Talk:Jews/Archive 15

message: This is a very good article and it should be published. -- Zondor 08:57, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: google does no such thing --GarethLewin 23:54, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

text: The German word Antisemitismus (from which the English word comes) was a deliberate coinage by people who were specifically anti-Jewish, but wished to put their anti-Jewish stance in racial rather than religious terms, racism being rather more fashionable at the time than religious bigotry. - Jmabel | Talk 04:36, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  publication 

message: If the following is true, why does the Jewish population not reproduce itself?  With a small family in the modern era, a slow reproductive rate, long lifespans and a population of approximately 12 million Jews following WWII, there should be about 30 million Jews in the world at a minimum.  How is it that the Jewish population barely replaces itself?
Population
    Main article: Jewish population
Prior to World War II the world population of Jews was approximately 18 million. The Holocaust reduced this number to approximately 12 million. Today, there are an estimated 13 million [2] to 14.6 million[3] Jews worldwide in over 134 countries.
I bring the above issue up, because the numbers don't make the slightest logical sense based on the mathematics of population statistics.  Stevenmitchell 16:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jewish Population Figures 

message: I hate to say this, but I just checked "What links here". If the article name is changed several hundred pages will need links fixed. "Jews" is currently redirected to this article. Light Orlanu Brecker 05:51, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It wouldn't even take that.  We'd put a redirect at Jew to Jews; problem solved.  But Humus is right below, it's not Wikipedia convention. -Joshuapaquin 01:48, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Please see Wikipedia:Naming conventions#Prefer singular nouns. ←Humus sapiens ну? 23:33, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Getting real 

message: Vote To Keep —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SirIsaacBrock (talk • contribs) 1 Jan 2006.
:I have no problem with people pointing out votes related to a page, but using the talk page of an article to lobby for a vote on a particular side of an issue is, shall we say, not kosher. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:09, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Help Needed

message: I have delisted this as a good article, because while that is generally the case, it is not stable - in fact it is one of the most unstable articles in all Wikipedia. It thus does not meet the criteria, and makes us permanently and unwavering mark a frequently vandalized article "good." I think this is why it isn't featured, incidentally. --Tothebarricades 04:54, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure I like the rationale of that. Except for vandalism—universally identified as such and usually promptly reverted—this is a very stable article. Your rationale seems, in effect, to give any persistent vandal veto power over inclusion in "good articles". -- Jmabel | Talk 00:25, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I don't like it either, but there are obvious problems - for example, an anti-semitic version might be up for months as a "good article" at a wiki mirror, no? --Tothebarricades 02:20, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But a mirror can do anything. We couldn't stop a mirror from sticking Swastikas all over the page, saying the Protocols of Zion is the Lord's own truth and spelling Jew with six extra Ws. Or doing the equivalent to any other article. We're not responsible for the content of mirrors. -- Jmabel | Talk 22:47, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Delisted

message: Edits over the last three or four days have been almost exclusively vandalism from anonymous users, and reversion of said vandalism. Would anyone object to semi-protection for a short time? android79 14:42, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:SEMI|Semi-protection]] 

message: To the anon who removed the para about the term "Jew" used as objectifation and comparing to "women," yes, absolutely the term "woman" or "women" can be used and has used to objectify half the population. In a petty sense, in phrases like "a man and his woman." But more particularly, if you were to refer to a population as "citizens and women," "Germans (meaning men) and women," "women" would be objectifiying.
The problem in the paragraph, which I originally wrote, is that the attempt to make it politically correct (first remove the reference to "Christians" and then to "Germans" gutted it of its meaning, and I intend to restore it. If Europe had not so effectively wiped out its Jewish population, perhaps mentioning particular countries wouldn't be fair, but history is what it is. -- Cecropia 20:42, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jew, Woman and Objectification 

message: Just a thought, but this link to an 1828 dictionary's definition of the word Jew suggests a more derogatory etymology for the word jew.
JEW, n. [a contraction of Judas of Judah.] A Hebrew or Israelite.
Does this perhaps suggest that, instead of the middle-english origin of the word jew, it may have had an origin linked to a derogatory contraction, to perpetuate the common excuse for anti-jewish bigotry that the Jews were the betrayers of christ and therefore enemies of chrisianity. 
Again, just a thought (coming from a non-jewish, non-christian, impartial commentator)...
http://65.66.134.201/cgi-bin/webster/webster.exe?search_for_texts_web1828=jew
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.243.5.186 (talk • contribs) 11 Jan 2006.
: Just shows that the anti-Semites of the time could make up etymologies. Of course, this was before the rise of modern philology. It's also back before anyone bothered with Latinisms like "anti-Semite". They just called themselves "Jew-haters". -- Jmabel | Talk 08:39, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible anti-semitic etymology 

message: A couple of editors seem to want to include this:
The words "Jewish" and "Jew" are now commonly used as insults. Phrases like, "You stupid Jew," "You nigger-loving Jew" and "That was a Jewish thing to do" are considered offensive regardless of race or religion.
It strikes me as pure ugliness that doesn't add anything to the article; perhaps I'm just a bit too sensitive, but I don't see how "nigger-loving Jew" really is an example of anything other than general vileness, and certainly nothing to do with "Jew". Thoughts? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 03:33, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Completely useless addition. Any ethnicity can be used as an insult or a stereotype. Rhobite 04:32, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ugliness? Or actual encyclopedic material? 

message: I think the page should be unprotected.  It's been semi-protected for over a week, which is just too long. Superm401 - Talk 07:51, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unprotect 

message: Ryan asked me to discuss here whether the term "world Jewry" is anti-Semitic, as he's been removing it from articles. As far as I'm concerned it's fine, and replacing it with "the Jewish population," as Ryan's been doing, often leaves the sentence unclear. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:08, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "World Jewry" is a phrase very commonly used by Jewish groups, e.g.  .  "Jewish population" doesn't mean the same thing at all. Jayjg (talk) 23:14, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How can it possibly be reinterpreted as being antisemitic?  I have to agree with Jay--"world Jewry" and "Jewish population" are not synonymous.  Edits like this change the meaning of the sentence; notice I didn't say "improve the meaning..."...  Tomertalk 23:37, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Jewish organizations use the term. There really isn't a problem using it, and it's hard to find a succinct and accurate replacement. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:50, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What you've just said is the argumentative equivalent to "no it isn't." You really haven't given me anything to work with there. Can you please amplify your statement? ⟳ausa کui × 01:11, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know what else to say. Jews use the term. Jewish organizations use it. There is therefore no problem with Wikipedia using it. In addition, replacing it with Jewish population may alter the meaning of the sentence. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:19, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree with those who say the term is fine. This seems like one of those overly protective euphemisms, such as using "Jewish people" instead of simply "Jews", etc. We are talking about the Jewish diaspora + Israel, a diverse disorganized ethno-religious group of people who often disagree with one another, with no single government, dissimilar allegiance and full spectrum of political beliefs and affiliations. I expect someone to contradict me here to confirm this ;). ←Humus sapiens ну? 02:26, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: LOL!! SlimVirgin (talk) 15:49, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: World Jewry

message: Why should the majority be punished for the minority? This page should be unprotected, anything that is vandilsed can be changed back to the way it was before. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.135.77.85 (talk • contribs) 19:40, March 19, 2006  (UTC)
*I'm not even sure it's the majority being punished. When the article is not semi-protected, the history shows that almost all of the anonymous edits are vandalism. Every time. Generally within minutes of being unprotected. The vast majority of legitimate Wikipedia editors are registered users; feel free to join us - it makes life here much easier. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 20:02, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unprotect request 

message: NPOV tags in Wikipedia should not be placed simply because someone feela that the article has POV aspects. To place such a notice is in itself POV, since it is presenting an unsupported opinion. Please explain in talk what specifically in the article is POV, and how it may be fixed, before placing such a tag. -- Cecropia 20:38, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV tag 

message: This is not simply my observation--it has been noted in the press and discussed online. Do a Google search on "Jew" and what do you get? Right at this moment number one is "Jew Watch," the rabidly anti-semitic site masquerading as scholarship, and number two is the Wikipedia arricle. These two have been running neck and neck for years. Make "Jew" a redirect and the Jew Watch people will have the field to themselves. -- Cecropia 16:03, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unless you believe that there's only one, hidden, true Jew on the planet, I can't see a rational change of meaning from "Jew" to "Jews". I really don't care of renaming the article, but I just find the arguments against it extremely funny. Miskin 16:31, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The underlying semantic problem, as noted in Google, is that. in long-time and virtually worldwide history, "Jew" is a powerful concept, in addition to describing a person or people. "Jew" is perhaps the only group-descriptive term which, spoken or written in a certain way by certain people, is pejorative in itself; but I don't see any viable alternative, because no other comprehensive term quite makes it and seems like euphemism, or worse, an acknowledgment that there really is something wrong with being a Jew. -- Cecropia 18:32, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I hope we are not going to change the title Who is a Jew? to Who are Jews? ←Humus sapiens ну? 20:13, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Important reason for article to remain "Jew" 

message: Group name	Singular ("Adherent")       	Plural ("Adherents")                	"Adherent People"     	Logical variant
Jew       	Main Article                	Redirects to "Jew"                  	Redirects to "Jew"    	
Muslim    	Main article                	Redirects to "Muslim"               	No article or redirect	No "Islamic people" either
Christian 	Main article                	Redirects to "Christian"            	No article or redirect	
Catholic  	Main article, inter alia"   	Redirects to "Roman Catholic Church"	No article or redirect	
Protestant	Redirects to "Protestantism"	Redirects to "Protestantism"        	No article or redirect	
Hindu     	Main article                	Redirects to "Hindu"                	Redirects to "Hindu"  	
Buddhist  	Redirects to "Buddhism"     	Redirects to "Buddhism"             	No article or redirect	
Shintoist 	Redirects to "Shinto"       	No article or redirect              	No article or redirect	
-- Cecropia 21:34, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: good work (and nice chart), I hope this end the issue once and for all.  Jon513 21:47, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. An ounce of research is worth a pound of debate. ;) -- Cecropia 21:55, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't want to spoil the fun, but most of the designations above are hardly ethnic. Ethnic singular designations generally lead to disambiguation pages. As to the issue being discussed by itself, I have no reasoned opinion, although my inclination would be not to change the article's title. LambiamTalk 10:42, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with Lambiam. IMHO as much all designations above are non-ethnic and thus irrelevant (not withstanding the attractive design). These are religions, not ethnic groups. The Druze are an ethno-religious group and their concepts seem to very close to Jewish concepts. Yet Druze is both plural and singular, so here no problem exists. I would go for the plural for all poplations, which is answered by Druze. gidonb 12:11, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually Druzes redirects to Druze; (Merriam-Webster: Druze; Inflected Form(s): plural Druze or Druzes – never mind that Druze (like e.g. Tuareg) is originally an Arabic plural form). What about the following principle: use the singular in accordance with Wikipedia:Naming_conventions#Prefer_singular_nouns unless there is a specific good reason to use the plural form – one being the avoidance of ambiguity. See also exceptions at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (plurals), none of which applies here. LambiamTalk 14:57, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that is my preference. Druzes may exist but is uncommon. Druze is the common plural and first in Webster. gidonb 15:14, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

text: The point is that comparing "Jew" to other religious groups is more appropriate than any other comparison. It's the way almost any non-involved searcher would understand it. Terms like "German" and "Pole" lead to disambig pages because these words have common meanings beyond the names of an ethnic group, nationality, or people: German (language), German (given name), and the ever popular "Pole," which you fly flags from. No one speaks "Jew," there is a "Jew's Harp" and a "Jewfish," but noone says they are "playing a jew" or "going fishing for Jews." I understand all the disabilities of the word "Jew," all of which are externally imposed, but we shouldn't be doing handsprings to come up with an article renaming that shrinks before bigotry. -- Cecropia 15:38, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other Wikipedia religious/ethnic adherent article titles 

message: I find the image unrepresentative at best. ←Humus sapiens ну? 23:48, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photo of cheap storefront as a Jewish culture 

message: I think that it is a perfectly justified move to Semi-Protect the Jew article as Jews have always been more susceptible to perpetual vandalism and , therefore, must be more protected. It is neglectable to deem the Jewish people impervious to the vicious onslaught of insults it has had to endure through history. In response to the people who want to know what makes the word jew a negative term comaparitively to other religions my answer is that the nations of the world have made the very essence of the Jew a negative component time and time again. More recently, Michael Jackson uses the term "jew you" in his music as a negative phrase, mearly reiterating and affirming the disposition that being a jew is a negative trait.
Protection is not a weakness or a sign of extreme sensitivity to the slightest back-handed comment, the Jews have had enough assaults to their values and priorities to understand that one must ignore the ridiculers and stick to who you want to be. Protection is a defence mechanism every single human has a right to, and the greater the need, the more protection is neccessary, and certainly justified.
UriKest
*I think you are confusing a people or a person with an encyclopedia article. Jew is not a human being. Yes, it's a frequently vandalized article, and it's also one of the most carefully monitored articles. At any rate, it's been semi-protected now for a couple weeks. If it gets uprotected (which it will; there's an unending supply of optimists out there), it will get vandalized again by anons, and then it will get semi-protected again. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:58, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-Protection-Pros 

message: # Jew is the standing title and is consistent with Wikipedia name conventions as to the prefered use of singular nouns and with all other religious based articles. See my chart above. The ethnic articles that use a plural ("Germans") do so because the singular is a disambiguation page reflecting other uses of the term. -- Cecropia 23:20, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Leave article name as is: "Jew" 

message: #Support name change to standard plural for an ethnic group; "Jew" could redirect to it, without losing any Google ranking/linkage. —LeflymanTalk 00:50, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change article name to "Jews" 

message: # Rename to Jewish (people) Crumbsucker 15:48, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm just someone who happened across this debate, so I don't have a stake in what's apparently a heated debate, but I should point out that every "singular" article you cited is a case where there is no "plural" name, and they all start with the form "The Zulu are". --Vedek Dukat  Talk 22:34, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Tuaregs and Zulus are perfectly good English. - Jmabel | Talk 22:22, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other 

message: I dont understand why the statistics of jews in INDIA are not in this section. They are more than 50 thousand jews in INDia, esp in bombay, cochin, delhi and calcutta. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.11.163.197 (talk • contribs) 00:21, April 7, 2006
*They do get mentioned in the table Jews by country, which points to Jews in India, but the table only estimates the numbers as 5401, which seems low given the numbers in Jews in India. Perhaps you might wish to help correct these numbers, providing us with some verifiable sources for the 50 thousand claim? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 00:30, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Jews in India

message: I think this whole debate about changing the title really surged up this article's rankings on Google. Now if you search "Jew," the first link that comes up is this article on wikipedia, and no more "message from Google" links anymore. So congratulations to all those who are involved in making this happen.--141.213.196.250 04:53, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Jew]] article ahead in google search

message: First we say "Today, there are an estimated 13 million [2] to 14.6 million[3] Jews worldwide…" Then we note: "Please note that these populations represent low-end estimates of the worldwide Jewish population, accounting for around 0.2% of the world's population. Higher estimates place the worldwide Jewish population at over 14.5 million." Then we have a table that shows a number of 15,471,000. These statements do not sit well together. I'm not really an active participant in this article lately, I've just been keeping an eye on it; would someone who is more actively working on it be interested in sorting this out? Thanks. - Jmabel | Talk 01:21, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Considering the dispute as to how "a Jew" is defined, I would also want to know the assumptions behind <I>any</I> figure. Only those who are a member of a synagogue? Anyone who self-identifies? Children of mixed parentage? I'm not trying to reargue the definition here, but what assumptions are made with come up with widely varying figures. -- Cecropia 06:46, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Population