Talk:Jewish extremist terrorism/Archive 2

Link rot and other problems

 * The Jewish Defense League (JDL) was founded in 1969 by Rabbi Meir Kahane in New York City, with the declared purpose of protecting Jews from harassment and antisemitism. The JDL has carried out a number of bombing attacks against targets they consider threats to the Jewish people. The FBI’s Mary Doran described the JDL in 2004 Congressional testimony as "a proscribed terrorist group". The National Consortium for the Study of Terror and Responses to Terrorism states that, during the JDL's first two decades of activity, it was an "active terrorist organization.".

The text above has been temporarily moved here pending Discussion, since there does not appear to be much involvement from editors other than myself and it is unlikely the move will be contested. Following are the reasons for the move: 1. The first two refs are to the same page, the ADL. The ADL, however, does not classify the JDL as a religious terrorist organization – which is what the name of the section, and of the article, purports it to be. 2. The third and fourth links have rotted and do not lead to pages with information on the JDL at all. However, even according to FBI pages about the JDL that do function, it is not referred to as a religious terrorist organization. Ergo, it does not belong in a section titled List of Jewish religious terrorist organizations.—Biosketch (talk) 11:39, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Suggesting name-change
I highly suggest renaming to the normal name-style of these types of articles to be "Jewish Terrorism", like "Christian Terrorism", "Islamic Terrorism",...etc.   ~ AdvertAdam   talk  22:48, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Start an RM? »  nafSadh did say 11:10, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The reason that it's under this name is because "Jewish", unlike "Christian" and "Islamic", is both a religion and an ethnicity. The word "religious" was used to distinguish the two. It would be nice if names could all be "fair", but the real-world is a messier and more complicated place. Jayjg (talk) 03:22, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Sounds fair to me. Thanks for the clarification.     ~ AdvertAdam   talk  08:58, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Template:Off-topic
The "History" section has been tagged with Template:Off-topic. The reason has to do with the WP:SYNTH problems that were raised previously: no reliable sources argue that there's a historical link between Zealotry in Jewish history and modern instances of Jewish terrorism.—Biosketch (talk) 02:48, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Failed verification

 * Keshet (Kvutza Shelo Titpasher) (1981–1989): A Tel Aviv anti-Zionist haredi group focused on bombing property without loss of life.

The above item is being relocated here on account of failing verification: neither of the two sources cited refer to Keshet as a Jewish religious terrorist organization. Although the text proper does not make the claim that Keshet is a Jewish religious terrorist organization, its context in the article does, and that suggestion is not borne out by the sources.—Biosketch (talk) 07:24, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Are you kidding? The first source says "A new group of Jewish radicals is trying to enforce ultra-orthox religious beliefs by painting swastikas on tombstones of Israel's founders and bombing sex shops and newspaper stands".  It is hard to imagine a more explicit description of Jewish religious terrorism.  We are allowed to use elementary logic around here.  I'm reverting. Zerotalk 10:41, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * If you insist that a source uses the word "terrorist" in relation to them (which I don't think is necessary for a group that sets bombs in public places), it is easy to find such sources. Examples: "ultra-orthodox urban terrorist group" (JP, Jan 1, 1989, p1), "Right-wing Jewish terrorist group" (Toronto Star, 12 Apr 1989, pA2), "ultra-Orthodox terrorist group" (JP, Jan 9, 1989, p10), "dreaded Keshet ultra-Orthodox terror group" (Toronto Star, 10 Jan 1989, pA14).  Zerotalk 11:49, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Did I sound like I was kidding? Lest there should be any doubt, the comment was serious through and through. (I'm not a fan of sarcasm and I don't joke around much here, in case you haven't noticed.) As for your edit – wow...I'm totally surprised you would revert on such flimsy grounds as "elementary logic." I would have expected someone of your experience to be at least vaguely familiar with WP:TERRORIST, which states, "Value-laden labels...are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution." Your revert was therefore in disregard of a Wikipedia guideline that is especially pertinent to this article.
 * Now, in your second comment you did cite sources explicitly referring to Keshet as a religious terrorist organization. That is much better scholarship. As far as my position goes, I'm not in a situation to verify the sources myself at this time; but unless I actually say otherwise, you may assume that I accept them, which I in fact do per AGF, based on my profile of you as a contributor (at least until this morning). What puzzles me, though, is why you haven't incorporated these sources into the passage in the meantime – because as it stands, it should not be in the article, on account of the reason already given above. For the article's sake, you should do one of two things: (a) incorporate the sources into the Keshet passage yourself with in-text attribution and detailed citation tags including quotations, or (b) self-revert and wait for me or someone else to get to our university's library, verify the sources ourselves, and incorporate them into the article in due course.—Biosketch (talk) 01:51, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't like the title of this page (and similar page titles) and would support a change to a better title. Finding a better title that still encompasses much the same subject area is not so simple. Meanwhile, I don't think it is appropriate to use WP:TERROR to exclude things from a page just because it has "terrorism" in the title.  Rather, we should add material that fits the intent of the title, and a religiously motivated group that sets bombs in public places clearly does fit it.  As for why I am editing sparely, it is because I'm about half the circumference of the Earth away from home and have other things to do.  Zerotalk 13:10, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Good job on the article
I must say that, when I first saw the link to this article, I was expecting to see some diatribe on how the Jewish religion is awful or something to that effect. Instead, I found a well thought out and focused article that makes sure to stay away from religious conflict and focuses specifically on the facts. Really good job here. Silver seren C 21:17, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * When you really think about it, though, all this article is is a POV-ish fork of Zionist political violence. I doubt if there's anything novel here that's not already covered in more detail there. We don't even have a decent lead that explains what "Jewish religious terrorism" is. As far as I've been able to determine, that's because there haven't been studies devoted specifically to exploring "Jewish religious terrorism." This is the reason for the WP:SYNTH flag. It's surprising this article exists at all.—Biosketch (talk) 07:41, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Not really, especially not the section about the 1st century. There's more than enough sources that discuss Jewish religious terrorism, such as this, which is a really good ones that goes into much detail. And then there's this, which discusses the difference between Jewish terrorism in terms of "state creation", or Zionism, and Jewish terrorism that is based on religious views. And you also get stuff like this, which discusses the psychology and the reasons on why Jewish religious terrorism exists in the first place. As for the lede, that just needs to be expanded. Silver  seren C 09:21, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * If the link between 1st-century Zealotry and modern-day terrorism holds any water, there should be more sources that establish its existence in addition to Mark Burgess, whom I have never seen anyone cite anywhere. He may be on to something, and it's ok to reference him in the article; however, considering the exceedingly sensitive topic this article is dealing with, we ought to be aspiring toward much more solid sources than him, especially when it's for referencing whole sections of the article.
 * Now, you've found some more sources that can be incorporated into the article. That's encouraging. What's not encouraging is if they languish here on the Discussion page like 's sources for Keshet up above. The article is in dire need of a coherent lead and more credible sources. These are the minimum requirements for it to justify its existence.—Biosketch (talk) 07:06, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Removed off-topic source
I've removed this source from the lead because, per the quotation, its study of Jewish terrorism is unrelated to religion, and this article is specifically about Jewish religious terrorism (or is supposed to be).

—Biosketch (talk) 07:33, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Based on the following quote on page 163, it's clear that the author was talking about "a religious Jewish group" not "an ethnic Jewish group": "...seems appropriate to broaden the comparison between Jewish terrorism networks and other types of religious terrorist groups throughout the world." You need to read the book before making any claims and remove sources.     ~ AdvertAdam   talk  07:47, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Google Books only makes parts of the book available at a time, and each time it's necessary to use another browser in order to see more pages. That's why I was relying on the quotations given by other editors. In the case of my removal, it was because the quotation you provided didn't have anything to do with religious terrorism. Now you've provided a different page with a different quotation, which is fine. That's what you ought to have done in the first place. The last thing you need to do, since you seem to actually have the book, is replace the irrelevant quote that's in the citation template currently with the one you found on page 163.—Biosketch (talk) 08:44, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think the quote here is relevant with the cited statement, as I just brought it to you as an example of removing a citation without reading the book. Not having access to the book is not a proper reason to fail verification, when it's properly cited. Jewish terrorism is mostly religious or political based on religious belief (same thing). The article's name is "Jewish religious terrorism" to separate the ethnic group with religious group (as explained in a discussion above), but no sources (or little) use "Jewish religious terrorism".     ~ AdvertAdam   talk  09:35, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I own this book and have read it from cover to cover. It discusses religious (and other) motivations extensively and is obviously relevant to this page. Zerotalk 09:55, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, but not having the book was just a technical circumstance I mentioned; it's obviously not what motivated me to remove your citation. I recognize that "Jewish religious terrorism" doesn't have to be the formula in every case. There can be other permutations that convey the same idea. But in order for the material we're using to not be WP:SYNTH, there needs to be a clear connection being established between the Jewish dimension of the terrorist act/individual and the religious dimension. Your current quotation does that, and it comes from scholars who can be considered experts on the article's topic, so it's fine for the lead.—Biosketch (talk) 07:16, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

List criteria
, before removing the Template:List fact, did you read the page the Template directs to? It says:
 * "Lists should always include unambiguous statements of membership criteria based on definitions made by reputable sources, especially in difficult or contentious topics. Beware of those cases in which the definitions themselves are disputed. Many lists on Wikipedia have been created without any membership criteria, and editors are left to guess about what or whom should be included only from the name of the list. Even if it might "seem obvious" what qualifies for membership in a list, explicit is better than implicit."

We don't have clear inclusion criteria, so I don't understand why you removed the Template. You can propose a list if you want, but until then you should restore the Template to the sentence introducing the first list.—Biosketch (talk) 08:54, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The simple criteria is whether it's relevant with the article or not. We can't just tag the whole list like that. Each item in the list has to be categorizes as terrorism and claim Jewish religious motivations. Whatever in the list fails should be removed. I, personally, suggest that you ask on the talkpage if you have a doubt on a certain source, to avoid reverts. But you're free to remove whatever you're positive that it doesn't match the above rules, with a proper summary. In addition of being reliable, of-course.     ~ AdvertAdam   talk  09:21, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Btw, the policy you're reading is talking about a list that is unsourced, or a source that is in the intro-sentence only. However, the items in that list has independent sources for each item.     ~ AdvertAdam   talk


 * I've added a little intro sentence to the section that seeks to explain what follows. Feel free to tweak it if you think the wording is off. Silver  seren C 09:28, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Reversion from Template:Terrorism
Biosketch just made this reversion over at Template:Terrorism, removing this article from under the religious terrorism group. His edit summary says that this had already been discussed. Can I please be linked to this prior discussion? Silver seren C 09:37, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Did you find it? It's on the Template Discussion page, directly above the message you left there more recently.—Biosketch (talk) 07:18, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, yes. I am sorry to inform you, but that is not something "already discussed". That is you making a section and the single user that replied disagreeing with you. And I also disagree with you. The state of an article or whether it is good or bad has nothing to do with its inclusion on a template. Even if it was a two sentence stub, it would still be included, because it falls under the category of articles that the template covers. I am going to go revert you now. Silver  seren C 09:15, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Looks like two other users already beat me to it. That's three users that disagree with you and none that agree. Silver  seren C 09:16, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I knew something is not right, and I couldn't think what. I just linked the template here.     ~ AdvertAdam   talk  09:41, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * @, that's true, and I can live with it. Worse things have happened.—Biosketch (talk) 02:55, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Removed off-topic source, Part II
I've been able to confirm yet another bogusly cited source in the article, apparently added for the sole purpose of giving its embarrassing excuse for a lead the pretense of encyclopedic authority. It somehow managed to evade detection since October of last year – until yesterday.

The string "terr" appears nowhere in that entry.—Biosketch (talk) 06:19, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Link rot and other problems, Part II

 * Kach and Kahane Chai: Kach was a political party founded by Rabbi Meir Kahane in the early 1970s, based on his concept of Kahanism. Kahane Chai was a breakaway group formed by Kahane's son Binyamin Ze'ev Kahane, after Kahane was assassinated in 1990. Both were outlawed by the Israeli Knesset in 1994 under anti-terrorism laws. Today, Kach and Kahane Chai are considered terrorist organisations by Israel, Canada, the European Union, and the United States.

For reasons much the same as the relocation of the previous content chunk to the Discussion page, the above paragraph has been removed from the article due to irrelevance and link rot. 1. Nowhere are Kach or Kahane Chai referred to as religious terrorist organizations. Their place, therefore, is not in this article but at Zionist political violence. 2. Three links have rotted, making it impossible to verify the claims being made; which, even if they could be verified, still wouldn't justify restoring the paragraph to the article for the first reason given.—Biosketch (talk) 02:57, 19 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Actually, Kach and Kahane are religious terrorist organizations and widely described as such. One only has to read their literature to see that they refer constantly to religious precepts as the basis for their beliefs.  Any terrorist organization which presents religious beliefs like "God gave Eretz Israel to the Jews", or "Jews have a special relationship with God" as fundamental motivations is a religious terrorist organization.  This theme is explored by writers like Yosef Sprinzak and Motti Inbari.  I will come with citations. Zerotalk 10:33, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * See here: you don't need to convince me that Kach and Kahane Chai are religious terrorist organizations. That's already my opinion. But I don't edit Wikipedia according to what my point of view is. If you have RSes that say they are religious terrorist organizations, that's another matter. Right now there aren't any.—Biosketch (talk) 01:51, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Pg 106 of this book http://books.google.com/books?id=uQtEw1RwF0gC&pg=PA103&dq=Jewish+religious+terrorism&hl=en&ei=JlYhTtn7EeTmiALFqoi9Aw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CCwQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=Jewish%20religious%20terrorism&f=false refers to the religious aims of the kahane networks.  I therefore intend to restore Kahane to the list.Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 13:47, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Alternate title suggestions
Feel free to throw some ideas up here. Maybe...


 * Jewish terrorism (religious)

The parentheses is better because it fits better with other articles of the time and is more explanatory. Really, i'm of the opinion that just titling it Jewish terrorism and then explaining in the lede that this article is specifically about religious based terrorism and not ethnic based, you'd be alright. So long as there isn't an article about ethnic Jewish terrorism, there wouldn't be a conflict. After reading the archives, i've seen that issues arise if you remove the word religious from the title, so i'm falling pack on the parentheses idea. Silver seren C 21:20, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Why are you proposing to change the name?—Biosketch (talk) 07:49, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Because the current name doesn't seem appropriate, grammatically or in terms of syntax. Silver  seren C 09:11, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I like your proposal, even tho the article's title have changed much. It's similar to (biblical) and all the widely-used category separation.     ~ AdvertAdam   talk  09:39, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * @, can you be more specific? Terrorism is the noun; religious modifies terrorism; and Jewish modifies religious terrorism.—Biosketch (talk) 07:09, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not very straightforward phrasing. It is much more common to put the descriptive term that differentiates from another article in parentheses, which is why it should be Jewish terrorism (religious). The term in parentheses differentiates between religious and ethnic terrorism in relation to the subject. It's just the common method of naming on Wikipedia, rather than having Jewish religious terrorism and, subsequently though it will likely never be created per non-notableness, Jewish ethnic terrorism. Those two phrasings do not follow common practice. Silver  seren C 09:19, 17 July 2011 (UTC)


 * A quick example here is Sara. She is so notable so no confusion can accure; however, there's a very famous movie called Hagar, so Wikipedia used Hagar (biblical person) instead. It's an old exaple, but it took us forever to give her the direct name, Hagar only now.
 * I'm just trying to show Wikipedia's usually used style: Sarah (disambiguation), Sarah (given name), Sarah (female name), Sarah (chimpanzee), Sarah (novel), Sarah (Women of Genesis series).     ~ AdvertAdam   talk  09:33, 17 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Any supporters/comment?     ~ AdvertAdam   talk
 * The parenthetical names are used for disambiguation. What is this article being disambiguated from? Jewish terrorism (non-religious)? Jayjg (talk) 23:58, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The article title clearly needs to have religious somewhere in the title, as it does currently and as in the proposed title change, because we have seen in the talk page archives and the history that, without clarifying the religious nature of the subject, numerous IPs and new users come in trying to add in ethnic stuff, which has no place here. So religious is necessary in the title, but I feel that Jewish religious terrorism is a little awkward of a title and parenthesizing the religious makes the title look nicer and still makes the exact same distinction. Silver  seren C 00:16, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * "looks nicer" is pretty subjective; I think the current title "looks nicer". I'm not aware of other terrorism articles with parentheses in the title, and it still makes it look like a disambiguation. I think we should stick to standard naming. Jayjg (talk) 22:05, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

General comments

 * , why did you move the page without trying to reach a consensus over it when there was already a related discussion here about just that? If you or someone else has compelling reasons to move the page, then lay them out clearly as part of a WP:REQMOVE. You know this is a sensitive issue. Please treat it as such.
 * 1) Regarding the edits by, I'm not going to revert, on account of this article probably falls under discretionary sanctions as I/P-related. But please review the guidelines at WP:TERRORIST, specifically: "Value-laden labels...are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution." Note the words "widely used." Your edits haven't established anything near wide use.—Biosketch (talk) 08:43, 2 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Regarding your second comment, Biosketch, I'm not sure what you mean exactly so I'll just say what I mean. To include a person or organization on this page, it should be enough that a good quality third-party source clearly states that it belongs.  More than one source would be even better, but that isn't essential.  If some other good quality third-party source states the opposite, we have an issue to resolve by discussion.  I don't think mere inclusion on the page requires the "widely used by reliable sources" criterion of WP:TERRORIST because that guideline is in regard to the use of labels within articles. In deference to that guideline, I'd prefer that the word "terrorist" on this page be restricted to quotations and, within limits, to paraphrase of sources that explicitly use the word.  Zerotalk 10:18, 2 August 2011 (UTC)


 * We were discussing the move up above. You asked me why it was necessary, I explained, and you never actually stated an opposition to the move. Another user agreed with the move, so I went ahead and did it. I don't see what's sensitive about it, since all of the words in the title are the exact same, just rearranged. Silver  seren C 21:31, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * @, if the name of this article were "Jewish religious militancy," one could argue that WP:TERRORIST doesn't apply. But once the word terrorism is the frame around the article, by virtue of its being in the title, it follows that any individual or organization listed as belonging to it and being described as terroristic needs to meet the criteria at that guideline.
 * @, you and both said that having part of the name in parentheses is the convention when it's necessary to distinguish one article from others with the same name or in the same class. Here we haven't got that problem: there's no article on Jewish terrorism, hence it makes no sense to call this one "Jewish terrorism (religious)." Besides, the Terrorism template that you and the other two editors here were so eager to add to the article classifies the article under Religious terrorism. That being the case, religion should be made prominent in the title, not relegated to parentheses as an afterthought.—Biosketch (talk) 03:14, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Biosketch, I do not know what you are asking for, but I have added in more reliable source refs to show that Bat Ayin is widely regarded as a terrorist groupDalai lama ding dong (talk) 11:33, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The Contentious Labels section of the Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to Watch guideline deals with the labelling of organisations. The advice it gives is that if an article were to state that an organisation is a terrorist organisation, multiple reliable sources should back-up the statement. When an article is only stating that a reliable source regards an organisation as a terrorist organisation, that particular reliable source is the only verification required.      ←   ZScarpia  17:32, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The general rule is "don't call someone a terrorist in an article". For example, see Hani Hanjour or Anders Behring Breivik. Are these people terrorists? Well, I would say so, but as the saying goes, "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter". Even Al-Qaeda doesn't say, "it is a terrorist organization", it says it's "designated as a terrorist organization by X, Y and Z". The rule is no different here. If an organization is "widely considered" to be a terrorist organization, you say just that and source it. If you can do that, no problem. Swarm  u 01:24, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

It's been a month and no one's challenged User:Swarm's or my objections per WP:TERRORIST. I'll soon begin removing (again) those additions editors made that failed to establish in the prose wide use of the designation "terrorist" in reliable sources.—Biosketch (talk) 10:47, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I object. You have no consensus.  We don't need to keep repeating our objections either. Zerotalk 12:28, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Also object. Silver  seren C 16:40, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Biosketch I asked you to make clear which groups you were objecting to, so that other sources can be added. Can you please do that?  Please do not remove any groups without giving any other editor the chance to add in sources.Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 19:13, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Holy war
This paper might help explain my edit summary when I removed a claim about "holy war". I don't think this issue needs to be raised or discussed here, since the article is not about war at all. Zerotalk 11:48, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * In a way, it almost seemed like apologetics in a manner to wave away some of the stuff in the article. And it didn't apply at all, as you said. Silver  seren C 20:44, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

King David Hotel Bombing
Why is there no mention of the bombing of the King David Hotel? That's a really big one - everyone knows about it. Also, i think there were a good deal of other terrorist incidents prior to the formation of Israel (see "Night of the Trains", "British–Zionist conflict", etc) 68.10.115.18 (talk) 05:25, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Because this article is specifically about religious terrorism. The perpetrators of the King David bombing weren't motivated by religious zeal.—Biosketch (talk) 06:16, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Quite the double standards given for Western ally Israel on this Wikipedia page. Let me easily & quickly prove the hypocrisy by the editors of this page. Opening line from Islamic terrorism (Arabic: إرهاب إسلامي‎ ʾirhāb ʾislāmī) is a form of religious terrorism[1] committed by Muslims for the purpose of achieving varying POLITICAL and/or religious ends. Opening line from Zionist political violence refers to acts of violence committed by Zionists in the British Mandate of Palestine for POLITICAL reasons, mainly to advance the creation of Israel, a Jewish state. [* Included in this page is the 'King David Bombing' referred to in original discussion.]

So where is the difference? I am neither Jewish or Muslim and I laugh at this double standard — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.212.173.134 (talk) 02:00, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Unlike Islam, "Jewish" can refer to both an ethnicity and a religion. Zionism was founded as a secular movement, and in the 1930s and 1940s was mostly supported by secular Jews and opposed by religious Jews. The world and history are far more complex than simplistic "soundbite" analyses that insist everything is either black or white. Feel free to describe that as "hypocrisy" and a "double standard". Jayjg (talk) 04:17, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Article is biased and thus garbage
Why the distinction between "Jewish religious Terrorism" and Islamic Terrorism? If we're only going to have acts of Jewish religious terrorism on this page, where do the Zionist acts of terrorism like the King David Hotel bombing, etc. go?

Muslims once again thrown under the wiki-bus for Jews, as usual in western discourse.

Solntsa90 (talk) 04:33, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * There is a separate article Zionist political terrorism --helohe (talk)  15:14, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
 * True, I agree that all articles should be treated equally. This should absolutely be move into Jewish terrorism --aad_Dira (talk) 00:53, 30 April 2013 (UTC).
 * The question of topic starter was already answered above. No idea what you agree with. Your suggestion was discussed and rejected earlier. Feel free to suggest renaming Islamic Terrorism to Islamist Terrorism though. --Wiking (talk) 18:55, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

While I disagree with the "Article...is garbage" characterization in the title herein, I do agree with editors Solntsa90 and aad_Dira that, to avoid the appearance of POV, all these articles need to be named similarly. I would propose the following title names:
 * Jewish religious terrorism -> Jewish religious terrorism
 * Islamic terrorism -> Islamic religious terrorism
 * Zionist political terrorism -> Zionist religious terrorism

As a B alternative, they could all be renamed as:
 * Jewish religious terrorism -> Jewish terrorism
 * Islamic terrorism -> Islamic terrorism
 * Zionist political terrorism -> Zionist terrorism

My name is Mercy11 (talk) 16:12, 8 May 2013 (UTC), and I approve this message.


 * and Palestinian political violence -> Palestinian terrorism? it seems fair if those other pages are to be renamed as well. Honestly though, I'm more in favor of moving all of them to [X] violence. Neo12345292 (talk) 08:35, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

I should also note that Zionism is a political movement, so I'm not sure entirely how the religious term would fit there. Neo12345292 (talk) 12:29, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Are all violent acts terrorism?
There seems to be a number of references here that are unlikely to be terrorist in nature. Not all violent acts should be consider terrorism. Just because someone is Jewish or has some motive that is deemed religious doesn't make it a terrorist act. I think a lot of people throw around the word terrorism all too often and perhaps should read a book or at least a dictionary before they edit a wiki article.Mantion (talk) 03:49, 8 May 2012 (UTC)


 * My view is that we should avoid the words "terrorism" and "terrorist" completely in Wikipedia. They are always politically loaded words, written with the obvious POV of enemies of a person so labelled. And yes, that means that this article should be renamed, perhaps to Jewish religious violence. HiLo48 (talk) 07:46, 8 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Why would anyone avoid using a word that is well defined? Terrorism is defined as "the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims." In the context of this Wikipedia article, "terrorism" is the correct word to use, as it is a specific type of violence being described, and all of the examples currently used had a politically religious motivation. You may want to reassess your own biases. Bainst (talk) 20:41, 24 November 2012 (UTC)


 * So, in line with your definition, the WW2 Allied forces were terrorists? I wouldn't exactly say that. Especially not since "political" seems to be extremely loosely defined here and includes all religions and beliefs. I do agree it should be used and has a definition, though: "A person or ideological collective of persons that uses or threatens to use excessive violence against an indiscriminant, large part of the population to promote similar acts in others, bring attention to their demands, or to further a collective's shared ideological influence on others by creating a climate of fear and submission." Bataaf van Oranje (talk) 13:11, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Why this disjoin ??
I see this issue has been discussed in other contexts (specifically the King David Hotel bombin), but I want to renew it with a different focus. What is the rationale for jumping 2000 years from the Sicardii pretty much straight through to the Jewish Defense League again, please? What happened to Stern Gang, Irgun, Lehi, and other Jewish groups? Not religious enough? or not terroristic enough? If the latter, I can supply ABUNDANT good evidence for their inclusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.173.12.90 (talk) 16:04, 1 July 2014 (UTC)


 * They're likely in Zionist terrorism Bataaf van Oranje (talk) 13:14, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

The the King David Hotel bombing was not terrorism. The hotel was the headquarters of the british army and a legitimate target as britain was an illegal occupier in breach of the Palestine Mandate and UN charter article 80. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.12.28.5 (talk) 22:58, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Removal of Hamas-affiliated cell
Removed material which is irrelevant in this article, and which is not back up by an RS. In the main wikipedia article, for every reference that states an affiliation with Hamas, another RS claims that Hamas did not sanction this action. It is best to remove this wording, or we will end up with a complicated statement that says that they may or may not have been acting on behalf of Hamas.Johnmcintyre1959 (talk) 06:08, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Individual cases
I added Philoumenos (Hasapis) of Jacob's Well well known case of religiously motivated murder.Zezen (talk) 10:14, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Original research
This page contains a collection of Jewish organizations that have been involved in terrorism. The packaging of this under the heading of "Jewish religious terrorism" needs clarification for this article to be retained. The central issue is that the linguistic distinction of "Jewish religious terrorism" is not supported in any of the references cited. The importance of this subject is obvious, and it seems like it would be an interesting topic for an original research article or even a book. However, Wikipedia is not the place for exploring and testing a new hypothesis, no matter how interesting or important that hypothesis might be. Please either find a solid foundation for the distinction of "Jewish religious terrorism" (versus "terrorism performed by Jewish individuals or organizations".  User:history.really.matters (talk) 13 September 2015 (UTC)


 * You looked at all the sources? You should look again. Zerotalk 15:45, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Article titles are restricted to several words and don't have space for nuances. This article title is far from perfect, but your response should be to suggest a better title. Zerotalk 15:50, 13 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Wouldn't Jewish terrorism be a better title? Just from the 'see also' section, it seems there's no such article, while there are articles on Christian and Muslim terrorism.PiCo (talk) 23:46, 14 December 2015 (UTC) (So - it seems Jewish terrorism redirects to this article. Still seems odd. Maybe the redirect should be the other way round. PiCo (talk) 23:47, 14 December 2015 (UTC))


 * Jewish terrorism does sound better.Johnmcintyre1959 (talk) 18:26, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Jewish religious terrorism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130731190200/http://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/prg/ns/le/cle-eng.aspx to http://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/prg/ns/le/cle-eng.aspx#KACH

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 12:58, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

false information on this page
most writers in wikipedia are anti israel and rely on anti israel media in this page.as an israeli i know the facts and true stories a little bit better than.for instance the part of the duma arson,someone wrote here that meir ettinger was arrested on this when in fact his arrest had nothing to do with the duma arson!! one other person was arrested and so far the trial didnt even start and there are no physical evidence that he did it! the evidence show that arabs might have done it in a local dispute in the village.http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/198965#.VqybotKDnhY also lehava group is not a terror group!! they were never even charged with a single terror attack and yet u write that they are a terror group bacause u dont like their opinions.you should be more correct and nuetral when writing here.stick to the facts even if you hate israel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.172.169.32 (talk) 11:24, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Jewish religious terrorism. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20090311144410/http://www.fbi.gov/congress/congress04/doran061604.htm to http://www.fbi.gov/congress/congress04/doran061604.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100828165700/http://www.start.umd.edu/start/data/tops/terrorist_organization_profile.asp?id=183 to http://www.start.umd.edu/start/data/tops/terrorist_organization_profile.asp?id=183

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:20, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Jewish religious terrorism. 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/20120511140810/http://www.cdi.org/friendlyversion/printversion.cfm?documentID=1502 to http://www.cdi.org/friendlyversion/printversion.cfm?documentID=1502
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061122094511/http://www.cdi.org/terrorism/kach.cfm to http://www.cdi.org/terrorism/kach.cfm

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) 05:56, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jewish religious terrorism. 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/20081201174249/http://www.ssc.upenn.edu/polisci/faculty/data/lustick/for_the_land/lustick13.html to http://www.ssc.upenn.edu/polisci/faculty/data/lustick/for_the_land/lustick13.html

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) 04:41, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Racist misquotes
The claim that any ethnic group "operates" in certain way, is not just a FULL misquote of Daniel Byman, it has nothing to do with terminology. Jews, Palestinians, Russians, Germans,  do not "operate" in certain and specific way. The Irgun section should be stated in appropriate section (if it has religious terrorism link) and does not belong to terminology section.Tritomex (talk) 13:26, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Section on Israeli persecution of Jewish terrorists
Article needs a subhead, and an addition to the lede, on Israeli law and its application to Jewish terrorists, who are routinely found, persecuted, convicted, and imprisoned.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:36, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

"individual" Jewish terrorists
I have deleted section, because such cases are properly listed in Category:Jewish religious terrorism. Note also that no similar section exists at Christian terrorism, Saffron terrorism, or Islamic terrorism where relevant articles are linked via categories.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:55, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I dont see any actual reason for such a deletion in the above statement. Whether or not something is in a category has exactly what impact on it being listed here? WP:WAX remains an argument that does not need a response.  nableezy  - 16:53, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * It is a tad of WP:LISTCRUFT to tally each one - though perhaps due to the relative rareness of Jewish terrorism this is borderline possible.Icewhiz (talk) 20:03, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Merge Pages
This page should be merged with Zionist_political_violence. Bainst (talk) 06:46, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 February 2019
Minor spacing issue: Under "Individuals" section, first sentence: Please insert space after the period between "motivations.The". Trying to cleanup on behalf of Typo Team/moss. Thank you. sbb (talk) 05:05, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done DannyS712 (talk) 05:50, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Summary Tables
Hello, I have compiled summary tables of the known terrorist attacks on Palestinians, based on this article and the Hebrew one. Please add these tables to the article: User:Avneref/Jewish religious terrorism. Thanks! Avneref (talk) 20:49, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Hello. Is there a response for this request? Thanks. Avneref (talk) 12:30, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 March 2019
Missing several Jewish Terrorist Organizations - Irgun: The National Military Organization in the Land of Israel (Responsible for King David Hotel Bombing, etc.) - Lehi: Stern Gang (Responsible for Jaffa Bus Bombing, etc.) 2600:1000:B036:38D:DD01:CD10:201E:8FD2 (talk) 15:07, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Besides being militia units, both organizations were not religious.Icewhiz (talk) 15:10, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 March 2019
The second paragraph in the section After 1948 has a "citation needed," so I would like to provide the reference:

Ami Pedahzur and Arie Perliger wrote an article titled Comparison of Jewish and other manifestations of religious terrorism inside of the 2017 publication Terrorism, Identity and Legitimacy: The Four Waves theory and political violence.

In it they argue that "A striking functional similarity between the Jewish groups and the jihad net- works springing up in Western democracies in recent years lies in the counter- culture communities forming the environment of the terrorists, which in a sense have isolated and alienated them from the values of the majority, mainstream culture. They view features of the dominant culture as an existential threat to their own community.'"

They also state that "'religious terrorism does not result solely from a competition between religions and cultures, but is likewise linked to the conflict within almost every religion between a moderate, liberal, Western-oriented worldview and more extreme religious elements.'"

There is more information in this article, but as I don't have 500 edits, I can't make any changes. I think the citation is posted at the end of the paragraph but maybe it wasn't clear for whoever edited the 'citation needed' claim. Realizar (talk) 20:16, 20 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Any update about my edit request? Realizar (talk) 23:17, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 June 2020
2409:4054:E:D491:DF2B:204:BDD5:746E (talk) 11:36, 20 June 2020 (UTC) Support Two state solution. Peace out.
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:09, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Wesigan: was he religiously motivated?
Paragraph, as well as dedicated article, make no mention of it. Terrorist yes, but religious?

Placing removed paragraph to this page, in case smb. can prove he was religiously motivated or for any other use.


 * Asher Weisgan was an Israeli bus driver who shot and murdered four Palestinians and injured one other in the Israeli settlement of Shiloh in the West Bank on 17 August 2005. Weisgan wanted to disrupt the Israeli Government's unilateral disengagement plan in Gaza by sparking a Palestinian reaction. On 27 September 2006, Weisgan was sentenced by the Israeli court to four consecutive terms of life in prison, for each person he killed, and an additional twelve years in jail. Later that year, he committed suicide by hanging himself in prison. The Haaretz newspaper quoted Weisgan having declared, before entering a courthouse outside of Tel Aviv, 'I'm not sorry for what I did. I hope someone also kills Sharon.'

Arminden (talk) 12:57, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Inaccurate description
None of these listed were committed  in “the name of Judaism” this is an extremely inaccurate description. This must be changed to: acts of terrorism committed by Jews for ideological or political motivations. Jake pres (talk) 18:43, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

The use of the word terrorism is incorrect, it should be "Political violence". This is according to WP:WTA and matching the standard set on the parallel article on Palestinian political violence. Thewildshoe (talk) 12:28, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 25 February 2023

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved - Consensus that "Jewish" indicates both an ethnicity and a religion, and so disambiguation is necessary. There's a further dicsussion to be had about content but that can be dealt with through ordinary editing (non-admin closure) FOARP (talk) 13:57, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Jewish religious terrorism → Jewish terrorism – Eliminating tautology, per WP:CONCISE, and aligning the title with Islamic terrorism,Christian terrorism, etc. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:07, 25 February 2023 (UTC) This is a contested technical request (permalink). Iskandar323 (talk) 12:47, 25 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Support per nom. Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 18:35, 25 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Support per nom. Estar8806 (talk) 23:42, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Change my vote to Oppose per the arguments below regarding Jews being an ethnoreligious group, not just a religious one like Muslims or Christians.--Estar8806 (talk) 01:26, 5 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Strong oppose - the nom implies that Jews are equivalent to Muslims and Christians, which is not true, as Jews are an ethnoreligious group, both an ethnicity and a religion. ---  Tbf69   P &bull;&#32;T 18:58, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Then 'religious' is just a misnomer, because it's 'ethnoreligious' terrorism - same result. Iskandar323 (talk) 03:48, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
 * The page, in any case, carries a blend of religiously and politically oriented terror. Iskandar323 (talk) 03:50, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Jewish is both an ethnicity and a religion, meaning that the title is not a tautology but instead clarifying which the article is referring to; we cannot omit it per WP:PRECISE. This is also why we cannot have consistency with the titles of Islamic terrorism and Christian terrorism.
 * We also have no articles titled "[Ethnic group] terrorism"; per WP:CONSISTENCY and WP:BADIDEA we shouldn't make an exception here. BilledMammal (talk) 13:31, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
 * @BilledMammal: If you go through the examples in the article, you will actually find that it is as much if not more about about Jewish nationalist terror as it is anything related to 'religious' terror. Perhaps my opening comment was incorrect and 'Jewish ethnoreligious terrorism' would have been tautology. As it stands, it is simply a misnomer, since it starts from the 'political and religious movement' of the zealots, and moves through purely political movements such as Gush Emunim and Kach, and onto settler violence. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:17, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I think Jewish nationalist terror is primarily covered by Zionist political violence; we don't need to duplicate that content here.
 * We also don't name other examples of nationalist terrorism after the ethnicity of those engaged in it; we don't have articles called Irish terrorism, Albanian terrorism, Palestinian terrorism, or Basque terrorism. Making an exception here is not a good idea. BilledMammal (talk) 16:46, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
 * @BilledMammal: Ok, but since the content already is what it is here, and, in your opinion, duplicated, if you do not think the name should change, are you saying the scope should be narrowed? Which of the elements on this page would you actually host here? And how, in the case of an ethnic religion, is one to clearly distinguish between religious, political and specifically nationalist terrorism (as opposed to simply 'Jewish terrorism'), when they are all so intricately bound up and interlinked? Iskandar323 (talk) 17:19, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep religiously motivated elements here, split off nationalist motivated ones. Elements that involve both motivations are more difficult, but that isn't a problem unique to this article and can be resolved. BilledMammal (talk) 18:07, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

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.

the picture
the picture is fucked up. can someone change it? 73.171.42.173 (talk) 19:35, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
 * What picture? HiLo48 (talk) 22:31, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 4 September 2023



 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Moved as proposed. After much-extended time for discussion, there is a clear consensus for a move away from the current title. The preferred move target is somewhat hazier, but a majority of those participating prefer the proposed "extremist". BD2412 T 19:50, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Jewish religious terrorism → Jewish extremist terrorism – Terrorism is not a consequence of “religious” views, but rather of extremist views. An entire religion should not be associated with terrorism, but only the extremists within it. The proposed title meets the precision test in WP:TITLE and complies with WP:NPOV much better than the current title. There seems to be strong support in an ongoing discussion on the List of Islamic terrorist attacks talk-page for changing that title to List of Islamic extremist attacks, and we should make similar move requests for Jewish religious terrorism, Christian terrorism, etc.. NightHeron (talk) 18:13, 4 September 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. EggRoll97 (talk) 00:31, 13 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Support: per the above and the first sentence of the which defines the subject as terrorism by "extremists within Judaism", and considering the important point that almost all terrorism is on some level partly political, so purely "religious terrorism" is a bit of a misnomer and practically non-existent in practice. The actual examples on this page are deeply entwined with politics. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:32, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Support I think arguments above and in ongoing discussions at Talk:List of Islamic terrorist attacks have shown some consensus for these these sorts of changes. TarnishedPathtalk 01:24, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Support --06:56, 5 September 2023 (UTC)--BeLucky (talk)
 * Support Existing title is unusual/strange. There's many ways to interpret "religious terrorism" - does it mean motivated by religious belief or terrorising the religion of others? Unclear and fails CRIT Naturalness. Proposed title is clear and straightforward. DeCausa (talk) 10:31, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Actually, it's not clear and straightforward. Given that Jewishness is both a religion and an ancestry, we are removing clarity by removing religion from the title. Maybe religion is wrong, but that's another matter. HiLo48 (talk) 00:07, 29 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Move to Jewish terrorism per WP:CONSISTENT for consistency with Christian terrorism. And per WP:CONCISE, as all terrorists are, by definition, extremists. Which makes "extremist terrorism" redundant. Rreagan007 (talk) 04:16, 8 September 2023 (UTC) Rreagan007 (talk) 04:14, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
 * If a consensus supports this proposed move, I'll propose a similar move from Christian terrorism to Christian extremist terrorism and from Hindu terrorism to Hindu extremist terrorism. Per WP:NPOV we should not associate terrorism generally with a religious group or ethnicity, but only with an extreme wing of it. NPOV is a core policy, whereas WP:CONCISE is not. NightHeron (talk) 05:35, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I think it would be premature to go on a spree of move requests when you don't know the outcome here. TarnishedPathtalk 05:46, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
 * We need to consider this aspect also: Both religious terrorism and extremist terrorism involve the use of violence for ideological purposes, the key distinction lies in the primary motivation and targets. Religious terrorism is driven by religious beliefs and often targets those perceived as threats to those beliefs, while extremist terrorism can be rooted in various ideologies and may have a broader range of targets. It's important to note that not all religious individuals or extremist groups engage in terrorism, and the majority of religious and extremist movements are non-violent. --BeLucky (talk) 06:28, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
 * The latter point is not a source of confusion; these articles are about terrorism, not about non-violent extremists. To the first point I would reiterate that "religious terrorism" is itself a disputed term. The more NPOV synonym for terrorism is "political violence", and the reason for this is that the word terrorism contains the sense of violence for political ends. Political violence by groups with religious sympathies is still political violence; why they might be inspired by religious ideology (in the same way that domestic terrorism might be inspired by xenophobia), the end result is still violence with a political goal - making a political statement, changing the conversation or public opinion, intimidating political opponents or attempting to effect the structures of government themselves. In contrast, it is hard to think of an example of something that might be construed as pure "religious terrorism" without some sort of political end. On this page, the Zealots explicitly instigated a rebellion against Rome; it was political in the extreme. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:03, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Move to Jewish terrorism. I'm in agreement with the consistency and concision point sraised by Rreagan007. The status quo has the modifier "religious" which serves little purpose, unless there's more ethnically but non-religiously Jewish terrorism out there than I'm aware of. The proposed modifier "extremist" is redundant to "terrorism". I'm sympathetic to NightHeron's view on needing to associate terrorist acts with the extremists, not whole religions, but this is the job of the articles and leads, not the titles. I suppose we could have a discussion about moving all "X terrorism" to "X extremist terrorism", but I don't think it'll help. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:26, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment: Note that a move request to Jewish terrorism was discussed in the previous thread earlier this year and failed to get consensus. NightHeron (talk) 02:50, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Move to Jewish terrorism per WP:CONSISTENT, there is already Christian terrorism and Islamic terrorism. Or, potentially as pointed out in the lead of the Islamic terrorism article, that's not a good term and we could rename them all "X extremist terrorism". We should probably consider these three things and their associated list articles etc together. But for now I'd say WP:CONSISTENT takes precedence before that discussion takes place MarkiPoli (talk) 15:16, 13 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Suggestion. I'm not sure I agree with the new name, but the current name definitely needs some work. I can see the merit behind specifying "religious", however, as some might make a distinction between their race/ethnonationalism and their religious practices which is somewhat unique to the demographic. However, this might only be necessary to prevent confusion with another potential "Jewish racial terrorism" page which I don't think exists. Maybe Zionist terrorism? not sure. However, it is interesting that this page is called "political violence". As you suggest, "terrorist" is not very neutral and probably should be replaced with "extremist" or something. Inanimatecarbonrobin (talk) 17:10, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Move to "Jewish terrorism" per MarkiPoli. Either way, the current title is clearly not consistent with the other religious terrorism articles, nor is it neutral. #prodraxis connect 01:57, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Support per WP:CONSISTENT]. 2NumForIce  (speak  &#124; edits) 04:04, 14 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Support per WP:CONSISTENT
 * --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 12:05, 28 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose Given that Jewishness is both a religion and an ancestry, we are removing clarity by removing "religious" from the title. Maybe "religious" is wrong, but that's another matter that is being avoided here. HiLo48 (talk) 00:09, 29 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment: "religious" is the wrong word, since the terrorists are not necessarily particularly religious, and it is often nationalism (toward Israel) or hatred (toward Palestinians) that motivates them. In the article title we should not be suggesting that a high degree of religiosity correlates with terrorism. What is undeniable is that extremism correlates with terrorism, which is why I suggested at the top of this thread that the word "religious" be replaced by "extremist". NightHeron (talk) 00:29, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

"Judaism and terrorism" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Judaism_and_terrorism&redirect=no Judaism and terrorism] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. BD2412 T 20:02, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

"Judaism and terror" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Judaism_and_terror&redirect=no Judaism and terror] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. BD2412 T 20:02, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

"Jewish religious violence" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jewish_religious_violence&redirect=no Jewish religious violence] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. BD2412 T 20:07, 15 October 2023 (UTC)