Talk:Jews/Archive 14

message: can this page be protected as it seems to be vandalised very often--Happyhaydn 23:14, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  protection 

message: 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appearing in Judaism related articles (as it has before), it's usually a sign of someone using ancient sources or outdated information.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)
thread_title:  Convertite? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  announcing policy proposal 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Protecting?? 

message: Some of you (even non-Yiddish speakers) might be interested in my half-baked plan to revitalize the moribund (only 121 articles) Yiddish Wikipedia.  Please see my idea at Talk:Yiddish_language#Yiddish_Wikipedia, and thanks.--Pharos 05:25, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yiddish Wikipedia 

message: The article states "The rise of more radical Muslim regimes, such as that of the Almohades ended this period by the thirteenth century, and Jews were soon expelled from Spain."  But this is a slander against Muslim tolerance.  Jews were expelled from Spain not by Muslims, but by the "Catholic Monarchs" Ferdinand and Isabelle. And this was not 'soon' after the 13th century -- the expulsion began in the late 15th century, in 1492, when Jews faced the choice of conversion or expulsion.  Many who did convert to Christianity (the 'conversos') were later persecuted by the Inquisition as being insincere Christians.
*No, there's no slander there. When the Almohad dynasty took power in the 12th century, they gave Jews the choice of conversion, expulsion, or death. Up until then, you're absolutely correct; pre-Almohad Muslim Spain was something of a golden age for Jews and Muslims alike. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 06:06, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jews in Spain 

message: Any help would be greatly appreciated. Agriculture 05:43, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  On the subject of [[Template:DecencyWikiProject]] 

message: It is indeed interesting that the word "God" appears only once on the page, in the history section, no less. I may correct this at a later date; however, here are some guidelines:
*Yaweh is not correct; it a a pronouncement of the four Hebrew letters that are perhaps the holiest name in Judaism. So holy, in fact, that we do not know how to pronounce them and do not even try.
*The form that should be used are Hashem (litterally "the name", but it is commonly used as a way to refrence God without invoking His name). 
*Perhaps it should be more or less this:
The Jews beleive in one God, whose name they consider sacred. Yaweh is an often used misprounouciation (sp?). However, the Jews have many terms for God. They prefer to use Hashem when not reciting sacred blessings, or Brachut. Hashem litterally means "the name" but is used commonly to reference God without invoking His name.
Half of that is the same text from above; but hey, no ones going to see the talk page, and if they do they'll see this, too. Anyway, I hope to get this worked out. HereToHelp 00:02, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This is the article Jew, not Judaism: about the ethnicity, not the faith. Beliefs do not determine who is ethnically a Jew, any more than one would cease to be a Serb by not being Serbian Orthodox. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:09, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Right. Jayjg (talk) 04:11, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: No mention of God

message: My apologies! I accidentally clicked the wrong button and reverted the article to the vandalized version.  I have reverted it back to the correct version. I hope that no one was offended. --Ixfd64 03:31, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  oops! 

message: there are several things wrong with this caption:
:German Jews (identifiable by the Judenhuts that they were required to wear) were killed by the tens of thousands during the First Crusade. French Bible illustration from 1250.
first of all, tens of thousands of Jews were killed in the course of the First Crusades, but they were not identifiable by the Judenhut, since that was prescribed only from 1215, more than 100 years later. Secondly, not only "German" Jews were required to wear "Judenhuts". First of all, there wasn't any "Germany" at all, just the Holy Roman Empire, and that was a very heterogenous aggregate of states, and Judenhuts were even required outside the HRR, in parts of France. Since we're looking at a French Bible here, it is likely influenced by French costume than by German custume. Thirdly, the image description claims that these are Jews massacred by Crusaders. What is there to back up the claim? The headgear depicted is not typical for the pilea cornuta; see here for a typical example. Then, this being a biblical illustration, what evidence is there that the killers are Crusaders? This looks more like hagiography to me, or maybe something from the Acts of the Apostles, and it is doubtful that the people slaughtered are even meant to be Jews. We'd need an exact reference for this image to check this out, but my guess is that these are five saints slaughtered by pagans. Sorry if this seem long-winded and without relevance to the article; but if you're going to use illustrations, you should make sure that they are pertinent and labelled correctly. 19:43, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You are right in that the image is not captioned correctly, the same image is used in an exhibit put together by YIVO and BRON where it was captioned "Three Jews, identifiable by their hats, are being put to the swords by Christian knights. Bible illustration; France, 1250."  I would trust that the details given there (Jews, hats, Christian knights) are accurate, but there is no reason to believe they are Crusaders or Germans. I will change the caption. --Goodoldpolonius2 23:55, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I provided two sources for that image at :Image:FirstCrusade.jpg, both talk about the Jews killed by the Crusaders. As for the Judenhuts, good catch but please do not expect much realism from medieval images. It was a very common practice to show ancient figures (or not so ancient, as in this case) wearing contemporary clothes. The styles of clothes varied in time/place. Also, let's not forget that the Crusaders at the time probably considered such an act a good deed. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 06:53, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: what do you mean, "much realism"? I showed you another medieval image, illustrating how Judenhuts were depicted at the time, never mind if it is realistic or not (see here for more, but mostly later, examples). So our source for the "Christian knights" caption is www.friends-partners.org (and for 'Jews', but not 'knights', www.flholocaustmuseum.org)? I must say that I would be more comfortable with a museum homepage that identifies the manuscript. This looks suspiciously like a 'google rumour', i.e. one homepage copying the other, without any solid basis. The 'slaughterers' do not seem armed for war at all. They are wearing crowns(!), but civilian clothing and no armour (Crusaders would conventially be depicted in chainmail, or at least with a cross on their clothes). Note that the two figures on the left wear the same sort of headgear. Is it not rather five people being slaughtered? I am not saying it is impossible that the people slaughtered here represent Jews, I am just saying that it is far from self-evident, and we just have captions on internet illustrations to base the claim on. Maybe we should write an email to flholocaustmuseum.org and ask for their sources? Mind you that I am not contesting the slaughter of Jews during the First Crusade at all, I am simply critical of whether this image has anything to do with it. I do argue that this has some importance; according to your reading, I suppose, Jesus shown up there in the clouds is blessing the slaughterers (which would make the illustration a piece of medieval anti-Semitism). You say the killing of Jews was regarded a 'good deed' during the Crusades; that's not true. There were, certainly a lot of fanatics who did this slaughter with good conscience, but the higher up you got in church hierarchy, the more the slaughter was condemned. Looking at the image, I think it is likely that it is a scene of martyrdom, and Christ is blessing the martyrs rather than the slaughterers. What makes me suspicious, I should say, is the claim that it is from a Bible: it would be very uncommon for Bible illustrations to portray "current events" as it were. Bibles are commonly illustrated with biblical scenes (of course in contemporary guise, i.e. biblical Jews in a 1250 Bible will look like 13th century Jews, with hats and all, but the picture will still represent a biblical scene). 09:53, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I have sent an inquiry to flholocaustmuseum (the 'education' address; the 'webmaster' one has bounced). 10:27, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: As I understand it, the main massacre of European Jews related to the First Crusade would have been "at home" in Europe before knights set out for the Holy Land. -- Jmabel | Talk 16:30, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: yes, but  "knights" were not involved so much as a crazed mob of fanatics; I mentioned the German Crusade, 1096, but that was summarily reverted , and with all the reverting going on here, I feel this article is too unstable to make any detailed contributions. 09:53, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Probably so, or at least knights were no more involved than any other Christians. And I sympathize with you on the impossibility of editing a moving train as it goes by. -- Jmabel | Talk 02:20, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: image caption

message: "Since the Haskalah, these halachic interpertations of Jewish identity have been challenged." Was this not equally so among Hellenizing Jews in the era of the Roman Empire? -- Jmabel | Talk 02:09, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, there was certainly unorthodox or secularizing practice, but was there something other than matrilineal descent recognized?--Pharos 02:21, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Historical definition 

message: I don't see Ningpo listed in the Diaspora section of this article.  Ningpo is more or less a Jewish city, or at least the most Jewish city in the PRC.  --McDogm 02:29, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You may want to look at History of the Jews in China, there used to be a Chinese Jewish community in  Kaifeng, but now there are only Jews from abroad in China, perhaps you can tell us more about Ningpo? --Goodoldpolonius2 02:44, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ningpo, China 

message: The Jewish population statistics need to be checked up on, as it says that the figure for 'Russia' includeds the Russian Federation, Eastern Bloc, and all countries that were under the control of the USSR.  Yet, Lithuania is listed as a seperate figure.  Does Germany include GDR as this was in the East Bloc? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JosephLondon (talk • contribs) 29 Oct 2005.  It's also not clear, whether the stats refer to people of Jewish heritage or of Jewish faith.
:You may want to go to the main Jewish population article for more info. --Goodoldpolonius2 22:15, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jewish Population Statistics 

message: I have read that the "Jewish mother" thing was invented about 500 AD. Prior to that it was "Jewish father". Is there anything in the ancient texts about "Jewish mother"? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.64.166.191 (talk • contribs) 30 Oct 2005.
:I have heard that it was the mother, because the fatherhood could always be questioned. 惑乱 分からん 19:52, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I tend to agree that the paternity question is probably the central issue, due to the chaotic conditions under which Jews have often had to live, as well as to discourage intermarriage. I think the position of Judaism is anomolous, if not quite unique, in tracing family lines by fatherhood but "Jewishness" by motherhood. Also, can anyone describe a situation in which the Jewishness of one's mother is an issue other than in "mixed" parentage? -- Cecropia 23:47, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  child of a Jewish mother 

message: Moving this from the article to talk page:The Jewish Apostle Paul, in the New Testament (a book written mostly by Jews) says that being a physical or outwardly religious Jew is not necessarily a true Jew, but only one who is spiritual no matter what his ethnic background. This belief of his came from Romans 2:28-29 that says," For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh. But he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that which is of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter; and his praise is not from men, but from God." - I don't think it is appropriate here. 
Yes, Jesus, all apostles and most early Christians were Jewish, but considering the schism, why would we let any of them define Jewish identity? ←Humus sapiens←ну? 08:08, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Jdhunt, I don't believe you are "a messianic jew" but I'll try to assume good faith on your side. You seriously misunderstand and distort a sensitive subject. May I suggest you please learn from a reputable source before editing an encyclopedia. Some may find what you write offensive. Thanks. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 08:58, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry you don't believe me, but I am a Messianic Jew, just ask my Rabi. , I don't misunderstand and distort a serious subject. Even if you don't agree with what is written it is what some sects of Jews, Messianic Jews, believe about themselves and what makes up Jewish Identity. It is one facit of belief about Jews by Jews, so it belongs. I have learned from a reputable source. What I need to do is get my sources together, so it just doesn't come accross a POV, eventhough I quoted one of the first Messianic Jews the Apostle Paul. I'm sorry some might find what I write as offensive; should none of us write or not write the truth, because it might offend somebody. Example: writing about the Holocaust, which is the truth might offend some Nazis, because some of them believe it did not happen. So what to that nazi, because it did happen. It happenned to my ancestors. (J. D. Hunt 12:23, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Apostle Paul and Jewish identity 

message: In the last couple of days, an awful lot of links to http://www.chabad.org have been added to Judaism-related articles, including this one. Individually, none of them are wildly inappropriate, but collectively, in my view, they add up to wikispam. I'd hate to have to add a legitimate religious group to the list of sites whose links are presumed to be spam, but this is getting ridiculous. -- Jmabel | Talk 08:00, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I just noticed this, but as I'm sure you realize that aish.com and chabad.org are the two biggest sites on Judaism on the web, therefore it's only to be expected that you will have alot of links to Judaism related articles to them because they are the source for many of these articles and they have much additional information on it. If they are relevant to the content of the article, I see no reason why they should be removed. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 20:28, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Agreed, My point was just to respond to the view that said alot of links from one site is not good. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 21:33, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Additionally I would like to quote from WP:EL regarding where external links should be placed: Sites that contain neutral and accurate material not already in the article. Ideally this content should be integrated into the Wikipedia article, then the link would remain as a reference. Therefore even if it is just more info, although it should be added to the article, until it is added into the article it may remain there, and after it is added into the article it should remain there as a reference. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 21:38, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikispam 

message: Urgent: see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Hebrew) to add your opinions about this important matter. Thank you. IZAK 18:21, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hebrew naming conventions  

message: Somebody on IRC showed me this, and after reading that, it seems likely that this page may recieve some vandals soon. Karmafist 01:07, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This note was posted in April 2004. I wouldn't worry about it. Guanaco 02:49, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Potential Incoming Vandals