Talk:Jewish question

message: :Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *Support or *Oppose, then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.
* Oppose. It is not a proper noun. No need to capitalize. Hatagalow (talk) 16:54, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: *By proper noun, I think you mean "proper name".  See Proper name/noun.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:21, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: The current article as it now stands makes the use of the phrase 'the Jewish Question' appear either passé - something from the not-so-distant last century, or before - or non-neutral (altho thankfully not quite conferring ownership to the alt right?). This has encouraged frivolous and politically motivated complaints of 'antisemitism' towards those using the phrase in the present century. Could the article be revised to clarify that there is still a neutral usage of the term in this century, or else offer up an alternative?--94.119.64.1 (talk) 10:00, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: No, because it is and always has been an antisemitic term. If you want to demonstrate that there's a non racist use of the term you'd better provide some reliable sources. --ChiveFungi (talk) 11:56, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Then I refer you back to the opening two paragraphs of the article, and a user comment on your own Talk page: Leftist SJWs like ChiveFungi smear anyone they don't like as racists. This is why Trump won. Normal people are sick and tired of this vile and racist leftist bullshit. Leftists like ChiveFungi are the real racists.--94.119.64.19 (talk) 10:55, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Jewish Question today 

message: Can someone knowledgeable please add a simple statement in the opening of the article explaining what is exactly the question? I've read most of this article, I believe I understood most of the history of the question and different aspects of the debate, but I'm still very confused and unsure what is the question itself. I would expect that to be a basic information to have in this article. From everything that I read, it seems that the question is that jews in the past didn't have their own country, and lived as a nation inside other nations? Was the question "how to assimilate jews"? I'm not sure that's the question trying to be solved... this article is so confusing.
It says it "was a wide-ranging debate (...) pertaining to the appropriate status and treatment of Jews in society (...) and dealt with the civil, legal, national and political status of Jews as a minority within society." So the question is how to treat jews in society, as a minority? How were they any different from other minorities, why was there so much debate specifically over this one minority? This article explains what people would discuss, but what exactly is the problem trying to be solved? I don't understand.
Please someone who understands it well, write an explanation as if you were talking to someone who had never heard this term and don't have much knowledge of anti-semitism and the like. Thanks! 96.55.240.155 (talk) 00:01, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: The 'question' has surely always been 'How does any state treat any group of people living within it whose primary allegiance is not to that state but seemingly to a trans-national ideology?' Sometimes the question is expressed in racial terms, in others in religious terms. But the fundamental issue is nationalist, the worry about whose team someone is playing for. (A similar question is now being asked about Muslims in predominantly Christian countries). As a self-defined 'chosen people' Jews were kept, and kept themselves, separate. Being internationalists rather than nationalists they were (and often still are) inevitably seen as potential fifth columnists who might put their co-religionists' interests above national interests. The 'question' continues as politicians worldwide who are Jewish are often accused of supporting Israel and Zionism at the expense of morality and/or the national interest of the country in which they live. Cassandra.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.74.32.104 (talk) 13:50, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: No, we are NOT a self-defined 'chosen people'! Also, pre-1933 Germans Jews (unlike Jews in many other European countries) were not "kept separate" in a shtetl, i.e. ghetto. I need to read the article, because there would be no excuse for it being so unclear as to motivate IP user's inquiry. I would have hoped that SOMEONE would have responded before I arrived, and provided a better reply than Cassandra's (who is an unsigned, unregistered IP address user).--FeralOink (talk) 05:23, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is the question, after all??? 

message: The Jewish question has been thoroughly debunked as anti-semitic. Therefore I think we should label it as such rather - like we do on the article QAnon - rather than use 'debate' 78.150.129.45 (talk) 18:35, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Well we can't all be chosen right? 2604:3D09:D78:1000:C149:7FD0:EC31:824E (talk) 10:45, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  The word debate 

message: Section #3 Karl Marx – On the Jewish Question includes "can the Jews become politically emancipated?". The reference leads to https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/jewish-question/index.htm but I don't see the quote on that page. Mcljlm (talk) 16:21, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Marx and Bauer  

message: Surprised Anti-Semite and Jew 1944, by Sartre isn't discussed in the article. Jimhoward72 (talk) 17:15, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sartre? 

message: From around 1860, the term was used with an increasingly antisemitic tendency: Jews were described under this term as a stumbling block to the identity and cohesion of the German nation and as enemies within the Germans' own country. Antisemites such as Wilhelm Marr, Karl Eugen Dühring, Theodor Fritsch, Houston Stewart Chamberlain, Paul de Lagarde and others declared it a racial problem insoluble through integration. They stressed this in order to strengthen their demands to "de-jewify" the press, education, culture, state and economy. They also proposed to condemn inter-marriage between Jews and non-Jews. They used this term to oust the Jews from their supposedly socially dominant positions. 2604:3D09:D78:1000:C149:7FD0:EC31:824E (talk) 10:44, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  We can say ALL OF THIS with No citations at all? 

message: Seems like the least wiki could do is not spread lies. If you don't have time to do that, you need to reduce the number of pages. Duh. 2604:3D09:D78:1000:C149:7FD0:EC31:824E (talk) 10:45, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  General lack of citations  

message: Marx concluded that while individuals can be 'politically' free in a secular state, they were still bound to material constraints on freedom by economic inequality, an "ASSUMPTION" (sic) that would later form the basis of his critiques of capitalism
What part of that is in question? Economic inequality is a FACT. The physical restrictions on "freedom" due to economic inequality is again, a FACT. So I changed this to situation. Observation may be better fitting. 
2604:3D09:D78:1000:C149:7FD0:EC31:824E (talk) 10:50, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  In what way is this an "assumption"? 

message: ??? 2604:3D09:D78:1000:C149:7FD0:EC31:824E (talk) 11:07, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  So, are we just blatantly ignoring ancient Rome?