Jump to content

Talk:Jewish question

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Rickthebaby (talk | contribs) at 10:14, 26 March 2016 (→‎Expanding article?: Fixed typo). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Expanding article?

Could use some citing of sources. Much of this sounds like opinion.

I appreciate the research and work that has gone before on this article. But the current version seems like a stub... and needs external citations, a good bit of elaboration... and something about the tone is unsettling but I can't put my finger on what.wasserperson 20:09, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Until 14 August 2006 this was a disambiguation page. I am not absolutely sure it should be an article. -- Petri Krohn 07:41, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think the phrase passes the notability test, but it really needs a careful sociological approach.wasserperson 20:09, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Correction. "The final solution of the Jewish question" has been left out of Wikipedia as originating from Zionist. "The Final Solution of the Jewish Question" is a direct quote from the Zionist manifesto of 1897. In 1897 the National Jewish Association - Cologne published its programme (called 'Theses'):

(ii) Experience has shown that civic emancipation has fallen short of securing the social and cultural future of the Jewish people. The Final Solution of the Jewish Question lies therefore in the establishment of the Jewish State. Germany, Turkey, and Zionism 1897-1918 (1997) By Isaiah Friedman http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=iv1DADhI6h4C&lpg=PA17&dq=final%20solution%20of%20the%20jewish%20question%20herzl&pg=PA17#v=onepage&q=%22Greatly%20encouraged%2C%20the%20Cologne%20society%20adopted%20a%20more%20ambitious%20name%3A%22&f=false```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yashua1970 (talk • contribs) 06:03, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

there are very little sources or citations for that matter and I definitely do agree with wasserperson. the fact that one Lucy dawidowicz's books is being used as a serious source for this article is worrisome to me. Rickthebaby (talk) 10:08, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dab page

I think that the "other uses" on top should be integrated into this article. The Russian and German versions include the Marx, Sartre, philosophy, and history in one article. After adding the Bauer reference at the bottom- I saw that many of the other needed references were available onthe other uses pages. --Jayrav 16:38, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, that the issues listed on the disambiguation page can and should be covered or referenced on this page. It does not how ever mean that we do not need a dab page or the "other uses" link. -- Petri Krohn 23:01, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
IMHO only two pages are needed The Jewish Question and The Jewish Question (disambiguation). This article and Jewish question (disambiguation) should be merged into one of the two I mentioned. Abtract (talk) 18:19, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Contemporary Issues

I'm probably just stupid, but what's a "FSU"?

Also, this section seems ripe for expansion. Surely there is more contemporary discussion of this important (if aberrant) historical phenomenon? Eaglizard 19:26, 30 August 2007 (UTC

The Former Soviet Union ? Albion moonlight 09:48, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well that seems more likely than "Florida State University" lol Thanks Eaglizard 15:58, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually "Florida State University" is more fitting only in context. I was trying to figure what Florida State had to do with the context, until I read the talk page. If editors always provided fully spelled forms for the first mention, readers would not experience such confusion. Richard David Ramsey 20:12, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Jewish question (disambiguation)

"gentiles"

It is no longer scholarly to use such a word "gentiles", or "goy", or "goyim" or "yid", or "negro, or "nigger," for obvious reasons to those who are sensitive to the issues involved. Yet it keeps reappearing in the article. Please discuss the matter here before its re-introduced. Thanx. --Ludvikus (talk) 10:24, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'gentile', however, is not a derogatory term, unlike the other words you listed above.PrinceOfCanada (talk) 20:52, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I've never felt any offense whatever in being called a "gentile" because that is what I am. Nor have I ever known of any intended offense on the part of others, including Jews, in using the term. Besides, we have to communicate using words. If "gentile" or "Gentile" is an epithet, then what word are we supposed to use? Richard David Ramsey 20:18, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

What's wrong with saying non-Jewish? Gentile isn't a particularly offensive word, but it does have some undertones that are a little iffy. Kind of like a non-Jew calling someone a Jew, instead of Jewish. It's accurate, but depending on who's speaking it's slightly rude. --74.93.118.129 (talk) 22:19, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Jewish question

  • In view of the complexity of the issues involved with the juxtaposition of these two terms, I with to propose the above as a projec.
  • Also, I propose that we maintain this Article page as the {{:Main|Jewish question}} page. --Ludvikus (talk) 11:58, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can anyone advize me on the syntax of '''{{:WikiProject Jewish question}}''' (in other words, how does one start such a project)? --Ludvikus (talk) 11:58, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

POV?

What precisely is considered to be non-neutral? Huon (talk) 21:23, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To understand that, start by looking at WP:NPOV --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 21:50, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Huon was asking what in this article is considered to be non-neutral. The "POV" banner says "Please see the discussion on the talk page." Ludvikus placed a "POV" banner on the article without identifying his POV concerns in his edit summary or on this Talk page. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] ([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]]) 00:56, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry, in retrospect I should have made my question clearer. Indeed I meant to ask what part of this article is considered non-neutral. Huon (talk) 13:29, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tags

I switched around the tags a bit. Firstly, I put the expand and cleanup tags once at the top, instead of at the top of almost every section. I also changed the pov tag to a pov check tag. This is more technically accurate as there is no discussion, the point of view cannot truly be said to be "disputed". 24.20.131.232 (talk) 06:43, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Biased Sources

It should be no secret that The Holocaust History Project represents a particular viewpoint on these matters. The translation of Hitler's speech of 30 January 1939 that THHP presents, to which the article links, reflects THHP's agenda, which is to scrape up confirmatory evidence of the Holocaust.

Although the word "annihilation" seems a self-evident translation of Vernichtung based on etymology, in German usage Vernichtung did not normally mean that. It means something more like ruin or dissolution, not reduction to particles. You can determine this by examining other instances when Hitler used the word. For example, in a speech to German workers in 1933 Hitler said:


"Vielleicht wird manche unter ihnen sein, der es nicht verzeihen kann, dass ich die marxistische Partei vernichtete. Aber mein Freund, ich habe die anderen genauso vernichtet." http://www.youtube.com/v/lZQ4yQDIf5k?fs=1&hl=en_US"


"Perhaps there will be many among you who cannot excuse that I destroyed (vernichtete) the marxist party. But my friend, I have destroyed (vernichtet) the other parties just the same."


What Hitler meant in 1933 was not that he had killed all members of "the marxist party," since many former supporters of that party were in the crowd. Consequently it is invalid to use Hitler's January 1939 speech in the Sportpalast as evidence of an intention to kill every Jew.

The Holocaust History Project must be recognized as a biased source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.65.171.204 (talk • contribs) 20:38, December 18, 2010

I disagree. Hitler speaks of the Vernichtung der jüdischen Rasse in Europa - unlike the destruction of a party that cannot be achieved without either killing or banishing the Jews, and banishing them would hardly be called "Vernichtung". Banishment would be Vertreibung der jüdischen Rasse aus Europa. "Destruction of the Jewish race in Europe" would also imply killing them all, wouldn't it? Concerning your proposed translations of "ruin" or "dissolution" - Vernichtung is much stronger than that; it doesn't just imply that the Jewish race will suffer, but that it will cease to exist, just as the Marxist party had ceased to exist (though Hitler didn't have all Marxists killed, and he doesn't speak of the "Vernichtung der Marxisten" either). Huon (talk) 21:20, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Requested move 06 August 2013

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus. --BDD (talk) 23:48, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jewish question → Jewish Question – To conform with scholarly literature (see: "Jewish Question" in Google Books with 355,000 results) as well as the titles of the whole series of Wikipedia articles including the Eastern Question posed by the decay of the Ottoman Empire, the Armenian Question about Armenians, and the Polish Question pertaining to the rebirth of Poland. The capitalization is necessary in order to distinguish between any given question posed by Jews, from the one monumental question posed about Jews in world politics. See also Talk:Armenian Question mentioning this. Relisted. BDD (talk) 16:17, 14 August 2013 (UTC) Poeticbent talk 17:48, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.
  • Oppose per Dicklyon. <Sigh>, if we carried this reasoning through, we'd be capping everything you can take a pot-shot at, like laws, principles, theories, fields of research, and occupations. It's profoundly against our style guidance and practice. Tony (talk) 02:10, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support (as the nominator). Capitalization is for names, and this is the name of the Jewish discussion question. And why exactly, was the Polish Question mentioned in my rationale, unilateraly moved before the end of this discussion without WP:RM? Poeticbent talk 06:45, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The Jewish Question is a name, a proper name, and Google Books n-grams show that the trend towards capitalization has crossed the point where capitalization became more popular in 2008 [2]. --B2C 17:31, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The WP:MOSCAPS criteria for avoiding WP's usual "avoid unnecessary capitalization" rule is, is it "consistently capitalized in sources"? Per Dicklyon the answer seems to be no. Though it's true that the capitalized variation seems to have become more popular recently per Born2Cycle's response, the difference in usage between the two is marginal at best. "Consistently capitalized" is a bit vague but if the "consistently" part of it is going to mean anything it must be the case that there's a more than 51% capitalization requirement. So I think it should be left lowercase unless and until there exists a more overwhelming majority in favor of capitalization. AgnosticAphid talk 17:39, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, this is not a thing, but a Thing, not a question asked by (or generically about) the Jews, but a singular proposition. DeistCosmos (talk) 19:52, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Any additional comments:

Moved response to Hatagalow from survey section:

Here is a book page that will help Smokey Joe understand that he's wrong; it's not a particular debate, but rather a big range of topics. This book also illustrates the fact that a lot of the caps one sees in Google book search in titles and such are followed by lowercase in the text. We don't do caps in titles this way. Dicklyon (talk) 00:13, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dicklyon, could you comment on the other capital Q Question articles mentioned in the nomination? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:43, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have done so at Talk:Armenian Question. Dicklyon (talk) 03:19, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Moved response to Dicklyon from survey section:

  • These two curves are not so widely separated. I think the question is most appropriately phased as "Is the name a proper name". I think that it is reasonable to assume that during the debate, and especially debate was leaning to deny full humanity to Jews, that it was not considered a debate so significant as to be a debate referred to with a proper name. However, in these more enlightened days, with the question almost universally considered a historic debate, and with books trending to be more concerned with presentation of accuracy than author opinion and style, noting here the trend of the last fifty years in the Ngram viewer, I think it is reasonable to now consider the "Jewish Question" to be a proper name. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:18, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The criterion is in MOS:CAPS. If the curves are not widely separated, we use lowercase. It is perfectly reasonable to consider it proper, and treat it as proper, as some authors do, but that's not what WP does unless sources do so reasonably consistently; so far they are nowhere close, barely approaching a tie. Dicklyon (talk) 00:31, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
More on sources.

Smokey, if you look more deeply at usage, using n-grams designed to exclude usages in titles and headings and focus on usages likely to be in sentences, that "trend" you hallucinated goes away: [3], [4]. Try others. This term is clearly still not anywhere near the threshold for being treated as a "proper" whatever. It does not name a particular thing. Authors who capitalize it do so to emphasize it as key element of their work, not because it's a proper name of anything. Dicklyon (talk) 15:30, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Thank you, the best Wikipedians (I am not Jewish)

I would like to thank everyone who has contributed to this article. I have only been reading about the Holocaust (call it what you will) the last few days, of course we read and learned at school. I think these articles are so superbly balanced and impartial that they are a credit to Wikipedia. I learned a lot, and I thought I knew it all.

Thank you once again. A credit to Wikipedia. I am not Jewish. I shouldn't need to say that, it shouldn't matter. But I make it clear in case it sounds partial accidentally. As a Gentile or whatever, I learned a lot of detail I didn't know.

They shall not grow old/ as we that are left grow old. Age shall not weary them/ nor the years condemn. But at the going down of the Sun, and in the morning, we will remember them.

When I go to a rembrance service, I remember everyone who fought for the freedom. Wikipedia exemplifies it. The freedom to be wrong. Without that we are nothing.

Si Trew (talk) 09:33, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Did Jews "solve the Jewish question" in 1948?

Someone could argue that the Jewish question was ultimately "solved" by the foundation of the country of Israel after the Israeli War of Independence in 1948. However, someone else might point out that this move "shifted" the Jewish question to the Mideast, in which case the "solution to the Jewish question" may very well be Israel's well-armed military. Others might argue that it's now the "Palestinian question". However, I have not come across any post-WWII rhetoric on the "Jewish question". Has anybody? — Rickyrab. Yada yada yada 00:40, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the "Jewish question" in the USA, such as it is, might have been "solved" by anti-discrimination legislation in the early 1960s. — Rickyrab. Yada yada yada 00:40, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have never heard the term "Jewish question" applied to post-1948 Israel, and that would be a subject entirely different from the one discussed in this article. Similarly I don't think the term is commonly applied to the context of US anti-discrimination legislation. So there's no reason this article should discuss either post-1948 Israel or the civil rights movement. Huon (talk) 17:58, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jewish_question&oldid=712013948"