Talk:Jew/Archive 16

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 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 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 →

Contents

New Iranian law to require Jews to wear yellow band

article anon

I tried to verify this with other newspapers online but there was none to support it, so I don't believe it is true. Do you have another source to back this up with or is it just a jpost.com assumption? Miskin 17:35, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
This is incorrectly reported in one newspaper and was spread around. The original newspaper corrected the mistake. Jon513 21:49, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

As much as I disaprove of Iran (or any country on earth) developing and using nuclear weapons, it's interesting that Iran is the country which today is most fear-mongered and deamonised as a threat to Israel and Jews (where all types of faux news are disseminated to disparage it), yet, besides Israel, it is the country with the largest Jewish population in the Middle East; a country whose laws require Iranian Jews participate and be represented in the country's parliament; a country whose Islamic leaders hold friendly enounters with its Jewish leaders; a country which holds cultural exchange programmes sending Iranian Jewish groups abroad representing Iran; a country which has requested its dispora Jewish Iranian population return to help develop their country; a country whose Jewish population supports their governments persuit of nuclear enrichment for peacful purposes (ie. to generate nuclear power); a country whose Ayatolla during WWII argued to German Nazis that Iranian Jews were IRANIANS above all else and that the Iranian Jews in European countries for studies or business be spared (and then even provided fake passports to even save some non-Iranian Jews).

Unlike they did to other Mizrahim, the sabotaging European Zionists didn't get the chance to throw bombs at Iranian Jews and create the frenzy of emigration as done to Iraqi Jews. Most emigration from Iran came after the Islamic Revolution of Iran (which like all forms of Islamism I attribute as an unfortunate cause and effect to European Zionism and the creation of Israel), yet even after this, still Jews remain in Iran.

And as much as we all dislike the current Iranian president (I personally don't like him either, a bit too radical for me), neither he nor Iran can honestly be labelled anti-semitic, even after calling for Israel to be "wiped off the map". He did not say Jews should be wiped out, but the unethical morally-bankrupt political entity that is the modern State of Israel. That the modern State of Israel believes itself to be the political representative of world Jewry is another thing, but this is a problem to be dealt with by those who cannot distinguish between Israel and Jews, or who cannot distinguish (or worse, those who deliberately blur) the distinction that should be made between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism. Al-Andalus 14:52, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I think it's safe to say that Iran has no problem allowing Jews to live and work in their country, they just will not allow them to gain a disproportionately prominent influence in governmental and financial fields because they are 'foreigners,' i.e. not ethnic Iranians and above all not Muslims. As you say, they allow them to stay (or let them in) to help with education, computer technology, energy, and science, and to help 'modernize' the country; these Iranian Jews can help VERY MUCH because they are (1) often very educated; and because they are (2) basically forced to assimilate in to mainstream Iranian society (in order to help and contribute to Iranian [and not just Jewish-Iranian] society) or else they will be forced to emigrate for being too 'exclusive' and 'clannish.' This 'forced assimilation' is, if you ask me, good for everyone involved because it lets these Jews help the entire society rather than just improving a separate Jewish-Iranian society. This is important because around the World, in basically whatever country they live in, Jews are and have always been 'a people set apart.' This was often self-imposed segregation, but also sometimes imposed by the larger society (as in the Jewish ghettos found in many manjor European cities, or the Shtetls in Eastern Europe). So, it seems that by reading Al-Andalus, Iranian Jews are either forced to assimilate and contribute to the ENTIRE society or they are forced to leave the country. -172.132.243.219 07:33, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
  • "disproportionately prominent"? - Jmabel | Talk 03:43, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
While I agree with your first paragraph (BTW, the Sultan of Morocco also deserves credit that he does not usually receive for protecting "his" Jews during Nazizeit), we part ways after that. The Iranian Revolution did not happen as a reaction to Zionism: it happened as a reaction to the Shah's repressive regime, and relatively few of the revolutionaries meant to usher in a theocracy. And while I agree that Ahmadinejad called for the destruction of Israel, not of the Jews, the emphasis on the state rather than its people is, to the best of my knowledge, yours, not his. It seems to me that the blurring was his, not that of hostile interpreters. - Jmabel | Talk 20:50, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Actually he never actually said the words "wipe Israel off the map", he was widely misquoted. 82.5.170.18 22:48, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
That would be useful to have a WP:CITE for. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 23:32, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

hi ALL JUST WENT ON A SITE #REDIRECT WWW.JEWWATCH.COM WHAT DO POEPLE MAKE OF THIS SITE

This is not a forum; it is a place to discuss inprovements to the article. Wikipedia accutally has an article about the website - Jew Watch. If you think that there is a problem with that article or something lacking you can either change it yourself or discuss it on the the talk page there. Jon513 18:13, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Category:Anti-Semitic people

Vote They are attempting to close the +cat AGAIN, please vote to KEEP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SirIsaacBrock (talk • contribs)

The vote is now closed, but may I suggest that when people urge other people to participate in a discussion or vote, they should simply urge them to participate, not tell them which side to take. - Jmabel | Talk 20:53, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

This needs to stop. It is abusive and racist. Why must people abuse others because of who they are? It is wrong. Jewish people are no different than anyone else. No person, culture, religion deserves to be treated this way. SilentWind 19:41, 13 June 2006 (UTC)SilentWind

That is for the same reason that israeli-arabs are not given the israeli citizenship in israel. Just because who they are.
Say thanks you have Israeli citizenship and you don't join the IDF. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.178.224.1 (talk • contribs) 16 August 2006.


Israeli-arabs are arabs who have Israeli citizenship. Your senctence contradicts itself. Jon513 17:01, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
The Nazis and the other anti-Semites are abusing as a form of mental masturbation; that's why. 204.52.215.107 17:19, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Maybe they should try and work on the Nazi pages. (Removed personal attack as per WP:NPA.) 66.229.182.113 09:06, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Jews [i]are[/i] different.. they're better :D Dan 08:25, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Are you sure you are not jewish (I'm saying this as a Jew)? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.178.224.1 (talk • contribs) August 16, 2006.
Y'know, I find remarks like that only one step less annoying than anti-Semitic remarks. Why should that not be taken as an insult by every Gentile in the world, in exactly the degree that anti-Semitic remarks are so taken by Jews? - Jmabel | Talk 16:15, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
The same reason "nigger" is insulting but "cracker" isn't. Because one group consistenly freaks out about it and the other group doesn't care about it.--209.30.129.131 20:56, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Um, to be as polite as possible, bullshit. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 01:24, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
    • um, if that's as polite as possible you should learn to try harder.Everett3 06:16, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Sign your comments, dammit! By the way if you were asking me, no I'm not Jewish. I am a native american.SilentWind 23:47, 14 September 2006 (UTC)SilentWind

The Nazi film "the wandering jew" is a nice film. you can find it by searching yahoo video under "jew" Its clearly a propoganda film, but its definitly worht watching.


Anyone who participates in the vandalism of this page and racist remarks towards the jews is acting ignorantly and not considering many points of their argument. Some people cannot accept other people living in a different peaceful manner to them and (rm personal attack as per WP:NPA). And before you ask, no, i am not jewish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.41.73.20 (talk • contribs) 19:40, October 21, 2006

Please refrain from feeding the trolls. Anti-semitism is a terrible thing, but boasting merely incites further anger and frustration. 24.254.82.121 00:41, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I would like to define anti semetism. You become an anti semite rather easily these are a few ways: if u criticise any aspect of any jewish persons beliefs or actions, if u criticise any of the Israeli governments policies or actions, if u question the motive begind a jewish persons actions or beliefs, if u write something like this on wikipedia, if you even think of questioning the number of jews who died in the holocaust or compare any other genocide or human suffering to that of the holocaust, if you feel that the palestinians have the right to their own state and finally if u say that the Jewish lobby in the U.S influences U.S policies you are automatically labelled an anti semite. Hellenicwarrior 06:22, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Nah, that just makes you a troll. Although it wouldn't surprise me if you are also an antisemite. - Jmabel | Talk 09:36, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

There is a very small segment of people who sincerely believe that jewish people are genetically inferior and inherently loathsome, the same people who tend to believe in having eugenic programs to terminate anyone with a physical disability or minority sexual preference. Those bigoted, blood-thirsty people are used as a figurehead and an excuse to cast a racist light over all legitimate and civilized opposition to jewish/zionist lobbying, activism, and militance. Israel is a fascist state, back room lobbying for zionist interests is undemocratic, and opposition to zionism is generally fueled by nothing more than basic pro-democratic pro-freedom pro-peace beliefs. Opposition to israel is as natural as opposition to the occupation of Tibet, and is generally no more fueled by an inherent hatred of jews (rather than the actions of zionists) than defense of Tibet is fueled by racial hatred of the chinese. I've given up a long time ago on having a clear, coherent political opposition to zionism documented on wikipedia for any period of time, but I figured I'd throw my two cents in here, while it lasts. - anonymous coward (70.69.42.228 17:12, 16 January 2007 (UTC))

As we can discern by your principled opposition to the wholesale slaughter of, say, black Muslims by Arabic Muslims in Darfur, for instance, as well as all the other underdogs which you stand up for. Gzuckier 19:05, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
I oppose all tyranny, fascism, and ideologically motivated violence. Race and religion aren't a factor for me. I openly and unabashedly oppose zionist lobbying and militance along with jihadism, christian fundamentalism, and all other fascist, subversive ideologies. It's about defending freedom, peace, and democracy, not opposing a specific race or religion. 70.69.42.228 19:24, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
OK, but that would be easier to believe if there were any actual evidence of these beliefs. I mean, if you feel that "Opposition to israel is as natural as opposition to the occupation of Tibet", then why do I look in vain for your attacks on China's expansionist policies? Gzuckier 20:22, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
I've made myself clear. If you need to believe that anyone who opposes zionism is nothing more than a racist bigot, so be it. 70.69.42.228 20:47, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Not at all; for instance, I'm happy to extend to Jimmy Carter the benefit of the doubt, though I believe his recent book on Israel stretches the facts somewhat, because he's got a clear track record of supporting the underdogs and oppressed, wherever they may be and by whomever. Similarly for your esteemed self; I'd extend to you the same benefit of the doubt, had I any evidence that your concern for the oppressed was not restricted to those oppressed by Jews. This is a simple principle, and widely generalizable in terms of "examining one's own subconscious biases". Gzuckier 21:06, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Again, I've made myself clear. You're obviously suggesting that I have some special opposition to jewish people. I don't. People have a right to criticize zionism and israel, it doesn't mean that they're hateful or inherently anti-jewish. I have jewish friends, some agree that israel is a tyrannical state, others don't see eye to eye with me on this, but it's a political subject, not a matter of personal hatred, at least for me. You really have no idea who I am, what I've written or been involved with in the past, or anything about me, other than the fact that I posted a comment here, today, defending the right to criticize zionism. I think it says a lot about you that you've immediately inferred a void of criticism of other ideologies when in fact you have only a question mark. This concept of limiting criticism to zionism is a prejudice on your part, not mine. Most of my political writings in the last year have been critical of military actions in the mideast by Canada and America. Of late, the last two complaints that I made were about a government funded broadcast organization sponsoring a christian charity, and about the Canadian dairy industry's anticompetitive practices. 70.69.42.228 21:16, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, then, thank you for coming here and informing us that your opposition to Israeli policy is not fueled by an inherent hatred of jews. Gzuckier 17:25, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

South America/Southern Cone

The Jewish population in Brazil is 150,000 people and 300,000 people in Argentina.

editorial comments

in section State of Israel, the following is particularly problematic "In the past decade nearly a million immigrants went to Israel from the former Soviet Union. Many Jews who emigrated to Israel have moved elsewhere, known as yerida ("descent" [from the Holy Land]), due to its economic problems or due to disillusionment with political conditions and the continuing Israeli-Palestinian conflict."

I'm not sure of the intented meaning, but suggest something along the lines of "In the past decade nearly a million Jews immigrated to Israel from the former Soviet Union." Maybe the emphasis should further evolve to "Nearly a million Jews emigrated from the Soviet Union to Israel in the 1990s." assuming that the past decade isn't 1996-2006.

And for the second sentence "Many Jews, known as yerida ("descent" [from the Holy Land]), have emigrated from Israel due to its economic problems or due to disillusionment with political conditions and the continuing Israeli-Palestinian conflict."

Also, the world-wide population totals in the two sections that give them are significantly in disagreement. If the requirement is to preclude original work, perhaps the disagreement can't be eliminated, but perhaps the reasons for the disagreement can be explained. Surely one of the sources of data explains the problem - different methodologies, governments keeping the information a state secret, ethnic vs religious basis for inclusion in the class. Mulp 03:32, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

yerida is the act of emigration from Israel not the people who emigrate. Jon513 15:57, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
It is the inverse of aliyah. - Jmabel | Talk 07:10, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Saying "a million Jews immigrated to Israel from the former Soviet Union" is incorrect. According to Israeli sources, a great proportion of the now net total number of those immigrants (anywhere between a conservative estimate of 30% or extreme one of 50%) were not Jewish in any way; not by halakha, not by the definitions as stipulated for the right of return (which allows for any single jewish grand parent, not only maternal). Official Israeli government statitians figures state that in the last years of the influx, well over 50% that were still entering were not Jewish. Many had forged documents to state Jewishness so as to enter Israel, others entered with Jewish spouses most of whom were themselves Jewish only by the law of return (ie. still not halakhically Jewish), and along with them came many step children of current or previous spouses. It's still a major controversy in Israel.
Again, in the haste of beefing up the population in the demographic war, the major calamity has been the influx of anti-semites among the Russian "Jews". There have been exposes in the Israeli media. You can find one such in Haaretz. Al-Andalus 01:53, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
I see a number of credible references for your claim that many immigrating Russians had no valid claim, even under the apartheid laws of Israel. Zionism wanted soldiers and settlers, Russians (and even Peruvians practically from the jungle) would do.
And some of these people have become distinctly anti-semitic. eg [1] "Reports of anti-Semitic acts have turned into a regular feature in Israeli newspapers, mainly Russian-language ones. The movement "Dmir – Assistance in Absorption" has carried out an investigation of the problem and found that the scourge of anti-Semitism had penetrated the society fabric much deeper than predicted in most grim estimates."
And that's on top of the endemic racism of Israel eg [2] "I have heard countless racial slurs, talked to Ethiopian youth about their experiences, .... I am appalled by a Jewish homeland which secretly throws out untested Ethiopian blood for fear of AIDS. I am ashamed of a Jewish people which prevents an Ethiopian child from going to school with other Israeli children."
Zionists all over the place (including WP) claim that Iraqi Jews have flourished, but that's not what they themselves have often claimed, check out the Israeli Black Panthers, 1972: "One of the most splendid and rich communities [in Iraq] was destroyed, its members reduced to indigents - a community that ruled over most of the resources of Iraq was turned into a ruled group, discriminated against and oppressed in every aspect [in Israel]. A community that prided itself on its scholarship subsequently produced fewer academics, in Israeli universities, than it brought with it from Iraq."
(And on top of the fact that Israel is the most dangerous place on earth to be Jewish!). PalestineRemembered 23:18, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Why Use The Menorah as an Icon?

Forgive me for not reading fifteen archived discussions, but how did we come to settle for the menorah as one of two icons of Judaism? The Star of David seems to be universally accepted as a symbol of Judaism. Hannukkah is a minor holiday. Should the Christianity pages have a picture of a Christmas tree next to the Cross? It's about as logical.

There is a difference between the Menorah (with 7 branches) and the Hanukkiyah (with 9 branches) which is mistakenly called a Menorah as well. --TheYmode 12:12, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
The menorah has at least as long a history as the magen david. I read somewhere that its use as a symbol might be derived from the ancient 'tree of life', which is depicted on Hasmonean currency. AFAIK Magen David's first explicitly jewish use is in a 14th-century banner of the Prague Jewish community. Nomist 23:46, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
However, I believe its inclusion in the Israeli flag, among other things, gives it a fair share of significance.
The official symbol of Israel is the menorah depicted on the Arch of Titus in Rome, which was looted from the Temple in the sack of Jerualem, 7OCE. It therefore represents the restoration of the State of Israel. Marshall46 23:23, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
True. When you really think about it, there's not really any international symbol representing the Jewish people. Of course, you can look on what's good about it: at least it's not a dridel, which is a very minor subject in Hebrew culture, even minor in Hanukkah. Plus, it would give a sign that "Jews were gamblers" and "Jews love money", which is a false represntation.

Leopard Gecko 01:28, 26 July 2006 (UTC)User: Leopard Gecko

why no mention of terrorist attacks

why there is no mention of terrorists attacks on jews. even on other articles like jews in India, it mentions about persecution of jews and hindus in India by Islamic organisations like Lashkar-e-Toiba, who claim hindus and jews to be enemies of islam.

i m looking for any criticism on this proposal and it must mention about terrorism in Indian subcontinent too. nids 10:32, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I think there's no mention of terrorist attacks here because it's a specific form of violence against a people that is better handled in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, or perhaps in a page on terrorism... this article already has a Persecution section, which I think is good enough. Terrorism has nothign to do with the basic concept of Jew (or Judaism). Just my two cents. User:Ztrawhcs 17:03, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

well, israel palestine conflicts basically targets the terrorism against a nation which has majority of jews. i would love to have a article here which also states that jews are one of the worst communities affected by terrorism along with Hindus in this contemporary world. the persecution of jews just highlights the past histories. i think it is relevant if i or u add a section here for the worst islamic terrorist affected communities. this section should go beyond israel and mention about say india, or any other muslim majority area where they still face terrorism.nids 18:13, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

It's true that terrorism affects certain groups more than others, but note that the big islamic terrorist groups have stated that their goal is to wage war against, well, pretty much everyone. (Obviously that's an exaggeration but you get my point.) How do we determine which articles should be updated to reflect terrorist attacks against their people? Seems like a slippery slope. Ztrawhcs 20:51, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

You might want to take a look at some of the following articles: Persecution of Jews, Anti-Semitism, History of anti-Semitism, New anti-Semitism, Terrorism, Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Arab-Israeli conflict, Religious terrorism, and State-sponsored terrorism. MarkBuckles 01:36, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, none of those articles really talks in detail about terrorism against the Jewish people -- but Terrorism_against_Israel does an excellent job of discussing the generals, and Al-Aqsa_Intifada does a horrifically completely job of documenting the specifics. Ztrawhcs 18:22, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

all these articles are fine and most of them are history. what i want in this article is that just mention that jews are one of the two most terrorist affected communities. and as for the Ztrawhcs view, i must like to point out that they grew in patronage of US and Britain only. its only recently that they have said that everyone is there enemy. as for Jews and Hindus, they are the enemies of Islam since the birth of latter. nids 18:49, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Where is this enemies of Islam and random insertion of hindus coming from? It really has NOTHING to do with the Jewish people. You wouldn't find information of the Chechnya crisis in the 'muslim' page. Same way it shouldn't be mentioned over here --204.92.192.254 14:23, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

the term "jew"

jews are not an ethnic group. anyone who believes otherwise is deluded by biblical mythology. - a rational atheist.

many older Jewish people consider the term "Jew" to be derogatory, much like "black" would be used to refer to Black people or African American people. i recommend changing the lead in to "Jew, which is vernacular for a member of the Jewish People, is an abbreviation of Jewish person, and is sometimes considered derogatory if used maliciously" --- or something like that. I also agree with this user, it is rather offensive, and it should be removed immediatly. Thanks, bobsmith319.

anyways, it offends me unless it has that disclaimer —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.38.207.112 (talk • contribs) 8 August 2006. Oemb1905 16:06, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


  • Well, except its not an abbreviation, and it's not vernacular. I'm a Jew and I'm proud of it, and if you're not proud of it, I'm sorry for you. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 00:33, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Why are you proud?217.85.110.248 19:29, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I am proud to be a Jewish person, or a Jew, or whatever else. I find it odd that you have no pre-holocaust fmaily members who agree with this? Have you ever asked? It is perhaps old-fashioned, but should be mentioned. "Jew" is slang for Jewish person. Analagously to how "black" is slang for a black person. In academic writing, such as this, it would not be considered appropriate to use "Jew" or "Jews" as the subject or agent of action. Jewish people would be much more appropriate. Oemb1905 16:39, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Perhaps, perhaps not. At any rate, it's been frequently debated here and consensus has consistantly been to leave it as "Jew". --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:53, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • "Jew" is no more slang than "German", "Armenian", etc. If you claim otherwise, provide a citable reference. - Jmabel | Talk 17:45, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

The word Jew as it is used on this page is to refer to, "Generally, in modern secular usage, Jews include three groups: people who practice Judaism and have a Jewish ethnic background (sometimes including those who do not have strictly matrilineal descent), people without Jewish parents who have converted to Judaism; and those Jews who, while not practicing Judaism as a religion, still identify themselves as Jewish by virtue of their family's Jewish descent and their own cultural and historical identification with the Jewish people." I guess my problem is that there is an unintentional POV in here. First of all, yehudim is the Hebrew word to refer to the tribe of Judah, which unlike Israel (the Northern alliance), did not survive the onslaught of the Assyrians in approximately 730 BC. Judah, which survived until approximately 585 BC, and then was allowed to return by the 'enlightened' Persian government on or around the 530s. The period of the Great Assembly follows which is about 300 years long from 535 BC to 235 BC. At this point, Greek culture had taken over for Persians and others. First Alexander the Great, then the Seleucid dynasty (one of his descendant dynasties). The Jews were largely centered around Jerusalem until approximately 135 AD, after Jonathan the Maccabbee (also, Alexander Janneus), succeeded in expanding Judaea (the Roman word for the land of the tribe of Judah), to Solomon and David proportions. That is, he conquered Idumaea and parts of modern day Lebanon and Jordan. The Maccabees lasted from about 165 BC to either 65 BC, or 135 CE, depending who you ask. The difficulty lay in the fact that the traditional Maccabee line lost a civil war to Herod the Great (a Jewish convert from Idumaea), on or around the turn of the century. Nevertheless, the Agrippa's, as they have been so called by historians, are descendants of Herod and a Maccabee princess, so for that reason some claim the line remained until 135 CE. Now, of course the Romans were obsessed with keeping control in their empire so they crushed two rebellions by Jews who no longer favoured Herod and Josephus lines of compromise, which involved basically being a Roman vassal. They revolted because being a Roman vassal involved compromising certain rituals, and this was not unlike what had happened six or seven generations before, when Matthais Hasmon started the Maccabee revolt. Unfortunately for the Jewish people, where the Seleucids were in steady decline by the time of Matthais Hasmon, the Romans were not, and as a result both revolts were relatively easily conquered by the Roman legions. The exception being Mossad (? brain fart here), which lasted from 132-135 under siege. Point being, the term Jew is a modern term used by historians from Josephus to the present to refer to the tribe of Judah which survived the exile, the Greeks, and the Romans, and many later oppressors such as Hitler. The term "Yiddish" is cognate with Judaea, the term "Juden" is cognate with Judaea, the term "Jew" is cognate with "Judaea," the term "Yid," is cognate with Judaea. That is, the term predominately refers to the people of the land of Judaea, or in Hebrew, the bene Israel, the tribe of Judah. Jew = the tribe of Judah. The rabbinical authorities, however, who practise what is referred to in historical treatises, as "rabbinical judaism," is an "-ism" of the "Jew," or an "ism" of the Jewish people, as it were. That is, it is the religion commonly associated with the Jewish people. But not exclusively ...., that is why there is the Samaritan, Karaite, and more recently, attempts at making there a Ethiopian and Chinese heresy, by denying entry to these people. Nevertheless, the rabbinical Jews have not won in the heresies of old, nor have they won in the so-called heresies of today, since any Jewish person is allowed to migrate to Israel. Thus, we see that Israel also, favors the definition of a Jew, as a Jewish person, or a person from the tribe of Judah. That is the base line for being Jewish.

With that said, a note on converts. Because the rabbinical Jews were more succesful at surviving the holocaust (notably, the yeshiva that was transported to Ney York ____?), they have in many ways, reinterpreted the pre-holocaust terms in their own, religously biased fashion, using the term Jew to mean a Chasidic, most likely Germanic influenced, ashkenazi Jewish person's religion. Not Samaritanism, not Karaitism, nor any of the other phenotypes of Juda-isms that exist, but merely their own. Because of their notable presence on rabbincal alliances and such (the closest we have to modern day Talmud Torah or a functioning Bet Din), they have hi-jacked the term to mean only rabbinical Jews instead of Jewish people. Because of this use, which is now unfortunately accepted in some circles, converts can be both called non-Jews or Jews depending on our definition of the term. In my opinion, because the terms are both represented by the same word, at least in vernacular, the converts have as much right as anyone else to call themseleves Jews. On the other hand, in such forums as this, in academia, we should be clear as to how the term evolved, what it means, and why we use it the way we do.

Another point. German is a hand picked word from the Bismark era which was chosen particularly because it lacked Prussian and other biases, that many nationalistic terms of the day had. Thus, it is unlikely that it would offend any except the most post-modern types (joke). But the real point is this, it is a term for the people of Germany, a land. If the term Jew, had exclusively meant a person from the tribe of Israel, throughout history (which I would have preferred), then it would not be odd to say Jew for any Jewish person. But precisely because it refers to the land and the religion (which are sometimes exclusive), and since it has been used as a term of abuse for rabbinical Jews, it cannot be used so simply. First of all, a Jew (the religion) is not necessarily a Jew (the people), and a Jew (the people) is not necessarily a Jew (the religion). Secondly, a Jewish person passes by some gentiles on the way to synagogue, and some of the gentiles (in this hypothetical case, they are prejudiced), say "oh, it is another one of those Jews, you know the Jesus killers," or some other such nonsense. That is, in this context (a context I have personally experienced), the term takes on the meaning of slander. That is, it became a bad word. Similarly, "Jew em down," for lowering the price. Or, "Jew-Boy," for Jewish people who assimilate and then are later found to be different, to be a Jewish person, or a Jew. Thus, the term has been abused to the point that is sometimes a slanderous term. In my opinion, it never offends me. However, if you call my grandmother a Jew, she will slap you, and I won't defend you (and please don't try to say she is not proud, believe me, she is ...). (ok, this grandmother part, though true, is a JOKE).

I guess I just think there should be less POV as far as rabbinical Jews are concerned, more emphasis on the cultural sensitivities of holocaust generation people and survivors themselves, and at the very least some type of mention of this whole issue as I have framed it, because I think the Who Is a Jew section is week, and not formal. It should be called, for formal reasons, Who Is a Jewish Person? That is, it is both insensitive to use the term Jew to some Jewish people and it is also, grammatically speaking, the less formal use, or an abbreviation, which is not appropriate in this context. IMHO ...

Jonathan Matthew Haack

Oh, source texts. The Talmud, The Essential Talmud (Steinsaltz), The History of the Jews (Paul Johnson), Ancient Israel (Michael Grant), Jewish Customs ? (Michael Asheri), The Tanak, Reconstrucionist Judaism (Aryeh Kaplan), numerous prayer book introductions both orthodox, English consevative, and others.

Oemb1905 15:38, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I hardly know how to reply to most of this, but on some points:
  1. "a Chasidic, most likely Germanic influenced, ashkenazi Jewish person's religion"? Are you saying that Karl Marx, Joseph Adler, Sigmund Freud, and I are Chasidim? Surely you don't believe that.
  2. Are you suggesting that Karaites were very numerous in the 1930s and had a particular die-off in the Holocaust? or is your use of "Holocaust" (or "Karaites") as idiosyncratic as your use of "Chasidic"?
  3. I assure you that "German" and "Germany" were common English terms long before Bismarck. They simply did not refer to a state. They referred, respectively to a region and to a people roughly as well-defined (or ill-defined) as the Jews.
  4. "a Jew (the religion) is not necessarily a Jew (the people)…" Of course. Has anyone except the occasional anti-Semitic troll disagreed with that?
  5. The existence of anti-Semites is no more a reason to stop calling ourselves Jews than the existence of racists is a reason for black people to start calling themselves mauve. Believe me, if we started calling ourselves "the Children of Abraham" or "the Hebrews" in common parlance tomorrow, it would take about 30 minutes for the anti-Semitic rhetoric to adjust accordingly.
If you feel I've missed your essential point, perhaps you could state it more succinctly. This was a bit much to slog through. - Jmabel | Talk 20:24, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

1. Ok, try to breathe. Ashkenazi means Eastern European Jewish people. Yes, they were ashkenazi. No, they were not chasidic. 2. I said nothing of the sort. Advice: try to keep the history lesson separate from the present. 3. Really? Even before it existed? Recall the Holy Roman Empire, the Prussian Empire, and the Austro-Hungarian Empires. Also, in the last part you say that Germany refers to a region and people well defined or ill defined as Jews. (Gasp) Um, were you thinking of the pale of settlement?, because I don't think anyone claims that the terms Germany and German refer to Jews and the areas of the Jews ... 4. You only quoted it one way. The other way exposes a pov in the article. Namely, the article is biased towards rabbinical Jews. Take the third type of Jew in the article. First Jewish phenotype in the article = rabbinical Jewish person. Second Jewish phenotype in the article = a convert to rabbinical Juda-ism. Third Jewish phenotype in the article = someone who DESPITE not practicing RABBINICAL JUDAISM can STILL call themselves a Jew because they DESCEND from Jewish people and because of THEIR OWN historical and cultural identification with the Jewish people. ------- I am not a rabbinical Jewish person and do not thereby practice the forms of the religion handed down from the chasidics, mishnagdim, Lubovich or any other of those German / Polish based sects. I am not a convert, and I have a Jewish mother, so number two doesn't apply. Also, I am in no way "still" calling myself a Jew "despite" not practicing rabbinical Juda-ism, nor am I pulling my own sense of being Jewish out of the air, or defining my own cultural or historical relationship - period. I am Jew because I am born into the tribe of Judah. We are a race of people from that land! The people from the land and tribe of Judah. Where is that in the article? Huh? (gasp and sarcasm) Secondly, like i would ever need to "still" feel Jewish "despite" not doing something the "rabbinical" jewish people do. PLEASE! This bias largely stems from the accidental canonization of the Talmud through the printing press. The concept of Talmud Torah, however, is that the explanation of the Torah never stops, never ends. The rabbinical authorities, or wikipedia for that matter, cannot decide that all Jewish people who are not rabbincal or converts are thereby touchy feely philosopher Jews who define their own cultural and historical relationship. SO we would deem me "still" Jewish "despite" my not agreeing with their dogma. No way. I am a non-rabbincal Jewish person, who is not a convert, and am plenty practicing and religious according to our shared history, interpreted equally well, but differently from the rabbincal Jewish people that dominate the scene post-holocaust. And yet I still go to shul as a form of compromise and as a forum to argue this in, and to make changes with. Read the "Triumph of Survival" to get a picture of how living the debate was between different sects of Jewish people before the Holocaust. Lastly, we are not semites. Semites are who we, and the Arabs, descend from. Anti-Jewish is preferred in many academic circles as the term semite was coined arbitrarily by a historian in Germany to designate a pre-modern day people. This argument, however, is only beginning. 5. The point is that it is a slang or informal term. (The old generation's misgivings, however, should also be addressed).

My statements are very clear, if a little casual and rushed. If you are looking for an easy answer, get the same history book you used to help on the article.

Yonatan ben Yisrael - STILL a JEW DESPITE not practicing JUDAISM. (laugh). phenotype 3.

Just as a comment supporting what Oemb1905 said at the very beginning. The term Jew can be used in a very derogatory manner, even dictionaries often make note of this.
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.0.1)
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.
Jew  /dʒu/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[joo] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun 1. one of a scattered group of people that traces its descent from the Biblical Hebrews or from postexilic adherents of Judaism; Israelite.
2. a person whose religion is Judaism.
3. a subject of the ancient kingdom of Judah.
–adjective 4. Offensive. of Jews; Jewish.
–verb (used with object) 5. (lowercase) Offensive. to bargain sharply with; beat down in price (often fol. by down).
Usage Note
It is widely recognized that the attributive use of the noun Jew, in phrases such as Jew lawyer or Jew ethics, is both vulgar and highly offensive. In such contexts Jewish is the only acceptable possibility. Some people, however, have become so wary of this construction that they have extended the stigma to any use of Jew as a noun, a practice that carries risks of its own. In a sentence such as There are now several Jews on the council, which is unobjectionable, the substitution of a circumlocution like Jewish people or persons of Jewish background may in itself cause offense for seeming to imply that Jew has a negative connotation when used as a noun.
(Download Now or Buy the Book) The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
jew (j) Pronunciation Key
tr.v. Offensiv. jewed, jew·ing, jews
To bargain shrewdly or unfairly with. Often used with down.
To haggle so as to reduce (a price). Often used with down.


[From Jews' supposedly extortionate practices as moneylenders in the Middle Ages.]
(Download Now or Buy the Book) The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
Notice the mention under the Usage Note, it is described that "Jew lawyer" or "Jew ethics" are both vulgar and highly offensive phrases. Yet, it explains how some people due to this construction take offense at any use of Jew as a noun, which the dictionary claims can carry risks, as well. I think this point was actually illustrated by an above commentor who said "Why? Are you not proud to be a Jew?" when Oemb1905 said the term "Jew" can be offensive.
Since a dictionary gives such extensive explanations and definitions to the offensive use of the word Jew, I think something about the term's tricky nature, and the thin brightline between offensive and unobjectionable usage should be made, as Oemb1905 suggested.
  • Like has been there all along[3]? It was there higher up in the article, and someone moved it into the "notes" section earlier this year. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:19, 10 September 2006 (UTC)


  • The dictionary cited makes it abundantly clear that while the use of the word "Jew" as an adjective is usually offensive (as in "he got himself a Jew lawyer") while the noun is perfectly neutral and descriptive (as in "the lawyer he got was a Jew"). It's one of those quaint little corners of the English language that you don't think about until it gets pointed out to you, but I think I would have to agree with the lexicographer who wrote that entry that the adjective sounds offensive while the noun doesn't.

Note that in general a word's being offensive is no reason not to use it, but it might be a good idea to document how it came to be offensive, which people commonly consider it offensive, and so on.

Population data

Population data - 18 million, 12 million 13-14.6 million - sources? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 159.105.80.92 (talk • contribs) 11 August 2006.


Anti-Semetic (rm personal attack, as per WP:NPA)

(Removed personal attack, as per WP:NPA) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.135.229.7 (talk • contribs) .

On Wikipedia we try to be as civil as possible to everyone, even to those that vandalise pages. We assume, whenever possible, that they are just testing how a wiki works, and encourage them to make more productive edits in the future. Jon513 19:22, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, and that's why Wikipedia has such a great deal of vandalism; half of the editors (rm personal attack, per WP:NPA) who don't understand the psychology behind vandalism and seem to think that playing nice and giving 50 (yes, I've seen that many) warnings without a perma-ban will make things better. On the other hand, whining about it on a talk page doesn't help much either. 24.126.199.129 10:52, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Different people have different threshold of tolerance and sensitivities vary wildly. Often admins are accused in heavyhandedness. We are all volunteers here, why don't you register and help. ←Humus sapiens ну? 11:05, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Is it legal for us to encourage skinheads? Wouldn't that make us condoners or abetters of those who violate the civil rights of some of our wiki community members? Isn't that a federal crime since 1964? Or do those laws not apply here? Just curious, really. {{subst:unsigned|Oemb1905|24 August 2006}

Not sure I follow your logic here. (1) Who is encouraging? (2) Most skinheads are not racist skins. (3) Being civil even to people who ought to be banned is perfectly OK, just so long as it doesn't interfere with banning them. (4) Legality doesn't enter the question anywhere as far as I can see. What on earth are you referring to with "Isn't that a federal crime since 1964?" The 1964 Civil Rights Act? How? - Jmabel | Talk 20:12, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Russian Revolution

Is this the right article to dicsuss Marxism and Russian Revolution in which Jewish Marxists were the main driving force and exterminated tens of millions of ethnic Russians. Or is this subject a taboo? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.247.44.253 (talk • contribs) 15 August 2006.

This is a common antisemitic accusation. The 1917 October Revolution was not an ethnic or religious affair, it was based on class warfare. There were more Jewish Mensheviks and even more Bundists than Jewish Bolsheviks, and the proportion of Jews persecuted by the Soviet Communism is no less that that of ethnic Russians. See History of the Jews in Russia and the Soviet Union or better yet, do some serious reading. ←Humus sapiens ну? 22:06, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
(after edit conflict) Nothing on wikipedia is "taboo", but there is plenty that is unverifiable or biased. I don't know anything about the topic you are talking about but I doubt very much the Jewishness of these people was the driving force behind their (alleaged?) killings. Unless there was a large (greater than at least 10,000) group of Jews (without many non-Jews mixed in) involved or the actions were based on Judaism, the fact that they were Jewish seems like trivia. Not everything that every Jew ever did reflects on the history of the Jews. Jon513 22:10, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Makes sense. Then why does entire German nation has to apologize for what Nazi's did, and why do all Whites in America are made to feel guilty for slavery by the media and the government? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.247.44.253 (talk • contribs) 15 August 2006.
Please direct your abstract questions someplace else, WP is not an internet forum. WP Talk pages are here to improve WP. ←Humus sapiens ну? 23:26, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


The Soviet government, or "Council of People's Commissars' (also known as the "Sovnarkom") was made up of the following:


Chairman V.I. Ulyanov (Lenin) - Russian

Foreign Affairs G.V. Chicherin - Russian

Nationalities J. Dzhugashvili [Stalin] Georgian

Agriculture Protian Armenian

Economic Council Lourie (Larin) - Jew

Food Supply A.G. Schlikhter - Jew

Army and Navy [Military] L.D. Bronstein (Trotski) - Jew

State Control K.I. Lander - Jew

State Lands Kaufmann - Jew

Works [Labor] V. Schmidt - Jew

Social Relief E. Lilina (Knigissen) - Jew

Education A. Lunacharsky - Russian

Religion Spitzberg - Jew

Interior Apfelbaum [Radomyslski] (Zinoviev) - Jew

.Hygiene Anvelt - Jew

Finance I. E. Gukovs [and G. Sokolnikov] - Jew

Press Voldarski [Goldstein] - Jew

Elections M.S. Uritsky - Jew

Justice I.Z. Shteinberg - Jew

Refugees Fenigstein - Jew

Refugees Savitch (Assistant) - Jew

Refugees Zaslovski (Assistant) - Jew

Out of these 22 "Sovnarkom" members, there were three Russians, one Georgian, one Armenian, and 17 - Jews.


The Central Executive Committee, was made up of the following members:

Y. M. Sverdlov [Solomon] (Chairman) - Jew

Avanesov (Secretary) Armenian

Bruno - Latvian

Breslau - Latvian [?]

Babtchinski - Jew

N. I. Bukharin - Russian

Weinberg - Jew

Gailiss - Jew

Ganzberg [Ganzburg ] - Jew

Danichevski - Jew

Starck German

Sachs - Jew

Scheinmann - Jew

Erdling - Jew

Landauer - Jew

Linder - Jew

Wolach Czech

S. Dimanshtein - Jew

Encukidze Georgian

Ermann - Jew

A. A. Ioffe - Jew

Karkhline - Jew

Knigissen - Jew

Rosenfeld (Kamenev) - Jew

Apfelbaum (Zinoviev) - Jew

N. Krylenko - Russian

Krassikov - Jew

Kaprik - Jew

Kaoul - Latvian

Ulyanov (Lenin) - Russian

Latsis - Jew

Lander - Jew

Lunacharsky - Russian

Peterson - Latvian

Peters - Latvian

Roudzoutas - Jew

Rosine - Jew

Smidovitch - Jew

Stoutchka - Latvian

Nakhamkes (Steklov) - Jew

Sosnovski - Jew

Skrytnik - Jew

L. Bronstein (Trotsky) - Jew

Teodorovitch - Jew [?]

Terian - Armenian

Uritsky - Jew

Telechkine - Russian

Feldmann - Jew

Fromkin - Jew

Souriupa - Ukrainian

Tchavtchevadze - Georgian

Scheikmann - Jew

Rosental - Jew

Achkinazi - Imeretian [?]

Karakhane - Karaim [Karaite]

Rose - Jew

Sobelson (Radek) - Jew

Schlichter - Jew

Schikolini - Jew

Chklianski - Jew

Levine-(Pravdine) - Jew


Thus, out of 61 members, five were Russians, six were Latvians, one was a German, two were Armenians, one was a Czech, one was an Imeretian, two were Georgians, one was a Karaim, one. was a Ukrainian, and 41 were - Jews.


The Extraordinary Commission of Moscow (Cheka) 'the Soviet secret police and predecessor of the GPU, the NKVD and the KGB was made up of the following:

F. Dzerzhinsky (Chairman) - Pole

Y. Peters (Deputy Chairman) - Latvian

Chklovski - Jew

Kheifiss - Jew

Zeistine - Jew

Razmirovitch - Jew

Kronberg - Jew

Khaikina - Jew

Karlson - Latvian

Schaumann - Latvian

Leontovitch - Jew

Jacob Goldine - Jew

Galperstein - Jew

Kniggisen - Jew

Katzis - Latvian

Schillenkuss - Jew

Janson - Latvian

Rivkine - Jew

Antonof - Russian

Delafabre - Jew

Tsitkine - Jew

Roskirovitch - Jew

G. Sverdlov (Brother of president of the Central Executive Committee) - Jew

Biesenski - Jew

J. Blumkin (Count Mirbach's assassin) - Jew

Alexandrovitch (Blumkin's accomplice) - Russian

I. Model - Jew

Routenberg - Jew

Pines - Jew

Sachs - Jew

Daybol - Latvian

Saissoune - Armenian

Deylkenen - Latvian

Liebert - Jew

Vogel - German

Zakiss - Latvian


Of these 36 Cheka officials, one was a Pole, one a German, one an Armenian, two were Russians, eight were Latvians, and 23 were - Jews. --Jparu 19:19, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

70 Jews do not represent a large portion of the Jewish People, I don't see how this is relavant on this page at all. Perhaps it would be better if you took this discussion to Russian Revolution (i am not sure which one you are refering to). Keep in mind that dispite what you wrote above you have fail to cite sources. Also note that you also need to quote (with a source to that quote) a notable scholar to interpret these facts if you state or imply that their jewishness is anything more than trivia. Jon513 20:12, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Asking to quote the sources on that the Marxist leadership in Russia was overwhelmengly Jewish, is like asking to quote the sources on that American Presidents were American presidents. Do you need a source to prove that Franklin Delano Roosevelt was a US president? It is all widely known, generations of people grew up knowing all these names from propaganda movies, media and history books. Let's be sane. --Jparu 21:06, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
These lists were actively advertized by the Nazis and may be found in practically every antisemitic publication in Russia in the post-Communism times - surely it is very convenient to blame the Jews for all the injustices of the Soviets. Jparu, I challenge you to show us similar lists for 1949.
It is not a secret that the Tsarist regime severely persecuted Jews, so not surprisingly many of them joined the revolutionary movements of all kinds - from Jewish Bund (which outnumbered the Bolsheviks: see the 1st Congress of the RSDLP) to Mensheviks to Zionism. Millions of Russian Jews emigrated, mostly to the US.
I think what Jon513 meant was: is there any evidence that the persons on your list exclusively "exterminated tens of millions of ethnic Russians" and did some good to the Jews? AFAIK, they just as happily sent Jews to the Lubyanka and to the Gulag. ←Humus sapiens ну? 10:04, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
These lists were actively advertized by the Nazis and may be found in practically every antisemitic publication in Russia in the post-Communism times - surely it is very convenient to blame the Jews for all the injustices of the Soviets.
- Or is it the Khazars' tribe headed by the Rothschilds klan? Do you even know who you are? --Min306 17:42, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
WP is not an internet forum. See what WP Talk pages are here for. ←Humus sapiens ну? 20:56, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Anonymi

They have not been able to edit this article since July 1st -- over 1 month. Is this really the "encyclopedia anyone can edit?" Liu Bei 04:01, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

This page has repeatedly been the target of constant anonomous vandalism. When the page is semi-protect it drasticly cuts down on the ammount of vandalism. While I would rather the not be protected at all, considering how few quality edits are made by anons I think that semi-protection for this article makes a lot of sense. Jon513 04:19, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
The policy appears to disagree with you: Semi-protection should not be used: to prohibit anonymous editing in general. Liu Bei 17:02, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
bring it up at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection#Current requests for unprotection. Jon513 18:52, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

The Jews were eventually banned as a distinct party shortly after the forming of the Soviet Republic because of the concerns you bring up. Many Jews voluntarily stopped identifying with that part of their ancestry in order to shape a new communist country. Many of the old timers, such as Trotsky, were shot and killed later on for they favored, arguably, a more sincere form of Marxism. Nevertheless, it is precesiley because the Jewish Party was banned in the 30s, that this argument (that the Jews "exterminated millions of ethnic Russians") holds no weight.

Secondly, directing newcomers to an article on how to discuss this matter is of no help. It would be much better to provide a link to wherever I can discuss this further.

Oemb1905 21:52, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Huh? The Jews were "banned as a distinct party shortly after the forming of the Soviet Republic" because a Wikipedia page was blocked? Am I missing something here? - Jmabel | Talk 22:05, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
There was no Jewish Party. There were Bund and Yevsektsiya. ←Humus sapiens ну? 05:04, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

The above is probably similarly to the Armenian genocide spam generator. EamonnPKeane 21:01, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Delist this as GA

For the same reasons this site should not be anti any religion, it should not be pro any religion either, listing this page as a Good Article only encites anti semitism and while it's a site that has good structure and rich content, it is clearly not encyclopedic and has a lot of content that's historically been written in very different manners across history and the world, this content borders on propaganda. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sentinel28 (talk • contribs) .

Listing Jew as a "good article" shouldn't be taken as an endorsement of the religion -- only as recognition of the hard work a large number of editors have put into what they feel is the best possible, fair presentation. Beyond that, could you please be a little more specific? What in particular poses a problem, and is there any reason why you or someone else can't fix it? Creating is preferable to destroying; fixing is preferable to breaking. Either way, thanks for your time. Luna Santin 14:25, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

This is a disappointing and petty response, to ask to "fix" rather than simply delist this as a Good Article, is similar to saying to Hussein, Iran, Hezbollah, or Al-Qaeda, "Your information is sending the wrong message, please change it," and their reply being "OK, go ahead and fix it." Are you asking that I completely rewrite this page? Obviously that's very petty and kniving. I don't think cultural, ethnic, or religious pride pages are wrong, but they don't belong to this project, I strongly encourage this page delisted as a good article, it falls well short of those standards and only encites typical behavior.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sentinel28 (talk • contribs) .

Hi sentinel, please sign your posts by typing four ~'s ~~~~ after your comment, it makes it easier to know who said what.
I am not 100% sure based on your post that you know exactly how Wikipedia works. Wikipedia is a wiki meaning that anyone can make changes, and are encouraged to do so. There is no one in charge of any given article, though some users focus on different areas. The people who upkeep wikipedia are volunteers. No one gets paid for editing an article. When Luna Santin recommended that you change the article yourself she (he?) was not being rude, just describing how a wiki works.
If you have found some problem with the article we welcome you to point it out so we can fix it. You have said that the article is "borders on propaganda" and is a "religious pride page" , but that hardly gives anyone a direction to take to fix it. If you think that the article requires a complete rewrite why not tell us how you think that article should be structured and we can talk about it. If you think there is a problem with the tone of the article, tell us how you see such an article being written. If you have problem with a particular paragraph, tell us why. If you think it is not a good article, tell us which of the criteria it fails to meet.
The reason no one has "fixed" this article for you is because you have not said what you think it wrong. I have read the article and think that is a good article. We welcome constructive criticism and hope that you can tell us how to improve it. Jon513 18:48, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying, thank you for the note on the tildes, but I think you've drifted from the original intent of the post. I think too much work has been put in to this page to "fix" it without radically changing almost every piece of it. That is why I suggest that it simply be not listed as a Good Article. I am trying to appeal to the intelligence of those who have helped author this article, enjoy it, continue to build it, but recognize that it does not adhere to GA standards (please don't ask why, if you can't recognize it you've been blinded by ethnocentrism or other foolhardy humanities), and let's not corrupt or dilute the GA quality of this project with this article. Sentinel28 21:42, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

You can start a discussion at Wikipedia:Good articles/Disputes. However, I think that it is unlikely to be delisted if you cannot expalin why you feel that it should. Jon513 22:09, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Sentinel28, I am intrigued. just so we can keep assume good faith, could you explain plainly what do you think is wrong with the article? ←Humus sapiens ну? 03:33, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Indian Jews

Admin plz add Indian Jews and/or Desi Jews to the "See Also" section of the article for the sake of completeness.Hkelkar 05:18, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Why are you asking an admin to make this edit for you? - Jmabel | Talk 04:16, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Jewish WIKIVERSITY

NEW: On Wikiversity there is now a "Jewish Studies School." Will it become a "duplication" of many things on Wikipedia? What should it's goals and functions be? Please add your learned views. Thank you. IZAK 09:10, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Tagging living people as Jews

Dear all,

I call your attention to the topic entitled as above in the policy section of Wikipedia:Village pump. Bellbird 15:56, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Why I love Wikipedia

I love Wikipedia because there is no systematic copy editing to prevent the intellectually boastful from expressing themselves ungrammatically: "The Jewish people have by far the largest concentration of Nobel prize winners… than any other ethnic or religious group."

Of course, someone else is welcome to fix this. - Jmabel | Talk 04:19, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I copyedited it but it remains ... a tad "boastful." Further fixing would not be unwelcome.  ;-) Antandrus (talk) 04:23, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Yiddish transliteration

The correct transliteration of the Yiddish word ייִדן is yidn, without "e". There is no vowel in the original Yiddish spelling, and the pronounciation is also yidn. As a new user, I cannot edit this article, so I'll appreciate someone fixing this problem. Beit Or 18:34, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Right. Done. ←Humus sapiens ну? 20:22, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

the figures for the amount of jews living in places is out of date

The number of Jews in modern Israel has surpassed the number of Jews in the United States for the first time, according to the US Central Bureau of Statistics.

On the eve of Independence Day last month, the CBS reported that there are 5.4 million Jews living in Israel, compared to 5.2 million in the U.S., according to the latest United Jewish Appeal Federation survey reported Tuesday in Ha'aretz.

The data indicates the closure of an historical circle: For the first time in nearly 2000 years since the destruction of the Second Temple, Israel has once again become the largest concentration of Jews in the world.


this should be entered into the article and also the chart shouldbe updatede —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rebavi (talk • contribs) 3 October 2006.

Do you have a citation for this?
Is the count in Israel based on a comparable definition to the one for the U.S.? I know that for some purposes, Israel counts everybody eligible under the Law of Return as a Jew. Some of those would not be considered Jews in terms of ethnicity (e.g. someone with a Jewish father and a gentile mother, or a gentile married to a Jew). Not that the U.S. numbers are particularly clean or precise, either. - Jmabel | Talk 20:01, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
I imagine the US numbers would be from the census, wouldn't they? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 03:44, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
The USA most likely still has more Jews than Israel -- there are many more Jews in the USA than people realize, only that they are secular crypto-Jews and don't report themselves as Jewish on the census forms. Also, given that around 60% of Americans are unaware of their true ethnic heritage, I'm sure there are MANY people in the USA that don't know that they are Jews. --152.163.100.72 15:59, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

That's correct, official figures released by Israel counts everyone eligible under the law of return as Jewish. The number of those Israelis classified as Jewish by the state but who do not comply with halakhic requirements of Jewishness are estimated by at anywhere up to and exceeding half a million people.

Then there is the issue of those Israelis who are classified as Jewish by the state, again for migratory purposes, but then the state itself will not issue identity cards stating "Jewish".

Then there is the fact that the American census does not ask people if they are Jewish, and only has info on those who volunteer the information to it. Many Jewish Americans go unnacounted for.

Also, Israel does not deduct people who have made yerida. They are included in the total Jewish Israeli population for up to ten years, and I can say that in the past 5 years alone, there has been an enourmous number of Israelis that have left the country. Incidentally, I can't wait for the figures of the latest Australian census conducted this year to be released, so as to compare the Jewish population of 1996 with that of 2006. All i can say is that there is an imense number of young Israelis living in Sydney now. There everywhere :) It's now common for me to pass by at least one stranger a day on the streets of Sydney who is speaking hebrew. And I know from my last time in new york, late last year, there were many newly arrived Israelis there too, and many others still arriving. Al-Andalus 08:34, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

That's not true. Israel statistics only include people actually living in Israel. Like any person travelling out of the country, it takes time but not 10 years. Incidentally, I've been to Australia and there seem to be more Palestinians there than Jews for sure. Not only Jews emigrate out of Israel/territories. The ID card has nothing to do with it... it was omitted because people thought it was "racist" - it's not difficult to make an ethnic census and the amount of non Jews in Israel is very documented. Amoruso 03:25, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Controversy

Hi Gwernol. You need to provide a guideline for your removal of [4]. --WikiCats 03:58, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

No problem, WP:EL, specifically "Links normally to be avoided...Any site that contains factually inaccurate material or unverified original research, as detailed in Wikipedia:Reliable sources." Gwernol 04:02, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough Gwernol. So maybe the Controversy should go into its own section within the article. The Controversy being that it is opposed by most Jewish groups and is criticised by numerous mainstream media. --WikiCats 04:14, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

If you have no objection I will create a Controversy section. --WikiCats 04:24, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

The two main controversies that I can think of are this one and Mel Gibsons outburst. Unless anyone can think of anything else. --WikiCats 04:44, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

If nobody has any objection I will create the Section. --WikiCats 05:27, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I object. If you truly believe that the two main controversies associated with the Jewish people are the hate-spewing Jewwatch site and Mel Gibson nonsense, then can I suggest you pleae go back and read a couple of history books. You may find there's been a little more than that. Gwernol 12:49, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh great. So what are the others. --WikiCats 12:54, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups

Hi,

I'm aware that the term "Jew" can describe an adherent to the Jewish faith and/or a member of the Jewish people or ethnic group. For that reason, I hesitate to add the page to Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups using the {{ethnic groups|class=GA}} template. This category may be considering too limiting...

I'll be watching this page for a week or so. Please let me know if you think it's OK to add this article to Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups. Thanks --Ling.Nut 19:00, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

This still does not seem to have been answered. I would say that if the word is used in both senses, and there is some debate as to which sense, if any, is the more appropriate, the article should be included in categories and lists representing both senses, and just explain the debate in the main article.Sjeng 19:30, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Higher Percentage of Gays/Lesbians Found in Modern Jews -- Research

I'm wondering if anyone has come across any serious scholarly research that has examined the fact that Jews tend to be quite overrepresented amongst the gay and lesbian populations in the modern World, particularly in the USA and Western Europe. I have read about this on certain Jewish websites and in a couple Jewish newsletters/newspapers, but have yet to find any academic research on this matter. I know that the worldwide Jewish community is generally very gay/lesbian friendly, but I am looking for information/statistics that have has confirmed the noticeably higher incidence of homosexuality/lesbianism in the (mostly secular) Jewish population. Thank you for any information that you can provide. --152.163.100.72 15:56, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I think this is just a use of homophobia as another weapon in anti-semitism. Funnily enough, the people that hate one of these groups tend to hate both. It's natural that victims of persecution try to help each other out. Saying that you read it from "Jewish newsletters" is not very substantial in my opinion. It's like how "arab world" is use don CNN, vaguely, and used to reinforce stereotypes. 68.193.94.214 00:20, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

New Assessment Criteria for Ethnic Groups articles

Hello,

WikiProject Ethnic groups has added new assessment criteria for Ethnic Groups articles.

-->How to assess articles

Revisions of assessment ratings can be made by assigning an appropriate value via the class parameter in the WikiProject Ethnic groups project banner {{Ethnic groups}} that is currently placed at the top of Ethnic groups articles' talk pages. Quality assessment guidelines are at the Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team's assessment system page. After rating the article, please provide a short summary to explain your ratings and/or identify the strengths and weaknesses. To add the summary, please edit this article's ratings summary page. A link to this page can be found in the {{Ethnic groups}} template on the article's talk page.

Please see the Project's article rating and assessment scheme for more information and the details and criteria for each rating value. A brief version can be found at Template talk:Ethnic groups. You can also enquire at the Ethnic groups Project's main discussion board for assistance.

Another way to help out that could be an enjoyable pastime is to visit Category:Unassessed Ethnic groups articles, find an interesting-looking article to read, and carefully assess it following those guidelines.

Thanks!
--Ling.Nut 21:50, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Very dubious assertion

The following sentence appeared in the "Middle Ages: Islamic Europe, North Africa and Asia " section:

"In the Islamic lands Jews at times were driven by necessity to engage in despised occupations, becoming dancing boys or tavernkeepers."

I removed this sentence because it directly contradicts the remainder of the paragraph, which speaks of the tolerance the Jews met in Islamic lands. However, I do welcome discussion if anyone feels I am in error. Justin Eiler 00:52, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

In Wars Against the Jews

The phrase "This, however, is a war of disproportionate strength" is wonderfully ironic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.230.226.158 (talk • contribs)

I don't find it "wonderfully ironic", but that text looked like an original research, so I removed it. ←Humus sapiens ну? 03:21, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, that was my point. Thanks for removing it.

Looking Pretty Good

I think this article is looking pretty good right now.

"Cheap"?

Type "cheap" into search, redirected to Jew article. Shouldn't this be fixed?

Good catch. Who knew, another item to watch. Thanks! ←Humus sapiens ну? 07:15, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
same thing for stingy. (already corrected it).Jon513 13:42, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Jewish supremacy page

I stumbled upon this page Jewish Supremacy, it looks quite poorly written and it contains alot in-factual information and possibly a good deal of POV. i wasn't sure where exactly i should bring this up, since the discussin page for that article is quite dead, so i brought it up here. maybe someone could take a look at it.

194.80.193.160 November 2006

Vote

Please vote 64.229.208.244 22:27, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Article section in a footnote?

Why is it that a section of the article discussing the perjorative use of the word "Jew" has been made into a footnote? Check footnote number one... --Elipongo 18:04, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Because it is a dictionary-ish remark on word usage, not part of the encyclopedic topic of Jews as such. - Jmabel | Talk 03:02, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
But I'd footnote it off the first usage, not further down. - Jmabel | Talk 03:03, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough! Thank you! --Elipongo 03:52, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

ok i dont know where to put this or if its already been said so w/e. maybe the Stereotypes part could be redone. Its kind of, well, idk like not professional (no comments about my crappy grammer). --n1n3-d1c3