Talk:Jews/Archive 16

message: article anon
:I tried to verify this with other newspapers online but there was none to support it, so I don't believe it is true. Do you have another source to back this up with or is it just a jpost.com assumption? Miskin 17:35, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is incorrectly reported in one newspaper and was spread around.  The original newspaper corrected the mistake.  Jon513 21:49, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's safe to say that Iran has no problem allowing Jews to live and work in their country, they just will not allow them to gain a disproportionately prominent influence in governmental and financial fields because they are 'foreigners,' i.e. not ethnic Iranians and above all not Muslims. As you say, they allow them to stay (or let them in) to help with education, computer technology, energy, and science, and to help 'modernize' the country; these Iranian Jews can help VERY MUCH because they are (1) often very educated; and because they are (2) basically forced to assimilate in to mainstream Iranian society (in order to help and contribute to Iranian [and not just Jewish-Iranian] society) or else they will be forced to emigrate for being too 'exclusive' and 'clannish.' This 'forced assimilation' is, if you ask me, good for everyone involved because it lets these Jews help the entire society rather than just improving a separate Jewish-Iranian society.  This is important because around the World, in basically whatever country they live in, Jews are and have always been 'a people set apart.'  This was often self-imposed segregation, but also sometimes imposed by the larger society (as in the Jewish ghettos found in many manjor European cities, or the Shtetls in Eastern Europe). So, it seems that by reading Al-Andalus, Iranian Jews are either forced to assimilate and contribute to the ENTIRE society or they are forced to leave the country.  -172.132.243.219 07:33, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

text: *"disproportionately prominent"? - Jmabel | Talk 03:43, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

text: While I agree with your first paragraph (BTW, the Sultan of Morocco also deserves credit that he does not usually receive for protecting "his" Jews during Nazizeit), we part ways after that. The Iranian Revolution did not happen as a reaction to Zionism: it happened as a reaction to the Shah's repressive regime, and relatively few of the revolutionaries meant to usher in a theocracy. And while I agree that Ahmadinejad called for the destruction of Israel, not of the Jews, the emphasis on the state rather than its people is, to the best of my knowledge, yours, not his. It seems to me that the blurring was his, not that of hostile interpreters. - Jmabel | Talk 20:50, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually he never actually said the words "wipe Israel off the map", he was widely misquoted. 82.5.170.18 22:48, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be useful to have a WP:CITE for. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 23:32, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

text: This is not a forum; it is a place to discuss inprovements to the article.  Wikipedia accutally has an article about the website - Jew Watch.  If you think that there is a problem with that article or something lacking you can either change it yourself or discuss it on the the talk page there.  Jon513 18:13, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New Iranian law to require Jews to wear yellow band

message: Vote  They are attempting to close the +cat AGAIN, please vote to KEEP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SirIsaacBrock (talk • contribs) 
: The vote is now closed, but may I suggest that when people urge other people to participate in a discussion or vote, they should simply urge them to participate, not tell them which side to take. - Jmabel | Talk 20:53, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[:Category:Anti-Semitic people]]

message: why there is no mention of terrorists attacks on jews.
even on other articles like jews in India, it mentions about persecution of jews and hindus in India by Islamic organisations like Lashkar-e-Toiba, who claim hindus and jews to be enemies of islam.
i m looking for any criticism on this proposal and it must mention about terrorism in Indian subcontinent too.
nids 10:32, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think there's no mention of terrorist attacks here because it's a specific form of violence against a people that is better handled in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, or perhaps in a page on terrorism... this article already has a Persecution section, which I think is good enough. Terrorism has nothign to do with the basic concept of Jew (or Judaism). Just my two cents. User:Ztrawhcs 17:03, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

text: It's true that terrorism affects certain groups more than others, but note that the big islamic terrorist groups have stated that their goal is to wage war against, well, pretty much everyone. (Obviously that's an exaggeration but you get my point.) How do we determine which articles should be updated to reflect terrorist attacks against their people? Seems like a slippery slope. Ztrawhcs 20:51, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Actually, none of those articles really talks in detail about terrorism against the Jewish people -- but Terrorism_against_Israel does an excellent job of discussing the generals, and Al-Aqsa_Intifada does a horrifically completely job of documenting the specifics. Ztrawhcs 18:22, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  why no mention of terrorist attacks 

message: (Removed personal attack, as per WP:NPA)
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.135.229.7 (talk • contribs) .
:On Wikipedia we try to be as civil as possible to everyone, even to those that vandalise pages.  We assume, whenever possible, that they are just testing how a wiki works, and encourage them to make more productive edits in the future.  Jon513 19:22, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, and that's why Wikipedia has such a great deal of vandalism; half of the editors (rm personal attack, per WP:NPA) who don't understand the psychology behind vandalism and seem to think that playing nice and giving 50 (yes, I've seen that many) warnings without a perma-ban will make things better. On the other hand, whining about it on a talk page doesn't help much either. 24.126.199.129 10:52, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Different people have different threshold of tolerance and sensitivities vary wildly. Often admins are accused in heavyhandedness. We are all volunteers here, why don't you register and help. ←Humus sapiens ну? 11:05, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Not sure I follow your logic here. (1) Who is encouraging? (2) Most skinheads are not racist skins. (3) Being civil even to people who ought to be banned is perfectly OK, just so long as it doesn't interfere with banning them. (4) Legality doesn't enter the question anywhere as far as I can see. What on earth are you referring to with "Isn't that a federal crime since 1964?" The 1964 Civil Rights Act? How? - Jmabel | Talk 20:12, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Anti-Semetic (rm personal attack, as per [[WP:NPA]])

message: They have not been able to edit this article since July 1st -- over 1 month. Is this really the "encyclopedia anyone can edit?" Liu Bei 04:01, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This page has repeatedly been the target of constant anonomous vandalism.  When the page is semi-protect it drasticly cuts down on the ammount of vandalism.  While I would rather the not be protected at all, considering how few quality edits are made by anons I think that semi-protection for this article makes a lot of sense. Jon513 04:19, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The policy appears to disagree with you: Semi-protection should not be used: to prohibit anonymous editing in general. Liu Bei 17:02, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: bring it up at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection#Current requests for unprotection.  Jon513 18:52, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Huh? The Jews were "banned as a distinct party shortly after the forming of the Soviet Republic" because a Wikipedia page was blocked? Am I missing something here? - Jmabel | Talk 22:05, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  There was no Jewish Party. There were Bund and Yevsektsiya. ←Humus sapiens ну? 05:04, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Anonymi

message: :Admin plz add Indian Jews and/or Desi Jews to the "See Also" section of the article for the sake of completeness.Hkelkar 05:18, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Why are you asking an admin to make this edit for you? - Jmabel | Talk 04:16, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Indian Jews]]

message: NEW: On Wikiversity there is now a "Jewish Studies School." Will it become a "duplication" of many things on Wikipedia? What should it's goals and functions be? Please add your learned views.  Thank you. IZAK 09:10, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jewish WIKIVERSITY 

message: Dear all,
:I call your attention to the topic entitled as above in the policy section of Wikipedia:Village pump. Bellbird 15:56, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tagging living people as Jews 

message: I love Wikipedia because there is no systematic copy editing to prevent the intellectually boastful from expressing themselves ungrammatically: "The Jewish people have by far the largest concentration of Nobel prize winners… than any other ethnic or religious group."
Of course, someone else is welcome to fix this. - Jmabel | Talk 04:19, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I copyedited it but it remains ... a tad "boastful."  Further fixing would not be unwelcome.  ;-) Antandrus  (talk) 04:23, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why I love Wikipedia 

message: The correct transliteration of the Yiddish word ייִדן is yidn, without "e". There is no vowel in the original Yiddish spelling, and the pronounciation is also yidn. As a new user, I cannot edit this article, so I'll appreciate someone fixing this problem. Beit Or 18:34, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Right. Done. ←Humus sapiens ну? 20:22, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yiddish transliteration 

message: The number of Jews in modern Israel has surpassed the  number of Jews in the United States for the first time, according to the US Central Bureau of Statistics.
On the eve of Independence Day last month, the CBS reported that there are 5.4 million Jews living in Israel, compared to 5.2 million in the U.S., according to the latest United Jewish Appeal Federation survey reported Tuesday in Ha'aretz.
The data indicates the closure of an historical circle: For the first time in nearly 2000 years since the destruction of the Second Temple, Israel has once again become the largest concentration of Jews in the world. 
this should be entered into the article and also the chart shouldbe updatede
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rebavi (talk • contribs) 3 October 2006.
: Do you have a citation for this?
: Is the count in Israel based on a comparable definition to the one for the U.S.? I know that for some purposes, Israel counts everybody eligible under the Law of Return as a Jew. Some of those would not be considered Jews in terms of ethnicity (e.g. someone with a Jewish father and a gentile mother, or a gentile married to a Jew). Not that the U.S. numbers are particularly clean or precise, either. - Jmabel | Talk 20:01, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I imagine the US numbers would be from the census, wouldn't they? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 03:44, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The USA most likely still has more Jews than Israel -- there are many more Jews in the USA than people realize, only that they are secular crypto-Jews and don't report themselves as Jewish on the census forms.  Also, given that around 60% of Americans are unaware of their true ethnic heritage, I'm sure there are MANY people in the USA that don't know that they are Jews.  --152.163.100.72 15:59, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

text: That's not true. Israel statistics only include people actually living in Israel. Like any person travelling out of the country, it takes time but not 10 years. Incidentally, I've been to Australia and there seem to be more Palestinians there than Jews for sure. Not only Jews emigrate out of Israel/territories. The ID card has nothing to do with it... it was omitted because people thought it was "racist" - it's not difficult to make an ethnic census and the amount of non Jews in Israel is very documented. Amoruso 03:25, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  the figures for the amount of jews living in places is out of date 

message: Hi Gwernol. You need to provide a guideline for your removal of . --WikiCats 03:58, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem, WP:EL, specifically "Links normally to be avoided...Any site that contains factually inaccurate material or unverified original research, as detailed in Wikipedia:Reliable sources." Gwernol 04:02, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I object. If you truly believe that the two main controversies associated with the Jewish people are the hate-spewing Jewwatch site and Mel Gibson nonsense, then can I suggest you pleae go back and read a couple of history books. You may find there's been a little more than that. Gwernol 12:49, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversy 

message: Hi,
I'm aware that the term "Jew" can describe an adherent to the Jewish faith and/or a member of the Jewish people or ethnic group. For that reason, I hesitate to add the page to Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups using the   template. This category may be considering too limiting...
I'll be watching this page for a week or so. Please let me know if you think it's OK to add this article to Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups. Thanks --Ling.Nut 19:00, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups]]  

message: I'm wondering if anyone has come across any serious scholarly research that has examined the fact that Jews tend to be quite overrepresented amongst the gay and lesbian populations in the modern World, particularly in the USA and Western Europe.  I have read about this on certain Jewish websites and in a couple Jewish newsletters/newspapers, but have yet to find any academic research on this matter.  I know that the worldwide Jewish community is generally very gay/lesbian friendly, but I am looking for information/statistics that have has confirmed the noticeably higher incidence of homosexuality/lesbianism in the (mostly secular) Jewish population.  Thank you for any information that you can provide.  --152.163.100.72 15:56, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Higher Percentage of Gays/Lesbians Found in Modern Jews -- Research 

message: Hello,
WikiProject Ethnic groups has added new assessment criteria for Ethnic Groups articles.
:-->How to assess articles
Revisions of assessment ratings can be made by assigning an appropriate value via the class parameter in the WikiProject Ethnic groups project banner  that is currently placed at the top of Ethnic groups articles' talk pages. Quality assessment guidelines are at the Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team's assessment system page. After rating the article, please provide a short summary to explain your ratings and/or identify the strengths and weaknesses. To add the summary, please edit this article's ratings summary page. A link to this page can be found in the  template on the article's talk page.
Please see the Project's article rating and assessment scheme for more information and the details and criteria for each rating value. A brief version can be found at  Template talk:Ethnic groups. You can also  enquire at the Ethnic groups Project's main discussion board for assistance.
Another way to help out that could be an enjoyable pastime is to visit  :Category:Unassessed Ethnic groups articles, find an interesting-looking article to read, and carefully assess it following those guidelines.
Thanks!
--Ling.Nut 21:50, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Assessment Criteria for Ethnic Groups articles 

message: The following sentence appeared in the "Middle Ages: Islamic Europe, North Africa and Asia " section:
:"In the Islamic lands Jews at times were driven by necessity to engage in despised occupations, becoming dancing boys or tavernkeepers."
I removed this sentence because it directly contradicts the remainder of the paragraph, which speaks of the tolerance the Jews met in Islamic lands. However, I do welcome discussion if anyone feels I am in error. Justin Eiler 00:52, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Very dubious assertion 

message: The phrase "This, however, is a war of disproportionate strength" is wonderfully ironic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.230.226.158 (talk • contribs) 
: I don't find it "wonderfully ironic", but that text looked like an original research, so I removed it. ←Humus sapiens ну? 03:21, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  In Wars Against the Jews 

message: Type "cheap" into search, redirected to Jew article. Shouldn't this be fixed?
: Good catch. Who knew, another item to watch. Thanks! ←Humus sapiens ну? 07:15, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: same thing for stingy. (already corrected it).Jon513 13:42, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Cheap"? 

message: Please vote 64.229.208.244 22:27, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_November_23#Category:Anti-Semitic_people Vote]

message: Why is it that a section of the article discussing the perjorative use of the word "Jew" has been made into a footnote? Check footnote number one...  --Elipongo 18:04, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because it is a dictionary-ish remark on word usage, not part of the encyclopedic topic of Jews as such. - Jmabel | Talk 03:02, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

text: But I'd footnote it off the first usage, not further down. - Jmabel | Talk 03:03, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough! Thank you! --Elipongo 03:52, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article section in a footnote?