Talk:Jew

Older discussions may be found here: Archive 1; Archive 2; Archive 3; Archive 4; Archive 5; Archive 6; Archive 7; Archive 8; Archive 9; Archive 10; Archive 11; Archive 12; Archive 13

Contents

1 List of Famous Jews 2 Etymology nonsense 3 Yod vs. Yud 4 anit-Semitic link 5 Convertite? 6 announcing policy proposal 7 It appears that Judaism came from Zoroastrianism... 8 Protecting??

List of Famous Jews

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Etymology nonsense

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

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

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

Yod vs. Yud

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

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

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

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

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

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

anit-Semitic link

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

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

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

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

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

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

Convertite?

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

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

announcing policy proposal

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

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

It appears that Judaism came from Zoroastrianism...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Protecting??

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

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

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