Talk:Judaism and warfare/Archive 1

Archive 1

Rfd thoughts

The article contains many varied ideas that are each individually sourced. A source for the topic does not seem to exist. Is this in violation of WP:SYNTH or WP:NOT#ESSAY? What is the scope of WP:NOTE: "…if no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article."? Does it apply here? Joe407 (talk) 04:14, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

So after a few days of people tossing back and forth questions of what this article should be we have an article that is a hodgepodge of ideas. Our article includes:

• Explanations of Jewish laws regarding war
• Wars fought by Jews in Bible
• Examples of Jewish law that is anti-violence
• Foundation of Arab-Israeli conflict
• The assassination of Yitzhak Rabin
• 3 recorded deaths connected to Purim
• A list of Jewish extremist organizations

Each of these items have a place on Wikipedia. I feel that to group them all together in this article, does a disservice to each topic and is in violation of WP:SYNTH and Derailment (thought disorder) in it's current form. Even if we are able to pull them all together in a coherent, NPOV fashion, it would still be in violation of WP:NOT#ESSAY. As Gavin pointed out above:

"It is common practice to mix topics in high school essays with titles such as "Judaism and Womens' rights" or "Literature and violence", but to the important point to note is Wikipedia is not the venue for such writing. We have to distinguish between articles that contain encyclopedic content about notable topics on the one hand, and topics that are a synthesis of sources..."

In summary, I would like to nominate this article for Rfd. I am posting this here before doing so to hear other opinions because I view Rfd as a last ditch solution. Joe407 (talk) 17:58, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

What do sources say? What is this article about? Judaism and violence? How do reliable sources define "Judaism and violence?" Oh—there is no source that defines the subject that the article is ostensibly about? Then why do we have this article? WP guidelines say that if a subject does not have sources, there shouldn't be an article on that subject. Can anyone bring any sources that might shed light on the parameters of "Judaism and violence?" Or will this be one more unsavory dumping ground, not unlike the Criticism of Judaism article, for any negative aspersion for which consensus can be found? Unstructured articles should not exist. Please first find the source that tells us what structure this article should take. Bus stop (talk) 18:06, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I think the topic is notable. Although it might be true that some of the material is covered elsewhere in the encyclopedia, a person wishing to gather information on how religions relate to violence would be hard-pressed to hunt thru 100s of articles to gather the information together. There is no WP policy against duplicating material in 2 or more articles, indeed, it is an excellent way to help readers navigate. Similar articles / sections include:

• Christianity and violence
• Mormonism and violence
• Criticism of Islam#Violence towards critics of Islam
• Criticism of Christianity#Christianity and violence
• Militant Hinduism
• Criticism of Catholicism#Crusades
• Sikh extremism
• Criticism of religion#Holy war and religious terrorism

So clearly editors and readers are finding these kind of "intersection" articles (religion intersecting with violence) useful. Eliminating the article would deprive encyclopedia users of a valuable collection of related information. I think your concerns about "unsavory" material is best remedied by ensuring that the material in this article is neutrally presented, with ample balancing material. --Noleander (talk) 22:05, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Noleander—What source describes the overall topic? The topic is unsourced. Please don't provide me with "piecemeal" sourcing. Such sourcing would support the placement of any of the material in this article in one or more articles that are legitimately sourced—that is—sourced in their overall scope. This article is no more sourced than the Criticism of Judaism article. Consensus is all that holds either of these articles in place. Do you have a source that can tell us what is and is not included in an article with a title "Judaism and violence?" Does any source exist for "Judaism and violence" as a topic? If the topic is only a product of wishful thinking do you think there should be an article on it? You point out that there is an article Christianity and violence. Bear in mind that absolutely no Wikipedia policy ties articles together—one article's existence has no bearing on another article's existence. You say above that, "Why should Judaism be treated differently from the other religions in this encyclopedia?" The existence of one article does not create the obligation for another article to exist. Each article exists because merit for its existence has been found. You say that the topic is "notable." At WP:NOTE I find: "…if no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article." Please present the source that supports the topic "Judaism and violence." Also at that same page on notability I find, "This page in a nutshell: Wikipedia covers notable topics—those that have been 'noticed' to a significant degree by independent sources." Please show me where "Judaism and violence" is a topic that has been "…'noticed' to a significant degree by independent sources." Do you have any sources for the overall topic of this article? You say that, "...a person wishing to gather information on how religions relate to violence would be hard-pressed to hunt thru 100s of articles to gather the information together." The article is therefore original research. It is in violation of synthesis. That would be because sources have not assembled the material together any more than sources have assembled together in one place "Criticism of Judaism." These are articles that are made up. They "advance a position," which is the hallmark of WP:SYNTHESIS. This article is a beachhead just as the "Criticism of Judaism" article is. These articles advance a position because they don't have an existence in outside media prior to the existence that Wikipedia is giving them. Wikipedia is not supposed to create its own topics. Please provide me with the source for this topic. Bus stop (talk) 23:01, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree with Bus Stop because essay topics are editorially decisive and contravene WP:NPOV because they are inherently biased in scope. I think Noleander must acknowledge that this is an essay type article, and just because its content can be sourced, that does not mean the topic is notable. Bus Stop describes accurately why this article is not notable in its own right, since all the coverage it contains is either about Violence or Judaism. What Bus Stop has demonstrated is that Judaism and violence has no set definition: what this term means depends purely on editorial opinion. Unless you can provide a clear definition of what Judaism and violence means through the citation of significant coverage from reliable secondary sources, then what you think it means cannot be substantiated. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 17:02, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I think the secondary sources in the Judaism and violence#References section quite clearly establish the notability of the topic. In addition, the other "SomeReligion and violence" articles (which survived AfDs) show that wider WP community feels this class of articles meet WP notability requirements. There is a HUGE amount of literature on the relation between religion and violence (think Crusades, Inquisition, Islamic terrorism, Old Testament wars, Irish troubles, Middle East conflict, etc): clearly this encyclopedia needs to help readers find information on the topic. Eliminating the "someReligion and violence" articles would prevent readers from finding information about this very notable topic. Is our goal to hide information from readers? Or to help them find information? If the material in this article is somehow offensive (see WP:Not censored and WP:I don't like it) the best solution is to improve it by ensuring that the material is neutrally presented and has balancing material. --Noleander (talk) 17:17, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Noleander, Name one specific death connected to Purim festival (as a certain motivation)!Dutyscee (talk) 19:24, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I think the sources in the "Purim" section have that information, the Horowitz source primarily, but the other ones also. If you cannot find the details in the sources, post a note here and I'll type-in the text from the sources. --Noleander (talk) 19:40, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Noleander raises a good point that if "SomeReligion and violence" articles survived AfDs, than taking this article to there will likely get at best a no consensus. My RfC for outsiders doesn't seem to have given us additional wisdom. So far the best claim of policy vio is NOT#ESSAY. Am I missing something? Joe407 (talk) 06:15, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Just because WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, that does not mean it is a good idea to pretend that there are not problems with this article. I think you will find all essay topics lack (a) a balanced point of view, (b) a sourced definition for the topic itself, (c) editorial concensus as to what sub-topic should or should not included within its scope. You can't improve an essay topic, as is basically the editorial equivalent of a moneypit: the more effort is spent finding suitable content, the more the article is drawn into conflict with WP:NPOV. For instance, I would say that the relationship between Purim and violence is remote. I could understand the reliationship between violence and, say the St. Bartholomew's Day massacre or the Saint Valentine's Day massacre, but the relationship with religion is tenious. You won't find essay articles on Catholicism and violence even though some of history's worst attrocities were carried out during the Reconquista, the Spanish Inquisition or the French Wars of Religion, because violence and religion are seperate topics, and viloence has been in existence a long time before recorded religion did.

I appeal to editors here to see sense and to redirect their interest in this topic, and essay topics like it. Cease working on this essay, and arrange for its deletion. Work instead on well recognised topics which the soruces of this article can be moved to. The idea that violence, redemption, civilary, sacrifice etc can be related to religion is simply a literary trope known as Rhetorical criticism, but it not the basis for encyclopedic coverage of topics in a balanced way. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 19:37, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Noleander—please don't create (or perpetuate) articles on topics that are not found in sources. I'm asking you to present a source for "Judaism and violence." If no source can be presented for that topic then I don't think there should be an article by that name and on that topic. Topics for articles should preexist in the real world—Wikipedia should not be breaking new ground in the way that this article is attempting to do. This article advances a position. Reliable sources do not posit a general association between Judaism and violence. Please present sources establishing the existence of an association between Judaism and violence in reliable sources. Please don't do so in a piecemeal way. This article's premise is that there exists an association between Judaism and violence. Yet no source provides underpinning for a general premise that Judaism and violence are related. This article represents a beachhead in advancing the position that Judaism is associated with violence. Is there a source supporting the general notion that Judaism is associated with violence?

You say, "I think the secondary sources in the Judaism and violence#References section quite clearly establish the notability of the topic."

Please present a source on this Talk page. I have asked you before if you would please present a source on this Talk page for the overarching topic—"Judaism and violence." As you have not done so up to this point I assume such a source cannot be found.

You say, "In addition, the other "SomeReligion and violence" articles (which survived AfDs) show that wider WP community feels this class of articles meet WP notability requirements."

There is no such designation as "SomeReligion." Nor does Wikipedia policy tie articles to one another in any way. You refer to "this class of articles," yet no such "class of articles" exists. Not only does no such class of article exist, but there is nothing to be found in Wikipedia policy or guidelines that even remotely implies that the existence of one article in any way provides the rationale for the existence of another article. If you disagree please point us to a policy or a guideline in support of the notion that the existence of one article implies that a separate article should exist.

You say, "There is a HUGE amount of literature on the relation between religion and violence (think Crusades, Inquisition, Islamic terrorism, Old Testament wars, Irish troubles, Middle East conflict, etc): clearly this encyclopedia needs to help readers find information on the topic."

There is a huge amount of literature on a lot of things, but we should not be creating articles without support in reliable sources for the overall topic of a considered article. There has thus far been not one source presented for the topic "Judaism and violence," yet you inexplicably argue for Wikipedia to have an article on such a topic. Please present sources. Wikipedia requires sources. Sources provide the underpinning for articles. We should not be attempting to write articles without the option of recourse to sources. In the absence of sources on the overall topic this is creative writing and not worthy of being an encyclopedia entry. As policy says (at WP:NOTE): "…if no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article."

You say, "Eliminating the "someReligion and violence" articles would prevent readers from finding information about this very notable topic."

No one argued for the deletion of any other article. We are talking on this Talk page about this article. Only you are invoking the existence of other articles in an attempt to justify the existence of this article. Thus far you have not presented a single source establishing the topic of this article. The existence of another article has no bearing on this article. What occurs at another article in no way obligates this article to follow suit. Articles exist on Wikipedia as independent entities. If you feel that policy or guidelines even remotely suggests otherwise please bring that policy or guideline to our attention.

You say, "Is our goal to hide information from readers? Or to help them find information?"

Our goal is obviously not to hide information. I have not argued against the individual threads that are found within this article. But this article's general subject area is not found in any source. You are arguing for the writing of an article on a topic for which not even one source has been presented. The material as found in this article can be distributed to other articles. But please don't make a mockery of Wikipedia by helping the reader to find information on a topic if that topic cannot be shown to exist. Verifiable sources are the standard method by which we establish that topics exist.

You say, "If the material in this article is somehow offensive (see WP:Not censored and WP:I don't like it) the best solution is to improve it by ensuring that the material is neutrally presented and has balancing material."

No one said anything about material being offensive. Nor did anyone ever invoke the specter of censorship. I think you are doing so now for the first time. Creating articles on topics that do not exist is a misuse of Wikipedia's somewhat prodigious capacity to create reality where reality previously did not exist. Please present sources on this Talk page to support the general topic of this article. Please don't present piecemeal sources as might support individual threads within the article. Rather, please present sources supporting the overall topic of "Judaism and violence." Bus stop (talk) 01:44, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

BusStop: I take it your primary concern is that the article may not meet the WP notability requirement? The number of sources that discuss associations between Judaism and violence is very, very large. I added a few more sources that cover the topic into this article's References section. Can you look at them and see if they address your notability concerns? I would estimate that there are several hundred sources that discuss this topic, and this article is capturing the content from only a handful of them, so far. Regarding "sloppy editing", I concur that the article is not in great shape now, but it has not been around for very long, and there seems be be some steady progress at improving it. In any case, sloppy editing is no reason to delete an article. --Noleander (talk) 03:16, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Noleander—please present a source on this Talk page that supports the overall topic of "Judaism and violence" which we can all examine and evaluate. You say that, "The number of sources that discuss associations between Judaism and violence is very, very large." If that be the case, then please present one or two such sources on this Talk page. But please be clear about what I am asking for: I don't think we are interested in seeing sources for piecemeal support of various threads as may be found within this article. That is because I am not objecting to the individual components of the article. I have not examined them but I am assuming they are somewhat sourced. My objection, rather, is to the overall topic. That is because I have thus far not seen a source defining, describing, or even referring to the topic of the article. Therefore please try to bring sources that support a theme that Judaism is associated with violence. If such a source is not encompassing of all or most of what you wish to include in this article then I think that source would fail in its purpose, or at least that it would fail in the purpose that I think it must fulfill as a support for the overall topic of the article. Bus stop (talk) 07:15, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

• Comment I agree with Bus-stop here, Lacking a source specifically on the topic of "Judaism and Violence" it seems irrational to have and article on the topic as it only serves as dumping ground. How do we define Judaism and Violence? When are the actions of one Jewish Nut case who did something for religious reasons representative of Judaism as a whole? Are Israeli atrocity incidents "Judaism and violence? or are they merely casualties and in a War with where jews are involved? Is mutilation of male infants genitals violence or ritual? Are Sholom Schwartzbard or Yigal Amir an example of Judaism and violence or simply independent nutjobs? Does the title of Judaism and Violence count acts against jews as well? Is a pedophile abusing children in a Kibbutz commune an example of Jewish Violence? or A rabbi who kills his wife for cheating on him of Judaism and violence? WP:Synth is definitely being pushed here to the limit. Bring me a book similar to this one and I might reconsider my position, but right now this is pure synth with out a RS specifically covering the topic in depth and as a whole. BB7 (talk)The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 13:19, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
• Comment 2The perfect example of Why this article should not exist is the discussion above where the most ridculuous situtation and farce this is.

"No. As I explained in the edit summary when I removed it, Jericho and the other battles in Joshua were political wars not religious. Yes, the conquest of Canan was done by people who were religiously motivated but it was not a religious act, it was a political act done to secure a homeland"

This shows the splitting of hairs and improper synthesis going one here!BB7 (talk) The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 15:48, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

To at least my eyes, there doesn't seem to be necessarily sufficient sourcing to identify this particular idea, "Judaism and violence", as necessarily notable as per WP:N. Also, as an individual, I have serious reservations about using such a vague word as "violence" anyway. Would we seek to include material on Judaism and spousal abuse as well? We could based on the article title. An article on some of the individual "sub-topics", like for instance maybe "military history of Judaism" (?), might be notable enough for its own article. Otherwise, as others have said, the vague and ill-defined nature of the existing article title strikes me as being potentially very problematic, and, if possible, maybe best avoided. Other related topics which are sufficiently notable for inclusion in separate articles, or as separate articles, would be another topic altogether. John Carter (talk) 15:27, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Purim section

The only ones stating bad about Purim is on Nazi hate sites. Noleabnder, please stop pushing your biased agenda against peopleRS101 (talk) 01:38, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

RS101: there is already a section above in this Talk page about the Purim/Book of Esther section. The sources used for that section are academic sources, not web sites. Please read the sources more carefully. If you think the section does not belong in the article, could you explain what you think the scope of this article is, and why those particular sources do not fall within the scope? Thanks. --Noleander (talk) 01:50, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Noleander—you say above that, "If you think the section does not belong in the article, could you explain what you think the scope of this article is, and why those particular sources do not fall within the scope?" You created this article, and I don't believe that you, or anyone else, has ever provided a source for the topic, consequently nothing would be known about the "scope" of the article, as it is sources that provide an article with scope. Sources define a topic. At the same time sources establish that the outside world has taken notice of a given topic. But you have not shown that the outside world acknowledges a topic called "Judaism and violence". You have conceded that, "The only sources I have found are the ones listed in the article's Reference section. That is it. There are no more. I have no source titled 'Judaism and violence'. I have no more sources to offer you. None." Why is the article titled "Judaism and violence"? Is the title any less arbitrary than the "scope"? Bus stop (talk) 02:53, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

BusStop: Okay, then we need to make a decision. Either this article should be deleted, or it should be kept. What do you recommend of those two options? If your answer is "delete" then I suggest you file an AfD. If your answer is "keep" then we need to work together to define the scope/definition of this article. --Noleander (talk) 15:58, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Noleander, You reported Bus Stop on a noticeboard for so called "disruptive behaviour", How about your constant push for editwar? promoting one particular agenda (POV)RS101 (talk) 23:48, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

RS101: The Talk page is only for discussing the content of the article. See WP:Talk for details. If you have any thoughts on the sources of the Purim/Book of Esther material, please discuss the sources here in this section. For example, if you think the Horowitz book is not a reliable source, perhaps you could explain why it is not reliable. Thanks. --Noleander (talk) 00:16, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Purim and Book of Esther views

Why are the assumptions of one, maybe a handful, of people being used here to highlight the alleged "violent nature" of Purim? The festival is celebrated each year by hundreds of thousands of people across the world and if the festival truly induces violence, surely there should be much more current material on the subject available. If the level of violence is so miniscule, it does not deserve to be mentioned here. The attempt of a few academics who endevour to push for a positive link between Purim and the violent actions of not more than 10 people out of 10 million over the past 1,000 years is curious. There suggestions are not substantial enough for a section here. Horowitz and Auerbach do not even have their own pages on wikipedia! Chesdovi (talk) 20:05, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Your opinions on the relationship between violence and Esther/Purim are not relevant: WP reports what sources say. There is no WP policy that requires sources to have their own WP article. As you know, the WP:Notability requirement applies to articles, not material or sources within an article. You may be confusing it with the fact that some sources are rejected as Reliable because they are one-off blogs that are not referenced by any secondary sources. However, Horowitz is an academic source (professor at Bar-Ilan University in Israel). Furthermore, the significance of his material is ratified by the numerous secondary sources (see WP:Secondary source) that refer to his "Reckless rites" book. Of the hundreds of sources that refer to the book, it looks like many cite it as evidence of the relationship between violence and Esther/Purim; and many reject his thesis. Sources that disagree with Horowitz should be mentioned in the section, of course, and if you refer to the text at Talk:Judaism and violence/BookOfEstherPurimDraftText you will see that they are already included. Feel free to improve that text, or make it more balanced before we put it in the article. Also, don't forget that Horowitz's book (and the material that will be added) is also about the Book of Esther and the perception of Amalekites, not just Purim. --Noleander (talk) 00:25, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

By the way, there are several other sources on Purim/Esther/Amalakites. Here is one: Steven Bayme, Jewish arguments and counterarguments: essays and addresses, KTAV Publishing House, Inc., 2002: pp 75-80:

"For many centuries Purim nas been a source of both joy and embarassment for Jews. … Still others have challenged the doctrine of violence associated with the holiday… Martin Luther, for one, accused the Jews of bloodthirsty and vengeful spirit in the Book of Esther… [Luther] reflect[s] the close association of Purim with the biblical doctrine of war against the Amalek. The theme of Jewish violence against Haman and his supporters, the doctrine of Amalek, has caused Jews the greatest discomfort with the Book of Esther and the holiday with which it is associated…. Judaism teaches that violence is justified under certain circumstances - particularly defense against agression … Amalek, the rabbis argue, is the eternally irreconcilable enemy who represents a value system that promotes murder … Herein lies the enduring relevance of Purim. Agression must be stopped and evil eliminated…. The meaning of Purim is relevant to the question of the war in the Persian Gulf today [2002]…. [Saddam Hussein's] unprovoked Scud missle attacks against entirely civilian targets in Israel are reminiscent of Amaleks's treacherous attacks upon the … Israelites.... [several pages follow]." --Noleander (talk) 01:20, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Is it right to present or support the P/V (Purim/Violence) link with the views of arch anti-semite Martin Luther here? Chesdovi (talk) 12:05, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

No it is not appropriate to emphasize Luther's views in the body of the Esther/Purim section. If Luther is mentioned at all, it would be in the footnotes within direct quotes from the academic secondary sources. --Noleander (talk) 12:33, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Noleander—this article supposedly has a topic, or at least I think you have taken that position. If that is the case, then show me where in the source or sources that establish the topic is it mentioned that Purim and the Book of Esther are included? Bus stop (talk) 21:47, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Sure, some sources are:

Gopin, Marc, Between Eden and Armageddon: the future of world religions, violence, and peacemaking, Oxford University Press US, 2000, pp 52-53: "I have known many Orthodox rabbis, for example, who would be happy to ensure that a holiday such as Purim, with its obligatory reading of the Book of Esther, which cluminates with the slaughter of the people - including their children - who tried to exterminate the Jewish people, would never be used to justify the killing of anyone today. They certainly are deeply ashamed by Baruch Goldstein's mass murder at the Hebron mosque, which was inspired in part by Purim…. They can and do give moralistic sermons, and they can and do interpret the story in less violent terms…. The hermeneutic give and take of Purim is but one example of the way in which a deeply embedded tradition will not disappear even when many people reject its implicit message of violence…. It is not likely [that Purim would diminish in importance] in the current climate of religious revivalism, but it is possible that the violence of the story could be overshadowed with time by the numerous benevolent characteristics of the holiday, such as aiding the poor…. Jewish empowerment allows for a new hermeneutic that could centralize the violence of the story. If the political situation were to rapidly deteriorate, it is conceivable that Purim could become for radical Jews what Ramadan has become for radical Muslims in Algeria, a killing season…. Even the most radically pacifist Jews that I know do not eliminate this holiday, although they do not really know what to do with sacralized violence yet, and are now only evolving a spiritual and ritual reworking of traumatic and violent episodes."

Horowitz, Elliott S. (2006). Reckless rites: Purim and the legacy of Jewish violence. Princeton University Press. pp. 2–19, 107–146, 187–212, 213–247. ISBN 0691124914.

page 16: "This book deals not only with the theme of Amalek and responses - Christian as well as Jewish - to the book of Esther over the centuries, but also with Jewish violence connected with the holiday of Purim, from the early fifth century to the late twentieth."

page 19: "The first [part of this book] is devoted .. to the book of Esther … Was it a book that promoted cruel vengance…? Since according to Jewish law the Amalekites, including women and children, had to be utterly destroyed, thinking about Amalek involved … thinking about the possibilities of, and justifications for, Jewish violence. [The second part of this book includes discussion of] one specific form of Jewish violence over many centuries - the descration of the cross and other Christian images…. [chapter 8 is] devoted to violence against Christians, sometimes within the context of the Purim festiviy, in the 5th-7th centuries. Chapter 9 carries the subject of Purim violence into the medieval and early modern Europe, especially against the background of the often violent rites of Carnival."

Bayme, Steven, "Saddam, Haman, and Amalek", in Jewish arguments and counterarguments: essays and addresses, KTAV Publishing House, Inc., 2002: pp 75-80: "For many centuries Purim nas been a source of both joy and embarassment for Jews. … Still others have challenged the doctrine of violence associated with the holiday… Martin Luther, for one, accused the Jews of bloodthirsty and vengeful spirit in the Book of Esther… [Luther] reflect[s] the close association of Purim with the biblical doctrine of war against the Amalek. The theme of Jewish violence against Haman and his supporters, the doctrine of Amalek, has caused Jews the greatest discomfort with the Book of Esther and the holiday with which it is associated…. Judaism teaches that violence is justified under certain circumstances - particularly defense against agression … Amalek, the rabbis argue, is the eternally irreconcilable enemy who represents a value system that promotes murder … Herein lies the enduring relevance of Purim. Agression must be stopped and evil eliminated…. The meaning of Purim is relevant to the question of the war in the Persian Gulf today [2002]…. [Saddam Hussein's] unprovoked Scud missle attacks against entirely civilian targets in Israel are reminiscent of Amaleks's treacherous attacks upon the … Israelites...."

See also: Nirenberg, David, Communities of violence: persecution of minorities in the Middle Ages, Princeton University Press, 1998page 220:

"There is evidence … that Jews could use ritual violence to criticize the Christians in whose lands they dwelled An obvious example is Purim, on which see E. Horowitz, The Rite to Be Reckless ..; and for a late medieval Iberian example, S. Levy, "Notas sobre el 'Purrim de Zaragoza", Anuario do Filologia 5 (1979): 203-217."

See also Boustan, Ra'anan S., Violence, Scripture, and Textual Practice in Early Judaism and Christianity, BRILL, 2010, p. 218 "..Christians had grown apprehensive at what they perceived, not without reason, as the ill-will that Jews harbored against the Christian Church… Such concerns are already reflected in the legislation pased in 408 CE against the alleged Jewish practice of burning Haman in effigy on 'a form made to resemble the sainted cross' during the festival of Purim, which the authorities suspected was a gesture of ridicule aimed at the Savior himself…. And, indeed, a verse parody in Jewish Aramaic .. .which features Jesus Christ amid a host of Israel's enemies … justifying the punishment of Haman and bewailing their own cruel fates, may suggest that the dim view of Purim taken by Christian authorities was far from baseless."

Plus, there are around 200 secondary sources that reference the Horowitz source. --Noleander (talk) 03:24, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Noleander—I am not looking for a source for a component for the article. I am looking for a source that indicates that that component belongs in the article. Thus I am looking for a source on "Judaism and violence" which shows us that "Purim" and the "Book of Esther" is included in the topic of "Judaism and violence." You initiated the article so I would assume you have familiarity with the sources on "Judaism and violence." Please leave the part on "Purim" and the "Book of Esther" out of the article until you show us that "Purim" and the "Book of Esther" is included in the overall topic. Bus stop (talk) 05:22, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

No, the material will go in this article. Since you have not initiated an AfD, I presume you are resigned to the article's existence. What do you think the scope of the article is? I suggest the scope: "Material that discusses violence in relation to Judaism's texts, doctrines, leaders, and practices." What scope do you suggest for this article? Whatever (sensible) scope you propose, the material (above) on the Book of Esther will fall within the scope. --Noleander (talk) 05:49, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

It is not for you and I to "suggest" what is included under the title. It is for sources to establish what is included within "Judaism and violence." Can you show that "Purim" and the "Book of Esther" are included in the title that you have chosen for this article when you initiated it? Or is this article to be an undefined receptacle to be filled according to editorial discretion? Do you not think that we would benefit from having recourse to sources to guide us in this endeavor? Bus stop (talk) 06:03, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

The scope of WP articles is determined by consensus of the editors. There is no WP policy that requires the existence of an external source to define the scope of a WP article. --Noleander (talk) 06:17, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Noleander—you say, "The scope of WP articles is determined by consensus of the editors." Do you find that expressed on Wikipedia somewhere? I find the following in policy:

"Neutral point of view" is one of Wikipedia's three core content policies, along with "Verifiability" and "No original research." Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in Wikipedia articles. They should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should therefore familiarize themselves with all three. The principles upon which these policies are based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus.

The above is found at WP:NPOV. In light of the above, please explain to me how article scope is determined by editorial consensus. Bus stop (talk) 11:37, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I think the way it works is: once an article has been created (and passed the Notability test), the exact scope is defined by editors, using the WP:Consensus process. Although external sources can be used as references to provide guidance, ultimately the content of each article is determined on a case-by-case basis based on: (1) consensus of editors; (2) what is best for the readers; and (3) common sense. What do you think the scope of this article should be? --Noleander (talk) 05:45, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Noleander—you initiated this article. I haven't the foggiest idea what the scope of this article is. Neither do you. Neither does anyone else. You say that the scope of the article is determined by "what is best for the readers" and "common sense." Not true. Scope is determined by sources, especially in the face of editorial disagreement over what should be included and what should be excluded. Sources serve as recourse to resolve disagreements among editors. You don't have a source for "Purim and Book of Esther" falling within the scope of "Judaism and violence?" Fine—leave it out. Bus stop (talk) 06:24, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Sure, I have a great idea what the scope of this article is: it is "material that associates peace or violence with Judaism". Not only do I have a good idea, but other editors do also. For example, user Marokwitz has added quite a bit of material to the article. Your argument, as usual, is not logical. Following your logic, no material would be in the article (because there is no scope). Therefore the article would be empty. But several editors have added material, such as the "war" material or the "peace" material. As for sources, they are the same ones that I've pointed out to you eight times and you have - apparently - not read. For instance, what do you think of the Ian Lustick source? --Noleander (talk) 05:24, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

From the ANI post

I'm coming here from the ANI posting, and to recap what I think, I'm seeing problems with the text that Busstop removed, and that he may well be correct in his elisions. For example, per WP:UNDUE, who exactly is Elliott Horowitz that his views merit a paragraph in the article? As for the other sources, placing a keffiyah is not a violent act in and of itself, so that source does not support the text. Same with Frazer; the text does not discuss violence, it discusses whether or not the burning in effigy is an affront to Christians. What I am seeing is subtle original research and synthesis, and that the removals may well have been warranted. The fact that something is written in a text is not enough; it has to be pertinent to the article without any leaps or assumptions on the readers part and it needs to pass WP:UNDUE. -- Avi (talk) 06:22, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Your opinion on whether these items relate to violence is not relevant. If the sources say they relate to violence, it is appropriate for the article. Also, these issues (undue, horowitz, etc) were already discussed above in the Talk page, so there is no need to rehash them. And, why do you think Horowitz is the only source? Did you read the material that is under dispute? --Noleander (talk) 06:29, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I am reading the discussion above, and I am not convinced. Horowitz seems to be the only source you have linking Purim and violence outside of Martin Luther; the other examples you brought at ANI do not discussing a direct link between Purim and violence. Placing a keffiyah on an effigy is not a violent act, period. Even the burning quote you brought does not link violence with Purim, unless I missed it; it links affrontry and disrespect--but this is not the article "Judaism and disrespect". So, I reiterate, I do not believe you have sufficiently justified the text that was added. Furthermore, the fact that it was discussed above is insufficient--I see no consensus above, merely two people discussing the issues--one on either side. That doth not a consensus make, Noleander. -- Avi (talk) 06:34, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Um, I'm not sure what you are talking about. Did you read the sources Steven Bayme and Marc Gopin? Did you read the Horowitz book? The material is extremely well-sourced. --Noleander (talk) 06:38, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

• I see that rense.com has picked up on Horowitz--figures. Although I do note that the book was reviewed in Studies in Christian-Jewish Relations which does give it more credence than rense (although it is Berkley ). -- Avi (talk) 06:37, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
• Commentary's criticism, FWIW

Elliott Horowitz of Israel’s Bar-Ilan University devoted his Reckless Rites: Purim and the Legacy of Jewish Violence to the questionable claim that Purim has long been the occasion for outbreaks of Jewish animosity and even violence toward Christians. Horowitz based this bizarre thesis largely on the fact that Baruch Goldstein’s massacre of 29 Arabs in Hebron in 1994 occurred on Purim. In his review of the book for Commentary (June 2006), Hillel Halkin pointed out that the incidences of Jewish violence against non-Jews through the centuries are extraordinarily few in number and that the connection between them and Purim is more than tenuous.

— http://www.commentarymagazine.com/viewarticle.cfm/the-problem-with-purim-15348

• -- Avi (talk) 06:40, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
• Other believers in the theory, Pattern? -- Avi (talk) 06:41, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
  • http://radioislam.org/islam/english/jewishp/iran/iran_purim_massacre.htm.
  • http://www.ummah2.com/
• Horowitz defended by Elisheva Carlebach here http://www.commentarymagazine.com/viewarticle.cfm/violent-jews-11217 (Not his conclusion, but just the comparison to Toaff's debacle). -- Avi (talk) 06:46, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Umm, Im not sure what you are driving at. There are several sources besides Horowitz (and he alone has over 100 citations on Google Scholar for his Purim book!). Of course this material belongs in the article: we should be discussing how to best present it. --Noleander (talk) 06:49, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I'm still seeing Horowitz as a single voice, and not indicative of any scholarly understanding outside of his own. The supporters of his conclusion seem to be not fellow historians, but islamic websites and conspiracy theorists. While Horowitz is entitled to his opinion and his interpretation, it still seems to be a oner-person, WP:FRINGE-type belief which is not appropriate per WP:UNDUE. -- Avi (talk) 06:51, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

What did you think of the other sources in the deleted section? --Noleander (talk) 06:54, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Hold up? We are seriously trying to use Frazer as a source here? thats rich LOL The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 13:00, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Avi: What are your thoughts on the Steven Bayme and Marc Gopin sources? --Noleander (talk) 18:35, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Avi: have you had a chance to look at those sources listed above? As a demonstration of good-faith consensus-building, I've add a few more sources - you can see them at Talk:Judaism and violence/BookOfEstherPurimDraftText. The sources are:

• Steven Bayme - National Director of Jewish Communal Affairs at the American Jewish Committee, and holds the rank of Adjunct Professor at the Wurzweiler School of Social Work, Yeshiva University.
• E. Horowitz - Professor at Bar Ilan University
• Marc Gopin - Director of the Center for World Religions, Diplomacy and Conflict Resolution at George Mason University.
• Robert S. Robins - Professor at Tulane University
• Jay Y. Gonen - Professor at University of Cincinnati
• Boustan, Ra'anan S - Professor at UCLA
• Jerrold M. Post - Professor at The George Washington University

and their books are published by:

• Princeton University Press
• Oxford University Press
• Yale University Press
• Univ of Wisconsin Press

So I think we really need to move on to finalizing the wording in this material. If you think the material is too large, per the WP:Undue policy, perhaps the text could be tightened-up. Feel free to improve the text in that draft subpage. --Noleander (talk) 16:43, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Seeing no reply in five days, I will insert the new, improved version of the section (see above) that includes additional sources. --Noleander (talk) 17:01, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I know you are not Jewish, so you are likely ignorant of the fact that it was a holiday last week and Orthodox Jews could not edit, obviously. I will attempt to look at some of your sources over the next few days. -- Avi (talk) 17:32, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I had no idea you were absent. Go ahead and take a few days to review the sources (the are in Talk:Judaism and violence/BookOfEstherPurimDraftText). Also, when you reverted, you also removed a lot of "War" material that was added, so I've restored that (but left the Esther material out) since it is not at issue. --Noleander (talk) 17:44, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about that, thanks for fixing it! -- Avi (talk) 17:48, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Some notes:

Horowitz

discussed above

Bayme

The very quote you bring describes Purim as "defense against aggression … Amalek, the rabbis argue, is the eternally irreconcilable enemy who represents a value system that promotes murder … Herein lies the enduring relevance of Purim. Agression must be stopped and evil eliminated…" This describes the story of Purim as self-defense and the repudiation of violence as a way of life (Amalek), so this source foes not support the thesis outside of original research.

Nirenberg

Solely based on Horowitz and not a separate source.

do Filologia

Solely based on Horowitz and not a separate source.

Boustan

Does not discuss violence at all. Solely if the burning in effigy of Haman has any relationship to Jesus and as such would be considered an insults. Insults do not equal violence outside of original research.

So I have yet to see a source outside of Horowitz that champions the thesis that Purim is a holiday of violence. Horowitz is entitled to his opinion, to be sure, but it still seems to be a solitary opinion not corroborated by any other scholarly work (and clearly disagreed with by others) and so in my opinion it remains WP:UNDUE. I would like to hear others' opinions on this as well, as you and I, Noleander, are just two of many interested editors :). Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 21:17, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, input from other editors would be great (my goal is to finish adding content soon, so I can devote my time to providing third-party input to RfCs  :-). By the way, you may have overlooked a few sources in Talk:Judaism_and_violence/BookOfEstherPurimDraftText, namely: Ian Lustick, Robert Robins, and Alistair Hunter (quoting Arthur Waskow). And you may want to double-check the Bayme source: he does discuss the relation between Esther/Purim and violence before discussing the self-defense issue. Also, the material is not about "Purim" alone: it includes Esther/Purim/Amalek. As for "undue weight", I have no objection to shortening the text to de-emphasize the topic: I think the section was originally only 2 or 3 sentences long, and other editors expanded it into three paragraphs. --Noleander (talk) 05:00, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Noleander—you have complained in ANI that I am not engaging in dialogue with you on the Talk page but you abandoned the discussion at "Purim and Book of Esther views." after I asked you to, "…please explain to me how article scope is determined by editorial consensus." Bus stop (talk) 05:35, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about that, that ANI sub-heading caused me to lose the thread. I've replied above. --Noleander (talk) 05:45, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Why are "Roman wars" under the "Biblical wars" section?

The roman wars were much later than the biblical era. Should those sections be re-organized somehow? --Noleander (talk) 13:42, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I changed the "Biblical war" section title to "Judaism and war" in a tentative attempt to fix it. --Noleander (talk) 14:41, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

"Types of wars" section needs more clarity

The "types of war" section is a bit vague on "discretionary wars" vs "war by commandment", in particular: which is being described in verses Deut 20:16-18? Also, this needs to be related to Amalekites and Midianites, since they are apparently subject to Duet 20:16. Also, more detail on the Midianite violence should be included. --Noleander (talk) 14:40, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

There are quite a few sources that discuss the commandment to exterminate other ethnic groups, such as the Canaanites. Sometimes the sources address only the Canaanites, sometimes they address the broader commandment of holy war against several other groups (Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites). Other ethnic groups mentioned in these sources include Midianites, Amalekites, and Shechemites. Usually Deuteronomy 20:16-18 is the focus, but there are several Biblical passages that are quoted by the sources. Much of the material addresses the ethics of collective punishment. Another common theme in the sources was that the purpose behind the commandment was to avoid having the Israelites lapsing back into idolatry. I'm planning on putting this material in a new subsection under Religious Wars in the Bible. --Noleander (talk) 04:16, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I've found sources that describe the various Canaanite/Midianite wars in detail, and I've assembled it into a few subsections within the existing "Wars" section. --Noleander (talk) 17:04, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Lead POV

I would like to revert this edit. I removed the sentence in question because, while it is sourced, is a POV statement biasing the article (and hence the reader) to view Judaism as an inherently pro-peace religion. Thoughts? Joe407 (talk) 13:06, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Are there inherently pro-peace religions and inherently opposed-to-peace religions? I don't know the answer to the question. I am just asking. Bus stop (talk) 13:18, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I think everyone is pro-peace as its always the "other side" that wants to continue the fight. Sarcasm aside, Not really if you look at the entire religion. Buddhism Leapt to mind orignially but there are the those warrior monks. So no I dont think that is a good quote to use the way it used to support an original conclusion The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 13:25, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Joe, the sentence does not present Judaism as an inherently pro-peace religion, I believe you might have misread it. It says: "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". This is very neutral and completely in line with the text of the article itself. Wikipedia policy WP:LEDE states that the lead should properly summarize the article, and the article does have a prominent section about "Rejection of Violence and Pursuit of Peace". Marokwitz (talk) 13:34, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

New section on death penalty (main link to Capital and corporal punishment (Judaism) )

I'm planning on adding a small section on violence in relation to the death penalty. This is already covered in article Capital and corporal punishment (Judaism) but it warrants a small section here with a "main" template linking to that article. --Noleander (talk) 20:15, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

It will be interesting to see what you come up with. Capital punishment through judicial process does not strike me as a violent act. Chesdovi (talk) 20:40, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

It sounds like this would actually help define the scope of the article nicely. "Judaism and stuff that makes people go Ouch!" Joe407 (talk) 20:04, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

How would it "help define the scope of the article"? The scope of the article should exist from the outset. The article has a title: "Judaism and violence." That is the topic of the article. Sources for that topic would "define the scope of the article," would they not? The question is: What do sources for that topic say? What do they say is included in that topic? What do they say is not included in that topic? The answers to those questions would provide you with a scope for the article. Anything else is just conjecture. Anything else is just making this stuff up as you go along. I am of the opinion that the article shouldn't be an indiscriminate dumping ground for anything consensus wishes to put in the article. On the contrary, the article should be constructed according to a disciplined following of what sources say is included in the topic of "Judaism and violence." Bus stop (talk) 20:33, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Legal capital punishment is not considered violence, except to its detractors, and that is properly handled in Capital punishment, more specifically in Capital punishment debate. -- Avi (talk) 20:29, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

But then again, I am sure Nolander will provide the necessary sources, reliable beyond question. Chesdovi (talk) 20:50, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

That is irrelevant, Chesdovi. I'm sure there are discussions and opinions Judaism's capital punishment laws, but even if they are unique to Judaism, that should be handled in Religion_and_capital_punishment#Judaism or Capital and corporal punishment (Judaism), not here. "Scope creep", in general, is deleterious to the project, in my opinion. -- Avi (talk) 21:06, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps I should have been more specific: the planned material is about stoning, strangulation, and burning (which are often, but not always, mentioned in relation to punishment) in the Tanakh and Talmud. Although some of the material is in the Capital and corporal punishment (Judaism) article, it would be helpful to readers to have a brief summary of it here, as suggested by WP:Summary style. --Noleander (talk) 05:07, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I disagree, Noleander, as those are three of the four prescribed methods of capital punishment, so they are not "violence" per se. Summary Style is how we take large articles with applicable information and split them, not how to add unrelated information. Discussions of capital punishment in Judaism belong in Religion_and_capital_punishment#Judaism or Capital and corporal punishment (Judaism) and discussions of capital punishment in general should be at Capital punishment or Capital punishment debate. I continue to maintain that legally prescribed and implemented capital punishment is not violence and unrelated to this article. -- Avi (talk) 06:02, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Avi, legally prescribed and implemented physical punishment does not fall under the definition of "violence". Marokwitz (talk) 13:00, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Can we, as per John Carter above, include information of "Judaism and spousal abuse"? I'm sure there are many documented cases of Jews who beat their spouses. Perhaps a list of notable abusers? 62.219.212.27 (talk) 10:34, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Most certainly. I have statred Judaism and bus stops to document the relationship between the two. In fact, thousands of Jews use bus stops, so they've got to be connected.... Chesdovi (talk) 13:36, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Article rename without discussion?

Marokwitz: The note a the top of the article suggests that substantial changes be discussed first. What are the pros and cons of the candidate titles? --Noleander (talk) 15:01, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

1. Wikipedia encourages bold edits.
2. I resolved the concerns of other editors who tagged the article with the "POV-Title" tag.
3. The new title more accurately summarizes the scope of the article, which discusses the attitudes of Judaism to peace and violence.
4. WP:NDESC states clearly, "choose titles that do not seem to pass judgment, implicitly or explicitly, on the subject".

Do you have any arguments against the title? Marokwitz (talk) 15:22, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Well said Markowitz. I still think that this article is an essay and as such unsuited for WP, but at the least it is now balanced (comparing it to the early versions) and the title change reflects the balance. Joe407 (talk) 07:59, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Markowitz: I suppose the new title could be good, provided we are agreeing on what the scope of the article is. Are you suggesting that the article contains material related to peace, violence, wars, pacifism, and hostility in Judaism's doctrines, texts, and history? --Noleander (talk) 14:08, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, except the last word (History) which I don't accept. Wars in Jewish history are not necessarily related to the religion (Judaism). The scope should be confined solely to religiously mandated wars. (For example in the Christian world we would cover the crusades, but not other wars that happened to involve Christians). Marokwitz (talk) 07:08, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good. Thanks for replying. --14:11, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I notice several editors in the AfD are suggesting that "Judaism and violence" is a better title. They have some good points. Would you object to going back to "Judaism and violence" until we have consensus? If nothing else, it would be consistent with the other "SomeReligion and violence" articles, until we can discuss it further. --Noleander (talk) 12:22, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I moved it to "Violence in Judaism" so at least is is halfway consistent with Islam and violence and Christianity and violence and Religion and violence. But I still propose to re-name back to Judaism and violence, based on comments at the AfD. I think the original move away from Judaism and violence was done without consensus. --Noleander (talk) 12:46, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Huh?! I thought that finally we have clear consensus here. The raised argument is irrelevant, see WP:OTHERSTUFF. It is clear that the new name better summarized the article and better matched the WP:NDESC policy. I attempted another move. I don't mind either this name or "Peace and violence in Judaism". Marokwitz (talk) 13:26, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

As long as there is a consensus that the article contains information about attiudes towards peace and non-violence, the title should reflect this. Joe407 (talk) 19:37, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely, I think that we are in agreement on that. Marokwitz (talk) 19:51, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, based on the issues raised in the AfD, there is not consensus. But, we can leave this article alone focusing on "war" and use the "Violence" article as a higher-level article, I suppose. But we are doing a disservice to readers. --Noleander (talk) 21:30, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Since this article is now now limited war (by the way, that sort of change should have been discussed first on the Talk page, no?) I've moved the non-war material into Judaism and violence. That article's title is consistent with what the broader WP community has established for this type of material. Apparently the title is a bit offensive to a few editors, but the other "SomeReligion and violence" articles have been around for awhile, and the wider WP community has settled on those names. --Noleander (talk) 21:40, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

How about "Violence and peace in Judaism" ... that seems to meet all the requirements: it includes "peace", and it is sort of similar to the other "SomeReligion and violence" articles; and it includes war and non-war topics. Thoughts? --Noleander (talk) 00:16, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Comment. We might want to hold all name changes and article moves until the AfD closes. The exception would be if there is a major scope/content change that would affect the AFD. Joe407 (talk) 01:52, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Word "herem" for wars

Marokwitz: several of the academic sources discuss the word "herem" in relation to the religious wars. At the moment, the article has no mention of the term, or even a link to the herem article. I think some connection needs to be made. Can you suggest a way to let the readers know about the association? --Noleander (talk) 14:14, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

The common interpretation is "uncompromising consecration of property and dedication of the property to God without possibility of recall or redemption". This is not directly related to the topic of the article. Can you provide a source to back up what you are saying? I reviewed the sources before removing, and didn't succeed to verify the relation. Marokwitz (talk) 17:50, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry if I screwed up the citations in that "herem" sentence. I work hard to make sure that citations are super-accurate, but I must have had a brain-fart. Here are some sources that use the word in that "war/extermination" sense (I understand that the word has 3 or 4 definitions):

• The ethics of war: shared problems in different traditions By Richard Sorabji, David Rodin page 109 "War against the Canaanites is based on the herem, or holy ban; it is a war of extermination that knows no bounds (verses 15-18) … however 'normal' war is subject ot several restraints …"

• Haftarot: the traditional Hebrew text with the new JPS translation By Michael A. Fishbane page 246: "By way of solution we may reconsider the term herem, used verbally in our text to refer to the proscription or utter ban and extermination of all Amalekite life and property. Technically, the herem is a devoted thing, proscribed for human use … [a rule applied to the Amalekites] who were not part of the seven Canaanite nations, in combination with the rule to exterminate the inhabitants of surrounding cities who might incite the people to idolatry where the term herem is used, …

• "Remember Amalek!": vengeance, zealotry, and group destruction in the Bible ... By Louis H. Feldman page 2: "The two greatest prophets of ancient Israel, Moses and Samuel, were each associated with the herem [decree of extermination]..." (bracketed definition is in the book)

• Deuteronomy: issues and interpretation By Alexander Rofé page 226: "But the most characteristic and outstanding of the laws of war in Deuteronomy is the law of herem, the ban (Deut 20:15-18) …"

• Deuteronomy By Gary Harlan Hall page 152: "The defeat of the nations would be the work of God and Israel would be delivered … Israel was also to treat these nations under the herem principle … However herem in this passage seems to convey a nuance different from 'destroy them totally'."

• Between Eden and Armageddon: the future of world religions, violence, and ... By Marc Gopin page 232: (Glossary): "Herem laws - Biblical laws that mandated extermination of the population of ancient Israel who were determined to be irredeemably corrupt and idolatrous. …"

• The encyclopedia of religion and war By Gabriel Palmer-Fernández page 184 (an entire article on "The Herem"):"The second sense of the term [herem] refers to the absolute destruction of that which is abominable to the God of Israel…. All livestock must also be destroyed, … its buildings must be destroyed…"

Anyway, my goal was to have a link to the herem article so readers could read more detail, if they wanted. --Noleander (talk) 18:26, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

"herem in this passage seems to convey a nuance different from 'destroy them totally'." ---> My point exactly. It is inaccurate to say that it means "extermination". The common interpretation is "uncompromising consecration of property and dedication of the property to God without possibility of recall or redemption", which is very different from "extermination". It deals with consecration of all looted goods. Marokwitz (talk) 09:24, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Many sources do use the word to mean extermination. How about something like "The word herem, which normally means ...., is sometimes used .." or "herem, which means [primary def] is also used in the Torah to mean wars .. " . The goal is to provide readers with links so they can learn more detail if they desire. --Noleander (talk) 12:30, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

"According to many sources" and "normally means" and "sometimes used" are Unsupported attributions, or weasel words. Marokwitz (talk) 13:42, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not following your logic: why is it you don't want a link to that article? Many, many academic sources connect the word "herem" to wars of extermination. Your personal opinion on the association (or lack thereof) is not relevant. The Herem article, in its lead paragr gives one definition as ""the total destruction of the enemy and his goods at the conclusion of a campaign". I've put a simple "See also" link, but I don't think that is best for readers: there is no context. I've proposed several wordings that I think are okay ... can you suggest one? --Noleander (talk) 00:21, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Herem actually refers to property disposition; whether it be war spoils or family estates disbursed by Joshua (see Leviticus 27:21) As such, it really isn't appropriate here. -- Avi (talk) 17:00, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Your opinion on the meaning of the word is not relevant. Dozens of academic sources (see list above for some) use the word to describe wars of extermination (granted, it has other definitions as well). There is no harm in giving readers a link to go read the herem article for more detail. I'm open to alternative phrasings at the link so the reader is not misled. But eliminating the herem link altogether is not rational. --Noleander (talk) 18:59, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Maro/Avi/Steven: The herem article in its lead paragraph gives "war of extermination" as its 2nd definition; and dozens of academic sources use it that way. Of course a link is good for readers. There must be some hidden issue that I am missing: what is it? --Noleander (talk) 23:32, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Just to clarify, you're talking about the new article herem that's an obvious, blatant POV fork of cherem, right? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 23:52, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Hardly! The Cherem article refers to the censure in Judaism, developed in Talmudic times. It's quite distinct from the biblical herem. StAnselm (talk) 02:44, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Steve: Let's stay on topic here: This talk page is for the Peace/war article (if anyone wants to discuss herem vs cherem, please use those Talk pages ... I have no opinion whatsoever on whether they get merged or not). Steve: can you explain why, when so many academic sources use the word "herem" to mean "war of extermination", you think the link to the herem article should be hidden from users? Does that word have some obscure, offensive meaning I'm not aware of? --Noleander (talk) 03:00, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

See Talk:Cherem#Merge_Herem_into_this_article. -- Avi (talk) 16:44, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Archive missing?

Marokwitz: I think there used to be an archive #1 for this Talk page ... it may have gotten misplaced during the re-name process. --Noleander (talk) 18:31, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Bumping this. --Noleander (talk) 00:14, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Religious wars

Yes, except the last word (History) which I don't accept. Wars in Jewish history are not necessarily related to the religion (Judaism). The scope should be confined solely to religiously mandated wars. (For example in the Christian world we would cover the crusades, but not other wars that happened to involve Christians). Marokwitz (talk) 07:08, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good. Thanks for replying. --14:11, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

The above exchange raises a good question. What wars should be included here? How do you distinguish between Jewish wars and wars fought by Jews? Joe407 (talk) 13:06, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

That is a good question. Certainly wars described in Judaism's religious texts, particularly in the Torah, qualify. As for wars outside the Tanakh (for instance wars with Romans) that is a tougher question: I would say if Judaism's religious precepts or religious leaders were somehow fundamentally involved in the initiation or motivation for the war (on behalf of either belligerent), that would make it qualify. And, of course, there is a requirement that a reliable source associate the war with Judaism: without that, it cannot be in the article. --Noleander (talk) 13:15, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Why is a war in the bible automatically a religious war? What about King David's wars to expand his kingdom? They were purely political and he is even downplayed in religious sources as having bloodied his hands unnecessarily. Joe407 (talk) 02:01, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Who said anything about limiting it to "religous wars"? Certainly if a war is mentioned in the Torah, the most fundamental text, it deserves mention in the article, regardless of the context within the Torah. More importantly: your (and my) opinion as editors is irrelevant. If the sources describe the wars in relation to Judaism, that is what this article should reflect. There is no need for us to impose our own litmus tests. --Noleander (talk) 02:41, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Be careful not to conflate Jews and Judaism, Noleander. Hitler was Christian, that does not make World War II a Christian war. Similar for political wars waged by Jewish historical figures. If this article is about Judaism and wars, then it should be restricted to milchemes mitzva (Divinely/biblically required wars) and the laws regarding milchemes reshus (the guidelines that govern permitted and forbidden activities during non-divinely-required wars (the Clausewitz types, if you will, in that they are extensions of politics--not religion)—not those kinds of conflicts themselves. Judaism, being an all-encompassing religion, does have guidelines on how to wage the "optional" wars, and that is appropriate for this article, but the actual conflicts themselves are not, as they are the results of state politics, not religion. -- Avi (talk) 16:52, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Well said Avi. The reason I want clarity on this point is that without it the article become as was best stated in the AFD "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.". This is why I'd like to rename the article "War in Jewish law" or "Biblical warfare" or "Moderen Israeli warfare" or anything that clearly defines the scope of the topic. Lack of this clarity is the reason the article is up for AfD in the first place. Joe407 (talk) 18:48, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Avi: Congratulations, you just fulfilled (or broke :-) Godwin's law! Anyway, I think we are in 100% agreement: wars should only be in this article if sources associate them with Judaism, not merely Jewish peoples. I think I said that clearly above, but perhaps you misread my comment. On the other hand, the phrase "religious wars" or "wars related to Jewish law" are editor-created phrases. The sources rarely use terms like that. If a source associates a war (or a peaceful doctrine, for that matter) with Judaism, it is very clear in the source. We cannot require the source to use some magical phrase like "religious war". --Noleander (talk) 19:09, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

"Extermination"? Huh???

What does "extermination" mean if you are allowed to leave peaceful Canaanites alive?

See : http://bible.cc/numbers/33-55.htm They were required to "drive out the inhabitants of the land." AKA - Cleansing. The terminology "extermination" can only be applied to the Amalekites!!! The Talmud asserts that we can NOT tell today in age who's really an Amalekite!.Marias87 (talk) 17:20, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

The sources use a variety of wording to describe the wars that are mandated in Deut 20:16-18. The word "extermination" seems to be the most common phrase ("genocide" and "utter destruction" are also used), but if you can demonstrate that another appellation is more common, bring the sources. --Noleander (talk) 18:22, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Just because someone used the term doesn't it alter the original text, I posted the exact translation from the first source - the Bible. But only the words destroy and drive out appear.Marias87 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:36, 20 October 2010 (UTC).

There are many English translations of the Tanakh: should we use the King James or NIV? Better is to use the phrase that the secondary sources use when they discuss that particular kind of war (rather than the text that appears in the Torah itself). The secondary sources use several phrases, and "extermination" seems to be most common. --Noleander (talk) 22:16, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean when you say "seems to be most common"? This sounds like original research to me. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 22:29, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally, Noleander, why did you misquote the content of Deutoronomy 25:19 when you made this edit, claiming, that it contains a command to "destroy the seed of Amalek"? As you can see here, the actual verse is translated as "erase" or "blot out" the "memory" of Amalek. This is true in every translation. To be clear, the Hebrew words are תִּמְחֶה֙ (timcheh - "blot out" or "erase") and זֵ֣כֶר (zecher - "memory" or "name") (word-by-word translation here). There is no translation of this verse that has anything to do with "destroy(ing) the seed" of anyone or anything. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 23:37, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

That is a direct quote from Maimonides, where he discusses Deut 25:19. He is paraphrasing the "blot out the memory" and he words it as "destroy the seed of". Many sources that discuss the 613 commandments use Maimonides' phrasing. --Noleander (talk) 01:08, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, after poking around a little I found that. In any case, quotes from Maimonides should be sourced to Maimonides, and quotes from the Bible should be sourced to the Bible. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 05:23, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree. I tried to improve the text to attribute the "seed" quote to Maim, in addition to the Deut translation. I get the impression that some of the 613 commandments are better known by a paraphrase than by the underlying verse in the Torah. --Noleander (talk) 05:25, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Introduction

• I am quoting here a few lines that are very relevant to your article:

There are three forms of obligatory wars: against the seven Canaaanite nations, against Alamalek, and agianst a nation that has launched an attack. The first two forms are no longer relevant. The seven Canaanite nations no longer exist and the command to destroy them cannot be transferred to other nations... However, the third form, against a nation that has launched an attack, remains relevant. Jews are commanded to defend themselves as part of the Mitzvah to preserve life.... before attacking a city an offer of peace must be extended. According to Maimonides, "We are enjoined that if we wage war on them we are to make a covenant with them to spare their lives ...

"Teaching Mitzvot: Concepts, Values, and Activities," Barbara Binder Kadden, Bruce Kadden. Behrman House, Inc, 1990, p. 241. ISBN: 0867050802. Marias87 (talk) 01:24, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Article names

While there are many opinions as to whether they should or should not have been kept, after numerous AfDs, we have 3 related articles: Peace and war in Judaism, Judaism and violence, & Judaism and peace. Before we start with edit wars regarding both article names and content, I'd like to open up a discussion here (Talk:Peace and war in Judaism) as to article names. A separate thread will be opened regarding the scope of each article. In both of these threads I am asking editors to put aside (for now) the question of whether a given article should be deleted and focus on clrifying what we have now.

1. What should each article be named?
2. What form / synonym of the word peace should be used? Peace, non-violence, passivity, Shalom?
3. What form / synonym of the word violence should be used? War, violence, aggression, milchama?

Joe407 (talk) 13:27, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I would stick with English words. The word "violence" is rather generic, and used by many sources, so it should be used for the Judaism and violence article. Plus, it is more consistent with Christianity and violence, Islam and violence, Mormonism and violence, etc. I would leave the titles as-is, except re-name Peace and war in Judaism to Judaism and war. --Noleander (talk) 22:06, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Deuteronomy issues

Some verses in Deut 20 are cited as evidence of genocide. This is a primary source that the editors are using to make this inference. But the verses have been cherry-picked to illustrate this point of view. Deut 20 begins "When you take the field against your enemies..." implying first of all that the victims of this supposed "genocide" are actually "enemies". God is quoted as saying (Deut 20:10) "When you approach a town to attack it, you shall offer it terms of peace." Deut 20:12 "If it does not surrender to you , but would join in battle with you, you shall lay siege to it;" In Deut 20:20 God refers to these people as "the city that is waging war against you." Nor is there any mention of Deut 20:18 - which says that the enemy is guilty of "abhorrent things that they have done for their gods." Is there any evidence outside of this primary source that such a battle even took place? There is nothing in this article at all referring to a battle of enemies who committed atrocities, nor any offers of peace; instead it is followed by a litany of "scholars and commentators" asserting that this was an example of an early genocide. This article cherry-picks verses to present a particular view. To me this is anti-Jewish propaganda, with references. JuJubird (talk) 05:25, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

JuJubird: you added two "citation needed" tags. The source was Van Wees, and that source was identified in the footnote immediately preceding the tagged bullets (it is not so clear now, since you added a sentence between the footnote and the bullets). --Noleander (talk) 05:07, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Article Scope

While there are many opinions as to whether they should or should not have been kept, after numerous AfDs, we have 3 related articles: Peace and war in Judaism, Judaism and violence, & Judaism and peace. Before we start with edit wars regarding both article names and content, I'd like to open up a discussion here (Talk:Peace and war in Judaism) as to article scope. In both of these threads I am asking editors to put aside (for now) the question of whether a given article should be deleted and focus on clrifying what we have now.

1. What should be the scope of the Judaism and violence article be?
2. What should be the scope of the Judaism and peace article be?
3. What should be the scope of the Peace and war in Judaism article be?

Joe407 (talk) 13:27, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I think the precise scope needs to be determined by the sources. For example, if a reliable secondary source makes an association between peace and Judaism, then that material would be appropriate for the Judaism and peace article. Ditto for the violence article and the war article. We do not need to, here in the Talk page, define "peace" or "violence" or "war" for purposes of the article scope: their standard meanings are sufficient. --Noleander (talk) 22:11, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

How do you devide up the information among the three articles? Do we repeat information? Summarize in one, elaborate in the other? Joe407 (talk) 04:52, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

That is a good question. My recommendation is that the Violence article and Peace article 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. --Noleander (talk) 04:57, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Noleander—I don't think any editor should determine what a scope should be for an article. In fact I don't think a group of editors should decide upon a scope. "Scope" should, in essence, be dictated to Wikipedia by sources. I do not feel that something as basic as the scope of an article should be decided upon by something as mercurial as consensus. It is an axiom of Wikipedia that consensus can change. What is ideally called for is a source for each of these articles that spells out the scope of each article. Bus stop (talk) 20:51, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Why are you addressing your comments to me? Joe407 asked the question. In any case, as I said above: "I think the precise scope needs to be determined by the sources." --Noleander (talk) 21:49, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, so please bring the wording down here, from sources, which begins to shed some light on what the scopes are for these 3 articles. Bus stop (talk) 22:49, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I would only comment that I think that what is required is not one reliable secondary source, but two, which would better meet notability standards. So, ideally, I think what we would want would be to see a basic agreement from two RS's independent of each other on how to define each of the terms. John Carter (talk) 23:25, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Was there ever any resolution on this? I think editor Joe407 was trying to establish some sensible relationship between these three articles. A proposal was made above on a division, but there wasn't any ratification. --Noleander (talk) 05:07, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I reviewed the three articles again. I think that the creation of Judaism and peace was a good idea, and as a consequence, one possibility is to eliminate Peace and war in Judaism and just utilize two articles Judaism and violence and Judaism and peace. On the other hand, three articles are not a bad thing, especially if we thought there would (eventually) be a lot of material specifically on war (which would argue for the preservation of Peace and war in Judaism). --Noleander (talk) 05:20, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

But how then would we differentiate between Judaism and violence and Peace and war in Judaism? Consider the analogous situation vis-a-vis Christianity. We have Christian pacifism and Christianity and violence. Would it make sense to have Peace and war in Christianity as well? --Richard S (talk) 09:32, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Merge with Judaism and violence?

This article is 77kb long. The "Judaism and war" section is 52kb long. The "Warfare" section of Judaism and violence is 55kb 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 Judaism and violence were the main article and this was the subsidiary detail article but that would suggest that the "Warfare" section of the Judaism and violence article would be a summary of this article. If that is the intent, then the "Warfare" section in Judaism and violence should be something more like 10-15kb long. Comments? --Richard S (talk) 09:18, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Oops... I just noticed that this was discussed earlier in the section titled "Article scope". I had read the archives of Talk:Judaism and violence but had failed to read this Talk Page. I would support merging this article into Judaism and violence and Judaism and peace and then deleting this article altogether. Anybody object? --Richard S (talk) 09:22, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Discussion is continuing at Talk:Judaism and violence. See there for proposed changes to this article. --Noleander (talk) 16:10, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Proposed move to Judaism and war

Per the discussion at Talk:Judaism and violence, we think this article should be renamed to Judaism and war to be the complement to Judaism and peace. Judaism and violence will serve as the top-level summary article which will contain short summaries of both articles as well as links to them. --Richard S (talk) 00:43, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Since there has been no comment in 5 days and this move has been discussed with no objection at Judaism and violence, I will make this move if there is no objection raised in the next 24 hours. --Richard S (talk) 22:17, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Judaism and war is fine as long as the scope and content of the article reflects the title. This means no non-war violence such as individual acts, capital punishment, Jewish assassinations, Lex talonis, or sermons by Rabbi Yosef. This shouldn't be a problem as at the moment, most of this stuff is in J&V but I wanted to be clear on this point. The only question would like to hear editors thoughts on before moving/renaming this article is how you plan on defining "Jewish"? Do you define it by the people (Jews waged war X) or by the religion (Judaism mandates war Y) or both? And how do you classify the modern state of Israel? If we could please clarify this before changing I think it will save us all headache in the future. Joe407 (talk) 06:23, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Good questions. I think this article (soon to be renamed to Judaism and war) should be about the relationship between the Judaic religion (from the time of Moses onward) and war. Thus, it would cover stuff like alleged genocide in the Old Testament to (possibly) Jewish rebellion against the Romans through modern-day positions of Judaism towards war (mostly Israel vs. the Arab world). Now, I understand that there is a question as to whether modern-day Israel represents Judaism (which it doesn't) or is a Jewish state governed by Judaic laws (which it isn't exactly either). I think the military acts of Israel belong in a different article. However, to the extent that notable rabbis have been involved in the debates over military action, that belongs in this article. (NB: I think this article should not focus on specific instances of Jews waging war. Instead, it should focus on the role that the Judaic religion played in supporting (or opposing) those acts of war. The key point here is that Judaism does not claim to be a pacifist religion. Instead, it allows violence in self-defense. --Richard S (talk) 06:50, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with both Joe and Richard's comments above. The big improvement from the rename is that we avoid having two articles on "Peace": this article and Judaism and peace. I think this article already has good coverage of war: the problem is that the peace information is entirely duplicated verbatim in a second article. --Noleander (talk) 13:55, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Richard - "alleged genocide in the Old Testament to (possibly) Jewish rebellion against the Romans through modern-day positions of Judaism towards war (mostly Israel vs. the Arab world)". This sounds like the content of an article called Jews and war rather than Judaism and war. Perhaps War in Jewish history. An article about Judaism and war should be about Jewish theology and philosophy of war. If it needs examples from history to explain a point of the philosophy then mention the example but it seems that you are defining "Jews and war" rather than "Judaism and war". Maybe "War in Jewish history" is the best title after all. Joe407 (talk) 15:09, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Joe407, you make another good point. I think I was unclear in what I wrote. For the purposes of this article, I think we should only focus on wars that have either been motivated or supported by Hebrew scriptures, Jewish priests/Sanhedrin or rabbis. We are not focusing on the wars as historical events but specifically insofar as these have been influenced by Judaism or influenced Judaism.

I mentioned the "Jewish rebellion against the Romans". The reason I mentioned this is because it marks the end of the Temple era and the beginning of the rabbinic era. Basically, when the Second Temple was destroyed, the centrality of the Temple and its rites disappeared (and the Sadducees along with it). The focus of Judaism shifted to the rabbis (arguably, it was already on its way there before the fall of the Temple).

There is also the messianic movement of Judaism which fueled the rebellions (most notably the Bar Kokhba revolt). Note that it is thought that the failure of the Christians to support Bar Kokhba is considered to be a significant factor in the separation of Judaism and Christianity.

To the extent that Wikipedia decides to have an article with a list of every war that the Jews have participated in, I agree that stuff should be in an article like War in Jewish history. However, this article should focus on the relationship of those wars to Judaism and the relationship of the war in the abstract to Judaism.

--Richard S (talk) 17:23, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

historical reality

Monochrome Monitor added content in this dif about the contemporary consensus that the wars in Joshua never happened. yes this is true. but this article is not about ancient isreal - it is about "judaism and warfare" and ancient israel =/= judaism. I hear you on having this somewhere so i did a little re-arrangement of the tanakh section to put the biblical story part before the commandment part, and made the new content a footnote on the biblical story part in this dif. i hope that makes sense. is that ok with you? Jytdog (talk) 05:11, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

That's fine, thanks. :) --Monochrome_Monitor 13:39, 17 May 2015 (UTC)