Talk:Jews/Archive 2

message: There are repeat statements on this page that most of France's Jews are Sephardic. Does anybody have statistics on this? (Most of the Jews I know are Ashkenazis..) David.Monniaux 22:46, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Jews in France

message: This article was protected because it has been vandalised 24 times in the last 2 days. -- Graham  :) | Talk 01:46, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  NOTICE: Protection 

message: Etymology: From http://www.etymonline.com which is generally dependable: '12c., from Anglo-Fr. iuw, from O.Fr. giu, from L. Judaeum (nom. Judaeus), from Gk. Ioudaios, from Aramaic yehudhai "Judah," lit. "celebrated," name of Jacob's fourth son and of the tribe descended from him. Replaced O.E. Iudeas "the Jews." Originally, "Hebrew of the kingdom of Judah." ' User:Wetman The etymology at the head of this article needs to explain the anomaly about the '-ry- ending.
From what I know of linguistis it could not derive from Judaeum. It looks like one of those faux-pas which has slipped into the conventional explanations like for example the "1400BC Aryans" where there is apparently no scientific basis for this. hyperdictionary.com says Jew is a synonym of Hebrew. Certainly Italian Greek & most slavic languages (the first three translations of the Bible were in Greek Latin & Slavonic) all call Jews as Hebrei Ebrei or Jevrey. If you think it should be reverted until more evidence is presented feel free. User:Zestauferov
:To the contrary; -ry is a suffix also found in other English words, deriving from the French -rie (eg saloperie.) How would you explain "Freemasonry", or "nunnery"? Or "fairy", which is from French fÈe? The traditional etymology is entirely plausible. - Mustafaa 19:44, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Etymology of Jew

message: The article states:
:The most common view is that the Middle English word Jew  is from the Old French qiu, earlier juieu, from the Latin iudeus from the Greek corresponding to the Hebrew y'hudi, ultimately from Judah, name of a Hebrew patriarch and the tribe descended from him. The Old English equivalent was Iudeas. An alternative and much less common view is that Jew is from Jewry from the greek evrei meaning "Hebrews." Under the latter view, Abraham, Israel and other patriarchs are regarded as Jews while under the former only the descendants of the Judaeans would be Jews, strictly speaking.
I have removed the last sentence; the common useage of a word often has litle or no relation to the word's historical, linguistic origin.  Many people assume that the word "Jew" is derived from evrei; yet this does not mean they have a different definition of "Who is a Jew" than people who go by the more accepted derivation (i.e. the former one in the paragraph.) People do have different ideas of how the ancient Hebrews are related to the Jews of today, but that is better described in a separate paragraph.  This latter idea is discussed in the article on Israelites. RK 00:55, Oct 19, 2003 (UTC)
-------
Shalom RK, I think it is very valuable and relevant to the article to tie to that etymology an explanation of why Abraham and Isaac & other patriarchs are considered Jewish (which also explains how a person can be a Jew without being very religious). It is not fair to those without an indepth knowledge of all the parameters to omit this clear & simple explaination very relevant to the article. If it does not belong where it was then place it somewhere else in the article but let's not omit it.
----
Re the opening para: "still identify as Hebrews in a cultural or ethnic sense." None of the Jews I know identify as "Hebrews." The identify as Jews. Why this strange squeamishness about the word Jew? Adam 12:08, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Origins of Hebrew and Jew

message: Hi, I scanned this photograph out of the March 1914 issue of National Geographic Magazine. I think its a beautiful example of early color photography, and wondered if someone might consider it of use for illustrating some Wikipedia article on Jewish realated topics. The photo is now in the public domain.
The original caption says: "AN ARABIAN JEW These Jews, claiming to be of the tribe of Gad, have lived for centuries in Yemen in Southern Arabia."
Cheers, -- Infrogmation 19:24, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I've used it to illustrate the Tefillin article. -- Infrogmation 04:27, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Photograph

message: I consider the continuing removal on my section on stereotypes of Jews to be vandalism.  If you delete text that is factual, verifiable, and non-biased, you must give a reason.  The fact that it points out true facts that might not necessarily be favorable to a certain group is not a valid reason.
===Why text inserted by 67.75.19.59 is repeatedly deleted===
User:67.75.19.59 has insisted on adding this text to the article:
:Stereotypes of Jews
:Because the Jewish religion does not forbid the loaning of money at interest, a disproportionate number of Jews have become bankers and money lenders. This has led to negative stereotypes of Jews as being greedy, avaricious, and money-oriented.
:A disproportionate number of Jews are also pornography directors, which has further aggravated negative stereotypes against them. However, it is quite likely that these stereotypes are simply due to centuries-old religious animosity.
I believe this does not comform to NPOV. 67.75.19.59 claims to be the victim of "Unjustified deletion of factual, verifiable, non-opinionated text" -- BCorr § Брайен  05:16, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Stereotypes of Jews

message: User:67.75.19.59 has insisted on adding this text to the article:
:Stereotypes of Jews
:Because the Jewish religion does not forbid the loaning of money at interest, a disproportionate number of Jews have become bankers and money lenders. This has led to negative stereotypes of Jews as being greedy, avaricious, and money-oriented.
:A disproportionate number of Jews are also pornography directors, which has further aggravated negative stereotypes against them. However, it is quite likely that these stereotypes are simply due to centuries-old religious animosity.
I believe this does not comform to NPOV. 67.75.19.59 claims to be the victim of "Unjustified deletion of factual, verifiable, non-opinionated text" -- BCorr § Брайен  05:16, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Why text inserted by 67.75.19.59 is repeatedly deleted

message: From the article:
: In Hebrew, the name "Judah" contains the four-letter Tetragrammaton, 
Is this so? I wouldn't have thought that there were enough consonants in "Judah"? Anyone know enough Hebrew to confirm/deny this? -- The Anome 14:56, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Judah in Hebrew is actually Yehudah which is written YHWDH which is the tetragrammaton plus D. --Zero 02:09, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: "Judah" and the tetragrammaton

message: Why are some subgroups of under "Common terms" and others under "Communities"? Shouldn't all be in one section? I would expect the Bene Israel and the Juhurim (Mountain Jews) to fall in the same section of the article -- Jmabel
:Jmabel: Yes, I have tried to reorganize this now.  IZAK 15:03, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Sub groups

message: Up until now, the rule of thumb is that about 10 external links is the maximum. This article currently has 61 external links(!!). In general, "see also" is depricated. If it's worth reading, it should be mentioned in the article. We have 13 of those. Unless someone else does it, I'm going to prune down both of those sections. →Raul654 01:08, Apr 16, 2004 (UTC)
:Hi Raul, Let me see what I can do...IZAK
:Islam has 59, but nobody replied to my request... silsor 01:48, Apr 16, 2004 (UTC)
::Just say that unless someone else does it, you're going to. That's usually enough to convince the people who care about the article to do it themselves. If not, "be bold" and do it yourself. →Raul654 01:50, Apr 16, 2004 (UTC)
Please don't be too darn bold on the external links! Often they are included in an article like this because they are effectively references. Since our notion is that the "References" section doesn't include web sites, this happens a lot. Make sure you are not killing the article's references. -- Jmabel 06:39, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: the editors of any Wikipedia article should aim to make it the best possible encyclopedia article on that subject. That is more important than, and may occasionally conflict with, tuning the article to lift its ranking on any particular search engine (no matter how good the cause may be). If you want to help Googlebomb this article, do so by linking to it on your own site, rather than by distorting Wikipedia itself. -- Mpt 17:25, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)

text: That was quite simply vandalism, and I reverted the article to its previous state. Its an inherent feature of Wikis that they can be vandalized, however normally such vandalism is found quite quickly and reverted. Due to the googlebombing this article might attract more antisemitic vandals then it did before, but - even YOU could have fixed it, just read at Wikipedia:Dealing with vandalism. andy 13:47, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Too many external links

message: I am not sure if the editors of this page are keen followers of the attempt to googlebomb this page described under [googlebomb] but I thought I'd let you know you have slid a bit further down the rankings now and on my understanding of google's algorithm the above remarks about external links would also help with this: you will improve overall page rank (since the pages claim equal relevance) by linking this page to internal Wikipedia pages which linked back again rather than by having lots of external links.  BozMo(talk)
:the editors of any Wikipedia article should aim to make it the best possible encyclopedia article on that subject. That is more important than, and may occasionally conflict with, tuning the article to lift its ranking on any particular search engine (no matter how good the cause may be). If you want to help Googlebomb this article, do so by linking to it on your own site, rather than by distorting Wikipedia itself. -- Mpt 17:25, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Google again

message: I am disappointed that the response to the Googlebombing of this Wikipedia entry was to remove the content and replace it with yet another link to a hate site.  Thankfully, this link is 404.  Replacing the top spot in the Google hierarchy with the Wikipedia entry would not have prevented searchers from finding the hate site, and Google quite rightly refused to take the site out of the rankings.  But now the Wikipedia entry has been *replaced* by a link to a defunct hate page, and that *does* make the search for good, intelligent information that much harder, and allows the hate groups that much more control.  This was a very bad decision.
:That was quite simply vandalism, and I reverted the article to its previous state. Its an inherent feature of Wikis that they can be vandalized, however normally such vandalism is found quite quickly and reverted. Due to the googlebombing this article might attract more antisemitic vandals then it did before, but - even YOU could have fixed it, just read at Wikipedia:Dealing with vandalism. andy 13:47, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Vandalism (See also "Protection" below, as of 26 April `04)

message: Continuing on this, I added the following to the section that was recently retitled "===Arab and Islamic===". IZAK promptly removed it without explanation. 
:Joseph HaNagid, the Jewish vizier of Granada, was killed in 1066 by a mob opposed to what they saw as undue power for a non-Moslem. However, it would have been unimaginable for a Jew even to have risen to a similar position in the Christian portion of Europe at that time. 
: Modern Arab and (to a lesser extent) other Moslem attitudes toward Jews are often colored by opposition to Zionism and to the policies (or even -- for some -- the existence) of the state of Israel. 
IZAK, are you questioning the factuality of this? If so, what exactly are you disputing? If not, what exactly is your objection to this material? -- Jmabel 00:11, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Arab & Islamic

message: The Baath party stuff is misleading.  Sure, Jews did also leave after the Baath party takeover in Iraq; but by that time, only 6,000 out of the original 130,000 were left, the rest having fled earlier, so Baathism can scarcely be claimed as a major factor. - Mustafaa 19:34, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Put in something about the earlier departure due to the pro-Nazi government then. Snowspinner 19:36, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  That isn't true either.  Most Jews left in 1952-3, after the government which had briefly supported the Nazis had long since been thrown out by the British.  The immediate reason Iraqi Jews left was because of the tensions of the Arab-Israeli conflict, although no doubt earlier history helped persuade them. - Mustafaa 19:48, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Hence my not putting it in. Regardless, the Baathist government caused the remainder of the Jews in Iraq to depart, and it's sensible to mention. Still, go ahead and put corrections in. Snowspinner 20:01, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Baath party

message: Oh, and  agree with other sources: Sadat was imprisoned for being anti-British, not for being pro-German. - Mustafaa 19:58, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Sadat & Nazism

message: As for Syria, please do not make one of the worst totalitarian dictatorships, and an ally of Vichy France, into a "welcoming" home for its Jews as it was not. The vast majority of Syria's Jews fled because of its various governments' attitudes to them. It's, oh so convenient to "blame it on the Israelis", but that is just what it was, an excuse to squeeze their Jews, most of whom picked up and ran as fast as they could from the tyranny. IZAK 03:48, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Syria "one of the worst totalitarian dictatorships"?  By all means.  But its tyranny is even-handed.  How are Syrian Jews worse off than any other victims of Assad?  Syria is no more welcoming to the Jews than to the Sunnis or Shia or Druze or anybody else, but it has made every attempt to keep them in the country. - Mustafaa 17:24, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Syria

message: This article is NOT about the "Arab or Islamic view" of Jews, and placing all the blame on the Israeli conflict etc, it is about the history of Jews as an ethnicity, and no matter what summersaults of logic one may perform, it is still a huge travesty of history that almost one million Sephardic Jews in the modern Middle East were forced to flee their ancient homes in the Islamic world they had been part of as productive, good and loyal citizens.IZAK 03:48, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: And when were they forced to do this?  Hmm, just after the emergence of Israel.  You think the two events might be connected in some way?  Naaah...
Mustafa: Some will say that this is too "pro" Israeli, but it does convey the FACTS as most Jews understand them to be:
*JEWS IN ARAB COUNTRIES BEFORE AND AFTER 48     IZAK 02:23, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

text: Seriously, the measures taken against Jews in some Arab countries, notably Iraq, were quite unjust - although Jews also left en masse from countries like Morocco, which treated them as well (or as badly) as any other citizens.  But it would be willful blindness to claim that this mistreatment had nothing to do with the Arab-Israeli conflict, given both the timing and the actual statements of the governments involved - and the major Israeli campaigns to persuade them to leave, which according to some Sephardi sources went so far as planting bombs in synagogues. - Mustafaa 18:48, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

text: The founders of modern Arab nationalism were Christians almost to a man - Michel Aflaq, to name the most prominent.  They founded it specifically as an alternative to religious-based nationalism, in which they would have lost out. The movement was joined by many Jews (notably in Egypt).  Hostile to linguistic minorities, maybe; hostile to religious minorities it wasn't! The rest of this rampant speculation is scarcely worth the effort of a reply; just read up about it, and you'll see that the situation was far more complex than you think... Oh, and Netanyahu.org can scarcely be claimed to represent the majority even of Israelis, let alone all Jews. - Mustafaa 21:04, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

text: "Religious" nationalism barely existed at that point; it resumed much later in the twentieth century.  As for the factors: yes, Arab uprisings against the Ottomans had nothing at all to do with hating Jews, and the rest of the factors you list, while relevant, are massively overstated. - Mustafaa 06:49, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

text: Most of the persecutions in that article - including restrictions on travel and Stalinesque reporting of family members - are imposed on Muslims as well.  The monetary restrictions, however, are discriminatory. - Mustafaa 21:09, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Islamic world

message: Also, the same Asia Times article you quote above  goes on to say:
:"And yet another player fond of playing all sides against the middle had entered the game prior to Farouk's ouster: In 1951, the CIA's Kermit Roosevelt (grandson of president Teddy, who in 1953 would organize the overthrow of elected Iranian leader Mohammed Mossadegh and install Reza Pahlavi as Shah) opened secret negotiations with Nasser. Agreement was soon reached that the US, post-coup, would assist in building up Egypt's intelligence and security forces - in the obvious manner, by reinforcing Nasser's existing Germans with additional, "more capable", ones. For that, CIA head Allen Dulles turned to Reinhard Gehlen, one-time head of eastern front German military intelligence and by the early 1950s in charge of developing a new German foreign intelligence service. Gehlen hired the best man he knew for the job - former SS colonel Otto Skorzeny, who at the end of the war had organized the infamous ODESSA network to facilitate the escape of high-ranking Nazis to Latin America (mainly Peron's Argentina) and Egypt. With Skorzeny now on the job of assisting Nasser, Egypt became a safe haven for Nazi war criminals galore. The CIA officer in charge of the Egypt assistance program was Miles Copeland, soon a Nasser intimate. "
:Bcorr: We are NOT discussing the CIA here. What they did as part of ESPIONAGE/COUNTERESPIONAGE is a different subject. Your question was about Sadat's pro-Nazi leanings, and I cited the sources. Whether the sources are pro or anti anything is also not the point. The FACT remains that Sadat was a strong admirer of Hitler, the Jews' arch-enemy. IZAK 23:32, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: CIA

message: I'm not denying the fact that both Egyptians and Israelis did everthing they could to expel the British from the Middle East, but so often in wartime, "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" -- and even when wars are not raging, there are events like the US-Iran-Israel arms-for-hostages Iran-Contra affair that create strange bedfellows. And if you don't mind, I'm copying this all to Talk:Jew so others can weigh in. Thanks again, BCorr|Брайен 13:24, Apr 21, 2004 (UTC)
Bcorr: Diplomatic and political dealings are one thing. All states and vested parties do it. But in the case of Sadat, his life's history proves that not only was he personally positive about Hitler, he also was determined to give the Nazi army under Rommel all the help it needed to enter Egypt. There was no "Israeli" policy to Nazi Germany, as there was no "Israel" until 1947. The MAJORITY of the Jewish population of Palestine was VERY pro-British, and clamored to enter its army to fight AGAINST the Nazis. Whatever minimal contacts there were with German officials was for the purpose of SAVING Jews from Hitler's gas-chambers, and keeping the doors of Palestine OPEN to Jewish immigration during the Holocaust. The Stern Gang acted to PROTEST Britain's closed-door policies, and NOT as a sign of any "liking" for Nazism, unlike Sadat and his cohorts who actually liked and emulated the Nazis. IZAK 23:32, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: If the quotes are correct - though I don't put much confidence in their sources - then Sadat did negotiate with the Nazis, and appreciated their role in attacking other colonial powers.  But that does not imply that he supported them, as BCorr pointed out, any more than the fact that early Israel had close relations with the USSR and got many of their weapons from Communist states means they were Stalinists.  Mustafaa 17:24, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: "Rightly" admired by Jews?  The man who killed 5-10 million people, according to the Wikipedia?  Good to know that you've got a double standard about genocides. - Mustafaa 20:10, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

text: Mustafa: Nobody is saying that Stalin was a "nice man", he was a tyrant. But he was a key ally against Hitler. During World War Two Stalin's USSR was one of the three Allied Powers and was welcomed as such by Winston Churchill of Great Britain and Franklin Roosevelt of the USA. Churchill himself justified his alliance with Stalin inspite of his own anti-Communism by saying in the British House of Commons: "If Hitler were to invade Hell I would support the Devil (against Hitler)". Stalin had an ambivelent relationship with his country's Jews, and they with him. From the point of view of SOVIET JEWS during the Holocaust, there was no "double standard", to them Stalin was the man who DECISIVELY  DEFEATED and DESTROYED their arch-enemies: Hitler, Nazism, Fascism, and the Third Reich during the "Great Patriotic War", their name for Russia's struggle against Germany during World War Two. This does NOT mean to say that "EVERY" Jew on the planet is an "admirer" of Stalin, on the contrary, but the fact remains that to the millions of Russian Jews at the time he was their "hero".  IZAK 01:48, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Egyptians during World War Two

message: ::"Silly Stalin"--now there's a vivid phrase! I remember the last days of Stalin, and somehow I could never picture calling him "silly." Especially not to his face, :) Cecropia 03:41, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, Brave New World! :) Cecropia 04:31, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: "Silly Stalin" !

message: "The rise of the Baath parties in Syria and Iraq resulted in their large ancient communities fleeing as refugees."  This is factually incorrect in two respects: practically the entire Iraqi Jewish community had fled before the rise of the Baath party, as pointed out earlier, and the Jews of Syria were actively prevented from leaving by the Baath Party until 1992. - Mustafaa 17:31, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Mustafa: Playing word games is not an alternative to history. The rise of the Baath parties was a process that took many years. By the time they took over in Iraq many Jews had fled PRECISELY BECAUSE it was the moment they were dreading. Similarly in Syria, it was the actualization of the Jews's worst nightmares as whoever remained were made into prisoners of the state, and that is why so may had tried to flee earlier. It was the OPPOSITE of "spring is in the air" for a very long time for the Middle East's Jews! IZAK 03:14, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Making provably false statements is not justified by the mere fact that they happen to fit what you think was the broader picture. - Mustafaa 21:10, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Baathists in Iraq & Syria

message: Someone (User:131.165.63.132, contribs) thought it would be nice to list this under Wikipedia:Cleanup, without leaving  here. I've removed this and made a fuss on the talk page. Please support me - the allegation is ridiculous.  JFW | T@lk 23:16, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup 

message: Current text has:
: In modern English, "Israelite" is not commonly used in any context, but one can refer to "religious Jews" or "secular Jews." 
I would think it would be more accurate to say:
: In modern English, outside of Jamaica, where the word "Israelite" has been appropriated by the Rastafarians, "Israelite" is not commonly used in any context, but one can refer to "religious Jews" or "secular Jews." 
Any reason not to change this? After all, Jamaican English is no less "modern" than US or UK English. -- Jmabel 05:58, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem here is that this may open a "pandora's box" of all those groups, not just Jamaicans, but also the Mormons and all groups that claim to be "Israelite" or the "Lost Tribes of Israel". The article is talking in terms of the treminolgy as it applies to the Jewish people as an ethnicity and NOT to any other groups or sects that have "adopted" the name "Israelite" for themselves to become exceptions by name. IZAK 20:45, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: What about the fact that Israelite is used in Modern English to refer to Biblical Jews? Rmhermen 20:49, Apr 30, 2004 (UTC)
Given that, I am going to edit in a wy that I think embraces all of that. -- Jmabel 23:54, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Israelite"