Talk:Jewish extremist terrorism/Archive 1

Under development

This article is under development.

Siddiqui 20:39, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I am reverting Siddiqui's edit because

• it does not distinguish between Judaism and Zionism.
• ummah.com does not qualify as a reputable source.
• it is wrong to have such discrepancy in titles as Jewish terrorism but Palestinian political violence. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 21:04, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

You cannot make this unilateral change without fully disucssing this issue. We have articles like Islamic Terrorism and that would also have to be changed (or redirected) at the sametime. May be you first should change/redirect 'Islamic Terrorism' to 'Islamic political violence'. This kind of unilateral and one sided censorship should be avaoided.

Siddiqui 21:11, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

If there is something wrong with another article, please discuss and edit that other article, don't channelize your anger at Jews. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 21:20, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

BTW, Islamic Terrorism redirects to Islamic extremist terrorism. Siddiqui, you make it hard to assume good faith. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 21:28, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

You have committed double reversion within 24 hours and I will report you to Wikipedia person

Siddiqui 21:17, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Go ahead. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 21:20, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

There's no rule against double reversion.--Urthogie 08:48, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

November 2007 Edit

I reverted the edit that changed the article from a redirect to a stub. The information is already covered in Zionist political violence. Moreover, it appears that this edit was the result of a dispute at Islamic Terrorism. Dchall1 (talk) 03:13, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

1. Neither Jewish Defense League nor Kach or Kahane Chai are covered in Zionist political violence.
2. Why do you redirect to Religious terrorism if you think, that Zionist political violence covers the topic?
3. Don't you think there's some bias, if we have Christian terrorism and Islamic terrorism but no Jewish terrorism?

--Raphael1 21:46, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

1. Feel free to add the JDL & Kach info to the Zionist political violence article.
2. I reverted the page to where it was before it was edited. You're right that it should more accurately redirect to Zionist political violence.
3. Names of other pages don't matter. You can take up the discussion at the Zionist political violence talk page, but any discussion probably won't get noticed here. Besides, names of other articles have no bearing here. See WP:OTHERSTUFF. Dchall1 (talk) 22:42, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Zionism was a secular nationalist philosophy, not a religious one (indeed, prior to 1948 most Jewish religious denominations, from Reform to Orthodox, opposed Zionism) so the parallel with Christian and Islamist terrorism fails. On the other hand, both the Jewish Defense League and Kach/Kahane Chai are actually mentioned in Religious terrorism#Jewish, and both of these groups were religious; per Raphael1's examples, Religious terrorism#Jewish. Based on the above, I'm re-directing to the more appropriate spot. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:24, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Jayjg, there is no mention of those organisations on the article you refer to. Dchal, Jayjg is right, the parallel with Christian and Muslim terrorism fails. As they seem to be more Jewish than Zionist, the Zionist political violence article isn't a suitable place for them. Based on this, I've decided that a redirect is not appropriate.

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 12:57, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Your argument contradicts itself. First, you say that the organization are "more Jewish than Zionist" (presumably you meant "religious Jewish"), and then you say that a redirect to Religious terrorism#Jewish "is not appropriate". Thus, I am restoring the redirect, please do not do such sweeping edits without first getting consensus for them. Beit Or 14:18, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Nonsense. Religious terrorism#Jewish does not exist, as the religious terrorism article does not even mention Jewish terrorism. If that's the kind of argument you're making, I'm compelled to restore the text.

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 14:41, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

This stub has no value, and is in any case misleadingly labeled. It should be merged elsewhere. IronDuke 18:36, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Leaving aside your opinion on its value for the moment, why do you say it's misleadingly labelled?

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 18:53, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring

As a reminder, this article is under the scope of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles. As an uninvolved administrator, I have wide latitude in restrictions that I can place on the article, as well as discretionary sanctions on the involved editors. So please, stop with the edit-warring, and discuss differences at the talkpage. Thanks, --Elonka 16:36, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Proposed move

As Jewish can refer to either the religion or the ethnic group, I propose moving this article to Jewish religious terrorism. Thoughts?

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 11:35, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Is this still a stub?

I've readded the {{judaism-stub}} template since it was removed without explaination (and the article still looks like a stub by any criteria) in this change: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jewish_religious_terrorism&diff=220569148&oldid=220569013

I'm no expert on the subject, so I'm redirecting any discussion here (to avoid any edit warring).

--Blaisorblade (talk) 20:17, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Early 20th century

What about Jewish bombs and such targeting British early in the 20th century, during the campaign to create the state of Isreal? Irgun, Lehi and so on? Sources: "Increased Jewish immigration, which had begun in the late 19th century, provoked both Arab unrest and Jewish terrorism aimed at ending the British administration" [1]; "The British feared that their failure to control Jewish terrorism would turn Palestinian Arabs against them" [2]; "Actions were stepped up through 1945 and 1946, by which time Jewish terrorism had cost the lives of 373 people in Palestine" [3]... It should be mentioned, and if it falls outside religious, Jewish terrorism should be changed from redirect into an article. Alternatively, this article may need to be moved back to its previous title (Jewish terrorism). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:30, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

adding to the article.93.96.148.42 (talk) 08:37, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Search results

Wikipedia:Naming conventions#Use the most easily recognized name:

1. "Jewish terrorism" Results about 20,800
2. "Jewish religious terrorism" - (minus) Wikipedia Results 3

--Poeticbent talk 01:18, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. I have to say that I don't fully grasp the logic of the old move (as explained at #Proposed move) that added the "religious". I'd think that ethnic is more important here anyway, but there is no need for clarification in name... PS. See also my comments at Talk:Zionist_political_violence#Jewish_terrorism_2. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:25, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

There may be Jewish religious terrorism, and I see, rather to my surprise, that one of PB's three hits is on Kahane; but I don't think it's the natural description of this page. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:22, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

"New Jewish underground"

Which reliable source has stated that the pipe bomb planted by an alleged new "Jewish undergound" is an example of "Jewish terrorism"? Jayjg ^(talk) 01:34, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I hate it when people blame the Jews for these things, but YnetNews headlines "Attack on professor Jewish terror". I don't think that's favorite reading material for those who take their views from Holocaust Deniers. Also at Sky News "Israeli authorities are hunting a Jewish terrorist cell thought to be behind an attack on a supporter of the country's peace movement". PR^talk 09:51, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Merge Zionist Terrorism Here ?

I think this is appropriate, but perhaps a summary should be made here- other thoughts?93.96.148.42 (talk) 02:01, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Jewish Religious Terrorism?

Why is secular Jewish terrorism not covered here, and where should it be covered if not here?93.96.148.42 (talk) 05:44, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Jewish Terrorism

Why is it not neutral to list Irgun here? Are you disputing that they were Jewish terrorists? Do you know what neutrality means? The article is biased, I was trying to add to it.93.96.148.42 (talk) 07:42, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

You are obviously pushing a POV. Every single word you type is dripping with bias. I know quite well what neutrality means, tell me, do you? Most of your edits tonight barely skirt the edge of blatant POV, that one in particular went way over it. Trusilver 07:44, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

which one?93.96.148.42 (talk) 07:46, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

This[4] was a edit that was designed to push an agenda. All of your talk page comments make it clear where your bias is. Because of this, you need to be twice as careful not to give the impression you are trying to push articles in direction of your own point of view. Trusilver 07:48, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Please assume good faith, don't make personal attacks, and explain why Irgun should not be included in "Jewish Terrorism" - do you disagree that they were jews who described themselves as terrorists?93.96.148.42 (talk) 07:50, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't recall disagreeing with inclusion. It is your slant and bias to the inclusion that I disagree with. Look at the reversion before your edit - It was well written and NPOV. Look at yours - It...wasn't. Trusilver 07:52, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

you object to "jewish terror groups were involved in the creation of israel. " - not the inclusion of irgun as a jewish terrorist organisation? How would you phrase it?93.96.148.42 (talk) 07:59, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

No, I definitely would include Irgun as a Jewish terrorist organization. If they aren't, then who is? But "Jewish terror groups were involved in the creation of Israel" give the definite implication that the involvement was direct and not just paralleling its creation. That's far more conjecture than it is documented fact. It's the subtleties of the phrasing that suggest the deeper meaning. Trusilver 08:08, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Your most recent edit sounds slightly awkward, but is much more neutral in my opinion. Trusilver 08:09, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Very glad - am not wishing to be biased, but to correct and build a great encyclopaedia! - Bit worried someone else will remove it though93.96.148.42 (talk) 08:12, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Maybe this should move to the talk page there?93.96.148.42 (talk) 08:13, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

If you want to include ANYTHING as WHATEVER, please, provide wp:rs secondary sources that state that ANYTHING is WHATEVER. For Lehi (resp. Irgun), it means to provide a wp:rs secondary sources that proves that the goals of these organisations what religious (and no political).

Given it is not the case, good luck. Ceedjee (talk) 17:58, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

The IP editor was told, by Trusilver above (with whom he is otherwise in disagreement), that "include Irgun as a Jewish terrorist organization". There appears to be good RS (either their own words, or that of the subset Lehi) that the cause was religious. There needs to be a clear explanation of what is religious and what is political terrorism (and whether we're allowed to treat it as ethnic?) in the article, and there also needs to be some indication of where to find the other kind/s, otherwise the project will remain mired in this kind of time-wasting and article damaging to-and-fro. But I must congratulate you on the good-faith you showed moving the referenced information that you thought was out of place to the TalkPage below. PR^talk 12:28, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

"Jewish terrorism" is terrorism done in the name of Judaism. Don't confuse ethnic and political movements with religious ones. Fatah was/is a Palestinian organization, not a Muslim one. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:45, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

While I whole-heartedly agree we should avoid linking religions to criminal behavior as far as possible, this article can hardly avoid mentioning that some of the terrorists indeed claimed their actions were terrorism and were motivated by religion. The Lehi newspaper in 1943 (Heller, p115) said "Neither Jewish morality nor Jewish tradition can negate the use of terror as a means of battle. ... We are quite far from moral hesitations on the national battlefield. We see before us the command of the Torah, the most moral teaching in the world: "Obliterate — until destruction".

And I note that the immensely tendacious use of "Judeah and Samaria" continues at this article, despite the exhaustive evidence that's it's entirely partisan and has virtually no modern useage other than by POV objectors to the univerally accepted legal position. PR^talk 12:28, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

PR, please stop soapboxing, and instead use this Talk: page to discuss proposed content changes to this article. I'll be removing any further off-topic comments. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:06, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Moved material

Zionist groups in the British Mandate of Palestine fighting for a Jewish Homeland used terrorism. Between 1945 and the Independence of Israel, 784 British and Danish soldiers were buried in Palestine by the Commonwealth War Graves Commission, out of a total of 1200 foreign nationals and Palestine Police known to be buried there. By 1946 Jewish terrorism had cost the lives of 373 people in Palestine.[5]

- by me. Ceedjee (talk) 17:59, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

"Jewish terrorism" is terrorism committed by Jews, as Jews

Where does the idea come from that "Jewish terrorism" means religious terrorism - the name of the article is "Jewish terrorism".

• Please provide a reasoned response, preferably with references. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.96.148.42 (talk) 00:31, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Failing a response I have reinstated Zionist terrorist groups.93.96.148.42 (talk) 02:34, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

As discussed above, "religous terrorism" is terrorism done in the name of religion. I'm thus about to revert your edit, as was done by others before. Regards, ליאור (talk) 15:26, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

IP 93, you have already been explained this at other places and you didn't even answer. See WP:Battlefield Ceedjee (talk) 20:45, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I've read this talk page and haven't found a proper answer to the question several editors have asked: Exactly who says "Jewish terrorism" = "religious Jewish terrorism"? Its difficult to escape the impression that this arbitrary restriction, apparently unique to Wikipedia, has been put in simply in order to avoid inclusion of groups like Lehi and Irgun in the category. MeteorMaker (talk) 08:07, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

There is an article titled zionist political violence where the actions of IZL and LHI are reported.~Copy/pasting the point of view that their actions would be a form of terrorism is wp:soap and wp:battleground.

It was useful to have this discussion.

Indeed, it shows that the racist idea (and even illegal in Europe) that a form a violence could be linked to an ethnicicity (and so with some genetic grounds), such as the fact being a Jew or a white or an Arab, and not linked to cultural or social reason, such as the fact defending a muslim or jewish nationalist concept, defending western values, ...) can still be suggested today.

If somebody finds wp:rs studies where it is reported the "extraordinary claim" that terrorism would have been practiced by jews to defend their ethnicity (as in Rwanda in the 90ties) and not what they consider(ed) to defend the zionism rights or the judaism rights), we can discuss about this.

The idea that "zionism is racism" because it defends the existence of an "ethnical entity" in the Jewish State/Israel is controversed and, per wp:soap should not be put forward in the meaning we give to titles in wikipedia.

This controversy is also explained and detailled in other places.

Ceedjee (talk) 10:08, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with most of that, but I feel the question wasn't addressed why "Jewish terrorism" should be restricted to mean "religious Jewish terrorism". If there should be a category named "Jewish terrorism" at all, either the current title is misleading, or the current content is incomplete. MeteorMaker (talk) 10:21, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

If it is just an issue of title, "jewish terrorism" or "religious jewish terrorism" could be replaced by Neo-Zionist political violence (see Neo-Zionism), which is more factual, clearer and more npov. Ceedjee (talk) 10:31, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I feel that would narrow the scope further, not broaden it. Is there any way you can see a category that encompasses both Israeli settler terrorism (religiously motivated or not), non-Israeli groups like Jewish Defense League, and proto-Israeli groups like Lehi and Irgun? MeteorMaker (talk) 10:58, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I see 3 forms of political violence related to this topic :

• Zionist political violence between 1920 and 1948
• Israeli political violence to be created
• Neo-zionist political violence in replacement of Jewish terrorism and where JDL could be added.

All this can have a mother category which for npov should be category:Political violence in the Arab-Israeli conflict and where we would also find Palestinian political violence, Islamist political violence, ...

Ceedjee (talk) 11:06, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Please STOP ARGUING and explain WHO says Jewish terrorism is restricted to Religious terrorism. Here is an Israeli source that obviously doesn't. http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1043413.html There is no reason why Irgun should not be listed here as well as under Zionist political violence, if it fits both categories. Ceedjee has a declared bias in favour of Israel.93.96.148.42 (talk) 03:49, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

http://hnn.us/articles/832.html as well.93.96.148.42 (talk) 06:18, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. This means that Wikipedia is not the place to publish your own opinions, experiences, or arguments. Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked: to demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, you must cite reliable sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented.93.96.148.42 (talk) 08:09, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Jewish terrorism -> Neo-Zionist political violence ?

There has been long discussion and disputes around the article Jewish terrorism. According to the different points of views in different talk pages :

• "Jewish" dimension should only be religious and not ethnical, and therefore Jewish is not clear
• the "zionist" dimension in the causes of Jewish terrorism should be emphasized
• "terrorism" still remains a wp:words to avoid and political violence is more neutral.

The article Neo-Zionism explains the origin of these wording used by different scholars working in the field of sociology and study of nationalism...
What would you think about the move from Jewish terrorism to Neo-Zionist political violence ? Ceedjee (talk) 10:50, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I feel that would still make the inclusion of Irgun and Lehi problematic. To repeat my question above, is there any way you can see a category that encompasses both Israeli settler terrorism (religiously motivated or not), non-Israeli groups like Jewish Defense League, and proto-Israeli groups like Lehi and Irgun? MeteorMaker (talk) 11:08, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I have answered above. Irgun and Lehi political violence has nothing to deal with Jewish terrorism. They are examples of Zionist political violence because the aims of these organisations (as well as Haganah and Palmah) was to defend the political objectives of Zionism (this is explained in the article zionist political violence.

JDL could be added in neo-zionism political violence, because they share neo-zionist views and in fact represent this mouvement outside Israel. Ceedjee (talk) 11:12, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) OK, I see you've answered it (in the section above). EDIT: The next sentence is based on my misunderstanding that the suggested mother category would replace the existing ones. Fine, but some problems remain: For instance, the Jewish Defense League wouldn't fit in the suggested new ME-specific category any more. It would be a good complement to the existing categories though. I frankly still don't understand by what standards the all-Jewish Zionist groups Irgun and Lehi weren't Jewish. The restriction that in order for something to qualify as "Jewish terrorism", it must have a religious dimension seems entirely arbitrary (at best). MeteorMaker (talk) 11:16, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

• Concerning IZL and LHI members : most of them were ethnically Jews, religious jews, white and bisexual. But the fact they were ethnically Jew, ethnically white, culturally heterosexual or culturally religious Jews has nothing to deal with what they did. IZL and LHI members motivations were linked with their political view concerning zionism. Are we going to create the category "heterosexual terrorism" ?
• Concerning the restriction of jewish terrorism to the religious dimension, that is "arbitrary" but no more than not restricting this, except the non-restriction is additionnaly a racist theory that is not supported by wp:rs sources. Your argument is pointed out at the top of this section to suggest the move to Neo-Zionist political violence which is more clear. Ceedjee (talk) 11:32, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

No, we are not going to create the category "heterosexual terrorism", but entirely arbitrary restrictions that aren't deducible from the cat name are not ideal either — to expand on your example, it's like we find that an additional arbitrary restriction has been imposed on the category so that anybody who isn't homosexual doesn't fit the category any more. How about simply renaming this cat "Jewish religiously motivated terrorism"? MeteorMaker (talk) 11:51, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Here's what I originally answered Ceedjee: It seems to me (mostly from the infobox) like this article exists mainly is part of the terrorism series that also includes Christian terrorism and Islamic terrorism, so the religious aspect seems to be the main thing here. Asides from that, since the article just mention Kach and the Gush Emunim Underground, it might as well be merged into Violence in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, since that's where Terrorism in Israel redirects.

I think we have enough specific articles. Lehi, Irgun et al. belong in Zionist political violence; Kach, Gush Emunim Underground and Avrushmi belong in Violence in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. Or, we could merge Violence in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict into Zionist political violence, which would be compatible with Palestinian political violence. -- Nudve (talk) 12:26, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Correction: I mistook this for the talk page of CATEGORY:Jewish terrorism, so some of my comments should be read in that light. However, my main objection stands: There is no way the title "Jewish terrorism" indicates that this is an article about "Jewish religious terrorism". I know "Jewish" is a word with many meanings, but insisting on one where the others are equally valid is just unnecessarily confusing. What do you think of my suggestion to rename it? MeteorMaker (talk) 12:42, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Christian terrorism and Islamic terrorism are both defined as religious terrorism, so I suppose Jewish terrorism should be defined similarly. Kach and the Gush Emunim Underground are both religious Zionist organizations, so theoretically they could fit into both Zionist political violence and Jewish terrorism. Maybe it's best ot just leave things as they are; in case someone can come up with non-Zionist Jewish terrorists. What are you suggesting we rename it to? -- Nudve (talk) 15:34, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

If we rename "Jewish terrorism" to "Zionist violence", I assume we'll be likewise renaming "Islamic terrorism" to "Caliphate-establishing militant actions" ? "Communist terrorism" to "Unilateral deeds of a guerrilla nature intended to ensure the equality of all people" ? Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 16:19, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

The nearest parallel would be if category:Islamic terrorism were similarly invisibly restricted to mean "Caliphate-establishing militant actions" while still retaining the name "Islamic terrorism". The title is misleading and if the article (and category) are about Jewish religious terrorism, the name should be precisely that and not a much broader category. MeteorMaker (talk) 17:47, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

An alternative solution to answer your point is to move to "jewish religious terrorism" but JDL cannot be included. Ceedjee (talk) 07:50, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

JDL is not included in this article anyway, so I think there isn't much that stops us from implementing that idea. Currently, the lead says "Jewish terrorism is religious terrorism by those whose motivations are rooted in their interpretations of Judaism" which appears entirely arbitrary. MeteorMaker (talk) 09:11, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I answered you it is not totally arbitrary but just obvious. Anyway, it could be renamed "jewish religious terrorism" Ceedjee (talk) 09:14, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree it's obvious at all, since "Jewish" is not exclusively a religious category like "Christian" and "Islamic". But yes, I think the new name (which I also suggested early on in this discussion) is much less confusing. MeteorMaker (talk) 09:21, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

You wrote in the section above (before this one) you agreed that the ethnical interpratation was a racist idea.

Whatever, let's wait for some days to read other comments and eventually proceed to the move.

Ceedjee (talk) 09:46, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi guys, I was just reading this discussion. I agree with the contention above that "Jewish terrorism" is ambiguous since "Jewish" can mean a religion or an ethnic group. I think the proposed "Jewish religious terrorism" is a good way to solve the problem. By the way, JDL and LHI were inspired by Jewish religious ideas, and Irgun to a lesser extent. Just to be clear, my comments do not endorse any position in the complex issue of "terrorism" vs. "political violence". Keep up the good work. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 18:50, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Is the PLO a religous organisation?

It should be removed from Palestinian Political violence, by the logic above, as it is a secular organisation.93.96.148.42 (talk) 06:21, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

If it were religious, it would qualify as Islamic terrorism. -- Nudve (talk) 06:39, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Jewish Terrorism is Settlers in Hebron

I notice that over a month, no one has been able to give references to the statement in the lead that Jewish terrorism refers to religiously motivated acts. I have therefore removed that unreferenced, and controversial (see above) statement from the lead.93.96.148.42 (talk) 03:57, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

This article is about a form of religious terrorism, much like Christian terrorism and Islamic terrorism. It should not be defined by someone it has been attributed to. Otherwise, we could define Islamic terrorism as "a term used to describe Osama Bin Laden. -- Nudve (talk) 06:29, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

please explain why the sources I give do not suit you. try and find some of your own. Rpeating the same thing 10 times does not make it true!93.96.148.42 (talk) 07:12, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say they do not suit me. I've kept the Haaretz editorial (despite the fact it is arguably given undue weight), but moved it to the appropriate section (Settlers). I have produced a source that gives an encyclopedic definition and a proper introduction to the article (see WP:LEDE). Please help us reach consensus instead of edit-warring. -- Nudve (talk) 07:39, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Your source describe judaism and terrorism, not jewish terrorism , and says "In the 1940s, Zionist militants such as Lehi (known also as the Stern Gang) carried out terrorist attacks against the British in Palestine. In the late 20th century, militant messianic Zionists use religious claims to the historical land of Israel to justify acts of violence. " Why have you deleted the text about the Stern Gang?93.96.148.42 (talk) 07:50, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Please rewrite - just don't delete. Your source -http://terrorism.about.com/od/politicalislamterrorism/tp/Religious-terrorism.htm - doesn't mention "jewish terrorism" - but does mention the stern gang!93.96.148.42 (talk) 07:54, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Not only odes it mention the stern gang, but it got the article reverted by XLinkBot. Please take more care with your references.93.96.148.42 (talk) 08:07, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Why is my work Being Deleted

I spent a lot of time writing the following, referenced text. It was deleted within minutes. Please suggest improvements I could make to the references or the content, as it would be a shame if the article was to be incomplete!

• Jewish terrorism' is used to describe the violent actions of extremist Zionists such as the Stern Gang prior to the establishment of the state of Israel http://muse.jhu.edu/login?uri=/journals/american_jewish_history/v092/92.3raider.html http://articles.latimes.com/2005/jul/15/opinion/oe-gelernter15 , and the anti-arab http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/2/0/0/7/9/p200799_index.html, behavior of Jewish settlers in Hebron and other areas of the West Bank http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1043413.html . is religious terrorism committed by Jews who interpret Judaism to justify violence. Militant messianic Zionists used religious claims to the historical land of Israel to justify acts of violence.Cite web

| last = Zalman | first = Amy | title = Religious terrorism: a primer on terrorism and religion | work = About.com | accessdate = 2009-02-19 | url = http://terrorism.about.com/od/politicalislamterrorism/tp/Religious-terrorism.htm } 93.96.148.42 (talk) 18:21, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Stern Gang is not jewish terrorism. Violence practiced by Stern Gang was with the aim of promoting zionism. How many times was this said ?

Easy to improve. A moment.

Ceedjee (talk) 18:25, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

The Stern Gang were Jewish, they were trying to create a Jewish homeland, as described in the bible. They described themselves as Jewish terrorists.93.96.148.42 (talk) 03:43, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Before the State of Israel

I spent a lot of time writing the following, referenced text. It was deleted within minutes. Please suggest improvements I could make to the references or the content, as it would be a shame if the article was to be incomplete!

Main articles: Zionist political violence, List of Irgun attacks during the 1930s, and List of massacres committed during the 1948 Arab-Israeli war

There were repeated confrontations between Palestine’s Jewish community and Jewish terrorists. A famous one followed the 1944 murder in Cairo of Lord Moyne, the British minister-resident in the Middle East, by the terrorist Stern Gang. In response, the shocked and revolted Jewish community hunted down terrorists relentlessly, turning over more than 700 names to the British.

There were truces too, when the Jewish authorities (desperately outgunned and outnumbered in their war for independence) tried to co-opt two terrorist groups, the Stern Gang and the Irgun, into the regular army. But the Sternists and the Irgun invariably returned to terror, shattering the truce.

Jewish terrorism was stamped out at last after a U.N. mediator was assassinated in late 1948. Israel’s new Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion ordered: “Arrest all Stern Gang leaders. Surround all Stern bases. Confiscate all arms. Kill any who resist.” Soon afterward, the Irgun also bit the dust.http://articles.latimes.com/2005/jul/15/opinion/oe-gelernter1593.96.148.42 (talk) 07:17, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I have moved this here :

Before the State of Israel

Main articles: Zionist political violence, List of Irgun attacks during the 1930s, and List of massacres committed during the 1948 Palestine war

There were repeated confrontations between Palestine’s Jewish community and Jewish terrorists. A famous one followed the 1944 murder in Cairo of Lord Moyne, the British minister-resident in the Middle East, by the terrorist Stern Gang. In response, the shocked and revolted Jewish community hunted down terrorists relentlessly, turning over more than 700 names to the British.

There were truces too, when the Jewish authorities (desperately outgunned and outnumbered in their war for independence) tried to co-opt two terrorist groups, the Stern Gang and the Irgun, into the regular army. But the Sternists and the Irgun invariably returned to terror, shattering the truce.

Jewish terrorism was stamped out at last after a U.N. mediator was assassinated in late 1948. Israel’s new Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion ordered: “Arrest all Stern Gang leaders. Surround all Stern bases. Confiscate all arms. Kill any who resist.” Soon afterward, the Irgun also bit the dust.

It has been explained to you many times that "jewish terrorism" was the religious one. See above. Ceedjee (talk) 18:23, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Move ?

Is there somebody who disagrees with the move to Jewish religious terrorism ? Ceedjee (talk) 18:37, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

go ahead and do it. It will hopefully clarify things, an avoid the repeated insertion of Lehi/Irgun/Hagannah that pops up every couple of weeks. Canadian Monkey (talk) 22:24, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Noted :-). Let's wait for a few more days and more minds, if any. Ceedjee (talk) 18:23, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I think jewish religious terrorism is a good idea for another article, as Jewish terrorism should cover terrorism by jews - Religious, Zionist, annarchist, etc...93.96.148.42 (talk) 15:33, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

What do you answer to people who told you that :

• the article has been created at the same level as christian terrorism and islamic terrorism (as can be seen on the template terrorism in the article)
• there is no article in wikipedia that links terrorism to an ethnic group
• linking terrorism to an ethnic group is a racist concept.

Ceedjee (talk) 15:31, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I ask for a source that has validity. Please provide one.93.96.148.42 (talk) 15:33, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm wondering about this edit. Does the sentence that was deleted not characterize the people and organizations mentioned in the article? -- Nudve (talk) 15:56, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes. It should be put back. Ceedjee (talk) 16:54, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Be sure to quote the tense correctly if you do, it had been changed from present to past in the earlier article version. I think it's more urgent to try to find a cite that supports the claim "Jewish terrorism is religious terrorism committed by Jews who interpret Judaism to justify violence". The "religious" bit still seems entirely arbitrary. MeteorMaker (talk) 13:31, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

We have explained it has nothing to deal with a quote or a source here.

See Christian terrorism and Muslim terrorism.

Please, all of you, stop making as if you had not noticed both these article and this one Jewish terrorism are on the same level.

If somebody want to create an article about the Terrism performed by Jews, as an ethny, please create this (and prepare for the discussion on the RfD). Ceedjee (talk) 13:44, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

With all respect, I think the average user is more likely to go by the article name and never notices (or cares) that it's "on the same level" as Christian terrorism and Muslim terrorism. As I and others have said all the time, it's confusing that "Jewish" is arbitrarily used in the religious sense in this article. Re the "mistake" you claim I made [6] when I restored the Zionism cats, didn't you even suggest renaming the cat article Neo-Zionist political violence, which you said "is more factual, clearer and more npov"? [7] MeteorMaker (talk) 14:00, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

About the categories, please, read : Neo-Zionism. This has nothing to deal with zionist terrorism (that should be deleted) or zionist political violence in the British mandate of Palestine.

I suggested the move to Neo-Zionist political violence before Nudve pointed out that there was 3 articles in parallel. And anyway the Jewish religious political violence is only practiced by Neo-zionist, so it is synonym. But the former one is better with the idea that the 3 articles work in parallel. Ceedjee (talk) 14:35, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

If they are synonyms, and Neo-Zionism is a subset of Zionism, what is your problem with including this article in CAT:Zionist terrorism? Also, how can the reader safely infer "religious" from "Jewish"? "Jewish" is a word with many disparate meanings, unlike "Muslim" and "Christian". MeteorMaker (talk) 15:00, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

For the reasons outlined here, I support the renaming of the three sub-articles dealing with Religious Terrorism. The logic of doing that is to make it clear that the purpose of the articles is specifically to discuss religious terrorism carried out under the names of the different religions. In this article, the opening sentence would become something like, Jewish religious terrorism is religious terrorism by those whose motivations are rooted in their interpretation of Judaism. I think that it would be a good idea to summarise somewhere near the top of the article what the distinguishing features of religious terrorism are. -- ZScarpia (talk) 14:25, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

For political violence practiced by Jews in other political contexts, see zionist political violence.

who added this - what does it mean?93.96.148.42 (talk) 15:35, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Lord only knows; it's bizarre. Not all Zionists are Jews; in fact, more non-Jews are Zionists than Jews. Anyway, the article is linked in the See also section. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:03, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

"not all Zionists are Jews" but all the other terrorist acts performed by Jews in other political contexts are in the article Zionist political violence. We are dealing with a problem of disambiguation... Ceedjee (talk) 07:04, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Not all - anarchists, communists, etc are not covered. Zionist political violence covers most terrorism, or political violence, practised in the name of Judaism. I am happy to reword the link93.96.148.42 (talk) 00:50, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

No need, it's already included in the "See also" section at the bottom. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:33, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Zionist terrorism

This seems to pop up every few weeks by POV-pushing edit warriors. So , once again: read this entire talk page, there is a consensus of editors (Ceedjee, Canadian Monkey, Lapsed Pacifist, Jayjg, ליאור)whose view it is that this article be written along the lines of Christian terrorism or Islamic terrorism - that is , terrorism done with religious motivations, in the name of a religion, not ethnic violence practiced by people who belong to a certain faith. There is already another article for that - it's called Zionist political violence NoCal100 (talk) 15:30, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Maybe you should sit back and reflect over just why the question pops up every few weeks. Shall I restate why I and several others find it problematic, or is it OK if I just say "scroll up a bit and read a few of the sections above"? MeteorMaker (talk) 15:37, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

EDIT: I see you have restored your preferred wording again, claiming it to be the "consensus" version despite all the evidence on this talk page. At least make an attempt to justify your edits with reliable sources. Is there one for the bald claim that "Jewish terrorism is religious terrorism committed by Jews who interpret Judaism to justify violence"? Else, why did you remove the fact tag? MeteorMaker (talk) 15:41, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

There is. I'm not sure why it was removed. I'll try and find out. Besides, it doesn't necessarily need a ref if it summarizes the article. -- Nudve (talk) 15:49, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I fail to see how a source that says "Militant messianic Zionists use religious claims to the historical land of Israel to justify acts of violence" can be used as a ref to the claim "Jewish terrorism is religious terrorism committed by Jews who interpret Judaism to justify violence". Perhaps if it said "Militant messianic Zionists only", but it clearly does not. The "religious" bit still seems entirely arbitrary. Would it be OK with you to either move the article to Religiously motivated Jewish terrorism or to remove the word "religious" plus the reference to Judaism from the definition? MeteorMaker (talk) 15:56, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Or, alternatively, change the title of this article to Jewish religious terrorism (it appearing to be a sub-article of the one on Religious Terrorism), as is being discussed above. -- ZScarpia (talk) 16:15, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I would support a rename if it helps clarify the distinction between religious and Zionist. -- Nudve (talk) 16:37, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I support it too. Note that the category Category:Zionist terrorism would still apply, since all groups currently mentioned in the article are staunchly Zionist. MeteorMaker (talk) 16:42, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

No, it would not apply, but thanks for clarifying exactly 'why the question pops up every few weeks. " - it is, as you have shown, because of a persistent POV-push to label this as 'Zionist' terrorism NoCal100 (talk) 17:13, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

If that is the only reason you can find, I must say it appears that you skipped long parts of this talk page. MeteorMaker (talk) 17:30, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

No, I read it all, and it is quite clear what is going on, and the motivations involved, as you have so helpfully described, above. 17:31, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Strange that you missed the main objection then, that the name is misleading because "Jewish" is a term with many meanings beside the religious one, unlike "Muslim" or "Christian". Out of curiosity, do you have a proper objection to my point that category Category:Zionist terrorism applies to this article (since all groups currently mentioned are staunchly Zionist), besides "No"? MeteorMaker (talk) 22:39, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

A consensus does not justify ORIGINAL RESEARCH. Could one of the 5 editors who are not trying to push a POV please provide proper sources and references to this article. I am concerned that my contributions, and their references, are consistently deleted.93.96.148.42 (talk) 23:56, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

[reply to MeteorMaker's 22:39, 24 February comment] Hello. In terms of terrorism, Muslim and Christian can just be convenient labels to identify what distinguishes the members of the group from those they are terrorising or from other surrounding people too. When people talk about Islamic/Muslim or Christian terrorism, they're not necessarily referring to religious terrorism (a not particularly widespread or well-developed concept), which is why I would suggest that those articles are renamed as well. If the activities of groups fulfil the definitions of Zionist political violence and Jewish religious terrorism, my suggestion would be that either a brief description of them is given in both the relevant articles, or that the current article is deleted and Jewish religious terrorism is covered in a separate section of the Zionist political violence article. Since having a Zionist ideological base is not a necessary part of Jewish religious terrorism, (and it would be unnecessarily antagonistic) my opinion is that this article should not be included in the Zionist Terrorism category. -- ZScarpia (talk) 00:10, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Zionist political violence currently stops at 1948. The groups currently covered here have Zionist and Judaic Religious beliefs. Given that nobody seems able to provide an external definition of "Jewish Terrorism", as religious, I would suggest that this article merges with Zionist Political Violence. The use of "Jewish Terrorism" to characterise the actions of extremist Zionist settlers by Israeli politicians supports their inclusion here, or there should the articles be merged.93.96.148.42 (talk) 00:45, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

If there's no definition of "Jewish terrorism", then the entire article should be deleted as WP:NOR. Alternatively, this article could parallel, say, the division of Islamic terrorism and Palestinian political violence. By the way, the Islamic terrorism article has no source for the claim that it is "religious terrorism by those whose motivations are rooted in their interpretations of Islam." You need to go over there and fix that, since that was the model for this article. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:53, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

nobody seems able to provide an external definition of "Jewish Terrorism", as religious ... so rename the article to Jewish religious terrorism to make it clear that its contents are about religious terrorism by those whose motivations are rooted in their interpretation of Judaism. -- ZScarpia (talk) 04:33, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Is there anyone who is actually opposed to this proposed renaming?

Why delete the content, when it describes political violence by Zionists, which should be incorporated in Zionist political violence93.96.148.42 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added on 03:54, 25 February 2009 (UTC).

If a member of Fatah performs a terrorist act, and is a Muslim, is it an act of Muslim terrorism? Jayjg ^(talk) 03:59, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it is Jewish terrorism:)93.96.148.42 (talk) 04:22, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

That's quite clear. Do you think it is an act of Muslim terrorism? NoCal100 (talk) 04:37, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

In the real world, it would probably be described as Arab terrorism. As Fatah has Christian and Muslim members, people wouldn't use a religious label to identify it. The word Arab would be used because the conflict that Fatah is involved in is perceived as one between Arabs and Jews (even though there are Jewish Arabs - or Arab Jews - the word Arab being a cultural identification). If an act of terrorism was carried out by a group of Muslims, or an individual Muslim acting on his own, against non-Muslims, many people would refer to it as Muslim terrorism. -- ZScarpia (talk) 09:08, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I am confused - when a Zionist attacks an Arab because his Zionism tells him that he should take the Arab's land - as the groups listed in this article advocate, where does Judaism come in?93.96.148.42 (talk) 22:35, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

If the groups don't have the type of motivation, organisation or other features described in the Religious terrorism article, they shouldn't appear here. -- ZScarpia (talk) 16:09, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Bad Copying

Jayjg please fix the other article that is broken, and let me try to fix this one. Better fix one, than have both broken! If this article is to be deleted, the content should be included within Zionist political violence, since it refers to political violence by zionists. Here are some sources that define Jewish terrorism- http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1043413.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/israel/3128224/Jewish-terrorism-threatens-Israel.html http://hnn.us/articles/832.html http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/world-news/israel-born-out-of-jewish-terrorism-british-parliamentarian_100143359.html http://www.milligazette.com/dailyupdate/2006/20060826_Muslim_terrorism_Jewish_Christian.htm93.96.148.42 (talk) 03:15, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

This article isn't broken, so it doesn't need "fixing". As far as I can tell, none of those sources actually define "Jewish terrorism"; rather, they just use the phrase. Could you provide any actual "definitions" they use? Jayjg ^(talk) 03:19, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I think Jayjg made a wise recommendation - it will give you a chance to see what it is like on the other side, and hopefully improve this article, too, as it was modeled after that one. This article does not refers to political violence by Zionists (though you and other editors insist that it should) - that article is Zionist political violence. This article is about religiously motivated acts of violence. NoCal100 (talk) 03:23, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Have looked at islamic terrorism - awful, should be renamed or deleted. No justification for continued existence of this non-article. The articles cited do not use "Jewish Terrorism" to describe religiously motivated terrorism, please find some that do, which are not deleted by a bot, otherwise this article is Original research.93.96.148.42 (talk) 03:52, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

If you believe this article is original research, please take it to AfD. NoCal100 (talk) 04:01, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

If you don't, please use another argument than Proof by assertion.93.96.148.42 (talk) 04:20, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I haven't made any argument, either for or against deletion. I simply let you know that this is not the place to suggest deletions of articles - AfD is. Go ahead and nominate it , and I will support you. NoCal100 (talk) 04:23, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Move

I tried to move the page to Jewish religious terrorism because 6 out of 7 editors agree to proceed while the 7th editor requires a definition of the current title, that cannot be provided. I failed because the article Jewish religious terrorism already exists and redirects here... I don't know how to deal this technically.
If somebody could proceed to the move, we could then let the opportunity to any editor to create and develop another article related to other kinds of Jewish terrorism not linked to Judaism or to Zionist political violence.
They would certainly have to pass the AfD debate that may follow their creation but at least, we would have a debate on the issue. Ceedjee (talk) 18:19, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello. Hopefully, the following will help. From Wikipedia:Redirect:

Listing is not necessary if you just want to replace a redirect with an article, or change where it points: see these instructions for help doing this. If you want to swap a redirect and an article, but are not able to move the article to the location of the redirect please use Wikipedia:Requested moves to request help from an admin in doing that.

-- ZScarpia (talk) 19:44, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I think that we should avoid a proliferation of articles and just try to work with the current Zionist political violence one. I would, though, like to propose a name change for it. The titles used so far, Zionist Terrorism and Zionist Political Violence, both have problems associated with them. There are valid concerns about the pejorative connotations of the word terrorism. But, there is a problem with trying to overcome that by substituting the phrase Political Violence for the word Terrorism. Political violence is defined as anything from regular warfare to something as minor as breaking windows or stone-throwing. Clearly, the phrase isn't an effective substitute if the article's focus is going to remain on the types of activity that it originally did. Another point is whether the article should cover what may be termed non-Zionist forms of "Jewish terrorism", or just what may be termed Zionist "terrorism". The best suggestions I can come up with are ones along the following lines:

• Zionist underground groups; Jewish underground groups
• Zionist underground group activity; Jewish underground group activity

-- ZScarpia (talk) 20:32, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I OBJECT, I would like to see some EVIDENCE for the existence of "Jewish religious terrorism", before such an article is created.93.96.148.42 (talk) 22:45, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

The article has already been created and THIS is it. The problem is that the title is causing people to argue about whether "Jewish terrorism" is a form of religious terrorism. The situation is that we have an article, Religious Terrorism, with three sub-articles, Jewish terrorism, Christian terrorism and Islamic terrorism. All of the sub-articles are causing dissension because of the titles. The point of sticking the word "religious" in the middle of the titles is an attempt to cure the dissension.

There is also a problem within the subject of Religious Terrorism itself, that being that it isn't a very well developed or widespread concept, whose small number of leading proponents give differing definitions of what it actually is. A result is that one says that The Troubles in Northern Ireland are a form of Religious Terrorism, while another disagrees, leading to an edit war in the Christian Terrorism article. That's a separate issue though.

-- ZScarpia (talk) 23:51, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion to change Jewish Terrorism to a disambiguation page

I suggest something similar to American_terrorism. Linking to Zionist Political Violence, Whatever this article is renamed as, etc93.96.148.42 (talk) 22:45, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

That is an issue that needs to be considered: what is needed in the way of re-direct and disambiguation pages. -- ZScarpia (talk) 23:55, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Somewhere, I suggested to have 3 topics :

• Jewish religious terrorism or Neo-Zionist political violence
• Zionist political violence
• Israeli political violence

I don't see any other form of political violence or terrorism. Ceedjee (talk) 08:33, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable to me. What do you think about what I said about the title of the Zionist political violence article. I think that both Zionist Terrorism and Zionist Political Violence are problematic and suggested looking for an alternative. -- ZScarpia (talk) 13:34, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

difficult. I answered there. Ceedjee (talk) 14:45, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Why not. It is "smoother" but it opens the door to other issues.

• it widers the topic : we could discuss the history, goals, policy, etc of these groups and not only the political violence... and it could be some sort of merge of the different articles.
• I see a technical problem : how to classify the expulsion of the Palestinian during the '48 war (with 1/2 due to Haganah (underground) and 1/2 due to IDF (official Israeli army).

Ceedjee (talk) 14:53, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

The way I've read your last point is that political violence is a better term because we're covering the activities of both the Haganah, an underground organisation, and the IDF, a state army. But, shouldn't the activities of the IDF be covered in the Israeli Political Violence article? Therefore, the type of activities covered in the one on Zionist Political Violence would be the ones of organised underground groups (I haven't checked back, but I can't think of any non-organised incidents which people might want covered). As far as discussing the history, goals, policy, etc of these groups is concerned, I think that the detail should be kept for the articles on each of the groups and the Zionist Political Violence one used as an overview. I should add that the title of the article wouldn't bother me if the first sentence of the article was changed so that the types of political violence covered in it were defined more explicitly. -- ZScarpia (talk) 15:56, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I am with you. I just don't see any good solution :-(

I add that I prefer political violence to terrorism because it is wider and more factual. Why to focus on the death of people when expulsion is also a harmful action ?

I have no mind. As you, I am open to any good solution :-) Ceedjee (talk) 16:51, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

It just seemed to me that the definition of political violence is too wide and vague. But, perhaps that's a good thing. I'll give more thought to it. -- ZScarpia (talk) 17:52, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

This seems to have been forgotten, and jewish terrorism currently redirects here - will change to a disambiguation page with jewish religious terrorism, Israeli political violence, Zionist political violence, as suggested above.93.96.148.42 (talk) 22:14, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

"That is not Jewish terrorism"

The edit summary in this revert appears to be based on the non-standard definition (discussed extensively above) that arbitrarily injects an invisible "religious" in "Jewish terrorism". Question to Ceedjee: is there any support in reliable sources or policy for that? MeteorMaker (talk) 12:32, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

But, once the title is changed, that word, "religious", won't be invisible anymore. The Zionist political violence article (and, incidentally, I've suggested replacing the phrase "political violence" with something a little more tightly defined, such as "underground groups" or "underground group activity") is supposed to be the place for non-religious "terrorism". -- ZScarpia (talk) 17:09, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I think the relevant policy would be WP:CFORK. There's no need for two articles about Irgun and Lehi. Either we merge them together, or we make two distinct articles. -- Nudve (talk) 05:14, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was PAGE MOVED per discussion below. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:01, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

---

Jewish terrorism → Jewish religious terrorism — This article is part of a familly of articles that have been created initially to refer to terrorism performed in the context of religions. Nevertheless Jewish is ambiguous given it can refer both a religion (Judaism) or to a group of people (Jews) and no source that would restrict the topic to religious Judaism can be provided. To prevent WP:CFORK with other articles talking about IZL, LHI or other events, it is better to precise the topic in the title. — Ceedjee (talk) 09:27, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

• Support. Not bad solution with none better [yet]. Ceedjee (talk) 15:19, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
• Support. The change would make explicit that the article relates solely to religous terrorism. -- ZScarpia (talk) 15:59, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
• Support. per ZScarpia. NoCal100 (talk) 03:37, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

• I was one of the original propounders of the move, but the recent discussion has opened some issues: Does the categorization as "religious" preclude including groups like Kach and Gush E in the category "Zionist terrorism" as well? Currently, one appears to be a subset of the other, as no non-Zionist religious terrorists are listed in this article. MeteorMaker (talk) 11:03, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

If their activities fulfil the conditions for being included in each article separately, then I see no reason not to include them in both. It may look like unnecessary duplication, but as Ceedjee points out in the previous section, there is a reason for the independent existence of the current article: This article is part of a familly of article that have been created initially to refer to terrorism performed in the context of religions. -- ZScarpia (talk) 13:21, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Definition

"Jewish religious terrorism is terrorism committed by Jews for religious or political reasons". Surely not. Jewish religious terrorism is actually terrorism committed by Jews for reasons of religious ideology. If someone happens to be Jewish and part of, say, an animal rights groups that bombs a lab, that'd be for political reasons, but not "Jewish religious terrorism". That wording isn't tight enough. Note that terrorism is already defined to include a political motive. What about "Jewish religious terrorism is terrorism by whose motivations and aims have a predominant Jewish religious character or influence", taking the wording from the lead of Religious terrorism? Discussion of terrorism motivated by nationalism rather than religion should go into Nationalist terrorism. Fences and windows (talk) 17:38, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

correct. Ceedjee (talk) 13:06, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed as well. An editor is now trying to change the lead sentence and apparently add an excuse to add Lehi and Irgun to the list, but the simple fact is, they were not religious organizations, and I don't know of a single serious source that would label them as such, or their acts as "religious terrorism". —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 20:23, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Baruch Goldstein and Yigal Amir

I added sourced material on these Jewish Religious Terrorists. It was removed, citing NPOV. Yigal Amir said "I acted alone and on orders from God," http://www.rand.org/publications/randreview/issues/rr.winter98.9/methods.html, and both are cited in the context of religious terrorism. Are there any reasoned objections to covering them, and their views in the article.93.96.148.42 (talk) 17:26, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Political violence

This section about Sternhall was tolerated at the time, but has since fallen into irrelevancy to this article. Nothing has been publicized tying this incident with Sternhall to anyone, let alone anything Jewish or religious. From the quoted source, "Although the police have said they fear a new Jewish underground was responsible for the attack, they also said that the investigation into the attack was in the early stages and that it wasn't yet clear who the perpetrators were." The section is heresay allegations that the police deny. --Shuki (talk) 23:28, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Article has devolved into a subjective list

This article is now little more than a subjective list that uses citations of random opinions, and it violates WP:Terrorist in every way.  dmyersturnbull  ⇒ talk 23:12, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Archive

Unless there is consensus disagreement, I propose that this page archive all strings with nothing more recent than the prior 21 days.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:11, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Name change

The name should change Religous violance, terrorism is an unneutral title. Kasaalan (talk) 10:22, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Since it is about groups who are/were definitively labeled terrorist organizations by governments I don't think we are breaking any rules by saying it's terrorism. And then we'd also have to change every "Terrorism by 'some Group'" to be "Extremism by 'some Group'". Terrorism just isn't a neutral word; we can have all "Terrorism" articles terrorism or have them "Extremism". Right now Wikipedia has Christian and Muslim terrorism but no Jewish terrorism article. Sol Goldstone (talk) 00:13, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest to re-name the article either to "Jewish terrorism" or "Judaic terrorism". Of course, the latter is rarely used, but at least it is in par with other religious terrorist articles (Islamic and Cristian)-- Jim Fitzgerald ^post 13:38, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree the word "religious" seems a bit redundant in this context. On the other hand, there is much confusion between using "Jewish" as a religion vs as a culture/ethnicity. Islam has a similar confusion with Islam vsIslamicism vs Islamism. I suppose Judaic terrorism is technically correct, and parallels the other similar articles. My suggestion, if you have some time to spare, is to spend it on improving the content of the article (it needs a lot of work) ... I predict that the sources you read will naturally lead to an ideal title. --Noleander (talk) 16:21, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Good idea. Let me start improving the article and we will see what we come up with. May I ask you to keep a log on the article while I am editing it? So that you could help if there would be some mistakes or irrelevent or missing information.-- Jim Fitzgerald ^post 16:47, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Sure, I've got it on my watch list; plus there are lots of other editors that will be happy to assist. The article Judaism and violence has a bibliography that has lots of good sources that may be relevant to this article. --Noleander (talk) 16:56, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

My vote is for "Jewish Terrorism" on the grounds that this is the most common term. It looks like the "Religious" modifier was put in to make it equivalent to the Christian and Islamic categories but this invited editors to make a lot of subjective calls on what qualified as "religious" terrorism instead of consulting RS on what they describe as "Jewish Terrorism". This article was butchered down from 7k bytes on the grounds that the material was either "Zionist Terrorism" or not religious, even though it looks like a lot of the deleted material had been described by RS as "Jewish Terrorism". Sol (talk) 17:52, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Sol Goldstone has a good point. There is an article Zionist political violence (and the phrase Zionist terrorism redirects to it). It appears that an effort has been made to draw a bright line between religion-motivated terrorism (this article), and non-religion terrorism (Zionist political violence). However, the sources (and persons involved) often give conflicting descriptions on whether religion was a major factor or not. For instance some of the incidents in the Zionist political violence article do have religious aspects (according to the sources). I suppose those two articles could be merged, but that would require some consensus-building (and probably some drama :-). Simpler would just be to identify the incidents in Zionist political violence that reliable sources say had a religious component, and mention that fact in this article. --Noleander (talk) 18:04, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

It's tricky because there isn't a great working definition of what is Jewish terrorism and not terrorism committed by Jews etc. The Islamic terrorism article addresses this by putting in anything with an RS calling it "Islamic Terrorism". Hence you get a number of politically motivated attacks that were perpetrated by Muslims but don't have much (if anything) to do with religion. That's an overly broad definition of Islamic terrorism (imho) but those are the sources. Here the terrorist activities have to meet editor's definitions of "religious" or be deleted (somehow Barush Goldstein was deleted, go figure). We could have an article addressing the specific area of "Jewish Religous Terrorism" (there's a whole body of fascinating fringe Rabbanical thought on when and how it's ok) and/or "Zionist Terrorism" but those should still be covered in a main "Jewish Terrorism" article. Sol (talk) 19:37, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

As far as I can judge all the confusion about the usage of term "Jewish religious terrorism" is rooted in the fact that "Jewish ethnicity, nationality, and religion are strongly interrelated, as Judaism is the traditional faith of the Jewish nation" (see Jew). As Noleander said, let's expand the article and then we can discuss the correct naming. My intention is to stick with term "religious terrorism".-- Jim Fitzgerald ^post 19:45, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Yup, that's the issue. "Jewish Terrorism" could mean terrorism committed by self-identified ethnic Jews, terrorism committed by religious Jews, terrorism committed by religious Jews solely for religious reasons etc. etc. I think the policy based solution is to let RS decide; if it says "Jewish terrorism" then the problem is solved. "Jewish religious terrorism" is pretty much the only kind I know of but it takes place right at the intersection of ethnic identity, religion and politics so it get's sticky. I'd like to expand the article but I can't decide what is religious enough to be considered relevant and (looking at the article history) that's the reason given for deleting relevant information. Baruch Goldstein, Rabin's assassination, Eden Natan-Zada, Irgun, Lehi, etc. have all been described in the the context of "Jewish Terrorism" by scholars and have religious components; do they belong here? Should we just understand the "religious" to be redundant and assume any "Jewish Terrorism" to be religious? If yes then I've got plenty to include but these are the questions that lead me to want a resolution on the name before moving ahead.Sol (talk) 20:02, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Jerusalem 614

Jim Fitzgerald: one incident that may be appropriate for this article is the 614 CE massacre in Jerusalem. It is discussed in Reckless Rites by Elliot Horowitz (pp 228-250); and in History of the Jews: from the earliest times to the present day, Volume 3 by Heinrich Graetz, pp 20-21; and Brother against brother: violence and extremism in Israeli politics by Ehud Sprinzak, p 287. I don't think it is mentioned yet in any article in this encyclopedia. --Noleander (talk) 18:44, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

You can call me simply Jim :). Thanks for the hint about this. I will include it to the article.-- Jim Fitzgerald ^post 19:45, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Done.-- Jim Fitzgerald ^post 15:22, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Subject of the article?

It seems that the subject of the article has been redefined each time it was renamed. Currently, it does not make a lot of sense, and not all inter-wiki links are appropriate. Term terrorism in its modern meaning cannot be applied retroactively to describe events that took place hundreds or thousands of years ago. This clearly violates NPOV. Of course, religious violence can be put in historical perspective, but we already have Violence in Judaism and can move appropriate parts there.

Also, Jewish Defense League was not a religious organization in any sense. It clearly does not belong here. It has been suggested before to rename the article to Neo-Zionist political violence. It would allow including organizations based on political, rather than religious affiliation. --Vicky Ng (talk) 23:18, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what the ancient stuff is doing here although I recall something about an RS calling it Jewish religious terrorism according to some editor. I forget. As to the name I'd prefer straight up "Jewish terrorism" just to keep the scope wide (the inclusion criteria being anything called "Jewish terrorism" by an RS but not just any terrorist act committed by Jews). Neo-Zionist runs into an amusing issue as one of the entries is an anti-Zionist Haredi group (which is incredibly bizarre but true). Sol (talk) 23:44, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Problem with your suggestion is that there is no single definition of Jewish terrorism. Although various RS may call various groups or individuals JT, without a single definition the article will become even more bizarre than it is now. --Vicky Ng (talk) 20:54, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Vicky: you are right, the overlap between Judaism and violence and this article is a bit blurry. I don't know if there will ever be a bright line dividing the two articles. As far as defining the scope of this article, that is tough because there is no single definition of "terrorism". Certainly a key factor is targeting civilian victims. I think the "ancient" material in this article does focus on some historical incidents where civilians were targeted. Are the events too long ago? The article History of terrorism indicates that terrorism goes back 1,000 or 2,000 years, or more. So I don't think there is agreed on "expiration date". --Noleander (talk) 21:34, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

The more I think about it, the less I can justify the existence of these two articles separately. One gives historical perspective on attitude to violence in Judaism; the other is supposed to focus on the modern concept (terrorism whose ideological grounds lie in Judaism), but also aims to cover history of violence, which may be referred to as terrorism in some RS, clearly, though, not using the same definition. So, let's either merge the two or define the scope in a meaningful way and follow this definition. Right now the article focuses on groups, some of which were not religious in any way (JDL) and individuals, who, yes, happen to be Jewish, but do not represent even a faction within Judaism, and calls it Jewish religious terrorism. --Vicky Ng (talk) 18:25, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I move the name be changed back to "Jewish Terrorism", which (albeit a fairly slim body of material and events) clearly meets WP:N, the standard for having an article. There's something known as "Jewish Terrorism", most of which is religious but some of which is secular; why not have an article encompassing both? The sources rarely distinguish if the Jewish terrorism in question was religiously, ethno-culturally, or politically motivated (the most common, not surprising for a name that encompasses a religion, group of people, and a country, is all three). To have "Jewish religious terrorism" invites endless editorial bickering over what is "religious enough" and, as the choice is between this article or "Zionist political violence", would leave some groups reliably called "Jewish terrorism" without an over-arching article. Sol (talk) 19:14, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Sol, typically sources do not bother distinguishing between various possible definitions of Jewish terrorism because they apply the term to just one variety and ignore others and not because all varieties that you described can be combined under one term. What you propose will result in a violation of WP:SYNT. --Vicky Ng (talk) 19:46, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Vicky: on your suggestion for a merger with Judaism and violence: I don't think that is feasible, since there are a large number of terrorism articles, including Islamic terrorism, so eliminating Jewish religious terrorism is unlikely to happen (also, Terrorisom is a valid sub-article of violence).

Sol: regarding the name change to Jewish terrorism ... that is not a bad idea. I seem to recall there have been editors that had strong reasons to separate the two (Zionist political violence and Jewish religious terrorism ). But both of the articles are rather small; and certainly Zionism falls under the rubric of Jewish topics ... so maybe those editors would reconsider? --Noleander (talk) 20:20, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Noleander, as you may have noticed, my suggestion had something to do with your insistence to include events dating back hundreds or thousands of years into the scope of this article. If political terrorism driven by religious ideology is the subject here, then it clearly does not include medieval violence. Yes, there is a large number of terrorism articles. How is that a reason for anything? Do you think that it is the existence of Islamic terrorism and the like that justifies the existence of this article??

As far as mixing Zionist and other secular terrorism with religious terrorism, although they overlap, one is not a subset of the other, and their grouping is rather artificial and is based on criteria lacking notability. --Vicky Ng (talk) 20:44, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Interesting question. They may not be subsets of each other but they are subsets of "Jewish terrorism" in most of the material on the subject. That there is Zionist, Jewish religious, Jewish secular and anti-Zionist Jewish terrorism is evident; what's not clear is which group or individual falls under what groups (most of them fall under at least one). We can avoid the problem by reverting back to the old title, otherwise we'd need a whole mess of little articles on each possible sub-division(if RS can support that) to cover the same ground.

Noleander, that sounds ok by me. We could try opening an RFC or something along those lines. Sol (talk) 21:18, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Noleander, and "Jewish terrorism" in this sense is a subset of what?? Using current definition, JRT is a subset of Religious Terrorism, Zionist Terrorism is a subset of Nationalist Terrorism, etc, Jewish Marxists who took part in Revolutionary terror are where they belong, etc. I oppose to your suggestion to lump all these together. --Vicky Ng (talk) 23:13, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Vicky: My point was very simple: WP has articles on Christian terrorism, Islamic terrorism, etc. We cannot treat Judaism specially, so this article will exist one way or another. On your question as to whether the medieval material belongs in this article or Judaism and violence, I do not have a strong opinion. If you want to propose moving it to the latter, I would not object. --Noleander (talk) 04:15, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Your point may be simple, but your logic is flawed. If Christian terrorism and Islamic terrorism exist, it does not follow from it that Jewish terrorism exists or that the term is defined equally well. If WP has articles on Christian terrorism and Islamic terrorism, it does not mean that it must have an article on Jewish terrorism. Particularly, I object to lumping anything Jewish and terrorism-related under this artificial umbrella. --Vicky Ng (talk) 15:19, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

True, it doesn't follow but we've enough well sourced information to say that "Jewish terrorism" does exist as a concept. For better or worse, terrorists are classified under what religious/ideological allegiances they hold (note that a great deal of "religious terrorism" has almost nothing to do with religion and actually violates the related faith's teachings, 9/11 etc.). Is Jewish terrorism committed by Jews for religious reasons, any terrorism by Jews or some combination? I don't know, I'm not an RS. But there are many things widely called by the name, its notable and deserves an article. We could change the name back or start a new one. Sol (talk) 16:47, 3 Decembe:::r 2010 (UTC)

Sol, the same concept may go by different names in different RS, while the same name may be used for different concepts. However, only one concept may be the subject of an article. It is not sufficient to have one RS refer to Jewish Religious Terrorism as simply Jewish Terrorism and on the basis of that add anything else from other sources that is called Jewish Terrorism there (again, see WP:SYNT). Classifying terrorists by ideology is appropriate and has nothing to do with the point that I raise. --Vicky Ng (talk) 18:32, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

So are you amenable to reversing the name change? It's the common term for the subject and would remove these potential SYNTH issues. We can cover the various dimensions of the term and its sometimes conflicting definitions, that's how the other religious terrorism articles deal with it (and various sources). Sol (talk) 20:06, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Vicky: I agree that the article can be improved, and we should work together to do that. However, if you refer to the top of this Talk page, you'll see there were two prior proposals to delete it, and they both failed. Rather than spend time on a third Deletion proposal, I suggest we focus on improving the article incrementally, based on sound, reliable sources. Is there specific material you want moved out of the article? Or is there phrasing in the article that you think should be improved? --Noleander (talk) 20:33, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I have never nominated it for deletion and would like to imrpove it. Let's start by sticking to the subject rather than renaming it in order to justify combining multiple subjects into one. Since this article is about Jewish religious terrorism, let's move or remove material regarding anything that isn't Jewish religious terrorism. --Vicky Ng (talk) 06:09, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Ah, there's the rub- what qualifies as religious enough? Everything in this article has aspects of religion and, no surprise, no one wants to identify their religion as having any relation with terrorism (last paragraph, page 44 which is completely valid; religious terrorism runs counter to the teachings of every religion. But that's how it's called. Take JDL: the fifth principle "FAITH IN THE INDESTRUCTIBILITY OF THE JEWISH PEOPLE Faith in the greatness and indestructibility of the Jewish people, our religion and our Land of Israel." I'm also curious if there's non-religious Jewish terrorism which seems to be the implicit rationale for the title change. If this were a list of any organization/incident perpetrated by/involving someone of Jewish lineage (Weather Underground is the only one I can think of) I'd agree the scope was outside what's called JT. Sol (talk) 12:33, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Sol, are you kidding me? Religious terrorism runs counter to the teachings of every religion? Anyway, let's not debate here issues that are not related to this article or your assumptions about the way other people feel when their religion is identified with anything.

Please bring RS calling JDL, Lechi or Irgun religious organizations or referring to terrorist acts carried out by these organizations as religious terrorism. See also: Zionist terrorism. --Vicky Ng (talk) 15:22, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

That's what this talk page is full of, challenges to prove that a group is "religious enough" to be here. It's strayed far into OR. Try finding a book with "Jewish Religious Terrorism" in the title. There isn't one. It's a tautology. Now look for one on "Jewish terrorism". Lots o' stuff. This article's title was changed to a phrase not employed in the literature to distinguish it from a category that doesn't seem to exist, non-religious Jewish terrorism. I don't actually want to bicker about how religious one group was or was not or try to shoe horn groups into the definition employed in the article. I'm not an RS and the article won't last if that's all we have here, editors' opinions of religiousness. I'll start a discussion thread for a name change, maybe even RFC it. Here's your JDL source. Someone else can cover Irgun/Lehi, I've never really thought of them as Jewish terrorism but paramilitary groups with a few terrorist incidences. But then again, I'm not an RS.Sol (talk) 00:39, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

You may need to revisit the definition of RS. --Vicky Ng (talk) 03:35, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

A criminology and a conflict studies professor? Sol (talk) 02:29, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

614 AD

Events in this period should be moved to another article. They don't fall under terrorism. Chesdovi (talk) 23:27, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I have rm the following from the page as it does not fall under terrorism: Chesdovi (talk) 12:18, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

By 614 AD, Palestine was a part of the Roman successor state, the Byzantine Empire. In 614 the Persian army led by Khosrau II's general Shahrbaraz together with his Jewish allies has besieged Jerusalem, which at that time was inhabited predominantely by Byzantine Christians. After the twenty-two days of bombardment, the city's walls broke and the Persian army had breached the city's fortifications. Invading the city Persians and some 26,000 Jewish rebels went onto onslaughtering Christians on the streets of the city. Early Chrisitan chroniclers write that Jerusalem Christians were taken captive, gathered together and murdered in mass by Jews. The ancient Greek historian Antiochus Strategos writes, that captive Christians were gathered near Mamilla reservoir and the Jews offered them to help escaping the death if they "become Jews and deny Christ". The Christian captives refused, and the Jews in anger had purchased the Christians from Persians and massacred them on spot. Antiochus writes:

"Then the Jews... as of old they bought the Lord from the Jews with silver, so they purchased Christians out of the reservoir; for they gave the Persians silver, and they bought a Christian and slew him like a sheep."

According to Antiochus, the total number of Christian death tool was 66,509, of which 24,518 corpses were found at Mamilla, many more than were found anywhere else in the city, according to other sources 60,000. The Jews destroyed the Christian churches and the monasteries, books were burnt and monks and priests killed. According to Israeli archeologists there were no destruction of churches. A mass burial grave at Mamilla cave was discovered in 1989 by Israeli archeologist Ronny Reich.

Chesdovi: It looks like that is encyclopedic material: can you move it to another article (vs deleting entirely)? Or did you already move it? --Noleander (talk) 14:26, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

"Individuals" section?

Shuki: what is your concern about the Individuals section? There are numerous reliable sources that describe Goldstein's and Amir's motivations as religious in nature. --Noleander (talk) 18:36, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm also curious. Even Natan-Zada is characterized as a Jewish religious terrorist by RS. The section itself needs work but it's nothing violating WP policy, mainly style concerns. The previous deletion's were based on very shaky grounds, often with no actual discussion on them or on the grounds that they didn't meet the editors' personal definitions of terms. If there are other reasons, please tell. Sol (talk) 18:47, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

One by one. Amir was a terrorist? In his article, is that word stated once? How does he fit the bill? Beware of BLP of course. --Shuki (talk) 20:02, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes. The book Jewish terrorism in Israel by Ami Pedahzur has an entire chapter devoted to him, and it discusses the religious aspects of his motivation. And there are many other sources.--Noleander (talk) 20:46, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Shuki, you might want to look at the source I provided. The one you can click on and read the book. You know we aren't bound by how a WP article describes a person but how RS does nor do we decide who's a terrorist. That said, he shot the prime minister. Of Israel. To derail a political process he opposed. Yeah, I'd say it fits the bill :P Btw: Was there a reason for the original removal? Sol (talk) 21:51, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Shuki, here is the excerpt from the Israeli Court verdict on Amir [8], it proofs that he tried to justify his crime as a religious duty:-- Jim Fitzgerald ^post 15:12, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

What arises from this is that the acts of the accused -- especially the ludicrous attempt to argue that a difference exists between wounding Rabin, as Prime Minister, and wounding him as a person -- are a crass attempt, the fruit of a distorted thought, which is designed to sanction the murder as a religious commandment or a moral mission. And is there nothing more blasphemous than this act, in which the accused tried to find within the Torah grounds -- which do not exist -- to justify this terrible act.

One source Sol is called WP:FRINGE. Jim, he is religious, so? All religious people convicted of murder are terrorists? --Shuki (talk) 15:31, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

One source isn't fringe. If only one source existed and it flew in the face of all the others then it would be fringe. Fortunately, there are multiple sources for this unless you don't consider Israeli scholars RS. Asking Jim's definition of religious terrorism would be understandable if Jim were going to publish his response in an RS. And yes, your quote from the sentencing sums it up nicely; like most religious terrorism, it's a perversion. There's no legitimate Torah-based rationalization for killing Rabin any more than there's a well-reasoned Muslim defense of the 9/11 attacks. Sol (talk) 15:43, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Shuki, the case of Amir is an exemplary case of the religious terrorism. As Sol said correctly religous terrorism is a perverted interpretation of the religious dogmas, and this is exactly what being specifically pointed in the lead section.-- Jim Fitzgerald ^post 16:22, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

No it isn't, that is called SYNTH. Terrorists murder. Amir, a religious Jew convicted of murder = Amir is a Jewish religious terrorist? If you want to add a line to the Amir article saying that some call him a terrorist, try there first. But don't add him here as an example of terrorist when the vast majority of thousands on thousands of mentions refer to him as an assasin or murderer, and a couple as a terrorist. --Shuki (talk) 18:38, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Shuki: This article needs to follow the sources. Can you confirm that you've read the following:

• Pedahzur , Avi, Jewish terrorism in Israel, Columbia University Press, 2009, pp 98-110
• Stern, Jessica (2004). Terror in the Name of God: Why Religious Militants Kill. HarperCollins. p. 91. ISBN 0060505338,. {{cite book}}: Check |isbn= value: invalid character (help)CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link)
• Mickolus, Edward, The terrorist list: A-K, ABC-CLIO, 2009, p 66
• Sprinzak, Ehud Brother against brother:violence and extremism in Israeli politics from Altalena to the Rabin assassination 1999
• Hoffman, Bruce Inside Terrorism 1998 pg. 88

They clearly identify Amir as a terrorist. Your personal opinion on the matter is not relevant. --Noleander (talk) 18:43, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Noleander, I do not have access to those books. Please give us context and bring direct quotes of this information. Don't tell me Mickolus has merely listed Amir as a source... --Shuki (talk) 18:55, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Have you tried clicking on the links in the references section? The ones that go to the google book copies archived on line? When you see "pg" next to a number that is the page number you should look for. You can even search them using the sidebar. Now I know not all of them are online but you don't need all of them, right? You just want confirmation of a fact, it's not like you are here to frustrate additions you dislike. Sol (talk) 19:09, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Uh, are we on the same issue here? The sources are actually the only ones not linked. Can you help Noleander find copies? --Shuki (talk) 19:30, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

No problem. Just scroll down to the bottom of this. (3 and 26).Sol (talk) 00:02, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Did you just link back to the article? Is everything ok with you these days? Those references are not URLs, so I am requesting context and direct quotes, no synth about Amir is Jewish, Amir is religious, Amir was convicted so Amir is a terrorist. --Shuki (talk) 18:07, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant 3 and 27. Ever since my latest cosmetic lobotomy I've been hell with numbers. The Sprinzak takes you to about half way through his discussion of Amir, it's an interesting read. Sol (talk) 18:57, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

• I don't see how news media describing arrest and allegations against Teitel count as RS. Yes, arrest made more headlines than release. So? It is simply not known if Teitel is a terrorist, and making this claim violates numerous sections of WP:BLP. News media, as secondary source, must refer to a primary source. Which primary source is being relied upon here? Are they in the position to make such statement? --Vicky Ng (talk) 21:34, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

The reliable sources requirement exists to to ensure that the sources are accurate. Many sources describe Teitel's actions as terrorism (see, e.g. the article about him Yaakov Teitel, or google his name). Journalistic sources are perfectly acceptable when they are mainstream news organizations, that follow professional standards and employ fact-checking. The precise wording in the Teitlel article is ... arrested in October 2009 for his alleged connection to various acts of domestic terror, and similar wording could be used in this article. --Noleander (talk) 21:48, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Noleander, you've avoided the issue that I raised. Journalistic sources are perfectly acceptable as secondary sources, when they reference primary sources. What in this case is a primary source? Note that the same requirements do not necessarily apply to the stand-alone Yaakov Teitel article: he is notable on his own (as subject of many news articles), regardless of whether or not he is a terrorist. However, for this inclusion, you do need a primary source. This is not a list of notable individuals who may or may not be Jewish religious terrorists. --Vicky Ng (talk) 22:48, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I didn't think there would be much material on Teitel until his conviction and was surprised by seeing his inclusion here. Nevertheless, the sources look sound and really like to call him a 'Jewish terrorist'. Rather prematurely but it looks he's confessed to various things. I've re-tuned it to make it clear that he hasn't been convicted of anything yet. That work, maybe? Sol (talk) 01:48, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

His confessions are irrelevant; if you've read the articles, you know why. I think that acts of terror should be described here, and Teitel may be mentioned as a suspect, but not the other way around: individuals are listed along with acts of terror that they may or may not have committed. In other words, I think that the whole individuals section must go. --Vicky Ng (talk) 04:52, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Vicky that the primary emphasis should be on the acts of terror, and Teitel should be mentioned as a suspect. On the other hand, I would not say his confessions are "irrelevant", I would just use material from the sources to put them in context. Or, better yet, just use a 'main" link to the Teitel article and let the reader get details there. Regarding the suggestion "the whole individuals section must go" that has been discussed above in the Talk page, and the consensus was that the section is appropriate. Perhaps the section could be re-titled "Individual terrorist acts" or something like that? --Noleander (talk) 11:25, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I only mention his confessions as a possible explanation for why newspapers are already referring to him as a terrorist (which isn't a best journalistic practice, unless you enjoy possible libel lawsuits). If they hadn't used those terms I'd oppose his inclusion. Sol (talk) 17:17, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Jewish religious terrorism

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Jewish religious terrorism's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "ynet":

• From Israel: "'Israel's economy most durable in face of crises', Ynet 05.20.2010". Ynetnews.com. 1995-06-20. Retrieved 2010-09-29.
• From Yaakov Teitel: "Settler suspected of multiple hate crimes". Ynetnews. 1 November 2009. Retrieved 2009-11-02.
• From Jewish Defense League: "'French Jews killed Muslim out of racist motives'". Ynetnews. Retrieved May 15, 2010.
• From Judaism and violence: [9] (in Hebrew)

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 22:54, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I added the second cite from that list into the "ynet" ref. --Noleander (talk) 15:18, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Additions to lead by User:Jim Fitzgerald tagged with Template:Failed verification

On 30 October 2010 (18:23), User:Jim Fitzgerald edited the lead section to include the passage, "The motivation for Jewish religious terrorism is typically rooted in an fanatical interpretation of the Judaic dogmas,[3] and other tenets of faith." In the article's current version, the passage now reads, "Its motivation is typically rooted in a fanatical interpretation of Judaic dogmas[4]."

The source provided is to "Democracy Isn't Easy," an article by Anne Roiphe on the Ground Zero mosque in the Jerusalem Post, from 14 September 2010.

In the entire article there is one sentence that directly mentions Jews. But since one could conceivably argue that the theme of the paragraph is Jewish extremism, let's suppose there are three sentences. These have been reproduced below:

Some have disgraced their religion with violent acts, which others would never contemplate. The acts of a few religious fanatics are an aberration the world has seen often enough. Baruch Goldstein, Yigal Amir and those who encouraged them also perverted their love of God into slaughter.

In the first place, the lead section should not include sources of questionable reliability. Anne Roiphe appears to be a feminist writer: her academic credentials do not establish her as a reliable authority on the subject.

Secondly, being that the article is about the Ground Zero mosque and not about about Jewish religious terrorism, it is a poor choice of reference for a claim in the lead.

And thirdly, the text you inserted into the lead does not correspond to what Roiphe wrote in her article. Roiphe wrote, "Baruch Goldstein, Yigal Amir and those who encouraged them also perverted their love of God into slaughter." You, however, wrote, "The motivation for Jewish religious terrorism is typically rooted in an fanatical interpretation of the Judaic dogmas." There is no source for "typically rooted" or "fanatical interpretation of Judaic dogma." Hence the tag Template:Failed verification.

User:Jim Fitzgerald, please address these concerns by editing the text in the article, or by replying here if you prefer to defend the current version.—Biosketch (talk) 17:05, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Good call. His defense is not valid and it's quite unfortunate that unsourced statement has been present for months. It should be removed unless/until adequately sourced. Plot Spoiler (talk) 01:15, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

To be fair, you only gave the guy about eight hours to formulate a defense. But as it doesn't seem anyone is challenging your deletion, I guess it can stand.—Biosketch (talk) 11:52, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Request quote from Pedahzur and Perliger

The third citation in the lead is being challenged. The reference itself isn't a problem; rather a quote from the reference is required to verify that Pedahzur and Perliger themselves recognize such a concept as "Jewish religious terrorism" in their book. As the article itself acknowledges further down, Pedahzur and Perliger "tend not to distinguish between nationalist and religious Jewish terrorism." This would seem to conflict with the claim being made in the first sentence in the lead, which purports to use Pedahzur and Perliger as a source for the very definition of "Jewish religious terrorism." Failure to produce the required quotation will mean that the article is interpreting Pedahzur and Perliger in a way they did not themselves intend, possibly even misrepresenting their research, in which case it would constitute WP:OR and the citation would have to be removed.—Biosketch (talk) 11:40, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I dont have a copy of that book (nor did I insert the material that references it). But looking at the portions of it available on Google, it appears that the authors are focusing on religious terrorism, because one of the chapters is named "Comparing Jewish Terrorism with Other Manifestations of Religious Terrorism". The book itself is called Jewish Terrorism in Israel. I think there is a mistake in the article where it says "In their book "Jewish Terrorism in Israel" Ami Pedahzur and Arie Perlinger, tend not to distinguish between nationalist and Jewish terrorism" .. I dont think that is accurate, from what I can see in Google. Another mistake in the article is that they quote the book's definition of "terrorism" and represent it as a definition of "religious terrorism". --Noleander (talk) 15:57, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Here is a review of the book from Publishers Weekly: "Israeli academics Pedahzur (The Israeli Secret Service and the Struggle Against Terrorism ) and Perliger (Middle East Terrorism ) point out that Muslim extremists don't hold a monopoly on terrorism: Israel has seen hundreds of attacks by Jewish terrorists—most directed against Palestinians, but some against the state itself. The authors present a carefully constructed theoretical model, positing that “radicalization within a specific counterculture, fostered by a threatening external event and portrayed by spiritual leaders as catastrophic” precipitate violence—not just by Jewish extremists but “any counterculture that adheres to a totalistic ideology.” Indeed, the authors see clear parallels between Jewish terrorist cells and their Muslim counterparts, and stress that mere faith isn't enough to create violent intent (they note that “religious terrorist groups... made up less than 15 percent of all terrorist groups active in the 20th century”). Pedahzur and Perliger occasionally slip into academese and assume a close knowledge of Israeli political minutiae, but in combining exhaustive analysis with straight-forward language and compelling nonfiction narrative, they provide excellent insight into a little reported and even lesser understood reality" --Noleander (talk) 16:44, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Biosketch: BTW, the book is 243 pages and appears to be devoted to the topic of this article. The chapter headings indicate that there is a lot of material missing from the article, so if you have some time, perhaps you could get a copy of the book and improve the article. --Noleander (talk) 16:44, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

The comment above and the tag added to the article were restricted only to the lead, not to the Pedahzur & Perliger material further down. It seems an IP took the word "religious" out of the lead since I tagged it, but a few days ago it said, "Jewish religious terrorism is religious terrorism committed by adherents of Judaism." Now, when defining what something is in the first sentence of the lead, it's important to verify that it's not the editor's original research and that there are published sources that define the term in the same way. If Pedahzur & Perliger don't explicitly acknowledge that there's such a thing as "Jewish religious terrorism," then they are not an appropriate source for the lead sentence. Yes, they talk about Jewish terrorists and they talk about Jewish terrorists who were religious – but unless their book contains a definition of "Jewish religious terrorism" that is equivalent to how the lead is defining it, it is WP:SYNTH and the third citation needs to be removed.

As for inviting me to be a more active contributor to the article, the offer is genuinely appreciated but respectfully declined.—Biosketch (talk) 17:47, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

List of Jewish religious terrorist organizations

There are considerable WP:OR problems with the whole "List of Jewish religious terrorist organizations" section, as none of the sources cited classifies these organizations as "Jewish religious terrorist organizations." Unless editors can find sources that identify these groups specifically as "Jewish religious terrorist organizations," the claim is tantamount to WP:OR.—Biosketch (talk) 18:18, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Could you clarify your concern? Are you saying that there are no sources that say the groups are religious? Or are you saying that there are no sources that say the groups are terrorist? Or are you looking for a source that uses that exact phrase "Jewish religious terrorist organizations"? Also, you may want to refer to the article Zionist political violence. Also, you may want to read Talk page discussions above (perhaps in archives) on the use of "religious" or not in the article title: I think the article originally did not include the word "religious" but it was added later. I think several editors have proposed removing the word "religious" from the title since it would avoid confusion. --Noleander (talk) 15:45, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

There are sources that say the groups are religious and there are sources that classify them as terrorist groups. It is SYNTH, however, to merge the two together and make the claim that they are "Jewish religious terrorist groups" when there doesn't seem to be anyone else out there actually making that claim and calling them that.

Incidentally, had the title of this article been "Jewish terrorism," that would have been much easier to justify than "Jewish religious terrorism." The IP that molested the lead sentence and took the word "religious" out probably acted out of malice; but in doing so, ironically, he also removed the most problematic aspect of the lead: the controversial claim that there is such a thing as "Jewish religious terrorism" that's discussed and recognized in independent third-party sources.—Biosketch (talk) 17:57, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

The issue here is that "Jew" is both an ethnic and religious designation, and therefore "Jewish terrorism" could similarly refer to terrorism committed by Jews or terrorism committed in the name of Judaism. The name disambiguates the topic of this article. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:24, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

That's true, and it's a pertinent observation. But the question I'm asking is, Where did the article name come from as a concept, and on whose authority did the editors decide which organizations qualify as "Jewish religious terrorist organizations"? Is there an established category "Jewish religious terrorism" in the literature or did the editors synthesize it from fragments of books and essays? WP:BOP demands that the editor adding content be able to demonstrate where it came from. All that's being asked for are the relevant quotes that support the material in the article. Where is there a definition of "Jewish religious terrorism"? Where are the sources that classify the JDL as a "Jewish religious terrorist organization"? And again, would I classify Kach as a Jewish religious terrorist organization? Sure, a compelling argument could be formulated for that. But it would just be WP:OR unless it was closely tied to a WP:RS. For the article to have a right to exist, it needs to do a better job convincing us that it's not WP:SYNTH.—Biosketch (talk) 06:30, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

It was initially created because Raphael1 (talk · contribs · logs · block log) didn't like the fact that there was an Islamic terrorism article but none about "Jewish terrorism". Although his article was turned into a redirect, it was later restored by Lapsed Pacifist (talk · contribs · logs · block log), who felt Wikipedia needed more articles exposing the evils of Israel and Israeli fringe groups. What exactly are you arguing here, though, that the article should be deleted as OR, or that its name be changed? Jayjg ^(talk) 00:23, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

If that's indeed the article's background, then it confirms the ominous bad-faith shadow looming over it that I was beginning to suspect. However, leaving aside the putative bad-faith motivations of the editors involved in the article's creation, I think it is still premature to argue compellingly that the article should be deleted. Is it my personal opinion that it should be deleted? Yes, from what few inquiries I've made into the credibility of the article's claims (above and in the article proper), it would appear that a considerable chunk of the article is SYNTH and therefore invalid by Wikipedia's standards. Moreover, it is WP:OR to argue from a small number of isolated incidents, i.e. groups and individuals labeled religious and terroristic, to a general rule, i.e. Jewish religious terrorism, when there aren't independent third-party sources supporting that argument. Given more time to examine the article's sources, and absent any sound counterarguments, the article will probably invite its own AfD. And as for a name change, there is already an article Zionist political violence, so any alternative name would probably overlap with the scope of that article and therefore be redundant.—Biosketch (talk) 14:14, 1 April 2011 (UTC)