Talk:Jews/Archive 18

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.

This is intended as an objective comment on the content of the page, not an opinion. Foot note number 1

I dont think this is an issue. Usage of the word mexican can be derogatory if used in a particular manner. This does not mean that it is wrong to use it. Jew is an accepted word, and many jews refer to themselves as jews. It is stupid to censor something that only a small percentage of wikipedians would find offensive. Also it is very self-destructive to remove information that describes some usages of the word, even if it contradicts wikipedias usage. Lets not fix things that dont need fixing. thuglas^talk|edits 01:09, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

your logic is quite flawed. If someone is from mexico they are called a mexican. Your argument that "many jews [sic] refer to themselves as jews [sic]" is the same as saying that many black people refer to themselves, and other black people, as "nigger" or "negro". It doesnt mean that it is right. "Jew" and "Jewish" are not synonymous. The "politically correct" word is Jewish. Jew has always had a negative connotation. "...he's a Jew.." implies that all Jewish people are the same and can be lumped together. Most educated individuals, Jewish or Gentile, do not use the term "Jew." They understand the connotations, and understand that it is not "right" to use it. You also have to remember that while "only a small percentage of wikipedians" find it offencive, only a small percentage of wikipedians actually have been called "Jew" instead of "Jewish." My point being, until you have been called a "jew," you can't say that it is not offensive.

Goalie1998 03:03, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I really knew someone would come at me telling me that black people have no right to use the word nigger, etc. and i had gaven wikipedia the benifit of the doubt, expecting that noone would bring in this stupid, childish, obvious analogy. I am aware that some words are not for wikipedia, but this does not mean that some words are not meant for wikipedia. First of all, i agree with you that my logic is flawed. That does not mean that my points are not valid, because all language can be argued to be incorrect in life for two reasons, one being that language is subjective, another being that language is relative to other language and has no fundamental base. If humans wish to communicate, we must show some tolerance for innacuracy in language. I could go into a three hour conversation about this, but that was for my english professor. Also, your arguement that someone being from mexico is mexican has no weight. I am aware of this, and i dont need to be reminded that Mexican people are Mexican. My arguement was that the term mexican, (or, in a synomous example, an Arab or Tutsie) can be used in a derogative manner to offend Mexicans. Also, in acclamation to your statement that the word Jewish is used to lump Jews together: OFCOURSE, this is how all types of grouping work. The word Canadian is used to lump or chunk people from Canada together. This in no manner implies they are all the same; neither does use of the word "Jew." Finally, as I am jewish and i have been called a Jew your last comment has no meaning to me. I am not a baby and i do not find this term to be offensive. My entire family feels the same way and i do not wish for people to tiptoe around our name purely because select individuals have used the term 'Jew' in a negative manner, that would be letting them win. If you are jewish, then grow some balls and stop whining about the usage of the term jew and be proud of what you are instead of trying to run from what people have done to you or your ancestors, the word jew cant be that bad if your ancestors put up with mass-killings. If you aren't jewish, then stop caring; many Jews contribute to wikipedia and can fix things on their own if they find it offensive. Also, before you point out mistakes in my capitolisation or spelling, you should fix your own. This is a talk page and i do not care. thuglas^talk|edits 11:30, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I think Goalie1998 is winding you up. Just to provide some perspective on this, here are some Google searches: from the Jewish Chronicle..., from the Israeli government's .gov.il domain..., from Haaretz..., from the Jerusalem Post.... Finally, you might want to take a look at the official English wording of The Law of Return. I suggest at this point that we stop feeding the trolls. -- The Anome 11:49, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

You're probably right. I guess I enjoyed writing that anyway. Nice research, Anome. thuglas^talk|edits 19:22, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

"Even when used as a noun, the term "Jew" has been used to objectify and separate Jews from the remainder of the population, often by referring to the majority population by the name of the country ("Countrymen") but referring to Jewish citizens as "Jews." "

Shouldn't WP also say that it is offensive to refer to the dominant majority of the Jewish State as "Jews" and objectify and separate "Israeli Arabs" from the remainder of the population? Should I put that in this article or some other? Suggestions. Fourtildas 06:30, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it would be a good idea, Fourtildas thuglas^talk|edits 20:25, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I notice it is now "Arab-Israeli" instead of "Israeli-Arab" - how did that happen? So should we refer to "Jew-Israelis" ? 24.64.165.176 04:02, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

It's interesting to note that Googling for the word "jew" brings up a link at the top of the results page to this URL: http://www.google.com/explanation.html Obviously the people at Google think that there's an issue with the usage of the term "jew" compared to other synonyms such as jewish etc. Argenteum 20:42, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

That's because a few years ago Google was under a lot of pressure because word had gotten around that the top sites that came up if you searched for "Jew" were anti-semitic. Google refused to change their ranking algorithm, but finally compromised by putting up the "sponsored" link you're referring to. In my search today, I found that Wikipedia shows up on top of the Google search results for "Jew", so I guess it's now a historical curiosity.--Elipongo ^{(Talk|contribs)} 18:35, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

This is still a concern, there are sites with titles "Jew Watch" on the first page of google's search results. While it is sad that sites like that exist, I don't think Google should have changed the algorithm or hide this information. Actually, the way they have handled it was very helpful because I was at the time quite shocked that antisemitism is still so prevalent. Now, about the usage of the word "jew", if I understand the correctly, it would be fine to say "my best friend is a jew" when it is obvious I'm not saying that to separate him from my other friends or something like that :) I think I will move up the footnote to the lead paragraph, because I think this is important, and should be explained at the very first use of the word! --Merzul 02:25, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Googling for the word "jew" , I find Jewschool, Tattoo Jew, Rock and Roll Jew Show, Jew Central in the first few pages. And I get 4440 hits on "just Jew it", starting with Just Jew It. And 19,900 for "Jew Crew". Fourtildas 20:33, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Hey, i just wanted to throw this out there. I am currently taking a Jewish history course at my school (Wheaton College in mass) and the Proffessor, who is also Jewish, usually referes to the people as Jews and things relating to them as the Jew's literature, or the Jew's jobs, etc. Im not saying its right or wrong, and of course im sure there is a proffessor elsewhere who never use the term, but anyway im just throwing it out there. lain18

"Jew" is singular. We are not referring to "a Jew." But to the whole body of Jewish people, therefore, at the very least, PLEASE change the title of the page to "Jews," which is plural. Oemb1905 18:35, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Jewish people would be another option for the title. Personally I think it's a better description of the topic. Jewish peoples would be another option but I'm not sure it's particularly preferable. Looking through Category:Ethnic groups, there are examples of ethnic group titles for comparison, but as a whole they don't appear to set a clear precedent. If this article's name were changed to Jewish people, Jew could always have an article focusing on the history and usage of the term "jew". I think there's definitely enough material out there on the term itself to put together a decent article on it. Jewish people would still obviously contain information on the term's history of use but it could be covered in a lot more detail at the main article.--Eloil 09:16, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I am a jewish person and i believe that we should not be called that. Did you t=know that they use this crude word in my social studies bool. I felt like crying :(

Jews are Jews, simple as that. Just like Catholics are Catholics and Protestants are Protestants. What other term is there? I can't think of any that would be appropriate. I don't know why the above person would feel like crying. Possibly a selfhater? --Hayden5650 03:47, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I reverted user,

No, they don't. They belong to Europe. The Balfour Declaration lacked the consent of the people of Palestine, so in fact it was illegal. Anything built on illegality is illegal. That is the international law. At the end of the British Mandate under which Palestine was placed by the now defunct League of Nations at dismemberment of the Ottoman State in 1922 by Treaty of Versailles, should have been constituted by the following UN in 1948 as Republic of Palestine in which all the endemic people of Palestine irrespective of religion & ethnicity should have equal right to live there. —The preceding

Are you stating this in order to debate the proposition (which you are better advised to do elsewhere) or to suggest a modification to the article? Sjeng 21:33, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Many studies that have been done about this subject find a systematic major difference between the genetic pools of Jews and non-Jewish hosting European populations, with only very little in common ,if at all .but this difference was much smaller when the Jewish genome was compared with that of middle eastern, or from middle eastern origin, populations such as thus of Syria, Lebanon and Tunis. Finding like this suggest a common origin for all of the Jewish communities ,with two exceptional: the Yamane Jewish community which have a lot in common with the gentile Yamane population (but still have genetic markers of Jewish people as well) ,which fits very well with the known history of this group, and the Ethiopian Jews which seems ,genetically , from a non Jewish origin only (and this fact is perfectly support the assumptions ,regarding the historical background of this group, claming that the Ethiopian Jewish community was established by local people which convert to Judaism ) . --Gilisa 20:29, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I personally agree, Europeans don't have a right to "Palestine." However, Jews, or people from the land Palestine once was, do have a right to return to their brethren in Palestine. Not only did Jewish communities remain in Israel until the Aliyahs, there was more than one. There were Samaritans and there were Sephardic Jews and so-called "European Jews" (really, Jewish refugees, or diaspora Jews) definitely have a right to return home. Can't see any way around this fact. Just like Palestinians have a right to return to Gaza, or Arafat to Palestine, or Sudanes to their war-torn and home territories. Refugees, or in this case diaspora Jews, always have a right to return to their homeland. Oemb1905 16:03, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I find this comment quite interesting. The Balfour Declaration was on its face, illegal under any and every treaty ever signed. The Government of Israel continues to this day to violate just about every international treaty/law with regards to settlements in disputed teritories. Yet in your logic, only Jews have a right to return to the "land Palestine once was". Using that logic I suppose you support the notion that when the state of Isreal was illegaly declared, the very real state of Palestine ceased to exist. —The preceding

unsigned comment was added by 65.223.68.215 (talk

) 07:47, 11 March 2007 (UTC).

Just ignore those trolls. It's obvious propaganda, which should not be dignified with an answer. Statements like "...the very real state of Palestine ceased to exist." make it clear this is a liar, trying to spread disinformation, like the existence of some imaginary state before Israel. okedem 22:26, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me, but all of my comments have to do with editing the page. This dispute is in regards to the language that we use to describe modern day Israel and the Jewish people. Secondly, although the anonymous user lost his or her cool in regards to my comments, he or she made a good point which I will adress later. I find it amazing that I have been referred to as an anti-semite by my fellow Jews more than once on this page. Sickening in fact. I am Jewish, and my comments assist in the writing of this article, since I, in fact, have edited it at times, and will continue to do so. So please remain composed and I will deal with the person who wrote rudely about Jewish refugees when I return home. This is oemb1905, I forgot to sign in 71.165.200.253 18:18, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

If you were answering to me - I was talking about the comment by 65.223.68.215, and that it's not worth spending any time answering him. okedem 22:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

How many Arab nations are there, or how many muslim nations, count them, now count the Jewish nations those that beloning to the opressed people who ALONE have the wright to the land of Israel, anyone who can count can see that a single tiny country to serve the Jewish people while protecting them at the same time is FAIR. This article is to be write without you Anti- Semite, numerically challenged bigots interferning, even people like myself should not add their opions to the Wikipedia.Facts only.I support Israel, and I am not even Jewish. Call the state by its name and change the name of the article to Jewish People, like all of the other articles on ethnicity.

The introduction says that jews "are members of the Jewish people, an ethnic group originating in the Israelites of the ancient Middle East.". I checked through a lot of sites and it does not seem to be quite so clear, for example the site http://www.jewfaq.org/whoisjew.htm does not say anything about an ethnic groups, only about traditional jewish views on who is a jew. The introduction is either badly worded or a POV. -Lapinmies 01:02, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

• I think it's pretty undisputed that Jews are an ethnic group. The jewfaq author uses the term "nation". Please have a look at the
  ethnic group article; the academic definition of the term may be broader than you think (it doesn't mean "race").--Pharos
  01:22, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Negative, I was talking about there being many sites that define it differently. -Lapinmies 01:56, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

"Many websites" is hardly a

WP:RS. By the academic definition, Jews clearly form an "ethnic group". For various reasons, some prefer "a people" or "a nation", but that's hardly relevant here.--Pharos

02:00, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

The Encarta source that is placed first does not agree completely with the introduction, confusing. -Lapinmies 02:14, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

• There is not jewish ethnicity. The comparison with other site isnt a proof, you have to be scientist and there is scientific proofs there is not jewish ethnicity.

"Jews" are defined in this article as "members of the Jewish people". If you look in WP for "Jewish people" you get redirected to "Jews". So this is a circular non-definition. The other definition given refers to the Israelites article, which is purely a description of religious beliefs, sourced to the Bible - it seems this is perfectly OK as a WP "source". "Jew" is used in other articles as if it has a meaning. Strangely, if I look in my Oxford, I find a perfectly good definition of "Jew", which you won't find in WP. Fourtildas 06:55, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Jews are most commonly descendants of the tribe, or ethnic body, of the people from the land of Judah. A kingdom which split off from Israel on or around 900 BC and survived independently (or perhaps with Benjamin) until on or around 585 BC. I agree that it is undisputable that the word Jew primarily refers to the ethnic body. Of course, since the people and the practices have evolved, it can and should also cover non-ethnic Jews who converted to the predominant religion of the Jews, namely, rabbinical Judaism - which started in its current form about the time of the Great Assembly, which was shortly after Judah was destroyed and then allowed return by the Persians. Oemb1905 18:31, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

The Jews are -not- an ethnic group. They're not even an homogenous group. This is a completely fallacious page. Geneticists and historians alike have shown that the Jews are not an ethnic group.I am not an anti-Semite, but I have studied Jewish history. The cultural and indeed ethnic differences between the different cliques are -vast-. To suggest that they constitute a unitary minority is Zionist nonsense.

• Not sure what the above contributor means about 'Zionist nonsense', but there is some evidence to suggest the notion of a Jewish ethnicity, but not in the way most people think. First: it is true that one cannot 'look' Jewish, as Jews of Poland, for example, wouldn't necessarily look anything like Jews of Yemen. However, probably because of the prohibitons against intermarriage and the constant migration of the populations, most Jewish populations were distinct from surrounding non-Jewish populations. Second: Surprisingly (in my view) there are studies indicating some genetic commonalities between widely disparate Jewish populations (I pulled the first relevant google search result: Science Daily, though there are many others). Certainly one cannot claim that all followers of the Jewish faith belong to the same ethnic group, but the distinction between religion and ethnicity is perhaps blurrier in Jews and Judaism than it is in other faiths. Oh, and this also puts aside the very vague notions of ethnicity and race to begin with. Felgerkarb 23:34, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

This kind of claims, that Jewish people arent realy from the same origin-i.e, not realy an ethnic group-are usually coming from an anti-semic minds, this is my view. Why? because many studies that been done through the past 15-20 years have shown time after time that the vast majority of the Jewish people are from the very same genetic pool: it was checked by the m.DNA which passed only from mother to her child -and guess what? Jewish people with European background (Ashkenazim) are actually more related, and by far, to the native nations of the middle east and to sepharadic Jews than to Europeans (actually they have allmost nothing in common with them, geneticly speaking), when it was checked, again, several times, from the Y chromosom point of view (which passes only from father to son) -the Ashkenazi Jewish people have allmost nothing, or nothing, in common with gentile Europeans, and have alot with Sephardic Jews and Syrians&Lebanonic Arabs as well as with the Arabs of tunis- this is because the Jewish people are actually from the same origin as the phenocians which their offsprings are the Arabs of syria,Lebanon and Tunise. off course, there are some expetionals: the Yaman Jews which are geneticlly mixed with local Yamans-but it is well known historical fact, while nobody knows about any kind of assimilation and absobtion of gentiles into the Jewish commuinties of Europe, another exaptionals are the ethiopieans which are, again, known to be not from a Jewish origin. More, Ashkenzi Jews are, mostly, not similar physiclly to the gentiles in which they share common living -even if some how, some times -can look as asord of alike.

Ma schlomcha ? Kor'im li Kızıl. Hakol tov?

Hehehehehehe....

I know just a little Hebrew. Anyway... Albert Einstein was a Jew? I think he wasn't, 'cause he hadn't said to never he was a Jew.

Kızılsungur 15:04, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Greetings and shalom, Kızılsungur. Yes, Albert Einstein was ethnically Jewish, though he did not practice Judaism. Justin Eiler 15:06, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

According to some, that statement would make no sense. All Jews, Disraeli, Einstein, Marx, and Freud would all be considered goyim if those who believe that Jews are not an ethnicity prevailed. But as we can see, even in just the simplest corrolaries and contexts such as this, it seems to be obvious and common knowledge that Jews are primarily, though not exclusively, an ethnicity. Oemb1905 18:36, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Again...the Jews do -not- constitute an ethnic group.

Its not ethnical to be jewish,there are two ways to be jewish: sociocultural, and religious. You do a mistake when you change the term "sociocultural" by "ethnical". —The preceding

Again, please look at the

ethnic group article (it does not mean "race").--Pharos

17:51, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Please also read some other encyclopedias, dictionaries and thesauri - they disagree with WP. Fourtildas 04:59, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

"Yo do a mistake." :D Muhahaha. Anyway... I can make mistakes. You're right dude. But I prefer to be sociocultural. Ethnical situation is not cool. It's like Fashisizm or Nazisizm.

Kızılsungur 12:34, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, it isn't :) Epson291 23:07, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Is ethnical even a word, dude? Ethnic is a noun and adjective ... Oemb1905 00:52, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

It's as much a word as 'Fashisizm' or 'Nazisizm'. I'm guessing not a native English speaker, but we all know what he meant. On the actual topic, an encyclopaedia should remain self-consistent. If multiple sources disagree with Wiki's ethnic group article, that article should change, and this article should remain consistent with it. And what does it mean to be a 'sociocultural' Jew anyway?137.138.46.155 10:12, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I am opening this up for discussion. User:Epson291 and I disagree on whether English should be included as one of the languages of the Jews today. It appears that over half of Jews worldwide speak English. Here are parts of what I wrote on Epson291's talk page.

Jews today are unlike Russians, Germans, Pashtuns, Armenians etc. since most of them do not speak their ancestral languages, and the language shared most by each of those groups is Russian, German,.. If this were perhaps 60 or 70 years ago, Yiddish would probably be written first, since it was then the language shared by most Jews. The language shared by most Jews today is overwhelmingly English and it is the prime language of the community, whether or not it has to do with immigration is irrelevant. (Another factor to consider is the large portion of Israeli and European Jews who speak English.)

Any thoughts, suggestions...?

English is the language of business, so probably yes :)

This is what was originally written

User:Shamir, I reverted you edits on the Enlgish majority already once and you readded it and I should have written why I did that. The reason for that is the box is for the langagues of that ethnic group, English, French, German, Russian, Ukranian, etc... are not..... Otherwise, the list would go on for ever. (And it will because user's will add it, i.e, one of the 500,000 France Jews will see it and think, why I am not on it.... etc....) Aramaic is for instance a Jewish langague, but it is no longer spoken, so it would go into the greater Jewish languages thats included. Only Jewish languages should be listed in the Jewish ethnic group box. It says in other places (and quite obvious) that Jews speak the langague of their home country.

Anyways, as for your asertion that English are the majority, the link you provided was from a unreliable source that stated English speakers were exactly 50.0%. And of course, the world's total Jewish population is difficult to measure and in many countries without ethnic or religious cencuses, it hard to accurately know the figure. (Had it been 85.0%, and not 50.0% there would be some leaway). Either way, English, Russian, Hindi, etc..may be langagues that Jews can speak, but has nothing to do with the Jewish ethnicity. (And Jews as a 50% figure, hasn't even been that long - lets say, since the end of the Shoah, when there were large population migrations. So English isn't even a historical non-Jewish langague that Jews spoke) Epson291 22:28, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

So I will revert it right now, just that, not your other edits, but if you still feel the diasporic lanaguague of English should be included in the box (I presume with Russian, French, German, etc... where there are a large number of speakers) then please talk about in the on the talk page of

Jew, I would prefer the infox box short and precise. Epson291

22:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi! I don't think it would be necessary to write Russian, French, German etc. because that is only a minority of Jews worldwide. It does not say what ethnic language or the such. Jews today, who are more correctly a nation rather than an ethnic group, are unlike Russians, Germans, Pashtuns, Armenians etc. since most of them do not speak their ancestral languages. If this were perhaps 60 or 70 years ago, Yiddish would probably be written first, since it was then the language shared by most Jews. The language shared by most Jews today is overwhelmingly English and it is the prime language of the community, whether or not it has to do with immigration is irrelevant. (Another factor to consider is the large portion of Israeli and European Jews who speak English.) I will post a discussion on the talk page. --Shamir1 23:25, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Here is my response

Hi again. I strongly disagree with you. The info box should be left for either lanagues of the ethnicity (such as Jewish lanagues). Otherwise, a box of worms will be open. It is quite obvious that any ethnicity, would speak the lanague of the country they live in. If you feel people won't realize British Jews lets say, speak English, then a message could state that Jews generally speak the lanague of the country they reside in. By wanting to put in English, you are opening for other user's to fill it in for the 700,000 French speaking Jews, 2.5 Russian speaking Jews, etc.... and this continues with German (Germany has the fastest growing Jewish population) etc... And we need to have a list a mile long for every country Jews live in (Brazil (Portuguse), Argentina (Spanish), Iran (Farsi), Ukraine (Ukranian), etc....) And remember this is out of 13 million Jews in the world. Just because you are a native speaker of Enlglish and that is the only languague you speak, this seems to have given you a narrow minded view of the world's Jewish speakers, 35% speak Hebrew as their lanague, the other 15% share among Russian, French, Spanish, Portuguse, Farsi, etc..... English is of no historic importance to the Jewish community. Now. again you've written "over half of Jews" speak English, though the link you provided said 50.0% (which is not over half or majoirty that you keep saying), and remember the Jewish population is hard to measure, some countries, do not take ethnic or religious counts of Jews. (Side note: you have some confusion between

gentiles. (Should they have English added to their ethnic boxes?). English is not in any way connected to the Jewish nation. I do understand it's importance to roughly half of the Jewish population, but you most be aware of the number of Russian, French, German, Spanish, etc... speaking Jews? You may claim it is a minority, but no more minority then English. If you step into a place like France, you will find hundreds of thousands of French and Arabic speaking Jews, you go into Montreal and Toronto you fill find thousands of French, English, Russian, and Hebrew speakers. I will once again state that only lanaguagues related to the ethnicity should be included. Epson291

02:51, 22 February 2007 (UTC)