Talk:Jewish views on slavery/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Antisemitic garbage

Whats the purpose of this article. It was quoted by some skinhead!--Temoni prince 01:19, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

:The purpose of this article is the same as Christianity and slavery and Islam and slavery, namely to provide neutral information regarding a religious group's relationship with the institution of slavery.Bless sins (talk) 02:20, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually the purpose of this article is more historical than religious. The articles Christianity and slavery and Islam and slavery deal with the religions more than history.Bless sins (talk) 06:00, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

The purpose is to create a factual article on a historical subject. Atari400 07:14, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

ANTISEMETIC? Where is the antisemitism? The article extracts much from the Jewish Encyclopedia[1] --Gaptech (talk) 22:07, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Atari400's concerns

It seems that several editors agree that the article should be moved to a new title, "Jews and slave trade" because it reflect the content of the article better than the current title. Atari seems to have some objections regarding this move, but without explaining his reasons. Could you please mention you concerns here Atari400? -- Karl Meier (talk) 12:19, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

There is no need for that. Since there exists an article entitled the Arab slave trade, the precedent has been set for such naming patterns. Atari400 07:14, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

The roles played by the ethnic groups are different, so your analogy needs more work. Arrow740 (talk) 10:33, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

That doesn't make any sense. Atari400 16:52, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Link up with Religion and slavery

This article can be a sub article for Slavery and religion#Judaism, after the Afd is over and the title is likely moved to Judaism and slavery/Jews and slave trade. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 16:53, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't now about that. It depends on the grammar that other articles use for similar topics. It keeps thing a little more organized here on Wikipedia, I would say. Atari400 17:18, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm talking more about the link with the other article, not the rename. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 17:35, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Right now, I think it is more wait and see, pending the deletion outcome. Atari400 17:36, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

"Judaism and slavery"

The name of the current article is "Judaism and slavery". I think this may be inappropriate. There is not a single reference to any of the Jewish scriptures, or any of Judaism's doctrines principles etc. The article doesn't mention anything about Judaic law, or what Judaism teaches Jews in regards to slavery.

Thus I propose this article be moved back to "Jews and slave trade" or "Jews and slavery", since this article discusses history of Jews in slave trade and allegations made against Jews. Please note that the allegations made are against Jews and their alleged participation in slavery. None of the allegations are made against Judaism, or its teachings.Bless sins (talk) 02:39, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

There was a community discussion where it was determined, with a strong consensus, that the current name is better. Regrettably, we cannot make everyone happy. You will have to accept the consensus for the time being. Judaism is not exclusively about scriptures. This article is about the religion, Judaism, and Slavery. Feel free to add references to scriptures as appropriate. The article may certainly discuss what Jewish writings say about slavery. Jehochman ^Talk 03:43, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

There were a couple of opposes on the name "Judaism and slavery". I've started this section to discuss the rationale behind the term "Judaism and slavery". If I remember correctly you a user (or one of the users ) who wished to delete this article or rename it to "Judaism and slavery". Why this title, and not "Jews and slavery"?Bless sins (talk) 03:53, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

We already have Christianity and slavery and Islam and slavery. This title should be consistent with those, and it also helps avoid the POV pushing that "Jews controlled the slave trade", an old libel. Feel free to rework the article and add perspectives on slavery from scripture. Jehochman ^Talk 04:09, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Agree with jehochman here. I've moved some stuff from Slavery and religion#Judaism. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 05:00, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Final sentence of lede

I have changed the final sentence of the lede to match what the cited sources say and placed a potentially POV word in quotes to show that it is exactly what one source says. If this is disagreeable, please cite reliable sources that say something else, and then we can modify or add another sentence to reflect any other mainstream views. Jehochman ^Talk 14:55, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Better, but still doesn't really jibe with NPOV guidelines. Its like the conflict seen at many rock band articles; someone will find a reliable source that says so-and-so is "the greatest band in the world", and put in the article as a statement of fact, which isn't the way it is supposed to go. It is the same here; the article should be noting that historians find the claims to be ludicrous, not declaring that the claims are ludicrous. Tarc (talk) 21:25, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Go ahead and adjust that. Perhaps we should provide context for why this fact is included. The paragraph could start with something like: "A common antisemitic meme accuses Jews of dominating the African slave trade." Of course, we need to find a source that says this. Jehochman ^Talk 21:29, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

NPOV Tag

Is there still a neutrality issue here, not much discussion of any NPOV issues yet the tag remains for the past 10 months Nableezy (talk) 20:21, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I tagged the top of the article. The lead section is not encyclopedic Judaism has been influenced by the experience of slavery of the Hebrews in the land of Egypt, as narrated in the biblical story of the Exodus[1] and their emancipation by the hand of God and under the leadership of Moses and Aaron.[citation needed]

This also could be phrased as a myth story explanation for poetic context... because talking about the hand of god is really not a very neutral way... obviously, of describing something ... if it is not couched in some other explanation that goes beyond the simple supernatural one that is given in the article in a straight faced matter of fact way. That is not neutral and not encyclopedic... at all. skip sievert (talk) 19:38, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Judaism is a religion, and reference to God is not necessarily inappropriate in that context. Describing it as a myth story, or poetic definitely defeats the purpose of the article, which is the impact of the folk historic experience of slavery (whether verifiable or not) on Judaism.Ewawer (talk) 10:56, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think so. Obviously God is going to be referenced. Was it a myth or poetic allusion? Does not really matter... but good sourcing does and notable reff/notes. The purpose of an encyclopedia is presenting neutral information hopefully sourced well, in a creative manner... not to take sides on god. Purpose of the article is to inform as to the history of Judaism and slavery, and we are not in the truth telling business. Your point of view may be that the article should be about the impact of the folk historic experience... and that is fine... just source it beyond saying the 'hand of god did such and such' or a 'call from god was made, which was not referenced. skip sievert (talk) 01:54, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

POV Allegations and refutation

Is wikipedia now a place for this theme. Do you see this allegation and refutation in any similar slavery topic? It is a violation of NPOV. The body of the article is for arguments on both sides. It is like creating a boxing match but you want to prove your man is the winner. Article needs to be stripped and re-written in light of real information not distractions and accusations.

Almost all the references support the POV,

none come from other groups and experts on the subject. --Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 22:37, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Do you have specific sentences or sources with which you take issue? Jayjg ^(talk) 19:06, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

The title does not conform to encyclopedia policy now does it. Can you show me in wiki policy where you can start a section called "here are things you say about us, but we will refute it". Tags are valid until the debate is finished."Jews were no more or less involved in the slave trade than any other ethno-cultural or national group" comes from the source you deleted, it doesn't come from the sources in given, it is a copy violation. If wikipedia is suppose to be balanced please show me one source in this section which doesn't support the case "refutation argument". Wikipedia is not for politics of POV pushers. the article is unbalanced and not in keeping with the tone seen in other articles on slavery. --Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 20:58, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

You haven't raised any actionable issues, though. Nor, for that matter, have you shown how the source you keep tagging has "failed verification". Tags are not weapons for defacing articles; please give specific examples of specific policies being violated here. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:15, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Please discuss the "One of the latest examples of such accusations are made in the Nation of Islam's 1991 book The Secret Relationship Between Blacks and Jews.[50] These charges were widely refuted by scholars" has the article discussed these accusation? A book in 1991 is not latest, What about the scholars that agreed with NOI can we have their views? Or are they non-reliable source? Where is the source from the Nation of Islam?, weasle word policy is also an issue because the tone takes a one sidded argument. Again is the title Allegations and refutations in keeping with Wikipedia policy? I just want you as an experienced editor to tell me if the title is appropriate in your experience. Because i do not see it on any slavery article, this is an encyclopedia not a blog site.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 21:24, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

It's unclear to me what you're saying; the statements you have now listed have sources for them, and those sources are not the ones you have previously tagged as "failed verification". Can you explain more clearly what specific issues need to be addressed? Jayjg ^(talk) 21:29, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to hear that, lets bring in other editors who might have a broader appreciation for the issues at hand.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 21:35, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I've removed the word "latest", since that was one issue you raised that I could understand. I'm still not getting the other points, which seem highly diffuse and non-actionable. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:36, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I am happy to see some changes being made. Which is a start. The title needs to be changed. How about "A controversial issue" Because you will find the article is better served being presented with a more balanced toine. You cannot have a title called Refutations in an encyclopedia. It sounds like a court case defending the religion of Judaism. And add the so-called accusations into the body of the argument. Without attacking them all.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 21:39, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

So you also don't like the section title? I've changed it to "Allegations the Jews dominated the slave trade". How's that? Jayjg ^(talk) 21:52, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Its definitely better by a few inches. Ill leave for now and hope other contributions (other than mine) expand and balance the debate with sources from the other camps discussing this controversial issue. --Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 22:11, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

POV Pushing and constant deleting of valid contribution

Judaism and slavery is not in keeping with the NPOV style of Wikipedia. It has become a WP:ADVOCACY. The article is solely sourced by content which supports the POV, only these sources are allowed or treated as "reliable". Compared to similar religious slavery topics it seems its only purpose is to support the specific religious group rather than discuss the topic professionally citing sources from a diverse opinion base. —Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Halaqah 18:21, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

What is objection to sidebar template?

The slavery template Template:slavery includes a link to this article, so is there any issue with including that sidebar template? Articles Islam and slavery and Christianity and slavery include the same template. --Noleander (talk) 11:27, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

The topic of the article is primarily Judaism's historic view on the institution of slavery. The primary topic being addressed in the article is not Jewish involvement in slavery, which is minimal. You say that, "Articles Islam and slavery and Christianity and slavery include the same template." Each article on Wikipedia is separate. That one article might display a certain template does not create an obligation or a responsibility that another article follow in lockstep. Bus stop (talk) 11:52, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. I don't follow your logic. Should we consider an RfC to get more input? --Noleander (talk) 11:55, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Bus Stop: Can you clarify your concerns some more? Or would you prefer to do an RfC? --Noleander (talk) 00:58, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

You say that "The slavery template Template:slavery includes a link to this article," but "the slavery Template" should not contain a link to this article. Jews did not, by and large, practice slavery. The religion of Judaism posited what should be standards for the keeping of slaves and these were progressive standards. There is little evidence of Jewish involvement in slavery aside from Jewish commentary on what should be humane practices. Bus stop (talk) 01:58, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay. I cannot comprehend your objections, since it seems clear that this article is about slavery, and the template is about slavery. I guess an RfC is the way too go. --Noleander (talk) 02:30, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Don't run off in a huff if you are unable to discuss this. I mean you are welcome to seek the input of other editors. But I think the ball is on your side of the court, so to speak. I have asserted that there is little evidence of Jewish involvement in slave owning or slave trading at any point in time — distant past or recent past. I think it is only logical for you to show me evidence that Jews indeed did participate in slavery in some way, at some time. Do you have any such evidence? Bus stop (talk) 02:42, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not running off in a huff :-) I'm just having trouble comprehending your points. You seem to be reducing the sidebar template question to "prove that there were lots of Jewish slave owners". What does that have to do with the sidebar question? This issue is about a sidebar template. The sidebar is on the topic of "slavery". This article is also about a key aspect of slavery. This article is prominently mentioned in the sidebar template already. Including the template would help readers navigate the encyclopedia. Your objections to the sidebar are not rational. --Noleander (talk) 02:49, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

You say, "This article is prominently mentioned in the sidebar template already." It should not be. Judaism did not participate in slavery. Please show me evidence of Jewish participation in slavery. You say, "Including the template would help readers navigate the encyclopedia." No, "including the template" would mislead people into thinking that Jews participated in slavery. That does not seem to be the case. I think the onus is on you to show me that Jews participated in the institution of slavery. Bus stop (talk) 03:02, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Are you aware of the large number of laws related to slavery in the Tanakh (Jewish Bible) and in the Talmud? Have you read any of the sources on the topic, listed in this article? Have you read the article itself? Can you take a moment and peruse "The curse of Ham: race and slavery in early Judaism, Christianity, and Islam" by David M. Goldenberg? It sounds like you are not familiar with the topic. I'll tell you what: I'll restore the sidebar to the article, and if you want to revert it again, go ahead, and then we'll do the RfC. --Noleander (talk) 03:15, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Noleander — you are continuing your logic applied to the Criticism of Judaism article — that what applies to one article must apply to another article. This is illogical, if it is not applicable. Just because you find a sidebar to be appropriate for indicating involvement in slavery for one religion does not mean that the same sidebar is appropriate or called for, concerning another religion.

Show evidence in sources for Jewish involvement in the practice of slavery, please. Laws posited, intended to reform the practice of slavery in old Jewish religious texts, does not equate with the actual practice of slavery. It is widely acknowledged that these laws represented a progressive reconceptualization of ancient practices in this regard.

What may be applicable to one article may not be applicable to another article. This is the case here. A case can be cogently argued that Christians and Muslims participated in the practice of the institution of slavery. That case cannot be made, concerning Jews. We don't treat all articles alike in a knee-jerk like fashion. As I have already asked you — show me sources indicating a Jewish participation in the practice of slavery. Bus stop (talk) 10:51, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

There are scores of sources that document slavery in ancient Israel. Many are cited in the article already; in addition there is "The Curse of Ham" by Goldenberg, "Ancient Israel: its life and institutions" by Roland De Vaux, etc. The sources seem to concur that the slavery practiced under Judaism was a more lenient sort compared to contemporary cultures, and so that fact should be (and already is) documented in this article. --Noleander (talk) 14:03, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Noleander — you say that, "The sources seem to concur that the slavery practiced under Judaism was a more lenient sort compared to contemporary cultures, and so that fact should be (and already is) documented in this article." There are virtually no sources documenting "slavery practiced under Judaism." Please bring a source for Jews practicing slavery. We don't just put templates on articles because other articles have such templates. Each article is separate on Wikipedia. An article with "Judaism" in the title does not necessarily have to conform to everything at a similarly named article with for instance "Christianity" or "Islam" in the title. These are decisions that are made based on the particulars of a given article. Bring sources for Jews engaging in slave trading or slave owning or any other aspect of slavery. Literature about slavery does not equate to the practice of slavery, thus if writings of early Judaism posit standards that should be upheld for how slaves should be treated with humanity and respect, that does not translate into practicing any aspect of slavery. I think you would need to bring sources supporting slavery as practiced, not just as commented upon. I think the template you are arguing for is associated with religious groups practicing slavery in some form. That does not seem to be the case with Jews and Judaism. But feel free to bring sources to support any argument that you might have that Jews practiced slavery. Bus stop (talk) 15:59, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

New content on influence of Judaism in supporting / opposed slavery in U.S.?

This article seems to be missing content that describes the relationship between Judaism and slavery in the pre-Civil War U.S. (both support and opposition). E.g. debate between Rabbi Raphall and David Einhorn (rabbi) ([2]); or uses of the Tanakh by slavery-supporters to justify slavery. Thoughts? --Noleander (talk) 18:40, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Which reliable source that discusses Judaism and slavery raises these points? Jayjg ^(talk) 00:29, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Several. One is "Jews and the American Slave Trade" by Paul S. Friedman. But there are lots more. --Noleander (talk) 00:56, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like he's talking about Jews, not Judaism, at least from the title. They're not the same thing. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:01, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

He's talking about Judaism (the religion) in the relevant chapter. And, this article was originally entitled "Jews and the slave trade" but the title was changed to the current title, yet the original content was retained. So maybe the article should be re-titled? --Noleander (talk) 02:24, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

... and, see the re-name discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jewish slave trade where it is clear that the intention was for the article to continue to include the original non-religious content (namely, content relating to "Jews and the slave trade"). --Noleander (talk) 03:08, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

The re-name discussion actually makes no such thing "clear". In any event, this article is about Judaism, not about what specific members of particular ethnic groups might have done or said. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:16, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

You are entitled to your opinion. But the history of this article is clear: it is supposed to include discussions of the roles of Jews in relation to Slavery. If you want to limit the article to just religious issues, we could do a content split, I suppose. But that doesnt seem very useful to readers. In any case, we need to look to the sources, and there are many sources (already identified in the article) that discuss the topic in a non-religious sense (and in a non-canard sense). --Noleander (talk) 04:25, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

The "history of the article" is a fairly irrelevant notion. The article's topic is defined by its title, which is Judaism and slavery. It isn't very useful to readers to have articles go off topic. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:58, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I'll add the content then, and if you want to propose a content-fork into two articles ("religion" and "non-religion" - the latter containing the current "Jews in the slave trade" section) you are free to do so, although I doubt it would succeed. --Noleander (talk) 13:47, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

No, don't bother adding the content, as it won't be able to stay in, since it's outside the scope of this article. If you want to propose changing the name of the article to something like Jews and Judaism and slavery, and thus expanding the scope, you are free to do so, although I doubt it would succeed. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:18, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

If you think that non-religion material should be excluded from the article, would you support a split into two articles, where the "Jews and the slave trade" & "Liberation of Jewish slaves" (non-religion) sections were moved into a new article? --Noleander (talk) 06:30, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea where all that stuff that's outside the scope of this article should go, but if you want to expand this article's scope beyond Judaism and slavery, you'll need to get agreement on a title and scope change. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:53, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

It sounds like we'll have to agree to disagree on the scope of the article :-) But it may be a moot point, since I'm not aware of any additional material for this article (that would fall outside the existing sections already within the article). --Noleander (talk) 12:37, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Effect on relations with African-Americans?

I don't see any mention in this article on how the relationship between Judaism and slavery has impacted the the outlook of African-Americans. I seem to recall there are several sources that describe how the historically strong relations between Jews and African-Americans were negatively impacted by the slavery issue. But maybe that is already described in another article? --Noleander (talk) 19:04, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

BusStop: I apologize if I was not clear. I was referring to the relationship between Jews and African-Americans as described in sources such as:

• Strangers & neighbors: relations between Blacks & Jews in the United States by Maurianne Adams, John H. Bracey
• What went wrong?: the creation and collapse of the Black-Jewish Alliance by Murray Friedman
• "African American Antisemitism", in Encyclopedia of American Jewish history, Volume 1 By Stephen Harlan Norwood, Eunice G. Pollack
• Struggles in the promised land: toward a history of Black-Jewish relations Jack Salzman, Cornel West
• In the almost promised land: American Jews and Blacks, 1915-1935 Hasia R. Diner
• Broken alliance: the turbulent times between Blacks and Jews in America by Jonathan Kaufman

All of the above sources describe how the relationship was strained by the slavery issue. I think that is an important topic, and I do not think it is yet addressed in this encyclopedia. This article seems like the best location. --Noleander (talk) 22:41, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

You say, "All of the above sources describe how the relationship was strained by the slavery issue." What "slavery issue" are you referring to? Bus stop (talk) 22:44, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

The "slavery issue" is that some African-Americans perceived (many claim wrongly) that Judaism's texts, leaders, and doctrines contributed to the origination and perpetuation of slavery. I think the article touches on this topic in the sentence: "These allegations were made in the Nation of Islam's 1991 book The Secret Relationship Between Blacks and Jews. These charges were widely refuted by scholars." --Noleander (talk) 22:52, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

You repeat Louis Farrakhan's accusations, but Farrakhan provides no sources for his accusations, at least not in the source provided in our article. Without sources for Farrakhan's accusations they are empty words not even worthy of the little space already given to them. Bus stop (talk) 23:20, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Ummm, what are you talking about? I'm not suggesting anything about Farrakhan (the mention of The Secret Relationship Between Blacks and Jews is from a sentence already in this article). My proposal is to add information from the above bullet-listed sources (none of them the Nation of Islam) regarding the impact of slavery on Jewish/Af.Am. relations. Please read my comments more carefully next time. --Noleander (talk) 23:36, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Which reliable source that discusses Judaism and slavery raises these points? Jayjg ^(talk) 00:29, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

The ones above in the bulleted list. --Noleander (talk) 00:53, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

They all appear to be about cooperation/conflict between ethnic groups, not about religion. This is an article about Judaism, a religion. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:03, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Why do you say that the article is limited to strictly religious topics? Certainly the existing sections "Jews in the slave trade" and "Allegations the Jews dominated the slave trade" are not religion-centric, true? Or do you think that a separate article should be created for non-religion based aspects of the topic? --Noleander (talk) 02:28, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

They certainly don't belong in this article. But, given your intense interest in the Antisemitic canard article, I'm surprised you haven't suggested moving the material there, where it actually belongs. Let's do that, ok? Jayjg ^(talk) 04:16, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Why do you say the section "Jews in the slave trade" belongs in a canard article? And why do you suggest that the impact of slavery on Jewish-AfAm relations belongs outside this article? --Noleander (talk) 04:20, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I was thinking of the latter section, which is obviously an antisemitic canard. As for your question, it has already been answered: it's "about cooperation/conflict between ethnic groups, not about religion". Jayjg ^(talk) 04:58, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the "Dominated" section: I concur that section would be better in a canard article (although a brief summary should remain here since it is within the scope of this article). The existing "Jews and the slave trade section" does not belong in a canard article. As for content discussing the relationship between Jews and African-Americans, I'll add the content into this article, and if you want to propose a content-fork into two articles you are free to do so, although I doubt it would succeed. --Noleander (talk) 13:51, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

No, don't bother adding the material here, as it won't be able to stay in, since it's outside the scope of this article. If you want to propose changing the name of the article to something like Jews and Judaism and slavery, and thus expanding the scope, you are free to do so, although I doubt it would succeed. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:18, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I think you are right. I think the material covered by those bulleted sources above belongs in another article. I don't see any existing WP article that is appropriate, so I will create a new article that covers the material ... although the material in those sources is so voluminious, it may take 2 or 3 articles. I'll add a link from this article to the new one(s). --Noleander (talk) 06:35, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure you'll have no difficulty creating multiple articles intended solely to reflect negatively on Jews and Judaism, as that has been your primary Wikipedia activity for the past several months. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:53, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

If any editor knows of an article that already discusses the relations between African-Americans and American Jews (as described in the sources in the bulleted list below) please let me know:

• Strangers & neighbors: relations between Blacks & Jews in the United States by Maurianne Adams, John H. Bracey
• What went wrong?: the creation and collapse of the Black-Jewish Alliance by Murray Friedman
• "African American Antisemitism", in Encyclopedia of American Jewish history, Volume 1 By Stephen Harlan Norwood, Eunice G. Pollack
• Struggles in the promised land: toward a history of Black-Jewish relations Jack Salzman, Cornel West
• Blacks and Jews: alliances and arguments by Paul Berman
• In the almost promised land: American Jews and Blacks, 1915-1935 Hasia R. Diner
• Broken alliance: the turbulent times between Blacks and Jews in America by Jonathan Kaufman

Thanks. --Noleander (talk) 12:46, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Mention of "Curse of Ham"?

The Curse of Ham (aka "Curse of Canaan") should be mentioned in this article ... I don't see it. This curse, from the Tanakh, was frequently used to justify slavery. There is an entire article on it already (Curse of Ham) but this article should at least summarize it and point the reader to that other article. Comments? --Noleander (talk) 18:50, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Which reliable source that discusses Judaism and slavery raises these points? Jayjg ^(talk) 00:29, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Several sources already in the Curse of Ham article. --Noleander (talk) 00:54, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Did you have any specific ones you thought were relevant? Jayjg ^(talk) 02:04, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

The most detailed source is "The curse of Ham: race and slavery in early Judaism, Christianity, and Islam" by David M. Goldenberg. But there are several other sources. --Noleander (talk) 02:25, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

... and, by the way, the absence of Goldenberg's book in this article is an indication that the article needs some work. --Noleander (talk) 02:52, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

That seems like a very narrow topic, specific ancient interpretations of a midrash. Likely a bit too detailed for a general article like this. Fits well in the Curse of Ham article, though. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:16, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps I wasnt clear: it is already in the Curse of Ham article. I'm proposing to include a summary of it here, since it is in the intersection of Slavery and Judaism, is it not? --Noleander (talk) 04:22, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

It's where it belongs; no need to duplicate material from one article to the next. It's not "Judaism", it's just a midrash. There are literally thousands of them, each with all sorts of interpretations. Equating a midrash with Judaism is like equating a parable with Christianity. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:58, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I respect your opinion, but the sources describe it as an aspect of Judaism: they discuss the Curse of Ham as as aspect of Jewish religion, and - in that context - they discuss how it impacted slavery. So some mention of it belongs in this article. --Noleander (talk) 13:55, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

No, it's already discussed in the relevant article. Feel free to add to the material there. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:18, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm. I'm not familiar with WP policy that prohibits information from being duplicated in multiple articles. To pick a random example, the Kosher Tax is describe in its own article, and again in Antisemitic canards. In fact, it looks like about half (I'm just guessing here) of all material in this encyclopedia is duplicated in two or more articles. Anyway: what is the policy you are relying on to exclude "Curse of Ham" material from this article? --Noleander (talk) 06:38, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Isn't that material you added to the Antisemitic canards article yourself? And we can't really take the Antisemitic canards article as a good example, since it's just a coatrack of random negative stuff editors (well really one editor) were able to Google up about Jews and Judaism. Anyway: what is the policy you are relying on to include irrelevant material in this article? Jayjg ^(talk) 22:53, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

You didn't answer the question. (PS: No, I've never edited anything related to Kosher Tax, in any article). --Noleander (talk) 12:30, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Umm, of course you did. On Feb 23 2010 you added a "Kosher tax" section to the "Antisemitic canard" article. See here. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:43, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Lead paragraph needs improvement

The lead paragraph needs some work. It is too apologetic. Needs to be more factual, scholarly, neutral. I'll try to come up with something, but any suggestions are welcome. --16:57, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

No, it is not "apologetic." It is accurate. As I have asked you numerous times in the section above, please bring sources for Jewish practice of slavery. That would not include prescriptions for minimal standards with which slaves should be treated. Positing minimal standards for an institution is certainly not equatable with practicing that institution. What source implicates Jews in slavery? Bus stop (talk) 17:16, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Ignoring the apologetic-or-not issue: the lead paragraph is simply poor quality. It does not summarize the article that follows. As for references that document ownership of slaves by Jews: There are several in the footnotes of this article (in particular, in the next-to-last footnote of this article); plus I identified a couple of scholarly books above (in response to the same question): what did you think of those books after you read them? But, you are right: that data should not be buried in the footnotes. What do you think of creating a new section in the article to contain the statistical estimates of slave-ownership by Jews (by era)? --Noleander (talk) 07:01, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Noleander — If you have a source for Jewish involvement in slavery please present it here. Bus stop (talk) 14:45, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Sure, there are several already listed in the article's footnotes. Here are some sources covering a variety of geographical regions:

• Jews and Negro slavery in the Old South, 1789-1865 by Bertram Wallace Korn (slave ownership in U.S.)
• The curse of Ham: race and slavery in early Judaism, Christianity, and Islam by David M. Goldenberg (slave ownership in ancient Israel)
• "Suriname" in The Historical Encyclopedia of world slavery, vol 1, by David Cohin (slave ownership in South America)
• Jews and the American Slave Trade by Saul Friedman (Jews operating in the slave trade)

But, as I said, many sources have been identified in the article for a long time: this is not new material. --Noleander (talk) 13:14, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

The lead does needs some serious work. It clearly fails to summarize the sections that follow it. And yes it is apologetic and unbalanced. I also agree with Noleander in terms of adding more sourced material that explains the relationship between Jews & and slavery. The article clearly has non-religious aspects that could be addressed here without (needlessly) forking it.

Likeminas (talk) 15:03, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

The Jewish role in slavery has to be kept in perspective. It was minimal. And you cannot use the term slavery interchangeably, without explanation, across periods of time separated by millennia. One also would want to differentiate between writing about slavery and practicing slavery. Judaism wrote about slavery. This should not be construed as advocating slavery, unless a high quality source reaches that conclusion. Providing commentary about slavery, as ancient Judaism certainly did, can be just the opposite of advocacy for slavery, if the recommendation is for treatment of subservient people that is just a notch above that provided by other contemporaneous groups. In point of fact, there is probably good indication that Judaism's reformulation of the concept of slavery was progressive. It would almost seem to be economically nonviable, as conditions recommended for subservient people, by some measures, had to equal that of slave owners. Bus stop (talk) 22:19, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I put a new lead paragraph in, that I think more accurately reflects the totality of the article. --Noleander (talk) 20:14, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Clarify rules on slave ownership

I propose to improve the "Classical regulations" section by identifying the various sets of rules, for example, distinguishing rules for Jewish slaves vs. non-Jewish slaves. Also, in the temporal dimension, the Tanakh/Torah rules were followed by the Talmud/Mishnah rules several hundred years later, and the latter, some sources say, superseded the earlier rules. Right now, the section sort of jumbles them all together. --Noleander (talk) 20:23, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I added that additional detail into the article. I left the original section "Classical regulations" alone, to minimize the risk of losing any material or citation. The article is probably a bit on the long side, so some repetitive parts should be consolidated ... I'll work on that next. --Noleander (talk) 20:13, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Merge proposal

• Merge according to my proposal above Marokwitz (talk) 05:57, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose - for several reasons:

1) The two articles were originally a single article, and recently a WP:Content fork was performed to split the article into two, to make it easier for readers to read and understand the material.

2) The articles are both undergoing expansion at the current time. It would be premature to consider a merge proposal until they have both "settled down" into a stable size

3) The overlap between the two articles was not significant until an editor recently added a lot of duplicated text to both articles. For example, the sections Jews_and_the_slave_trade#Jewish_participation_in_19th_century_anti-slavery_movement and Judaism_and_slavery#Abolition_debate are nearly identical (that material belongs in the Judaism and slavery article). That duplication is excessive and misleading.

4) The Judaism and slavery article used to be much larger, but recently some detailed text was moved from the main article into footnotes (in order to bring the article to a manageable size). If we feel that the article is not too large now, we should consider un-doing that, and restoring some of that detail from footnotes back up into the article. That action would make the article larger and the merged article certainly too large.

5) Other editors have expressed the opinion (see above in this Talk page, and in the Talk archives) that this article should focus on Judaism's laws governing slavery, and that other topics (slave trade, etc) should be in other articles. The recent WP:Content fork into two articles was consistent with that notion (and I believe those editors would also have the "slave ownership" material also split-out of this article).

--Noleander (talk) 06:17, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. Judaism and slavery is theoretically an article about Judaism's view of slavery. Jews and the slave trade is an antisemitic canard that Jews were behind the slave trade, or disproportionately involved in it. Judaism is a religion. Jews are an ethnicity. They are not the same thing. Jayjg ^(talk) 07:02, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Jayjg, theoretically maybe, but currently this article includes the sections "Jews in the slave trade" and lots of information about Jewish slave ownership practices which have nothing to do with Judaism. What do you proposed to do with these materials? Marokwitz (talk) 09:21, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

If they're not about Judaism and Religion, and not about Jews in the slave trade, then they should probably be deleted. I've removed the material about "Jews and the slave trade", since it only belongs in one article. If the eventual decision is to merge the article here, then it can be restored. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:31, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I've now removed and moved everything unrelated to Judaism, the religion. What individual Jews do is essentially irrelevant to Judaism's rules and precepts on the topic. The "Jews and the slave trade" article is considerably longer than this one, so merging it in here definitely makes no sense. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:49, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose I'm not an involved editor on this article, but I have stumbled upon this, and for what it is worth, I agree with Jayjg. --DavidAppletree (talk) 15:59, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Comment—Both articles are basically antisemitic trash. Merge whatever cogent information there is into articles such as the Judaism article and the Slavery article. Articles shouldn't be used to create antisemitic canards which is what these articles are basically about. Bus stop (talk) 16:13, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

That might be an even better solution, but it's not the proposal under consideration. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:31, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Material un-related to religion goes where?

I've restored some of the material that was recently deleted because it was unrelated to religion (e.g. the Abolition debate section). I did not restore the "slave trade" material, since that is in another article. I think we need to discuss what article the "Abolition debate" and other "non religion" sections should go into. It looks like the choices are:

1) this article

1a) Keep "Judaism and slavery" name

1b) new name such as "Jews, Judaism and slavery"?

2) new article (perhaps named "Jews and slavery"?)

3) in the "Jews and the slave trade" article

Of those three options, I'd say (1b) and (2) seem most reasonable. If we end up going with option (2), we can remove the "Abolition" and "non religion" sections and move them into the new article. In any case, we should probably keep the material in this article until consensus is achieved. --Noleander (talk) 17:51, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd already moved it to the Jews and the slave trade article, because it's not about Judaism, it's about Jews. There was never a consensus for it to be in this article, and still isn't. If you want to put it in this unrelated article, please get consensus for that. If you want to put it in a new article, please get consensus for that. Do not duplicate it here, that won't fly at all, because it's unrelated to this topic, which is Judaism and the slave trade. Jews who own slaves are part of the slave trade too, as purchasers/owners. You've been given pretty much free reign over this article, mostly because other editors are too tired/disgusted to deal with the problem, but you cannot duplicate this material in two articles, and it certainly doesn't belong here. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:36, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think there is consensus yet to remove the Abolition information. This article has had a lot of material on non-religious topics (e.g. the slave trade) since it was created. I think you are the only editor that has suggested that it be limited to religion-only topics. I'm not saying a content fork is a bad thing, but a major change like you are proposing needs consensus first. Let's do an RfC and get input from more editors, okay? --Noleander (talk) 18:42, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

There never was consensus to add any of the Abolition information either, so please don't continue to make irrelevant statements about any alleged "consensus". I think you are the only editor who has suggested the scope of this article should be about more than Judaism; in fact, there were vociferous objections to it being about two topics, precisely because Judaism is a religion, Jews are a people, and they are not the same thing. That's why we have a Jews article and a Judaism article. As for "content forks", you are the one who created it two weeks ago, when you created this. If you didn't mean to have a separate article about Jews and the slave trade, you shouldn't have created it. Now it exists. Just as Jews is not a "content fork" of Judaism, so too Jews and the slave trade is not a content fork of Judaism and slavery. Rather, they are simply separate topics. Of course, you're free to create an RFC on this, but given that the two articles now exist, and cover separate topics, I can't imagine it would come to any other conclusion or arrangement than having one article about Judaism, the other about Jews. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:58, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

By the way, the reason I left all of the "Redeeming Jewish slaves" material here is because it dealt with Jewish law, and the actions of Jewish congregations and communities, not the actions of individual Jews. Religious communities would, I think, fall under this article. You may differ in this, though, I'd be interested in other views. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:18, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I'll submit the RfC now. --Noleander (talk) 04:41, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Great. Please don't attempt to re-add this off-topic material already in another article, unless there is consensus at the RFC to include it. There appears to be no current consensus for it here. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:45, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

RfC: Judaism and slavery: should it include abolition debates within the Jewish community?

There are two related articles: Judaism and slavery and Jews and the slave trade. There is some material that could go in either article, namely: material covering debates within the Jewish community about slavery (as well as other material, such as the history of slave ownership). What is the best location for that material? One of those articles? or a new article? --Noleander (talk) 04:56, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - There are several topics that are addressed in the two articles, including:

1) Religious rules governing slave ownership

2) Anti-slavery efforts of the Jewish community

3) Jewish involvement in the slave trade and the controversy associated with the Nation of Islam

4) Debates within the Jewish community (early 19th century) about slavery

5) Guidance for redeeming Jewish slaves

6) History of Jewish slave owners in the Unites States

The question is how to organize it within the encyclopedia. All in one article? Multiple articles? One "top level" articles with 1 or 2 subarticles? The current situation is not optimal: there are two articles Judaism and slavery and Jews and the slave trade. The former certainly includes the religious rules, and the latter certainly includes the slave trade material; but beyond that it is not clear what organization is best for readers. --Noleander (talk) 04:56, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Alternative formulation: There are two related articles: Judaism and slavery and Jews and the slave trade. The first is about the status of slavery in Jewish religious texts and legal works. The second is about the actions of individual Jews (some of whom practiced Christianity) in relation to slavery, namely: those who kept slaves, those who engaged in the slave trade, and those who protested it or fought for its abolition. Should material about individual Jews also be included in the article about the precepts of Judaism in relation to slavery? Jayjg ^(talk) 04:58, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Proposal - Three articles: (1) Jews and slavery, a top-level WP:Summary style article covering all the topics; (2) Judaism and slavery - focuses on the religious laws related to slavery; and (3) Jews and the slave trade - covers the material found in the several books on that topic. That would meet Jayjg's desire for an article focused on the religious laws; and would also have an article dedicated to the voluminous topic covered by all the books on the slave trade topic. A third article would serve to hold all the other material (abolition debate, etc). --Noleander (talk) 05:12, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Proposal - Two articles: (1) Jews and the slave trade / Jews and slavery, containing all the material relating to the actions of Jews in relation to slaveryy, namely: those who kept slaves, those who engaged in the slave trade, and those who protested it or fought for its abolition. (2) Judaism and slavery, focusing on the status of slavery in the religious texts and legal works of Judaism. This would clearly divide the two different types of material, and the former would maintain WP:NPOV by giving a complete picture of the actions of Jews in relation to slavery. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:16, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I thought of that. But the slave trade topic is rather self-contained: none of the sources on the slave trade topic include the "miscellaneous" topics of the abolition debate, southern US slave owership, etc. So the article should reflect how the sources organize the material. Plus such an article would be too large, and would end up being split into smaller articles anyway. --Noleander (talk) 05:21, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, yes, when you look for material specifically about Jews in the slave trade, that's likely what the material is going to be about. Anyway, the article's not too large yet, and if it ever grows too large one can then decide how best to create sub-articles. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:26, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Support the above proposal by Jayjg, this division makes the most sense. Marokwitz (talk) 07:29, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Support - I'm not seeing much input here from many other editors, so in the interests of reaching consensus, Im willing to go along with JayJG's proposal. If the day ever comes when the "slave trade" portion of Jews and slavery gets too bulky, we can split the "Jews and slavery" article into two articles. For the record: I still think the sources treat the "slave trade" as a distinct topic, and so this encyclopedia should. But I can live with it being part of a larger article. --Noleander (talk) 23:15, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Glaring Factual Errors

This article contains many factual errors and requires serious editing.

I will quote the most apparent one and leave someone with more time to do the rest.

A jewish slave goes free after 6 not seven years "He shall work for six years and in the seventh year he shall go free without payment" -Bible

(I did type a more complete list but it got lost in cyber space when I hit save no patience to do it again.)

Joeklr (talk) 21:24, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Read the Bible. It said HEBREW slaves, not Jewish.

« American mainland colonial Jews imported slaves from Africa at a rate proportionate to the general population. »

This is a shameless lie, rather than a glaring factual error. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.71.9.21 (talk) 15:27, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Problematic passage

There was:

By contrast, masters were given the right to the services of the wives of any of their slaves, if the enslaved husband had been sold into slavery by a court of law.

with citation to the Talmud (Kiddushin 22a). This is lifted from the 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia, which says "When a man is sold by the court, the master is bound to furnish such a servant's wife with food; he having, it seems, the right to her services, which hitherto belonged to her husband." The way our text is written with "services" emphasized makes it sound like sexual services are intended, but that implication is missing from the 1906 text. Try to read it with 1906 eyes: it just means that the woman became a servant to the master. When this came up before, I tracked down the Talmudic text and could not find anything there that was a clear reference to sexual services. But in any case we should not have anything in this page directly cited to the Talmud without support from a secondary source. Since the Talmud is notoriously difficult to interpret, and interpretations vary so much between commentators, citing it directly is a clear violation of the rules about primary sources. This doesn't prevent quotation of text from there in conjunction with commentary from a secondary source. Zero^talk 00:24, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Apologies for the revert, I didn't see this section, but then I also didn't read it as implying the inclusion or exclusion of specific kinds of services. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:58, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I propose a merger of Judaism and slavery and Jews and the slave trade. I understand this may be a controversial proposal and wish to hear more comments on the topic. My logic is that it makes little sense to break up these two topics when they have such obvious overlap. Both topics can be adequately covered in a single page. Furthermore, I propose that it is difficult to understand one of the articles without the other, and vice versa, and makes little sense to separate them. There is no similar splitting for Islamic views on slavery and Christian views on slavery, which contain sections both on views and practices (there are articles on the Arabic slave trade, but of course those are two different groups). Neither article is particularly lengthy either right now. mikeman67 (talk) 02:45, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

• Support, because for a start, the article fails miserably in establishing that Jews may refer to both an ethnicity as well as to members of a religious group/religion, i.e. practitioners of Judaism, and that NOT all Jews always qualify for both -- there are many secular and apostate Jews that do NOT represent their people or religion in any way! It is not clarified here what a Jew is. Jews, as both a religion and ethnicity, celebrate their own Exodus from slavery in ancient Egypt and introduced the notions of freedom and liberty thousands of years ago, that is also part of who Jews are. Think about this for a moment: There are wisely NO articles about Christians and the slave trade or Muslims and the slave trade because it would obviously STIGMATIZE and IMPLICATE all Christians and all Muslims by association as somehow having a major role in the slave trade, which would be false and absurd, likewise this should hold true for Jews no less. But there are articles about Christianity and slavery (correctly edited to read as Christian views on slavery -- so there should equally be the same thing for Jewish views on slavery) and Islam and slavery (which is a disambiguation page of all things, that among other things has articles on "Islamic views on slavery in theology/jurisprudence" and "History of slavery under Muslim rule" and then on to history of slavery in Islamic countries). So unless there is greater clarification of terms the less contentious Judaism and slavery which should be renamed as Jewish views on slavery that should suffice. There is in fact an entire Category:Jewish views. In sum, so far as the topic of slavery and the slave trade stands on WP, the subject comes across as nice to Christians, clinical when applied to Muslims and Arabs, and suspiciously tendentious and nasty when dealing with the Jews, and all the slavery-driven economies of the pagans and heathens of the past (the ancient Egyptians, Babylonians, Persians, Greeks, Romans and all the rest of them etc) get a free pass on WP (because it's much sexier and convenient to focus on their wars, art and literature!) So no wonder you won't find any articles about Greeks and the slave trade and Romans and the slave trade (more politely and archaicly it's put as Slavery in ancient Greece and Slavery in ancient Rome but no Slavery in ancient Israel). Jews and the slave trade as it stands now is a one-sided mis-use of facts that does not put the subject into any real historical or theological context either Jewish or secular, and it stands out as a very suspicious sore thumb that looks like someone has an axe to grind in violation of WP:NOTSOAPBOX or worse. IZAK (talk) 18:03, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Support. mikeman67 is absolutely right, a merge would indeed be the only appropriate action in this case, as the logical reasons he provided prove. And I couldn't have said it better than IZAK's extremely well written explanation. Thank you for that. Since the proposal was launched 10 days ago and no opposition has come up, I'll go ahead now and implement the merge. -Shalom11111 (talk) 22:59, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

'Support per IZAK. I think someone in the meantime should immediately change the title of this article. It is, as IZAK notes and commonsense suggests, intolerable to ascribe to an ethnicity a view on anything. Nishidani (talk) 13:24, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Nishidani, you're right - the merge has already been implemented though. Both Judaism and slavery and Jews and the slave trade now redirect to this article, titled Jewish views on slavery just like other articles on Jewish views found at Category:Jewish views. Since I simply inserted the full information from both articles into this article, it now requires some clean up. Shalom11111 (talk) 18:31, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Too long

This article is really long. I don't want to remove any of the "hard" content, but there are lots of wordiness and trivia that we can get rid of without impacting the important information conveyed in this article. Unless I hear objections, I intend on trimming the following within the next couple of days:

1. Remove the sentence in the first paragraph in the lead beginning with "Scholars are not ..." Y
2. Remove the sentence in the first paragraph in the lead beginning with "However, unlike other ..." Y
3. Remove the uncited second paragraph (which is only one sentence long) in the lead beginning with "The third holiest ..." Y
4. Combine the 3rd and 4th sentences of the 3rd paragraph in the lead Y
5. Remove the last paragraph of the "Biblical era" section Y
6. Remove the "Essenes" section Y
7. Summarize the "Female slaves" section from three paragraphs to perhaps one. Y
8. Remove the sentence in "Freeing a slave" that begins "The Talmud specifies ..." Y
9. Summarize the first two paragraphs of "Redeeming Jewish slaves" into one. Y
10. Remove the sentence in the first paragraph of "Middle Ages" beginning with "The Third Council ..." Y
11. Summarize the paragraph beginning "Middle Ages historical records ..." Y
12. Combine/Summarize the last three paragraphs of the "Atlantic Slave Trade" section into two. Y
13. Remove the sentence beginning with "According to Bertram ..." Y
14. Remove the "Notable Slave Traders" section and add the info on Arnold Lopez to the "Atlantic Slave Trade" section. EDIT: I just added Lopez to the "See also" section instead. He is too specific, confused the narrative, and Faber calls his impact "infinitesimal." Y
15. Summarizing the section on "The Secret Relationship Between Blacks and Jews" from 4 paragraphs to about 2. Y

I'll think of more places to trim, but I gotta do laundry right now. --GHcool (talk) 23:01, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Oh, finally someone who's willing to take action in this article - I support your suggestions, they look good and are much needed. Thanks, Shalom11111 (talk) 14:22, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

More places I'd like to trim:

1. Remove the 3rd sentence in the first paragraph of the "Converting or circumcising ..." section beginning with "This form of ..." Y
2. Remove the 2nd sentence from the Paul Johnson blockquote in "Redeeming Hebrew Slaves" section beginning with "If a Jew ..." Y
3. Summarize and incorporate the "Early assessments" section with the broader "Assessing the extent ..." section. Y
4. Remove the 6th paragraph in the "Later assessments" section beginning with "Allegations that Jews ..." Y
5. Remove the 2nd sentence in the Journal of American History blockquote beginning with "He follows this ..." Y
6. Remove the sentence in the picture caption in the "Abolition debate" section beginning with "Probably taken during ..." Y
7. Summarize the paragraph on Ernestine Rose. Y
8. Summarize and incorporate the paragraph beginning "In 1861, Raphall ..." with the previous paragraph on Raphall and Einhorn. Y
9. Summarize and incorporate the paragraph on Nathan Meyer Rothschild on the paragraph on English abolitionists Y
10. Summarize the long Joachim Prinz in the final paragraph of the article. Y --GHcool (talk) 17:58, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Great job with the previous points, I support these new suggestions as well and think they'll improve the article's standard. Apparently, very few editors seem to care about this article so your road is clear. Again, I appreciate you taking the time to help shape this very important article. I'll later review the edits you will have done and see if there's anything I think should be changed/added to the article. Shalom11111 (talk) 21:26, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Title

The article is a lot more than simply the "views". I propose a new title:

• History of Jewish people and slavery

The article is clearly a history article, and it covers much more than simply the "views" but the history of one group and slavery. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 17:45, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I completely agree. --GHcool (talk) 21:51, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm not opposed, but will point out that the naming convention is the same with Islamic views on slavery and Christian views on slavery, both of which have both views and practice in the article. This was part of the reason for the merge discussion above. Another possible title, for all three, could be "Judaism and Slavery" (currently a redirect to this article), "Christianity and Slavery", and "Islam and Slavery." It's also similar to a number of other articles that are titled "Judaism and ..." (e.g., Judaism and warfare, Judaism and sexuality etc. mikeman67 (talk) 01:46, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I would support either "Judaism and slavery" or "History of Jewish people and slavery," but I think this article covers a broader topic than "Jewish views on slavery" implies. --GHcool (talk) 17:13, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, a very tricky issue, indeed. We cannot rename this article into "Judaism and slavery" or "Jews and slavery" since the article covers a lot of both. The title "Judaism, Jews, and slavery" sounds like the most accurate one, however it's not an encyclopedic name at all and will be a exception to tens of other articles found at Category:Jewish views - (look at the "Jewish views" articles section, not the "Subcategories" on top) so we must avoid that too. Unlike Christianity and Islam, which are both religions, the word "Jewish" refers both to a religion (Judaism) and ethnicity (the Jewish people). Which is why the merge was needed and they should both be here in the same article, as IZAK (talk · contribs) (maybe you could help us decide?) explained above. Having said that and considering all options that have been suggested, I think the best solution would be compromising on the article's title and staying with this one, as it seems to be 'the most okay' title of all. Shalom11111 (talk) 02:32, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

I got an idea. How about Jewish views [on?] and involvement in slavery? Regardless, the lead needs to be better incorporated. Shalom11111 (talk) 17:00, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

I would support that title: "Jewish views on and involvement in slavery."

A tough decision... Ugh, why are the Jews always exceptional? (well, but both in good and bad aspects). So we have either "Jewish views on and involvement in slavery" or the current title, "Jewish views on slavery". -Shalom11111 (talk) 21:30, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Or maybe "Slavery in Judaism and Jewish history"... Shalom11111 (talk) 19:40, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't like "Jewish views and involvement in slavery". Way too wordy. I think "Judaism and slavery" makes the most sense for simplicity and accuracy. I also think "Slavery in Jewish history" works nicely too ("views" can certainly be subsumed in history, logically speaking). I respectfully disagree with your argument on there needing to be mentions of both Judaism and Jews in the title, which I think is overly pedantic and a largely pointless distinction here (also "Jews" can be a pejorative term today, even more likely so in this context). mikeman67 (talk) 01:08, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

I see. If "Judaism and Slavery" is a title we've disagreed on, and if you oppose the title "Slavery in Judaism and Jewish history", then I'd say let's stay with the current one. Shalom11111 (talk) 15:02, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Mikeman. What was wrong with "Judaism and slavery?" Its simple and is broad enough to cover the topics in this artlce. --GHcool (talk) 17:10, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

The title "Judaism and slavery" is very problematic because it ignores the Jews' involvement in slavery, and basically gives the false impression that the participation of Jews in slavery was done by the name of their religion, Jusaism - as if it motivated them. The article isn't only about Judaism's view on slavery, we merged it with "Jews and slavery", and I think the title should remain Jewish views on slavery per IZAK's excellent explanation above, it's the best compromise. Shalom11111 (talk) 22:28, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Renaming article section

I renamed the section "Involvement of Jews in slavery and slave trade to Modern slave trade" (section that was merged earlier) into "Modern slave trade." I think this fits much better in the context of the article, since others sections also had stuff on "Jews in slavery." I'm wondering if there could be a better title, since I'm not sure modern can be fairly applied to the Middle ages. Would it sound better as "Recent era"? I think it would also fit in better with the other sections in the article. mikeman67 (talk) 02:47, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Edited it again to "Modern era." Let me know if you disagree. I think it works best like this. mikeman67 (talk) 02:50, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree, but I'm moving the "Middle Ages" section since Middle Ages isn't part of the Modern era. --GHcool (talk) 02:56, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Nice, looks good! mikeman67 (talk) 03:10, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

The section on Assessing the extent of Jewish involvement in the Atlantic slave trade and the anti Semitic canard of disproportionate Jewish involvement in the Atlantic slave trade does not belong under the heading Jewish views on slavery. Either change the title to be Judaism and slavery or remove this material. 81.129.212.227 (talk) 06:20, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree that the article should be renamed, but I don't think we should remove the material completely. --GHcool (talk) 03:47, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Clarification Needed

The Talmudic laws required Jewish slave owners to try to convert non-Jewish slaves to Judaism. Other laws required slaves - if not converted - to be circumcised and undergo ritual immersion in a bath (mikveh).

My understanding is that non-Jewish slaves were required to have a sort of semi-conversion to the status of Canaanite slaves which involved circumcision and a mikveh and that they were not ever encouraged to undergo a full-fledged conversion. (Freed slaves were considered full-fledged converts.) However, if they did not accept the necessary mitzvot by a certain period then they were sold out of the Jewish community. It's possible the Talmudic laws are contradictory and subject to some debate about how they were actually applied. It's also possible that at the time the Talmud was compiled the laws were not entirely uniform. Can we get some clarification on this matter?

This form of semi-conversion whereby the slave was circumcised and required to adhere to the negative Mosaic commandments (but not the full rigor of the Jewish law)

Again, my understanding is that the laws in the Talmud state that non-Jewish slaves, male or female, are bound by the same mitzvot as Jewish women, not that they are bound only by the negative commandments, but rather by all non-time-bound mitzvot. Can we get clarification on this as well?

Keep in mind that even good historians often have only a cursory understanding of Talmudic laws and multiple sources may be required to discern what regulations actually existed. 24.113.200.95 (talk) 08:10, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree that multiple sources could help bring some clarity (well, as much clarity as can be expected for 2,000+ year old policies :-). I believe the current articles reflects the limited sources fairly accurately: do you have any other sources you can suggest? --Noleander (talk) 12:49, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the second issue of mitzvot obligation, I have yet to encounter a single source which agrees non-Jewish slaves are bound only by the negative mitzvot. Here are just a few samples of sources which state they are obligated in all the mitzvot incumbent on Jewish women (i.e. all the non-time-bound mitzvot):

http://vbm-torah.org/archive/kiddushin/19p2-03kiddushin.htm

http://www.bmv.org.il/shiurim/bk/bk080.html

http://www.ou.org/index.php/ou/print_this/70755/

http://www.bmv.org.il/shiurim/sotah/sot047.html

I believe the Talmud is actually pretty clear on this point: non-Jewish slaves were bound by all the same mitzvot as were Jewish women. 24.113.200.95 (talk) 09:10, 16 November 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.113.200.95 (talk) 09:07, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Those look like okay web sites. It would help if there was a book that confirmed that point, a book like Jewish slavery in antiquity by Hezser, Catherine. Oxford University Press, 2005. A book, preferably by a scholar, is better than websites. Are you aware of any books that address the subject? --Noleander (talk) 14:37, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

How about Babylonian Talmud Tractate Kedushin Folio 22b - 29b ? Those are great sites but the original source material is available and widely published.Joeklr (talk) 03:12, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

It's an ancient primary source; we rely instead on modern, secondary sources, preferably scholarly ones. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:03, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

The alleged Talmud law is questionable since the lede does not even have Bible law on "servants" right. Servants and slaves are two different things.72.161.234.27 (talk) 14:28, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Pre-Columbian slave trade?

The introductory passage reads: "In the middle ages, Jews were minimally involved in the Atlantic slave trade." It is generally agreed that the Middle Ages are the epoch from roughly the 5th to the 15th century, ending the Reformation or the discovery of the Americas, which, I believe occurred in 1492. How could there have been an Atlantic slave trade during that epoch? Ontologix (talk) 20:11, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

The sources says, "In the Middle Ages Jews were involved in a minimal slave trade. (Reiss, p. 85)[3] (The slave trade was minimal before the European settlement of America.) So the statement misrepresents the source and I will remove it. TFD (talk) 20:24, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

What Hazher actually wrote

She did not write "exaggerated", she wrote, after going into some detail, "Jews lived as a minority amongst mostly secularized Christians. By emphasizing the humanitarian aspects and moral values of ancient Judaism, Mielziner, Griinfeld, Farbstein, and Krauss argued that the Jewish tradition was not inferior to early Christian teachings on slaves and slavery, that it was even more advanced and a precursor of the modern abolition movement. They thereby tried to refute centuries-old anti-Jewish arguments, according to which Christianity was morally superior to Judaism, and to legitimize the equal legal, social, and economic treatment of Jews within western society." Dougweller (talk) 07:52, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Antisemitic canard

This whole article seems to start out with an antisemitic canard and devote its entire content to refuting it. It may be giving the canard too much credit to put it in the lead paragraph and devote the majority of the intro to explaining why the canard is false. It seems much more reasonable to include the canard as a section within the article itself, while making the intro more of an explanatory introduction of what actually IS true.68.9.147.36 (talk) 12:49, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Sweeping statement in the lead

There has recently been some tussle over the follow sentence in the lead: "Presently, slavery (as defined as the total subjugation of one human being over another) is absolutely unacceptable in Judaism. "

There isn't any discussion of contemporary Jewish views on slavery in the body other than a narrow discussion of the alliance in the civil rights movement. I removed the sentence above and added a sentence summarizing the civil rights movement matter. I think a treatment of contemporary Jewish stances on slavery would be interesting. Also while the journal Tikkun Olam The Jewish Quarterly is certainly a source for progressive Jewish views, it is not representative of all Jewish views (I don't know what other views are and am not making a statement about them one way or another). If somebody wanted to develop the contemporary material in the body that single sentence in the lead could be expanded a bit. (the lead is already a bit long, however, and other parts of it should probably be trimmed) Jytdog (talk) (edit to correct journal name. Jytdog (talk) 19:29, 21 December 2014 (UTC))

You say "There isn't any discussion of contemporary Jewish views on slavery in the body; there is just a discussion of the alliance in the civil rights movement". There is no "discussion" because "contemporary Jewish views" sweepingly denounce slavery. "Sweeping statements" are fine when they are accurate. Bus stop (talk) 02:56, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for talking! Would you please bring sources backing your claim? The range of Jewish thought is generally very broad - not only in substance but in what is relied on for authority. We can use those to build out the contemporary section. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 03:00, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

You claim "The range of Jewish thought is generally very broad - not only in substance but in what is relied on for authority." No it is not. From where are you deriving this? Bus stop (talk) 04:01, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

I think that in many cases, relgions will show branching beliefs much alike to that of regional language differences, but in the way of certain "movements" (like Orthodox_Judaism#Movements.2C_organisations_and_groups and Jewish religious movements of course I have no clue specifically, but logically speaking it could happen) Things just develop and within a group or system could arise a certain practice, or in our case here, a view, could be instigated that isn't carried out through the religion as a whole. But yeah, going with Jytdog and Bus stop, it's obvious that we're going to have to look for a source talking specifically about something like slavery and legitimate Jewish documentation with supporting evidence, as per reliable sourceChewbakadog (talk) 06:35, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, and when you fish in McElligot's Pool, you might catch a fish. Please tell me which branch of Judaism supports slavery. Bus stop (talk) 10:33, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Folks, it is very simple. If you want to make a sweeping statement about contemporary Jewish views, you need to bring a reliable source that makes such a statement. It should not be too hard. An opinion on halacha by one person associated with one branch of Judaism is obviously not enough. Zero^talk 04:20, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, zero. Bus stop, there is no central authority within Judaism and there is a resulting wild diversity of positions on many issues. (you never heard the very old jokes about 2 jews, 3 opinions?) There is the huge split between reform judaism and orthodox judaism, not to mention the enormous diversity of opinion and recognized authority within each of those (we have a nice section on the diversity of orthodox groups Orthodox_Judaism#Movements.2C_organisations_and_groups; you have to follow links in the Reform article). See also Jewish religious movements and Relationships between Jewish religious movements. Perhaps also see this or this. Please do respond to my request for sources for your claim. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 04:33, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Zero0000—you say "An opinion on halacha by one person associated with one branch of Judaism is obviously not enough." Where are you seeing "an opinion on halacha"? The source doesn't mention "halacha" at all. We have a source for "A Jewish View of Slavery". In that source we find the following wording: "there is no justification for slavery; no human has the right to enslave another". Bus stop (talk) 04:41, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, it depends on which legalistic statements you put under the umbrella "halacha". I expect the writer considers himself to be doing that, as indicated by his care to exclude Torah-permitted slavery as not really slavery (a highly dubious claim). But it doesn't matter here, the important thing is that an opinion one person expresses over the morality of slavery cannot be presented as the view of a large heterogeneous community. I'm sure you know what chaos would ensue if this principle was ignored across the board. Personally I am confident that 99% of Jews today agree with this writer's sentiment but that doesn't exempt you from finding a source. You need a reliable source that says something like "today almost a jewish authorities are opposed to the practice of slavery", then you are welcome to quote it. Zero^talk 04:55, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Jewish Quarterly is a reliable source. You say "an opinion one person expresses over the morality of slavery cannot be presented as the view of a large heterogeneous community." Jewish Quarterly says "there is no justification for slavery; no human has the right to enslave another". That statement is found in a paragraph with the heading: "A Jewish View of Slavery". Bus stop (talk) 05:28, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Jewish Quarterly is not a source at all; it is a periodical. The source is a brief opinion piece by Raphael Zarum, who does not say what you want him to have said. Zero^talk 08:52, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Bus stop nobody is saying anything bad about Jews, and you are missing the point here. The point is WP:VERIFY and additionally, WP:LEAD. The sentence I removed is very broad and is in the lead. Per WP:LEAD (part of the guideline, WP:MOS), there is not extensive discussion of contemporary views of slavery in the body so the sentence has no place in the lead, which just summarizes the body. (please respond directly to this). Additionally, the statement is very broad and the source doesn't support it; that is a problem per WP:VERIFY ( a policy) and is the reason I didn't copy the sentence into the body, but instead removed it and opened this discussion. (You are not responding to this; please do. And please note that no one has to prove the negative; the statement itself must be backed by sources - see WP:BURDEN which is also part of VERIFY) Everything here is being done openly and per WP:policies and guidelines. Please assume good faith and deal the policy/guideline issues we are raising. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 15:27, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

The statement sourced to The Jewish Quarterly has been there for months without anybody questioning it before. Does anybody seriously doubt that presently Judaism forbids slavery as defined in the way the statement does? We've already found two reliable sources on Judaism that say the same thing, but these aren't good enough for those who do not want the statement in the article. It is difficult for me to understand why some people prefer to keep Judaism's present opinion on slavery ambiguous and why they keep moving the goalpost when a source becomes available. The article from The Jewish Quarterly should have been enough, but I found another article by Rabbi Jonathan Sacks with the following opinion:

"There is little doubt that in terms of the Torah’s value system the exercise of power by one person over another, without their consent, is a fundamental assault against human dignity. ... So slavery is to be abolished. ... [God] wanted slavery abolished but he wanted it to be done by free human beings coming to see of their own accord the evil it is and the evil it does. The God of history, who taught us to study history, had faith that eventually we would learn the lesson of history: that freedom is indivisible. We must grant freedom to others if we truly seek it for ourselves."

As Chief Rabbi of Britain, the chief judge of London's halachic court, and an author of dozens of books on halacha and other Jewish matters, there are few more reliable sources on Judaism in the entire world than Rabbi Sacks. I'm adding him to the article. --GHcool (talk) 19:07, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

GHcool assume good faith; the issue is not some kind of anti-judaism so get off your high horse. I am not going to repeat the reason for the objection - it is written directly above, twice. With regard to Sacks' statement - his prooftexting doesn't matter - the Torah has existed for a few thousand years (probably) going back to times when there were slaves and that wasn't seen as a bad thing; what matters is that Sacks applied the Torah the way he did. That is a useful source. Now - for whom does Sacks speak - what branch(es) of orthodoxy listen to him? Identify that or those, and we have another branch sourced. (not sure who the author of the Jewish Quarterly speaks for, btw). And again - please read WP:LEAD - the lead just summarizes the body. We need to flesh out the body and then summarize that in the lead. Jytdog (talk) 19:37, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'll edit the statement to reflect the source. --GHcool (talk) 01:14, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

WP:LEAD. Read it. Also, what is the date of the Sacks publication? It was not written today. Jytdog (talk) 01:37, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Did not Jews themselves write of their major involvement in the slave trade?

quoted from "Jews and Judaism in the United States: A documentary history" (Library of Jewish studies) 1983 by 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"

Something tells me we're not getting the whole story here... 70.16.208.6 (talk) 01:42, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm so surprised. Wikipedia is so unbiased in these matters. -.- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.117.117.207 (talk) 10:50, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

The indentured servitude explanation

The section "Biblical Era" opens with: "Ancient Israelite society allowed slavery; however, total domination of one human being by another (as the Israelites suffered under Egyptian rule) was not permitted.[17][18] Rather, slavery in antiquity among the Israelites was closer to what would later be called indentured servitude.[16]" This is a highly contentious statement for several reasons. First, the Bible itself in Leviticus 25 gives rules for taking people as slaves and even passing them on as inheritance. That is not indentured servitude. When you own a human being as property and are allowed to beat them, that is called slavery, not indentured servitude. The cited source for this claim simply makes the claim without proving it. Second, the Hebrew enslavement as described in Exodus is not a certain fact and is actually highly contested. There is evidence that there were Semitic slaves, but not Hebrew.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.176.73.145 (talk • contribs) 03:06, 23 January 2015(UTC)

Your opinion is noted, but the source is cited. --GHcool (talk) 06:19, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Also, where pray tell does Leviticus or any other Biblical primary source talk about any beatings of so-called slaves? Thanks. warshy ^(¥¥) 18:33, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Only Jewish slaves were treated as indentured servants, foreign slaves were not. TFD (talk) 16:40, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

omission of information regarding ownership of the slave trade

It is disingenuous at best to disregard the very straightforward and to the best of our knowledge, perfectly historically accurate information regarding the Jewish ownership of the American slave trade. Is this how far left Wikipedia has gone? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.117.117.207 (talk) 10:48, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

If you can help find reliable sources and preferably make an account, then you can be part of Wikipedia too. Right now you're not helping. Prinsgezinde (talk) 16:53, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Bible and Slavery

The lede claims the Bible has rules or laws on slavery. It does not. In the Bible there was a system whereby persons who had no other means of support could enter willingly into servitude as "servants" (KJV). There were rules regulating this since this person may break the law by stealing something or raping someone, in which case there was a set punishment, otherwise, the "master" was providing for this "servant" who had no family business or other means of support. The Israelis would take in non-Israelis for this since this allowed them to teach their faith to a new person, thus the "servant" could join Israel. Aside from taking in the children after a war there are no instances found in the Bible anywhere of forced slavery as we know today. Someone should edit the lede to reflect this or source the content.72.161.234.27 (talk) 14:25, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Leviticus 25:44-46 (NASB): 44As for your male and female slaves whom you may have—you may acquire male and female slaves from the pagan nations that are around you. 45Then, too, it is out of the sons of the sojourners who live as aliens among you that you may gain acquisition, and out of their families who are with you, whom they will have produced in your land; they also may become your possession. 46You may even bequeath them to your sons after you, to receive as a possession; you can use them as permanent slaves. But in respect to your countrymen, the sons of Israel, you shall not rule with severity over one another. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.176.73.145 (talk) 02:52, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Indeed. This really needs to be in the article. Prinsgezinde (talk) 16:44, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

we do not do WP:OR and use the bible directly as a source - it is WP:PRIMARY. you need reliable, WP:SECONDARY sources from which to build content. 16:54, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Polemics

This article is an uncomfortable porridge made out of scraps of fine scholarship and chunks of worthless polemics all mixed together in terrible disarray. An example of what is bad about this page is the sections on The Secret Relationship Between Blacks and Jews which are altogether longer than the specialised article on that book. It ought to be reduced by about 3/4. It is also apparent that some excellent sources, such as the book by Jonathan Schorsch, have been mined for statements that can be presented as supporting a viewpoint while ignoring most of their content. Zero^talk 13:15, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

I disagree. The sources are cited and the article's length is basically ok. --GHcool (talk) 16:29, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Caution: Problematic understanding of Talmudic laws regarding slavery

It's true that in many passages of the Talmud there doesn't seem to be a literal distinction made between Jewish and non-Jewish slaves, but later halakhic authorities usually inferred such differences--a generic use of the word "slave" in the Talmud might be inferred to apply to a "Jewish slave" (eved ivrit) or a "non-Jewish slave" (eved kena'ani). This resulted in a rather extensive legal and spiritual chasm between the two groups of slaves usually to the benefit of the eved ivrit and to the detriment of the eved kena'ani. While the Talmud mandates permanent servitude for the eved kena'ani (with some exceptions), I'm not at all certain the Talmud ever mandated permanent servitude for the eved ivrit as suggested by this article. Quite the opposite, if I recall correctly, it reaffirms that the Jewish slave indeed goes free after the term of service and, even if the slave declined to be freed at the end of this period, he or she was required to be set free during the Jubilee. Frankly, this whole topic is seriously misunderstood even by historians who study the issue of slavery in Jewish history but possess no real depth in Jewish religious law on the one hand, and Jewish religious scholars who ignore historical development on the other. The whole topic is additionally clouded by revisionism in modern religious circles where the understanding of these now antiquated laws is reinterpreted, misapplied, and sometimes sugar-coated. I include this comment simply for the sake of those who might want to locate further secondary sources to improve the article and as a warning to readers to be careful about taking everything in this article too definitively. It's a complicated subject. 2602:30A:2EF7:B80:9095:FD49:E925:9EB8 (talk) 23:56, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

I encourage you to improve the article as well if you can find reliable sources. --GHcool (talk) 15:43, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Modern Slavery

I've added a fact about slavery in Israel. Why has my contribution been deleted?

From the FBI: Human trafficking, believed to be the third-largest criminal activity in the world, is a form of human slavery which must be addressed at the interagency level.

The article I linked to calls the practice slavery.69.127.240.94 (talk) 06:40, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

First, this article is about chattel slavery, not human trafficking. Second, what happens in Israel is not necessarily representative of "Jewish views" of anything. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 12:31, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

1) I provided evidence that human trafficking is considered a form of slavery. Moreover, the article I cited uses the term "slavery" and does not use the phrase "human trafficking" 2) Israel is a Jewish state, isn't it? I've heard that the leaders and many of the inhabitants are Jewish.69.127.240.94 (talk) 04:47, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

So the next time you see a newspaper article that refers to a woman as a cougar, will you add it to the encyclopedia article about Cougars? The answer is still no, this article is about chattel slavery, not human trafficking, by whatever name you wish to call it. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:58, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Please respond to the points I made. Please acknowledge that the decision to allow or disallow my addition is not yours alone.69.127.240.94 (talk) 06:09, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Jewish views on slavery. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120301010537/http://www.ajhs.org/scholarship/chapters/chapter.cfm?documentID=196 to http://www.ajhs.org/scholarship/chapters/chapter.cfm?documentID=196
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120311010423/http://www.shirhadash.org/rabbi/04/08/20/social.html to http://www.shirhadash.org/rabbi/04/08/20/social.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:39, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

I would like to share a few sources I found on the topic because I came from Caribbean background. What is very sad is there is no black scholars on this topic I woorry about an honest academic analysis on this subject because in this day an age Professors can be bought.I found more stuff but chozen to these links. http://forward.com/culture/art/310222/jewish-slavery-caribbean-exhibition/ http://www.jewishjournal.com/articles/item/how_culpable_were_dutch_jews_in_the_slave_trade http://www.i24news.tv/en/news/international/europe/131231-dutch-rabbi-jews-were-deeply-involved-in-slave-trade — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.145.32.138 (talk) 14:15, 13 September 2016 (UTC) http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2017/02/15/koreans-black-people_n_14771318.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.145.59.74 (talk) 20:02, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

I forgot this link as well http://elliotjager.blogspot.ca/2015_08_01_archive.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.145.32.138 (talk) 14:23, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Jewish role in slavery of the Middle East at Harem

There's a new section at Harem#Slavery_and_the_Harem_System_in_Islam, which presents a rather peculiar view of slavery in the Islamic world. I've already spent much time interacting with the editor who added it and has been otherwise quite active on that page, and I could use some help. Eperoton (talk) 15:01, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Jewish views on slavery. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070921191044/http://www.adl.org/special_reports/farrakhan_own_words2/on_slave_trade.asp to http://www.adl.org/special_reports/farrakhan_own_words2/on_slave_trade.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070808004341/http://www.adl.org/main_Nation_of_Islam/jew_hatred_as_history.htm to http://www.adl.org/main_Nation_of_Islam/jew_hatred_as_history.htm
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://oieahc.wm.edu/wmq/Jan00/klooster.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927184438/http://www.myjewishlearning.com/daily_life/GemilutHasadim/Social_Welfare/PidyonShvuyim.htm to http://www.myjewishlearning.com/daily_life/GemilutHasadim/Social_Welfare/PidyonShvuyim.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081011182743/http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/jah/86.3/br_19.html to http://www.historycooperative.org/cgi-bin/justtop.cgi?act=justtop&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.historycooperative.org%2Fjournals%2Fjah%2F86.3%2Fbr_19.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081011182743/http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/jah/86.3/br_19.html to http://www.historycooperative.org/cgi-bin/justtop.cgi?act=justtop&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.historycooperative.org%2Fjournals%2Fjah%2F86.3%2Fbr_19.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:43, 25 November 2017 (UTC)