Talk:Yitzhak Shapira

Category:Jewish terrorism
This category does not belong here. The category is for events and groups, not people. Wikipedia policy does not allow editors to determine who is and who is not a terrorist. Refer to WP:Terrorist. That is why | the category called Terrorists and all other categories of the sort (ie: Palestinian terrorists, Islamic terrorists) were deleted. The only thing editors can do on Wikipedia articles is attribute terrorist classifications. ie: "The US government considers X to be a terrorist" - with proper sourcing. This attribution is impossible with the category; therefore, it cannot be used for people. Thanks, Breein1007 (talk) 19:41, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Source and text in question for recent editing
A recent editing dispute here raises questions about the following sentence: 'Babies [on the enemy side] may be killed "even if they have not transgressed the seven Noahide Laws because of the future danger they may present, since it is assumed that they will grow up to be evil like their parents."' I understand that Wikieditorpro is appealing to AE, arguing that his edits beyond 1RR were allowed on BLP grounds because this sentence was a "distortion" and not sourced properly. The source for this statement is from the Jerusalem Post,, specifically the following passage quoting Shapira's own book: 'Some of the guidelines mentioned at the back of the book in a section entitled "Conclusions - Chapter Five: The Killing of Gentiles in War," include the following: "There is a reason to kill babies [on the enemy side] even if they have not transgressed the seven Noahide Laws ... because of the future danger they may present, since it is assumed that they will grow up to be evil like their parents...."'. Given the match between the source and the sentence in question, it is difficult to see a problem; it is also difficult to see how any concern would justify this edit, which was the second revert that led to Wikieditorpro's block per AE/1RR. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:15, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I have devoted a large section on my talk page to this and where I gave two different reasons why it contravenes WP:BLP as well as other reasons for why these edits were inappropriate. If you don't want to read the whole section you can use ctrl+f to search for just the first few words of the jpost quote and my explanation for why it is a distortion (though to me it was immediately obvious). If you don't understand or disagree you can respond here (or there). Wikieditorpro (talk) 23:32, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I fail to see any difference between my summary and what the JP article says, and didn't find more than an assertion on your talk page. Everyone knows that it can never be more than an assumption that a child will grow into an enemy. However, I have no objection to quoting the entire sentence from JP.  We can also note that the book justifies this with (amongst other sources) Isaiah 14:21, "Prepare slaughter for his children for the iniquity of their fathers; that they do not rise, nor possess the land, nor fill the face of the world with cities." Zerotalk 02:25, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:BLP states: "Biographies of living persons ("BLP"s) must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy." There are a plethora of sensationalist and out-of-context quotes from the book. The Maariv article from Roy Sharon contains the most comprehensive analysis that I could find from an RS. The content of the book is presented objectively as a genuine news story with lengthy quotations (which I translated), summaries and analysis, without the sensationalism of some other sources.


 * Regarding the original quote. The jpost says "there is a reason...". The statement "one may...", has a different meaning as it denotes finality. In the context of rabbinical literature the difference is even greater as ideas, reasons and justifications for one side and the other are often presented and discarded along the way before reaching the conclusion about what 'may' be done.


 * According to the Maariv throughout the book the author deals with in-depth theoretical questions, and rabbinical writings are full of limitations that make many killings nearly impossible to implement in practice. For example concerning the rebellious son (Deuteronomy 21), the Talmud notes that the law is purely theoretical as the conditions can never be met. Shapira's book is an in-depth analysis that starts from the bible and goes through a range of statements made by Jewish scholars throughout history regarding killings (including the theoretical ones) ending in his own radical conclusions. But if if the conditions that Shapira cites are not possible in practice then those quotes could well concern theoretical scenarios.
 * See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment#Judaism
 * I just had a look at Isaiah 14:21 the word used for 'children' is בָנָיו which more accurate translations have as 'sons'. The word sons here (or children) does not imply young. In fact according to Rabbinic literature, it is a reference to Belshazzar. Wikieditorpro (talk) 04:43, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Wikieditorpro (talk) 04:49, 23 February 2013 (UTC) I have reverted Wikieditorpro's recent edits in part. You express objections to the difference of four words in the quotation sourced to the JP, but you are then deleting the entire sentence and replacing it with an entirely different one. (You're also deleting an additional one.) I don't understand what you are doing, and it is clear that you do not have consensus for the edits you are repeatedly trying to make. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 05:29, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Apparently we can't resolve this peacefully, so I'm gone to stop banging my head against a wall and post it on some noticeboard once I can work it out. There's nothing more that I can about it. Wikieditorpro (talk) 06:29, 23 February 2013 (UTC)