as it stands now? --Noleander (talk) 18:58, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikidemon : Regarding your question: " is this article covered by the Palestine article probation?": this article's focus is religion, and much of the content is related to ancient Biblical violence and to the view of Judaic religious texts on peace and violence. So I'm not sure if other editors would consider it related to Palestine, but I do not view it that way. --Noleander (talk) 19:02, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

After edit conflict. Indeed, we are at least being fair if we have an article about X and violence, where X is the set of all significant religious, racial, cultural, ethnic, historical, national, etc., groups of people. Do we need all those articles? And do we need an article about Judaism and Y, where Y is the set of all significant things in the world? Because as a religion and culture, Judaism does have its own set of beliefs, customs, and a history with Y, whatever Y is. Also we could have articles about each intersection of X and Y... potentially millions of articles, all likely sourceable. That would be a very interesting, worthwhile project but it would not be an encyuclopedia. Is there anything special or unique about Judaism in particular, or violence in particular, that makes the relationship particularly notable? That last question isn't just rhetorical, maybe there is. If so, the article should concentrate on that special relationship rather than just being a laundry list of violent incidents involving Jews, and the Jewish reaction to them. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:07, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Those are good questions. The reason the religion&violence articles are notable are precisely because humans have discussed that connection so long, so often. I suppose that since religions were formed, other people started criticizing the other's violent practices (Aztec sacrifices, holy wars, terrorism, whatever). Analysts, scholars, and everyday folk seem to enjoy discussing and documenting the association of specific religions with violence. It is not a random intersection: it is a well-documented intersection, that is highly notable, and even very relevant to todays global political climate. Deleting such articles would be a disservice to readers. I think the discussion we should be having is: What is the precise scope of these articles? What can we do to ensure that they are neutral and balanced? --Noleander (talk) 19:17, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Noleander—you say immediately above that, "Deleting such articles would be a disservice to readers. I think the discussion we should be having is: What is the precise scope of these articles?" This Talk page is for discussing the article which is associated with it, not for discussing other articles. Many instances on this Talk page you are discussing other articles. WP:TALK says that, "The purpose of a Wikipedia talk page (accessible via the talk or discussion tab) is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article or project page." You have conceded that you have no sources for the overall topic of this article. I am wondering how you came up with a title for this article. You initiated it. Can you tell me how you arrived at the title that you did? Bus stop (talk) 18:11, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

The title was modeled after Christianity and violence and Mormonism and violence. No, I did not concede that there are no sources for the article; what I said was that all the sources I am aware of are in the References section, that no single source encompasses all the material in the article, and that I am not aware of additional sources. If you believe the article violates Notability or Synth policies, I refer you to the AfD process. --Noleander (talk) 18:56, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Sources belong in the Footnotes section of this article. At the inception of this article or in its early days one would expect to see justification in sources in the footnotes section for a subject that an article is being written on. The reader deserves to know the origin of such basics as the sources for the topic that an article is being written on. The reader deserves the assurance that "Judaism and violence" is a topic that has been recognized in the wider world outside of Wikipedia. The reader should be understood to deserve to be apprised how sources beyond Wikipedia understand the very notion of Judaism and violence. For instance: what is included in it? what is not included in it? Are we to just decide these things by fiat? The reader deserves to know, for instance, what academics include under the rubric of "Judaism and violence." You have none of this to provide the reader with. You have basically conceded that the article is burdened under all these shortcomings. That you chose to "model" the title of this article ("The title was modeled after Christianity and violence and Mormonism and violence.") after the title of another article is problematic. There is no assurance that the factors applicable to one topic are applicable to another topic. This article needs its own footnotes that establish and explain how outside sources use the terminology in its title. Did it not occur to you that what is applicable to one religion might not be applicable to another religion? From where do you derive the notion that you can model one article after another? Bus stop (talk) 19:26, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

By the way you say "…no single source encompasses all the material in the article…" No one has ever required that any "single source" encompass "all the material in the article." Nevertheless we expect sources to outline a subject. We expect sources to establish to our satisfaction that the subject exists. I do not think we are at liberty to initiate articles on topics that have not yet been recognized in the outside world. The standard way that we prove that is by providing sources. Sources need to establish that "Judaism and violence" is an area for investigation that has some standard meaning. Sources show what that meaning is. That sources have not been provided undermines the seriousness of this article. Bus stop (talk) 19:33, 21 September 2010 (UTC)