User talk:Richardshusr/Ancient persecution of non-Jews by Jews

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

Archive

  • /archive 1
This article is kind of screwy. The main case where Jews can be argued to have persecuted non-Jews is things like the Amalekites and certain other pagan peoples in the era of the old Jewish kingdoms. After about 200 AD Jewish people didn't have the political power in any kingdom to inflict persecution on non-Jews, unless the Khazars did so. Yet this is mostly about persecution to Christians in a period when Jewish people would have had little ability or inclination to do so. Persecution of Christians would have been pretty early on when Jewish people still had more authority/respectability in Israel than the Christians did. Probably before 135 AD, if even that late.--T. Anthony 14:48, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
that's not an argument. This article is a subarticle of History of Judaism. We branch out sub-articles when a section is getting too long and detailed. If this article is just a lot of blather about one or two isolated cases, there is no reason why not to integrate it into the main article. Additionally, we do not usually call Iron Age cruelties "Ancient persecution". Do you suggest we create Ancient persecution of Hittites by Assyrians, Ancient persecution of Assyrians by Egyptians, Ancient persecution of Babylonians by Elamites and so on? I thought not. dab (ᛏ) 15:07, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
Actually I said this article is screwy. I then essentially said that if an article on this topic is to be done it'd make sense to mostly focus on the period the Jewish people had a kingdom with the power to persecute people. This isn't saying the article should exist at all. If I saw an article on Persecution by ancient Armenians I'd expect it'd be mostly about their empire. Pointing this out doesn't mean I think such an article should survive.--T. Anthony 23:39, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
What's not an argument? If you are referring to the view expressed by Leifern and myself, then you would be right if there were no legitimate content to be placed here, just a topic-heading to match the Christian and Muslim one. But there is legitimate and quite interesting, I think, material, particularly relating to the relatively short period when Judaism looked as though it might expand to become one of the world's major faiths, not just because of its huge influence on Christianity and Islam, but as the "official" or dominant faith in various kingdoms. The early period concerning the ancient conquest of Israel itself is also relevant because the events are canonised in the Bible and have thus influenced Christian ideologies, and also because of the impact this story still has in Israel/Palestine today. The current article looks "kind of screwy" because of the efforts of some editors who have repeatedly deleted the early sections about the Amalekites on the grounds that Israelites do not count as Jews and the later sections on the grounds that recent events do not count as historical - despite the fact that the Muslim and Christian articles contain sections devoted to recent and current events. Of course, all these articles are dead-certs for permanent neutrality-dispute notices. It's in the nature of them. But it is not "a lot of blather" to discuss this topic fairly and comprehensively. Paul B 15:52, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
This is something I've gotten in trouble saying, but you are aware how small Judaism is as a percent of the world's people? I'm not sure we have articles on persecution by faiths of similar size. Persecution by Sikhs I'm guessing will turn up red. From what I can tell there isn't even article on Persecution by atheists, yet there is an article on Persecution of atheists, even though that's far more historically significant than persecution by Jewish people.--T. Anthony 23:47, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
I am very well aware of the size of the Jewish population, as should be evident from the comment about "the relatively short period when Judaism looked as though it might expand to become one of the world's major faiths, not just because of its huge influence on Christianity and Islam, but as the "official" or dominant faith in various kingdoms." Numbers, anyway, are far less important than influence. And why shouldn't we have articles on historical persecution by Sikhs if legitimate content is to be found. Certainly, there should be a historical persecution by atheists article. The only thing stopping it is the fact that no-one has bothered to create it. If it were created I doubt its existence would be challenged. What I object to is the attempt to repress the legitimate discussion of a topic. See debates above. Paul B 01:29, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually it might be worse than I thought. I'm not sure we have Persecution by Hindus or Persecution by Buddhists. To have this article and not those is strange. That said if this article is to exist it should be less about unconfirmed rumors and more about Jewish kingdoms. If the ancient Israelite thing is confusing then there is bound to be appropriate stuff on Judah.--T. Anthony 23:51, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Only the Abrahamic religions have "persecution" articles, all of which have led to massive conflict and accusations of bias by adherents of the religions in question. Though there is no Persecution by Hindus article, many articles on Hinduism-related topics have led to accusations of anti-Hindu bias. Actually, such accusations are the reason why this article came into being. It was created by a Muslim who objected to the "unfairness" of the "Persecution by Muslims" article if there were no "Persecution by Jews" article. He then created a whole series of empty "Persecution by..." articles, most of which remained empty. This one eventually acquired some content. It was put up for deletion, but survived. After that it's been chipped way at with various arguments challenging every aspect of its content. The result is a mess, and the creation of other articles to address the deleted content. There should be a single clear article that discusses the issue fairly. It's better to have a place where the issues can be thrashed out than encourage the creation of new, potentially highly biassed, articles elsewhere. I think Dab is being far too legalistic. Justice should not only be done it should be seen to be done. Paul B 01:29, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Look, there is no a priori reason why Abrahamic religions in particular should have "Persecution" articles, more than other groups. NPOV does not mean generating combinatorial article titles. There is a case for an article of a certain title, if it can be shown that the topic has been given attention in reputable sources, in this case among historians. If there was a book or something with minimal academic credentials making a case for "Ancient persecution by Jews", the article would be fine. Just pulling the meme out of thin air on Wikipedia, because there are similarly titled articles too, is "OR" and will not do. Plus, my point stands that "Ancient persecution" is a horrible title. The way to go is: try to establish a "persecution" section on History of Judaism, listing Gudit and Bar Kochba. That's two sentences. If sourced discussion can expand the section to the length of a small article, then will be the time to create a suitably titled sub-article. dab (ᛏ) 08:24, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Look, no-one said that there was an "a priori" reason why only Abrahamic religions should have Persecution articles, hence the statement "why shouldn't we have articles on historical persecution by Sikhs if legitimate content is to be found?". The reason this particular "parity of articles" came into being was that the Abrahamic faiths have a long an glorious tradition of inter-faith distrust, conflict and accusation-mongering. So we get What Your Lot did to My Lot articles, generating counter-accusations and further generating denials that My Lot Never Did anything to Your Lot and Even if they Did it Wasn't half as Bad as What Your Lot Did to My Lot. Paul B 10:17, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Retitled

Don't know why this was undone. There is now a new article with modern "persecution," so this renaming is all the more pressing. IronDuke 17:12, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

The newly created article is in existence only because certain editors have refused to include information about contemporary persecution in this article. I undid the rename because the new title makes such 'contemporary' sections (which are present in Historical persecution by Christians#Contemporary) mutually exclusive with the article's stated topic. There is no reason why this article should be limited merely to 'ancient' persecution.

I will not rename the page immediately, but I plan to do so if a few more people support my position. Ingoolemo talk 18:50, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

What's wrong with Wikipedia this article

The article currently has this gem:

In Ethiopia, Queen Gudit, who allegedly persecuted Christians around 970 and helped bring down the Kingdom of Aksum, is said in Ethiopian chronicles to have been Jewish, though some modern scholars have cast doubt on this, suggesting that she may have been a pagan. [1] [2] [3]

What's wrong here? Gudit is recorded, by Christians, as having been instrumental in bringing about the fall of [the Christian kingdom of] Aksum. The assertion, however, that Gudit was Jewish began in the early 1900s, because a J.A. Rogers claimed (without anything approaching reliable evidence) that Gudit was actually a Jewish queen named Esther. Most reliable scholarship, including in the three webpages cited in the article here, say that not only was she likely not Esther, but that she likely wasn't even Jewish. In light of the overwhelming scholarship that indicates (despite what the Israeli Chief Rabbinate said in the 1970s) that the Beta Israel are, if not all, primarily, descendants of a persecuted (Christian) Sabbatarian sect from 300 years after the time of Gudit, it seems rather unlikely that even if Gudit were Jewish (which is strongly disputed), that her queendom was not. So not only is it doubtful that Gudit was Jewish, even if she was, this is at most an example of a monarch who, as fate would have it was a Jew, declaring war on a neighboring monarchy which, as fate would have it, was not primarily Jewish. What's more, Gudit's wars against Aksum were apparently a response to Aksum's attempting to take over her queendom! All of this, ridiculously enough, can be gleaned from the articles cited here as support for the inclusion of this grasping-at-straws assertion in this shoddy excuse for an article! If she hadn't been accused of being Jewish, antisemitic chroniclers would have recorded it as another territorial war, but because Jews are supposed to not complain when they're slaughtered wholesale or their country invaded, it's held up on the flimsiest of falsehoods as "yet another example of those evil devious maniacal Jews, persecuting the poor innocent gentiles". I've characterized this article as "tripe", but only because I can't think of a better word to describe just how Jaguars in Mesoamerican cultureit really is. Tomertalk 08:41, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

What tosh. Gudit (which is a variation of "Judith") has been identified as Jewish in Ethiopian tradition for a lot longer than the "early 1900s", so it is utterly false to say that this claim began with Rogers. What Rogers did was to try to match up the figure from Ethiopian tradition with the historical record, making a stab at identifying Gudit more precisely in time and place according to the evidence and the models of ethno-religious rivalries availible at the time. Since records of this period are scarce I don't know how you can say with such confidence that Axum was "attempting to take over her queendom". It's an example of the very "crappy" "flimsiest of falsehoods" of which you accuse the article. Your attempts to ascribe nefarious motives to the inclusion of legitimate material, (the article even states that her Jewishness is far from certain), is typical of the histrionics and double-think that accompanies this subject.Paul B 10:05, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I also note that you say nothing about the out-and-out "revisionism" of "RabbiSimon"'s recent alterations, such as:

"There is a claim that under the Hasmonean king John Hyrcanus, the Samaritan temple at Mount Gerizim was destroyed and the Idumeans were subjected to forced conversion to Judaism. The problem with this claim is that forced conversion is against one of the central tenets of Judaism. Furthermore, if the Samaritans were Jewish (which most of them were) then there would be no need to the convert them."

That's like saying "It is claimed that Christians have been responsible for massacres, the problem with this claim is that massacring is against one of the central tenets of Christianity." Of course it is, but that doesn't mean it didn't occur. Here's what the Encyclopedia Britannica says about John Hyrcanus, with no ifs or buts: "He forced Idumaea to convert to Judaism, the first example of conversion imposed by the Jews in their history." "he consolidated and extended Jewish control, bringing Samaria into subjection and even forcing the Idumaeans (the descendants of the ancient Edomites who lived southeast of the Dead Sea) to accept Judaism. That is how the Idumaean king Herod of Jesus' day was a Jew by religion." The last sentence that most "Samaritans were Jewish" is just gibberish. Does that mean most inhabitants of Samaria, or most adherents of the faith known as "Samaritanism"? If the former it's equivocation, if the latter it's dishonest. Then we have the following paragraph too:

During the Bar Kochba rebellion of 135, Christians, who were considered a Jewish sect at the the time, collaborated with the Romans in an attempt to wipe out any vestige of traditional Judaism and allow the Christians to take over as the dominant Jewish sect. The result was the slaughter of close to a million Jews in the valley of Beitar.

The dominant explanation for Christian refusal to support the Bar Kochba revolt is the fact that BK was being hailed as the Messiah, and Christians obviously could not accept that anyone other than Jesus would have that role. There is no evidence at all that I know of that Christians "collaborated with the Romans in an attempt to wipe out any vestige of traditional Judaism". This is just made up. The rest of the paragraph is not even relevant to this article, and disingenuously attempts to blame Christians for the fact that the Romans put down a revolt, as they did elsewhere. And since these deaths were the result of a rebellion, by your logic it should have been "recorded as another territorial war". Double-think. What this para has done is replace legitimate discussion of claims that the rebels killed Christians for refusing to participate. Equally in the Persecution of Jews article it would be legitimate to the discuss the argument that the was was not "just another" territorial conflict, but that its origins, conduct and consequences constituted persecution of Jews and Judaism.Paul B 12:37, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Paul, on what basis do you forward the notion that "Gudit" is a variant of "Judith"? Also, of what relevance is being named "Judith" to being Jewish? Also, even if we accept your assertion, how does that support Rogers' assertion that Gudit is Esther? I'm not interested in "RabbiSimon"'s recent alterations since I'm quite confident that the article is going to be deleted regardless of the alterations. Its basis in history is as flimsy as the rest of the article. Tomertalk 17:47, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
this would be an interesting discussion on Talk:Gudit, but if "Ancient persecution of non-Jews by Jews" is just another way of saying "Gudit" (even provided she was Jewish), delete away, and write a great article about Gudit over at Gudit. dab (ᛏ) 20:23, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

The fact that Gudit is a variant of Judith is undisputed. [4] [5]. It has nothing to do with "Rogers' assertion that Gudit is Esther" because Rogers assertions are nowhere mentioned in the article. You brought them up as though they were in the origin of the claim that Gudit was Jewish, which they are not. Ethiopian tradition is. Paul B 21:21, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

According to one of the articles cited, it was Rogers who, in the early 1900s, made the assertion that Gudit is Esther. Tomertalk 18:37, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
And the relevance of this is what? Rogers is not mentioned in this article. By the way, in the Beta Israel article she is referred to as "Queen Judith" and her Jewishness is presented as undisputed. The actual Gudit article is more equivocal. Paul B 02:53, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

OR

I've added the OR tag because the article contains unsourced claims and arguments. Putting forward arguments is fine so long as they've already been put forward by a credible published source, in which case the source must be cited and closely followed. If sources are added, or the claims and arguments removed, I'll be happy to remove the tag. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:56, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Paul Barlow keeps removing the tag. Please say why here, or I'll replace it. Many thanks, SlimVirgin (talk) 20:18, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm doing this as a matter of principle since I've no doubt that this article will be deleted. SlimVirgin has reverted to a version that contains completely unsupported recently added material. The earlier version contains material that is either sourced or wholly undisputed. Even the Jewish Encyclopedia accepts Hyrcanus's forced conversions as fact. [6]. What more do you want? The other material is not about Persecution by Jews, but Persecution of Jews, so is in the wrong article. It also contains wholly unreferenced claims about Christian motives which are not supported by any historical evidence. The statements attributed to Justin Martyr are undisputed, and the fact that they are questioned was included in the version to which I reverted. Paul B 21:06, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
All I initially did was add the OR tag [7]. In deleting that, it was you who reverted to an earlier version. Perhaps be careful of accusing people of intellectual dishonesty. If you agree that the article contains unsupported claims, then we agree about the need for the tag. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:20, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
I reverted to the earlier version because that version contained no "original research", as the edit-summary very clearly stated. Hence the fact that the tag was no longer necessary. Paul B 21:26, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
The version you reverted to also contains unsourced claims, and the only way to show they're not OR is to source them. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:31, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
An absolutely ridiculous assertion unless you expect every sentence to be sourced. However, what do you want me to source? I am very careful in using phrases like "intellectual dishonesty". Paul B 21:35, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
You're being unnecessarily rude and hyperbolic. Please stop. I see you've started to source some claims, so thank you. There seems to be a problem with this link [8] for the alleged forced conversions. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:58, 23 January 2006 (UTC)