Revision as of 23:06, 18 June 2004 editMichael Hardy (talk | contribs)Administrators210,279 edits →Clarified Reform position on patrilineal descent← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 16:08, 2 January 2025 edit undoAndreJustAndre (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users40,578 editsm Reverted 1 edit by 2A02:9130:FE13:A7D1:1816:A825:2852:39E6 (talk) to last revision by Lowercase sigmabot IIITags: Twinkle Undo |
Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
|
{{Skip to talk}} |
|
Older discussions may be found at ], ] and ] |
|
|
|
{{Talk header|search=yes}} |
|
---- |
|
|
|
{{Not a forum|Judaism or Jewish people}} |
|
==Ethnicity box== |
|
|
|
{{ArticleHistory |
|
|
| action1 = GAN |
|
|
| action1date = January 23, 2006 |
|
|
| action1link = |
|
|
| action1result = Listed |
|
|
| action1oldid = 36318420 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| action2 = GAR |
|
That thing is a HIDEOUS EYESORE, as well as taking up a ridiculous amount of space at the top of the article. Can anything be done to make this thing less obnoxious? - ] 11:56, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
| action2date = July 6, 2008 |
|
|
| action2link = Talk:Jews/Archive 21#GA Sweeps Review: Pass |
|
|
| action2result = Kept |
|
|
| action2oldid = 223929606 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| action3 = PR |
|
:I agree fully, why is this "box" necessary at all??? All the information is stated clearly in the article and it actually creates the mis-impression that the small "sub groups" are more important than they are in reality, when they are basically totally irrelevant in the greater scheme of things in many ways. ] 12:46, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
| action3date = October 6, 2008 |
|
|
| action3link = Misplaced Pages:Peer review/Jew/archive1 |
|
|
| action3result = Reviewed |
|
|
| action3oldid = 243056585 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| action4 = GAR |
|
::This sort of thing can be put into a table in the body of the article - ] 13:03, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
| action4date = February 26, 2009 |
|
|
| action4link = Talk:Jews/GA1 |
|
|
| action4result = Kept |
|
|
| action4oldid = 272743585 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| action5 = GAR |
|
This is standard under ]. This one ends up being uncommonly large, because the picture on Jews is so complicated. I would strongly suggest that it be edited down rather than removed. If people think it is, in general, a bad idea, it should probably be taken up in the relevant WikiProject. For whatever it is worth, this is about the 25th article it has been added to over the course of about three months, and to the best of my knowledge the first where anyone has objected to it. -- ] 05:48, Jun 8, 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
| action5date = April 18, 2017 |
|
|
| action5link = Talk:Jews/GA2 |
|
|
| action5result = delisted |
|
|
| action5oldid = 775930891 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| currentstatus = DGA |
|
:The data is useful and relevant - the presentation is problematic in this article because it's a huge burnt-orange blob at the top of the article taking up too much width. I suggest that in this particular article it could be presented otherwise, e.g. as a section, with an HTML comment in the text explaining why this was done - ] 11:07, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
| topic = Socsci |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|class=B|vital=yes|1= |
|
|
{{WikiProject Ethnic groups |importance=Top}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Israel |importance=Top}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Judaism |importance=Top}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Jewish history |importance=Low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Western Asia |importance=High}} |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
|
|archiveheader = {{talk archive navigation|noredlinks=y}} |
|
|
|maxarchivesize = 150K |
|
|
|counter = 34 |
|
|
|minthreadsleft = 3 |
|
|
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 |
|
|
|algo = old(30d) |
|
|
|archive = Talk:Jews/Archive %(counter)d |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn |target=Talk:Jews/Archive index |mask=Talk:Jews/Archive <#> |leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes}} |
|
|
{{Old moves |
|
|
| list = |
|
|
* RM, Jew → Jewish people, '''No consensus''', 10 July 2007, ] |
|
|
* RM, Jew → Jews, '''Moved''', 17 January 2010, ] |
|
|
* RM, Jews → Jewish people, '''Not moved''', 10 October 2017, ] |
|
|
* RM, Jews → Jewish people, '''Not moved''', 29 April 2018, ] |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{Press |
|
|
|author = Len Sander |
|
|
|title = Bericht: So soll Misplaced Pages von Anti-Israel-Aktivisten unterwandert worden sein (Report: Misplaced Pages allegedly infiltrated by anti-Israel activists) |
|
|
|trans-title = Report: Misplaced Pages allegedly infiltrated by anti-Israel activists |
|
|
|date = October 25, 2024 |
|
|
|org = ] |
|
|
|url = https://www.berliner-zeitung.de/politik-gesellschaft/bericht-so-soll-wikipedia-von-anti-israel-aktivisten-unterwandert-worden-sein-li.2265970 |
|
|
|lang = |
|
|
|quote = Even though most of these changes have been reversed - the English-language version of the article on the subject of Jews, for example, contains the link to the historical Kingdom of Israel - the effect of concerted online campaigns should not be underestimated. |
|
|
|archiveurl = |
|
|
|archivedate = <!-- do not wikilink --> |
|
|
|accessdate = December 5, 2024 |
|
|
|
|
|
|author2 = Debbie Weiss |
|
|
|title2 = Misplaced Pages’s Quiet Revolution: How a Coordinated Group of Editors Reshaped the Israeli-Palestinian Narrative |
|
|
|date2 = December 4, 2024 |
|
|
|org2 = ] |
|
|
|url2 = https://www.algemeiner.com/2024/12/04/wikipedias-quiet-revolution-how-coordinated-group-editors-reshaped-israeli-palestinian-narrative/ |
|
|
|lang2 = |
|
|
|quote2 = In an article on “Jews,” for example, an editor removed the phrase “Land of Israel” from a key sentence on the origin of Jewish people. The article’s short description (that appears on search results) was changed from “Ethnoreligious group and nation from the Levant” to “Ethnoreligious group and cultural community.” |
|
|
|archiveurl2 = |
|
|
|archivedate2 = <!-- do not wikilink --> |
|
|
|accessdate2 = December 5, 2024 |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{archives|]|nobot=yes}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Non-White Jews == |
|
:: I think that is reasonable, since this article doesn't follow ] at all. By the way, it might be worth someone having a look at ] and ]: I suspect there would be a lot of relevant ideas for extending and improving the present article. -- ] 16:46, Jun 8, 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
<s>We all know full well there are such things as Arab Jews. Why is there no data on all the Moroccon Jews? They all exist. But we only recognise the Ashkenazi Jews (Modern Israel Jews)</s> Issue resolved ] (]) 00:48, 27 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
:Not sure what you mean. We have several articles on ] and ], ], and so on. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 03:02, 27 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
* Jmabel:Since YOU are the creator of ] it would seem that you have your own "axe to grind" in your unrelenting drive to eventually squeeze this article on ] into YOUR criteria and views on "ethnicity". I suspect that is why you ask that "someone" do it for you so that this way you would avoid taking all the flack that would ensue were you to do it on your own arbitrarily. In the meantime you nonchalantly introduce the "box" and "formulae" such as at ]: Hoping that everyone (via a few "someones") will "fall for your bait" and just do your manipulative intellectual bidding. So PLEASE cut out the efforts you are expanding ever so subtly to swing the "Jew" article YOUR way in your determination to create an absolute SCHISM (or "divorce")---for lack of better words--- between JEWS and JUDAISM, which go together. (Only for the purposes of management of information was the subject matter of ] dealt with separately from ], it was not meant as a signal to rip the two apart body, limb, and soul, as the underlying connection and essense is understood to always remain.) You cannot just reduce the Jewish people to a "Semitic" sub-group as per your example on ] no different to other similar groups of "13-15 million people". You would NOT be doing either the Jews or anyone else a favor were you to succeed as you would only in effect be neutering and negating the unusual uniqueness of the Jews and their totally out-of-proportion significance to the human race, world history, and and most of all religion which you do not seem to value as much as you aspire to seek out obscure "tribal" connections to the Jews who have virtually no real or meaningful connections with the Jews as both a nation or a culture. '''You are "defining ethnicity down" to the "lowest common denominators", when this article is MORE about ethnicity in the sense of NATIONALITY from the ] ''ethnos'' which means NATION, and not mere vague "TRIBES" or "SECTS" to be studied by sociologists and academic statisticians alone. This is NOT an article about ] ! --->If that is what interests you then fill that up with all the type of details you seem to find important ! For the sake of fairness to the impartial readers of Misplaced Pages, the issues revolving around ] are far weightier and are of a profounder nature than you would make it appear were you to have your way in the end using YOUR definitions of "ethnicity" which do not always match with JEWISH views of "ethnicity".''' ] 06:57, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
::@] |
|
|
::Ik, but shouldn't it be part of the bigger article on the Jews? ] (]) 03:24, 27 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Sure, of course, ''Mizrahim'' occurs at least 7 times on this page, North Africa at least 20 times ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 03:34, 27 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:Moroccan Jews are mentioned in five places in the article. In addition, there's a section titled "]". So it isn't clear what your concern is. ] (]) 13:13, 27 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::@] oh ok nvm ] (]) 13:21, 28 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Not the only Israelites that had kept their distinct identity (See: ]) == |
|
I leave it to readers of the previous comment to determine who has an axe to grind and who is trying to build an NPOV encyclopedia. I did, indeed, initiate ], and am probably the main person focused on it, though I am far from the only participant, as you can easily verify by looking at the relevant pages. Absolutely, the Jews are an ''ethnos'', but one where the question of who is and is not part of that ''ethnos'' is more than typically contentious, and therefore should form a significant portion of such an article: consider your own recent argument about the Karaites. I am certainly not trying to turn this into "an article about Jewish genetics." Ethnicity and nationality are not simply matters of genetics. They are equally a matter of culture and identity. If this article is not where to take up these matters, where do you think they should be? And what exactly should be the topic of this article (as against the topic of ])? And if you feel that this article should not be the one its own introduction currently says it is, then I suspect we (all) should discuss that matter on its merits. -- ] 07:59, Jun 9, 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Name and etymology: "After the Exile, the term ''Yehudi'' (Jew) was used for all followers of Judaism because the survivors of the Exile (who were the former residents of the Kingdom of Judah) were the only Israelites that had kept their distinct identity as the ] from the ] had ] and assimilated into other populations." |
|
:The ] article is basically fine, I am not criticizing it, even though it describes things with which I do not personally agree, yet for the sake of presenting things as they are, I do not attempt to tamper with most of it, provided they are truthful and fit into standard definitions of the subject. The arguments I presented about the Karaites were not "mine" I did not invent them or conjure them up. I was conveying the classical view of that movement and its adherents as it has been maintained for centuries by almost all scholarly opinions in Jewish learning. What I was objecting to was the writer's presentation of them as being more significant or influential than they are when in fact all they are is just a tiny fringe group that has long ago seen the end of its own following/s. The writer also sought to project Karaites as Jews, when in fact there have always been many sects of Karaites and some of them have insisted adamantly that they are NOT Jews. YOU say: "Ethnicity and nationality are not simply matters of genetics. They are equally a matter of culture and identity. If this article is not where to take up these matters, where do you think they should be?" shows that you do not give enough credence to the root soil from which Jews grew as a nation, which is not mere "ethnicity and culture" but almost purely from their religious roots in their faith in ]. Again I say, the need to talk about ] as distincty from ] is not to say that from here on forwards the Jew is "divorced" from Judaism (thereby creating a "SCHISM" between the two) and let the ethnic and cultural debate and definitions reign supreme. On the contrary, as this article shows (and I did NOT write the Reform or Conservative and many other views at all), debating the status, DEFINITIONS, the ethnicity of Jews is largely done within the parameters of how the different religious streams, ], ], ], and how in the internal debates in the ] both a "Jew" and "Judaism" is defined, which is what the article does do (...until now at least...). '''What you are attempting to do is to go outside these bounds and bring in new criteria that would fly in the face of anything accepted thus far. So, the place for this? It's right here, on the "TALK" page where it belongs, as any and all changes on the Jew page are obviously taken very seriously and monitered by many people on Wiki out of a desire to create a balanced NPOV.''' (By the way, once you start getting into those little ethnic groups from Africa etc which have a pathetic handful of people, you may as well start little sections about "The Jews of Moscow" or the "Jews of California" or the "Jews of Hollywood" or "Jews of Britain" etc where SIGNIFICANT numbers live/d...where will it end...?) ] 10:26, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This claim is not totally true and misleading. ] are crying in the corner. ] (]) 08:02, 5 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
Let's look at a couple of possibilities here. There is currently an article called ]. (There are also articles on many Jewish groups that I imagine we can all agree are ethnicities in the usual sense -- major groups like the ] and ], smaller groups like the ], etc. -- but I think those are not a point of controversy here.) My own feeling has been that the article ] is something of a mess. Up till now, my own expectation was to clean up the material and move it back here. However, perhaps that is where we should take up -- comprehensively -- the issue of Jewishness as an ethnicity, and perhaps some material in the present article should be moved to there. If so, though, it is necessary that we agree upon exactly what ''is'' the scope of the current article, in an unusual (and, as far as I know, unique in Misplaced Pages) ground between ethnicity and religion. -- ] 17:13, Jun 9, 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== What’s with the glazing in the last paragraph? == |
|
I think the box is extremely helpful, rather than having to read through several paragraphs to get basic information, its all in one obvious place to view in an instant. - ] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
“Jews wrote the Bible, founded Christianity, and had an indirect but profound influence on Islam.” |
|
I've just put the infobox ''after'' the intro, not ''before''. This then puts it in the white space opposite the table of contents. Looks okay here in 640 pixels wide, 800 pixels wide and 1280 pixels wide. Ignoring the content itself, what do y'all think of the placement? - ] 13:26, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Not only does this sentence contain somewhat misleading (or at least incomplete) phrasing for the first two parts, but the language itself seems to be leaning towards ]. The preceding sentence is sufficient. |
|
==]== |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lmk if I’m totally off base here, this is just my perception ] (]) 07:03, 21 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
*Jmabel:It is not just a "Misplaced Pages" phenomenon, but the definition of just who is and isn't a Jew is a maddening topic that's been around for thousands of years and we are not about to put the issue to rest here, whichever way you slice things. To define Jews as members of an "ethnicity" is an arbitrary assumption that we work with here, but in reality because Jews have been spread over all the continents and have lived among all the racial groups and within hundreds of varying non-Jewish ethnicities so that many of them have even become EXTERNALLY identifiable with their host non-Jewish ethnicities and cultures. This article on Jew starts off by saying: "A Jew is either a follower of a certain religion (Judaism) or a member of a certain ethnicity (adj. Jewish). Judaism is a complex combination of a religion and a ]". This last-mentioned item takes note of and links to another one paragraph link/article : "A ''']''' is an ethnic group with a means for people from other ethnic groups to obtain ethnic status within it. Possibly the first such group documented in history was that of the ]. Others have included the ] and the ], but in modern times sovereign countries like the ], may also be proposed as attempts to establish a new ethnic identity." So this itself makes it difficult to define Jews in pure "ethnic" terms. Of course the bottom-line reason that Jews are so open to others joining them is beacause it is ] itself, which based on the ]'s commands welcomes and accepts ]s who then instantly lose their previous ethnic and cultural connections and become accepted Jews. The reverse also works, as Jews leave the fold, and given enough time and efforts at eradicating their links with Judaism, become part of a different culture, ethnicity and religion, as happened with the evolutions of the early Jewish Christians moving away from first Judaism and finally away from any ethnic and cultural links to Jews themselves. This is not an easy subject to fit into a "box" of any kind. ] 02:25, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:Seems fine to me, literally true statements, no puffery detected. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 07:32, 21 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
==]== |
|
|
|
::Alright, perhaps I was mistaken. I still think it might be beneficial to reword it in a way that doesn’t oversimplify things as much. ] (]) 11:30, 21 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::How would you want to reword it? ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 22:50, 21 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
Jmabel:Since the ] link mentions the ] (who together with the ] , the ] and ] are lumped together in what was called a ] society in the good ol' USA--although I doubt the "Cossacks" were as welcoming as the US immigration officials on ]...) it's worth seing what that paragraph/link says: "'''Habiru and the Hebrew:''' When the Tell el-Amarna archives were translated, some scholars eagerly equated these Apiru with the Biblical Hebrews (''`BRY'' in the consonant-only ]). Besides the similarity in the names, the description of the Apiru as nomadic and semi-nomadic tribes attacking cities in ] seemed to fit the Biblical account of the conquest of that land by ] under ] except that the Habiru core was originally Hurrian not Hebrew. Scholarly opinion remains divided on this issue. Many scholars still think that the Hapiru were a component of the later peoples who inhabited the kingdoms ruled by ], ], ] and their successors in ] and ]. If the Habiru were the proto-Hebrews, a Hurrian origin would offer strong support for this since many Hurrian cultural themes appear in the bible. Many Biblical proper names (individual, group and place names, as well as the popular -ya name-ending) that have no satisfactory Semitic etymology, can be demonstrated to perhaps descend from Anatolian or North Syrian (Hurrian) onomastics testifing that these names may have entered Hebrew directly from Hurrian. For example, David is explained from Dudya (beloved of Ya where Ya is the Hurrian divinity) a Hurrian Habiru name later used as Solomon's coronation epithet and many of David's wandering Hebrews also possess Hurrian Habiru names (e.g. Nihiri). There have been also theories relating the Habiru to the Biblical personages of ] and ]. However most scholars agree that these theories are based purely on religious beliefs and are without historical foundation." So here again we see the already very early difficulty in defining the Jews/Hebrews as eitherbeing part of or NOT being part of even something that sounds so "Hebraic" as "Habiru"/"Hebrew". This ties in with the broader issue of whether Jews do or don't really fit into the ] people, as the "so-called "habirus" weren't "Semites" and as later Jews from Poland or Germany often times were more blond than the Germans, and the Falashas are as African as any other of Africa's people, likewise with the Jews of India who seem more Indian than "semitic". Which leads us back to the bottom-line common denominator that it is Judaism that defines the Jew. ] 02:46, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
::::"Jews authored the Bible, established Christianity, and influenced Islam." <span style="font-weight:bold;color:darkblue">]</span>🍁 01:24, 22 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::Seems fine to me. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 01:36, 22 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
==Delete "]" page== |
|
|
|
::::: The first two clauses seems mostly a substitution of longer words for shorter ones, with no apparent change in meaning or other improvement I can see. As far as the last clause, given that Islam is one of the three ], and the many links mentioned in the lead paragraph of ], the word ''profound'' seems an accurate description, and not puffery. |
|
|
|
|
|
::::: To the IP: a short, assertive statement in the ] is not an oversimplification, if it is a summary of content in the body of the article that demonstrates that the lead statement is correct and lays out the most important points without all the details excected in the body. Not everything can be crammed into the lead; remember that ] is just a summary of the most important points of the body, and that sentence seems fine for the lead. {{ec}} ] (]) 01:50, 22 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
Jmabel: '''The ] page is literally a CRACKPOT page and should simply be DELETED at this point.''' It was created by someone who wanted to "protest" the way the Jew page represented "converts" and this is what it says on ] : |
|
|
|
:::::Agree with Mathglot. ] (]) 02:10, 22 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
"This page is created in response to the lack of NPOV on the ] page. ] 17:18, 11 May 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
The ] page claims to be about the Ethnicity but due to emmotional sensitivity neglects consciously neglects to mention the certain categories of Ethnic Jews, while attempting to give the impression that Reform & Reconstructionist Jews are within the Legitimater Beit Din system. This page should be deleted if sufficient ammendments are made to the ] page from the information contained herein." |
|
|
That writer has his own discombobulated "vocabulary" and esoteric "terminology" that no-one but he understands. So just remove it, as it's not worthy of your or anyone's attention. ] 02:02, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:I agree that their were serious problems with that page. However, I took a stab at rewriting it. Since so many Jews no longer practice Judaism, yet self-identity as "Jewish", it seems that their may be room for a serious article on this subject. I have seen some articles in Jewish journals on this issue. ] 15:20, Jun 10, 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
=="Jews of Africa"== |
|
|
|
|
|
IZAK does have a point about not overemphasizing tiny groups (although I think he would want to narrow this farther than I would). He brings up the Jews of Africa as an example, so I thought we might look minutely at how they are handled in the article. |
|
|
|
|
|
I assume that the three brief mentions of the approximately 90,000-100,000 Jews (mostly Ashkenazi) living in South Africa are uncontroversial, but if someone finds those controversial please do speak up. |
|
|
|
|
|
Other than that, actually, I agree with IZAK that we have a bit much, but I gather he would want to cut more than I. Currently we have: |
|
|
# A mention of "Various ]s" in the list of significant populations, saying that there are an estimated 10,000 Jews in Africa (excluding South Africa). I wouldn't mind losing that, as long as one link to ] remains in the article: it leads in turn to about a dozen articles on various populations not discussed in the present article. |
|
|
# A mention that the term "'Sephardic'...denote Spanish and North African location." I assume this is uncontroversial. |
|
|
# A mention that "Oriental or 'Mizrahi' Jews (''edut hamizrach'')...lived in the Middle East and North Africa...". I assume this is uncontroversial. |
|
|
# A mention of the ] of Ethiopia. I think the relatively recent rcognition of the Falasha by the state of Israel makes them worth mentioning. In fact, it might merit a sentence or two somewhere in the article, precisely to point out that the recognition or non-recognition of particular groups by the Israeli government does change over time. That might be more useful than their inclusion in a list. |
|
|
# A mention of the ]. I know very little about them or even exactly who qualifies as ]. I'm not sure it is anything more than a subset of ]. If it is just a subset of that, I think it should be dropped. |
|
|
# A mention of the ] (of Uganda -- who I believe are the only people in this list whose status as Jews is questionable) "and other small ]ish populations." I'd happily drop the singling out of the Abayudaya, and simply mention "small ]ish populations." I don't think the Abayudaya are particularly notable. |
|
|
# A mention that some Sephardi "migrat to North Africa and the Middle East where they were assimilated into the Oriental Jews." I assume this is uncontroversial. |
|
|
# A mention that most of France's Jews today are "immigrants or refugees from North African and Arab lands." I assume this is uncontroversial. |
|
|
# An external link to a site that is mostly about the various small groups of African Jews, but which also contains information about the diasporas in Asia and Latin America. Some of its inclusions for Africa are controversial, but it is quite factual about the existence of the controversies. I gather from earlier discussion that this is <strike>un</strike>controversial, but we reached consensus to include it, and I stand by that decision: it's a link to a rather encyclopedic site. |
|
|
|
|
|
-- ] 17:38, Jun 9, 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
It's been four days and no one has commented. If I don't hear otherwise in another 48 hours I'm going to assume (1) I can delete what I've said is not notable and (2) the rest of this is uncontroversial among people active in working on this page. -- ] 23:38, Jun 13, 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
I have now edited accordingly. I hope we have put this issue to rest. -- ] 18:21, Jun 16, 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== ] says this article is "too long" == |
|
|
|
|
|
Why does ] decide that this article is "too long" when so many users would like to make it even LONGER??? What don't I get???] 05:10, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:We have always spun off separate topics into free-standing articles, when the free-standing section becomes very large. This is not really about facts or points of view. That is merely how most of our articles came into being. This mechanism has been done many times before in our articles on Judaism, Christianity, Islam, etc. I don't have any special objection to this text staying in the "Jew" article, but if everything stays, there are serious length and readability problems. ] |
|
|
|
|
|
:It seems that we have no choice but to move a lot of text now. The ] article, in its previous form, had grown to ''twice'' the normal length: Anytime anyone tried to edit this article, they got automatic warning messages from the Misplaced Pages. Anything over 32 kb becomes problematic for many people to edit with their web browsers. This article was twice that length. ] 15:08, Jun 10, 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::You misunderstand that warning - it does not mean that the article cannot be 32KB. It means that no section of the article should exceed 32KB. Sections can be individually edited, so the total length of the article doesn't really matter. Since this article is already broken into sections, there is no issue here. Also, it should be noted that the size limit on editing affects something absurd like .5% of the web. Most everyone uses a browser that can handle that. I'm reverting your changes back to the full length article, therefore. ] 16:54, Jun 10, 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::You are still missing the point of Misplaced Pages - this is a hypertext encyclopedia, where we use hyperlinks to bring the reader from one article to another. We completely destroy the point of this if we jam every single topic, in detail, onto the same page. We can stick every single topic about Judaism on the "Jew" page, every single topic about Christianity on the "Christian" page, etc., but this ends up being hard to read. ] |
|
|
|
|
|
:::I disagree. I think that hyperlinks are harder to follow, because the reader is inclined to jump off in multiple directions at once. I think that a well-ordered article with a clear table of contents can readily triple or quadruple the 32 KB limit without becoming unreadable - certainly, it can double it with no problems. But I think that once you move content to a spin-off article, that content becomes harder and harder to find. Content should generally be easily findable on the first page that someone hits looking for that content. ] 17:36, Jun 10, 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::I've just written a summary of ] and put it in as a paragraph. The practice I've seen on a ''lot'' of articles is to say ''"Main article: ]''" and then write a paragraph or two (no more!) overview of ]. The summary must be as absolutely concise as is reasonable, of course. |
|
|
|
|
|
::::I realise our 32KB limit is technical, but as a guard against rambling I think it does wonders for the quality and organisation of the writing - ] 19:30, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::I agree with David. ] |
|
|
|
|
|
== Opening definition of "Jew" == |
|
|
|
|
|
Leaning again on the best short lesson in journalism I know, which I received from my City Editor more decades ago than I like to think about: "assume the reader knows nothing," I'm going to clarify the opening sentence. The current one is flawed several ways: (1) the use of "either/or" makes the two definitions mutally exclusive; (2) In the broadest sense, you could call Jews an "ethnicity," but this is dubious, a completely secular Jew who denies this connection (including some famous people) are still regarded as Jews (], ], ]); (3) on the same tack, in many cases Jews are more similar to the local non-Jewish population in both physical appearance and culture than they are to Jews in other communities and (4) "Jew" is often externally defined. |
|
|
|
|
|
Full disclosure: I used ''Britanica'' to help form the concept in as few words as possible. -- ] | ] 18:58, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
I am moving this new paragraph here for clarification: |
|
|
:''Although certain Jewish groups accept or impose a religious test in determining which individual may be a ''Jew'', the term is often partly defined by the social or political views of the non-Jewish community.'' |
|
|
|
|
|
::Which groups are these, and what are their religious tests? Orthodox Judaism has its own list of beliefs that they think that all Jews should believe; however even if someone rejects all of these beliefs Orthodoxy still accepts that person as a Jew. The same is true for non-Orthodox branches of Judaism. |
|
|
|
|
|
:::Israel defines who is a Jew for their purposes. Religious Jews define who is a Jew (as in the Matriarchal lineage issue). Hitler defined who was a Jew, without distinguishing between matriarchal, patriarchal, or practice. Remember, this is an encyclopedia article explaining to the wide world what the term "Jew" means. I believe there is no formal hierarchy that can specify what constitues a Jew is all cases. |
|
|
|
|
|
::::No, the State of Israel does ''not'' impose a religious test in determining which individual may be a ''Jew'', even though certain Jewish groups may wish that this were so. The same is true for religious Jews with regards to the matriarchal lineage issue; that has nothing to do with any kind of test for Judaism. That issue (lineage) already is discussed in this article at length. Why make vague allusions to it, when the issue is already discussed in the article? Finally, Adolph Hitler was a Jew-murderer. How can you say that he is part of the Jewish community, and that he has something to do with how Jews determine who is a Jew? ] |
|
|
|
|
|
::::I didn't intend to say Hitler was part of the Jewish community. I'm trying to say that consideration of who Jews are cannot be subjected to analysis of how religious Jews feel about it. The title of this article is "Jew," not "Jews as a religion." I am not making "vague allusions." Misplaced Pages style is set forth a brief and concise definition in the first paragraph or two, and then discuss it in the meat of the article. The original single paragraph was vague and inaccurate. |
|
|
|
|
|
:''The only generally accepted commonality is that a '''Jew''' is a person who, religious or not, has at least one Jewish ] or has formally converted to the Jewish religion, traceable to the ancient Jewish people, themselves descendants of the ] of the ].'' |
|
|
|
|
|
::This is not generally accepted. This point of view is rejected by Orthodox and Conservative Judaism, and by much of Reform Judaism outside of the USA. All these groups hold that in order to be considered Jewish, one must be born not just of at least one Jewish parent, but also that the Jewish parent must be the mother. The identity of the father is not relevant. (And, of course, they also accept people who convert to Judaism.) ] 20:02, Jun 10, 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::What you are describing is what Jewish religious groups say a Jew is, but it does not describe who will be considered a Jew in society. I think we have a core disagreement here, so please tell me how you would modify the excised paragraph. -- ] | ] 20:58, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::I don't understand why you are changing the topic. Look at your original paragraph... "Although certain Jewish groups accept or impose a religious test..." You were the one talking about Jewish groups. Why have you suddenly switched to how gentiles define Jews? ] |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::I am not trying to change the topic. My wording should have been more precise. "Although certain Jewish groups accept or impose a ''religiously-defined'' test..." If someone says that a person with only a Jewish father raised Jewish is not Jewish, willing to attend synagogue but a person with only a Jewish mother is Jewish, even if s/he is an atheist, that is a religious test. |
|
|
|
|
|
There is no rule that covers how all non-Jewish societies determine who Jews are. They usually just accept that someone is a Jew if their local Jewish community accepts someone as a Jew. I don't think that gentile Americans have any rules as such; they just think that if someone says that they are a Jew, then that person is a Jew. Of course, we could have a section on how certain gentile groups, such as Russians and Germans, set apart and made their own identifications of "who is a Jew". When gentile societies made such rules, it usually was for the purposes of persecution. That would be better discussed in the articles on ]. ] 22:18, Jun 10, 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:I agree with your point that Gentile societies define "Jew" to a person's detriment, but my point is that, when a person reading this article wants to know what a "Jew", s/he shouldn't come away believing what a rabinical interpreter says a Jew is. It's more complicated than that. On the other hand I take issue with your statement "They usually just accept that someone is a Jew if their local Jewish community accepts someone as a Jew." Noone evers asks who the community thinks is a Jew, any more than if a person told me he was a Catholic, that I would ask the parish priest if he was or wasn't. If someone told me he was Jewish, I would simply accept that, if he said he was "half-Jewish" (and I have been told that many times) I would assume one Jewish parent. I am told that by Jewish law it is impossible to be "half-Jewish." -- ] | ] 23:12, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Google search for "Jew" == |
|
|
|
|
|
This page (minus the talk bit) is now the first hit when searching google for the word . |
|
|
Google's explanation: |
|
|
|
|
|
Much better that those jewwatch.com twits. -] 16:44, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
thank god --] 20:47, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Chabad/Lubavitch external links== |
|
|
What is with the continual efforts to add ''multiple'' Chabad/Lubavitch external links to the article? I haven't seen anyone argue a reason there should be more than one, they just keep adding 'em. This time, I took the liberty of deleting, as others have done in the past. -- ] 23:49, Jun 14, 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
*Jmabel: The answer is simple: You are dealing with fanatical "Messianists" known as the ''Meshichistim'' and they are splattering links to the MESSIANIC sections of Chabad all the time (as if this will help the ''Rebbe'' get up from the dead sooner.) The ONLY decent "MAINSTREAM" Chabad link that should be here is: http://www.chabad.org/ ] 03:29, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
**I think IZAK hit the nail on the head --] 03:36, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
'''Thank you Yoshia, for once we agree.'''] 03:40, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Treatment of Jews by Muslims== |
|
|
This recent (anonymous) addition goes strongly against most of what I have ever heard, and cites no sources. I don't claim expertise on this, so I leave it to someone else to edit or delete, but I do note that no sources at all or cited for something that goes against most of what I have ever read about Islam in the Middle Ages. It is hard to reconcile this with the high positions to which Jews at time rose in (for example) the Muslim kingdom cenetered at Toledo. -- ] 03:17, Jun 16, 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:"In addition to the above examples, one must review the historical record of the destruction and persecution of the Jewish communities throughout the Islamic Empire. As the empire expanded during the centuries, the status of the non-Muslim communities remained precarious and subject to dhimmi laws. The Jewish communities were not second class citizens, they were not considered to be citizens of the larger community at all. Repressive measures against their persons occured with regularity as the Muslim majority massacred them with impunity. There was no protection under the laws and the word of a Muslim was sufficient to subject any Jew to harsh punishment." |
|
|
|
|
|
==Good Samaritan== |
|
|
I've just removed a reference to the Good Samaritan parable in the "Samaritans and Christians" section. I think the author misunderstands the parable (understandable if he's Jewish - even some Christians miss the point). He states that "the Samaritans were a suspicious cult that practiced secret forbidden rites, rejecting rabbinic Judaism" - this view (or rather, a less specific "Samaritans were bad people") is also taken by the Christian version, the point of the parable being that even "bad people" can do good deeds. Thus a differing view of Samaritans in general does not exist between Christianity and Judaism. |
|
|
|
|
|
:Additionaly, the Samaritans rejected all forms of Judaism (The sect of the Saducees, the Essenes,etc.) that were around at that time, not just Rabbinical Judaism.--] 22:03, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Clarified Reform position on patrilineal descent == |
|
|
|
|
|
The Reform position on "patrilineal descent" was inaccurately presented. For more details see this link: http://www.shamash.org/lists/scj-faq/HTML/faq/18-index.html ] 18:12, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Usage nitpicking== |
|
|
|
|
|
To begin an article with |
|
|
|
|
|
:'''Dog''' describes an animal that barks. |
|
|
|
|
|
is not as good, to say the least, as to begin with |
|
|
|
|
|
:A '''dog''' is an animal that barks. |
|
|
|
|
|
And if one must write about the '''word''' ''dog'' rather than about the animal itself, one should italicize the word. That is the reason for my recent edit of the opening sentence of this article. ] 23:06, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC) |
|
“Jews wrote the Bible, founded Christianity, and had an indirect but profound influence on Islam.”
Not only does this sentence contain somewhat misleading (or at least incomplete) phrasing for the first two parts, but the language itself seems to be leaning towards glazing. The preceding sentence is sufficient.