Talk:Jews/Archive 14

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

→

protection

can this page be protected as it seems to be vandalised very often--Happyhaydn 23:14, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Heritage Variants

Not all Jews are descendant from the same tree. Infact the majority of Jews today who are white are descended from the Aschkanazi Jewish group in Russia from when the Zhar decreed that the religion would become the national religion. However, because in order to be Jewish in the same standard as the original Sons of David, you must be born of a Jewishish mother, the Aschkanazi branch is a group that is not part of the Ethnic group but part of the Jewish religious practice and belief. Also, being Jewish as a Son of David does not indicate you belong to a race of people, but to a tribe of people as per the definition. Because of this, the Aschkanazi could be considered an adoption to the official tribe of the Sons of David. I haven't seen this information clearly demonstrated and would like to have it updated. My source is Jewish Tribal Review.

List of Famous Jews

Say what you want, the list is silly. It obviously cannot be comprehensive or even representative. It looks out of place and degrades the euqlity of the article. I suggest we remove it, replacing with a reference to the separate "List of Jews" article. Cema 23:06, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree. There may be something to be said for listing leaders who have influenced what it means to be Jewish (and I can't think of a clear example off the top of my head), but listing people who are famous and happen to be Jewish doesn't add to the content of the article. --Leifern 15:29, 2005 Apr 3 (UTC)

I third the motion. Spin off this list into a separate article. RK 15:37, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)

Similar lists exist for most ethnicities. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:54, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)

Jews are extra special. I quadruplehyperfourth the motion. Spin the list off into a new article. This article has sufficient content to justify the move. Leave maybe 10 of the most famousest, with a "see main article" blurble. Tomer ^TALK 01:42, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

Ignoring Tomer, because I don't know whether he was being tongue in cheek or serious, I would agree with Jmabel. I think parallel lists exist for most other ethnic groups, and, if we didn't have it there, people will keep adding it. We already reference the main page for this anyway. That being said, I would be in favor of coming up with a short, short list. I did an edit and commented out a few people, like Ayn Rand and Edward Teller, whose Jewishness had little to do with their fame, and who were somewhat dubious choices. Perhaps we should discuss here a list of five or ten that might be a good sample. --Goodoldpolonius2 02:37, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hey! Don't ignowe me! My tongue is so fiwmwy stuck in my cheek that I'm having difficuwty tawking stwaight! Tomer ^TALK 02:53, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

That said, I'm almost opposed to a list of 5-10 in this page, because we're going to have christians coming and adding Jesus, Joseph, Peter, Paul and Mary to the list constantly. This section should perhaps discuss simply the percentages of nobel prize winners, etc., and leave the enumeration to the list itself.Tomer ^TALK 02:56, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

Percentages of Nobel Prize winners??? This is intended as illustrative, not propagandistic. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:08, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

Believe me, I understand that. I was not intending that as a suggestion for what SHOULD appear there, but rather as an idea for how to write that section of the article. I don't think there's anything "propagandistic" about saying that Jews have received X% of Nobel prizes, per se, simply that this section of the Jew article should mention the areas in which Jews are prominent, or have excelled, and use the List of Famous Jews to elucidate that point. I don't think there's anything necessarily unencyclopedic about saying that Jews have excelled in certain areas have been recognized in certain fields, anymore than saying that, for instance, Spaniards, Dutch and Portuguese navigators were prominent in the exploration and discovery of farflung points around the globe during the European exploration and discovery of the planet before, during and after the Renaissance, or that Renaissance political thinkers, especially those influencing American political thought, came from France. Antisemites might resent the rôle and/or influence of Jews in any given number of fields, but I don't think that the Wikipedia is a place to censor the facts in order to make misguided attempts to "prevent" such hatefilled people from "gaining fodder". Lists of this sort exists on manifold antisemitic sites (if you doubt it, do a google search for "+jew +famous")...to avoid factual information of this sort makes Wikipedia appear to be propagandistic toward not recognizing accomplishments of individual Jews than including such stats/info makes Wikipedia to appear the purveyor of propaganda. Respectfully, Tomer Tomer ^TALK 06:24, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

Given that there is already a special page containing a long list, I do not see any reason to have a list here. I do not see a compelling reason to delete, either - other than the facts that (a) people will keep on adding and deleting names, according to their own preferences and criteria (Wittgenstein was being tossed in and back out some time ago), (b) it may not be very meaningful to put in one list people who were "Jewish" in different (if any) ways, incl. people who dissociated themselves (vd. Marx, though his father already converted) or were dissociated (vd. Spinoza) from the Jewish community. Of course, (b) also applies to the main "list of Jews" page, about which I, personally, have mixed feelings.

I also wonder whether the presence of contemporary political figures is at all useful; lists like this, in this place, will be taken to somehow represent the group as a whole, or perhaps the views of the redactors.

We could settle the matter by just having a link to the main page, perhaps under its own subsection. Hasdrubal 23:49, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Isn't there a consensus to get rid of this section? Unless someone objects in the next 2-3 days, I'm gonna cut it out. --Leifern 17:05, May 3, 2005 (UTC)

Please do. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:57, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

As has been pointed out previously, cutting it out completely is going to encourage people to put it back in. Cut the list and cut the last half of the introduction, leaving the related articles in there, ~~as well as the following text~~thusly:

Main articles: List of Jews, List of Jews by country

Despite the relatively small number of Jews worldwide, many influential thinkers and leaders from all times have been ethnically Jewish.

my 2 cents. Tomer ^TALK 00:46, May 4, 2005 (UTC)

That makes sense. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:50, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Tomer, this looks good, though I would suggest a minor wording change:

Main articles: List of Jews, List of Jews by country

Despite the relatively small number of Jews worldwide, many influential leaders and thinkers in a wide range of fields have been ethnically Jewish.

--Goodoldpolonius2 15:35, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

1. 1. Concur. Tomer ^TALK 08:39, May 5, 2005 (UTC)

Etymology nonsense

Was the contention of Mr/s. Anonymous User that gimel with dagesh is pronounced /dj/ by Temanim? And that this is the classical pronunciation for this grapheme? Tomer ^TALK 22:27, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

Well, they do pronounce it that way, but it is doubtful that that was the classical pronuncation; it seems more likely Yemenite Jews got the sound from Arabic. However, the anon seemed to be trying to link that to the "J" sound in the word "Jew", which is, in my view, bizarre. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:53, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Not only were the associated claims utter hogwash, but I'm pretty sure it is gimel without a dagesh that is pronounced /dj/, not with, which is what that edit was claiming, compouding bizarreness with just plain wrongness. Tomer ^TALK 06:00, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

Yod vs. Yud

I see User:RK has changed "yod" in the article in favor of "yud". I can only assume that this is either cultural arrogance, or ignorance. The pronunciation "yud" is a majority pronunciation only among Litvaks. The rest of the Hebrew-speaking world still calls the letter either "yod" or "yoð", just as its name is given in every English or other language dictionary that either (or both) has the letter as an entry, or discusses the development of the Roman alphabet. In keeping with established norms, I think it would be better to consistently call the letter "yod", since the only realm in which it is called "yud" is in Ashkenazi circles, especially among Yiddish or Yinglish speakers, or their descendants. <rant>There's more to the Jewish world than just your shtetl!</rant> Tomer ^TALK 23:37, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

I don't who you are, but I do not appreciate your personal attacks, based on your irrelevant theories about my ethnic background. The previous version of the article merely had a more clearly written paragraph; that was the only reason for my very minor edit. You can't come here yelling about reverts based on racial arrogance, and win anyone's approval. RK 20:31, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

RK, I did not attack you, in fact I gave you an easy out. Also, I did not revert your edits. All I did was bring to your attention the fact that "yud" is actually a minority pronunciation. If my tone appears less than civil, I apologize, I thought my pseudo-HTML rant tag should have made my sarcasm clear. I meant no disrespect. I was only trying to convey my disapproval of your edit, which I leave up to you to revert. As for "racial arrogance", I never said anything about race, so I have to assume there's a deeper pathology at work here. Tomer ^TALK 08:44, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

Hey folks, culture note: depending on where one is in the world, one's cultural background, etc., irony/sarcasm used in this manner may be either (1) a way of lightening things up or (2) inherently bitter and accusatory. And it can also fall somewhere in between. Tomer, you might be a little more careful about that in a context like this. I assume you are from somewhere where it is case 1 but out here in cyberspace there are an awful lot of people who will read it in accord with case 2. -- Jmabel | Talk 16:27, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

Thin-skinned people should avoid reading discussion pages on wikipedia! (This was a sarcastic note, not to be taken literally.) Especially pages related to hotly debated topics, like Jews. (This was a sarcastic note, not to be taken literally.) Cema 03:40, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Tzema, Jmabel and RK, I have pretty "white" skin (try to pick out "the Jew" in [1]...trust me, I'm in there somewhere...), and so people often question my identity as a Sefardi (my maternal grandfather z"l was a Norwegian shegetz, whose genes have had an astonishingly pervasive influence on the appearance of me and my cousins...I love him past death, but his genes are a constant source of conflict for me). Given that, perhaps you can understand my apparently thin-skin when it comes to people "correcting" this article, especially, in such a way as to reflect Litvish pronunciation, which is, as I pointed out, a minority pronunciation. Cema: I don't think my edits betray a thin skin...although perhaps my rants here on the Talk page may. I believe that's the purpose of the Talk pages...I could engage instead in an otherwise inexplicable revert war on the article itself...one which I'm pretty sure, communicating with admins, I could ultimately win. Instead, I chose to come here and bitch, to explain my objection, without reverting even once. Call my skin thin, if that makes you happy, but I haven't thrown boiling oil at you yet, so, trust me, my skin isn't nearly as "thin" as your edit makes it apparent you think it is. RK: I still fundamentally disagree with your choice to change "yod" to "yud", and am hereby asking you, politely, as a fellow intellectual, to change it back to "yod". The pronunciation "yud" is nothing more than the pronunciation of a subgroup of Ashkenazi Jews, whose pronunciation is regarded by the vast majority of Jews (including large numbers of Ashkenazi Jews) as an obscene corruption of Hebrew. Tomer ^TALK 07:47, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

Tomer, You're the guy with the glasses. As a "genetically" Ashkenazi Jew and a Rabbi who dabbles in linguistics, I agree that the letter should be written as "yud". Atheistrabbi July 9, 2005 12:08 (UTC)

anti-Semitic link

Jez, good job catching that anti-Semitic link that was added by the anon. I noticed that this link was also added to anti-Semitism by Sam Spade fifteen minutes later. A more fitting place for it, if any place is appropriate, in my opinion. It is truly a noxious web site. Jim^Collaborator ^«talk» 02:08, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

Sam is very diligent in ensuring that neo-Nazi and anti-Semitic sites, contributors, and viewpoints are not suppressed in any way on Wikipedia. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:11, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm willing to extend the benefit of excessive doubt to User:Sam Spade, and agree with you JJG that the link is not at all appropriate or even remotely relevant in the Jew article. Personally, of course, I'd like to see all Jewhaters die and go back to the hell they invent for themselves, but since that's not likely to happen before bi'at hamashiach, I'm presently willing to leave the link in Anti-Semitism under the "proof that unmitigated idiocy and ignorance are still rampant" links. Tomer ^TALK 07:59, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

Oh, I'm sure Sam's motives are purely the betterment of Wikipedia, regardless of the rather unsavory impression his actions tend to leave. As for your point, that's why I didn't bother removing it from the anti-Semitism article either. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:09, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Did I just kill my chances of ever passing a VfA vote? :-p Tomer ^TALK 08:00, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

Not yet. :-) Jayjg ^(talk) 15:12, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Convertite?

What the heck is an "Arabian convertite"? -- Jmabel | Talk 04:59, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

"convertite" is an obsolete form of "convert". When it starts appearing in Judaism related articles (as it has before), it's usually a sign of someone using ancient sources or outdated information. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:58, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

announcing policy proposal

This is just to inform people that I want Wikipedia to accept a general policy that BC and AD represent a Christian Point of View and should be used only when they are appropriate, that is, in the context of expressing or providing an account of a Christian point of view. In other contexts, I argue that they violate our NPOV policy and we should use BCE and CE instead. See Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/BCE-CE Debate for the detailed proposal. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:55, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

i've heard of kurdish jews/jewish kurds, but i don't know anywhere near enough about them to write an article on them, or to add info about them to THIS article. Gringo300 05:07, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It appears that Judaism came from Zoroastrianism...

Well, according to that article anyway. I have just removed:

Traditional Jews and Christians typically seek to place Zoroaster's life at as late a date as possible, so as to avoid the conclusion that much of the theology and morality of the non-Torah parts of the Old Testament derive from Zoroastrianism, the ideas having flowed into Judaism during the Babylonian captivity which happened shortly after 600 BC. Judaism does not appear to become strictly monotheistic until after the Jewish people is freed from Babylon by Cyrus the Great (c539 BC). Even the first commandment is not unambiguously monotheistic. "Thou shalt have no other gods before Me" seems implictly to accept the existance of other gods.

I am sure that anyone here who believes this should be free to incorporate such stunning conclusions into the relevant article on Judaism. Be aware that one contributor doesn't seem to think that this is POV. Anyone here should feel free to balance the text, as I'm positive that this is not what Jewish scholars would say. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:25, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This position is neither "new" nor inherently obscene within Judiasm. It is true that, while Judaism is exclusively monotheistic, the first commandment does seem to allow for the possibility that there may be other beings regarded as gods (not in the common English sense of the word, but in the "judges" or "overlords", i.e., "determiners of what becomes of you", sense of the original Hebrew). I see nothing inherently harmful mentioning the (widespread) theory that absolute monotheism entered Judaism via Zoroastrianism, or even as a reaction against Zoroastrianism (since most forms of Zoroastrianism are far more dualistic than monotheistic), but any such mention should make clear that such theories are exactly that: theory. Tomer ^TALK 06:05, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

Um, that's not a theory, that's conjecture. Literally it means, you shall not have other idols before me. The Hebrew word for God and gods (idols) is different. although the spelling is similiar. This is a common mistake made by amateurs. The notion of strict monothiesm was certainly reinforced when Jews were in Exile, but it does not correlate to any major adaptation of Zoroastrian beliefs, in fact, that is why the Sephardic Tradition, is nigh similiar to the Ashkenazi tradition. Finally, isn't all of this based on correlation? Need I remind everyone that correlation does not equal causation?

Guy Montag 06:28, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Guy Montag 06:14, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think you're erroneously assuming I'm defending a position. That said, your statement is incorrect. If the 2nd commandment is taken to be "lo-yihye lekha elohim acharim al-panai", it means Jews are forbidden to mention the names of other gods in the presence (i.e., during the worship of) Hashem. This quite easily can be interpreted to mean that Hashem is forbidding mention of the Name as part of a pantheon. It is not, literally, at least, a specific prohibition of polytheism, nor of henotheism. You're referring, I assume, however, in your condescending post, to the following commandment, and I submit to you that your statement is not only uncivil, but also uneducated, as there is nothing remotely "similar" between the words "pesel" (i. e., "idol") and "elohim". I wish you good day, sir. Tomer ^TALK 08:07, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

There are also those who make arguments that monotheism was introduced originally by Moses, and the later inclusions of Asherah, sacrifices to Moloch, etc. into the cultus were made during the Davidic monarchy. Another theory, of course, but well documented and argued by Mendenhall and others. Fire Star 05:05, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

i'm far from an expert on zoroastrianism. but from what little i know about it, and what i know of judaism... i just don't see the association.

Gringo300 09:22, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Protecting??

This page seems to be vandalized a lot. Is there a reason it's not protected? Of course I'm just a newbie, so I'm not exactly sure what constitutes worthiness. Spindle 10:56, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

In general we don't protect pages from vandalism unless it's a huge flood (it is usually better to deal with the vandals themselves). Protection is rather a last resort, and is seen as "un-wiki" by many. Hope this helps, Antandrus (talk) 14:54, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Also (and this is speaking as a non admin), protection is usually used either for a temporary wave, or until an issue cools down. It seems that the Jew article will always be a favorite for vandalization, however; I'm not sure what good a protect would do. That said, welcome to Wikipedia! Mikeage 15:35, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Assimilation

According to a recent addition, assimilation is "seen to have started evidently after the Jewish Wars during the 1st century CE", but weren't there Hellenizing Jews before that time? -- Jmabel | Talk July 4, 2005 17:41 (UTC)

Yes, and Baal-worshippers long before that. Tomer ^TALK July 4, 2005 18:17 (UTC)

So we should presumably remove that remark. -- Jmabel | Talk July 4, 2005 18:51 (UTC)

Presumably?! I should say indubitably, my dear Watson! :-p Tomer ^TALK July 5, 2005 00:48 (UTC)

Uh...the article is even worse now, as it seems to be clearly saying that assimilation is a by-product of the Englightenment. I've read estimates that say that if it weren't for assimilation, there would be over 150M Jews today. (In the same vein, that if not for the Sho'a, there would be over 25M, earlier assimilation notwithstanding.) Clearly there's something wrong with the apparent implication that assimilation is all the fault of Napoléon. Tomer ^TALK July 6, 2005 14:04 (UTC)

OK - I think this should be better now. Also you are referring to this study which assumes that if there was no persecution of the Jews, no major slaughters (the Great Revolt, Cossaks, expulsions, the Crusades, etc), and no assimilation starting from right before the Great Revolt against Rome, the population would be 100-150 million. --Goodoldpolonius2 6 July 2005 14:46 (UTC)

Nope. I don't know where it came from, but that's not it...same kind of rationale tho. Tomer ^TALK July 8, 2005 01:50 (UTC)

Bear skins

The insulting edit summary was a response to the link posted to a fiercely antisemitic article that was speedied. It presumes that the poster actually had forefathers and did not spontaneously generate. JFW | T@lk 8 July 2005 00:01 (UTC)

Yiddish Wikipedia

Some of you (even non-Yiddish speakers) might be interested in my half-baked plan to revitalize the moribund (only 121 articles) Yiddish Wikipedia. Please see my idea at Talk:Yiddish_language#Yiddish_Wikipedia, and thanks.--Pharos 05:25, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Knesset

About the statement referring to ten Muslim Arab Knesset members: isn't Azmi Bishara still in the Knesset? And isn't he an Arab Christian? (I could be totally wrong on this, my knowledge of current Israeli politics is decidedly limited.) -- Jmabel | Talk 06:59, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

Jews in Spain

The article states "The rise of more radical Muslim regimes, such as that of the Almohades ended this period by the thirteenth century, and Jews were soon expelled from Spain." But this is a slander against Muslim tolerance. Jews were expelled from Spain not by Muslims, but by the "Catholic Monarchs" Ferdinand and Isabelle. And this was not 'soon' after the 13th century -- the expulsion began in the late 15th century, in 1492, when Jews faced the choice of conversion or expulsion. Many who did convert to Christianity (the 'conversos') were later persecuted by the Inquisition as being insincere Christians.

No, there's no slander there. When the Almohad dynasty took power in the 12th century, they gave Jews the choice of conversion, expulsion, or death. Up until then, you're absolutely correct; pre-Almohad Muslim Spain was something of a golden age for Jews and Muslims alike. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 06:06, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
- Take a look at Golden age of Jewish culture in Spain, which covers this in detail, or History of the Jews in Spain, which covers it in insane detail. And, to slightly correct jpgordan, as early as 1066 things started to go bad, as the Jews were expelled from Granada. Starting in 1148, with the invasions of the Almohads, things went very badly indeed -- Jews were forced to covert, or be subject to expulsion or other penalties (like confiscation of property and having their wives and children sold as slaves). The Christian monarches were actually the tolerant ones in this period, many Jews fled to Toledo, and 40,000 fought with Alfonso VI. --Goodoldpolonius2 06:35, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

The "usage note"

Is this really necessary? While it is valid information that the word has become derogatory in some contexts, having this note at the very beginning of the article somehow suggests that it is of more importance than the relevant information about Jews. If this is necessary, might it be more appropriate at the end of the article? The first time I read this article I was surprised to see the note...to me it sort of legitimizes the usage of "Jew" in a negative context.

Usage note: The word "Jew" is a noun. Its use as an adjective (e.g. "Jew lawyer") is widely considered offensive; "Jewish" is strongly preferred. Its use as a verb (e.g. "to jew someone") is also considered offensive. Some sources, such as the American Heritage Dictionary, suggest that phrases like "Jewish person" may be offensive if pointedly used to avoid the word "Jew".

User:Adefranco 8 Aug 2005

We've been around this before; this was consensus wording after much debate. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:59, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, well, it still sucks. 68.97.208.123 10:45, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree. It's out of place and completely distorts the article, especially with the horrible examples of how to use the word Jew offensively. Nice work. --83.151.211.203 15:25, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

"Some sources, such as the American Heritage Dictionary, suggest that phrases like "Jewish person" may be offensive if pointedly used to avoid the word "Jew".

Why would anyone want to "avoid the word 'Jew' "?24.64.166.191 06:52, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Because its use in English as an adjective or verb is offensive. But its use as a noun is simply correct. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:09, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Humm. But the problem is that the passage come over as contradictory. "Jewish person" (as opposed to "Jew person") would be correct according to the usage note, but also "may be offensive"! I can kind of see the point, since the addition of "person" is stictly unnecessary - like saying "German person" instead of just "German", as if it's necessary to emphasise that Germans are people. But it still creates a confused impression, as though it's not possible to avoid offense at all. I think some people would "avoid the word 'Jew'" in this context for understandable reasons. One might avoid the locution "X is a Jew" in favour of "X is Jewish" partly because of the negative history of racial stereotyping. The same would be true of "X is a black" rather than "X is black". In both cases the adjectival usage implies that this is simply an aspect of this person's identity, not the only thing that defines them. Paul B 14:32, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

I removed an innacuarte and POV passage that drew parallels between objectifying use of the "Jew" and objectifying use of "Gentile".

On the subject of Template:DecencyWikiProject

Any help would be greatly appreciated. Agriculture 05:43, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you think it would be of interest to the editors of this article. When I saw the name and the context, I hoped that the "indecency" you were intending to combat might be the bigotry expressed by people like those who vandalise this article. But, alas, the project is nothing but a campaign for sexual prudery. -- Jmabel | Talk 03:23, August 17, 2005 (UTC) (My wording here was in response to the original title of this section; the title has now been changed. It was originally "Wikiproject which may be of interest to editors of this article.") -- Jmabel | Talk 00:23, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

Why "England" and not United Kingdom?

I know this'll seem pedantic to most of you but surely it should be written as the UK and not England, in the portal table to the right. I know this is an predominantly American site and it's a common misconception to call the United Kingdom, "England". England is one of the four constituant countries in the UK along with Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. If you mistakenly label the entire UK, "England" it's actually insulting to the 3 other nationalities. It should be changed. Unless I've missed something really stupid? --JDnCoke 12:42, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Actually JD, not only is it extremly pedantic but it is pretentious and rude. You think people here are so stupid they don't know the difference between England and the UK. The article is not about Jews in the entire United Kingdom it is about the Jews of England.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg (talk) 02:58, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

The link is to the article History of the Jews in England, and that article does not have any info about Jewish history in the rest of the UK. It seems to me that the other articles are yet to be written. Antandrus (talk) 15:12, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Actually, there is a page on the History of the Jews in Ireland. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:24, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

If someone wants to discuss this further, Template talk:Jew would be the appropriate place, that's the talk page attached to that template. -- Jmabel | Talk 03:42, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

New Page: Brit-Dam

Please visit Talk:Brit-dam and add your two-cents.

— <TALK JNDRLINETALK> 30 August 2005

The page is bombed

I don not know how to clean up the page, but hope somebody else does.

Jew or Jewish

My own experiences is that Jews often refer to someone as a Jew with ease, but have a general preference that non-Jews use the word "Jewish" instead of "a Jew." I can´t say this in the article as that would be original research. And it is hard for me to fault anyone who provides a valid source. But this is such iffy terrain (I mean, so subjective and general statements hard to verify, unless anyone knows of some published research on patterns of word use and preference, I guess by sociologists or psychologists) I think that whoever thinks they are getting involved in a revert war take a breather, and look for some way to discuss the issue (where to address this question in the article, how, and what to say) here for a while. I am for the moment assuming good faith on the part of all parties. If I am right, I am sure that with a couple of days discussion and thought you can reach a good compromise that complies with NPOV and NOR, SR —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Slrubenstein (talk • contribs) 10 Sept 2005.

Jewish Culture

I would like to point out that the section of the article entitled "Jewish Culture" actually says very little about Jewish Culture. Why don't we attempt to describe Jewish Culture?

I (not a Jew) believe that Jewish culture, at least as I perceive it throught being a middle class American white male and a student of history, is far from undefinable, and has made valuable contributions to world history. Because of this, I think it would be valuable to all visitors of Wikipedia to have a definition of Jewish Culture in the context of cultural terms.

I've just begun this task myself, but am already deep into another research project and must provide only this appeal and starter sentence in the article for now.

One might start by dividing into Sephardi and Ashkenazi cultures. I would probably argue that the Ashkenazi culture is the one more commonly perceived in the modern world, and believe it should be focused on.

I checked the article "Secular Jewish culture", and noted that it doesn't try to make a really, really general statement, which I think would be helpful to people. I'll paste my starter it in this article first and see the response it gets.

Please respond, or, better, attempt to define Jewish Culture in the article.--Zaorish 02:41, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Zaorish, I think the article you describe is the place where to put those elements. The subsection under "Jew" is a good place to summarize and quickly describe. The interested reader should investigate further by clicking the wikilink.

--Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 03:41, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

It will be an interesting exercise to avoid an American-centric view. --jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 03:44, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Even more interesting would be to avoid an ashkenazi-centric view. I'm watching w/ bated (or is that baited? :-p) breath... Tomer ^TALK 05:20, September 13, 2005 (UTC)

No mention of God

It is indeed interesting that the word "God" appears only once on the page, in the history section, no less. I may correct this at a later date; however, here are some guidelines:

Yaweh is not correct; it a a pronouncement of the four Hebrew letters that are perhaps the holiest name in Judaism. So holy, in fact, that we do not know how to pronounce them and do not even try.
The form that should be used are Hashem (litterally "the name", but it is commonly used as a way to refrence God without invoking His name).
Perhaps it should be more or less this:

The Jews beleive in one God, whose name they consider sacred. Yaweh is an often used misprounouciation (sp?). However, the Jews have many terms for God. They prefer to use Hashem when not reciting sacred blessings, or Brachut. Hashem litterally means "the name" but is used commonly to reference God without invoking His name.

Half of that is the same text from above; but hey, no ones going to see the talk page, and if they do they'll see this, too. Anyway, I hope to get this worked out. HereToHelp 00:02, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

This is the article Jew, not Judaism: about the ethnicity, not the faith. Beliefs do not determine who is ethnically a Jew, any more than one would cease to be a Serb by not being Serbian Orthodox. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:09, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Right. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:11, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

oops!

My apologies! I accidentally clicked the wrong button and reverted the article to the vandalized version. [2] I have reverted it back to the correct version. I hope that no one was offended. --Ixfd64 03:31, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Anon. Contribution

Anon contribution moved here for discussion/response. WBardwin 06:51, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

"Who is a Jew is anyone whom the Jews want to claim as a Jew. Jewsrock.org inlcudes a goy-mitzfah slide-show and trivia procedure that exercises the laundry-list proclivities of the inveterately dispossessed whose quest for peace will lead them to utter ananke from hemisphere to civilization to hemisphere for the sole sake of survival, solidarity, and grace. Jews outlasted Phoenicians and Sumerians et cetera, because Jews have very loose definitions of the Tribe."

Best it be kept out of the article...not only are the few parts of it that I can make heads or tails of inaccurate, but misquoting a website somewhere hardly qualifies as high-quality editing... And ananke? What's that about?! Tomer ^TALK 19:45, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

image caption

there are several things wrong with this caption:

German Jews (identifiable by the Judenhuts that they were required to wear) were killed by the tens of thousands during the First Crusade. French Bible illustration from 1250.

first of all, ~~tens of~~ thousands of Jews were killed in the course of the First Crusades, but they were not identifiable by the Judenhut, since that was prescribed only from 1215, more than 100 years later. Secondly, not only "German" Jews were required to wear "Judenhuts". First of all, there wasn't any "Germany" at all, just the Holy Roman Empire, and that was a very heterogenous aggregate of states, and Judenhuts were even required outside the HRR, in parts of France. Since we're looking at a French Bible here, it is likely influenced by French costume than by German custume. Thirdly, the image description claims that these are Jews massacred by Crusaders. What is there to back up the claim? The headgear depicted is not typical for the pilea cornuta; see here for a typical example. Then, this being a biblical illustration, what evidence is there that the killers are Crusaders? This looks more like hagiography to me, or maybe something from the Acts of the Apostles, and it is doubtful that the people slaughtered are even meant to be Jews. We'd need an exact reference for this image to check this out, but my guess is that these are five saints slaughtered by pagans. Sorry if this seem long-winded and without relevance to the article; but if you're going to use illustrations, you should make sure that they are pertinent and labelled correctly. 19:43, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

You are right in that the image is not captioned correctly, the same image is used in an exhibit put together by YIVO and BRON where it was captioned "Three Jews, identifiable by their hats, are being put to the swords by Christian knights. Bible illustration; France, 1250." I would trust that the details given there (Jews, hats, Christian knights) are accurate, but there is no reason to believe they are Crusaders or Germans. I will change the caption. --Goodoldpolonius2 23:55, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

I provided two sources for that image at Image:FirstCrusade.jpg, both talk about the Jews killed by the Crusaders. As for the Judenhuts, good catch but please do not expect much realism from medieval images. It was a very common practice to show ancient figures (or not so ancient, as in this case) wearing contemporary clothes. The styles of clothes varied in time/place. Also, let's not forget that the Crusaders at the time probably considered such an act a good deed. ←Humus sapiens ←ну? 06:53, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

what do you mean, "much realism"? I showed you another medieval image, illustrating how Judenhuts were depicted at the time, never mind if it is realistic or not (see here for more, but mostly later, examples). So our source for the "Christian knights" caption is www.friends-partners.org (and for 'Jews', but not 'knights', www.flholocaustmuseum.org)? I must say that I would be more comfortable with a museum homepage that identifies the manuscript. This looks suspiciously like a 'google rumour', i.e. one homepage copying the other, without any solid basis. The 'slaughterers' do not seem armed for war at all. They are wearing crowns(!), but civilian clothing and no armour (Crusaders would conventially be depicted in chainmail, or at least with a cross on their clothes). Note that the two figures on the left wear the same sort of headgear. Is it not rather five people being slaughtered? I am not saying it is impossible that the people slaughtered here represent Jews, I am just saying that it is far from self-evident, and we just have captions on internet illustrations to base the claim on. Maybe we should write an email to flholocaustmuseum.org and ask for their sources? Mind you that I am not contesting the slaughter of Jews during the First Crusade at all, I am simply critical of whether this image has anything to do with it. I do argue that this has some importance; according to your reading, I suppose, Jesus shown up there in the clouds is blessing the slaughterers (which would make the illustration a piece of medieval anti-Semitism). You say the killing of Jews was regarded a 'good deed' during the Crusades; that's not true. There were, certainly a lot of fanatics who did this slaughter with good conscience, but the higher up you got in church hierarchy, the more the slaughter was condemned. Looking at the image, I think it is likely that it is a scene of martyrdom, and Christ is blessing the martyrs rather than the slaughterers. What makes me suspicious, I should say, is the claim that it is from a Bible: it would be very uncommon for Bible illustrations to portray "current events" as it were. Bibles are commonly illustrated with biblical scenes (of course in contemporary guise, i.e. biblical Jews in a 1250 Bible will look like 13th century Jews, with hats and all, but the picture will still represent a biblical scene). 09:53, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

I have sent an inquiry to flholocaustmuseum (the 'education' address; the 'webmaster' one has bounced). 10:27, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

As I understand it, the main massacre of European Jews related to the First Crusade would have been "at home" in Europe before knights set out for the Holy Land. -- Jmabel | Talk 16:30, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

yes, but "knights" were not involved so much as a crazed mob of fanatics; I mentioned the German Crusade, 1096, but that was summarily reverted [3], and with all the reverting going on here, I feel this article is too unstable to make any detailed contributions. 09:53, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Probably so, or at least knights were no more involved than any other Christians. And I sympathize with you on the impossibility of editing a moving train as it goes by. -- Jmabel | Talk 02:20, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Historical definition

"Since the Haskalah, these halachic interpertations of Jewish identity have been challenged." Was this not equally so among Hellenizing Jews in the era of the Roman Empire? -- Jmabel | Talk 02:09, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, there was certainly unorthodox or secularizing practice, but was there something other than matrilineal descent recognized?--Pharos 02:21, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't know. Can someone weigh in on this? Also, in terms of definition from the outside, in the (relatively unusual) case of a Jewish father and a Christian mother in medieval Europe, would the surrounding Christians not have considered that person a Jew? This is really more out of curiosity than anything else, I hadn't much though about it until I saw the remark about "Since the Haskalah..." -- Jmabel | Talk 06:41, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

More likely they would have kidnapped the kid and baptized it. --jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 15:54, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Most Jews regard themselves as a people, members of a nation

Is there any basis for this assertion?

Yes, the fact that most Jews consider themselves as a people, members of a nation :D Kuratowski's Ghost 22:17, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Denying this was (still is?) a part of anti-Israel narrative promoted by the PLO Article 18 (Art.24 might also be of interest) and internet trolls. ←Humus sapiens ←ну? 22:41, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Even as a secular and non-Zionist Jew, I concur. And, I might add, Jews have (in most times and places) been so regarded by others. Indeed, in most Wikipedia articles, especially in a European context, we treat Jewishness as nationality in the article lead (usually as a second national identification, after the one on the basis of citizenship and/or place of birth). Wouldn't you consider it odd to describe, for example, Hannah Arendt as a "German" rather than a "German Jew"? -- Jmabel | Talk 01:54, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

There is the modern concept of a "nation" , representing everyone living in a political territory. But clearly this is not the kind of "nation" the "Jews" (variously defined) supposedly believe they are members of. Is Israel a "nation"? The concept of "nation = people" you are using is like the concept of "Aryan" people or "Caucasian" people or "white Anglo-Saxon" people. Would you be comfortable with a statement in Wikipedia that Aryans or Caucasians or WASPS "consider themselves as a people, members of a nation"? Arguably there many people in these groups who believe crap like that.

I've heard that there is a new trend in Wikipedia - you are actually supposed to provide REFERENCES to support your "Most Jews regard ..." statements. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.64.166.191 (talk • contribs) 30 Oct 2005.

In your first two sentences you are quite correct. Some (certainly not all) Zionists consider Jews a "nation" in the specifically modern sense of the word, but vast majority of Jews would mean the older sense of the term. You will notice that not one of the Jews involved in this article has dissented from the view that the Jews view ourselves as a nation. That ought to speak volumes.

Israel is a "nation" in the strictly modern sense of the word, but more properly it is a "state" or a "country". It is clearly not a "nation" in the older sense of the word (although one might make a case that the Jews of Israel are increasingly a nation in that sense of the word). Clearly, they have not formed the kind of inclusiveness that would have an Israeli Arab consider him- or herself part of the Israeli nation in that older sense of the word.

"Aryan" people or "Caucasian" people, I have never heard anyone claim to constitute nations. As for "white Anglo-Saxon" people, while many white supremacists would argue that the Anglo-Saxons (which I assume you mean more or less in the sense of white Englishmen and not excluding, for example, Norman or Huguenot descent) remain a nation, few others would make that case. And it would take a particularly extreme white supremacist to narrow that to WASPS: that would mean that a Catholic Englishman was not part of that "nation". As an illustration of that, few white Americans of Anglo-Saxon descent consider themselves part of a "nation" that includes white Englishmen and excludes their fellow Americans of other ancestries.

As for citation: yes, citation would be good, but this is one of those statements that is so self-evident as to make it hard to find a clean citation. Does anyone have an idea what we might cite for this, since someone has called it into question? -- Jmabel | Talk 00:45, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

One citation that should have at least some relevance is the 1901-1906 Jewish Encyclopedia entry on "Judaism". There is a section called "National Character of Judaism". The first several sentences bear quoting here, though probably not in the article itself: "The striking feature of Judaism, however, is that, while containing the highest spiritual and ethical truths for humanity, it is bound up with the Jewish nation. The One and Only God, Yhwh, is Israel's God in particular (Sifre, Deut. 31); and the separation of Israel from the rest of the nations in order to distinguish it as God's people is the express purpose of the Torah (Lev. xx. 24, 26), and the characteristic trait of Judaism from the time of Ezra (Ezra vi. 21; Neh. x. 21) and of the Scribes or Pharisees (see Pharisees). This national distinctness or aloofness of the Jew has brought him all the hostility, persecutions, and bitter attacks of a surrounding world from the days of Haman (Esth. iii. 8) and of Apion in Alexandria down to the most recent times (see Anti-Semitism; Apion)." -- Jmabel | Talk 00:57, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Conversely, the best argument against this statement, and I had never seen this before I just started doing some searches, also comes from the Jewish Encyclopedia, and in the article on Zionism, of all places:

The Reform wing of the Synagogue, however, rejects this doctrine; and the Conference of Rabbis that sat in Frankfort-on-the-Main July 15-28, 1845, decided to eliminate from the ritual "the prayers for the return to the land of our forefathers and for the restoration of the Jewish state." The Philadelphia Conference, Nov. 3-6, 1869, adopted as the first section of its statement of principles the following: "The Messianic aim of Israel is not the restoration of the old Jewish state under a descendant of David, involving a second separation from the nations of the earth, but the union of all the children of God in the confession of the unity of God, so as to realize the unity of all rational creatures, and their call to moral sanctification." This was re-affirmed at the Pittsburg Conference, Nov. 16-18, 1885, in the following words: "We consider ourselves no longer a nation, but a religious community; and we therefore expect neither a return to Palestine, nor a sacrificial worship under the sons of Aaron, nor the restoration of any of the laws concerning a Jewish state."

Note the use of both "nation" and "state" in different contexts in the preceding paragraph. In any event, this probably does suggest that our statement should be a bit more nuanced; these are probably both relevant citations, the first as support and the second as limitation and qualification.

Of course, one would be hard pressed to find such firm anti-Zionism in even a Reform Congregation post-Holocaust. But anti-Zionism and the rejection of nationhood are not one and the same. Does anyone know what is the current official Reform doctrine on this? And does someone else have some apposite citations on either side of this? -- Jmabel | Talk 01:06, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Ningpo, China

I don't see Ningpo listed in the Diaspora section of this article. Ningpo is more or less a Jewish city, or at least the most Jewish city in the PRC. --McDogm 02:29, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

You may want to look at History of the Jews in China, there used to be a Chinese Jewish community in Kaifeng, but now there are only Jews from abroad in China, perhaps you can tell us more about Ningpo? --Goodoldpolonius2 02:44, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

I think McDogm is either mistaken or reading stupid websites. A look on the internet showed that the only sources that stated Jews had any connection to Ningpo were websites dedicated to revealing the "Truth" about Jews and the opium trade. I suppose we were doing this to line our evil pockets McDog?- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg (talk) 03:39, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Jewish Population Statistics

The Jewish population statistics need to be checked up on, as it says that the figure for 'Russia' includeds the Russian Federation, Eastern Bloc, and all countries that were under the control of the USSR. Yet, Lithuania is listed as a seperate figure. Does Germany include GDR as this was in the East Bloc? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JosephLondon (talk • contribs) 29 Oct 2005. It's also not clear, whether the stats refer to people of Jewish heritage or of Jewish faith.

You may want to go to the main Jewish population article for more info. --Goodoldpolonius2 22:15, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

child of a Jewish mother

I have read that the "Jewish mother" thing was invented about 500 AD. Prior to that it was "Jewish father". Is there anything in the ancient texts about "Jewish mother"? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.64.166.191 (talk • contribs) 30 Oct 2005.

I have heard that it was the mother, because the fatherhood could always be questioned. 惑乱分からん 19:52, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I tend to agree that the paternity question is probably the central issue, due to the chaotic conditions under which Jews have often had to live, as well as to discourage intermarriage. I think the position of Judaism is anomolous, if not quite unique, in tracing family lines by fatherhood but "Jewishness" by motherhood. Also, can anyone describe a situation in which the Jewishness of one's mother is an issue other than in "mixed" parentage? -- Cecropia 23:47, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Apostle Paul and Jewish identity

Moving this from the article to talk page:The Jewish Apostle Paul, in the New Testament (a book written mostly by Jews) says that being a physical or outwardly religious Jew is not necessarily a true Jew, but only one who is spiritual no matter what his ethnic background. This belief of his came from Romans 2:28-29 that says," For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh. But he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that which is of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter; and his praise is not from men, but from God." - I don't think it is appropriate here. Yes, Jesus, all apostles and most early Christians were Jewish, but considering the schism, why would we let any of them define Jewish identity? ←Humus sapiens ←ну? 08:08, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

To your comment: Yes, Jesus, all apostles and most early Christians were Jewish, but considering the schism, why would we let any of them define Jewish identity?

I answer: Because they were jewish and were considered a sect of judaism originally. and because it is a religious belief of many messianic jews who practice christianity as a jewish religion. they believe it is a completion of the jewish religion. It was originally considered a branch of jewish religion, made up of birth jews and gentile converts, until the emporer constantine took it over and paganized it. And, because i'm a messianic jew who has the right to list the beliefs of other messianic jews and represent them in the article about their background (J. D. Hunt 08:47, 1 November 2005 (UTC))

Jdhunt, I don't believe you are "a messianic jew" but I'll try to assume good faith on your side. You seriously misunderstand and distort a sensitive subject. May I suggest you please learn from a reputable source before editing an encyclopedia. Some may find what you write offensive. Thanks. ←Humus sapiens ←ну? 08:58, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry you don't believe me, but I am a Messianic Jew, just ask my Rabi. , I don't misunderstand and distort a serious subject. Even if you don't agree with what is written it is what some sects of Jews, Messianic Jews, believe about themselves and what makes up Jewish Identity. It is one facit of belief about Jews by Jews, so it belongs. I have learned from a reputable source. What I need to do is get my sources together, so it just doesn't come accross a POV, eventhough I quoted one of the first Messianic Jews the Apostle Paul. I'm sorry some might find what I write as offensive; should none of us write or not write the truth, because it might offend somebody. Example: writing about the Holocaust, which is the truth might offend some Nazis, because some of them believe it did not happen. So what to that nazi, because it did happen. It happenned to my ancestors. (J. D. Hunt 12:23, 2 November 2005 (UTC))

Wikispam

In the last couple of days, an awful lot of links to http://www.chabad.org have been added to Judaism-related articles, including this one. Individually, none of them are wildly inappropriate, but collectively, in my view, they add up to wikispam. I'd hate to have to add a legitimate religious group to the list of sites whose links are presumed to be spam, but this is getting ridiculous. -- Jmabel | Talk 08:00, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Jmabel: Go ahead and trim 'em down! IZAK 18:21, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
the difference between chabad.org or aish.com being?

Chabad.org is a great site of Judaism basics - see Judaism 101 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 220.237.136.91 (talk • contribs) 26 Nov 2005.

I just noticed this, but as I'm sure you realize that aish.com and chabad.org are the two biggest sites on Judaism on the web, therefore it's only to be expected that you will have alot of links to Judaism related articles to them because they are the source for many of these articles and they have much additional information on it. If they are relevant to the content of the article, I see no reason why they should be removed. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 20:28, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

There has to be a good reason to add any external link. Just "more information" is not what external links are for. If there is more information the article in question should be expanded to cover that information. This applies to Aish and Chabad. JFW | T@lk 21:31, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Agreed, My point was just to respond to the view that said alot of links from one site is not good. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 21:33, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Additionally I would like to quote from WP:EL regarding where external links should be placed: Sites that contain neutral and accurate material not already in the article. Ideally this content should be integrated into the Wikipedia article, then the link would remain as a reference. Therefore even if it is just more info, although it should be added to the article, until it is added into the article it may remain there, and after it is added into the article it should remain there as a reference. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 21:38, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Hebrew naming conventions

Urgent: see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Hebrew) to add your opinions about this important matter. Thank you. IZAK 18:21, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Potential Incoming Vandals

Somebody on IRC showed me [http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?t=129080 this], and after reading that, it seems likely that this page may recieve some vandals soon. Karmafist 01:07, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

This note was posted in April 2004. I wouldn't worry about it. Guan aco 02:49, 25 November 2005 (UTC)