Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:08, 10 December 2010

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

This article was nominated for deletion on 10 October 2010. The result of the discussion was keep.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Jewish history Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Jewish history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Jewish history on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Jewish historyWikipedia:WikiProject Jewish historyTemplate:WikiProject Jewish historyJewish history-related Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Judaism Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Judaism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Judaism-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JudaismWikipedia:WikiProject JudaismTemplate:WikiProject JudaismJudaism Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Atheism Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Atheism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of atheism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AtheismWikipedia:WikiProject AtheismTemplate:WikiProject AtheismAtheism Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. For more information and how you can help, click the link opposite: If you would like to participate, you can edit this article and visit the project page. Quick help Project's main talk page Article layout Links to atheism-related information · List of free online resources Writing about religion · Article development Citing sources · Verifying sources · About original research Assume good faith · Be civil Recent activity Core articles the "Atheism" article Articles recently added to Category:Atheism To do edit history watch purge Join WikiProject atheism and be bold. Add a userbox to your page ({{User WikiProject Atheism}} or {{User WPA2}}) and attract potential members. Help with articles. See this month's adopt-an-article. Help out with this to-do list. Be consistent Use a "standard" layout for atheism-related articles (see layout style, "The perfect article" and Featured articles). Add Atheism info box to all atheism related talk pages (use {{WikiProject Atheism}} or see info box) Ensure atheism-related articles are members of Atheism by checking whether ] has been added to atheism-related articles – and, where it hasn't, adding it. Maintenance, etc. Find sources for all positions of an article (see Citing sources and atheism references). Try to expand stubs. Ideas and theories about life, however, are prone to generating neologisms, so some stubs may be suitable for deletion (see deletion process). Watch the list of atheism-related articles and add to accordingly. Always write for an encyclopedia. Articles to improve Agnosticism Create Articles on notable atheists Expand an atheism stub Immediate attention State atheism needs a reassessment of its Importance level, as it has little to do with atheism and is instead an article about anti-theist/anti-religious actions of governments. False choice into False dilemma: discuss whether you are for or against this merge here Clarify references in Atheism using footnotes. Secular movement defines it as a being restricted to America in the 21st century.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Judaism and violence article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 14 days

Archives

Index Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 2 sections are present.

Bad, bad page

1. POV sections can not be presented as "facts."
2. A blog post such as wordpress.com source is not a RS.
3. The language in Det. is "destroy" not "exterminate."
4. The wording of "rationalization & justification" in and of itself is POV. 'reasoning' is more accurate.
5. The phrase of word "victims" is a POV, How about the Israelites as victims OF Amalek.
6. "Gush Emunim" are 'radical Zionists' not a "Jewish movement."
7. Avoid countless repetition intended to inflate the page.
8. "Notable" ? Not true about most of them.
9. The Arab Nur Nashala is clearly a controversial POV "writer," it's bad enough that he's used as all, worse is quoting his text about so called "indigenous" Palestinians... (you can research about Arab immigration 1880-1940).
10. No need to add the title "scholar" to every controversial POV.184.48.93.218 (talk) 02:47, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Can you propose the specific changes you'd like to make, so they can be be discussed one at a time? For instance, I have no objection to changing "rationalization & justification" to 'reasoning and justification', but not "reasoning" alone. The sources use "justification" and similar words, since the eradications are sometimes inexplicably violent. --Noleander (talk) 02:57, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Don't worry, the IP has already begun canvassing. I like how Arab is used as a title when dismissing a scholar, very classy. 4 and 10 have some merit though. Sol (talk) 04:25, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The blog looks like it's directly (?) from Moment Magazine, whatever that is, and the content is hosted there. If MM is an RS then the blog may meet the standards for inclusion or just be a reprint of their content. Sol (talk) 06:12, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, let's consider the points one at a time:

(2) Agree: an informal blog should not be the only source, although it could be supplemental to other, better sources. Moment (magazine) is a decent source.

(3) Deut "destroy" vs "exterminate" .. the Torah is written in Hebrew/Aramaic, not English. There are about 5 different words that translates to. Regardless, the english-language sources use the word "exterminate" predominantly when discussing the wars.

(4) "Reasoning" vs "justification". We must follow the sources. They use terms like "justify" or "explain" or "rationalize" ... not "reason". The context is key here: the sources are trying to suggest explanations for why the wars were so utterly destructive.

(7) "Countless repetition". Not sure what that is referring to. Need more specificity.

(10) "Scholar": it is common to prefix a person's profession, to give context. Eliminating that word would remove valuable information (is the source a journalist? theologian? activist? professor?). To avoid boring repetition, we could vary it by using more variety: "professor", "historian" (as appropriate), "academic", etc.

--Noleander (talk) 06:40, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Re - "scholar": that bothered me as well when I first came to this article a few weeks ago. If it is necessary to label the source, then I think we should provide a more specific description such as "religious scholar", "sociologist", "historian", "political scientist", whatever. A nuclear physicist is also a "scholar" as is a professor of art history. We should be providing information as to the source's credentials and qualifications to comment on the topic. --Richard S (talk) 06:56, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Concur. --Noleander (talk) 07:06, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Regrading the word choice in number 4. What sources are you referring to and could you please mention them here? Without sources, the IP is correct that justification is an inherently POV word in this case, adding little other than a bias. Joe407 (talk) 08:50, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

The sources are the ones listed in the footnotes of the Justification section. What sources are you relying on for preferring the word "reason"? --Noleander (talk) 14:12, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Eye for an Eye section

Richard: I notice you created the "Lex talionis" section. A few comments:

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

Thanks. --Noleander (talk) 07:16, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Tags need justification on Talk page

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

Judaism as a violent religion that threatens all Christians

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

• Heschel, Susannah (2008). The Aryan Jesus: Christian theologians and the Bible in Nazi Germany. Princeton University Press. p. 63.

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

Stuff that could be added

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

Wars of extermination in the Tanakh

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

Violence against the Egyptians

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

I agree that the 10 plagues should be mentioned and linked to. An entire section would be too much. More importantly, Chesdovi wrote "Moses was responsible". Well, technically, Moses was just the agent and God was the actual one who was responsible. This is not meant as sophistry. Individuals can be violent but that doesn't say anything about the religion being violent. There are a large number of scholars who take aim at the God of the Hebrews as a "violent God". This is where the heart of the issue lies. Not in whether Moses, Joshua, etc. were violent. The question isn't whether Hebrews were violent; it is whether their violence was sanctioned by the Hebrew scriptures and, by inference, by God. --Richard S (talk) 18:30, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

The question does seem to be whether the Hebrews were violent. For their actions could not have been sanctioned by the scripture, as it had not been redacted at the time. They were making history, so to say. The bible is an account of they did at the command of God. In the post-biblical period, have any Jewish wars or revolts been influeneced by the bible? That is what belongs here possibly. Chesdovi (talk) 00:04, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Revenge against Shechem

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

Kain and Abel

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

The flood

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

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

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

Esau

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

Just because Esau was violent doesn't mean that Judaism approved of his violence. --Richard S (talk) 18:41, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Nolander, where are you? Chesdovi (talk) 00:06, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Moses

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

Abraham

He fought against 5 kings. What did they do to deserve it? Chesdovi (talk) 18:27, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

General topic of warfare in the Hebrew scriptures. Not worth going into every war mentioned in there. --`Richard S (talk)

Don't forget the 25,000 at Gibeah

Need to add the violence at the Battle of Gibeah. Chesdovi (talk) 18:30, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Same response as to the section on "Abraham". There's so much violence and warfare in the Hebrew scriptures, that you really need to cite a secondary source that thinks that particular incident is notable (usually as illustrative of a wider principle such as genocide).

You see it has been left out by bible critics as only Jews died in this one. How strange. Chesdovi (talk) 00:07, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• All unassessed articles
• C-Class Jewish history-related articles
• Mid-importance Jewish history-related articles
• WikiProject Jewish history articles
• C-Class Judaism articles
• Mid-importance Judaism articles
• C-Class Atheism articles
• Mid-importance Atheism articles