Template:Did you know nominations/Voluntary war
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Voluntary war
- ... that in the Israelite traditional laws of armed conflict it was permissible for a Jewish soldier to forcibly have marital relations with a beautiful woman who had been taken captive?
- ALT1: ... that in the Israelite traditional laws of armed conflict it was permissible for a Jewish soldier to rape and forcibly marry a beautiful woman who had been made a prisoner of war?
- Source: Eisenstein, Judah D. (1970). A Digest of Jewish Laws and Customs - in Alphabetical Order (Ozar Dinim u-Minhagim) (in Hebrew). Tel-Aviv: Ḥ. mo. l. pp. 228–229 (s.v. מלחמה). OCLC 54817857.; Babylonian Talmud, Kiddushin 21b–22a
- Reviewed:
Davidbena (talk) 04:30, 21 May 2024 (UTC).
- Drive by comment: "forcibly have marital relations" should either be changed to "rape and forcibly marry" or attributed to a source, this is far too euphemistic to have in Wikipedia's voice. Rusalkii (talk) 05:03, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- Okay, I'll make the change, although I do think that it is a bit too strong.Davidbena (talk) 11:44, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- Comment: I don't see how the word "rape" can be in the hook if it isn't in the article. I also think "traditional" may be misleading, unless they are still in effect or only recently stopped being active laws; if they haven't been in effect for hundreds or even thousands of years, then that should be clear as well. Note to Davidbena: rather than edit hooks in situ, please show any revised wordings as an alternate hook (i.e., ALT1, ALT2). I've done so to restore your original hook and show the requested revision as ALT1. Thanks. Also, don't forget to supply your QPQ review (see WP:QPQ); you're supposed to do so within seven days of nominating, and definitely within seven days of being reminded to do so. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:18, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
- @BlueMoonset:, thanks for your comment. Sometimes it is common practice among writers to use "euphemisms" in Belles-lettres and in prose, rather than use a word having the exact same meaning, but viewed as repugnant (e.g. "to forcibly have marital relations" instead of writing "to rape"). Would it help if I put, in the article, the word "rape" in parentheses, immediately following the words "to forcibly have marital relations"? If so, an alternate reading of the hook can be this:
- ALT2: ... that in the Israelite traditional laws of armed conflict it was permissible for a Jewish soldier to forcibly have marital relations with (i.e. rape) a beautiful woman who had been made a prisoner of war?
- Alt3 (see below) is my preferred hook, as it clarifies everything. I will also go ahead and add "rape" in the main article. As for your question about use of the word "traditional," the word is still applicable today, since Jews in Israel recognize these ancient customs as being bona-fide Jewish traditions. They, in fact, could still be upheld today if we had an active Sanhedrin, which, in this case, we don't. Another option might simply be to write, instead of "traditional," the word "obsolete." This word, however, is tricky, because if the Sanhedrin were ever to be reinstated, these laws of warfare would still be applicable today. See, for example, Modern attempts to revive the Sanhedrin. Finally, I do not understand what you mean by saying that I must supply my QPQ review. Give me time to read-up on this.Davidbena (talk) 23:06, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
- To the best of my knowledge, I have nominated four articles on "Did you know...", and this present article, if accepted, will be my fifth. The rules in WP:QPQ state that if I've nominated 5 or more articles, only then would I be required to work on the nomination of another person's DYK. I take that to mean that I can begin doing that now. Okay, no problem.Davidbena (talk) 23:35, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
- @BlueMoonset:, I have begun the review process of the DYK article here.Davidbena (talk) 00:54, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
- @BlueMoonset:, thanks for your comment. Sometimes it is common practice among writers to use "euphemisms" in Belles-lettres and in prose, rather than use a word having the exact same meaning, but viewed as repugnant (e.g. "to forcibly have marital relations" instead of writing "to rape"). Would it help if I put, in the article, the word "rape" in parentheses, immediately following the words "to forcibly have marital relations"? If so, an alternate reading of the hook can be this:
- Comment: I don't see how the word "rape" can be in the hook if it isn't in the article. I also think "traditional" may be misleading, unless they are still in effect or only recently stopped being active laws; if they haven't been in effect for hundreds or even thousands of years, then that should be clear as well. Note to Davidbena: rather than edit hooks in situ, please show any revised wordings as an alternate hook (i.e., ALT1, ALT2). I've done so to restore your original hook and show the requested revision as ALT1. Thanks. Also, don't forget to supply your QPQ review (see WP:QPQ); you're supposed to do so within seven days of nominating, and definitely within seven days of being reminded to do so. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:18, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
- Okay, I'll make the change, although I do think that it is a bit too strong.Davidbena (talk) 11:44, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- @BlueMoonset: and @Rusalkii:, this is to remind you that I have just concluded the work on another author's DYK (see Talk:Architects' Tombs), in order to qualify for approval of my own DYK. Hope that things can be expedited here.Davidbena (talk) 22:25, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
- ALT3: ... that in the Israelite traditional laws of armed conflict it was permissible for a Jewish soldier to rape and forcibly have marital relations with a beautiful woman who had been made a prisoner of war? The Talmud (Kiddushin 21b) calls this act a concession to man's evil inclination.
Full review needed now that QPQ has been submitted. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:57, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
- This feels like a walking time bomb and shouldn't be run. At least, as long as we're rejecting Template:Did you know nominations/Animal stereotypes of Jews in Palestinian discourse. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 16:53, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
- I, personally, would not draw a connection between the article that you mentioned above and this article, here, for the very reason that this article speaks about the laws of warfare in ancient Israel, at a time when there used to be a Sanhedrin. A brief reminder of Wikipedia guidelines for DYK state: "Successful hooks tend to have several traits. Most importantly, they share a surprising or intriguing fact. They give readers enough context to understand the hook, but leave enough out to make them want to learn more. They are written for a general audience who has no prior knowledge of or interest in the topic area" (End Quote). Davidbena (talk) 21:53, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
- It's certainly interesting – and as someone who was raised Orthodox Jewish herself, I'm well aware of the anachronism. Most people aren't, though, and at the end of the day, it's not about what's exactly said – it's about what message people think we're trying to send by choosing to run certain hooks. Sadly, I remain opposed to an otherwise fine-looking hook. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 04:41, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
- @Theleekycauldron:, would it at all help if we added the caveat that, according to Jewish law (Talmud, Sanhedrin 59a), the laws pertaining to a ‘beautiful captive woman’ apply only to the men of Israel, but do not apply to gentile soldiers? In this sense, women are still protected under the laws of the UN against rape and other forms of sexual violence committed by soldiers of the occupying forces (The Third Geneva Convention of 1949 [in Articles 13 to 16]).[1] While unto the men of Israel, the laws bequeathed to them by their forefathers are immutable,[2] without the Sanhedrin, this law would not apply today. And even when it did apply, the concession was made only after the fact that, in warfare, a soldier would have given vent to his passions anyway, whether he was allowed to do so or not, and the Torah wanted the men of Israel to be blameless, therefore, it excused the first act of passion. The conceptual-jurisprudential question that may be asked by students of International law is whether or not these laws pertain only to the inner circle of Jews when it comes to conquest by war, or can we say that these laws apply also to the Gentiles although they do not see themselves related to the Jewish law, as they have no access to it, nor do they have any say in the matter. In reply to this question the answer is, unequivocally, "No, they do not apply to non-Israelite armies". Davidbena (talk) 15:02, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
- It's certainly interesting – and as someone who was raised Orthodox Jewish herself, I'm well aware of the anachronism. Most people aren't, though, and at the end of the day, it's not about what's exactly said – it's about what message people think we're trying to send by choosing to run certain hooks. Sadly, I remain opposed to an otherwise fine-looking hook. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 04:41, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
- I, personally, would not draw a connection between the article that you mentioned above and this article, here, for the very reason that this article speaks about the laws of warfare in ancient Israel, at a time when there used to be a Sanhedrin. A brief reminder of Wikipedia guidelines for DYK state: "Successful hooks tend to have several traits. Most importantly, they share a surprising or intriguing fact. They give readers enough context to understand the hook, but leave enough out to make them want to learn more. They are written for a general audience who has no prior knowledge of or interest in the topic area" (End Quote). Davidbena (talk) 21:53, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
- This feels like a walking time bomb and shouldn't be run. At least, as long as we're rejecting Template:Did you know nominations/Animal stereotypes of Jews in Palestinian discourse. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 16:53, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
References
- ^ Gardam, Judith; Charlesworth, Hilary (2000). "Protection of Women in Armed Conflict". Human Rights Quarterly. 22 (1). The Johns Hopkins University Press: 157 (note 55). JSTOR 4489270.
- ^ Bleich, J. David; Jacobson, Arthur J. (2012). "The Jewish legal tradition". In Mauro Bussani; Ugo Mattei (eds.). The Cambridge Companion to Comparative Law. Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9781139017206.017.
Judaism is fundamentally a religion of law, a law that governs every facet of the human condition. Jewish tradition maintains that the Torah – the first five books of the Bible that include the Written Law transmitted by Moses at Mount Sinai as well as the Oral Law accompanying it – contains not merely a set of laws, but also canons of interpretation and principles according to which conflicts among the rules of law may be resolved. Maimonides, the pre-eminent early medieval philosopher and expounder of the Torah, records the doctrine that the Torah will not be altered, either in its entirety or in part, as one of the Thirteen Principles of Faith. The divine nature of the Torah renders it immutable and hence not subject to amendment or modification.
- @DYK admins: , Your views on this, please.Davidbena (talk) 18:21, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
- Considering current world-context, I think the hook is a no-go; if a less controversial hook could be found, that would be better. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:10, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
- @AirshipJungleman29: Okay, since that makes two people here that hold to that view, I would be willing to change the hook to read as follows:
- Considering current world-context, I think the hook is a no-go; if a less controversial hook could be found, that would be better. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:10, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
- ALT4: ... that in the Israelite traditional laws of armed conflict it was permissible for a religious Jewish soldier to abandon the Kosher dietary laws of the Jewish nation and to eat Terefah (non-Kosher foods) when engaged in warfare and there was Kosher food scarcity?
- Source: Eisenstein, Judah D. (1970). A Digest of Jewish Laws and Customs - in Alphabetical Order (Ozar Dinim u-Minhagim) (in Hebrew). Tel-Aviv: Ḥ. mo. l. pp. 228–229 (s.v. מלחמה). OCLC 54817857.; Maimonides (2016). Mishneh Torah by Moses Maimonides (Book of Shoftim) (in Hebrew). Vol. 14. Jerusalem; Bnei Brak: Shabse Frankel. p. 269 (Hil. Melekhim 8:1). OCLC 989980005.
-Davidbena (talk) 16:07, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
Far too long (see WP:DYK200) and rather repetitive. Also, parentheses aren't allowed in a hook. Significant trimming or a new hook needed. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:11, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
