Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Judaism and violence


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was  Keep As several persons who wanted to keep the article have pointed out, an article of this nature should be held to the same standard as existing articles such as Christianity and violence, Islam and violence, Buddhism and violence, Hinduism and violence, etc. Concerns, raised by those who wanted to delete the article, about avoiding POV writing are valid, although that would apply to the other articles as well. To the extent that a certain point of view is espoused, then this needs to be fixed through editing. Mandsford 19:55, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Judaism and violence

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

This is a POV-fork of Peace and violence in Judaism. Even if P&V survives its AfD, this article's topic (J&V) is inherently not NPOV.

The material is the much the same as the article Noleander originally posted two months ago which promoted a view of Judaism as a violent religion. It also brings us no closer to a clear scope of any of the articles currently up for AfD Joe407 (talk) 23:08, 10 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions.  —Joe407 (talk) 23:11, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and all the great rationales set forth in Articles for deletion/Judaism and bus stops.-- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 23:24, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note that "delete because of this completely unrelated discussion about a WP:POINT article" is not a valid argument. Shii (tock) 23:44, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * While Shii is correct that the J&Bs article violated WP:POINT, that does not invalidate the point that was made. Namely, the intersection of topics in that case (and in this one) is invalid as a WP topic. Joe407 (talk) 17:58, 18 October 2010 (UTC)


 * What Joe407 says above is exactly correct. The creation of the Judaism and bus stops article was a violation of WP:POINT. But the point made relates very well to this article. You have not created a valid article simply because you have thrown two valid topics together. That is why I ask numerous times on this AfD page for someone who is in support of this article to bring any actual language from sources that will show that any reliable source addresses a topic of "Judaism and violence." Though I've asked numerous times, as of today (Oct. 18) not one instance of such wording has been posted. This is not a "topic" for an article. Were it a topic, sources would make reference to that topic. This is an area for discussion. Wikipedia is not about hosting areas for discussion. Someone needs to provide actual quoted wording from sources that shows that "Judaism and violence" is considered a "topic" by any reliable source. In my opinion that is what this AfD is about. We have not even gotten to square one in this AfD discussion because supporters of this article have not even been willing to address the primary complaint against the Judaism and violence article: it is unsourced in its entire scope. Instead those who wish to support this have only been willing to provide sources for subcategories intended to be found within this overarching topic. In my opinion, sourcing for individual threads composing the article does not indicate that the entire topic is a valid topic for Wikipedia purposes. This is analogous to the Judaism and bus stops article. You don't have a valid topic just because the components are perfectly valid, and even if threads that can comprise such an article can be shown to be sourced. Bus stop (talk) 19:06, 18 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep and merge the Peace and violence in Judaism article into this one. StAnselm (talk) 23:39, 10 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep - There may be some confusion here, stemming from a recent rash of article re-naming by User:Marokwitz : he unilaterally renamed Judaism and violence to Peace and violence in Judaism; then to Peace and war in Judaism. That latter title, of course, limits the article to war topics, yet the sources (listed below) include many topics that are unrelated to war (such as settler violence).  So, this Judaism and violence  article contains the material from the sources that is unrelated to war.    Personally, I think all the material should be in a single article, but Marokwitz seems to have different ideas.   The  Peace and war in Judaism can be considered a sub-article of Judaism and violence.  This article is a highly notable subject, comparable to:
 * Mormonism and violence
 * Christianity and violence
 * Islam and violence
 * Religion and violence
 * Especially with recent events in the Middle East, the topic of how religions interact with violence is very topical and notable.   There are a large number of reliable sources on the topic, listed at Judaism and violence. A few are:

As indicated above, there is a large amount of material on the topic. --Noleander (talk) 23:42, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Boustan, Ra'anan S., "Violence, Scripture, and Textual Practice in Early Judaism and Christianity", in Violence, Scripture, and Textual Practice in Early Judaism and Christianity, Ra'anan S. Boustan, Alex P. Jassen, Calvin J. Roetzel (Eds),	BRILL, 2010 pp 1–12
 * Chilton, Bruce, Abraham's Curse: The Roots of Violence in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, Doubleday, 2009
 * Ehrlich, Carl. S, "Joshua, Judaism, and Genocide", in Jewish Studies at the Turn of the Twentieth Century,  Judit Targarona Borrás, Ángel Sáenz-Badillos (Eds). 1999, Brill. pp 117–124.
 * Ellens, J. Harold (Ed.), The destructive power of religion: violence in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, Greenwood Publishing Group, 2007
 * Firestone, Reuven, "Judaism on Violence and Reconciliation: An Examination of Key Sources", in Beyond violence: religious sources of social transformation in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam,  James Heft (Ed.), Fordham Univ Press, 2004, pp 74–87
 * Glick, Leonard B., "Religion and Genocide", in The Widening circle of genocide,  Alan L. Berger (Ed). Transaction Publishers, 1994, pp 43–74
 * Heft, James (Ed.), Beyond violence: religious sources of social transformation in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, Fordham Univ Press, 2004
 * Hirst, David, The gun and the olive branch: the roots of violence in the Middle East, Nation Books, 2003
 * Hoffman, R. Joseph, The just war and jihad: violence in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam,	Prometheus Books, 2006
 * Horowitz, Elliott S., Reckless rites: Purim and the legacy of Jewish violence, Princeton University Press, 2006
 * Juergensmeyer, Mark, Terror in the mind of God: the global rise of religious violence, University of California Press, 2003
 * Kuper, Leo, "Theological Warrants for Genocide: Judaism, Islam, and Christianity", in  ‪Confronting genocide: Judaism, Christianity, Islam‬,  ‪Steven L. Jacob‬s (Ed.), ‪Lexington Books, 2009‬, pp 3–34
 * Pedahzur, Ami, Jewish terrorism in Israel, Columbia University Press, 	Columbia University Press, 2009
 * Perliger, Arie and Weinberg, Leonard, "Jewish Self-Defence and Terrorist Groups Prior to the Establishment of the State of Israel: Roots and Traditions", in *Phillips, Gary A., "More Than the Jews … His Blood Be Upon All the Children: Biblical Violence, Genocide and Responsible Reading", in  ‪Confronting genocide: Judaism, Christianity, Islam‬,  ‪Steven L. Jacob‬s (Ed.), ‪Lexington Books, 2009‬, pp 77–87
 * Van Wees, Hans, "Genocide in the Ancient World", in The Oxford Handbook of Genocide Studies, Donald Bloxham, A. Dirk Moses (Eds), Oxford University Press US, 2010, pp 239–258.
 * Weisburd, David, Jewish Settler Violence,	Penn State Press, 1985


 * Comment: How about rename to "War in Jewish law" and define the scope accordingly? Joe407 (talk) 23:54, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure, about 50% of the material relates to war, and that would be a great title (although "law" is a bit limiting) for that material.  The problem is the other 50% of the material in the sources above: it ranges from Settler violence in the occupied territories, to the Cave of the patriarchs massacre, to violence related to the Book of Esther, to Purim, to the Amalekites, to stoning in the Torah, and so on.  That material cannot go into an article restricted to "war".  A "war" article could be a sub-article of a "violence" article, I suppose. --Noleander (talk) 00:00, 11 October 2010 (UTC)


 * The point of calling the article ____ in Jewish law is that it forces it to stick to the facts and to a clearly defined scope. As I pointed out in the nom, the title and article as it is now J&V) is an inherently POV topic.  In the article War (or violence) in Jewish law, there would be no place for violence related to Purim - it would go where it belongs in the article Purim.  The same is true for Baruch Goldstein and the Amaleikites.  We would then have a clearly defined article with a clear scope and sources.  An article such as Milk and meat in Jewish law is a reasonable model for an NPOV treatment of the topic. Joe407 (talk) 00:18, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Numerous reliable sources discuss "violence" generically (not limited to "war") and they include war and non-war topics (see list of references above). Are you suggesting that we spread the material out amongst several articles, so it is harder for readers to see it all in one place?  Do you think Christianity and violence should also be deleted? --Noleander (talk) 00:27, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm suggesting that we limit this article to a clear, NPOV topic. If additional articles are needed, see WP:NOTPAPER.  (regarding C&V, after a quick glance, I feel it would benefit from clarity of scope and trimming.  But that is a different topic.) Joe407 (talk) 01:09, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Your suggestion is not sensible. Are you suggesting that all articles in WP on violence and terrorism should be deleted because they are inherently POV?   Or are you saying all the academic sources listed above are biased?  --Noleander (talk) 01:28, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm saying that the topic "Judaism and Violence" is an inherently biased topic. The sources you showed above span such a wide range of topics that bringing them together is a synthesis of ideas, creating an impression which is POV.  For example, Hirst's book on the roots of violence in the Middle East, Ehlich's "Joshua, Judaism, and Genocide", and Horowitz's Purim book are not related.  They each deal with a very different topic and thesis.  Drawing them together to use them as a common source can only be done by cherry picking them for what supports the authors thesis.  This is laudable in an academic paper but has no place here.  Hirst's book belongs under the ME or Arab-Israeli conflic, Ehlich's under biblical warfare and Horowitz under Purim.  Joe407 (talk) 01:39, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Let's see: we have dozens of academic sources that do write books about Judaism and violence, and we have a few WP editors who say (to quote you) "the topic ... is an inherently biased topic."  I'll go with the academics. --Noleander (talk) 02:46, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The advantage that an academic has in writing a book if not the obligation, is that of originality and synthesis of existing information to support a thesis. That is the goal of an academic paper or book.  Our goal here is different.  My comment is not that that academics do no write about J&V but rather to say that by juxtaposing such very different books as you have cited, you are creating the basis of a good undergrad paper rather than a WP article. 05:17, 11 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep — I hate articles like this since they are eternal battlefields. But while we have Islam and violence, Christianity and violence, Mormonism and violence, Buddhism and violence, Sikhism and violence, Hinduism and violence (some these being directs), and who knows what else, I don't see why this one should be treated differently. Zerotalk 04:33, 11 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Zero—those other articles might be sourced. This article isn't. Bus stop (talk) 05:23, 11 October 2010 (UTC)


 * The battlefield aspect is bothersome to me, also. But it doesn't have to be a battlefield:  these articles can (and should) document all aspects of the relationship between religion and violence.  For every religious precept that endorses violence, there is a usually a precept that opposes violence.   For example, the article Christianity and violence begins with a section entitled "Christian opposition to violence". --Noleander (talk) 04:54, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It's been said before but - WP:OTHERSTUFF. Joe407 (talk) 05:17, 11 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Noleander—you've yet to bring sources for this article, though you initiated it. We've been over this ground before on the article's Talk page. I am not talking about piecemeal support for components of the article. What sources support the overall topic? The phrase that is the title of the article has no standard meaning. It means whatever you'd like it to mean. It is not a topic, for Wikipedia article-creation purposes. It is just a common phrase without any fixed meaning. No one knows whether it includes for instance Purim and/or Book of Esther but you are apparently content to argue over that., , , No source supports the overarching topic, reflected in the title. The article you've created is an undefined receptacle to argue over. What does the article offer the reader? The article offers the reader a snapshot of that argument at any given moment. Wikipedia is supposed to be based on sources. Without sources the article can be nothing but a battlefield because sources are the invaluable resource in resolving editorial disagreements. The article is merely your notion of a great idea for a topic and a great idea for a title for that topic. But sources do not support the title, and sources do not support the overarching theme of the topic. Bus stop (talk) 05:51, 11 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep very reluctantly, simply because this is not just about Judaism, but many serious faiths are confronted with this topic: Mormonism and violence; Christianity and violence; Islam and violence; Religious violence, see the scope of the latter, it's a real subject. Judaism, like everything else, does have its warts. That's life. This article needs work, perhaps it can become a disambiguation template eventually for more clarity and specificity, but right now the situation seems to be one of people getting carried away with WP:POINT and WP:REICHSTAG because of what's going on at Articles for deletion/Judaism and bus stops and Articles for deletion/Peace and violence in Judaism and it's time to stop this vicious cycle and go on with rational mature editorial behavior. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 07:51, 11 October 2010 (UTC)


 * IZAK—bring sources. The title is "Judaism and violence". Please show support for that in sources. What source establishes that as a topic? What is the meaning of "Judaism and violence"—according to sources? Or are editors supposed to debate that? Wikipedia is not a debating society. This is not a blog, or an Internet discussion forum. If it's not sourced, it doesn't belong here. All the material can go elsewhere, on Wikipedia. Wikipedia has organizing principles. Sources underscore Wikipedia's organizing principles. This has absolutely nothing to do with censorship. Wikipedia is not censored. All the material that is in the article or that anyone may wish to put in the article—as long as it is properly sourced—can find a home on Wikipedia. Please bring a source for "Judaism and violence" if you wish to validate the subject of this article. It presently is a string of common everyday English words with no particular fixed meaning. Articles should be written only on topics that are defined by sources. Wikipedia is dependent on sources. Sources make Wikipedia credible to readers. Sources resolve disputes among editors. Bus stop (talk) 10:58, 11 October 2010 (UTC)


 * IZAK: Those are wise words. I agree, and propose the following: both AfDs be abandoned; both articles (Judaism and violence and Peace and war in Judaism) be re-combined into a single article named Judaism and violence (which was the article's original name since its creation).   Then a "rename proposal" be initiated on the article's Talk page.  That would be the most sensible approach that would get everyone back to building an encyclopedia.  If a bold Admin concurs, their help will be needed to move the Peace and war in Judaism back to Judaism and violence, since a non-admin cannot do that move. --Noleander (talk) 14:22, 11 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Merge to Peace and war in Judaism, which this article forks. The proper response to a good-faith page move you don't like is to request that the article be moved back, not to fork the article at the resulting redirect . Peter Karlsen (talk) 22:10, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the merger is an okay idea.  But the title of the merged article cannot be "war" or "peace and war" because only 50% of the material deals with war:  the other 50% is other sorts of violence (settler violence; Book of Esther;  stoning as punishment, etc).  So the title of the merged article should be "Judaism and violence" (which would also parallel Islam and violence and Christianity and violence).  Or, since there are dozens and dozens of sources on this, and the articles are in their infancy, we could reasonably conclude that a WP:Content fork is inevitable, and the "war" material is a good splitting-point, and leave the two articles as parent-child articles.--Noleander (talk) 23:28, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

There is no objective standard as to what constitutes "Jewish violence" as opposed to "violence performed by Jews". We saw this in the article talk pages where we debated including "Jewish views on capital punishment" as well as "Jewish spousal abuse" under your "other violence" category. Define your scope!. Joe407 (talk) 04:18, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Noleander— you say that "50% of the material deals with war: the other 50% is other sorts of violence". What source describes that "50%" of that which falls under the heading of "Judaism and violence" is material that "deals with war"? What source makes the point that "50%" of what is included in the topic of "Judaism and violence" is material that relates to "other sorts of violence"? You are promulgating what form the article is supposed to take. You have to show sources for this. Bus stop (talk) 03:09, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The sources are listed above at the top of this AfD: their titles are "Judaism and violence" or variants thereof.  In those sources, about half the material is about wars, and about half the material is about other kinds of violence (settler violence, etc). --Noleander (talk) 03:26, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Noleander - I'm still not clear on how you avoid WP:COATRACK with all of the "other violence" stuff. As was well stated above by User:Bus Stop, "you've created is an undefined receptacle to argue over. What does the article offer the reader? The article offers the reader a snapshot of that argument at any given moment."  Your category of "other violence" seems to be your subjective sense of what constitutes religious violence.
 * The scope of the Judaism and violence article is defined by the reliable sources that discuss the topic (see list above).  They address violent acts and attitudes that are described in (or based on) Judaic religious texts, doctrines and precepts.   I don't recall any editor suggesting that the article include "Jewish violence", so I'm not sure why you bring that inflammatory suggestion up.  (Perhaps you are confused because there was a discussion of sources that address the Torah's "death by stoning" punishments in the context of violence?)   If an editor were to recommend expanding the article beyond the religion of Judaism, I would object.  All of the other articles -  Christianity and violence, Mormonism and violence, Islam and violence, etc - are strictly limited to violence where the sources associate the violence with the religion; and the articles exclude violence where the perpetrators just happen to be members of the religion.  That distinction has come up repeatedly in the several Talk pages, and I'm not aware of any editor disagreeing with that restriction.    --Noleander (talk) 04:42, 12 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Noleander—you are repeatedly referring to articles that may be well-sourced in their overall scope—you are mentioning again the Christianity and violence, Mormonism and violence, and Islam and violence articles. These articles may be well-sourced in their overall scope, but how am I to know that this article is well-sourced in its overall scope? Can you provide me with sources that indicate what "Judaism and violence" means? I am not referring to what you think "Judaism and violence" means or what another editor of Wikipedia thinks "Judaism and violence" means—I am asking you what reliable sources say that that term means. Do reliable sources address this question? Can you please bring wording from sources to this area of the discussion page to show what reliable sources indicate is the proper scope for the term which is the title for this article? What do reliable sources have to say about the title that you favor for this article, and the topic on which you wish this article to be written? Bus stop (talk) 11:51, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

All of the articles have lots of sources. The crux of the issue as I see it (and the reason User:Chesdovi created Judaism & bus stops), is that all of these articles show that Judaism is a religion that has what to say about almost every topic in a persons life. That's it. Once you understand that Judaism touches upon everything, you can create Judaism & _________.
 * Comment #2 While I realize that WP:OTE means that no article can impact delete/keep of another article, I assume that any admin closing this will read Articles for deletion/Judaism and bus stops, Articles for deletion/Judaism and violence, & Articles for deletion/Peace and violence in Judaism.

'''The problem is that while you will find sources for Judaism and toothbrushes, the topic has no clear definition of scope. Whatever can be found that mentions toothbrushes (in Jewish history, Jewish texts, or Jewish law) is fair game to enter the article. It is at best ripe for WP:TRIVIA and often will be WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:COATRACK as editors debate the inclusion or exclusion of a toothbrush related story/news item/law/event. As was stated in one of the AfDs mentioned above "The article offers the reader a snapshot of that argument at any given moment."''' Now go back and reread the above sentence while replacing toothbrush with violence or bus stops or elecricity or matchsticks. For each one, the argument stands.

I would however point out that there is room for much of the information in these articles (J&V, PV&J, J&BS) that could have a place elsewhere. As long as the topic is clearly defined and encyclopedic. Using the above test, articles about "________ in Jewish law" or "________ in the Old testament" or "Historical accounts of ________" are fine given appropriate WP:RS. Violence in Jewish law or Violence in the old testament are both fine topics as they clearly define the scope of the article. To those who will say that the J&V article includes all of these, I refer to WP:NOTPAPER. Sometimes more, yet focused articles allow clarity of topic and purpous. Violence in the old testament is a very diffent topic from ethical questions of assasination in the modern state of Israel. What Noleander did by putting them together was to create an illusion of a common thread thereby violating WP:SYNTH even though no new verbiage was created. I recommend that all three articles be deleted and any new articles on these topics be monitored for a while with the question being "What is the scope?". Joe407 (talk) 16:36, 12 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep It's part of a series about religion and violence. We don't have a series about religion and bus stops. Shii (tock) 23:30, 12 October 2010 (UTC)


 * From where do you derive that it is "part of a series about religion and violence"? Bus stop (talk) 23:39, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * This is already documented above. Take your comments there. Shii (tock) 00:16, 13 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I can assure you that I am not a "sockpuppet". You say that this "is already documented above." What point on this page are you referring to? Bus stop (talk) 00:29, 13 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete or merge coverage into the topic to which it relates as this article conflicts directly with WP:NOT. Although it may have lots of of sources, some of which may be related to violence as well as Judaism, this topic is little more than a high school essay topic or the subject for a debating competition. The politicising of topics such as Judaism with violence, war, international conspiracies, the "German question" or the "Palestine question" by presenting essays as encyclopaedic articles really needs to stop, or otherwise Wikipedia is going to turn into a platform for thinly disguised soapboxing, which is the primary purpose of essay writing.
 * On the issue of notability, it is clear that all of the sources address the topic of Judaism directly and in detail. This is not a notable topic in its own right, in the same way that "Judaism and God", "Judaism and war" "Judaism and Jews" are not distinct topics in their own right, but are part of the coverage of Judaism. Editors need to be clear that coverage that discusses Judaism in general, whether in relation to God, peace, war, or violence are about Judaism or other notable topics relating Jewish practice, not "Judaism and X" or "Criticism of Judaism".--Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 08:44, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, the association of religion(s) with violence is a distinct topic in its own right ... look a the sources above. There is a large body of literature by scholars and secular skeptics that discusses how religions are sometimes associated with violence.  In some cases, the commentators go so far as to suggest that various religions (directly or indirectly) support or endorse violence.  Are you suggesting that we delete Christianity and violence and spread its contents throughout various articles like Crusades and The Inquisition?   Should the article Islamic terrorism be deleted and its contents spread throughout other articles?   Of course not.   --Noleander (talk) 14:55, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I disagree with your views, because the number of combinations and permutations for essay type articles is huge, as their scope is determined by a particular point of view which precludes balanced coverage of the over arching topic. The general principle behind WP:NOT is that articles on God, Religion, Judaism, Christianity, Islam, etc should not be split and split again into different POV forks, with each split normally limiting the scope of the topic to the point of view of fewer and fewer sources. What this means is that while Judaism may be notable, that does not mean we have to discuss every aspect of human behaviour in relation to Judaism just because a few essayists happen to have written about Judaism within the framework of an essay. Editors should not import this approach into Wikipedia, no matter how many sources use essays for their work. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 16:34, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It appears you have not read the sources (see the list above) - they are not "essays", but are academic works written by scholars and published by mainstream publishers . The association of religion(s) with violence is the subject of numerous scholarly works.  Your suggestion that we delete Christianity and violence, Mormonism and violence and Islamic terrorism is irrational.  That would make it impossible for readers to find out what the scholarly sources say on those topics.  Your suggestion would force readers to visit dozens of articles (Crusades, Witch hunts, etc) and piece the information together (or is that the goal? I refer you to WP:Not censored).    You might have a point if there were no scholarly sources that associated religion(s) with violence, but there are.  --Noleander (talk) 18:24, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I am sure there are sources, but since the address the topic of Judaism, Jewish belief or practice, that those are the topics to which this coverage should be reassigned. "Judaism and violence" is merely an essay topic, and it is Wikipedia policy that prohibits the writing of essay type articles, no matter how well sourced. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 08:12, 14 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete or Merge to Peace and war in Judaism, per Peter Karlsen. Then possibly it can be renamed back to Peace and violence in Judaism. "Judaism and violence" is a POV fork emphasizing violence instead of giving a balanced view of peace and violence. Marokwitz (talk) 09:27, 13 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Noleander—"Judaism and violence" should not be just a phrase used in passing if it is to qualify as a term on which an article should be written. I have been asking you to extract a few sentences from what you regard as your sources for this term to show us that the use of the term is anything other than in passing. In my opinion articles should be written on topics that have a definition. I believe we deserve to know what sort of definition if any accompanies any usage of that term. I think we should want to know if that term is used in any sort of a restrictive way. That would indicate that it was a legitimate term for the purposes of article-creation. The restricted way in which it was used would also help us to guide any resulting article's scope. If on the other hand no real meaning is attached to the term, then I think the term "Judaism and violence" is merely an opening for a discussion. Such a resulting article provides merely an opportunity for discussing a "topic" which has not been established to exist in the first place. Please bring some wording to support that "Judaism and violence" is sourced in a way that you feel would make it qualify for the purposes of Wikipedia article-creation. Bus stop (talk) 11:07, 14 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Protest vote: Delete. What happened to Judaism and bus stops? Chesdovi (talk) 16:13, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I had hoped you would not do this, per discussion at Articles for deletion/Judaism and bus stops. This is bad judgement on your part. MrCleanOut (talk) 06:49, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I am upset my article was deleted. That's why it is not an outright delete, but a protest vote. (I did not vote in the previous AfD.) Chesdovi (talk) 12:35, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep I see this as an attempt to purge "unwanted" info that could cast a certain group in an unfavourable light, a fairly clumsy one in fact. As has been said above, at length, and more eloquently than I can do, we have Islam and violence, Christianity and violence, Mormonism and violence, Buddhism and violence, Sikhism and violence, Hinduism and violence.  I don't see why this one should be treated any differently.  MrCleanOut (talk) 06:58, 15 October 2010 (UTC)


 * MrCleanOut—you are talking about other articles as if that were our primary concern here. Do you think it is possible that those articles should be "kept" while this article "deleted"? Of course it is. I am not making that argument at all. But it is the corollary of your argument. This AfD page is not a referendum on what you perceive as a related group of articles. Bus stop (talk) 10:51, 15 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. One should be wary of crossing two article topics to produce a third unless this third topic is a notable subject as well. However, per Noleander research, it is clear that the topic of violence in the Jewish religion has been covered in several published academic papers. The topic is therefore valid. Sjakkalle (Check!)  14:37, 15 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Sjakkalle—please post some quotes from sources establishing that the topic is legitimate. If no sources establish a scope or any semblance of a defined parameter then this does not meet article-creation requirements. Encyclopedias are not creative writing exercises. If the topic is not real by standards established by reliable sources then this area for discussion is too broad and unstructured for a Wikipedia encyclopedia article. Bus stop (talk) 18:02, 15 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete


 * There's a clear POV push to make historic peaceful nation of the Jews look "violent."


 * Cherypicking - information to suit the anti Jewish trend of the article.

(In reality according to Judaism's Talmud book, today, since "Sancheriv mixed up the nations, there is no nation that is identified as Amalek."
 * Besides the reasons provided above, it has multiple falsification of Judaism, for instance the attempt to broaden the extermination order outside the Amalekites and falsely stating that the Canaanites were such a target, when in fact the Israelies were only required to clear the land out of the inhabitants not to "exterminate."


 * Noam Chomsky and Shulamit Aloni both notorious 'anti-religious-Jews' activists are not the best sources one can have for clarity on Judaism, religion, or else.Marias87 (talk) 18:05, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: New user, apparent WP:SPA: joined WP just before this comment. Plutonium27 (talk) 20:22, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

— Marias87 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment While googling... If Noleander wouldn't have such screaming propaganda words like 'exrermination" and falsification of the Bible, I wouldn't be "invited." He even tried to revert the edits to his POV and inaccuracy "info."Marias87 (talk) 13:28, 18 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment: Plutonium27—do you find many more edits for MrCleanOut? I think only a few more. We are not counting votes. The strength of reasoning should matter.


 * I am still waiting for any of the supporters of this article to defend its existence by bringing some excerpts from their much ballyhooed sources to show that the title which supposedly represents the subject matter that the article is intended to address is anything other than ordinary language used in passing unavoidably by sources addressing other topics. My argument against this article is that there is no topic "Judaism and violence." No source addresses that as an overarching theme. The article is presenting a topic that does not exist, in its entirety. Sub-components of the article exist. Those sub-components are all that can be sourced. Those sub-components deserve articles of their own or those sub-components warrant being subsumed into appropriate articles. The title is misleading—because sources don't support "Judaism and violence" as a topic for an article. If sources don't support the topic, we shouldn't have an article on it. That would be an article on a phantom topic. Bus stop (talk) 23:14, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually there is an extremely large literature on this subject. I don't have any interest in editing the article, but I already have quite a lot of relevant material on my computer or shelf.  I'll only mention sources from academic writers to be sure about passing WP:RS.  This is just the tip of a large iceberg.  I note that Noleander already gave a list of relevant sources.
 * (which has a bibliography stretching for five pages, many items clearly relevant).
 * (with 78-item bibliography much clearly relevant).
 * (a book with many references to Jewish religion and culture).
 * (a book about political violence within Israeli society, quite a lot of mention of religion).
 * Zerotalk 00:48, 18 October 201"0 (UTC)
 * CommentOh boy, so many falsifications, especially the "The One who is More Violent Prevails" In fact the real Talmudic rule refers to more active with arguments and desperation to keep what's "his." Noleander even tried to insert the "extermination" term on non- Amalekites and distorting the original Hebrew text (referring to the Canaanites) to suit his POV. and thank you again about cherypicking in working about it for a week and more, surely the Jews have been the most violent in history as compared to others, yea right...Marias87 (talk) 13:28, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You can repeat that list as often as you like. The question isn't whether threads within such a topic are sourced. The question is whether the topic exists. Is it defined? Please bring wording from sources establishing a definition of "Judaism and violence". You are being asked to provide a source for the overall topic. The ordinary occurrence of three common words does not constitute a topic. In order for something to be a topic for the purposes of a Wikipedia article ordinary words have to have a special meaning, imparted to them by sources. Otherwise you have merely opened up an undefined area for discussion. You've brought together "Judaism" and "violence." So what? Have sources established any semblance of a notion of what applies when Judaism and violence are considered on the same page? Can you bring wording from sources that speaks to the question of what the general outline of such an area of investigation might be? Or are we just going to adhere to our own outline in writing this article? We are not experts. Encyclopedia Britannica, with a paid staff of academic researchers might be competent to write on a topic and title it as they please, based on their credentials. We don't pass credentials-requirements in order to become Wikipedians. We are solely reliant on sources—not just to support the individual threads within an article—but to justify the topic. If the topic doesn't exist, there should be no article on it. Please show me wording that addresses the topic that you wish to have an article on. Extract wording from sources that addresses the total topic. Does it indicate a scope for the sort of topic that you wish to write about? Or are you going to make up the scope as you go along? Bus stop (talk) 02:20, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Defining the scope of articles is a normal part of an editor's task. I don't see why this one is different.  More than enough quality sources have been identified to write an article that fits the title as well as any of the other articles with similar titles. The exact coverage can be negotiated on the article's talk page. Zerotalk 05:38, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You can repeat that list as often as you like. The question isn't whether threads within such a topic are sourced. The question is whether the topic exists. Is it defined? Please bring wording from sources establishing a definition of "Judaism and violence". You are being asked to provide a source for the overall topic. The ordinary occurrence of three common words does not constitute a topic. In order for something to be a topic for the purposes of a Wikipedia article ordinary words have to have a special meaning, imparted to them by sources. Otherwise you have merely opened up an undefined area for discussion. You've brought together "Judaism" and "violence." So what? Have sources established any semblance of a notion of what applies when Judaism and violence are considered on the same page? Can you bring wording from sources that speaks to the question of what the general outline of such an area of investigation might be? Or are we just going to adhere to our own outline in writing this article? We are not experts. Encyclopedia Britannica, with a paid staff of academic researchers might be competent to write on a topic and title it as they please, based on their credentials. We don't pass credentials-requirements in order to become Wikipedians. We are solely reliant on sources—not just to support the individual threads within an article—but to justify the topic. If the topic doesn't exist, there should be no article on it. Please show me wording that addresses the topic that you wish to have an article on. Extract wording from sources that addresses the total topic. Does it indicate a scope for the sort of topic that you wish to write about? Or are you going to make up the scope as you go along? Bus stop (talk) 02:20, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Defining the scope of articles is a normal part of an editor's task. I don't see why this one is different.  More than enough quality sources have been identified to write an article that fits the title as well as any of the other articles with similar titles. The exact coverage can be negotiated on the article's talk page. Zerotalk 05:38, 18 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Zero—if you are making up the scope of the article without recourse to sources to guide you in that task—then the quality of the article can be assumed to be that of garbage. Bus stop (talk) 10:38, 18 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep - Well sourced, clearly encyclopedic, does in no way fall within the perview of WP:NOT --Mike Cline (talk) 02:45, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Bus stop's argument to DELETE makes the most sense. Especially according to Noleander's revisions.Marias87 (talk) 13:28, 18 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep - per Noleander and Zero. Some interesting points made re. deletion, regrettably risking being undermined by increasingly absurd accusations and opinions asserted as fact from the "I don't like it, get rid of it" contingent. Plutonium27 (talk) 20:43, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Comment Please explain a valid reason why it should not be deleted, in fact the above editors have explained exactly why the POV push by Noleander should not be allowed, I checked again his edits, he does try to make it towards a certain slant against Judaism. The Objection is mainly on Noleander's OR and POV version of this page.Marias87 (talk) 21:45, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Marias87: Valid reasons have been given - just because you don't like them, doesn't mean they do not exist. Your "above editors" are attempting to define Wikipedia policy in their own terms in order to remove a page they dislike. Clearly you agree with them. You may reference my responses elsewhere to answer your question - I am not about to waste my time in a futile effort to satisfy a drive-by POV pusher. Plutonium27 (talk) 23:49, 18 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Plutonium27— you mention the concept of I DONT LIKE IT. Of course that concept has a flip-side: I LIKE IT. These are known as Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. But there are some important things that should be discussed in an AfD such as this. I asked you up above if you can bring any wording from sources that might indicate that any reliable source regards the topic "Judaism and violence" as a topic in its own right. You have not even addressed that question. The article was nominated for an AfD for a reason. You and other supporters of the article are simply refusing to discuss the reasons for this AfD. How does that differ from simply voting that I LIKE IT? In summation: if no source identifies "Judaism and violence" as a topic, then Wikipedia should NOT have an article devoted to that. Discussion forums abound on the Internet, but we should only have articles that clearly exist as real topics, identified as such by reliable sources, and defined as well. We should not be going off half-cocked compiling threads of material, however well-sourced, that are not united and defined in that composition by reliable sources. Bus stop (talk) 22:19, 18 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Bus Stop: Your efforts to insist upon a self-serving interpretation of policy (in this case, the definition of terms re topics) are so transparently obvious, no matter how many versions of the Bus Stop Patented Idiot-Guide-To-Internets get thrown in. Although noticeably omitting WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT- but then who's surprised at how that one slips your mind so often? Anyway, I'm sure the deciding admin will understand exactly what you're trying to get across here and will consider all these discussions upon their respective merits. Plutonium27 (talk) 23:40, 18 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Plutonium27—WP:BURDEN is basic policy:


 * "If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it."


 * I've asked you repeatedly to show me wording that establishes "Judaism and violence" as a "topic." You cannot provide wording in sources because this article is merely on an undefined area for discussion. I don't think that meets Wiki requirements for article creation. Articles require sources to establish general outlines or they are unstructured. We have no idea what to include or not include in such an article. The material belongs somewhere on Wikipedia. But this article should be deleted. Bus stop (talk) 01:20, 19 October 2010 (UTC)


 * It's not a matter of "I don't like it, get rid of it". The article Judaism and peace, which you might think would fall under "I like it, keep it", is equaly unsourced, unencyclopedic, and should be deleted.  Joe407 (talk) 10:35, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Joe407, are you arguing that the content of this article is unsourced? It seems to me that the elements treated in the article are well sourced, and I would suggest that if the major problem is, as you seem to think, the question of scope which might be handled by renaming the article, then a more appropriate forum for discussion would be WP:RM. --Nuujinn (talk) 10:44, 19 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Nuujinn—there is no source for the topic. Please provide actual wording from a source for any such topic as "Judaism and violence." Ditto for "Judaism and peace." These are not worthy of being articles. But please quote actual wording from the source that treats commonplace terms (such as "Judaism and violence") in a way that makes you regard them as notable topics. A topic for article-creation purposes has to have some degree of definition. In the absence of a definition these terms merely suggest an open-ended discussion. These sorts of non-articles are not what Wikipedia is about. Sources are the most essential element in article-writing (in my opinion). There is no source for these topics. Articles such as the 2 mentioned above should be deleted. The material contained in them is probably fine, but the material simply belongs elsewhere on Wikipedia. Bus stop (talk) 15:29, 19 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. "Judaism and violence" is merely on an undefined area for discussion. Articles need definition. That calls for sources indicating their overall scope. The only sources that have been thus far provided merely use the term "Judaism and violence" in passing with no implication of a definition, leaving the article as an undefined dumping ground for any criticism anyone cares to levy against Judaism based on a sourced association with violence. Definitely unencyclopedic for Wikipedia. We are average people—nonspecialists. Encyclopedia Britannica may be able to write this article. Wikipedians require sources. There are none for the overall scope of this article. Bus stop (talk) 01:20, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I doubt you're agree with me, but my opinion is that Firestone, Ellens, Heft and Boustan in the list provided by Neolander above clearly establish that the general topic is notable. --Nuujinn (talk) 14:53, 19 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Nuujinn—you say that sources "clearly establish that the general topic is notable." Could you please extract a few lines from your sources that show this? Also, see my above post at 15:29, 19 October 2010 (UTC). Bus stop (talk) 15:30, 19 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Bus-Stop, as I said in other venues, I believe that your interpretation of sourcing requirements for the titles of articles deviates from policy, and I'm simply not going to get drawn into yet another lengthy discussion on this topic with you. I believe that the sources used in the article show that that general topic is notable, and while I readily acknowledge that X and Y articles present challenges in terms of scope, I believe that is ultimately an argument to improve the article, not delete it. --Nuujinn (talk) 17:06, 19 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Nuujinn—you concede that you have no sourcing in support of "Judaism and violence" as a valid topic. If you had at your fingertips wording from reliable sources that referred to "Judaism and violence" in a way that you felt confident presented it as a topic that had a parameter defined by that source, I think you would present that wording, because such wording would end this AfD in your favor. I can't help but think you do not have wording to support the topic, or you would present it. No other editor has been willing to present any such wording either. Clearly such wording doesn't exist. "Judaism and violence" is a suggestion for what we should talk about in this entity—nothing more. It is not a valid Wikipedia topic. Editors do not have a defined topic in this entity. This entity only serves the purpose of allowing any editor at any time to come up with another complaint about Judaism. All they need do is find a sourced association between any violence and Judaism. That is a perpetual as well as constantly evolving vulnerability against Judaism. This Wikipedia entity is never written. It is constantly in a state of being written. It is not even ever half-written. This entity represents an ongoing vulnerability. That gets back to the point that the topic is not defined. You are only unable to find wording defining the topic because no such wording exists. Bus stop (talk) 17:42, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * "you concede that you have no sourcing in support of "Judaism and violence" as a valid topic". Uhm, no, I do not, and I feel that your characterizations of my intent verges on an assumption of bad faith, and thus ask politely that you retract your characterization of me. As I said, I'm not interested in debating you on this policy issue--I think your interpretation of policy is flawed, and it's just not productive or appropriate in this venue. --Nuujinn (talk) 17:49, 19 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Nuujinn—I did not in any way characterize your "intent". Where do you see that? You further say, "I'm not interested in debating you on this policy issue". Let me ask you this: what do you think the purpose of this AfD is? Joe407 says in his nomination of this AfD that, "The material is the much the same as the article Noleander originally posted two months ago which promoted a view of Judaism as a violent religion. It also brings us no closer to a clear scope of any of the articles currently up for AfD". If I can paraphrase him, he is saying there is little or no scope to this article. By extension, there are no sources saying what the scope of this article is, and that is precisely my argument—sources cannot be found defining the entity that is the subject of this AfD. Bus stop (talk) 18:14, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * "you concede that you have no sourcing in support of "Judaism and violence" as a valid topic. If you had at your fingertips wording from reliable sources that referred to "Judaism and violence" in a way that you felt confident presented it as a topic that had a parameter defined by that source, I think you would present that wording, because such wording would end this AfD in your favor. I can't help but think you do not have wording to support the topic, or you would present it." That's all a characterization of me, and this discussion should be about the articles content and policy, not what you think I would or should or could do under a hypothetical set of circumstances you imagine to map to the real world. As for Joe407, paraphrase all you like--my view of his point is above if you care to read it again. --Nuujinn (talk) 18:41, 19 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Nuujinn—I apologize. I see what you are saying. But anyway, getting back on track, do you have any wording from sources that you can post here? I think that we are looking for wording, found in sources, that treat "Judaism and violence" as a "topic." I think we would not be so much interested in seeing "Judaism and violence" used "in passing," with no implication of that phrase constituting an actual "topic" with some semblance of a definition. We would want to see "Judaism and violence" used in some pointed way, with some emphasis on the significance of that phrase. Were we to find such a usage of the phrase in a source, we would likely find a "scope" in such a description of "Judaism and violence," if it were found in a source used in this way. Joe407, in initiating this AfD, complains that there is little "clear scope". (I am slightly paraphrasing him.) If we are utilizing this AfD page as it should be used, shouldn't we be discussing whether sources present the scope that Joe407 suggests may be missing? Bus stop (talk) 19:06, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the apology. As for the other, you already have my answer. --Nuujinn (talk) 19:21, 19 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Nuujinn—yes—you concede that this article presents a challenge "in terms of scope". What does a challenge in terms of scope mean? I think it means such a resulting entity is unstructured. If that entity is on "Judaism and violence," then I think it follows that any and every association between "Judaism" and "violence" is fair game for inclusion in such an entity. Such an entity I would characterize as an ongoing dumping ground for anything disparaging of Judaism based on a sourced association between Judaism and violence. That, in my characterization, would not be an article at all, but rather a discussion forum. When an incident arizes—be it a flare-up in Israel, an incident involving Jews in any part other of the world—some editor can present a cogent argument for inclusion in this article. What makes that possible? That is of course made possible by the absence of any definition for the phrase that heads up this entity. It is not, strictly speaking, an article. It is a talking-ground. It is a base for disparagement of Judaism that has no bounds, other than the association in reliable sources of anything relating to "Judaism" with anything relating to "violence." Bus stop (talk) 19:43, 19 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep, reluctantly, per Neolander's list of sources. I also agree with IZAK's comments, FWIW. We should work together on fixing the article. --Nuujinn (talk) 5:37 am, Today (UTC−4)

Another gross misinterpertation and demonization attempt by Noleander, vis-a-vis Purim / Esther, trying to potyray the Jews as if they just 'killed many people for no reason" when in fact they targeted their enemies who wished to kill them see: http://www.jewishmag.com/30mag/esther/esther.htm  ].Marias87 (talk) 14:09, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment, I think the above could be taken as a personal attack, and does not seem to be an argument relevant to the discussion at hand. Would you consider striking it as a gesture of good faith? --Nuujinn (talk) 14:53, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.