Talk:Goy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Judaism (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Judaism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Judaism-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Jewish history (Rated B-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Jewish history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Jewish history on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Archives
Archive 1

Contents

[edit] Corruption in English

Is this where what the word means in Hebrew, it has COME to be a derogatory term, just as PAKI (an acronym describing the regions of the nation) has now become in England. I think this discussion should accept it and not try and gloss over it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.77.118.33 (talk) 02:29, 9 December 2006 (UTC).

It's usage hasn't come to be derogatory, though the term is occasionally used derogatorily. Asserting that Goy is an epithet just furthers the slander against a term that's primarily neutral. HKTTalk 23:23, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
According to the wikipedia page on Guy Fawkes, we get the English word "guy" from that... uh... guy, i.e. "Guy Fawkes". Its at the bottom of the page at then end of the popular culture section. Michael.passman 09:46, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
I thought 'paki' was just a contraction of 'pakistani'? Paul E Nolan 20:48, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
I think he's confusing "paki" with "wog", which has a folk etymology that says it derives from the lettering "WOG" that was on arm bands worn by boatmen on the nile during the british occupation of the region. And I doubt "wog" actually derives from such a source either.

Goy is one of those odd terms that can be used as a slur towards non-jews, but which is rarely able to cause offense as few non-jews spend a great deal of time worrying about their non-jewishness (except for white supremicists for some reason) - so the only people for whom goy could really work as an insult are other jews. Which would make it a common insult were it not for the fact that yiddish and hebrew both have quite a range of derogatory words for when one wants to insult other jews, most of which are more effective insults in general.

Think of it like the term "black" more than anything else - a term that may or may not be a "slur" per se based on its past status as an offensive term and its actual meaning, but which has over time turned into a generally descriptive term that now possesses little or no intrinsic offensive meaning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.150.19.147 (talk) 18:57, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Goyim, when not used in propaganda, is almost invariably derogatory. See it for yourself in realtime: How goyim is used in everyday speech. The title for this talk-section suggests that something was lost in translation, although the untranslated word ("goyim") is the subject here. The N-bomb is derogatory even if said to a non-Engligh speaking colored person anywhere in the world because of how its used. Goyim is similarly condescending, but more racist in that it goes beyond noting a difference in physical appearance to indifferently suggesting goyim are not people but animals (e.g., cattle; to be put into service and culled). The use of the term imparts its meaning; it is not used in a loving or respectful way (except in propaganda). 98.112.131.155 (talk) 21:05, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
You seem confused. In the first place, the article already mentions the possible derogatory use of the term in some contexts, with three, quality, substantiating references. Second, neither the word "goy" nor "goyim" has anything to do with cattle in any context. Third, the google search you link to in your comment has nothing to do with "how goyim is used in everyday speech"; it's simply a search on the word "goyim." Fourth, your opinions on whether the word is derogatory have nothing to do with Wikipedia's guidelines on external links which can be found at WP:EL. You claim in an edit summary to have read those guidelines, yet you are continuing to add two links to the article that clearly ignore those guidelines. Stop. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 21:54, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
Please try to remain civil; there's no need for personal attacks. No amount of bickering or tangents about what a hyperlink does diminishes the fact that those who use the word "goyim" do so in a hateful way - and that particular usage is almost universal. The word is not "possibly derogatory" - it is the N-bomb equivalent. Finally, by what divine right is your interpretation of the WP:EL guidelines the correct one? 98.112.131.155 (talk) 04:19, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
You're asking how we know that a link to a Google search violates WP:ELNO #9, "Links to any search results pages, such as links to individual website searches, search engines, search aggregators, or RSS feeds."? It's hard to imagine a more clear violation. And, quite frankly, it's hard to take seriously the views on this subject of anyone who repeats the antisemitic canard that the word means "cattle; to be put into service and culled". Wikipedia relies on reliable sources, not personal opinions. Please make sure any future edits comply with WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:ELNO. Jayjg (talk) 01:26, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Links to search results are not "forbidden" under WPEL 9 (under the heading, "Links normally to be avoided"). The audacious misrepresentation of this term provides a legitimate exception to that guideline. The Jewish Telegraph Authority reported the cheif rabbi of Israel, Ovadia Yosef, continued to promote the view that goyim are cattle (i.e., beasts of burden). It's not antisemetic when a chief rabbi says it - so no need to take cover behind "antisemetism". This article is only the opinion of a few propagandists because it is bankrupt of citations, whereas there's an abundance of citations of the Talmud that provide a shocking glimpse of how racist the term is. My link does not promote my opinion; rather the usage of "goyim" by hebrew speakers offers the true meaning of the word. Can you provide citations to substantiate this article on par with: Talmud, chief rabbis of Israel, use in colliquial speech? Or continue to hide behind your own interpretations of "guidelines" and attempt other trivial technicalities? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.112.131.155 (talk) 23:30, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Rense.com? Really? That's what you're basing your argument on? That and a Jew-hating blog? And you want us to believe you're not here pushing antisemitism? Good luck with that. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 23:49, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
So predictable. Diving behind "antisemetism" seems to be a counterpart to sticking ones head in a hole. 'Ridicule the messenger; nevermind the message.' Why refuse to engage the issue; can't you cite a chief Israeli rabbi, the Talmud, or somehow show how the masses use the term? Of course not and I can hear it now, "Ovadia Yusuf was really a self hating jew". No luck is required, only time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.112.131.155 (talk) 00:34, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
You haven't provided any rationale other than personal bias for ignoring WP:ELNO. Also rense.com and blogs are not reliable sources, and the newspaper article you linked to says nothing about the meaning of the word "goy", much less that it means "cattle". Please review WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV. Jayjg (talk) 20:00, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
Re rationale: As stated above, "The audacious misrepresentation of this term provides a legitimate exception to that guideline." Re reliable sources: (a) WP:SOURCES provides some examples of reliable sources, which include mainstream newspapers. As stated above, "The Jewish Telegraph Authority reported the chief rabbi of Israel, Ovadia Yosef, continued to promote the view that goyim are cattle (i.e., beasts of burden)." (b) Re Rense.com's references to the Talmud. That blog post is entirely composed to quotes from the Talmud. WP:BLOGS regards the content of blog posts, which are often the musing or opinions of the blogger. Because the Rense.com page only cites the Talmud, the content does not violate the spirit of the guideline. Also, that guidelines does not forbid all blog posts, but rather states that blogs "are largely not acceptable as sources" ('largely unacceptable' is not equivalent to 'never acceptable'). Re Cohen article: That article supports the fact that goyim is derogatory because, there, a jew sued another for defamation after being called goyim. Summary: There issue here is not whether goyim means cattle, any more than the N-bomb is about a person's color. Just as the N-bomb imparts indifference and inferiority, the term goyim is similarly hateful and condescending, except that it is applied to an even greater number of people. My original link (Google Realtime) proves that the term is almost always used negatively, which is why it is a compelling exception to the WP:EL9 guideline. I will continue to work on this article until I (or another) balances this article out. I'm not challenging that one of the possible definitions of goyim may be 'nation', but I challenge the overbearing exclusivity of that definition and assert the definition imparted by hebrew speakers in their everyday use of that term (most often, derogatory).98.112.131.155 (talk) 04:43, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
The "audacious misrepresentation" appears to exist solely in the mind of an IP editor who promotes the antisemitic canard that "goy" means "cattle; to be put into service and culled". And since you seemed to miss it in my previous comment, I'll repeat it: rense.com and blogs are not reliable sources, so we don't care what is on them, and the newspaper article you linked to about Yosef says nothing about the meaning of the word "goy", much less that it means "cattle". Please do not edit the article until you have reviewed, assimilated, and accepted as policy WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV. Jayjg (talk) 05:01, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
I'm not impressed by your reading comprehension either. As the article states, Ovadia Yusuf said, “Goyim were born only to serve us". Indeed Ovadia is referring to Goyim and continues, "With gentiles, it will be like any person: They need to die, but God will give them longevity. Why? Imagine that one’s donkey would die, they’d lose their money. This is his servant. That’s why he gets a long life, to work well for this Jew" In the last statement, the "he" in "he gets a long life" is not a reference to the donkey. Another gem regarding putting goyim to work for the jew is, "Why are gentiles needed? They will work, they will plow, they will reap. We will sit like an effendi and eat," he said to some laughter." Have any word associations for "plow animal"? Yet again, these aren't my statements, but those of the chief rabbi of Israel so you can't continue to hide behind antisemetism - he's a semite. I'm not advancing a new idea so WPNOR doesn't apply; many people (especially hebrew speakers) understand that the term is accordingly derogatory. And WPNOV doesn't apply since I'm quoting semites who prove goyim is a derogatory term a jewish slave, e.g., donkey, plow-animal, beasts of burden. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.112.131.155 (talk) 06:34, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
And the part of the article you cynically left out:

The American Jewish Committee condemned the rabbi's remarks in a statement issued Monday.

"Rabbi Yosef’s remarks -- suggesting outrageously that Jewish scripture asserts non-Jews exist to serve Jews -- are abhorrent and an offense to human dignity and human equality,” said AJC Executive Director David Harris. "Judaism first taught the world that all individuals are created in the divine image, which helped form the basis of our moral code. A rabbi should be the first, not the last, to reflect that bedrock teaching of our tradition."

What did you think, no one would check the link? Now you know why no one trusts you. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 05:16, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

[edit] The term can be derogatory

The article should stop trying to paint a picture of only including one use of the word, only one interpretation. I can find a multitude of references to goy being used as a derogatory term for non-Jews. Wiki (and all of us) should celebrate the richness of language and culture (particularly the very intersting types of inflection and dig available in Yiddish) by showing everything. Not white-washing.

Yep. Its rude Some folks will deny this, tell you how the word means "the nations", etc. but then they'll use it like a curse in the next breath. ...There are a few different ways a sypathetic non jew may be referred to, but anyone who calls you the g-word probably aint your friend.

Resident Gentile Opinion: Speaking as a non-Jewish woman who spends a lot of time in the Jewish world…I’ve heard it used a lot of ways. When people say, “What is the goyta doing here?” because I’m in the room, it’s clearly meant in a mean way. It’s offensive, especially because I’m usually there are an invited guest. In my experience, it’s almost always a secular Jew who says it. (Which means I often know more Hebrew than they do.) It’s not a nice term and when I’m referred to as one, it’s clearly meant to make me feel uncomfortable. On the other hand, I use it to refer to myself too, particularly when I’m in a Jewish situation and someone mistakes me for a Jew. (Easy to do, I wear long skirts, and I’m writing my thesis in Jewish studies, so I know a whole lot about Judaism.) But I say it in a distinctly self-deprecating manner as in, “Nope, I’m the resident goyishe girl.” I must say, I prefer the term gentile in reference to myself. It seems a lot…nicer and I rarely hear it used in the same tone as “goy/goyim.”

...the word goy took on a negative meaning...

TCO (talk) 12:38, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Bullshit. The term is not derogatory, not now, not then. Never. Did you care to read through the archive or the article history? Wikipedia "consensus" has clearly decided that you're wrong. How dare you bother us with such nonsense! —85.178.76.160 (talk) 02:44, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Any term can be used in a derogatory manner. "Goy" is not inherently derogatory. We are always sensitive when referring to or being referred to across identity lines. The word "goy" merely falls victim to the inherent sensitivities stirred up when a Jew makes a reference to a non-Jew. And the sensitive feelings are not one-sided. Jews themselves are obviously made uncomfortable upon hearing a non-Jew referred to as such — no matter the terminology used. It may be so that "goy" makes this reference with less sensitivity than for instance the word "gentile." But the contrast is not great between the word goy and the word gentile. The word goy evokes a more "Jewish" origin. The word is probably more often spoken by religious Jews. The term gentile is more evocative of a secular milieu, more often spoken by non-religious Jews. Bus stop (talk) 14:16, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I can only report how it's used in my (dutch jewish) family. I don't think derogatory is quite it, but it's not without value either. I suppose the best analog would be how a black person might refer to a white fellow trying (ineptly) to break dance. Or, better yet, you can think of it sort of like WASP. I wouldn't call someone a goy to insult them (mostly because they're unlikely to know the term) but I might say to my mother "the decor was very goys" or "they're so goys, they didn't even invite us in for coffee". Hope that helps. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.50.144.22 (talk) 22:38, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I've never heard it used in a non-derogatory manner, and I live in a vastly majority jewish-neighborhood. Darkie or Negro are not inherently derogatory on the same argument you're using to prove that Goy is not derogatory. Jewish people can be racist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.205.24.53 (talk) 16:15, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
What about Lenny Bruce and his line a "shiksa is a goy" - meaning that a shika, or a Gentile mother, is a drunk. Goy meaning drunk? I want to know if there are sources for this saying, though I've found none JoeHenzi (talk) 16:47, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Shiksa doesn't translate as "mother." Shiksa translates as non-Jewish female. And goy doesn't translate as "drunk." "Goy" translates as non-Jewish person, no matter the gender. There is another translation of "goy" which means "nation." France is a nation. Israel is also a nation. Bus stop (talk) 17:20, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
JoeHenzi - the phrase is "Shikker Iz a goy" (a drunkard is a non-Jew). It is a well know yiddish aphorism used as an admonishment to a drunkard. In essence it is saying "It is unbecoming of you (Jew) to be a drunk." See the folk song http://archive.chazzanut.com/jewish-music/msg09565.html either titled "Shikker Iz a goy" or “Geyt a Goy in Shenkl Arayn” (“When a Goy Goes to the Tavern”) Joe407 (talk) 13:36, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
You've never heard it used in a non-derogatory manner? Well I think I can fix that. If you will open your Bible to Genesis (B'reishit in Hebrew) Chapter 12, verse 2, you will see that when God makes his covenant with Abraham, he tells him "I will make of you a great nation," or, in Hebrew a "goy gadol" (goy=nation, gadol=great). Congratulations, you have now heard it used in a non-derogatory manner. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 01:35, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

[edit] This article is not true

Someone or many are trying to make this word seem benign when it is not. just as the convo above. I am Jewish, and it is derogatory, but it's not openly acknowledged. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.83.35.137 (talk) 02:59, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Continued IP vandalism

I'm trying pending changes instead of semi-protection to minimize the IP vandalism. Hopefully, this will allow anonymous editors interested in expanding the project to have their edits approved, whilst preventing the NPOV vandalism that is readily apparent in the edit history. -- Avi (talk) 05:25, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Facts

This following statement in Goy#In_Rabbinic_Judaism should be removed as it has nothing to do with the word GOY as what this article is about. It appears that the authors is looking only at later rabbinical sources by quoting the Rashi etc. and not presenting the full facts of the facts in this section.

Seeking the real true meaning of the authors purposes of making these unambiguous statements should also include the whole facts and not part. In the ancient Greek translation of the Pentateuch from the third century BCE, known as the Septuagint, a different version appears: instead of the word יִשְׂרָאֵל, Israel, the word “God” appears, and if we translate back into Hebrew, it is possible that what appeared here in front of the translator was the word אל, El, a general word for God. These two letters for the word El are the last two letters of the word Israel. Why might someone omit the letters ישר, Isr, the beginning of Israel? Or why might someone add them? For an answer for this we need to turn to Canaanite mythology. There, El was the god who stood at the head of the Pantheon of gods, and he had 70 sons! Understood this way, the verse would appear to imply that the God of Israel was one of these sons who stood in line together with all the other sons of El, waiting to be given a nation and a territory. What an embarrassing description! We can more easily imagine that someone might have wanted to change that impression, than imagine that here someone would have changed the word “Israel” to the word “El”. This is where the Qumran evidence fits in. In cave 4 in Qumran, many texts of the Book of Deuteronomy were found. In one of them, referred to as 4QDeutj, we have a Hebrew text that in fact shows that there was a Hebrew version like the one we find in the Septuagint! So in summarizing just as the term Goy which Bnai Israel was also a developing goy - nation, new on the scene of nations, and God most high and father of Yahweh, son of El and brother of Baal, sometimes is known as being married to Asherah YHVH, was assigned to this new developing nation of the children of Jacob. The original statement as quoted in the article should be removed as it portrays incomplete information.Billy Jack (talk) 15:00, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Please review WP:NOR and WP:V. Jayjg (talk) 18:22, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Merge tag, but not full merge Talk:Gentile

I don't know if Wikipedia has a term for WP:languagefork? I've tagged with merge for discussion at Talk:Gentile, not for a full merge. But something needs merging - this isn't wiktionary. No need for 2 articles in different languages on the same topic. But on the other hand goy is significant enough for a brief wiktionary type entry specific to "goy" as it occurs in English language texts. Where "goy" occurs in Hebrew texts it should simply be translated as the rest of the sentence. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:38, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

What do you think should be merged? This article is about the term "goy", not the concept of a gentile. Jayjg (talk) 19:56, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Personal tools
Namespaces
Variants
Actions
Navigation
Interaction
Toolbox
Print/export