Talk:Goy/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

Old talk

This article was written by me in an attempt to be offensive to those with whom I was having edit wars, and nobody else. It is my response to their unfair treatment of Judaism. They had re-defined all the terms normally used to describe Judaism so that any Orthodox treatment of Judaism would not make sense. As such, I had to "invent" a new language in order to describe Judaism accurately. This language is not an invention. It is the actual language spoken in the community of which I am a part. While what I wrote could be taken as a parody, and as such would, IMPNSHO be extremely funny, it was at the same time deadly serious.

The message being conveyed by the three articles which I authored Goy, Yid, and Yinglish was aimed solely at those with whom I was in an edit war, and is unlikely to have been stood properly by any spectators. As such I will try to explain the message.

The Yinglish article was saying that the articles on Judaism on this web site were deliberately misrepresenting the true meanings of the words used to describe Judaism.

The Goy article was saying that the authors of the articles on Judaism were either themselves shekotzim (the plural of sheigetz), were the descendents of shekotzim, or the students of shekotzim.

The Yid article was saying that no matter how far off they were from Judaism, they were still considered Jews, and if they did some soul searching and recanted their views, would be accepted by all of Judaism. Ezra Wax


A Goy is Yinglish for a non-Jew.

The existense of any such language or dialect is questionable at best. In English, goy is simply a slang word used, often in a derogatory manner, to describe a non-Jew.

It probably derives from the Hebrew phrase Goyei Haarotzos (Nations of the various lands) found in Aleinu (a prayer).

Actually, that is incorrect. Goy is a Hebrew word for "nation" and is used in the Bible to describe Jews and non-Jews alike. In Yiddish, it came specifically to mean non-Jews, but since the supposed goyei haaratzos is a prayer that precedes Yiddish by 1500 years, the etymology is incorrect.
As the word Goy alone, simply means nation, there is no reason why it would be used to refer to non-Jews, I therefore reason that it must be a shortened form of nations of the world. Ezra Wax

A Goy is the opposite of a Yid (Jew).

Juxtaposing two types of people in the world: Jews and everyone else. That is the beginning of a racist discourse.
As this is the way it is used in the community of which I am a part, it is accurate. It is simply that being overly political correct to deny it. Ezra Wax

He is an average law-abiding middle to upper class non-Jew.

Baseless class distinction: middle to upper class non-Jews = neutral (average).

This can be contrasted to Sheigetz which usually refers to a low class non-Jew, who is coarse, uses foul language, takes drugs, and is dishonest,

Where as lower classes of non-Jews are "coarse, uses foul language, takes drugs, and is dishonest"
This is a deliberate misunderstanding of what was said. It says that the word only refers to somebody who is all of those things, and the wording was low class which is derogatory, not lower class which is neurtral and in which case his criticism would be valid. Ezra Wax

or to a Yid who has abandoned his Yiddishkeit (Jewish Religion).

Making Jews who do not behave according to Ezra's standards the equivalent of a sheigetz, i.e., "coarse, uses foul language, takes drugs, and is dishonest."
Yes, if they deliberately abandon Judaism. You got the message. Ezra Wax

The difference between a Yid and a Goy is that a Yid is Shoimer Toireh uMitzvos (Keeps the Torah and its Commandments).

The worst thing that a Yid can do is behave like a Goy and not keep the Torah.

The word "and" puzzles me. Does it mean "by not keeping the Torah" or is it some separate term. If the latter, then this reads "The worst thing that a Yid can do is behave like a Goy" and "The worst thing that a Yid can do is not keep the Torah." Both are clearly debatable since they are based on a particular POV. The first is also racist.
Behaving like a Goy means not keeping the Torah. The problem is that the Jews as a nation swore an oath at Mount Sinai to keep the Torah, so by not keeping it they are breaking their oath.
As I defined Yid as somebody who knows that he must keep the Torah, it is neutral. Somebody who does not know that he must keep the Torah would not be a Yid, he would be a Goy. So, yes this is insulting. It is calling somebody who does not keep the Torah either a Goy or a Sheigetz. Of course, any such Jew would be insulted, and that is the point. Ezra Wax
I'm curious, Ezra. Am I reading this correctly? If I were born ethnically Jewish, but did not believe in Judaism, then I would be guilty of breaking the oath at Mt. Sinai (which my ancestors had taken on my behalf)? Furthermore, I would then be a Goy, meaning someone who is not ethnically Jewish? Do you not differentiate between the race and religion? Or am I misintepreting you? Tokerboy 22:10 Nov 1, 2002 (UTC)

If he associates with Goyim unnecessarily, he may come to behave like them.

In other words, no mixing between Jews and non-Jews because it is detrimental to Jews. Is Wikipedia out to say that Jews should not mix with non-Jews? I will skip a few lines now to:
Once again, a deliberate misunderstanding. It says unnecessarily, and leaves that up to the judgement of the person doing the mixing. Ezra Wax

[...] there is nothing worse than a Yid acting like a Goy.

and:

He is much worse than a Goy who does the same, because a Goy is not required to keep the Torah.

implying that non-Jews are bad. In other words, this is just an emotional racist diatribe from a particular Jewish POV. That is why I deleted it and will keep doing so. Danny
He snipped out the preceding sentence in order to deliberately misrepresent what was said. It says that a Jew who believes that he should keep the Torah and does not, is not labeled a Goy because that is a neutral term, rather he is labeled a Sheigetz which is derogatory. Ezra Wax

As such, this article is neutral and accurate, although it is a resounding criticism of people like Danny and RK. It also provides information which on some level is understood by others. As such, it should remain as is. Ezra Wax

I see. So the main purpose of this article was an ad hominem attack against me, and that is neutral and accurate. Cool. (Oh, and a question for you, Ezra about your claim that I am descended from shkotzim: Being that I am a direct descendent of the Rama through the Shach, are you saying that they are shkotzim too? Curious sheigetz minds wanna know.) Danny (who is apparently a coarse, foul-speaking, dishonest user of drugs.

P.S. Yes, shiksa is derogatory. It is a Yiddish variant of a biblical Hebrew term meaning "disgusting." Danny the sheigetz (which comes from the same root)

I agree with Danny. Ezra Wax is filling this entry with racist attacks on non-Jewish people. He has repeatedly made clear that he has no intention of working with others in a scholarly attempt to write encycloapedia articles. Instead, this vandal is slandering all gentiles, and all Jews who are not Ultra-Orthodox like him. People who repeatedly engage in vandalism need to have their IP blocked. RK

I haven't taken a careful look at this, I confess I don't understand the depth of feeling behind the dispute. All I know is no one likes to be hated. There is an article entitled "Moonies" -- even though I dislike hearing my church called by that term -- but perhaps since the Sailor Moon fans have helped rehabilitate the term it doesn't sound so bad in my ears any more.

People still use words like goyim, yid, kike, nigger, whore, slut, fag, queer and so on. I don't think each term requires an article of its own, but perhaps there should be an article on disparaging terms people call one another (or terms of disparagement). --Ed Poor

Goy is certainly a xenophobic notion-but some Jews do use it and I for one would like to read what Jews think of Goys like me. So please don't delete this page-just make it NPOV by, "Jews say goys are pigs" Lir 19:29 Nov 1, 2002 (UTC)

--- I have deleted the content of the page:

A Goy is a term of disparagement used by some Jews for a non-Jew. It probably derives from the Hebrew phrase Goyei Haarotzos (Nations of the various lands) found in Aleinu (a prayer).
A Goy is the opposite of a Yid (Jew). He is an average law-abiding middle to upper class non-Jew.
This can be contrasted to Sheigetz which usually refers to a low class non-Jew, who is coarse, uses foul language, takes drugs, and is dishonest, or to a Yid who has abandoned his Yiddishkeit (Jewish Religion).
The difference between a Yid and a Goy is that a Yid is Shoimer Toireh uMitzvos (Keeps the Torah and its Commandments).
The worst thing that a Yid can do is behave like a Goy and not keep the Torah. If he associates with Goyim unnecessarily, he may come to behave like them. While it is not bad if a Goy doesn't keep the Torah, a Yid must keep the Torah, because the Yidden (Jews) were given the Torah by Hashem (God) on Har Sinai (Mount Sinai).
It is the responsibility of a Tati (father) to teach his kinderlach (children) how to behave like proper Yidden. If they do not behave like a Yid then he may scream at them, "Do you want to become a Goy?" Upon hearing such a cry, every Yiddish Kind (Jewish Child) knows that he is misbehaving and better shape up, because there is nothing worse than a Yid acting like a Goy.
A Yid who came from a Yiddishe Heim (Jewish home) and acts like a Goy by being a Mechalel Shabbos (violator of the laws of Shabbos) eating Treife (non-Kosher food) and ignoring the rest of the Mitzvos (Torah Laws) is a Sheigetz. He is much worse than a Goy who does the same, because a Goy is not required to keep the Torah.

Because:

1) it is utterly inaccurate

2) it is offensive. NOTE: it is not offensive because it is an encyclopedia article about an offensive word -- The article Nigger is out an offensive word, but is not itself (in my opinion) offensive. This text is not "about" hatespeech, it simply is hatespeech.

Lir, I have a high regard for most goyim (and I am sure I have a high regard of you!) Many goyim have their own path to God, and many goyim are righteous. There is just nothing wrong with "goyim" because you see the word "goy" is simply Hebrew for "nation." When Jews in their prayers refer to the Jewish nation they use the word "goy!"

The word "gentile" is derived from a literal translation of "goy" into Latin -- gens means people.

When you use the word "nation" in the singular, yyou usually refer to your own nation. If Bush gives a talk called "the state of the nation" we all know which nation he means. But when we use the word "nations" we know we are refering to others (e.g. United Nations). So when Jews use the word "goy" in the plural (goyim) they are refering to "other nations" meaning non-Jews.

Ed, please do not cut and past what I just wrote into the article -- it is just not worth an article. Slrubenstein

I'm getting a bit dizzy here. Didn't SLR or some other non-ultra-Orthodox buddy of mine just tell me that goy was a horrible thing to call someone? Or was the goy article itself bad? Or was the talk getting out of hand? Well, no time now. I have to go to an party now, sponsored mostly by Jews, for a non-Jewish co-worker. You guys can fight till I get back! ;-) --Ed Poor

Considering the amount of flak it's drawn, how 'bout we just change the title of the article to "Oy!" and leave it at that? ;P Stormwriter

"This article was written by me in an attempt to be offensive to those with whom I was having edit wars, and nobody else. ... The message being conveyed by the three articles which I authored Goy, Yid, and Yinglish was aimed solely at those with whom I was in an edit war, and is unlikely to have been stood properly by any spectators."

-- We do NOT write Wikipedia articles as personal messages. This is an encyclopedia, dammit.

I just attended a birthday party for a nice Italian (non-Jewish) lady. A shiksa? Goy? Goyimette? We joked about how thickly she was cutting the slices of cake, and she said, to much laughter, "I'm Italian, this is how we do it."

One of the Jewish ladies quipped, "So let a Jew cut it." We all laughed, even louder.

And with that I wish you all good shabbos! --Ed Poor

Isn't Shiksa mildly derogatory? -- Zoe

Yes, Zoe, I think you are right about this, but I would defer to Danny or RK. I think shiksa and sheigitz are yiddish, not Hebrew; I am certain that goy is hebrew for "nation" and has been used by Jews to describe themselves; I an less sure about shiksa and sheigitz but my understanding is that they have only been used pejoratively, although for some it might be more of a joke (it is sometimes hard to tell). By the way, I only now noticed what Ezra Wax wrote at the top of this page, explaining his motivation for this and some other articles -- and I think his explanation speaks for itself. But if anyone had any doubts about how stupid this article was, please read his explanation. Slrubenstein

All the above notwithstanding, and having been around Jews most of my life, I don't mind being called a gentile, but I don't think I care to be called a goy. They don't seem equivalent to me. Ortolan88

Look, I do not mean to offend you and am sorry if I have, and if you (and other gentiles) do not want to be called "goy" I'll respect that. My main point is that it is a regular Hebrew word and there are many cases where it is used (in texts) in clearly neutral ways. That the word "goyim" has come to take on a pejoritive connotation (or even denotation) is a reflection of the actual attitude many Jews have towards gentiles. Personally, I think these negative attitudes often have a good reason. But many times it is prejudice pure and simple -- which was the case with the way Ezra Wax was explaining the meaning of the word. My main objection was not to the claim that many Jews use the word "goyim" pejoratively, but that Ezra Wax wrote an article that was itself an expression of hate-speech. We need to be careful with these articles, and the current version (whether thanks to you, Zoe, or others) I think is far more careful, and I am glad. Slrubenstein

If a term is offensive, as this article states about shegetz and shiksa, then what amelioration is provided by adding the statement that people may not mean to be offensive when they use them. I repeat, I don't mind being called a gentile, but I really wonder what axe is being ground here. The latest additions remind me somewhat of the word nigra, the "polite" form. Ortolan88 23:32 Feb 24, 2003 (UTC)

Edited this, adding some material on the Jewish outlook on non-Jews as a whole. All is not bad. I'm not completely sure when goy changed its meaning from nation to member of a gentile nation. User:jfdwolff.

Goys are the people of Israel

"Goys" means "people". The Jews were the ruling class, like the "nobility" in Europe. The people of Israel are the Palestinians.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.64.166.191 (talk • contribs) .

(Literal meaning of "goy" and anti-semitic hate groups)

I want to discuss the statement "Although anti-Semitic hate groups, usually inspired by quotations from the The Protocols of the Elders of Zion (Nos. 11 & 15) [1], repeatedly allege that the word inherently denigrates non-Jews and that its literal translation is "cattle". This is clearly personal opinion and is wrong. Essentially, this statement means that those who feel the term goy "inherently denigrates non-jews" must belong to an anti-semitic hate group. WRONG. It's the same as stating those who oppose US foreign policies are part of Al Quaida - an absolutely absurd statement. Also: How do you know what inspires anti-semitic hate groups in relation to the term goy? Unless it is a proven fact that ALL anti-semitic hate groups are inspired by Nos 11 and 15 of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion in relation to the definition of the term "goy" you should not make a claim like this in what is officially portrayed as an "unbiased" encyclopedia that takes a "neutral point of view". Stick to the facts, don't make unfounded and misleading claims, support your statements with scholarly references and state when you are making a personal opinion. If all posters did this then maybe wikipedia would be taken seriously by academics and those in the know.

(The above unsigned comment was posted by 60.240.63.229 [1] on 20:24, 29 March 2006).

Pejorative sense

This discussion has gotten rather large and rambling, so I'll start again. It is a fact that the word "goy" can be used in a pejorative sense, at least in the past. If you don't believe me, then read Philip Roth's Portnoy's Complaint, where the word carrries an air of disgust. Also, in The Joys of Yiddish, Rosten notes that some Jews use the word in a pejorative sense (while noting, of course the traditional Jewish respect for the values of others in society), and that phrases such as Goyisher kop are less than complimentary. So it is somewhat disingenuous, and even offensive to say that perception of the word's connotation is due to anti-semitic propaganda. I will say though, that, IMO, pejorative does not necessarily mean offensive. As a gentile myself, I have no problem being called a goy. I regard it as a mild, almost affectionate pejorative term (much like the Australian word "pom"). RMoloney 10:04, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

You are right that "Goy" is sometimes used as an insult. As far as anti-semitic propaganda, such propaganda asserted that "Goy" is inherently pejorative, or is used entirely or mostly in the pejorative sense. My intention behind the previous formulation of the para was to indicate that "Goy" has no intrinsic negative meaning (though phrases such as "Goyisher kop" do). I'm sorry for any miscommunication; no offense was intended. In any case, I'm fine with your current formulation. HKT talk 06:43, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
Ah, OK. It's the "intrinsic" part of the above I didn't quite pick up on from the previous wording of the article. No worries. If you've got any info about anti-semitic attempts to misrepresent the meaning of the word, it might be an interesting addition to the article? RMoloney 01:34, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
Well, they always claim it is inherently pejorative, and frequently claim it means "cattle" - see, for example, [2] [3] [www.stormfront.org/forum/archive/index.php/t-3569.html] [4] [5] [6] [7]. However, the examples of this are mostly from not amazingly encyclopedic sources. Jayjg (talk) 07:34, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

With words of this sort the original intent is meaningless. Nigger originally was a mispronounciation of negro, the socially acceptable term for blacks for centuries. Does that original intent make it any less offensive? I don't know anyone who doesn't find "goy" or "goyim" intensely offensive. Much like "gringo", its a perjorative for outsiders used by insiders, and needs to be clarified as such. Sam Spade 12:11, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

I wrote above: "As far as anti-semitic propaganda, such propaganda asserted that "Goy" is inherently pejorative, or is used entirely or mostly in the pejorative sense." It's not merely original intent that is benign here. Of course, it can be used insultingly, just as non-Jew, Catholic, Irish, Black, Jewish, Italian, and Russian are used insultingly by those who don't like those groups. "Stupid Goy" is no different than "Stupid Frenchman" or "Stupid Australian," aside from "Goy"'s etymology. Unlike "nigger," "kike," etc., neither this word's historical meaning nor its current meaning is intrinsically, entirely, or primarly insulting.HKT talk 22:23, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
You say this based on your intimate understanding of Yiddish? Any term can be used pejoriatively. Jayjg (talk) 20:39, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

WTF? Do I need to know spanish to understand what "gringo" means? Sam Spade 20:59, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

It would help, since you're making claims about a Spanish word. In fact, it is not everywhere and always offensive. How do I know? I'm a Spanish teacher. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.238.88.44 (talk • contribs) .
Why don't you propose your major re-write here first, and cite your claims, Jack. Jayjg (talk) 21:16, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Goy = Nigger

The world is divided between the chosen people and the rest of us "Niggers" and other non-Jews. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.64.166.191 (talk • contribs) .

No, it's not. Your have obviously misunderstood the concept of "chosenness". The Jews regard themselves as chosen to receive the Torah. That's all. JFW | T@lk 08:17, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
You also regard yourselves as the only entities that possess 'Neshomo' - or 'Godly soul'. The souls of cursed goyim and animals, on the other hand, lack this Godly element and are doomed to oblivion and shall never see the world to come. Keep making stories up, the veil is being lifted you hideous Jewish monster.24.183.178.138
Wikipedia has an offical policy against personal attacks. Please refrain from making such attacks like this in the future. Thank you. Asarelah 22:42, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Umm, are you going to answer the person(s) question or pretend it does not exist? 209.226.138.95 (talk) 05:49, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

The Church of Scientology says the same thing about the religious documents of L Ron Hubbard, who prior to starting his own religion was a science fiction writer. --Nazrac 23:40, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone really get offended by this word? I'm not a jew, and not ashamed of my not-a-jewishness. I would probably laugh at someone if they called me this.

An External Link

I found an intersting blog called | Those Meshugeneh Goyim

So a Jew gets to ridicule Christians for a change instead of the other way round. Don't you love freedom of speech? JFW | T@lk 16:12, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, except when a website ridicules jews it elicits hysterial shrieking of anti-semitism and a nasty article about the website or its author appears on the Anti-Defamation League's website. Jfdwolff you are nothing but a racist biggoted anti-goyimite! You see how silly that sounds? --Nazrac 23:46, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Anti-semite sounds silly too, as semitic Jews are hardly a real entity anymore, and Jews are mostly Asiatic in origin and thus, not semitic. 209.226.138.95 (talk) 05:51, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Redirection of this article

I can only assume the direction of Goy to Gay was an act of vandalism. I've never heard of those two being linked, despite the similarity of the two words. If I'm wrong, feel free to undo my reversion. Opblaaskrokodil 03:58, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

That is a blatant act of anti-goyimism. Why does Wikipedia tolerate this sort of biggoted trash? I'm going to file a complaint with the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai Goy. /sarcasm --Nazrac 23:50, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Etymology

"Although claims are repeatedly made that (1) the word goy literally means "cattle" in Hebrew and (2) has consequently been appropriated to denigrate Gentiles because of these alleged etymological beginnings, no linguistic basis supports either of these assertions."

From where came this misenterpretation? Is it simply a myth, a hoax? What is the Hebrew word for "cattle"? etc...
--CAD6DEE2E8DAD95A (hello!) 11:17, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it is simply propoganda. The Hebrew word for cattle is bakar. HKTTalk 23:06, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Disparaging term

First, any term may be used in derogatory way. As for this one, "It is not a derogatory term, but merely a descriptive term." [8]. Second, Heritage Dictionary is not a good reference on Hebrew or Yiddish. Third, we cover the modern nuances in the section "Modern usage", there is no need to put it in the lead. ←Humus sapiens ну? 01:56, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

The article is about English language, not about Yiddish. "Russki" is not an insuly in Russian language either. Please don't forget, an insult is judged by insulted, not by insulter. If someone calls me "goy" it would be ridiculous to assume that someone called me "nation".
And what is more, please don't teach Jewish kids that "goy" is a neutral English word. They will have real big trouble in schoolyard. `'mikka 03:31, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
OK, you convinced me. I added "In modern usage" and removed "by Jews". Hope there is no need to explain why. BTW, I didn't know that "russki" is an insult. ←Humus sapiens ну? 04:15, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Russki: I didn't know either :-) but "Russkis" redirects to ethnic slurs and Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006 and say:
Russ·ki /ˈrʌski, ˈrʊs-, ˈruski/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[ruhs-kee, roos-, roo-skee] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation –noun, plural -kies, -kis. Slang: Disparaging and Offensive. a Russian.
And so says The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. `'mikka 05:43, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Any word can be used in a disparaging way. The article discusses this, it doesn't been to be POV-pushed into the lead. Jayjg (talk) 18:31, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Not "any" word may be used as an insult. In this case the insulting is among the main definitions of the term in major dictionaries. I can easily fiong a thousand references from reliable sources that this term is perceived primarily as an insult. Shame on you. You lost my respect despite lots of your barnstars. `'mikka 23:29, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Now I need to make sure my kids don't use it.
The addition of "by Jews" is unwarranted, as if others cannot use this word. This plays into the hands of Jew haters. Speaking of which, I propose to restore the following text in the article: ::::<???> lost/ungfinished text>

Jewish encyclopedia says:

About the same period R. Judah of Ratisbon, compiler of the "Sefer Ḥasidim," quotes: "It is forbidden to deceive any person, even a Gentile.

And you will continue to claim that goy/gentile was not referring to something inferior. Doesn't it sound in the same racist way as "There are good people even among blacks. In fact two negroes are my friends" (or somethng like this; I cannot attribute this example, unfortunately): "You shmuck think it is kosher to cheat goyim because they are <... what? >. No you cannot!" `'mikka 03:10, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

You are confusing issues. The Sefer Chasidim source indicates a general attitude about gentiles- that many Jews saw them either as inferior or saw Jews as having fewer obligations to them (I think most likely a mix of both). That says nothing about whether a specific word for gentiles has negative connotations. JoshuaZ 03:16, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
And you are playing with words. If a word is used in reference to someone who is perceived inferior then it inherently has negative connotations. You say "pig" and "dog", and you say "eagle" and "lion". You hear the word "eagle" and you perceive something noble, even though eagles may steal your sheep and the word "eagle" is just a neutral word for this overgrown crow. You cannot separate the meaning of a word from its usage; it would be too deep a philosophy. `'mikka 03:51, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
You're confusing the generally accepted meaning of a word with its usage by some people. If your logic is generalized, the word "Jew" should also be labeled derogatory, much more so than the word goy. Beit Or 07:41, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

False claims

Claims that the word "goy" literally means "cattle" in Hebrew and it has consequently been appropriated to denigrate Gentiles because of these alleged etymological beginnings are false: no linguistic basis supports either of these assertions. ←Humus sapiens ну? 06:25, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I've never heard of the false "cattle" translation before. --GHcool 21:06, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Do a google search for "goy cattle". Jayjg (talk) 21:32, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:NPOV#Undue weight

Undue weight applies to more than just viewpoints. Just as giving undue weight to a viewpoint is not neutral, so is giving undue weight to other verifiable and sourced statements. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements.

That's straight from the NPOV policy. The article does indeed discuss the way that goy (like many words) can be used in a pejorative way, but placing it in the first sentence as a "fact" is a violation of NPOV. As AskMoses points out:

The word goy can be a loaded or even derogatory phrase, like the word "Mexican" in "Some Mexican hacked into my website." This is the sociological child of European-ghetto-nurtured Jewish separatism and the oft-times vicious, violent anti-Semitism that kept it in place for hundreds of years. On the other hand, the word goy is generally neutral, like the word "Mexican" in "My friend Carlos speaks Spanish, 'cause he's Mexican, you know." [9]

The article discusses the issue in a reasonable way; let's avoid violating NPOV, thanks. Jayjg (talk) 23:27, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Sure, "ask Moses". A very neutral source. A mexican is not insulteed when called mexican, but I will sure kick you ass when you call me goy in my face, just as a black person will kick my ass if I call him black. `'mikka 23:33, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
What are you talking about?! The word "black" is how African-Americans are commonly referred to in the United States. Asarelah 17:36, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, I brought other sources as well that say more or less the same, and are used in the article. In any event, you haven't addressed the main point about undue weight. Jayjg (talk) 23:37, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
I did address it: it is among the main dictionary definitions for the term. Are you saying that this interpretation is very insignificant, obsolete, neologism, or unnoticeable so that it has no place in the intro? Please review what "undue weight" means in wikipedia. `'mikka 23:42, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but better dictionaries present it in a more nuanced way; for example, Merriam-Webster
Main Entry: goy
Pronunciation: 'goi
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural goy·im /'goi-&m /; also goys
Etymology: Yiddish, from Hebrew gOy people, nation
sometimes disparaging : GENTILE 1
"Sometimes disparaging" doesn't require it to be in the first line of the article. It's not an inherently pejorative term. Jayjg (talk) 23:51, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Just like communism is not inherently totalitarian system, but a sweet utopia. And "black" is nothing but the color of skin. And "heathen" is nothing but a person of different religion. And cretin is a pewrson from Crete. Words tend to change meanings, you know, especially when migrating between languages. `'mikka 03:17, 31 January 2007 (UTC)\
Mikka, what sources are you using to defend your position? Jayjg (talk) 16:34, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Which position? It is you who deletes the text, so it is you who has to defend. Nice table turning, thank you. Your claim that your quoted dictionary is somehow superior compared to my quotes is ridiculously blind-eyed POV. Since you are now turning to demagogy, I am reclusing from this discussion, and you start reading a quite impressive article from Jewish encyclopedia. `'mikka 18:49, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
I brought sources that backed up my position. As for the Jewish Encyclopedia article, it says right at the top "The term is said (but falsely so) to imply inferiority and to express contempt." Jayjg (talk) 19:43, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
By the was the explanation that "goy" means "gentile" is a funny example of circular logic in wikipedia. Not to say that "gentile" basically means "pagan," wikipedia says. `'mikka 23:33, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
What if we add a link to Goy#Modern usage section in the intro? ←Humus sapiens ну? 01:01, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

How many of the people here argueing that the word is not offensive are Goys? This is like watching a bunch of white guys claim that Nigger isn't offensive. 82.14.74.25 13:52, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

childhood memories

I have to object Beit Or's deletion of my example of usage. He claims it is not notable. I have to disagree. It is a first hand example given by a notable Jew from unusual place: South Africa . Please restore. Mukadderat 22:06, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

That's a personal childhood memory about a place that is indeed unusual as far as the Jewish history is concerned. Please insert only such material that has greater relevance than one person's evaluations and experiences. Beit Or 22:29, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
South Africa is not an unusual place to find Jews, South Africa has had a large and notable Jewish community for a century. As for the quote, it's a personal reminiscence, and it doesn't indicate pejorative use in any event. Jayjg (talk) 22:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Why would you think that my goal was anti-Semitic or something? It indicates that there are goys and goys (goyim, if you want): an Afrikaaner is a goy to my unsuspecting idea, so I see this quote notable and expanding knowledge. Mukadderat 03:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
A personal childhood memory is original research, and wikipedia has a policy against original research. Asarelah 00:52, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
No it is not. Please rehash the policy WP:NOR. Only wikipedians' original research is dismissed. Anyway the issue is irrelevant. The book is not a personal memoir, it is a scientific study of genocides and interethnic animosity, hence quite encyclopedic reference, by a notable (and Jewish, by the way) scholar. Shalom on your censuring heads. Mukadderat 03:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

A compromise attempt

I propose to add the following sentence to the intro: "In the English language, the usage of the word goy can be controversial." ←Humus sapiens ну? 01:36, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Why not just admit that there is a Jewish word which is disparaging towards non Jews. EVERY other race and creed has such words. Are you ashamed of Jewish culture or do you think that pretending that "their crap dont stink too" does anyone any favours? IMHO just makes you look like an intransigent POV pusher. 82.20.31.163 21:50, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
What is your problem? The word is only disparaging in certain contexts. The word "Jew" itself can be disparaging in the context of "Jew doctor" or "Jew lawyer", but that hardly makes the word "Jew" a slur. The words Shiksa and Shegetz are slurs against non-Jews, and are listed as such on Wikipedia. Why do you feel the need to insist that the word goy is an insult as well? Asarelah 00:57, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
My problem is that Goy is seen as offensive by mainstream reference sources (see American Heritage Dictionary above) You're trying to deny this. that's contrary to both the "no original research" and the "NPOV" policies. Not all words are seen as being primarily insulting - but when they are we should say so. To turn the table a little - what's YOUR problem? 82.2.83.203 06:08, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm not trying to deny it, nor is the article. Did you even read it? It says clearly: "Like other common (and otherwise innocent) terms, it may be assigned pejoratively to non-Jews[2][3][4]." I have never once denied that the word "goy" can be offensive in certain contexts, yet you accuse me of doing so. The information that you demand be included is already right there in the article, and yet you burst onto the talk page to complain about it, whining and complaining and making personal attacks against me and others, and accusing other editors of having a hidden agenda to make Jews look good, rather than stating your concerns in a civilized way like a mature adult. Once again...what is your problem? Asarelah 01:06, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
DFTT. ←Humus sapiens ну? 12:10, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Humus - how very rude. In the face of a reaction like that I hope you can all see where my problem is. I shall simply wait until the article is unprotected and continue to put in the NPOV version untill we follow policy - "assume good faith" and debate the issue like grown ups. 82.27.242.40 19:22, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Asarelah wrote: The information that you demand be included is already right there in the article.

Have you ever heard the term "Summary" (of an artice)? Please be advised that it is quite customary to put information which is "already right there in the article" in a condsensed form into the intro. Please read a wikipedia article "Inverted pyramid" and learn that this style is not an invention of wikipedia bureaucrats. Mukadderat 04:07, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I would also like to notice that at the moment the intro is really stupid: If someone sees the text "goy lawyer", proceeds to wikipedia artilce goy and after reading the definition, concudes that the phrase means "nation lawyer" or "people lawyer". ROTFLMAO.

There is no surprize that Jews vehemently oppose the pejorative reading of the term. But if the word is neutral, why not "Righteous among the Goyim", but rather "Righteous among the Nations" (which sounds rather stupid as well, just like the current intro: the article does not speak about, say, a righteous nation of Venezuela or Burundi, or India, but about individual goys).

By the way what is HaOlam, whcih seems to translated into "nations"? Is it related to the word "Olim"? and what is the difference between olam and goyim? Mukadderat 04:07, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

This last post shows that much of your indignation is based on a simple lack of knowledge. It is Righteous among the Nations because the original Hebrew uses the word "Umot ha'olam" - nations of the world, rather than "gentiles" or "goyim". Similarly, "Ha'olam" is "The world', not nations. here's a deal: leave the translation of languages you don't speak to those who do, and you will not introduce errors and POV into the articles, and in return, you will save yourself much misplaced anguish. Isarig 04:25, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
here's the counter-deal: Pleaze learn to read what othjer people write. I don't translate what I don't speak, I am asking questions instead. Here's the second deal: your answer did not leave me any wiser: if ha'olam is "the world", then why the article Righteous among the Nations repeatedly speaks about gentiles, and why Jews are not a "nation of the world". And again even if I am an idiot, you did'nt help me to learn the difference between "Umot ha'olam" and "goyim". Mukadderat 05:04, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
I did read what you wrote. You wrote "HaOlam, whcih[sic] seems to translated into "nations"?" - that is just ignorance, you did not understand which word was translated into nation. And when you wrote above that you "don't translate what I don't speak" you were not accurately describing what you plainly did , or tried to do. I again renew my recommendation - leave the translation to those who actually speak the language, and you won't take offense at something which is not offensive.. The article Righteous among the Nations speaks about gentiles, but the term most commonly used is non-Jew - these are synonyms. Goy could also be used in this context. Jews are not a 'nation of the world" becuase that term excludes Jews - it is a term used by Jews to distinguish the non-Jewish nations. "Umot holam" means non-Jewish nations. Goy could be used either in that sense, or in the sense of a generic nation - Abraham was promised by God he would be made into a "Goy gadol" - a large (but obviosly Jewish) nation. Isarig 05:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
And by the way, you failed to comment the issue about "goy lawyer", obviously content with dismissing me as an ignoramus not deserving answers. Mukadderat 05:06, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't expect Wikipedia to be used instead of a dictionary, but I have no problem with article's intro saying that Goy means either nation, or a non-Jew. Isarig 05:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Did you read the intro article we are discussing? If you read it after all this fuss, you will probably understand why I act so strangely. Please notice, that I don't edit the article, fully aware of my ignorance in the issue. I am only express by bewilderment. (If someone is still lazy to read what is all about, let me tell you that the intro does not' say that "goy" may mean "non-Jew".) Mukadderat 06:10, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm not entirely sure about the word HaOlam, as I am not terribly familiar with Hebrew. I, for one, do not take issue with stating that the word that the word "goy" can be used pejoratively in the article intro. I do, however, take issue with editor 82.2.83.203 wildly accusing fellow Wikipedia editors of being POV-pushers and of having some hidden agenda to make the Jews look good-especially when one of the editors in question offered to comprimise. Asarelah 04:21, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
"I do, however, take issue with editor 82.2.83.203 wildly accusing fellow Wikipedia editors of being POV-pushers and of having some hidden agenda to make the Jews look good" Dude - if it looks like a duck - and it quacks like a duck - then it's a duck. The "compromise" was more "weasel words". I'm still waiting for someone who's not Jewish to deny that it's an offensive word.82.3.227.83 21:09, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
I think you have misunderstood me. I have not even edited this article. My indignation does not stem from disagreement itself, my indignation stems from the obnoxious behavior of 82.20.31.163. Frankly, I'm not even terribly interested in this article. I'm just incredibly sick and tired of people like 82.20.31.163 attacking other editors when they have a disagreement instead of acting like reasonable, civilized adults. Asarelah 04:31, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
So you condemn Hummus for calling me a Troll then? Thanks. 82.3.227.83 21:11, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
MY apologies that I was not clear - y response was directed at Mukadderat, not you. I will reformat the indents to make this clearer. Isarig 04:41, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Who is goy

While I admit I am ignorant in Hebrew or Yiddish, I suspect that it will be quite unusual to see an african-american or a Chinese person referred to as a goy. Am I right or wrong? Whatever answer is, I am sure some other people would wonder similarly, and I would like to ask experts to write something along these lines into the article.

For those who think this is another demonstration of my stupidity to be dismissed, I would like to point out at a strikingly similar issue with the word gaijin, which literally means simply "foreigner", but

  1. no one attempts to sweep the derogatory usage under the carpet (i.e., out of intro)
  2. Not all foreigners are "gaijin", and it is explained (so I am wondering whether a similar case is with a similar word "goyim")
  3. No one deletes cited "personal memories" as "original research"

Shalom to you all again. Mukadderat 05:18, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I am repeating my question above: is it common to call an African-Amerian "goy" and the rest. I see absolutely no desire for dialog and article improvement, except for reverting. Mukadderat 22:27, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

To answer your question, it is quite common (among those who would use the term to begin with) to use 'goy' to refer to an african-american [10] or a Chinese person [11]. Isarig 22:51, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
If you look a little above, you will see that the question mas motivated by the comparison with the term "gaijin" (literally: "foreigner", but applicable not to all foreigners). So the extended question is: are there any similar exceptions of the usage of the word "goy"? Chinese may be not good example, but how about Arabs or, say Messianic Judaists? Mukadderat 02:12, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Another issue is tautological cross-references between Goy and Gentile articles. Please carefully both. If you don't see the problem, I will explain, but it will require a lengthy typing, but I hope it will be evident, if you review the definitions. Sorry for bothering you with seemingly trivial issues, but please understand that things which seem evident for one cuture are not so evident for people from other cultures.
I still trying to understand why "goy" is perceived as derogatory (the article is not helpful: it simply says "may be assigned pejoratively" but does not give any explanation). For comparison, a similar term giaur used for non-Muslim means "infidel", and hence is clearly pejorative. Some time ago there was a wikipedia article for List of words meaning outsider, foreigner or "not one of us", which is now in wiktionary:Appendix:Words_for_outsiders. It contains a comment about "goy" which is absent in the wikipedia article. I would suggest to evaluate this text and possibly nerge into wikipedia. Mukadderat 02:12, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
There are no exceptions that I am aware of - goy can be used to describe any non-Jew. Some people perceive 'Goy' as derogatory because it can be used in a derogatory fashion, in the same way as some people might use "mexican" as a derogatory term for any and all Latin American illegal immigrants, though the word Mexican is obviously not derogatory, per se. But more often than not, people perceive 'Goy' as derogatory because they want to, becuase it's yet another way to bash those "pesky Jews"TM. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Isarig (talk • contribs) 04:48, 6 March 2007 (UTC).
Some Jews also seem to see it as a derogatory term and avoid using it. But all of this is OR anyways. JoshuaZ 04:51, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
It is OR only because no one really bothers to dig further (indirect references are very abundant), since this topic is obviously unimportant for wikipedians. I have some quriosity, but lack time to do web research, besause there are millions of google hits for the wotd "goy/goyim", and you have to know what and where to look in order to efficiently filter the noise. Mukadderat 17:24, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

"Goy" applied to Jew

"The following phrase "as well as to Jews who are perceived by other Jews to lack religious commitment to Judaism" remains unquoted for very long time. Are there any reasons to believe that this is generally correct, only lacks quotation as something well known and lazy to add a ref? Or it must be finally removed as dubious and unimportant? I could have removed it myself on formal grounds, but I lack knowledge here. Please resolve. Thank you. Mukadderat 17:19, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe it is a common or important usage. Jayjg (talk) 18:39, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
It his case I assume you will not object the deletion of this sentence. Mukadderat 18:49, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
No, none. Jayjg (talk) 19:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Historical attitude of Jews to Goyim

I started this section in the artcle. I believe it is important in understanding this topic and expands the article beyond a mere dicdef and word usage guide. I am aware that what I added comes from a controversial (but notable) critic of Israel and Zionism. I hope that the section will evolve into a balanced and informative one, rather than reverted as "POV-pushing". (I apologize for too early pessymism, but I see this happens all the time.) Mukadderat 18:09, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

To begin with, Shahak was not a reliable source in these matters; he was a chemistry professor who wrote anti-Jewish polemics as a sideline. Next, this is an article about the word "Goy", not an article about Jewish attitudes towards non-Jews. Finally, if material on Jewish attitudes towards non-Jews actually were relevant somewhere (not here, obviously), it would have to come from some respected ethnologist or historian who was an expert in this field. Jayjg (talk) 18:38, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Revert war, that's what I was afraid of. The controversy and criticism were duly noted in the deleted section. The attitude is sufficiently notable to be criticized by other notable people. Next, it is your interpretation that this article is about the "word" Goy. Articles about "words" belong to wiktionary. Encyclopedia usually writes about "notions". Which goes beyond word usage. If you disagree, please provide a correct title of the article about the ethnocultural notion of Goy, and I will happily move most of content there. Finally, you are very welcome to add information from "some respected ethnologist or historian". This infromation is badly missing. I humbly suggest you to take an example from the dhimmi article. It is about the very well similar "word" dhimmi. No, it is about "dhimmi" as "notion". Mukadderat 18:43, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
You can't add material from unreliable sources regardless of the topic of the article, and regardless of whether or not you add a disclaimer about "controversy". Please don't do so again. Jayjg (talk) 18:49, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
I add material from reliable, although controversial source. Opinions of notable people reflect opinons of certain part of society. He is not an unknown kook. He is taken seriously by critics. The topic is directly relevant to the article, describing the perceived meaning of the usage of the word. Please dont do this again. Mukadderat 18:53, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
He was a chemistry professor. He was not an expert on Jews or Judaism. Please don't add it again. Jayjg (talk) 18:55, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
I see you are an experienced, long-time editor, and your revert war is a disturbing attitude to disagreement. Mukadderat 18:56, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Israel Shahak has no expertise in this area, and so it would not be appropriate to include him. Think of all the critical nonexperts that could be added to dhimmi - what kind of encyclopaedia would we have then? TewfikTalk 18:57, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Colleague, The article topic is about the perception of the term "goy". He is a notable person, to demonstrate this perception by a certain part of the society. Mukadderat 19:01, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't matter if he's "notable", he's not a topical expert. David Duke is also notable, and also has a lot to say on this topic, but we don't air his views here either. We report what topical experts say. Feel free to add Shahak's views on chemistry to a chemistry article. Jayjg (talk) 19:09, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Please notice that an encyclopedic article may well cover notable misconceptions as well, e.g., with the purpose of criticism. Whatever Shahak is evaluated, his book made many noise. I doubt David Duke wrote something minimally notable about goyim vs Jews. Mukadderat 19:14, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Duke wrote something equally notable about "goyim vs. Jews", Jewish Supremacism: My Awakening on the Jewish Question. The content is pretty much the same, as is the quality, and Duke actually dedicated the book to Shahak. Jayjg (talk) 19:36, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Please note that critics do not dispute historical statements of Shahk. They dispute his interpretation as applied to modern times. Mukadderat 19:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Actually, critics do dispute the historical statements of Shahak, not that it matters. Jayjg (talk) 19:09, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
His view is of the fringe, not mainstream, and including it here grants it undue weight. We must be consistent in maintaining these principles across the project, so I have to agree that it does not belong here. TewfikTalk 19:11, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Your atttitude to editing is disgusting: instead of writing good explanatory article you apply concerted revert war against a decent attempt to reasonably expand this miserable article. I will be happy not ever talk to you never again. I will no longer fight with your edit style, but you are forever lost for me as civilized discussion opponents. I understand this is a laughable threat for you, but again, I see you as a most despicable attitude to a fellow editor: diving into a revert war without minimal discussion of opinion different from yours. May Allah have mercy on you. Mukadderat 19:21, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way, but you can't write a good article using bad sources. Jayjg (talk) 19:36, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm also sorry about that. All I can say is that I hope in the course of your editing that somewhere unrelated to this you'll be able to understand the problems of lending undue weight to this kind of information... Good luck, TewfikTalk 00:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I also forgot to mention that I despise self-righteous article owners who in their revert zeal also delete pieces not related to the contested text. Good luck in your vigilance. Mukadderat 15:02, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
But the other material was entirely unsourced POV original research as well, and didn't have anything to do with the term "goy". Jayjg (talk) 20:31, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Orthodox Judaism

During this polemics I noticed that the term "traditional Judaism" redirects not where I would expect. It it really correct? Mukadderat 19:25, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

It kind of makes sense. "Traditional Judaism" is actually somewhere between Conservative and Orthodox. Jayjg (talk) 19:34, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, Traditional Judaism is what is now known as Orthodox J.; conservative is a recent historical phenomenon and thus cannot accurately be termed "traditional". --Yehoishophot Oliver 06:46, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

"...Shelloi Osani Goy"

My festival prayer book (1998) translates Goy as Heathen, Tehillas HaShem (1988)translates it as gentile. I would suggest that the origin of its modern use as a description has more to do with its use in TARG"M than with Yiddish.

I have heard "Goyishe" in relation to non-observant jews, but only in the context of going-loco in "golus" (exile/modern world). But never a direct insult.

The page from the book is interesting, but wonder if the right and left hand columns mirror themselves - one being a transliteration of the other? The word for a German (Tiyts, just seems to Yiddish). Mike33 02:24, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

If you look at the Hebrew article on this subject, you'll note that the first article that it links to under 'See Also' is "ברברים", ie "Barbarians". Honestly, all anti-semitic arguments and other nonsense mentioned above aside, this is probably a pretty fair comparison, the Jewish view of "goyim" (non-Jews) vs. the Roman view of "barbarians" (non-Romans). As I don't exactly prize myself as a writer or a social scientist, perhaps someone who is more versed on the subject would be more up to the task as far as comparing the concept of "other" people in Judaism, vs. the concept of "other" people in other societies. It'd provide a better understanding to the reader about the subject matter at hand, as well as discredit the anti-semites who say that Jews are uniquely "persecuting" them because they're not Jewish, or whatever such nonsense they're complaining about.
Please sign your comments on talk pages using four tildes. Instructions on how to do so are on the top of the talk page when you edit it. Thank you. Asarelah 15:54, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

One look dictionary.

I made a small edit by adding this external link.[12]. I sincerely hope no one objects. Danny Weintraub : Albion moonlight (talk) 06:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Blogs again

Please do not quote blogs in articles. Comments such as "a quote from literature (blog or otherwise) is reliable because it is written!" directly contradict WP policies & guidelines concerning reliable sources. ←Humus sapiens ну? 23:55, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

quoting a blogger

I am aware of the guidelines that consider blogging an unregulated force and therefore that quotes from a blog do not constitute a validation for a viewpoint nor should they be counted as a source for anything with a factual basis.

In this specific case however I am using a remarkable peice of writing, that happens to appear on a blog, to illustrate the ways that the language is and can be used. In that context I do not feel that the fact it is written by a blogger in any way diminishes its validity and the point it makes and the guidelines accept that can be the case.

Futhermore the piece that I have tried to use as a quote not only perfectly illustrates the point but it is the fact that it appears on a blog written by a chassidic jew (and we all know that they are a retiring community that do not often make their views plain to outsiders) that makes it all the more relevant!

Given these distinctions I respectfully argue that the guidelines do not prohibit this quote. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.66.110.45 (talk) 19:48, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't see anything "remarkable" about this opinion, even though I may agree with it. Allowing blog posts in encyclopedic articles not dedicated to blogs would open the flood gates and inevitably will result in lowering the quality of WP. ←Humus sapiens ну? 23:05, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

So if i put it in without the source then it would be ok? My point is that it is not prohibited by the guidelines. It is remarkable, in my opinion, in the way it illustrates that for native english/yiddish speakers Goy is the only term to use for gentile. 87.66.118.160 (talk) 16:15, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Objectivity Edit

I removed "As happens with ethnic stereotypes for 'not one of us' in various cultures, . . ." because it is an apologia for the use of the term in a disparagin manner and it therefore not objective. It advocates a position and is therefore inappropriate.

Kyke —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.105.72.34 (talk) 00:23, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Goyim does not mean cattle

Unless someone can find a reliable source to the contrary, any further attempts to add the statement that goyim can mean "cattle" will be reported. A search on Google returns only Internet hate-sites. Technetium25 (talk) 02:53, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

See below. —85.179.134.205 (talk) 02:34, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

What about Goyisher kopf?

This exclamation is said by Jews when they say or do something stupid (literally, "gentile-head"). Doesn't goy have an inherently negative meaning in this context?

If I exclaim "dune-coon!" whenever I say something stupid, I can't turn around and claim dune-coon is just an affectionate term for arabs.


It is not possible for "goy [to] have an inherently negative meaning in this context." If the meaning were inherently negative, then the negativity would not be dependent on the context. Even in the example offered here, the words "dune" and "coon" (as in "raccoon") do not have inherently negative meanings. If a word can be used in a context that gives it an offensive meaning, then that is unfortunate. However, even the word "woman" can take on a disparaging meaning, as when it is used as an address term ("Come here, woman!"). I would not say, however, that "woman" is a primarily pejorative term that must be avoided. And what of traditionally insulting words that can be used playfully or with pride, words like "slut" or "queer"? It's simply a matter of context.

It is noteworthy that the Oxford English Dictionary (one of the the most-comprehensive and best-respected records of the English lexicon) presents the definition of "goy" as neutral, neither positive nor negative. Some of the examples of the word's usage are mildly negative, including a sarcastic instance from the anti-Semite Ezra Pound. Yet once again, it is the context that gives the word "goy" a negative meaning--not the word itself.

  • I am afraid you are mistaken as to linguistic and sociolinguistic aspects of the nature of the meaning of a word. First of all, "meaning" is a matter of social convention. In a sense every meaning of every word is recognized in some context which often goes beyond mere "sentence" or even "book". In the talk:List of ethnic slurs one editor describes an interesting context where the word Canadian is an ethnic slur... for African Americans! Some meanings have very broad context, while others very narrow. For some context is sharp, for others it is fuzzy, blurry. Long talk short,
    1. First, a word bears a certain meaning if there exists a context in which this meaning is recognized.
    2. Second, it is often meaningless to say that a word is pejorative; instead, a meaning or a usage may be described as pejorative.
    3. Third, A word may be described as pejorative if its overwhelmingly predominant usage is pejorative. For example we say that "nigger" is pejorative despite the fact that "whazzup nigga" if perfectly OK when used among "brothaz".
    4. Fourth, a word may change its social flavor, and quite drastically. Example: Dick.
As for your "woman" example, yes, of course, the term is non-offensive, but if you find sufficient reliable sources, especially feminist ones, you may easily write a quite encyclopedic section "Pejorative usage of the word "woman".
This your "woman" example is a perfect illustration why a neutral word may become pejorative, i.e., in which context it may be perceived as pejorative. This context is set by a certain category of people who nave an idea that a Woman is inferior w.r.t. a Man. The same applies to a huge number of other expressions: "He is (like) a child", "These Mexicans", "Don't be a pig", etc. I hope you now can figure out when (i.e., in which contexts) "goy" is neutral usage and when it is an insult or mockery. Mukadderat (talk) 01:04, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I consider the first two points in your list to be a restatement of what I wrote before. I'm sorry that I was unclear. I was not distinguishing between words (as articulation, spelling, or whatnot) and their meanings in my previous response, so that may be what caused the lack of clarity. I would dispute your third and fourth points, which I interpret to mean, "The formerly neutral word 'goy' has undergone degeneration/pejoration, so its predominant usage is now pejorative." While the word "goy" can be used in a negative way, its predominant usage is not, and has not been, pejorative. This was my reasoning behind the comparison to the word "woman." While both words can be used in a negative way, the predominant meaning of each is neutral. Where the words "woman" and "goy" differ is that the pejorative usage of "woman" reflects the far-reaching and harmful trend of sexism in our society, the systematic treatment of women as "other" and so on. There is no comparable trend of which the word "goy" is a part, so its occasional pejorative usage is far less significant.

And yes, I feel like a tool for getting into a discussion on a Wikipedia "talk" page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.229.55.118 (talk) 09:26, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Secondary symbolical meanings of goy

Technetium25 asked for reliable sources on the secondary meanings of goy (which is sometimes slightly erroneously given as "cattle"). I have provided FIVE, but still one of the usual Wikipedia fuckers called Jayjg reverted my well-founded additions to the article. Needless to say, I reverted back. Now my question (concerning the future of this new information) is this: Is Wikipedia all about quoting reliable and respected sources? Or is Wikipedia all about ignoring these sources for whatever reasons? (Political correctness… anti-anti-semitism etc.) —85.179.134.205 (talk) 02:41, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

And by the way: I have the three lexicon sources here. If you want, I can copy them verbatim. —85.179.134.205 (talk) 02:47, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
How about you review WP:NOR and WP:CIVIL for a start. Then, why don't you bring the sources here, and explain why you think these "secondary meanings" are relevant or accurate. By the way, as a hint, the claim that the term is only "slightly erroneously given as 'cattle'" is antisemitic claptrap. Jayjg (talk) 02:48, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
I don't know, what a claptrap is, but (a) I'm not antisemtici and (b) I see a bit of a difference between "cattle" and "troop of animals" or "herd". That's why I wrote "slightly erroneously". As to the other points: the addition is from a neutral point of view, and it has nothing to do with "original research". Technetium25 had refused these kind of "cattle"-additions, if there were no neutral, unbiased and respected sources to back it up. I have provided these sources. So back off, will you? —85.179.134.205 (talk) 02:54, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
The problem is, your sources are nonsense. For example, in Joel 1:6 you talk about the word meaning "swarm of locusts", but the standard translation for the term in Joel 1:6 is, unsurprisingly, "nation" or "people". I don't know what these "figurative meanings" are, but they have nothing whatsoever to do with the actual meaning. Now bring your "sources" here please, and quote them. Thanks. Jayjg (talk) 03:17, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
And I forgot: I've lost all respect for WP:CIVIL because of people like you. Pathetic Wikipedians. Shoot first, ask questions later. Why don't you CHECK the fucking sources first? Nonono… get out the guns and revert and revert and revert and call it "nonsense". Yeah, right. I know exactly who's being "nonsensical" here. —85.179.134.205 (talk) 03:09, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Ah, so that explains why your first comment here was about "the usual Wikipedia fuckers"? Anyway, what is your usual account? Jayjg (talk) 03:17, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
And another thoughtful and diplomatic WP user called Khoikhoi has now joined the club. —85.179.134.205 (talk) 03:12, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Do you consider your opening comment about "the usual Wikipedia fuckers" to be "thoughtful and diplomatic"? Jayjg (talk) 03:17, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Also, please review WP:3RR. You can be blocked for reverting more than 3 times. Jayjg (talk) 02:49, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Doesn't the same apply to you? —85.179.134.205 (talk) 02:54, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Yes. But you are the only one who appears to have broken it. Jayjg (talk) 03:17, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Here are the sources

Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew Dictionary

‏גּוֹי‎ (goy) n.m. nation, people — 1. nation, people; a. specif. of descendants of Abraham. b. definitely of Israel; of Israel and Judah as two nations (said by heathen); of Judah; c. usually of non-Heb peoples; opp. Israel as ’‏עם י‎. 2. fig. of swarm of locusts; of all species of beasts.

New American Standard Exhaustive Concordance Hebrew Dictionary

גּוֹי goy [156c]; from the same as 1458; nation, people:—every nation(2), Gentiles(1), Goiim(1), Harosheth-hagoyim*(3), herds(m)(1), nation(120), nations(425), people(4)

Strong's Hebrew Dictionary

‏גּוֹי‎ gowy, go´-ee; rarely (shortened) ‏גֹּי‎ goy, go´-ee; apparently from the same root as 1465 (in the sense of massing); a foreign nation; hence, a Gentile; also (figuratively) a troop of animals, or a flight of locusts:—Gentile, heathen, nation, people.

I don't see any reason to doubt these sources. They are all from scientifically acclaimed dictionaries. —85.179.134.205 (talk) 03:04, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
"Scientifically acclaimed"? Strong's is a 19th century work that purports to show how the KJV translators translated the Bible. Brown-Drive-Briggs is almost as old. As for "herds", where does the NAS Concordance get that from? Jayjg (talk) 03:17, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Text of Joel 1:6

Just to provide a complete record, here is the actual text of the King James Version of Joel 1:6:

For a nation is come up upon my land, strong, and without number, whose teeth are the teeth of a lion, and he hath the cheek teeth of a great lion.

Clearly, the writer is using the Hebrew word for nation and making some metaphorical comments about that nation; no locusts, no cattle or other double meanings involved. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 16:56, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a battleground

Anonymous User 85.179.134.205 (talk · contribs) your are violating and defying a number of Wikipedia's core rules such as WP:CIVIL; WP:NPA; WP:AGF and WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND when you resort to curse words and declare that you have no intention of playing by Wikipedia's rules, comments like "the usual Wikipedia fuckers" [13] "I've lost all respect for WP:CIVIL because of people like you. Pathetic Wikipedians" [14] "Why don't you CHECK the fucking sources first?" [15]. A complaint has been lodged against this at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Foul language and verbal abuse [16]. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 06:38, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)


Meaning unclear

"In the Tanakh (Hebrew: תַּנַ"ךְ , Hebrew Bible) is often appeal to the Jewish people, as the Gentiles (goyim) for regular violation of Testaments. Respectively - this can be considered the most ancient interpretation of the word "Goy" - not the one who "non-Jew", as is commonly believed today, and those who "regularly violate covenants" or "heathen" in this interpretation."

This is a little hard to decipher, with grammatical errors and incorrect usage. I believe the overall meaning is that the ancient meaning of the term was "one who violates covenants" and the modern usage is "non-Jew".99.57.128.122 (talk) 03:59, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

No the original usage and still proper denotation is "a people" be they Jewish or not. Modern usage is predominantly gentile, although looking at Sabbath services (afternoon Shemona Esrei for example) shows that the word is still used to refer to Jews today. -- Avi (talk) 16:20, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

A remark from a non-native English speaker. The word goy seem rarely to be used in English texts. But when I do stumble upon it from time to time it always seem to be in the context of Jews excluding non-Jews, often for nefarious purposes. So to me it has a clear negative connotation. I can't really mention a single instance it which it has been used in any kind of positive light. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.199.5.240 (talk) 08:46, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

There is an easy explanation: The word is used mostly by the Jews; others seldom have a context to say "non-Jew" (which can be easily explained by non-racist reasons). Jewish population is around 1-2% in Anglophone world. Therefore no wonder their written word is relatively rare. And it is a known psychological effect that whatever usages you saw, ony negative connotation caught your attention. In fact, if you read novels of a Jewish writer such as Isaac Bashevis Singer, which describe life of a relatively homogeneous Jewish community (shtetl, ghetto, etc.), you will find plenty of usages of the word "goy" in the meaning of simply "an outsider". I am referring to an old writer because I am old myself :-) and a non-Jew, so I cannot readily give you a more modern example, but I don't think the meaning and usage shifted significantly.
One should also take into an account that historically in any tribe, people, gang, etc., the terms for "outsider", "not one of us", etc. bear a significant degree of dislike, mistrust and suspicion, so I would not be surprized if the word "goy" in 50% of cases has a negative gist, "a person who is not one of us and <therefore> does not understand or disregards our traditions". Staszek Lem (talk) 17:04, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Suggestion to merged this article in to Gentile

Hi, I want to suggest to merge this article in to Gentile, because the both are the same and have the same meaning.--Setareh1990 (talk) 17:19, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Religious slur?

The original and current primary meaning is not derogatory at all. It's perception as a slur is more due to canards than actual use. While it is sometimes used inappropriately, does that make it eligible for the category/template? I'm not certain. -- Avi (talk) 15:48, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

it is 100 percent a slur, it means cattle, not nation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:42:800:7dc:fcee:5886:8b0a:d936 (talk) 01:10, 25 July 2017
Nonsense. Goy doesn't mean cattle. It means originally nation, and later Gentile. Alephb (talk) 04:11, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
No, it does in fact mean cattle. Goy is the Hebrew form(or cognate) of a very old word that exists in multiple language families, and means "cattle" in every single one of them. The indo-europeanist can tell us how "ngwous" became words like cow. The Vietnamese speaker knows "ngaan". The Japanese speaker knows "gyu". "Goy" is a part of that series of cognates. 2601:42:800:7dc:fcee:5886:8b0a:d936 is correct in his assertion that Goy is a slur that literally means cattle. Interesting that the two commentors denying this are named Aleph and Avraham. They should be blocked from editing this article due to an ethnic conflict of interest. 2600:6C50:7003:800:D8C7:786F:97E5:61F9 (talk) 06:15, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Just don't call me 'goy' when speaking English please And do not delete Abramovitz ref

It is amazing how this article tries to push down my throat that the word 'goy' is not offensive. It may be so in Yiddish and Hebrew, but not in other languages. It is just somebody starts convincing me that "Pollack" (as in "Pollack joke") should not be offensive to me: after all it merely means "Polish person" in Polish language! Many non-Jews find the term "goy" offensive no matter what Jews think about it: the offense is in the eyes of the effended. And many respectable Jewish scholars and rabbis recognize this and advice against its indiscriminate usage. Deal with it. Or shall I cite-bomb this article? Rabbi Jack Abramovitz makes a good, but rather, ...er.. shocking analogy with another technical term "retarded person" - it is non-offensive in one context (strictly medical) and offensive everywhere else. the same with "goy".

Yes, I am a goy to you, I can live with that. Just as I am a jerk and a smart-ass for my neighbor and a gringo for my Mexican lawn-mower. But do not call me these names. And do not delete the example of Jack Abramovitz. It you think I distorted what he wanted to say, fix it. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:44, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Sheigetz and Shiksa TALK links

Pi314m (talk) 20:55, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Goyita

The term goyita is like Granny of Beverley Hillbillies - presumably no one expects/suspects her of being a (young) shiksa - although not all agree on this: http://www.columbia.edu/~jap2220/Arkhiv/vol08%20(1998-9)/vol08037.txt Pi314m (talk) 23:35, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Subsection labels

To reflect boh the origins of the pre-merger Sheigetz/Shiksa text as well as that they are gender-specific (as is Goyita, which is less pejorative), subsection labels are intended to provide guidance to those who spend what a Wiki guidance article says is 3-4 minutes here.

Thanks for the improvements Pi314m (talk) 08:01, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Off topic?

While the term Goy, as noted early in the article, can refer 9in the plural) as referring to the Jewish nation (per Saturday afternoon prayers, Goy Echad Ba-Aretz), Sheigetz and Shiksa are pejorative, as per the part of the article that talks about such use. Goyita (caveat- WP:OR) is used generally in a gentle tone of voice. When is the ?cleaning lady? coming = "Ven Kimpt/Koomt Der Goyita"

The term Goy can be gender-neutral; the other terms are gender specific. Each term has what is specific to it.

I don't see it as off topic, but that doesn't make me right. Pi314m (talk) 08:49, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi, wikipedia policy on categorization can be found here WP:CATV. Categories apply to the article itself, in this case goy and not sheigetz or shiksa. They should also be uncontroversial and 'defining characteristics', and since goy is not always a slur it shouldn't be included in the perjorative term category. Rab V (talk) 06:22, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

What is this article about?

This page is very odd.

Three problems:

1) the attempt, using an [about] clause, to restrict the topic to the Hebrew/Yiddish term "and some related words", on English wikipedia. Why? Surely the focus should be the American English term, while fully reflecting its Hebrew/Yiddish etymology. (and the claim to discuss "some related words" is nonsense: encyclopedias don't work like that).

2) Even if the page does focus on Hebrew and Yiddish, whydoes it lead with the biblical, rather than contemporary, usage of the term

3) The focus on some other terms which author(s) obviously feel are related to the main term, but in fact are confusing for readers

Therefore:

It it self evident that the lead definition should reflect contemporary usage, so I have made that change.

I suggest that the [about] clause stating that the "article is about the Hebrew word" is removed. The Hebrew word can be discussed in the context of the etymology of the English word, with all the current material relating to the hebrew usage maintained. I have made the change to removed the reference to "some related words" as self-evident nonsense.

I suggest that the lead definition should reference the word as an American English word, and focus on its English pronunciation and meaning (See Miriam Webster dictionary).

I suggest that the discussion of terms other than goy should be removed from this page, or reduced to one sentence with links, clearly explaining why they are relevant to a discussion of this word. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atrapalhado (talk • contribs) 11:10, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

I was about to post here on a separate, but related issue. I don't have strong feelings on whether the ancient or contemporary term should lead and be the primary topic - I can see the sense of both approaches. We aren't a dictionary, so there is no obligation to put modern usage first. I agree that "and related terms" is both odd and vague, are these all the "Jewish" terms for "foreigners"?
My related issue is the claim that the term is not (usually) perjorative in modern usage. This seems both odd and poorly supported. 4 decent dictionaries say usually/often/always derogatory in modern use - I can't access 'Random House', which is cited as supporting not usually derogatory - but I've never known a dictionary that said what a word was not, so I'm sceptical. The 1906 Jewish Encyc source certainly endorses the "not inherently/not historically" claims and compares with gentile. I accept that the term is not inherently derogatory, and may not have originally have been so, but not inherently is a long way from not usually, in modern usage. If we are going to include modern usage, let us at least be accurate that the term is usually/often derogatory used in modern contexts. The comparison with gentile seems useful, as a near-synonym in the historical usage, but the most obvious thing about gentile in English, is that its use is almost entirely biblical - so it is neither derogatory nor very helpful as a derogatori-ometer for modern usage. Pincrete (talk) 16:50, 20 June 2020 (U


That's interesting. Can I suggest your argument implicitly supports one of my points, that this page on English Wikipedia is primarily about the modern English word "goy" (though obviously also with a strong focus on the word's Hebrew etymology).

It is, as you say, simply a fact that the English word is stated to have a sometimes pejorative meaning in the key relevant reference materials (ie dictionaries of record).

Derogatory ?

Oxford Eng Dict online:informal, derogatory - "A Jewish name for a non-Jew" - From Hebrew gōy ‘people, nation’.

The free Dictionary: Often Offensive - "A person who is not Jewish". Or " A Jew ignorant of the Jewish religion."

Mirriam-Webster sometimes disparaging "a non-Jewish person : gentile" - Yiddish, from Hebrew gōy people, nation

Collins Eng Dict: often derogatory "a Jewish word for a gentile" - from Yiddish, from Hebrew goi people

Obviously these represent use in English (even as a boorowed term / term imported from Yiddish/Hebrew), but it is clear that in modern usage the term is often/usually derogatory - even though its Hebrew origins may be neutral. "Barbarian" similarly has origins meaning simply "someone who does not speak Greek" - "stranger". As I say above, I am neutral as to whether the primary topic should be current or historical use, but clearly contemporary use is incorrect at present in the article. Pincrete (talk) 17:10, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

should this page even exist? And proposal to merge with "gentile"

THE BELOW CONVERSATION IS CLOSED - DISCUSSION ON THE MERGER PROPOSAL SHOULD NOW HAPPEN ON THE TALK PAGE FOR GENTILE — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atrapalhado (talk • contribs) 20:25, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

TLDR: This page breaches policy WP:NOT#DICDEF and should be put forward for deletion.

I've been reading https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_a_dictionary#Good_definitions

This article focuses on definitions of this word "goy" in Hebrew and Yiddish, implying that the word has the same meaning in English. As the "Wikipedia is not a dictionary" guidance makes clear, an encyclopedia entry should discuss the concept, not just provide a defintion.

The article says that in current Hebrew, Yiddish and - it is implied - English, "goy" means "gentile" and there is already a page for "gentile" in English Wikipedia. Hebrew and Yiddish Wikipedias presumably have pages for the same concept in their languages.

There may be something interesting about "goy" as a concept in English that is different from "gentile" which could be discussed in an article but that is not currently expressed in this article. And goy/goyim may have an interesting and rich history in Hebrew/Yiddish, but virtually every word we use in English has a rich history in some predecessor language - that in itself cannot justify the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atrapalhado (talk • contribs) 23:08, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Aren't these all reasons to merge the article with "gentile" rather than delete it? I think the interesting concept here is the idea of nations in Judaism. Perhaps "goy" could be a subsection under "gentile" explaining how Biblical nations came to delineate Jews vs Non Jews in the modern day Pereneph (talk) 20:44, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Seconded. I also keep trying to change the article to note it is not used pejoratively, and a user has threatened to ban me for it. I speak Hebrew and Yiddish, and its the word for gentile. It doesn't carry any bad connotations, but whenever I try to change it this is overturned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ari9999999 (talk • contribs) 00:24, 6 December 2020 (UTC) WP:BE

Thirded - I am happy to withdraw my proposal that the page be deleted in favour of merging "goy" with "gentile" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atrapalhado (talk • contribs) 20:25, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

This page SHOULD NOT BE MERGED! This page is OK as it currently is, and it should be left alone. The reason the page is OK is that the Biblical word goy has taken many different meanings throughout history, from when it was first translated into Greek in the Septuagint and until current times. This page surveys the different meanings of the word/term throughout history, and that is why it is OK and it should stand as it is, and should NOT be merged with the Gentile page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Warshy (talk • contribs) 20:34, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

should this page even exist? And proposal to merge with "gentile"

THE BELOW CONVERSATION IS CLOSED - DISCUSSION ON THE MERGER PROPOSAL SHOULD NOW HAPPEN ON THE TALK PAGE FOR GENTILE — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atrapalhado (talk • contribs) 20:25, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

TLDR: This page breaches policy WP:NOT#DICDEF and should be put forward for deletion.

I've been reading https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_a_dictionary#Good_definitions

This article focuses on definitions of this word "goy" in Hebrew and Yiddish, implying that the word has the same meaning in English. As the "Wikipedia is not a dictionary" guidance makes clear, an encyclopedia entry should discuss the concept, not just provide a defintion.

The article says that in current Hebrew, Yiddish and - it is implied - English, "goy" means "gentile" and there is already a page for "gentile" in English Wikipedia. Hebrew and Yiddish Wikipedias presumably have pages for the same concept in their languages.

There may be something interesting about "goy" as a concept in English that is different from "gentile" which could be discussed in an article but that is not currently expressed in this article. And goy/goyim may have an interesting and rich history in Hebrew/Yiddish, but virtually every word we use in English has a rich history in some predecessor language - that in itself cannot justify the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atrapalhado (talk • contribs) 23:08, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Aren't these all reasons to merge the article with "gentile" rather than delete it? I think the interesting concept here is the idea of nations in Judaism. Perhaps "goy" could be a subsection under "gentile" explaining how Biblical nations came to delineate Jews vs Non Jews in the modern day Pereneph (talk) 20:44, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Seconded. I also keep trying to change the article to note it is not used pejoratively, and a user has threatened to ban me for it. I speak Hebrew and Yiddish, and its the word for gentile. It doesn't carry any bad connotations, but whenever I try to change it this is overturned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ari9999999 (talk • contribs) 00:24, 6 December 2020 (UTC) WP:BE

Thirded - I am happy to withdraw my proposal that the page be deleted in favour of merging "goy" with "gentile" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atrapalhado (talk • contribs) 20:25, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

This page SHOULD NOT BE MERGED! This page is OK as it currently is, and it should be left alone. The reason the page is OK is that the Biblical word goy has taken many different meanings throughout history, from when it was first translated into Greek in the Septuagint and until current times. This page surveys the different meanings of the word/term throughout history, and that is why it is OK and it should stand as it is, and should NOT be merged with the Gentile page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Warshy (talk • contribs) 20:34, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Goy/Archive_1&oldid=1136773318"