Talk:Jewish views on slavery/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Unreliable sources used in several locations.

Malik was kind enough to point me over to explain the corrections I made a few days ago. Below is a summary with explanations or evidence to warrant the changes.

1) Reviewed Hezser, 46. Section does not support claim made. Rather, author refers to the requirement for both categories of slaves to keep "gleanings" as their own as unique. I have a larger problem with this source as potentially unreliably cited as it doesn't include the proper citation and Prof. Hezser has published multiple works in multiple formats under that name and Press house. More relevantly, it disagrees with her other stated positions here: http://www.thedivineconspiracy.org/Z5223V.pdf

2) Removed unsupported sections, and corrected a sentence based on Lev. that disagreed with original source and cites Lev rather than the Talmud as claimed. There were two removals here. The first was simply an unsupported claim that ran counter the rest of the text. No citation was offered.

The second was a selection of text that referred to the Talmud, but linked Leviticus. Given that Leviticus isn't actually in the Talmud, this sentence warranted removal.

3) Josephus quote is not accurate. This is another quote from Hezser, but does not comport with any argument she has offered either on her own blog or above. The reference is also inappropriate in that it is a third party reference. It is her quoting Josephus, rather than just Josephus himself. The most likely source would be Antiquities of the Jews 3.12.3, however, Josephus does not make that claim or discussion in that section.

4) Commentary does not agree with Talmudic source. Relatively straight and forward here. Original author claimed that Gittin instituted indefinite servitude, but that is an incorrect reading of the source. Rather the source is codifying the routes for manumission, original author likely inferred that indefinite servitude was implied. Text available: http://halakhah.com/pdf/nashim/Gittin.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Squatch347 (talk • contribs) 18:20, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for posting a message here explaining your change, Squatch347.

I'm still confused about why you deleted the following sentence sourced to Blackburn, because you make no mention of Blackburn above:

The precise issues that necessitated a revision to the laws is not certain, but they could include factors such as ownership of non-Canaanite slaves, the continuing practice of owning Jewish slaves or conflicts with Roman slave-ownership laws.

You replaced the following sentence, which had four sources:

Another change was that the automatic release of Jewish slaves after six years is replaced by indefinite slavery, in conjunction with a process whereby the owner could, under certain situations, release the slave by a written document (a manumission).

One of those sources (Hezser, pp. 31–32) says:

In the Greek Jewish writings of the Hellenistic and early Roman period the distinction between Jewish and non-Jewish slaves is almost completely absent and the biblical rules concerning Hebrew slaves' manumission in the seventh year of their service ignored. (emphasis added)

I haven't read the other three sources, but it certainly seems like Hezser supports the prior language in the article that "the automatic release of Jewish slaves after six years is replaced by indefinite slavery".

You also deleted the following sentence, claiming above "Section does not support claim made. Rather, author refers to the requirement for both categories of slaves to keep "gleanings" as their own as unique."

One of the few rules that distinguished between Jewish and non-Jewish slaves regarded found property: items found by Jewish slaves were owned by the slave, but items found by a non-Jewish slave belonged to the slave owner.

And yet on page 46, the very page cited, Hezser says:

Differences between 'Israelite' and 'Canaanite' slaves regarding the rights of possession and transfer of ownership are already addressed by the Mishnah. According to M. B.M. 1:5, a Hebrew slave may keep whatever objects he finds whereas objects found by a Canaanite slave belong to his master. (emphasis added; Hezser's abbreviation refers to Mishnah Bava Metzia)

Look who's wrong again! Hezser does support the the prior language in the article that is referenced to her book.

I'm not going to go any further, but you've lost all credibility with me. Please review WP:No original research and do not edit this article (or any other Wikipedia article) based on your interpretation, but on what reliable sources say about the subject. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:50, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

References

Hello Malik Shabazz,

You are correct I forgot to detail my concerns about Blackburn. I'll first start with a reminder to not include improperly cited sources on Wikipedia. Please review the citation guidelines before including sources here in the future. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_sources I see your quotations from Hezser, but you offer not support for those quotations, you simply assert they are there. When we actually review a version of the text from the book, I can find none of the quotes you claim are there. https://www.academia.edu/4268879/Slavery_and_the_Jews. Can you provide evidence that these quotes appear in the works you say they do? Until that is provided, these claims are no better than unsourced citations, especially given their disagreement with Hezser's other work and linked above. I would also recommend reviewing Hezser's work on post Diaspora slavery:

https://www.academia.edu/4268696/Jewish_Slavery_in_Antiquity https://www.academia.edu/4296390/Slaves_and_Slavery_in_Rabbinic_and_Roman_Law. https://www.academia.edu/4296582/The_Social_Status_of_Slaves_in_the_Talmud_Yerushalmi_and_in_Graeco-Roman_Society.

You note that I removed the section that claimed slavery had become indefinite. You'll note that one of the sources, the Jewish Encyclopedia makes no such claim (review the Decay of the Old Law section in particular), which should make us wary of the Wikieditor's understanding. http://jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/13799-slaves-and-slavery. Additionally, we are confronted with three sources, all from the same wiki editor for which no source review is directly available, and one of which contradicts sources from that author we do have available. That warrants of a review of the Wikieditor's contribution to this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Squatch347 (talk • contribs) 00:33, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I don't understand what you've written. I quoted the books published by university presses cited as sources in the article, and you're linking to a Wikipedia guideline and student papers at Academia.edu? Are you serious?

Can you provide evidence that these quotes appear in the works you say they do? Yes, go to the library and ask for them. Or maybe they're available at Google Books or Amazon.com. If you can't find the books, why the hell are you claiming they don't support what's in the article. Here's a Wikipedia guideline for you to read: WP:Assume good faith. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 00:58, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

First, I want to say I think we got off on the wrong foot. That is my fault, I approached the subject far more confrontationally than was necessary. I apologize for that. Starting again: I believe you might misunderstand my argument. Here are my arguments, numbered for easier review:

1) Hezser's work doesn't contain the quotes cited. -I wasn't saying that I hadn't read her work thus I'm deleting the quote. I'm saying I did read it, and I don't believe it said what the original author claimed. I recognize you are adding the quote from the original page, but without third-party verifiable citation ability, it is simply one person's word against another. We can offer a limited version of the 3rd Party verification by reviewing the sections cited in the wiki article compared to the free version (I'm assuming not everyone is a member): https://www.questia.com/read/120195185/jewish-slavery-in-antiquity Here we can identify several inaccuracies between the Wiki text and the underlying book. Given those inaccuracies, we can safely argue that the original author was incorrect in citing this source more broadly.

2) The quotes are inconsistent with Hezser's other published works. -The academia.edu links are from the same author, and are meant to demonstrate that the editted text fundamentally disagrees with Hezser's writing and general views on the subject. This includes chapters from the same book referenced in the original article from which the quotes are said to be sourced, but which materially contradict those quotes. Unless we are going to assume the author is amnesiac about her own writing, it undermines the credibility of the claim that those quotes are in the book. Likewise, it also includes other works (several peer-reviewed, a higher standard than publishing by a university press) of the same author in which she makes arguments that directly contradict the one alleged.

3) These two quotes are inconsistent with the chapters of the book. -The first quote is still part of the background research introduction detailing the author's research practices, not about her thesis or argument. The second quote comes from the chapter on The Denationalization of Slaves, it would be an odd addition to that chapter to discuss Talmudic law changes regarding manumission rather than discussing that in the chapter entitled: "The Manumission of Slaves". Both quotes come from Part I of her work, which discusses their legal identity vis a vis each other, not the permanence of their status (Chapter 14) nor the changing role of slavery in the culture (Chapter 17). http://catdir.loc.gov/catdir/toc/ecip0515/2005019293.html

4) The derived original written comment differs from Hezser's primary thesis and is, thus, inaccurate. -Hezser's thesis is that during the Diaspora, Jews began to follow the legal traditions of the nations around them, specifically the Greeks and Romans. She argues that it was this realization (and a lack of governing Biblical law on slavery since Torah law confined slavery to the land of the Israelites) that led Talmudic writers to make the changes discussed. Remember that her writing is taking place in the context of the debate of why the Talmudic law shifts seem to occur. Why does the Talmud provide all these additional laws now, rather than at an earlier point? Hezser makes a compelling case that this was an attempt to retain Jewish identity during the Diaspora and fits coherently into other laws meant to retain "Jewishness" unrelated to slavery.

5) Even if we presumed these quotes were correct, they are inconsistent with other scholarly research. -Scholarly research on the subject is still the subject of much debate, however, the general thrust of the Talmud is almost universally agreed upon. The Talmud, and Jewish law more broadly sought to codify and refine relationships rather than expand them. http://scholarship.kentlaw.iit.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2988&context=cklawreview This includes specific limitations on duration of servitude, expansion (or sometimes viewed as codification) of manumission principles, and, more broadly, tieing in local customs to traditional Jewish law and concepts of identity (Urbach, Efraim Elimelech, "The Laws Regarding Slavery as a Source for Social History of the Period of the Second Temple, the Mishnah and Talmud." New York: Arno Press 1979., (1979) pp 2-4, 37-38.) These are broadly held views and general environmental scans show that the vast majority of scholars interpret Talmudic changes in this frame. https://muse.jhu.edu/article/390091/summary In comparisons to Roman Law, it is clear that Talmudic expansion is indicative of an attempt to limit Roman influence on Jewish custom and practice as is seen through the Jewish usse of internal customs to specifically reject Roman legal code. http://greek.rabbinics.org/hidary(4933)cohen_betrothal_279-347.pdf Finally, a review of Talmudic introductions (Talmudic authors often began legal discussions with stories or parables relevant to the legal finding) showed that there were a disproportionate number of stories contrasting Gentile liberality in the priveledges of the slave owner compared to Jewish restrictions and obligations of the slave owner to the slave. (Rakover, Nahum. "A Guide to the Sources of Jewish Law." Jerusalem: Library of Jewish Law 1994.)

6) It differs from stated Hebrew law in the Talmud. - There is no Talmudic evidence provided in the original edit to warrant the conclusion drawn, what's more we do have Talmudic evidence countering that finding. Specifically, the conditions that require manumission are far expanded from Torah sources to include a wide range of conditions and activities. Additionally, a long list of additional (or clarified) expectations of the owner are added.

Existing legal findings clarified:

Permanent injury requires manumission. The Talmudic sources also detail and list conditions considered permanent (though they also note it is not an exhaustive list). This injury can include those incurred working for the master, and include disability from age and work. (Kid 24a, Kid. 24b–25a; Ava 5:4–14, YD 267:27–39).

If a person damages another man's slave, the slave is freed, the owner is compensated, and if required, the slave is supported on charity. (Git 12b).

Owners are compelled to accept redemption prices, either by another or by the slave (whose property is guaranteed: Kid 11b, Kid 14b (note 13), Ar. 1:2, Shek. 1:5, Pes. 8:2, 88b, Yev. 66a, Yev. 7:1, BK 11:1, BB 51b–52a, Sanh. 91a, 105a, Ket. 28a, Meg. 16a) and limitations on redemption prices are set. (Kid. 1:3; Yad, Avadim 5:2, GIT 45a, KID 8a, Kid. 1:3, Avadim 5:2, Kid 15a, Kid 23a)

Additional legal restrictions:

Talmudic additions during the period in question limited the scope of services that could be required of a slave (Kid 6b)

Marriage of the slave to a free person (which frequently included one of the master's daughters) was a common, and recognized way to mandate manumission. (Git. 39b–40a, Pes. 113a, Avadim 8:17, GIT 38b, YD 267:70, Yev 66a).

Divorces and inheritances are expanded as a set of conditions mandating manumission, including if one of a divorced couple frees a slave, if the Children do not physically come to claim the slave within a sabbath. This includes scenarios where a portion of freedom is granted via a wife freeing a slave, but not the husband, or business partners, or if the slave buys back a portion of his freedom. In these cases, that "free" portion of his time mandates wages which can be used to purchase full manumission. (Git. 4:5, Git 20b, Git 21a, Avadim 7:7, Git 41b, KID 22b, GIT 9a, YD 267:62–63, Git 9b)

Slaves cannot be sold from a Jew to a Non-Jew due to concerns for the different treatments common by non-Jews (Git. 4:6, Kid 6b (Note 7), Git. 44a–45a, Git 44b, Avadim 8:1; YD 267:80)

Slaves being assigned property or getting an inheritance (which includes automatically if heirs are not available) makes them free (GIT 8b, Pe'ah 3:8; Git. 8b–9a; Yad, Avadim 7:9; YD 267:57. This includes other ceremonial acts like being needed to make a quorum at Synagogue, being made ritually cleansed during conversion, reading the Torah in public. (Git. 39b–40a, GIT 38b, Avadim 8:17, Yev 46a, YD 267:70)

Given the common practice of temporary servitude, the Talmud requires manumission if the purchase was conducted with conditions (and limits term to 4 years) or if a verbal promise is issued to release the slave, verbal promises are noted as non-retractable. (Kid. 1:3, GIT 9a, Kid 4a, Avadim 5:3, Kid 63a, YD 267:73–74)

There are dozens of other miscellaneous provisions, and this list should not be seen as exhaustive either here or in the Talmud, which notes that other criteria apply, and that the default judgement should be freedom unless shown otherwise. If the slave works above what is considered their physical abilities, if they escape, if they are captured and ransomed, and during general times of freeing slaves or releasing of debts (common in the Roman empire). (Kid 63a, GIT 39b, Ecclus. 33:28–29, GIT 37b, Yev 93b, Kid 40b, GIT 38a, GIT 39b)

The full Talmud including all of these sources can be reviewed at: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/FullTalmud.pdf

Finally, I would like to respond to the "go to the library" rebuttal. I believe this to be an insufficient response when there is a question of validity of a quote between two editors. As the guidelines note, we are trying to adjudicate the different edits here, and a simple appeal to a library doesn't move that discussion forward very much. It would be just as easy to say, "Jews freed all slaves in 98AD" Hezser, 435. And then stand on it until someone produced a source saying otherwise. The burden of supporting a quote goes to the person asserting that it exists in most academic contexts, and should be so here, especially given the myriad other evidences offered. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Squatch347 (talk • contribs) 22:20, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Please, please shorten your responses, Squatch347. It's impossible to respond to a wall of text such as what you have written. I will repeat myself, however, because you seem to have trouble understanding my point.

You removed text, asserting that it was not supported by its sources. I looked at one of those sources (Hezser's Jewish Slavery in Antiquity) and found that the pages cited in this article's footnotes do support the material that was sourced to them and that you deleted. Above, I copied some of the language from the relevant pages in Hezser's book (the copied portions start with "In the Greek Jewish writings" and "Differences between 'Israelite' and 'Canaanite' slaves"). The bottom line is this: You misrepresented what the source says, and that makes it difficult to trust anything you write.

I'm willing to entertain the possibility that what Hezser wrote in Jewish Slavery in Antiquity is wrong, that other reliable sources say different things, but it's hard to accept that argument from somebody who lies to me about what Hezser wrote in Jewish Slavery in Antiquity. Unless we can find some common ground, we will not be able to work collaboratively.

I recommend that you read WP:Verifiability, especially the section titled "Accessibility". Sometimes sources are not easily accessible. They may be located in university libraries, hard to find, behind paywalls, or in a foreign language. You cannot reject a reliable source merely because you can't access it. If you have trouble accepting that, please read WP:Assume good faith again. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:33, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Good Morning Malik Shabazz, sorry for the wall of text, I was trying to be a bit more thurough. As I noted in my last response, I felt I had come off as overly combative initially and dismissive rather than attempting to provide the full reasoning and evidence for the edits made. Sorry to have swung the pendelum the other way too far.

If we wanted to break down the reasoning for the changes into two points they would be this:

1) I reviewed Hezser's "Jewish Slavery in Antiquity" on the pages cited and could find nothing like the quotes given. I reviewed the work here: "Jewish Slavery in Antiquity" It is possible that I am operating off of a different published version or that she has reordered her work a bit between editions, that is why I asked you where you were getting the quotes. IBecause I realize that not everyone has academic access to Questia, I wanted to add some additional details as to why it is unlikely that Prof. Hezser has taken the position cited in the article. This represents arguments 1-4 above.

2) The editted text disagrees with other scholarly research and the Talmud proper. This is arguments 5 and 6. I included 5 sources above, 2 of which are peer reviewed that disagree with the original text of the article. I then provided a lengthly (sorry) summary of different Talmudic passages regarding manumission. The original text was that the Talmud simply extended slavery into a perpetual condition, but the dramatic increase in manumission options counters that assertion.

Again, sorry for the initially long reply. I'm happy to expound on any of these points in more detail, but I'll let you drive the conversation where you want to go.

Squatch347 —Preceding undated comment added 14:44, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

———————————————————————————————————————————————————————————

Given that we have some disagreements related to quotes, I have revised the proposed edits and justifications below. Hopefully this will help us get to a resolution.

"In the early Common Era, the regulations concerning slave-ownership by Jews underwent an extensive expansion and codification within the Talmud.[32]"

Blackburn doesn't mention apparent "confusion" but references expansion of Jewish legal customs. http://www.mustadnews.com/the-making-of-new-world-slavery-from-the-baroque-to.pdf

"The precise issues that necessitated a revision to the laws is still up for debate. The majority of current scholarly opinion holds that pressures to assimilate during the late Roman to early medieval period resulted in an attempt by Jewish communities to reinforce their own identities by drawing distinctions between their practices and the practices of non-Jews. (Urbach, Efraim Elimelech, "The Laws Regarding Slavery as a Source for Social History of the Period of the Second Temple, the Mishnah and Talmud." New York: Arno Press 1979., (1979) pp 2-4, 37-38.)(https://muse.jhu.edu/article/390091/summary) Some authors however, have forwarded that they could include factors such as ownership of non-Canaanite slaves, the continuing practice of owning Jewish slaves or conflicts with Roman slave-ownership laws.[32]"

I left the reference to Blackburn in there, but wanted to add that this is not the consensus opinion. Urbach cites both his own work and several other scholars and does the best job clarifying why it is held that this was a "return to Jewishness." The second reference does an environmental scan of papers on the issue to support that it is a largely held opinion.

"Thus, the Talmud (circa 200–500 CE) contains an extensive set of laws governing slavery, which is more detailed than found in the Torah." No evidence that is is "different" and certainly Talmudic scholars would disagree, arguing that they are simply expounding on the Torah (also reference Torah, rather than Jewish Bible as a more accurate term).

"Another change was that the distinction between Hebrew and Non-Hewbrew slaves began to diminish as the Talmud expanded during this period. This included an expanded set of obligations the owner incurred to the slave as well as codifying the process for manumission (the freeing from slavery). It also included a large set of conditions that allowed or required manumission to include requirements for education of slaves, expanding disability manumission, and in cases of religious conversion or necessity. (https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/slavery-in-judaism)(Kid 24a, Git 38b, Yev 93b) [22][33][34][35]"

Made a change to the "indefinite slavery" for Jewish slaves, the sources don't support that claim. The Jewish Encyclopedia, in the section titled: "—In Rabbinical Literature:" it references solely that a Jew 'shouldn't' sell himself to a non-Jew, though it would be a valid sale. It is perhaps possible that the original author thought this meant they could be permanently sold, but that is a stretch.

A better summary of the sources is that distinction between Hebrew and Non-Hebrew slaves were diminished as Talmudic law expanded during this period. I included two sources for that change above.

"Another major change in relationships was the overhaul of the property rights of slaves. While the Torah refers to a slave's ability to collect gleanings, Talmudic sources expand this to a right to own property more generally, and even "purchase" a portion of their own labor from the master. (Kid 11b, Kid 14b (note 13), Ar. 1:2, Shek. 1:5; Pes. 8:2, 88b, Yev. 66a, Yev. 7:1, BK 11:1, BB 51b–52a, Sanh. 91a, 105a, Ket. 28a, Meg. 16a)"

A slightly more significant change. I cite the original Talmudic sources on this change given that it is running counter to a source we are in disagreement about.

"Another change was that the Talmud explicitly prohibits the freeing of a non-Jewish slave..." I would strike this section. The reference used is citing Git 45b, found here: http://come-and-hear.com/gittin/gittin_45.html

But that conclusion can be found nowhere in that section. Rather, Git45b is referencing the prohibition of returning escaped slaves to their masters or for demanding a price above the purchase price as the redemption price: it is written, Thou shalt not deliver unto his master a servant which is escaped from his master unto thee...'Captives should not be redeemed for more than their value, to prevent abuses.'

"It is apparent that Jews still owned Jewish slaves in the Talmudic era because Talmudic authorities tried to denounce the practice[41]"

Minor edit. The Talmudic sources obviously aren't denouncing the Torah, but the practice of slavery.

"The Tanakh contains the rule that Jewish slaves would be released following six years of service, but that non-Jewish slaves (barring a long list of conditions including conversion, or disability) could potentially be held indefinitely. The Talmud codified and expanded the list of conditions requiring manumission to include religious necessity, conversion, escape, maltreatment, and codified slaves' property rights and rights to education. "

Relatively minor change, it is six years, not seven for release in the Torah. And adding a list of manumission requirements and the accompanying citations.

"However, 20th century scholars such as Solomon Zeitlin and Ephraim Urbach, examined Jewish slave-ownership practices more critically, and their historical accounts generally conclude that Jews did own slaves at least through the Maccabbean period, and that is was probably more ubiquitous than earlier scholars had maintained.[65] Professor Catherine Hezser explains the differing conclusions by suggesting that the 19th century scholars were "emphasizing the humanitarian aspects and moral values of ancient Judaism, Mielziner, Grunfeld, Farbstein, and Krauss [to argue] that the Jewish tradition was not inferior to early Christian teachings on slaves and slavery[64]"

First sentence contained language about treatment of slaves, but no discussion on treatment of slaves is present in pages referenced, rather author is dicussing Urbach and Zeitlin's disagreement with earlier scholars on how long Jewish slavery existed. Second sentence, updated with relevant quote, which is slightly more accurate than original text.

Squatch347 (talk) 15:45, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Reposting:

'Good Morning Malik Shabazz, sorry for the wall of text, I was trying to be a bit more thurough. As I noted in my last response, I felt I had come off as overly combative initially and dismissive rather than attempting to provide the full reasoning and evidence for the edits made. Sorry to have swung the pendelum the other way too far.'

'If we wanted to break down the reasoning for the changes into two points they would be this:'

'1) I reviewed Hezser's "Jewish Slavery in Antiquity" on the pages cited and could find nothing like the quotes given. I reviewed the work here: "Jewish Slavery in Antiquity" It is possible that I am operating off of a different published version or that she has reordered her work a bit between editions, that is why I asked you where you were getting the quotes. IBecause I realize that not everyone has academic access to Questia, I wanted to add some additional details as to why it is unlikely that Prof. Hezser has taken the position cited in the article. This represents arguments 1-4 above.'

'2) The editted text disagrees with other scholarly research and the Talmud proper. This is arguments 5 and 6. I included 5 sources above, 2 of which are peer reviewed that disagree with the original text of the article. I then provided a lengthly (sorry) summary of different Talmudic passages regarding manumission. The original text was that the Talmud simply extended slavery into a perpetual condition, but the dramatic increase in manumission options counters that assertion.'

'Again, sorry for the initially long reply. I'm happy to expound on any of these points in more detail, but I'll let you drive the conversation where you want to go.' — Preceding unsigned comment added by Squatch347 (talk • contribs) 15:26, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

References

Proposed edits for discussion

I wanted to add a separate sub-section since Malik had addressed some concern that he was unable to review all the edits and the larger discussion at the same time. I've posted the edits I suggested earlier below for discussion. I think the best way to handle it is via inline discussion, but I'm open to suggestion.

>>>>>>"In the early Common Era, the regulations concerning slave-ownership by Jews underwent an extensive expansion and codification within the Talmud.[32]"

Blackburn doesn't mention apparent "confusion" but references expansion of Jewish legal customs. http://www.mustadnews.com/the-making-of-new-world-slavery-from-the-baroque-to.pdf

>>>"The precise issues that necessitated a revision to the laws is still up for debate. The majority of current scholarly opinion holds that pressures to assimilate during the late Roman to early medieval period resulted in an attempt by Jewish communities to reinforce their own identities by drawing distinctions between their practices and the practices of non-Jews. (Urbach, Efraim Elimelech, "The Laws Regarding Slavery as a Source for Social History of the Period of the Second Temple, the Mishnah and Talmud." New York: Arno Press 1979., (1979) pp 2-4, 37-38.)(https://muse.jhu.edu/article/390091/summary) Some authors however, have forwarded that they could include factors such as ownership of non-Canaanite slaves, the continuing practice of owning Jewish slaves or conflicts with Roman slave-ownership laws.[32]"

I left the reference to Blackburn in there, but wanted to add that this is not the consensus opinion. Urbach cites both his own work and several other scholars and does the best job clarifying why it is held that this was a "return to Jewishness." The second reference does an environmental scan of papers on the issue to support that it is a largely held opinion.

"Thus, the Talmud (circa 200–500 CE) contains an extensive set of laws governing slavery, which is more detailed than found in the Torah." No evidence that is is "different" and certainly Talmudic scholars would disagree, arguing that they are simply expounding on the Torah (also reference Torah, rather than Jewish Bible as a more accurate term).

>>>>"Another change was that the distinction between Hebrew and Non-Hewbrew slaves began to diminish as the Talmud expanded during this period. This included an expanded set of obligations the owner incurred to the slave as well as codifying the process for manumission (the freeing from slavery). It also included a large set of conditions that allowed or required manumission to include requirements for education of slaves, expanding disability manumission, and in cases of religious conversion or necessity. (https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/slavery-in-judaism)(Kid 24a, Git 38b, Yev 93b) [22][33][34][35]"

Edited the first sentence to better represent Hezser's thesis of the bluring between Hebrew and "Caananite" slaves. The Jewish Encyclopedia, in the section titled: "—In Rabbinical Literature:" it references solely that a Jew 'shouldn't' sell himself to a non-Jew, though it would be a valid sale. It is perhaps possible that the original author thought this meant they could be permanently sold, but that is a stretch.

A better summary of the sources is that distinction between Hebrew and Non-Hebrew slaves were diminished as Talmudic law expanded during this period. I included two 'additional' sources for that change above, one secondary, one primary.

>>>>>"Another major change in relationships was the overhaul of the property rights of slaves. While the Torah refers to a slave's ability to collect gleanings, Talmudic sources expand this to a right to own property more generally, and even "purchase" a portion of their own labor from the master. Hezser notes the often confusing mosiac of Talmudic laws distinguishes between finding property during work and earning property as a result of work. (Kid 11b, Kid 14b (note 13), Ar. 1:2, Shek. 1:5; Pes. 8:2, 88b, Yev. 66a, Yev. 7:1, BK 11:1, BB 51b–52a, Sanh. 91a, 105a, Ket. 28a, Meg. 16a)" (Jews and Blacks in the Early Modern World, Schorsch Cambridge University Press. 2004) (Ideas of Slavery from Aristotle to Augustine, Peter Garnsey. Cambridge University Press 1996) (Hezser, 47-48)

A slightly more significant change. Reviewing several secondary sources, this is a better understanding of the consensus scholarly view. I add the relevant secondary sources and augment with primary sources.

>>"While the Talmud affirmed that self redemption of slaves (Jewish or not) was alway permitted, it noted that conditionless manumission by the owner was generally a violation of legal precept(Hastings 620). The Talmud however, also included a varied list of circumstances and conditions that overrode this principle and mandated manumission. Conditions such as ill-treatment, oral promise, marriage to a free-woman, escape, inclusion in religious ceremony, and desire to visit the Holy Land all required the master to provide the slave with a deed of manumission, presented to him with witnesses. Failure to comply would result in excommunication (ibid).

Original Editor cited Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics. I will update this citation to reference Volume XI (which is where this section is found). And insert the above text to more clearly indicate what is being referenced on that page, found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3AEncyclopedia_of_Religion_and_Ethics_Volume_11.pdf&page=620

The reference is additionally citing Git45b, http://come-and-hear.com/gittin/gittin_45.html

"It is apparent that Jews still owned Jewish slaves in the Talmudic era because Talmudic authorities tried to denounce the practice[41]"

Minor edit. The Talmudic sources obviously aren't denouncing the Torah, but the practice of slavery.

"The Tanakh contains the rule that Jewish slaves would be released following six years of service, but that non-Jewish slaves (barring a long list of conditions including conversion, or disability) could potentially be held indefinitely. The Talmud codified and expanded the list of conditions requiring manumission to include religious necessity, conversion, escape, maltreatment, and codified slaves' property rights and rights to education. "

Relatively minor change, it is six years, not seven for release in the Torah. And adding a list of manumission requirements and the accompanying citations. This original text was only primary source citation, so I'm adding additional citations to make the conclusion more robust.

>"However, 20th century scholars such as Solomon Zeitlin and Ephraim Urbach, examined Jewish slave-ownership practices more critically, and their historical accounts generally conclude that Jews did own slaves at least through the Maccabbean period, and that is was probably more ubiquitous than earlier scholars had maintained.[65] Professor Catherine Hezser explains the differing conclusions by suggesting that the 19th century scholars were "emphasizing the humanitarian aspects and moral values of ancient Judaism, Mielziner, Grunfeld, Farbstein, and Krauss [to argue] that the Jewish tradition was not inferior to early Christian teachings on slaves and slavery[64]"

First sentence contained language about treatment of slaves, but no discussion on treatment of slaves is present in pages referenced, rather author is dicussing Urbach and Zeitlin's disagreement with earlier scholars on how long Jewish slavery existed, the pages cited (3-8) are contained in the free Questia version so that anyone reviewing this can comment. Second sentence, updated with relevant quote, which is slightly more accurate than original text. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Squatch347 (talk • contribs) 15:49, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

References

Modern Era section is Incredible Biased

Reading this section I can't help but notice an incredible apologetic tone from beginning to end. Every statement about the Jewish involvement in the Atlantic Slave trade is followed by comparisons to Christian merchants with a clear apologetic tone.Is the point of this section to inform or white wash history?--Andres rojas22 (talk) 21:55, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Jews and the medieval slave trade

I've noticed that Jewish slave trade redirects here (I'll also note we have stand alone articles on topics like Arab slave trade). Anyway, a recent discussion at Talk:History_of_the_Jews_in_Poland, which contained poorly referenced claim that Jews were dominant in this activity and/or slaves were one of their major, if not the most major, commodity brought to my attention an interesting article (English abstract, article is likely in Polish and sadly does not seem to be available online outside of GBooks snippet view in [1]: Zofia Kowalska, “Handel niewolnikami prowadzony przez Żydów w IX-XI wieku w Europie,” in Danuta Quirini-Popławskiej (ed.), Niewolnictwo i niewolnicy w Europie od starożytności po czasy nowożytne. Kraków: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego, 1998, pp. 81-92.).

I don't have access to Kowalska's article and it might be an interesting article to read. I will note that a recent popular history article in Polish history magazine Histmag [2] does make a claim that slave trade was a major source of medieval Jewish traders' wealth ("niewolnicy – produkt pierwszej potrzeby na Zachodzie i w krajach arabskich, a główne źródło bogactwa żydowskich kupców we wczesnym średniowieczu") but I wouldn't consider a pop science article to be a reliable source for a controversial topic. I'll just finish by saying that the Histmag article does also mention that the Slavic people themselves were significantly involved in this trade (Jews were just international intermediaries, after all), so it is not just some antimsemitic rant. Similarly, I found a quote attributed to Kowalska at [3] that talks about Jewish domination of medieval European slave trade, but I can't verify it, so for now this is not a reliable sources.

In either case, I have three thoughts:

• a lot of controversy regarding Jewish slave trade seems to be related to the modern (US/colonial) era. We need to be careful to distinguish sources discussing that from the earlier, medieval Jewish involvement in trade. I removed a the phrase "Medieval European" claim from the lead that significant Jewish involved in Medieval European, African and American slave trade has been debunked as an antimsemitic canard, since all the sources focused on the Arfican/American era only. Jewish involvement in the European Medieval slave trade has not been debunked, it seems an accepted fact, through qualifications regarding their dominance/etc. need further discussion/sources (and I can see how they'd be easily abused and controversial, too)
• Jewish slave trade should probably be a separate, stand-alone article (just like Arab slave trade)
• enslavement of Slaves also needs its own article, through to what degree this is relevant here I am unsure. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:11, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Good Morning Piotrus, I made a few changes based on your edits and I wanted to let you know.

• I reverted your last edit. Happy to discuss whether the links reference are incorrectly referenced, but we should have the discussion before the change.

• I returned it to Israelite, rather than Isramedelite. That change seems unwarranted and unclear.

• I also readded the Nizkor link. It was incorrectly documented, thanks for finding that. I tracked down the actual source referenced and updated the link with the article.

• I'm not sure what you are saying in the section starting "00 slave merchants..." Can you elaborate?

• Finally, I replaced the reference to medieval Europe. The second referenced source does make that claim and thus it is appropriate to leave in. However, given your discussion here it might be warranted to change, but we should have the discussion first.

Interesting discussion about the relative types of slave trade, it would be worth exploring here for sure. I think, for now, that there is no real reason to remove the European context as they do contain references in the main article. As you noted, there are some suggestions floating around that they were central players, but its hard to evaluate those sources, as you mention.

Squatch347 (talk) 13:40, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Isramedelite was a copypaste typo. As was the 00 slave merchants, should be 40 slave merchants. Thanks for deroting Nikzor link, but I don't think it belongs in that sentence. Nikzor as it is not a 'scholarly article' (I am not sure what exactly it is? an email? a webpage? But it is not a scholarly article as the sentence claims). I'll ping User:Icewhiz whom I trust can offer valuable input on whether this particular page of the Nizkor Project should be cited here (TBH, I think we already cite enough scholarly sources we don't need it). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:24, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Nizkor is attributing this back to Simon Wiesenthal Center which probably would be possible to use as an attributed opinion. This 1993 Wapo piece titled HALF-TRUTHS AND HISTORY: THE DEBATE OVER JEWS AND SLAVERY might be better - seems this is all connected to countering political discourse from Louis Farrakhan and Leonard Jeffries. This whole article (never went into this one) seems American-centric and focused on modern claims arising from African American–Jewish relations.Icewhiz (talk) 15:38, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Nizkor is more the hosting for an archived article from the Simon Wiesenthal Center which itself is referencing the scholarly works. I think you make a great point that titling it Nizkor doesn't make sense. We don't title any other archived articles by their hosting service. Happy to change if that makes sense. I think it might be a better use than the WAPO opinion article as it is written a bit more scholarly and contains about half a dozen good references and citations that make the point being referenced here. Rest of the changes in your last edit look fantastic.

Squatch347 (talk) 16:29, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

An opinion column, even one in a top newspaper, is still an opinion and cannot be cited as a source of facts. If David Mills had been known for his learned opinion on Jews and the slave trade, it might be worth citing and attributing the opinion. However, he was a features reporter/writer, not a historian, and his opinion is barely noteworthy (although his features work won him a Pulitzer Prize nomination). — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:25, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

I am not opposed to the use of this source here, I am merely pointing out it doesn't qualify as a scholarly article (or a scholarly source). Those terms are generally reserved for peer reviewed articles, books, and conference proceedings. Essays, opinion pieces, blogs or usergroup posts written by academics are not scholarly sources. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:43, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi Piotrus, referencing the obsolete source tags. My understanding of their use is that they are appropriate when new information has generally been accepted that replaces older sources. For example, if we were talking about physics, citing Newton would probably be an obsolete source. That is somewhat different, in my understanding, from a source just being old. A few of the sources you tagged as obsolete are, while old, still relevant to the conversation. If some of these have been overtaken by newer scholarly work, I think we can discuss those works and consider replacing the older citations and content with more accurate content when warranted. If we don't have newer citations, I don't think the template is appropriate.

I'm also a bit confused by your addition that they were major players in the Medieval European slave trade. You added the Yivo source which notes their presence in the trade (which seems well cited), but it says nothing about them being major players. Hastings references them being major factors in the trade in relatively limited times and locations. I think we need to moderate this claim a bit.

Squatch347 (talk) 13:39, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Improperly titled wiki or just badly done?

This article, particularly as it related to the modern slave trade seems to be more focused on "total number of jews" as a part of a greater population, which is completely unrelated to actual, specific jews views on slavery. For example Jacob Rader Marcus, a rabbi, recorded that over 75 percent of Jewish families in Charleston, Richmond, and Savannah, owned slaves, and nearly 40 percent of total Jewish households across the country did. This is far higher than non-jews, which seems to contradiction much that section if the title of this wiki is what is actually suspposed to be covered in this wiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.117.93.248 (talk) 09:36, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

That's interesting. Do you have a reliable source that wasn't published by the Nation of Islam? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:01, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Here's one: https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/jews-and-the-african-slave-trade/ Jacob Rader Marcus, a historian and Reform rabbi, wrote in his four-volume history of Americans Jews that over 75 percent of Jewish families in Charleston, South Carolina; Richmond, Virginia; and Savannah, Georgia, owned slaves, and nearly 40 percent of Jewish households across the country did. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.27.212.13 (talk) 13:53, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Here's another quote: If more Jews owned slaves in terms of their numerical proportion of the population, it was because larger percentages of Jews lived in the towns and cities; if more Jews were auctioneers of slaves, it was because they were also auctioneers of every kind of merchandise; if fewer Jews were large-scale planters, it was for understandable social and economic reasons.

Text of the entire book is here: https://archive.org/stream/JewsAndNegroSlaveryInTheOldSouth1789-1865/Jews+and+Negro+Slavery+in+the+Old+South+-+1789-1865_djvu.txt

He concludes in the same book:

Slavery, therefore, played a more significant role in the development of Jewish life in the Old South, than Jews themselves played in the establishment and maintenance of the institution. The history of slavery would not have differed one whit from historic reality if no single Jew had been resident in the South. Other whites would have owned slaves; other traders and auctioneers would have bought and sold slaves; other political and intellectual leaders would have propagandized in behalf of slavery; a few slaves might have fared better or worse at the hands of other masters, but their feelings were immaterial details in the total story of the institution itself. But whether so many Jews would have achieved so high a level of social, political, economic and intellectual status and recognition, without the presence of the lowly and degraded slave, is indeed dubious. How ironic that the distinctions bestowed upon men like Judah P. Benjamin, Major Raphael J. Moses, and the Honorable Solomon Cohen were in some measure dependent upon the sufferings of the very Negro slaves they bought and sold with such equanimity. (emphasis mine)

I think the other anon has a point. 202.27.212.13 (talk) 14:18, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

This article should also be referenced on the page:https://www.jta.org/2013/12/26/news-opinion/world/dutch-rabbi-confronts-jews-with-ancestors-complicity-in-slavery. Especially since it is written by a modern Dutch Rabbi and contradicts the opening paragraph regarding the significant role of Dutch Jews in the slave trade. Specifically omitting this information is damaging to the credibility of this page and wikipedia in general. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:1C0:6700:FEF0:A5CF:239C:76C8:3AD5 (talk) 16:04, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

The original poster of this is one hundred percent correct. Why has nothing been changed? The sources and request are rock-solid, factually. Ekaaj (talk) 07:13, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 August 2018

I feel that this page is omitting important scholarly evidence concerning the role of Dutch Jews in the Atlantic slave trade. Specifically his sentence needs to be changed:

  "Several scholarly works have been published to rebut the antisemitic canard of Jewish domination of the slave trade in Africa and the Americas in the later centuries,[7][8][9] and to show that Jews had no major or continuing impact on the history of New World slavery.[8][9][10][11] They possessed far fewer slaves than non-Jews in every Spanish territory in North America and the Caribbean, and in no period did they play a leading role as financiers, shipowners, or factors in the transatlantic or Caribbean slave trades.[12]"  (Citation #12 at the end of this paragraph is a dead link)

These are published sources contradicting that sentence. Most are written by Jewish scholars if not respected Rabbis.

-Marc Lee Raphael "Jews also took an active part in the Dutch colonial slave trade; indeed, the bylaws of the Recife and Mauricia congregations (1648) included an imposta (Jewish tax) of five soldos for each Negro slave a Brazilian Jew purchased from the West Indies Company. Slave auctions were postponed if they fell on a Jewish holiday. In Curacao in the seventeenth century, as well as in the British colonies of Barbados and Jamaica in the eighteenth century, Jewish merchants played a major role in the slave trade. In fact, in all the American colonies, whether French (Martinique), British, or Dutch, Jewish merchants frequently dominated. "This was no less true on the North American mainland, where during the eighteenth century Jews participated in the 'triangular trade' that brought slaves from Africa to the West Indies and there exchanged them for molasses, which in turn was taken to New England and converted into rum for sale in Africa. Isaac Da Costa of Charleston in the 1750's, David Franks of Philadelphia in the 1760's, and Aaron Lopez of Newport in the late 1760's and early 1770's dominated Jewish slave trading on the American continent." [Dr. Lee Raphael is the editor of American Jewish History, the journal of the American Jewish Historical Society at Brandeis University in Massachusetts.]

-Ira Rosenwaike "In Charleston, Richmond and Savannah the large majority (over three-fourths) of the Jewish households contained one or more slaves; in Baltimore, only one out of three households were slaveholding; in New York, one out of eighteen....Among the slaveholding households the median number of slaves owned ranged from five in Savannah to one in New York."

-Cecil Roth "The Jews of the Joden Savanne [Surinam] were also foremost in the suppression of the successive negro revolts, from 1690 to 1722: these as a matter of fact were largely directed against them, as being the greatest slave-holders of the region." History of the Marranos (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America, 1932), p. 292. Jacob Rader Marcus "All through the eighteenth century, into the early nineteenth, Jews in the North were to own black servants; in the South, the few plantations owned by Jews were tilled with slave labor. In 1820, over 75 percent of all Jewish families in Charleston, Richmond, and Savannah owned slaves, employed as domestic servants; almost 40 percent of all Jewish householders in the United States owned one slave or more. There were no protests against slavery as such by Jews in the South, where they were always outnumbered at least 100 to 1....But very few Jews anywhere in the United States protested against chattel slavery on moral grounds." United States Jewry, 1776-1985 (Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1989), p. 586.

-Rabbi Bertram W. Korn "It would seem to be realistic to conclude that any Jew who could afford to own slaves and had need for their services would do so....Jews participated in every aspect and process of the exploitation of the defenseless blacks." [Dr. Korn is a rabbi, historian; A.B., Cincinnati, 1939; Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion, Cincinnati, Ordination M.H.L. 1949; Sr. rabbi, Reform Congregation Keneseth Israel, Elkins Park, Pennsylvania, 1949-; Chaplain, USNR, 1944-; Visiting professor, American Jewish History, Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion, New York, 1962-; Honorary Overseer Gratz College of Pennsylvania; visiting professor, American Jewish History, Dropsie University of Pennsylvania; 1970-; Recipient Merit Award, American Association for State & Local History, 1969.]

-Seymour B. Liebman: "They came with ships carrying African blacks to be sold as slaves. The traffic in slaves was a royal monopoly, and the Jews were often appointed as agents for the Crown in their sale....[They] were the largest ship chandlers in the entire Caribbean region, where the shipping business was mainly a Jewish enterprise....The ships were not only owned by Jews, but were manned by Jewish crews and sailed under the command of Jewish captains." [Liebman is an attorney; LL.B., St. Lawrence University, 1929; M.A. (Latin American history), Mexico City College, 1963; Florida chapter American Jewish Historical Society, 1956-58; Friends of Hebrew University, 1958-59; American Historical Society Contributor to scholarly journals on Jewish history.

-Rabbi Herbert I. Bloom: "The Christian inhabitants [of Brazil] were envious because the Jews owned some of the best plantations in the river valley of Pernambuco and were among the leading slave-holders and slave traders in the colony.(1) Slave trade [sic] was one of the most important Jewish activities here [in Surinam] as elsewhere in the colonies." [Bloom is a rabbi; B.A., Columbia University, 1923, Ph.D., 1937; M.H.L., Jewish Institute of Religion, 1928, D.D., 1955; rabbi, Temple Albert, Albuquerque, New Mexico, 1928-31. President Kingston Ministerial Association, 1945-46, and 1959-60; B'nai B'rith; Zionist Organization of America; vice-president, National Prison Chaplain Board, since 1962; Social Action Committee of Central Conference of American Rabbis, since 1947; Author: The Jews of Dutch Brazil, 1936; The Economic Activities of the Jews of Amsterdam, 1937.]

-Dr.Arnold Wiznitzer: "The West India Company, which monopolized imports of slaves from Africa, sold slaves at public auctions against cash payment. It happened that cash was mostly in the hands of Jews. The buyers who appeared at the auctions were almost always Jews, and because of this lack of competitors they could buy slaves at low prices. On the other hand, there also was no competition in the selling of the slaves to the plantation owners and other buyers, and most of them purchased on credit payable at the next harvest in sugar. Profits up to 300 percent of the purchase value were often realized with high interest rates....If it happened that the date of such an auction fell on a Jewish holiday the auction had to be postponed. This occurred on Friday, October 21, 1644." SOURCE: Jews in Colonial Brazil (1960), pp. 72-3; [Note: Wiznitzer, Arnold Aharon, educator; Born in Austria, December 20, 1899; Ph.D., University of Vienna, 1920; Doctor of Hebrew Literature, Jewish Theological Seminary of America; Emeritus research professor, University of Judaism, Los Angeles; Contributor to historical journals in the United States and Brazil including the Journal of Jewish Social Studies and the Publications of the American Jewish Historical Society. Former president, Brazilian-Jewish Institute of Historical Research.]

More sources: https://www.jta.org/2013/12/26/news-opinion/world/dutch-rabbi-confronts-jews-with-ancestors-complicity-in-slavery; https://www.scribd.com/document/69689512/Jewish-Participation-in-Black-Slavery 2601:1C0:6700:FEF0:3C49:C714:511C:0 (talk) 07:19, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Declined

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. In addition, please try to use your own words instead of quoting if possible because you can run afoul of copyright infringement. Thinker78 (talk) 04:03, 10 September 2018 (UTC) Edited --06:45, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

References

Clarifying the previously denied request

The request of the post on 16 August 2018 was denied for being "unclear", despite being rather clear. Here is a request. The citation [12] has been a dead link and therefore an invalid citation. Consequently, the statement which this citation follows, "They possessed far fewer slaves than non-Jews in every Spanish territory in North America and the Caribbean, and in no period did they play a leading role as financiers, shipowners, or factors in the transatlantic or Caribbean slave trades.[12]", should have [citation needed] - if not outright removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ekaaj (talk • contribs) 07:21, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

 Done Ekaaj I added the {{Citation needed}} to ref 12 in the article for the time being. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 10:38, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

While clearly a live source of comparable WP:RS nature is more useful than a deadlink, WP:404 reminds that deadlink is not an invalid source on its face:

"Except for URLs in the External links section that have not been used to support any article content, do not delete cited information solely because the URL to the source does not work any longer. Recovery and repair options and tools are available. Verifiability does not require that all information be supported by a working link, nor does it require the source to be published online."

(links and emphasis in the original). That's especially true for an actual published source (not just a website link), since it can still be verified by the existing bibliographic info. Again, not all reliable sources need to be electronic. JSTOR 2674369 is the stable authoritative link. DMacks (talk) 13:41, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Latest news story moved to Talk:

I've moved this recent insertion to the Talk page:

In April 2019, Rabbi Eliezer Kashtiel, the head of the Bnei David Academy in the Israeli settlement of Eli, was caught on camera lecturing to students on the genetic inferiority of gentiles, Palestinians, on their stupidity, and the need for them to be enslaved. He endorsed racism, and the superiority of the Jewish people.<ref>Tamar Pileggi, [https://www.timesofisrael.com/embracing-racism-rabbis-at-pre-army-yeshiva-laud-hitler-urge-enslaving-arabs/ Embracing racism, rabbis at pre-army yeshiva laud Hitler, urge enslaving Arabs] [[The Times of Israel]] 30 April 2019</ref><ref>Jonathan Ofir, [https://mondoweiss.net/2019/04/israeli-military-praising/ 'Israeli rabbis at military prep school are caught on video praising Hitler,'] [[Mondoweiss]] 30 April 2019 </ref> His views were criticised by the [[Anti-Defamation League|ADL]].<ref>[https://www.timesofisrael.com/adl-blasts-rabbis-for-diatribes-supporting-racism-hitlers-worldview/ ADL blasts rabbis for diatribes supporting racism, Hitler’s worldview], [[The Times of Israel]] 30 April 2019</ref>

As one might gather Eliezer Kashtiel is a virtual unknown outside of this news story (and likely outside the Academy in which he teaches), and certainly not considered an important thinker in Judaism; the whole insertion is flawed by WP:NOTNEWS, WP:RECENTISM, and WP:UNDUE. Is there any actual reason it belongs here, as opposed to the Beni David Academy article, if such an article is ever created? Jayjg ^(talk) 20:30, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Clearly UNDUE. Local figure in a single yeshiva, with no particular wider authority.Icewhiz (talk) 20:33, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Thats funny, as an equal unprominent present Saudi clerics views on slavery is found WP:DUE in Islamic views on slavery. So are you going to remove that, too? Huldra (talk) 23:39, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

If you're asking me, I don't know anything about the topic of Islamic views on slavery, and I don't believe I've ever edited the article. I would have no way of assessing whether material in there was, for example, WP:UNDUE. I also recommend reading WP:OTHERCONTENT. Jayjg ^(talk) 13:14, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Agreed with consensus, I removed a similar section yesterday. This isn't a list of the beliefs of every Jewish figure, but a tracing of mainstream or influential Jewish thought. @Huldra, two wrongs don't make a right. If that addition is inappropriate, we should deal with it there on its own terms. It has no bearing on this discussion. Squatch347 (talk) 13:25, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Peeking at Islamic views on slavery - Saleh Al-Fawzan (at the time "a member of the Senior Council of Clerics, Saudi Arabia's highest religious body, a member of the Council of Religious Edicts and Research, the Imam of Prince Mitaeb Mosque in Riyadh, and a professor at Imam Mohamed Bin Saud Islamic University" our current bio lead has "He is a major figure in the Salafi movement.") is a more than a tad higher up on the totem pole of jurisprudence than Kashtiel. (and regardless this is an OTHERSTUFF argument). Icewhiz (talk) 13:57, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Agree with Icewhiz, it's completely out of line to mention another article as a justification for inclusion. In addition to that, WP:Volunteer applies. I have seen people use the "So are you going to remove that, too?" argument before and it ignores the fact that Wikipedia is a voluntary. To edit one article, does not mean you have to edit another. So the argument is completely null and void because it is not based in any actual rules. ShimonChai (talk) 22:06, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Not wanting to comment on this particular example, but there is such a rule. It is WP:NPOV. It doesn't oblige anyone to edit any particular article, but it does raise concerns when editors apply different standards in different articles. Zero^talk 09:07, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

WP:NPOV might apply if editors are doing that, but that doesn't appear to be the case in this article. This talk page is for discussing the content of this article, WP:AN/I and similar boards are where one discusses editor behavior issues. Jayjg ^(talk) 13:38, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

IP edits

Here is a place where the IP editor can make the case for their edit that has been reverted twice with various reasons. (It is separate from this earlier huge edit.) --JBL (talk) 15:17, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Orthodox Union currently has an article entitled "Ethics of Slavery" in their newsletter

What ethics is there to enslavement? Are they suggesting there is a form of ethical enslavement? 174.86.237.161 (talk) 06:59, 24 September 2021 (UTC)