Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peace and violence in Judaism


 * 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   no consensus. There does however appear to be a good case for merging into Judaism and violence as this article appears to have been spun off that one. Black Kite (t) (c) 20:27, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Peace and violence in Judaism

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Original Synthesis, plain and simple. The Final Straw for me was not the pointy AFD else where but its recent name change to "Peace and violence in Judaism." Two users where discusing the scope of the article which is clear sythesis work. Either a Topic is indpendently notable or it isnt and the topic itself should have a scope defined by RS. A RFC (at least by my reading) came to a clear consensus that it lacks a coherent source that adesses the topic as a whole Thus Synth. A WP:OR-noticboard thread also came to same conclsuion. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 05:44, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment There is an almost identical article Judaism and violence, also up for deletion, shouldn't the two discussions be merged? MrCleanOut (talk) 11:26, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree: it is wasteful and disruptive to have two AfDs (however, to be clear: the two articles are not strictly the same: Judaism and violence it a top-level article, and Peace and war in Judaism is a sub-article that deals with one specific sub-topic). But you are correct:  the AfD arguments will be identical.  --Noleander (talk) 14:14, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

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:
 * Strong Keep - This article was named Judaism and violence for a long time, and only changed to Peace and violence in Judaism two days ago.   I suppose the recent re-name to "Peace and violence in Judaism" could be a bit confusing, but that could be undone (I was not the editor that renamed it).  This article is a highly notable subject, comparable to:
 * Mormonism and violence
 * Christianity and violence
 * Islam and violence
 * Religion and violence

As indicated above, there is a large amount of material on the topic.--Noleander (talk) 05:51, 9 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
 * As we discussed on the talk any one of the sections possibly notable and possible for in an article intself but string all these souces into one lump topic is Original SynthesisThe Resident Anthropologist (talk) 05:54, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * That doesn't make any sense. You're saying it is okay to have three separate articles on "Judaism and peace", "Judaism and modern violence" and "Judaism and ancient violence" (the three big sections in the article); but you're saying it is not okay to have a single article that presents those topics to readers in a unified manner?  --Noleander (talk) 06:03, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I should have been more diecrptive with "Subsections"" Radical Zionists" is possibly a notable topic, some have thier own articles but as a whole its synthesis. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 06:08, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * So far you have provided no source only you synthesis, Your Arguement of WP:OTHERSTUFF is an invalid arguement. `The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 06:13, 9 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment I have no stake in this whatsoever, have no idea what's going on, and don't know if this is either A) A legitimate discussion on deleting an article, B) An anti-Semitic attack, or C) Purple cows, but if we're nominating this article for deletion, why are we not also nominating Mormonism and violence, Christianity and violence, Islam and violence, and Religion and violence? Would they not also fall under this same category? Feel free to nominate them if you think this is a surefire win, but considering how loaded that article is, I'm not comfortable voting to delete it in the least. Vodello (talk) 06:46, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep The ill advised and somewhat bizarre renaming aside, there is nothing in this article that meets the criteria for deletion. The only justification given by the nominator is that of synthesis which even a cursory glance at the references shows to not be the case. The relationship between Judaism and violence is a clearly established field of academic work. TomPointTwo (talk) 07:13, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. The article contains many POV issues, gross distortions of cited sources based on a clear agenda, and undue weight to fringe opinions, issues which need to be resolved. However the topic in whole is notable and covered by many scholarly works which explicitly discuss the topic of Peace and violence in religion and specifically in context of Judaism. I believe the nominator is misinterpreting WP:SYNTH, which says "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources" and WP:NOTESSAY which says "Personal essays that state your particular feelings about a topic (rather than the consensus of experts)." This article is neither. Peace and violence in Judaism is just as a good topic as Judaism and sexuality, Judaism and abortion, Christianity and homosexuality, or thousands of other articles in Wikipedia which are notable topics based on reliable sources. Judaism and Bus stops which was given as an example fails the notability guideline, and not WP:SYNTH or WP:NOTESSAY. Marokwitz (talk) 07:14, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep: The writing style is not wonderful, the style of citation could be better, someother issues to deal with. But nothing that warrants the deletion of the article, which covers Jewish views on war and peace and therefore certainly is notable and encyclopedic. -- BenTels (talk) 13:33, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - Per the above, Wikipedia apparently has Islam and violence and Christianity and violence articles and even Mormonism and violence articles without comment or debate, but instead of a matching Judaism and violence article, we're now treated to yet another POV push... Rename back to Judaism and violence to match. This POV crap has got to stop. —Carrite, Oct. 9, 2010.
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:53, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

1) This article is a collection of topics that would make an excellent position paper for a discussion group or an ethical think-tank discussion. As a WP article it a mashup and creates the impression of a larger topic where none exists.  The scope is problematic and lends itself to WP:SYNTH.
 * Delete.

As John Carter pointed out on the article talk page, some of the sub-topics could be notable enough to have an article. For example, "Military history of Judaism". The fact that the range of topics covered could just as well be titled "Judaism and things that make people go Ouch" tells me that the topic is of an inherently vauge nature, hence the article scope is problematic and lends itself to WP:SYNTH.

2) The words Judaism and the word violence are sufficiently unclear that the article lends itself to be a dumping ground for agenda pushing.

Questions that are unclear in the current article: Does the word "Judaism" mean I should talk about religiously mandated violence or violence perpetrated by jews? If it appears in the Jewish bible, does that mean it is Jewish violence? (for example, were the biblical wars of Joshua religious violence or were they politically motivated wars waged by religious people? What about wars of the modern state of Israel which is not a religious state in nature)

Does the word violence include all violence acts? All things that physically hurt people? Is terrorism a violent act? Yes. Is war a violent act? maybe? Is capital punishment a violent act? I don't think so. Is spouse abuse a violent act? Spanking my 12 year old?

The above unclarities mean that any consensus on the article scope is by nature a POV-fork from a larger theoretical topic "All things Jewish and All things that make people go Ouch". As can be seen from the early revisions of this article, it is/can be/was a dumping ground for agenda pushing.

Joe407 (talk) 05:52, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The logic of your first point is precluded by the citation of numerous reliable sources discussing the subject of the article. This demonstrates that the topic is both notable and not synthesized by editors.
 * I'm not entirely sure what you're talking about with your second point but from what I can understand I'm lead to believe that you feel that this is a difficult topic to edit. This may be the case but this is not a part of wikipedia's criteria for deletion. Only if the subject itself is inherently POV (i.e. Jewish megalomaniacism or Evil acts of Christianity) does an article meet the criteria for deletion on NPOV grounds. TomPointTwo (talk) 06:49, 10 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Rename to Judaism and violence its original name, as it fits with the rest of this group: Mormonism and violence; Christianity and violence; Islam and violence; Religious violence the latter being a very broad and serious topic, and then work on improving it. But the word "peace" inserts a different subject and focus. Please avoid WP:POINT. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 09:05, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Rename to Judaism and violence, per IZAK. I find the AfD nomination concerning and not a little WP:POINTY. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:49, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment To be clear, in addition to keeping this article, I too believe the recent unilateral name change should be undone. TomPointTwo (talk) 19:29, 10 October 2010 (UTC)


 * It wouldn't matter what the title was if the overall topic reflected in the title were not supported in sources. The problem as I see it with this article is that its overarching topic is utterly nonexistent in reliable sources. If sources don't support a topic, Wikipedia shouldn't have an article on it. I think the onus is on those who argue "keep" to show where sources support this topic—however you construe its title to be. Bus stop (talk) 22:32, 10 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment User:IZAK raises an interesting point above. "The Milk and meat in Jewish law article is well-named".  Perhaps this is the solution to both this AfD and the Bus Stop one.  Having a topic be ______ & Judaism or Judaism & _______ is too wide to be anything other than a POV essay and is an inherently problematic topic.  However, Bus Stops in Jewish law or Violence in Jewish law, or War in Jewish law, would neatly limit the scope to verifiable, NPOV, facts.  "Violence in Jewish law" saves us all the questions of what makes a bus stop (or a violent act) "Jewish" and focuses on whether or not it is addressed in Jewish law.  Of course to be fair, equal weight will be given (as in all halacha articles) to orthodox, conservative, reforms, etc positions.  Thoughts? Joe407 (talk) 23:23, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Since there is already a Judaism and violence article, merge into that one. StAnselm (talk) 23:38, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Errr, that's at AfD too Articles for deletion/Judaism and violence... Peridon (talk) 13:34, 11 October 2010 (UTC)


 * COMMENT: At this time, it's become evident that this article and AfD have become pawns in a drawn out struggle that's beginning to violate WP:POINT and even WP:WAR, starting with the creation Judaism and bus stops, and then the AfD Articles for deletion/Judaism and bus stops, then this AfD, and then a follow-up AfD guaranteed to arouse controversy at Articles for deletion/Judaism and violence. 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, and it's time to stop this vicious cycle and go on with rational mature editorial behavior. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 08:03, 11 October 2010 (UTC)


 * IZAK—I don't see one article or AfD as a "pawn" in any other article or AfD. Nor do I see any "vicious cycle." You refer to "rational mature editorial behavior." I think that would entail bringing sources for this article's overall scope. There are no sources establishing satisfactorily that "Peace and violence in Judaism" is anything but 5 ordinary words that someone feels should be an article title on Wikipedia. But where are the sources establishing that string of words as a "known quantity"? Do we have the foggiest idea what correctly belongs in an article by that title? Sources are not available to provide us with guidance. This is not a topic that meets criteria for article-creation. The title merely provides an undefined receptacle that neither justifies the effort of the editors writing it or the readers reading it. Editors have no recourse to sources to resolve disputes over the purpose of the article because no such sources are apparently available. Readers deserve credible articles. A credible article is based on sources from beginning to end. Not only is every component of a credible article well-sourced, but additionally the topic of a credible article should be firmly anchored in sourced material. "Peace and violence in Judaism" does not have a preexistence outside of Wikipedia. Or, if you think otherwise, please bring sources. They should define or at least describe the parameters of such a topic as understood by those sources. Bus stop (talk) 14:10, 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)
 * Thank you Noleander, I agree with you. And dear Bus stop: My proposal was to let go of this article and "Rename" it to Judaism and violence its original name, since this article is basically just a DUPLICATE, and because the word "peace" inserts a different subject and focus, there should and could be an article about Judaism and peace (I just started it) including the meaning of "Shalom" separate from the direction and meaning of "violence". IZAK (talk) 01:18, 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 & _________.
 * AgreementI would like to support the posts by IZAK, Bus stop and Noleander. (Not volunteering, though...) Peridon (talk) 14:35, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep, since the topic is significantly covered by reliable sources. Peter Karlsen (talk) 22:08, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 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) 16:37, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete as this article contravenes WP:NOT. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:02, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge with Judaism and violence. Per my keep vote on that AFD, I think this topic is worthy of coverage. However, I cannot see that this a well-defined sub-topic, so it is better that the coverage be condensed into one article instead of two. Sjakkalle (Check!)  14:40, 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.


 * 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) 17:28, 15 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.