Talk:Judaism and violence/Archive 2

Radical Zionist phrasing
"Abraham Isaac Kook (1865–1935), the Ashkenazi Chief Rabbi of Mandate Palestine, urged that Jewish settlement of the land should proceed by peaceful means only. Contemporary settler movements, on the other hand, follow Kook’s son Tzvi Yehuda Kook (1891–1982), who also did not advocate aggressive conquest." I do not understand the use of "On the other hand" here. They both did not advocate aggressive conquest so what is the juxtaposition? Joe407 (talk) 08:26, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

✅ Marokwitz (talk) 08:33, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Justifying violence
This sentence "The love of peace and the pursuit of peace, as well as laws requiring the eradication of evil, sometimes using violent means, co-exist in the Jewish tradition" in the lead section clearly sounds as an attempt from the beginning to influnce the reader. Judaism's violence. While Judaism's "The love of peace and the pursuit of peace..." might be true, but within the context and topic of the article this is not acceptable.--  Jim Fitzgerald   post  16:52, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that is an odd sentence to start the article with. I think the article, awhile ago, started with "Judaism's doctrines and texts have sometimes been associated with violence.  Judaism also contains peaceful doctrines ... "  Or something like that. Could you propose a new lead paragraph that is more neutral? Or, just go ahead and put it into the article so other editors can review it. --Noleander (talk) 17:02, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * That's really neutral sentence, if nobody against I am going to put that sentence into the lead section.--  Jim Fitzgerald   post  18:05, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Ovadia Yosef's August 2010 statement
I cannot see anywhere in Ovadia Yosef's August 2010 statement that he calls anyone to "commit genocide against [the] Palestinians". I think he is rather addressing God to strike them down. Incitement, yes. But a call to commit "genocide"? Chesdovi (talk) 09:45, 17 November 2010 (UTC)


 * You are right. And there were well sourced clarifications given which Jim Fitzgerald chose to surprisingly delete, under the pretense of an "edit conflict". Marokwitz (talk) 09:57, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

On the divine purpose of Gentiles
Does Yosef's October 2010 statement regarding Gentiles have anything to do with inciting violence? Chesdovi (talk) 09:48, 17 November 2010 (UTC)


 * No. Marokwitz (talk) 09:58, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Ginsberg's views
Ginsberg may harbour extreme views about the mystical differences between Jews and non-Jews, they may even "smack of racism", but do they incite hatred, violence? Has it been demonstrated that his views have had this effect? Chesdovi (talk) 10:03, 17 November 2010 (UTC)


 * No. And even if they do, it may be relevant in an article about him, not relevant to Judaism in general. No citation was given to show that his extremist personal opinions are based on some violent precepts of Judaism. Marokwitz (talk) 10:06, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

David Batsri and Arabs
Batsri has used inflammatory terms to describe Arabs. But how can his statement be called inciting hatred/violnce if he then suggests they are "needed to build and clean?" I for one would not want to be paying anyone I hated or use anyone I would be prone to lashing out at in a voilent fashion. I would not want to benefit from anything that the "devil" had been involved with. Racism and calling people "donkeys" is one thing. Incitment to violence is quite another. Chesdovi (talk) 10:13, 17 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Agreed. This doesn't belong in an article about Judaism, perhaps in an article about the person. Marokwitz (talk) 11:02, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Incitement to violence by notable rabbis
"Incitement" is also used in a legal context and I would therefore only cite cases of covicted incitors here. A more encompassing heading may be suggested though. Chesdovi (talk) 10:15, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Manis Friedman, 2009
Friedman is not inciting violence. He is stating his understanding of moral warfare. This may belong elsewhere in the article, not in the current "Incitment" section. Context: It should be remembered that this was not an isolated comment, but was made when a war was taking place. Chesdovi (talk) 10:21, 17 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Additionally, if you look at Manis Friedman, the statement was clarified / retracted. Joe407 (talk) 10:25, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Yitzhak Shapira
Shapira's "alleged" incitement needs clarification. When he writes "it is legal to kill Gentiles", does this even apply without any reason? It is sometimes "legal" to kill. The other reference is regarding warfare, so doesn't belong here. Chesdovi (talk) 10:26, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Reverts of 18 Nov. 2010
Marokwitz, you have reverted my edits which I find as disruptive. If you revert the edit that you have objections too, pls discuss them on Talk Page, as I do it.--  Jim Fitzgerald   post  10:21, 18 November 2010 (UTC)


 * No, check again, you are the one who reverted MY edits. Please explain why. All my edits were clearly explained in the edit summary. Marokwitz (talk) 10:03, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

There was a conflict of edits. It would be very nice, if you could wait a while until I do edits on discussion page. Otherwise there will be always conflict of edits and hence lead to misunderstanding. Now, let me continue, if you revert the edit you have objections too, pls discuss them on Talk Page, as I do it here. This is a constructive way of editing in Wiki. This revert, there should a one sentence of introduction to each of the sections. Also there was unduly weight for stating for information that alledgedly attempt to justify the call for violence, we should stay focused and consize. This revert, you removed the direct quote and replaced information from the sources. This revert, the artile is about Judaism and Violence and not about Gaza and rockets, and certainly not about "entire Gaza population does not stop rockets, so they are guilty, let's bomb them all". This revert, - no Original Research pls.--  Jim Fitzgerald   post  10:19, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

It seems that you did not read the edit descriptions.

1 - You removed sourced information added by me in which the rabbis explained they were misunderstood. Removing this information distorts their true opinion. It's wrong to selectively quote the controversial parts and remove their true opinion which they explained later.

2- You are wrong, read the source. It was a quote from the article, not from text written by the person himself.

3 - This article is about violence and non violence. The quote is clearly relevant to the section about nonviolence, where it is located.

4 - This is a direct quote from the the article, I see no reason why you deleted it. I didn't make it up. This was the reasoning of this person, don't selectively quote only the parts which you find most incriminating. Did you even read the source?

5 - This is not original research, he was talking about "the terrorist attack at Mercaz Harav yeshiva", this is clearly written in the source itself!

Waiting for your response on the above 5 issue, and until this issue is resolved I am tagging the section. Marokwitz (talk) 10:49, 18 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I notice that you somewhat tend to distort the sources and put in Original Reseaches. The article is not about non-violence, it is about violence. Rabbis' sorries and atonements about their words and attempts to "explain what they have really meant" are better put in concisely formulated way. You really cannot dedicate the whole paras trying to whitewash the incitements of hatred and call for violence. Find another neutral sources of connection between violence at MH yeshiva and the words of the rabbi.--  Jim Fitzgerald   post  06:28, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Dov Lior on killing non-Jews
I have read the source about Dov Lior "legitimizing the killing of non-Jews". Nowhere does it say that killing non-Jews is legit? Chesdovi (talk) 12:36, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Wars of extermination in the Tanakh
This section does not provide historicl context. Chesdovi (talk) 12:58, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Could you be a bit more sepecific? Can you give an example of the kind of context that is missing?  --Noleander (talk) 22:26, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * That at the time the bible was redacted, wars of the extermination were in the vogue, etc. Chesdovi (talk) 23:00, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * That makes sense. I've added  a "rationalization" subsection that should address that topic.  Can you take a look at it and see if it is sufficient?  --Noleander (talk) 23:05, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I have just seen what you added in response to this, and no, it does not suffice. Nowhere at all does it mention that the enlightened ideas of "purity of arms", "human rights", etc, had not been concieved in ancient times. All this mass killing was supposedly an accepted form of warfare. There was no UN to censure the Romans. Chesdovi (talk) 18:09, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Yitzhak Shapira and legalities
He wrote "under Torah and Jewish Law it is legal to kill Gentiles." Whehey. It's also legal to kill Jews in Jewish law?! Chesdovi (talk) 13:07, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Jean Fouquet: The Taking of Jericho
Y R there 2? Chesdovi (talk) 13:13, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Mordechai Elyahu, 2007
Was the 2007 an isolated call to "mass murder?" If this had to do with retaliation during warfare, it should be made clear. Chesdovi (talk) 10:30, 17 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I really can't see how this is relevant to Judaism. There is no precept of Judaism calling for "mass murder". Marokwitz (talk) 11:25, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Rabbi Eliyahu seems to think so, or he wouldn't have said if they don't stop killing innocent Israelis, the Israeli army should exterminate up to 1 million Arab attackers. (Why did he stop at 1m - is that a mystical number?) Remember, this is Eliyahu's own understanding of Judaism. If there is no specific precept to kill tens of thousands of people, so what! Chesdovi (talk) 11:39, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Who said this is a religious ruling and not - as it sounds - some general ranting completely taken out of context? Where is the source? Marokwitz (talk) 12:04, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Chesdovi, you seem to be shocked by way some rabbis call for genocide and violence, so do I. Can't remember if Nazi had used such astounishing words.--  Jim Fitzgerald   post  14:05, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes Jim, you are right. Judaism is the worst religion, isn't it. Now seriously. Can you be kind enough and provide the source where you found this quote ? The article is lacking a citation. Thanks. Marokwitz (talk) 14:16, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, Jim, it's deeds, not words, that count! Chesdovi (talk) 12:03, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Marokwitz, Chesdovi, I have more connections to Judaism than one might think of. Judaism has many streams. My comment was directed at SOME rabbis, who are exploiting and misinterpreting religious doctrines to call for violence and hatred. Certainly, there are rabbis (must be applauded) who proactive for peace with other religions like 'Rabbis for Peace', and there are many more. The words do turn to deeds, words of hatred instigate hatred acts, like this one, when a mosque was burnt in Yasuf, WB, and guees what, the Chief Rabbi Yona Metzger reacted saying "Palestinian mosque burning harkens to Kristallnacht" and "This is how the Holocaust began, the tragedy of the Jewish people of Europe." Needless to remind what Nazi Kristallnacht means for European Ashkenazi Jews. Some rabbis forgot, but some remember it quite well, like Rabbi Menachem Froman, who himself replaced copies of Koran burnt in the Yasuf mosque.--  Jim Fitzgerald   post  07:39, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, warn the Muslims. With all these mosque burnings, let them learn the lessons of Nazi Germany. If things carry on as they are, in 7 years time 2/3's of them will have gone up in smoke. If they get the message, I expect them to be leaving in their droves! On a more serious note, unfortunately, outrageous comments are bound to be espoused by people, even if they happen to hold high ranking positions. But they generally do not lead to genocides. Plenty of Nazis did come out very astonishing remarks - and they never bothered to "clarify" them. Yet the violent acts of 1938 were not the result of mere racist comments. The pogrom was actively instigated by the authorities. I think a legally endorsed minaret ban is of more concern than a spate of racist vandalism. Chesdovi (talk) 10:36, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Ernst von Rath
Chesdovi, this edit, could you please elaborate a bit more on it, I am not sure if the shooting is connected to the section. But maybe it is.--  Jim Fitzgerald   post  16:23, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Endorsement of violence by notable rabbis section
I've been watching the development of this section over the past week after Jim added a large amount of information. I chose not to get involved and only now after things seem to have settled down in this section I took time and read the article text (I did not get into the sources). I would like to commend the editors involved for creating a balanced, neutral view on this touchy topic and would like to know if the neutrality tag may be removed. Joe407 (talk) 07:12, 19 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I think it is still a terrible POV section.


 * 1) The views of several extremist Jews such as Dov Lior and Yitzhak Shapira are extreme fringe views should not be confused with the views of Judaism in general.
 * 2) Praying to god to strike your enemies with the plague is not a call for violence, quite the opposite.
 * 3) The views of Ovadia Yosef are distorted by cheap media driven controversies, he is generally considered a strong supporter of the peace process and territorial compromise, and he publicly apologized and renounced these quotes of him, meaning that these are not his true views of Judaism.
 * 4) Manis Friedman clarified that his views are "any neighbor of the Jewish people should be treated, as the Torah commands us, with respect and compassion". A slip of tongue  that was later clarified, hardly represent the views of Judaism.

Marokwitz (talk) 07:43, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

1. Several extremist Jews, unfortunately, are not ordinary rabbis, they are rather notable and influential among Israel. They certainly misinterprete and abuse Judaism for their benefits, whatever they might be. 2. Words that expressed during sermons are not just prays, they are regarded as instructions and commandments. I do not see how can "kill the enemies" be understood as the opposite to violence. 3. Ovadia Yosef, is considered one of the most influential, foremost halakhic authority and is most respected rabbi of our times, his responsas are regarded as binding, so do his words. The views of Ovadia are not being distorted at all, the Haaretz, Jpost, New-York Times are not cheap medias. Even Israeli Prime-Minister publicly distanced himself from Ovadia, after Ovadia's racist remarks and call to bomb Palestinians with missiles and that "Gentiles were born only to serve Jews, without that, they have to place in the world...". Along with many media and politicians who condemned Ovadia were also influential American Jewish Committee and ADL, both are very pro-Jewish, they called his words "abhorrent". One may wonder, if that kind of words are being said by Ovadia publicly, what words he uses when he talks with his followers privately? 4. Manis Freidman- "any neighbor of the Jewish people should be treated, as the Torah commands us, with respect and compassion". Did he mean that when he stated openly "Destroy their holy. Kill men, women and children"?--  Jim Fitzgerald   post  13:09, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It is one thing to quote from printed works, but remember that rabbis are only human. There is a Jewish religious motto to “think 13 times before you say something”, but unless reading from a pre-written script, rabbis do not weigh each and every word that comes out there mouth. If in full flow people (unwittingly) say some controversial things (which they may retract later), they cannot be treated as if etched in stone. You know as well as I do that sometimes it's not what you say, but how you say it. Things are sometimes taken out of context. It is one thing if an imam is waving his arms around shouting with rage in his eyes "The Jews are pigs and monkeys". It is another if describing in a calm and collected fashion what certain hadiths say about Jews. Yosef's remark that "Non-Jews are made to serve Jews" was not said in a rabble rousing speech meant to incite the harming of Non-Jews. He was talking about the permissibility of non-Jews to assist Jews on the Sabbath when the law prevents Jews from carrying out certain forms of work. I hope you agree there is quite a difference. Some rabbis may make derogatory collective remarks about non-Jews, and although not being ideal for social cohesion, one purpose it does serve is the prevention of intermarriage. Nevertheless, these rabbis will always treat non-Jews with the utmost respect. It is not hypocrisy to do so. You can just not compare the hateful speeches made by high ranking members of the Third Reich in front of hundreds of people in a packed auditorium with rabbis giving lectures to a room full of people about the laws of the Sabbath and the like. Chesdovi (talk) 22:23, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * From Yosef's speech: "“Goyim were born only to serve us. Without that, they have no place in the world; only to serve the People of Israel,” he said during a public discussion of what kind of work non-Jews are allowed to perform on Shabbat.
 * "Why are gentiles needed? They will work, they will plow, they will reap. We will sit like an effendi and eat,"
 * "With gentiles, it will be like any person: They need to die, but God will give them longevity. Why? Imagine that one’s donkey would die, they’d lose their money. This is his servant. That’s why he gets a long life, to work well for this Jew,”
 * Comparing it to Third Reich rhetoric is overly inflammatory and he's not advocating violence, but to say he's "talking about the permissibility of non-Jews to assist Jews on the Sabbath when the law prevents Jews from carrying out certain forms of work" is droll at best. Perhaps it belongs in the "Embarrassing remarks indicating retirement time" article. Sol (talk) 03:42, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

"Dov Lior and Yitzhak Shapira are extreme fringe views should not be confused with the views of Judaism in general." - Markozit'z comment from above. I agree that these are fringe views and must be presented as such. But they are still notable personalities and to an extent notable views worth mentioning. Markowitz is however correct that we must be careful not to overstate the weight these views are given in the mainstream Jewish community - which is zero. Joe407 (talk) 04:08, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Notable incidents?
We cannot document each and every violent action carried out by Jews here. That is ludicrous. Further, it doesn't really say that much about Judaism when this kind of stuff happens in the conext of the I-P conflict. Is it Judiasm driving them, or their political aspirations? Chesdovi (talk) 11:04, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course we cannot record every act of violence in the article and this is not the purpose of Wikipedae, however, we can examplify the most notable acts of violence, which took attention of whole nation and which was commented by key personalities. In our case, the arson in Yasuf was commented by Chief Rabbi, IDF chief Ehud Barak, ADL and was discussed in several articles in Haaretz and Jpost.--  Jim Fitzgerald   post  12:12, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Well you better add the bit about the bus stop burings then too, and the countless other occasions of Jewish hoolganism. I eagerly await the addtions. PS. Try to source stuff not related to the I-P conflict, as politics and it relation to religion is sometimes hazy. Chesdovi (talk) 12:25, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Arsoning the mosque is Jewish hooliganism?! Well, Barak considers it as a terrorist act. Chief Rabbi equates the arson to Kristallnacht. And now, you still believe it was hooliganism?--  Jim Fitzgerald   post  13:15, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

If a RS does not make a specific connection between a certain act and Judaism, it can't go in this article. Not everything a Jew does is motivated by their religion. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 13:18, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Nice Guy is correct: the consensus arrived at throughout the various "violence" articles is that material is only appropriate if (1) the sources connect the violence to Judaism; and (2) it meets a certain level of significance.   That means that the sources (not editors)  must connect the violence with Judaism's texts, or doctrines, or notable leaders.  The fact that a perpetrator just happened to be Jewish is - by itself -  not significant enough.  So, individual acts of hooliganism are not significant enough for this article.  However, if there were a sufficient number of them, and sources consider them to be part of a pattern associated with Judaism, then the pattern of hooliganism may be significant enough for the article.   --Noleander (talk) 15:56, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course it's hooliganism. If you knew anything about diplomacy in the I-P conflict you would undersatnd the strong reaction and choice of words used. There have been many instances of houses of worships being torched all over the world, they are never described as "terrorist" attacks. If you read about kristallnact, you would instantly see how these two occurances have something in common, but are not comparable in motive or scale. Don't take things so literally. Yes a UK MP can be arrested for calling for a collegue to be stoned, but he only meant it as joke. Eliyahu did not pass a religiously binding injuction that 100,000 Arabs muct be killed. The way you treat it is as if he did indeed call for that. Chesdovi (talk) 21:56, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Again, after not seeing this article for a few days, I'm now reading the "notable incedents" sections. It seems to me that incedents here are too close to WP:ONEEVENT to qualify for inclusion anywhere else in WP and in the broad scope of Judaism and history are in no way notable to be here in this article. As to Jim's point that major religious personalities commented on these incidents, that is simply an effect of today's media driven society more than a recognition of religious signifacnce to these terror attacks. If they belong anywhere they should be listed under "modern Jewish terror attacks". Joe407 (talk) 04:16, 21 November 2010 (UTC)


 * You are right. Since the perpetrators are unknown, how could anyone know if their motives were related to Judaism ? Marokwitz (talk) 13:57, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Joe407, you might be right, however, our personal assessment of statements made by high officials or religious leaders do not really matter in Wiki. The "incident" is not an isolated event, there were actually numerious acts of religious violence in Israel before. But this particular event is most recent, widely-commented, and what is most important, is very balanced as it examplifies, that there are Jewish religious extremism(who can commmit horreneous acts of magnitude of Nazism), as well as there are peaceful religious Jews who categorically oppose the violence.--  Jim Fitzgerald   post  17:27, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Is spray-painting a violent past time?
I say the words "Thank you God, for not making me a Gentile" Every day. So what? Chesdovi (talk) 12:30, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, if one would address these words to a non-Jew that will be considered as an insult by many religions. If one sprays those words on a muslim or christian house, that is an insult and incitement of hatred. It is going to get the offender into a trouble in most countries. And explainations about mizvot will be in vain. "Thank you, God, for making me who I am" is better than saying "Thank you, God, for not making me one of them".--  Jim Fitzgerald   post  13:43, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * They would probably be arrested for trespass, nothing else. The fine line between free speech and incitment to violence is fine, but it is defined. In the US members of the Westborough Church get police protection! Chesdovi (talk) 22:35, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree. The spray-paintings were offensive and criminal but it's not an act of violence.Sol (talk) 03:30, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Vandalism can be seen as a mild form of violence (damage to private property). However, this doesn't seem to be a very notable incident. Does this minor incident really provide information on the attitudes of Judaism toward violence? Not really. Marokwitz (talk) 13:43, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * This time, guys, you have convinced me.--  Jim Fitzgerald   post  14:53, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Bad, bad page

 * 1) POV sections can not be presented as "facts."
 * 2) A blog post such as wordpress.com source is not a RS.
 * 3) The language in Det. is "destroy" not "exterminate."
 * 4) The wording of "rationalization & justification" in and of itself is POV. 'reasoning' is more accurate.
 * 5) The phrase of word "victims" is a POV, How about the Israelites as victims OF Amalek.
 * 6) "Gush Emunim" are 'radical Zionists' not a "Jewish movement."
 * 7) Avoid countless repetition intended to inflate the page.
 * 8) "Notable" [rabbis]? Not true about most of them.
 * 9) The Arab Nur Nashala is clearly a controversial POV "writer," it's bad enough that he's used as all, worse is quoting his text about so called "indigenous" Palestinians... (you can research about Arab immigration 1880-1940).
 * 10) No need to add the title "scholar" to every controversial POV.184.48.93.218 (talk) 02:47, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Can you propose the specific changes you'd like to make, so they can be be discussed one at a time?  For instance, I have no objection to changing  "rationalization & justification" to 'reasoning and justification', but not "reasoning" alone.   The sources use "justification" and similar words, since the eradications are sometimes inexplicably violent. --Noleander (talk) 02:57, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't worry, the IP has already begun canvassing. I like how Arab is used as a title when dismissing a scholar, very classy. 4 and 10 have some merit though. Sol (talk) 04:25, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Comment. I'm a bothered by the canvassing. In general when I see a notice on my talk page I think that someone wants to talk to me. WP spam is no better than any other type. Regarding the list above, the IP does have a few points. I'd suggest we conceed that a blog is (usually) not RS, the point about destroy vs exterminate is correct, #7 is always a good point. regarding the others I'm less sure. Joe407 (talk) 05:23, 9 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Hey, let's assume good faith. Maybe the anon IP doesn't know about watchlists and thinks he needs to ask us to look here.  Anyway, if you add Sol's comments and Joe407's comments, together, it looks like at least points 2,3,4,7 and 10 are considered valid.  That suggests we should at least address those points and explain why we deem the rest invalid. --Richard S (talk) 05:55, 9 December 2010 (UTC)


 * The blog looks like it's directly (?) from Moment Magazine, whatever that is, and the content is hosted there. If MM is an RS then the blog may meet the standards for inclusion or just be a reprint of their content. Sol (talk) 06:12, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, let's consider the points one at a time:
 * (2) Agree: an informal blog should not be the only source, although it could be supplemental to other, better sources. Moment (magazine) is a decent source.
 * (3) Deut "destroy" vs "exterminate" .. the Torah is written in Hebrew/Aramaic, not English.  There are about 5 different words that translates to. Regardless, the english-language sources use the word "exterminate" predominantly when discussing the wars.
 * (4) "Reasoning" vs "justification". We must follow the sources.  They use terms like "justify" or "explain" or "rationalize"  ... not "reason".  The context is key here: the sources are trying to suggest explanations for why the wars were so utterly destructive.
 * (7) "Countless repetition". Not sure what that is referring to.  Need more specificity.
 * (10) "Scholar": it is common to prefix a person's profession, to give context.  Eliminating that word would remove valuable information (is the source a journalist?  theologian?  activist? professor?). To avoid boring repetition, we could vary it by using more variety:  "professor", "historian" (as appropriate), "academic", etc.
 * --Noleander (talk) 06:40, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Re - "scholar": that bothered me as well when I first came to this article a few weeks ago. If it is necessary to label the source, then I think we should provide a more specific description such as "religious scholar", "sociologist", "historian", "political scientist", whatever.  A nuclear physicist is also a "scholar" as is a professor of art history.  We should be providing information as to the source's credentials and qualifications to comment on the topic. --Richard S (talk) 06:56, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Concur. --Noleander (talk) 07:06, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Regrading the word choice in number 4. What sources are you referring to and could you please mention them here?  Without sources, the IP is correct that justification is an inherently POV word in this case, adding little other than a bias. Joe407 (talk) 08:50, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The sources are the ones listed in the footnotes of the Justification section. What sources are you relying on for preferring the word "reason"? --Noleander (talk) 14:12, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Eye for an Eye section
Richard: I notice you created the "Lex talionis" section. A few comments: Thanks. --Noleander (talk) 07:16, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) You provided no sources. See WP:verifiability.  Sources are needed for all material.  I challenge (WP:CHALLENGE) all sentences without sources.
 * 2) If you do insert material that is supported by sources, the consensus for this article (see Talk page archive) is that the sources must directly relate the violence to Judaism's texts, doctrines, or leaders. Material not supported by such sources will be removed.  If you want to change that guideline, please make a proposal here on the Talk page first.
 * 3) You copied nearly the entire Eye for an eye article into that section. Better is to briefly summarize the other article, and let readers use links to get more detail.  If you would like to copy nearly the entire article here, could you please use the RfC process first to get input from other editors.
 * 4) This is an English encyclopedia. Lex talionis redirects to Eye for an eye.  We should use English here in this article also.


 * Noleander, I did not copy the entire article Eye for an eye into this one. I copied the portion of the article that related to Judaism which represents about a third of the article.  Still I recognize that the "Lex talionis" text is very long and so summary style is appropriate here.  Feel free to trim it down to a size appropriate for this article.  I just found it surprising that there was no mention of this key idea here.


 * Re the use of the Latin "Lex talionis", I guess I could go either way. "Lex talionis" is the term used to describe the legal principle. However, we are not focusing purely on human law here but religion so "eye for an eye" could make sense also.  The point here is that "this is the English Wiki" is not a sufficient argument here since the use of Latin terms to designate legal principles is widely accepted in Anglophone countries.  But, since we're discussing a wider context than just human law, perhaps "eye for an eye" is preferred.


 * Finally, regarding sources, you seem to forget that the objective of this project is to write an encyclopedia. I refer you again to Burden of evidence which says "Editors might object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references. It has always been good practice to make reasonable efforts to find sources yourself that support such material, and cite them."  In other words, this is a collaborative effort.  Everybody has different interests, skills, knowledge, access to sources and time available.  If the material is likely correct, then one should not agitate to have it removed.  Instead, one should seek to improve the sourcing.  You have spent far more time on this article than I have.  If this new text fills a deficiency in the article, then you should welcome the contribution as improving the article. You might even help further improve the article by finding sourcing for it or rewriting it to be the appropriate size for the article.  Unless you just prefer Wikibullying to Wikicollaboration.


 * --Richard S (talk) 16:32, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Tags need justification on Talk page
Joe: regarding POV tag: if you want to add a POV tag, be sure to include the specific shortcomings of the article here, so other editors can work to resolve it. The "old" POV tag from November was resolved above in the archive. If you want to add a new tag, please provide specifics. Thanks. --Noleander (talk) 14:31, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Judaism as a violent religion that threatens all Christians
I'm going to park this info here because I don't have time this morning to do it justice. It's worth reading and I think we can use it as a source. The part I'm interested in is in the conclusion to the chapter that says "Grundmann and his fellow Institute members argued that Judaism was a violent religion threatening all Christians".

--Richard S (talk) 17:13, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Stuff that could be added
A general comment about some of Chesdovi's suggestions.... we should try to avoid this article becoming a coatrack. Let's focus on the forest, not the trees. I have been thinking that we could have a subsidiary article titled Violence in the Hebrew scriptures or something like that. It could run along the lines of Bible and violence. --Richard S (talk) 18:41, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Wars of extermination in the Tanakh
I was under the impression that the Hebrews offered terms before engaging in battle? Chesdovi (talk) 18:14, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Violence against the Egyptians
We need a section on the violence of the 10 plagues against the Egyptians. Moses was responsible. Chesdovi (talk) 18:18, 9 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree that the 10 plagues should be mentioned and linked to. An entire section would be too much.  More importantly, Chesdovi wrote "Moses was responsible".  Well, technically, Moses was just the agent and God was the actual one who was responsible.  This is not meant as sophistry.  Individuals can be violent but that doesn't say anything about the religion being violent.  There are a large number of scholars who take aim at the God of the Hebrews as a "violent God".  This is where the heart of the issue lies.  Not in whether Moses, Joshua, etc. were violent.  The question isn't whether Hebrews were violent; it is whether their violence was sanctioned by the Hebrew scriptures and, by inference, by God. --Richard S (talk) 18:30, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The question does seem to be whether the Hebrews were violent. For their actions could not have been sanctioned by the scripture, as it had not been redacted at the time. They were making history, so to say. The bible is an account of they did at the command of God. In the post-biblical period, have any Jewish wars or revolts been influeneced by the bible? That is what belongs here possibly. Chesdovi (talk) 00:04, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Revenge against Shechem
We need to add the bit about Jacobs two sons massacring the inhabitants of Hamor nad the inhabitants of Shechem. Chesdovi (talk) 18:20, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Kain and Abel
Don't leave out the killing of 25% of the world's population. Chesdovi (talk) 18:21, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

The flood
What was Noah thinking? Need to expand the killings of the entire population, bar 10 or so people and loads of animlas. Need a section on violence against Animals. Chesdovi (talk) 18:22, 9 December 2010 (UTC)


 * In general, this falls under the topic of "YHWH as a violent god" but the rainbow is considered a sign of a new covenant not to do that kind of thing again


 * Re: a section on "violence against animals" - it's an interesting thought but really kind of off-topic for this article. Nonetheless, the idea of an article about "religion and violence against animals" is worth pursuing. --Richard S (talk) 18:41, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Esau
They say he was a blood thirsty fellow. Lot's to add about his favourite past time. Chesdovi (talk)


 * Just because Esau was violent doesn't mean that Judaism approved of his violence. --Richard S (talk) 18:41, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Nolander, where are you? Chesdovi (talk) 00:06, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Moses
Have we covered the bit about Moses killing the egyptian? He should have called the police instead! Chesdovi (talk) 18:25, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Abraham
He fought against 5 kings. What did they do to deserve it? Chesdovi (talk) 18:27, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * General topic of warfare in the Hebrew scriptures. Not worth going into every war mentioned in there. --`Richard S (talk)

Don't forget the 25,000 at Gibeah
Need to add the violence at the Battle of Gibeah. Chesdovi (talk) 18:30, 9 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Same response as to the section on "Abraham". There's so much violence and warfare in the Hebrew scriptures, that you really need to cite a secondary source that thinks that particular incident is notable (usually as illustrative of a wider principle such as genocide).
 * You see it has been left out by bible critics as only Jews died in this one. How strange. Chesdovi (talk) 00:07, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Regarding adding biblical stories. We should draw a distinction between biblical violence and Jewish violence. One way of demarking the line would be pre and post Sinai. Prior to Sinai, there was no religion of "Judaism". Another point that could be used could be pre and post Abraham. Either way, Noah, his flood, and Kain and Abel were not Jewish. Joe407 (talk) 05:31, 10 December 2010 (UTC)


 * The wars of extermination are the only events from the Tanakh receiving significant coverage as they: a)were orders directly from God, not incidental violence committed by followers or the acts of God b)still technically remain in force as some of the 613 commandments. If there are ideas for more entries from history, great, but listing every event described in the Hebrew Bible doesn't make sense. Sol (talk) 19:24, 10 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Of course it does. How else we could bring the article that is now only 117 kilobytes long to be at least as long as Islam and violence that is 170 kilobytes long! Even although Jews constitutes only .22% of the world population while there are 21% of Muslims around the world, but still to have article Judaism and violence so much shorter than Islam and violence seems very unfair, and we should work on this. How about adding a piece about Crossing the Red Sea from the Exodus? Remember, when the sea water divided to let Israelis to pass, but destroyed Egyptian army? Of course this story is not exactly about violence in Judaism, but who cares. We simply have to make this article much longer.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:35, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Does your cheek hurt from having your tongue stuck so far into it? -)  --Richard S (talk) 20:00, 12 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Wow, I hadn't looked at the Islam and violence article before but I think that's a great example of exactly what this article should never look like; a rambling list of every violent incident committed by a religion's believers with almost zero attention paid to the religion's doctrine or theology. Sol (talk) 18:58, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, Islam and violence needs a lot of work. I made some suggestions to the editor that made most of the contributions, but my suggestions fell on deaf ears. I think about half of the raw material may be appropriate for the article, but it needs to be entirely re-written.     If I can find some time in the future, I may try to improve that article.  --Noleander (talk) 19:02, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Merge with Peace and war in Judaism?
The "Warfare" section of this article is 55kb long. The Peace and war in Judaism article is 77kb long. The "Judaism and war" section in Peace and war in Judaism is 52kb long. I haven't actually done a text compare but just eyeballing it suggests that there is a lot of repetition between the two. Can someone explain why we have both of these articles? I could understand it if this were the main article and Peace and war in Judaism were the subsidiary detail article but that would suggest that the "Warfare" section of this article would be a summary of Peace and war in Judaism. If that is the intent, then the "Warfare" section in this article should be something more like 10-15kb long. Comments? --Richard S (talk) 09:16, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * There are four closely related articles:
 * Judaism and violence
 * Judaism and peace
 * Peace and war in Judaism
 * herem
 * A proposal was made, over a month ago, to make a sensible division between the three articles (ignoring herem) on a Talk page here: Talk:Peace and war in Judaism (in the "Article Scope" section).   That discussion stalled out.   My recommendation at the time was (I'll just repeat it here verbatim):  the J & Violence article and J & Peace articles should be treated as siblings, with very little overlap (most sources discuss peace, or violence, but rarely both). The War article should be a sub-article of the Violence article (that is, Violence should have a "War" section with a "main" link pointing to the War article). The War article should be titled "War" not "Peace and War", and most peace information should be in the Peace article. The War article should have a small summary of the peace information, with a "see also" link to the Peace article.   I still think that is the best way to proceed. --Noleander (talk) 15:31, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Makes sense to me. Did anybody object or did people just lose interest?  If there's no stated objection, I would suggest your approach is the way to go.  That would suggest trimming the "War" section of this article significantly.  Above, I suggested that it could be reduced to 20-25% of its current length.  That might be too drastic but I think it ought to be cut by at least half given the fact that Peace and War in Judaism exists.  Let's also propose a move of Peace and War in Judaism to Judaism and War to match the pattern "Judaism and X" and to drop the "Peace" from the title as you proposed above. --Richard S (talk) 15:51, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the discussion stalled due to lack of interest. If you want to go forward with this, could you first propose the rename to "War" on the Talk page of Peace and war in Judaism?  That is a key step in getting the three articles aligned.  After there is concurrence on the rename, I have no objection to deleting much of the duplicate war material from this article.  After that is done, we can also look at herem and see if there is any unreasonable overlap. --Noleander (talk) 15:57, 10 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Part of why people walked on the discussion was that 2 or 3 of these articles were AfD under a reason of X and Y is WP:SYNTH. When the AfD resolved to keep I think a lot of editors who were opposed did not want to clean up/merge/improve articles they didn't think should be there in the first place.  Noleander was one of the few high-involvement (for lack of a better term) editors in favor of the articles and has put a lot of effort into cleaning up the articles.  I'm glad to see people once again participating in a discussion to clarify the purpose of these articles and I hope we can do a better job of it than last time.  I would suggest that consensus be reached as to the proposes scope of each article before renamings or movings because I recall a lot of renaming/moving last time this was tried.  Joe407 (talk) 04:51, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, we should get agreement on the scope before making any substantive changes. I think the scope proposed above is sensible (including a single rename:  "Peace and War in Judaism" to "Judaism and war").   But we should certainly pause and consider any other proposals. --Noleander (talk) 05:03, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Proposed "main" article on the subject of these articles
All of these "X and violence" articles which have recently been created seem to at least me to be fairly clear direct sub-articles to an article on the subject of that given religion X and its social/societal aspects. I am not myself aware of any such articles on the social aspects of each religion existing. Does such an article exist for Judaism, and the other religions for which these articles exist, and, if not, would anyone be interested inywa creating them? Personally, I think such articles should probably be sections of the main article on each religion as well, but that is just one person's opinion. John Carter (talk) 20:07, 12 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi John... I don't quite understand the proposal. Are you suggesting that we should have articles like Societal aspects of Christianity?  Sounds like the "Cultural influence" section of the Catholic Church article.   Is this what you have in mind? --Richard S (talk) 23:32, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * John: I think the "Violence" articles are all sub-articles of their respective "Criticism of someReligion" articles, which are sub-articles of Criticism of religion.  All of those articles already exist.  (PS: the violence articles are not all "recently created":  Mormonism and violence is 3 1/2 years old, and Religious violence is 5 1/2 years old). --Noleander (talk) 23:51, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * First, I believe that the claim that all the articles have been created is a false one, unless Atheism and violence has already been created. In response to Richard, yeah, that is, more or less, what I had in mind. Such articles would cover the ways in which the religions have historically interacted with their adherents, members of other denominations in the same main faith tradition, other faith traditions, governments, etc.
 * Also, I think that the very well received book When Religion Becomes Evil might be appropriate to mention in all of these articles. It identifies five warning signs of when any faith may become corrupted. These include when they make claims of absolute truth, when they demand blind obediance to their leaders, when they are preoccupied with apocalyptic teachings, a willingness to use malevolent ends to achieve their religious goals, and declaration of religiously motivated "holy" war. Although the book only applies them to the five main faith traditions, I think it would be acceptable as per OR/SYNTH, given the way the book is constructed, to apply them elsewhere as well, if locations for such content exist. John Carter (talk) 17:55, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * First, I disagree with Noleander as to the main article for the someReligion and violence articles. The main article should be Religious violence or arguably Religion and violence which redirects there.  One could make a case for Religion and violence having a different scope from Religious violence but, for now, they are the same article.


 * Second, I'm not sure why but somehow I'm not too fond of the title Societal aspects of Christianity but maybe we could debate an appropriate title. I'm leaning more towards Influences of Christianity on civilization or something like that.


 * Third, I'm sorry to disagree but I think any use of When Religion Becomes Evil should be restricted to the scope of the book (i.e. the five main faith traditions) and any attempt to apply them elsewhere is unacceptable original research and synthesis. Discussion of the book's content probably belongs in the article on Religion.


 * --Richard S (talk) 22:15, 15 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Regarding limiting the reference to the immediate scope of the book, fair enough, I suppose. Regarding a proposed title for the society article, something like Influences of Christianity on civilization], [[Christianity in society, and maybe separate dedicated articles on Culture of Christianity for full discussion of those aspects, for instance, might be appropriate. John Carter (talk) 17:42, 19 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Of the three proposed titles, I like Influences of Christianity on civilization. I have doubts about the other two but I won't expound on them unless there someone really wants to give them serious consideration. --Richard S (talk) 22:04, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * This is an interesting discussion, but perhaps it should be continued at the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Christianity ... more editors interested in that topic will get involved at that location. --Noleander (talk) 19:29, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The word Christianity is only being used as a default in the above comments, any of the other four religions mentioned by the author, including Judaism, would fit as well. John Carter (talk) 15:53, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * @Noleander - of course, you're right. We should move this discussion off this Talk Page.


 * @John Carter - Then the discussion should take place either at the relevant Wikiproject talk page for each religion. I'm interested in creating such articles although it's a big task and thus hasn't bubbled up to the top of my priority list.  There used to be a section in Catholic Church on the influence of the Catholic Church on civilization but it got deleted because it had too much of a pro-Catholic POV.  It would be difficult to construct such an article in an NPOV because it would tend to be full of battling pro and anti POVs. --Richard S (talk) 16:57, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I understand how other tasks are taking a priority. Maybe the best thing to do would be to leave a short message, with a link, on the talk pages of each of the relevant religion projects, and maybe the Sociology WikiProject as well, maybe to a main discussion on the talk page of the WikiProject Religion? Alternately, maybe we could file an RfC on the topic somewhere. Having a single discussion in one location strikes me as being maybe the best idea, however. John Carter (talk) 17:17, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I have a feeling that we might best wait to file an RfC until after the new year has begun, given the comparative lack of attention we receive by some people during the holiday season. However, I have started a proposal for a suggested outline for articles on religious faiths and denominations at User:John Carter/Religion outline. Any input on how to improve it would be welcome. John Carter (talk) 17:23, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Israeli violence?
Would the violent activities of the IDF (all militaries are violent by nature) be within the scope of this article, since Israel is a Jewish state? By violent I don't mean "justifiable violence" or "non-justifiable violence", I simply mean violence.VR talk  05:21, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

No I do not think so. Similarly it would be beyond the scope of the article on Christianity and Violence to list the violent activities of the Defence Forces of England, France, Germany, Spain, Italy etc. The IDF is not Judaism, though there may be instances where IDF policy is influenced by Judaism. Sam 00:36, 1 July 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samscribe (talk • contribs)

More balance for this article?
Could someone add some kind of balance to this article so it's not just about Jews espousing violence? Surely the topic "Judaism and violence" also includes Jewish arguments against violence. Currently, the article is very biased. For example, it's really misleading to extensively quote an extremist rabbi's calls for genocide against Palestinians, without also including opposing Jewish voices. And while the Torah contains many episodes of violence, modern Judaism is influenced by much more than just that one text. Many Jews find arguments in their religion in favor of peace, and those views should not be excluded from this article. Bluemonkee (talk) 21:03, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry to add such a brief edit, but I'd like to point out that the article on Christianity and violence describes both support and rejection of violence from a Christian perspective. Shouldn't the article on Judaism and violence include a similar spectrum of opinions? After all, peaceful interpretations of Judaism are well within the mainstream of Jewish thought. Bluemonkee (talk) 21:21, 18 June 2011 (UTC)


 * The quest for balance was fought about half a year ago. Edits, re-edits, and AfD's for articles of "Judaism & Violence", Judaism & Peace" and "Peace and Violence in Judaism".  I can't speak for other editors but I gave it my best shot and walked away in frustration.  I keep the pages on my watchlist to see if anyone decides to try and sort it all out or just delete them all.  In short I think you are asking a good question and if, after reading through the history of the three articles I mentioned, feel you can do something about it - WP:BOLD.  Joe407 (talk) 13:07, 19 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Since Bluemonkee mentioned Christianity and violence, I thought I'd put in my two bits. I was one of the editors who worked on trying to achieve balance at Christianity and violence a little over half a year ago.  I think the epiphany that I got from the sometimes difficult discussion about that article is that it is really difficult to have a balanced article that includes a list of violence even if the article focuses strictly on violence that is closely associated with the institutions, leaders and precepts of a religion.  This imbalance is inherent in the fact that it is very hard to find equally notable examples of a religion working towards peace.  NB: I'm not saying that religions such as Christianity haven't worked towards peace.  It's just that the violence is more noted by historians.  In other words, I'm saying that there is an inherent bias in the sources and any attempt to focus on the pre-20th century peace initiatives tends to be WP:OR and synthesis.  The compromise solution turned out to be to eliminate from Christianity and violence all detailed discussion of specific examples of violence such as the Crusades, colonialism, slavery, etc.  I'm not comfortable with that compromise but it is the consensus that we reached about half a year ago.


 * What has remained is coverage of scholars who specifically treat the topic of "Christianity and violence". The article now omits the discussion of the details of the violence and focuses on the discussion of whether Christianity is or is not a violent religion.  The problem with providing a laundry list of violence committed by Christians in the name of religion is that it tends to predispose the reader to conclude that Christianity is a violent religion.  Doing that is not NPOV.


 * What I suggest is that we go to the sources and look for scholars who discuss Judaism and violence (searching in Google Books for "Judaism violence" is a good place to start).  Here's a good source that I found.  I will try to take a whack at improving this article to have the kind of approach taken in Christianity and violence.  It may take me a while and I would appreciate help from any other interested editors.


 * --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 14:35, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Richard asked me at my talk to comment here. I've got to say that I'm overloaded with articles where editors discuss how to resolve POV issues on religion-related topics, so I'm just leaving a drive-by comment and will not be watchlisting here. Anyway, my opinion, much like that of Bluemonkee and Joe407, is that "Judaism and violence" is not about, only, support for violence within Judaism. It should reflect all views within Judaism concerning violence, including opposition to it. Good luck. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:25, 19 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I was asked to comment on the article, my contribution based on a request to reduce some of the tension that was involved in certain articles, in this case Christianity and Violence. I'll speak to that article only since I don't wish to get involved beyond commentary on what I found useful and what I did not.  The article once was all but a bullet list of violence where the Christian religion was involved to some extent.  The problem is as Richard pointed out is one of balance.  We had an paragraph on how the Roman Catholic Church didn't make official declarations against the Holocaust, while not mentioning 40,000 priests being exterminated in death camps for opposing Nazi policies.  We had domestic violence which in the same paragraph mentioned that the ratio of violence was lower in Christian homes than at large, which rather undercut it being there at all.  Mostly it seemed to ignore social, economic, and political, motivations that always seem a part of religious violence.  So we were ending up with an article that at the end of the day seemed to be centered on Christianity was violent repeated 50 times in difference settings.  Hardly an Encyclopedic treatment of the subject matter.  At the heart of the Wikipedia Project we hope to repeat what the current mainstream view by scholars as the central thesis of the article and perhaps one or two minor views if there is a large enough view by other scholars.  Personally, I'd stay away from lists of violent activities as they are always going to be centers of balance focal points, and there are lots of people that continue to view Wikipedia articles as places to contest viewpoints instead of just presenting facts as best that we can.Tirronan (talk) 18:49, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

 * 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. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Moved. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:58, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Views of violence in Judaism → Judaism and violence –

This article was moved without discussion on October 2012 by user Marokwitz from "Judaism and violence" to "Views of violence in Judaism", using a very general claim without specifying sources to prove: "More descriptive name, in line with the wording used by reliable sources". Naturally, all articles in Wikipedia deals with subjects that have many different perspectives about them, so if we will go on with this manner we would have View of Israel, Views of Atheism, Views of Islam etc. But that's not what we do, we take the general scope of the article which is simply "Judaism and violence". I fear as well a POV matter as we have an equivalent article named Judaism and peace, however, it wasn't renamed into Views of peace in Judaism as with this one --aad_Dira (talk) 14:14, 22 May 2013 (UTC).
 * Oppose. I point editors to WP:AND. Only where no reasonable overarching title is available, it is permissible to construct an article title using "and". In addition, according to this policy, "titles containing "and" are often red flags that the article has neutrality problems or is engaging in original research: avoid the use of "and" in ways that appear biased." ... "Avoid the use of "and" to combine concepts that are not commonly combined in reliable sources." Marokwitz (talk) 11:08, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, if it is like the claim you are making here (which was solely invented by yourself without any previous discussions) that "This article deals with views for and against violence", then why is this article there at all? You aren't even including "anti-violence" views, rather, you are talking about "peace and love", no idea what does that have to do with the article of "Judaism and violence". If you want to talk about peace in Judaism, then go to Judaism and peace, because this article is about "violence" and that's clear, no matter what scope for the article did you create. Currently, it seems actually like we have two rather one article about peace in Judaism --aad_Dira (talk) 12:57, 23 May 2013 (UTC).
 * Personally I feel that Judaism and peace ,Views of violence in Judaism, and Warfare in Judaism should all be merged. They are forks of the same topic. As written earlier in this page by another user, Surely the topic "Judaism and violence" also includes Jewish arguments against violence. Marokwitz (talk) 13:55, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I support a merge, hoping that will reduce POV issues in those articles. However, they are currently heavily pro-Jewish and this should be resolved, either with a merge or move. Note that I am not talking here about "arguments against violence", but rather about arguments of "peace and love" which are totally unrelated to here unless we make the merge --aad_Dira (talk) 18:07, 23 May 2013 (UTC).
 * It's great to hear that we are in agreement . The proposed merge is indeed the best solution. Marokwitz (talk) 07:24, 26 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Support move back to original title. The article deals with events and not only with views, so the title is simply inaccurate. I was actually thinking about a merge of Judaism and peace, Judaism and war, and this page before I noticed that Marokwitz had suggested it. It would definitely help keep the three articles neutral (otherwise we end up with the war article being slanted towards war, the peace article being slanted towards peace, and the violence article being fought over). The two points I'd mention would be that all the articles are on the medium or long side, possibly making a merge difficult (though much of that content could be redundant, I haven't looked at it all thoroughly), and more importantly, that other religions have split articles and we might want to bring the issue to the religion Wikiproject to discuss the same treatment for all of them. Having only a "Judaism and violence" article while all the rest have "X and peace" articles (even if they also have "X and war" articles) does not look good. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 04:30, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Roscelese, please read WP:AND. It appears that we are all in consensus to merge, why don't we go ahead and do it. Marokwitz (talk) 07:22, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Instead of Judaism and violence, would you agree to Violence in Judaism? –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 00:04, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Not really, that sounds quite biased, because this article is also about opposition to violence. Something such as Violence and Nonviolence in Judaism would work OK, although I do prefer the current, cleaner title. Marokwitz (talk) 05:55, 27 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Support Compare to Buddhism and violence, Christianity and violence, or Islam and violence. --BDD (talk) 20:39, 5 June 2013 (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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Proposed merge with Judaism and peace and Warfare in Judaism
See discussion in previous section.


 * Support. Per discussion in previous section. Merging these articles will result in a comprehensive and balanced view of the topic. Marokwitz (talk) 07:33, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I support a merge in theory, but before voting here, must recommend waiting for a discussion (via WikiProject Religion or in some other forum) to show consensus to apply this approach across other articles. I explain this in detail above - I think a merged article would be more neutral than these separate articles, but I also think it is a bad idea to have only a "Judaism and violence" article while "X and peace" articles float about for others. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 00:03, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is a work in progress. If this merge ends up well, I think we could use this as an example for other articles on similar topics. We can't change the world in one day. In addition, unlike this one, as far as I know the similar articles on other religions are not currently split into 3 articles. Marokwitz (talk) 05:59, 27 May 2013 (UTC)


 * As I stated previously above, I support the merge. However, considering Roscelse comment it would be better to discuss it first as a general merge involving all religion articles, that would be better to avoid POV issues later and any objections on the merge action --aad_Dira (talk) 11:18, 27 May 2013 (UTC).

War and violence
This suggested move is quite a funny one. Apparently those suggesting and supporting it have no use for English dictionaries. Consider Merriam-Webster online

vi·o·lence noun \ˈvī-lən(t)s, ˈvī-ə-\


 * the use of physical force to harm someone, to damage property, etc.
 * great destructive force or energy
 * Full Definition of VIOLENCE
 * 1
 * a exertion of physical force so as to injure or abuse (as in warfare effecting illegal entry into a house)
 * b an instance of violent treatment or procedure
 * 2
 * injury by or as if by distortion, infringement, or profanation : outrage
 * 3
 * a intense, turbulent, or furious and often destructive action or force 
 * b vehement feeling or expression :  fervor; also :  an instance of such action or feeling
 * c a clashing or jarring quality :  discordance
 * 4
 * undue alteration (as of wording or sense in editing a text)


 * Examples of VIOLENCE
 * They need to learn how to settle their arguments without resorting to violence.
 * movies filled with sex and violence
 * The violence of the storm caused great fear.

Note the one mention of warfare is relating to illegal entry to property, however property searches during war are considered operationally legal by troops, so this applies only to those not belonging to recognised military authority.

The WHO definition of violence http://www.who.int/violenceprevention/approach/definition/en/ also fails to mention warfare!

This is because while warfare may lead to deaths, this is the objective only in one of the three types of wars described in the article, "war by commandment". No such war has been waged by Jews since the war on the Amalekites in the time of King Shaul as far as I can tell.

Throughout military history Jews have not been as well known for violent warfare as much as Huns or Mongols or Ottomans for example, but there isn't an article Mongols and violence, is there? Crock81 (talk) 00:50, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

the two related articles
This edit contains the edit summary "Again, restoring older lead (pre-october 2012), totally biased & out of scope; this article deals with violence, if you wanna talk about peace go to Judaism and peace". I reverted that edit and left this edit summary: "Judaism and violence and Judaism and peace are separate articles, as are almost all articles; they each stand on their own terms". User:عباد ديرانية returned to revert me and left this edit summary: "I am not sure what does this have to do with my argument?". The "argument" was that "this article deals with violence, if you wanna talk about peace go to Judaism and peace". But these two articles are separate. It is not a valid "argument" that there is another article therefore material does not belong in this article. Bus stop (talk) 14:34, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for bringing the issue into discussion. This article have a scope about violence, so naturally it should contain material about "Judaism and violence". The current lead (that I reverted hours ago) was the original long standing lead for a lot of time, before the user Marokwitz changed it in October 2012 and again in May 2013, along with a lot of other biased changes in the article, so it's discussing "peace in Judaism" instead of violence. Well, it's like to write about cats in the dog article. This's simply out of scope, and could be viewed as a bias. If article is about violence, then it's about violence, not peace --aad_Dira (talk) 21:26, 15 October 2013 (UTC).
 * Your edits are introducing the language "Judaism also contains peaceful doctrines", yet you say above "This's simply out of scope, and could be viewed as a bias. If article is about violence, then it's about violence, not peace." If it is not about peace, then why are you introducing the language "Judaism also contains peaceful doctrines"? Bus stop (talk) 22:07, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I can delete it, in the case that comforts you more :) --aad_Dira (talk) 01:43, 17 October 2013 (UTC).
 * But you are allowing it. Therefore most of your arguments do not hold water. You say "Again, restoring older lead (pre-october 2012), totally biased & out of scope; this article deals with violence, if you wanna talk about peace go to Judaism and peace". But you are talking about "peace". You are saying: "Judaism also contains peaceful doctrines." You say "This's simply out of scope, and could be viewed as a bias. If article is about violence, then it's about violence, not peace." But you are talking about "peace". You are saying: "Judaism also contains peaceful doctrines." When I have pointed out to you that these are separate articles ("Judaism and violence and Judaism and peace are separate articles, as are almost all articles; they each stand on their own terms"), you have responded "I am not sure what does this have to do with my argument?" There is no rule that would prohibit the addressing of "peace" in an article on the topic of "violence". You seem to be in agreement with this, as both of your edits contain the wording: "Judaism also contains peaceful doctrines." Bus stop (talk) 02:15, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I told you, I could delete it if that makes you more comfortable. I didn't say that I've reverted an ideal intro, but it's less biased than the one added by Marokwitz about a year ago. It can still be improved, so we can delete any mention of peace for you especially. Anyway, I am not sure if you try to mean in your comment that saying in the lead "Judaism also contains peaceful doctrines", is exactly the same of starting an article about violence with "The love of peace and the pursuit of peace". Did you mean that? --aad_Dira (talk) 14:14, 17 October 2013 (UTC).

It seems every mention in this article of Jews committing violence is counter balanced with a statement of their peaceful history. It has been mentioned earlier that this should be merged with the "Judaism and peace" page because it contains such statements as "Judaism also contains peaceful doctrines". This should not be done. Instead such statements should be removed from this article. This is article about Jewish violence. There is no need for any sort of counter statement. Such a rationale would be exhaustive if we were to apply this logic to every wikipedia page. I do not see a reiteration of how Germany is full of peaceful people in the article discussing Nazism. Nazism was violent and genocidal and Joshua in the Old Testament is violent and genocidal. No need for counter statements to neutralize either.173.162.25.117 (talk) 17:33, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Warfare
The western world way to interpret the jewish text and ideas doesn't makes it the jewish way... Also to interpretation of the Israelis-Jewish behavioriors from the western world eyes; Jews do the thing that they do out of the same reasons the Christians/western world do, doesn't make it right. The sources are very biased and un-professional (also the writers mentioned in the sources are not-religious and are not familiar with the jewish traditions, and therefore are not fit in this case to reference to)). Also it is necessary to make a distinction between the western world, Israel and Judaism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.64.217.27 (talk) 12:53, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Purim and the Book of Esther
Contains incorrect data, including blood libels content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.64.217.27 (talk) 13:17, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

I will update this value later, I find it hard to find the interpretations of the Book of Esther in English for references.--132.64.217.27 (talk) 15:41, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Radical Zionists and settlers
It's crazy to Link between Akstrmizm at times of war/occupation of one particular jewish country, on the whole religion (even if the only country that represents Judaism is Israel). First you need to prove that the whole act of the country and it's people (settlers/Zionists) is driven by the religion, and then link between the two and prove that this is Judaism. Accordingly I'm going to get this section out of the value/change it. The value is full with bordering racism matriels but they are not related to acts of violence and therefore have nothing to do with this value. Also again full with false arguments and blood libels. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.64.217.27 (talk) 14:55, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Extremist organizations
Same as the above.--132.64.217.27 (talk) 15:39, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Continuation
See: User talk:Malik Shabazz The value is full with Blood libels content, that have been very common in the 17-20 centuries. The charges have been completely refuted by the Catholic Church (The Vatican and the Pope) a few decades ago. TThe references cited in this value are to people who still support the crazy charges (purim- killing young christian/non-Jews). Also as i said in the talk of this value page, It's crazy to Link between Akstrmizm at times of war/occupation of one particular jewish country, on the whole religion (even if the only country that represents Judaism is Israel) - the topic of this value is Judaism and violence not Israel and violence. Other thing, in order to put the thing that was added in this value you need first to prove that the whole act of the country-israel and it's people (settlers/Zionists) is driven by the religion, and then link between the two and prove that this is Judaism. No one reference did that and you can't say that the only thing that driven the act of the Jews/ Israelis /settlers /Zionist is Judaism. Unless they say so, but out of the references given, non claimed it. Those values are just another way to continue set lies about the Jews and to make people hate Jews. There is a clear need to distinguish in this value between Judaism, Jews and Israel... Accordingly I would like to cancel your cancellation on this value.--132.64.217.27 (talk) 09:38, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

OMG... I have just noticed the Footnotes... It's crazy how much Blood libels content it holds....How come nobody corrected it till now?...--132.64.217.27 (talk) 14:31, 5 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Tend to agree ...--132.64.215.144 (talk) 11:49, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, most people agree with themselves. Zerotalk 12:02, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Reason for removing text
I removed "on Purim 1942, ten Jews were hanged in Zduńska Wola to avenge the hanging of Haman's ten sons" for multiple reasons: (1) The source is unreliable. The source is full of nonsense, like "The Nazi assault on Jewry was, in essence, an attempt to defeat its egalitarian messianic vision" — the writer evidently knows nothing about Nazi policy formation. It is completely ridiculous to claim that Nazis cared about Haman's ten sons, though it is true that they thought it was cool to murder Jews on Jewish holidays. (2) The story is not true. From a reliable source (Encyclopaedia Judaica): "In 1942 two public executions took place in which ten Jews accused of smuggling were hanged. The Germans picked the festivals of Purim and Shavuot for that purpose." (3) The story is nothing to do with Judaism and violence; the topic of the article does not cover violence against Jews which is covered elsewhere. Zerotalk 12:14, 9 February 2015 (UTC)