Talk:Yitzhak Shapira

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Warning: active arbitration remedies

The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:

You must be logged-in and extended-confirmed to edit or discuss this topic on any page (except for making edit requests, provided they are not disruptive)
You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on any edits related to this topic

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Further information

The exceptions to the extended confirmed restriction are:

Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace only to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive.
Non-extended-confirmed editors may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles created by non-extended-confirmed editors is permitted but not required.

With respect to the WP:1RR restriction:

Clear vandalism of whatever origin may be reverted without restriction. Also, reverts made solely to enforce the extended confirmed restriction are not considered edit warring.
Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence.

After being warned, contentious topics procedure can be used against any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process. Contentious topic sanctions can include blocks, topic-bans, or other restrictions.
Editors may report violations of these restrictions to the Arbitration enforcement noticeboard.

If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. When in doubt, don't revert!

Category:Jewish terrorism

This category does not belong here. The category is for events and groups, not people. Wikipedia policy does not allow editors to determine who is and who is not a terrorist. Refer to WP:Terrorist. That is why the category called Terrorists and all other categories of the sort (ie: Palestinian terrorists, Islamic terrorists) were deleted. The only thing editors can do on Wikipedia articles is attribute terrorist classifications. ie: "The US government considers X to be a terrorist" - with proper sourcing. This attribution is impossible with the category; therefore, it cannot be used for people. Thanks, Breein1007 (talk) 19:41, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

People who don't believe contemporary newspapers are sources for current events, contrary to the clear guidance of WP:RS, should make a case for an exception in each instance. This talk page would be the first place to try, with WP:RSN being available too. Meanwhile, we should follow the rules. Zero^talk 04:07, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This article on Shapira's book by famous scholar Yehuda Bauer, which contains many direct quotations, can be useful. In Hebrew, unfortunately. Zero^talk 09:42, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Removed this sentence: "Shapira was arrested under suspicion of incitement in 2006 after having advocated expelling or killing all male Palestinians above the age of 13.(ref name=JP3)Matthew Wagner, "Yitzhar rabbi held for sedition, incitement; Advocates expelling or killing all male Palestinians above 13", Jerusalem Post, 13 September 2006(/ref)" Because: I cannot find the source and it is suspiciously like this similar JPOST article about a different Yitzhar rabbi (what a jolly lot they are): [1] The sentence can go back if the citation is verified. Zero^talk 09:41, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's the source. But it does say that Shapira was detained 5 months previously, in connection with the same article.

:: Oh, ok. I found a better link and will put it back. Zero^talk 10:04, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I removed it because I couldn't find a proper source for the claims and my recollection of events was quite different. I've changed it as per the source. However as the jpost has it, I don't believe it is notable as per WP:EVENT that he was detained for questioning particularly over someone else's article. Wikieditorpro (talk) 00:24, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On another matter: our friend Wikieditorpro has done some excess reverting today, including this one. I've started a report at EWN about it. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:50, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Page 78 of Menachem Klein's The Shift has some info about Shapira's book. (ref details=>^[1])
Why is www.odyosefchai.org.il being treated as an RS ? Sean.hoyland - talk 14:16, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously it shouldn't be. But you can buy the book there for $50. Zero^talk 01:49, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's the author's own statement on the book as per WP:ABOUTSELF Wikieditorpro (talk) 23:25, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We can't present the author's statement as a fact, we can only use it as an attributed opinion. "According to Shapira, ..." or something like that. Zero^talk 00:55, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Now I see it was Shapira's defense of himself when he was being investigated on serious charges. This makes it absolutely crucial that anything there is cited as Shapira's claims and not as plain fact. Zero^talk 06:17, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Where did you get that from? Wikieditorpro (talk) 08:14, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The interview says it was a few days after he was arrested for questioning on suspicion of incitement. At that time there was a large clamor for him to be charged (as well as opposition to that). It wasn't until almost a year later that the Attorney General announced that that no indictment would be made. He was obviously in damage control mode as anyone would be in such circumstances. Zero^talk 09:15, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The other source that I cited http://www.odyosefchai.org.il/TextHome/TextInfo/381, is the announcement from the release of the book where he makes the same statement. Also he is not a 'regular person.' He doesn't retract things that he believes in for any reason. Wikieditorpro (talk) 21:18, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, that statement (which doesn't have an author indicated) clearly states that the book is a practical guide to the war being presently conducted. It claims that the Israeli army is not sufficiently committed to the war and needs guidance. It is the same as what Shapira says even in English, see the last section of this call to violence. The claim that this is a purely academic text is disproved by their own words. Zero^talk 02:06, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is a statement put out by his school. Their 'about us' page only lists him and one other teacher (Yitzhak Ginsburgh). Considering how small their school is, it would be unlikely that this wasn't his opinion. Regardless he has made this clear elsewhere. While he laments that the Israeli army is not following the Torah, he does not say that this book is a guide to the current war.

A large portion of the book can only be understood as theoretical. The rest is debatable. Still he doesn't make any calls for action in the book. And saying that the army isn't fighting hard in that web page, is a pretty tame call to violence. Wikieditorpro (talk) 04:31, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence "A large portion of the book can only be understood as theoretical" is a good example of where you have been going wrong. If you were to put that in the article based on a primary source for example it would be a serious policy violation because it misuses Wikipedia's narrative voice. If on the other hand you used a secondary source, Menachem Klein's The Shift, you could include an attributed statement like "Shapira has termed his book a theoretical study..." from Page 78 and cite that reliable secondary source. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:02, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see that the article is missing most of this story. That many individuals and groups petitioned the High Court to indict him. That his arrest for questioning (not even mentioned?) was applauded by some and condemned by others (most of whom nevertheless condemned the book). That the Attorney General called the book "deserving of condemnation and denunciation" even when announcing that no indictment would be made. Lots of work to do! Zero^talk 09:21, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Menachem Klein (2010). The Shift: Israel-Palestine from Border Struggle to Ethnic Conflict. Columbia University Press. p. 78. ISBN 978-0231701969.

Source and text in question for recent editing

A recent editing dispute here raises questions about the following sentence: 'Babies [on the enemy side] may be killed "even if they have not transgressed the seven Noahide Laws because of the future danger they may present, since it is assumed that they will grow up to be evil like their parents."' I understand that Wikieditorpro is appealing to AE, arguing that his edits beyond 1RR were allowed on BLP grounds because this sentence was a "distortion" and not sourced properly. The source for this statement is from the Jerusalem Post, [2], specifically the following passage quoting Shapira's own book: 'Some of the guidelines mentioned at the back of the book in a section entitled "Conclusions - Chapter Five: The Killing of Gentiles in War," include the following: "There is a reason to kill babies [on the enemy side] even if they have not transgressed the seven Noahide Laws ... because of the future danger they may present, since it is assumed that they will grow up to be evil like their parents...."'. Given the match between the source and the sentence in question, it is difficult to see a problem; it is also difficult to see how any concern would justify this edit, which was the second revert that led to Wikieditorpro's block per AE/1RR. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:15, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have devoted a large section on my talk page to this and where I gave two different reasons why it contravenes WP:BLP as well as other reasons for why these edits were inappropriate. If you don't want to read the whole section you can use ctrl+f to search for just the first few words of the jpost quote and my explanation for why it is a distortion (though to me it was immediately obvious). If you don't understand or disagree you can respond here (or there). Wikieditorpro (talk) 23:32, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see any difference between my summary and what the JP article says, and didn't find more than an assertion on your talk page. Everyone knows that it can never be more than an assumption that a child will grow into an enemy. However, I have no objection to quoting the entire sentence from JP. We can also note that the book justifies this with (amongst other sources) Isaiah 14:21, "Prepare slaughter for his children for the iniquity of their fathers; that they do not rise, nor possess the land, nor fill the face of the world with cities." Zero^talk 02:25, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLP states: "Biographies of living persons ("BLP"s) must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy." There are a plethora of sensationalist and out-of-context quotes from the book. The Maariv article from Roy Sharon contains the most comprehensive analysis that I could find from an RS. The content of the book is presented objectively as a genuine news story with lengthy quotations (which I translated), summaries and analysis, without the sensationalism of some other sources.

Regarding the original quote. The jpost says "there is a reason...". The statement "one may...", has a different meaning as it denotes finality. In the context of rabbinical literature the difference is even greater as ideas, reasons and justifications for one side and the other are often presented and discarded along the way before reaching the conclusion about what 'may' be done.

According to the Maariv throughout the book the author deals with in-depth theoretical questions, and rabbinical writings are full of limitations that make many killings nearly impossible to implement in practice. For example concerning the rebellious son (Deuteronomy 21), the Talmud notes that the law is purely theoretical as the conditions can never be met. Shapira's book is an in-depth analysis that starts from the bible and goes through a range of statements made by Jewish scholars throughout history regarding killings (including the theoretical ones) ending in his own radical conclusions. But if if the conditions that Shapira cites are not possible in practice then those quotes could well concern theoretical scenarios.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment#Judaism

I just had a look at Isaiah 14:21 the word used for 'children' is בָנָיו which more accurate translations have as 'sons'. The word sons here (or children) does not imply young. In fact according to Rabbinic literature, it is a reference to Belshazzar. Wikieditorpro (talk) 04:43, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikieditorpro (talk) 04:49, 23 February 2013 (UTC) I have reverted Wikieditorpro's recent edits in part. You express objections to the difference of four words in the quotation sourced to the JP, but you are then deleting the entire sentence and replacing it with an entirely different one. (You're also deleting an additional one.) I don't understand what you are doing, and it is clear that you do not have consensus for the edits you are repeatedly trying to make. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 05:29, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently we can't resolve this peacefully, so I'm gone to stop banging my head against a wall and post it on some noticeboard once I can work it out. There's nothing more that I can about it. Wikieditorpro (talk) 06:29, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[Klein2010-1] Menachem Klein (2010). The Shift: Israel-Palestine from Border Struggle to Ethnic Conflict. Columbia University Press. p. 78. ISBN 978-0231701969.

[1]