Talk:Jews

Older discussions may be found here:

Quoted figure of 6 million Jews killed in holocaust is a symbolic figure

This has been accepted as such by official historians. Due to the former invalid claim that Auswitz was the site of 4 million Jewish deaths, the number of 6 million was qouted as an official figure for a number of decades, however the true figures for Auswitz are closer to 1.3 million killed (officially accepted by the Polish Government since 1999) and as such the revised figure for the total number of jewish deaths at the hands of the Nazi regime is closer to 2/3rds of the 2,850,000 estimated to have been present in Europe prior to German occupation. A total figure of 1.9 million jews killed by the nazis. This figure, including statistical evidence outlining the number of internees, escapees, transferees and deaths at Auswictz was removed from the main wikipedia Jew thread by the editors. Whether in time wikipedia will allow a revised figure to be shown or will continue to approve only the symbolic figure remains to be seen and is entirely in the hands of the editorial staff.

The number 6 million was not based on the inflated numbers of Auschwitz deaths promoted by Soviet bloc countries, which in any event insisted that the 4 million number consisted of 2 million Jews and 2 million non-Jews killed. Historians have always been well aware of the Soviet death inflation and discounted it, and quote Jewish deaths in the Holocaust as ranging somewhere between 5 and 6 million, though numbers as low as 4.5 million and as high as 7 million have been proposed. The "4 million killed at Auschwitz" red herring is one the more consistently promoted and easily refuted claims of Holocaust deniers. Jayjg 02:23, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

It should be noted that there is a differance between Holocaust deniers and Historical Revisionists and there is often an erroneous tendendancy to confuse the two.

As is pointed out in the Holocaust denial page, the differences tend to be purely semantic; Holocaust Deniers try to appropriate the term "Revisionist" in order to gain legitimacy. In any event, your response was not relevant to the issue at hand. Jayjg 14:28, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Addressed to the anonymous poster: Could you please IDENTIFY YOURSELF whoever you are when making such sweeping observations with a tone of "pious objectivity" when in fact you sound like you are nothing but a Neo-Nazi. IZAK 23:26, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I might add that there is still no absolute evidence of a systematic policy of extermination of European Jewery by the Nazi party. A lot of deaths in internment camps could be put down to the rapid spread of infectious disease and the lack of medical supplies and drugs to treat it. A nation at war is going to be reserving its medication and medical supplies for front line troops, as opposed to political and criminal prisoners.

Izak, you are right. Thus guy has outed himself as a Holocaust denier. We should treat his edits as trolling and vandalism. RK 21:11, Aug 24, 2004 (UTC)

Well, there's "no absolute evidence of a systematic policy of extermination of European Jewery by the Nazi party" aside from all the absolute evidence of a systematic policy of extermination of European Jewery by the Nazi party. But you're right, there is no possible evidence that will ever satisfy a Holocaust Denier. Jayjg 21:26, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I think researchers should read: The Holocaust Industry: Reflections on the Exploitation of Jewish Suffering by Norman G Finkelstein, before they trust vested jewish interests to selectively edit information on the Holocaust. Turning a historically insignificant event into a cash generating enterprise for a whole race was certainly an insidious yet clearly highly productive enterprise. User:62.252.0.5

Go away, idiot. JFW | T@lk 23:24, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

To be more elaborate: if you would like to have your views represented here, you'll need to be a lot more circumspect, and realise how many people will get intensely annoyed with you for writing such things. You must be quite imbecile to believe that a perfectly documented historical period never occurred. I'm glad I've never heard to Norman Finkelstein, but he's probably no better than Irving and other notorious deluded folk. Holocaust denial is proof of only one thing: that human beings are perfectly capable of holding utterly untenable views and claiming that they're "proven". As I said on your talk page, you will be instantaneously banned for trolling if you manage to repeat the above exercise. JFW | T@lk 23:39, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Since you are quite correct to label this anon an idiot, that should have warned you to not draw conclusions from anything it wrote. For example, Norman Finkelstein is definitely not a holocaust denier. I'm pretty sure that Finkelstein has never questioned the standard scholarly estimates of the number of victims. --Zero 00:12, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Finkelstein's own parents are Holocaust survivors. Finkelstein's issue is that they didn't get enough compensation money. Jayjg 14:30, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

That's not Finkelstein's "issue" at all, Jayjg. Finkelstein, like many people, is sick of seeing the Holocaust exploited for political and financial gain. The whole point of his book is to denounce what he (rightfully) terms the 'Holocaust industry'. Either you're a bald-faced liar and you're deliberately misstating Finkelstein's views to support your own arguments, or you're an idiot who can't read. -- Igor.

Igor, (User:149.99.133.209), you're sidetracking the issue. We're debating whether 6,000,000 is symbolical or real, with or without Norman G. Finkelstein. Your ad-hominem attack is also quite disturbing. Finkelstein might not necessarily agree to his views being advanced in support of Holocaust denial (as User:62.252.0.5 tried to do). JFW | T@lk 17:26, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

"Your ad-hominem attack is also quite disturbing." Yes, JFW, I am also quite disturbed by the numerous ad hominem attacks you have launched unprovoked against people on this very page (i.e. calling people "idiots" in response to polite queries). Case of pot calling the kettle black if ever there was one! Maybe you should be banned, too. -- Igor.

Igor, Jayjg is not lying. You are misrepresenting his statements, and attributing an agenda to him that he does not have. Further, Finkelstein is nearly universally regarded as a crank; his views that "the Jews" abuse the Holocaust for money and political power are not accepted by most historians as accurate. Finally, Finklestein is not a Holocaust denier in the slighest; he admits that six million Jews died, so using him to advance your cause makes no sense. Finklestein doesn't deny the Holocaust, he just imagines that Jews use it in an unethical fashion. RK 17:33, Aug 26, 2004 (UTC)

Would you care to quote the exact phrase where I said Finklestein was a 'Holocaust denier'? I'll save you the trouble - you can't quote me saying that because I never said it. Proving, basically, that you are also a liar and misrepresenting my statements. No surpise there. -- Igor.

I am not suggesting that there were not jewish deaths during 1939 to 1945 at the hands of various instruments of the state. I was challenging the figure of 6million wildly banded about in the popular press and politically ambigious media sources and turning a historically insignificant event (if you look at the number of people killed by other regimes since Nazi Germany, there are far worse examples of mans inhumanity to man) into a money making exercise. Jewish interpretations of the tragedy are often at variance with actual historical events to as much a degree as those that deny anything took place. If Wikipedia is not going to rely on independant information and is going to continue to promote the holocaust lies rather then publish holocaust fact then how can it claim to be an independent source of information? Finklestein by the way, is a widely published jewish political scientist who is internationaly renowned for his book that details how the Zionist movement uses the holocaust to portray Jews as perennial and eternal victims of an irrational gentile hatred so as to drum up misplaced sympathies for Jewish people today and for the state of israel and its varying criminal activities. User:62.252.0.5

You are clearly pushing neo-Nazi Holocaust denial. RK 17:33, Aug 26, 2004 (UTC)

What a load of codswallop! --Zero 00:12, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The Holocaust is one of the most massively well documented events in the history of the world. Put away that Finkelstein nonsense and read Martin Gilbert's The Holocaust: A History of the Jews of Europe During the Second World War. There's THOUSANDS of footnotes and references you can check. Holocaust denial is ignorant, stupid and despicable. Antandrus 00:19, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Close minded dogmatic mantra '6 million died, 6million died' is ignorant and stupid and despicable. Revising the information we have on a subject as new information and research comes to light, is the appropiate course of action and attemting to use that age old trick of branding anyone that Jewish people with zionist political opinions dislike as 'a holocaust denier or an anti semite' is just ludicrous. User:62.252.0.5

The product of the research of thousands of scholars is not "closed minded and dogmatic." 6 million DID die. Look it up. Study the books. Read something besides the propaganda of the hate-groups that harmonize with your little verminous world-view. There's no one as blind as the one who WON'T see. Antandrus 00:38, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Anonymous slander about mainstream scholars

Scholars? such as the this Martin Gilbert you mention, whose book continues to promote lies such as 'German Concentration camps producing thousands of lampshades for loyal nazi party members, made with human skin, and soap for front line troops made from corpse fat from the furnaces, what nonsense. This myth built up around the fact that the then OC of Buchenwold (one Karl Koch) and his sadistic wife Ilsa had committed some barbaric acts against the prisoners, including killing and keeping the skin of one inmate whose tattoo she liked. It is not known if she had this made into a lampshade or not. As soon as the SS Command found out about this, they appointed an independant investigator who found that the reports were true and SS Judge Konrad Morgen sentenced Koch to death for his involvement in 'incitement to murder' inmates. Strangely Isla Koch was acquitted, despite arguably being the one responsible, but was later sentenced to life imprisonment by the German state at the end of WWII. It was noted that the Judge was particularly keen to point out that under no circumstances must prisoners be mistreated in Buchenwold and that the SS command would deal with any transgressors in the same way as Karl Koch (eg execution). That hardly strikes me as a organisation hell bent on prisoner extermination. User:62.252.0.5

Holocaust Deniers are not debated, they are ignored. There is no amount of evidence that can shake their faith in their religion. Jayjg 02:06, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Troll is banned

Not true. Horrible trolls are banned (24 hours in this case), and they will be banned again if they remain incorrigible (?sp). User:62.252.0.5 should be taking this to Talk:Holocaust anyway... when he comes back JFW | T@lk 14:05, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Banning people for correcting information that is biased and untrue is hardly a sign of a valid editorial policy. It's been conclusively proven that the horror stories about lampshades of human skin and soap made from human fat is manifestly untrue and yet these so called 'scholars' you mention continue to keep that story alive.

The comment was made here as opposed to under the Holocaust section, as it was an amendment of the number of dead in the Nazism section of the Jew encyclopedia entry that triggered what can only be described as biased editing by Jewish members of the wikipedia editorial/membership.

Call a spade a spade

"To this day, Holocaust deniers continue to deny the extent of the slaughter of Jews."? What is that? I know its not NPOV... Sam [Spade] 21:10, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Your sentence is worse. The Wikipedia article is aboutHolocaust denial, and it explains why. There is no "debate" between historians and Holocaust deniers. And historians are not "Jewish organizations". Jayjg 21:14, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

OK, if you want this article to be an opinionated polemic, so be it. Let me know if you want to discuss the bias and factual innacuracy which you are currently enforcing in this article. The short comings of the Holocaust revisionism page (which I have repeatedly suggested should not be a redirect to Holocaust denier's, btw..) should be no basis for the POV rant you are turning this article into. Sam [Spade] 21:29, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

We should be clear about the terminology! In the academic discipline of history, "revisionism" has a well-defined and respectabl meaning. It is the re-analysis of old events from a new perspective, or based upon new information. In that sense, many modern studies by historians on the Holocaust are technically "Holocaust revisionism". However, the problem is that phrase has been disingenuously appropriated by Neo-Nazis and the Christian Identity movement. They use the phrase "holocaust revisionism" to refer to their writings on the Holocaust. However their writings are in no way actual historical revisionism. Rather, they are anti-historical rants that distort facts, contain fabrications and slander, and which distort history in order to push Nazi ideology and holocaust denial. RK

Current Wikipedia articles do contain information about modern day historical re-analysis of the Holocaust (technically, revisionism), and these are covered in our Holocaust and related articles. Information about Nazi and Christian Identity propaganda masked as "revisionism", however, is correctly placed in our article on Holocaust denial. RK 22:26, Aug 17, 2004 (UTC)

It is where the line is drawn that concerns me. Sam [Spade] 22:58, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Sam, you called this "totally disputed". You have indicated the POV issue. What is the factual issue? -- Jmabel 22:40, Aug 17, 2004 (UTC)

"Slaughter", "first built concentration camps to incarcerate and kill its opponents". Those do not strike me as simply POV, but rather as factual innacuracies. Sam [Spade] 22:58, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Wow. If the word "slaughter" does not apply to what the Nazis did to Jews (and Gypsies, and homosexuals), do you feel it ever applies to what any group of humans does to another? -- Jmabel 23:34, Aug 17, 2004 (UTC)

It would almost never apply in an NPOV, encyclopedic sense, but might in cases of people being vigorously hacked apart, which is not what the nazi's generally did. They mainly worked people to death in reletively unhealthful conditions, gassing the weak (young, old, disabled, etc...). I don't find "slaughter" much more relevent in an encyclopedic sense here than it would be in describing... say the slave ships carrying africans to the new world. Sam [Spade] 23:38, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Well, to be fair, "...first built concentration camps to incarcerate and kill its opponents" is factually inaccurate; to my knowledge, they weren't used to kill people originally, but as a sort of storage house for political dissidents (Communists, anarchists, etc...and Jews came later). --Tothebarricades.tk 23:52, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

My point entirely. No one disputes that people wern't intentionally killed somewhere along the way, but taking a stand on why the camps were first built is not what we are here to do. Sam [Spade] 23:58, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Why and What is Sam Spade disputing about this ENTIRE article? Is he Anti-Semitic?

Are people here in agreement with User:Sam Spade placing a {{msg:TotallyDisputed}} symbol at the head of this article? (I have tried to remove it but he thinks it belongs there). Is this all because he likes the subject of Holocaust "revisionism"? Can anyone verify that Sam Spade is NOT anti-Semitic? Thank you. IZAK 23:33, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I don't think an ad hominem attack on Sam is useful or appropriate.
As I understand it, a single person can raise a dispute. "Totally disputed" doesn't mean he disputes the entire article, just that he disputes both facts and POV. The term is not his invention. It may be ill-chosen, but it's been around longer than I have. -- Jmabel 23:36, Aug 17, 2004 (UTC)

Jmabel: You know the old line, that if walks like a duck and looks like a duck it's a.... (you fill in the blanks) . IZAK 23:39, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Vote to remove the {{msg:TotallyDisputed}} symbol on the Jew article:

IZAK

For the record I don't dispute all of the article. I dispute 2 sentances (last I checked). I have advised IZAK about his personal attcks on his talk page as well, and thank you (User:Jmabel) for your mediation and thoughtful comments on this matter. Sam [Spade] 23:41, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Sam Spade ups the ante declares war on this article

Not only is User:Sam Spade declaring this article as "Totally Disputed" he now has upped his aggression against this article by adding the {{attention}} sign to it. What will he do next call for it to become a candidate for "deletion"?" He has chosen to wage a campaign on behalf of the Holocaust deniars and now wishes to talk in "calm" terms after offending the truth about the Holocaust and those who seek to deny it. Shame on him. IZAK 23:55, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I choose not to allow you (or anyone) to push a POV and remove the dispute header, but rather decided to call in the cavalry (more editors). Sam [Spade] 00:08, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

IZAK, you're verging on personal attacks here. Reread Wikipedia:No personal attacks and calm down. Blocks for personal attacks are increasingly generally accepted policy, particularly on a contentious article. "Play the ball, not the man" - David Gerard 00:13, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

(I've also warned IZAK on his talk page on this issue. - David Gerard 00:17, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC))

As have I, though elsewhere, and many others. I doubt he'll listen--Josiah 10:27, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

So? Next will be a 24-hour block after multiple warnings. I would hope this won't be needed - David Gerard 16:09, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Sam: it would be very helpful if you would (1) list what you consider factually inaccurate in the article and (2) list the specific words or phrases that you find POV. Despite the inflammatory rhetoric all around, I suspect that the actual argument is over a few words and it may not be hard to get consensus if everyone will just put down their guns. -- Jmabel 00:15, Aug 18, 2004 (UTC)

Seconded! - David Gerard 00:17, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Disputed sentances

Since I made the edits that got some wikipedia's editors on defence here, I'm obligated to join in this discussion.

1st dispute: "Since the aftermath of World War II there has been an ongoing debate between holocaust revisionists and jewish organizations as to the extent and nature of the Holocaust." This modification is a better version of my addition closely following the spirit of wikipedia's policy of "be polite and tolerate other people's opinions" or in short NPOV. On the other hand the edit that Jayjg made is obviously passionate, or in the ADL's words, a "bigot" like stance on the issue: "To this day, holocaust revisionists continue to deny the extent of the slaughter of Jews." The sentence basically says that there is nothing to debate about and holocaust revisionist are stupid, evil people whose opinion should not be even let heard in wikipedia, which is of course against the NPOV policy.

Sorry, that sentence wasn't mine, it was written by someone else. I just changed "revisionist" to "denier", since that is the name of the Wikipedia article. As for your statement, there is no "debate" between Holocaust Deniers and Jewish Organizations; historians have a view of the Holocaust, and Holocaust Deniers deny it. No debates go on, and historians are not "Jewish organizations". Attempts to frame this as a debate between two interest groups are both inaccurate and highly POV. Jayjg 04:58, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

(Comment: Are you saying that the "holocaust revisionists" are smart and saintly people? You are taking Jew-hatred too far. What do you have against the "ADL" usually it is only Neo-Nazis who care about the ADL positions in any case. See the web for that. IZAK 01:05, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC))

(Just by the way, is there any particular reason you keep on spelling "jewish" with a "small" "j" instead of the correct way: "Jewish"? IZAK 00:46, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC))

Yes, it's odd that he can manage to capitalize Russians, Soviet Union, Stalin, etc. but consistently can't seem to manage it for the word "Jew". Jayjg 19:58, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

2nd: Jayjg is right in saying that the edit I made into the soviet union section does not fit in. But: What I said is true and secound isn't it kind of disrespectful to the 30-70 ? million ethnic Russians, that died between 1917~1955 in the hands of bolsheviks (of which great many were jews), to say the Soviet Union in fact, atleast after the death of Lenin, was 'anti-semitic' while in fact anti-semitism was punishable by death in Stalins own words.

This is a non-sequiter; this is an article about Jews, and the deaths of many Russians (including Jews) at the hands of the Communist government (which in its earliest days included a number of Jews, but which later was purged of them) is an important historical fact, but has little to do with the article itself. Jayjg 04:58, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

(Comment:You are not making any sense. Are you saying because among the Bolsheviks there were ethnic Jews that therefore the USSR was "not" Anti-Semitic? What poor logic and distortion of reality that is! It does not matter who the Bolsheviks were, the reality is that the majority of all Jewish people in Russia - who were decidedly NOT Bolsheviks - were subjected to Anti-Semitic treatment and active state suppression of their Judaism. IZAK 01:05, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC))

3rd: Since you claim that "inmates were killed in concentration camps as well, by many different means, and certainly not accidentally" then let's hear the numerous (proven?) ways Nazis used to kill the jewish population in the concentration camps, if we are here assuming that people were gassed to death in separate extermination camps. I'l help you by stating one obvious reason: typhus. 80.221.0.204 00:24, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Over-work, over-crowding, starvation, improper medical care, beatings, shootings, hangings, etc.; none of these were unintentional, and all led to hundreds of thousands of deaths. Jayjg 04:58, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

(Comment:Oh really, it was "typhus" that caused a lot of the Holocaust. How quaint. Oh, and by the way, if it was "typhus" why did the "nice" efficient Germans put people into those places to start off with?This is Holocaust denial of the highest order and should be seen for the trash that it is espousing! IZAK 01:05, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

(Question: Just who is "80.221.0.204" ? IZAK 00:53, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC))

"To this day, Holocaust deniers continue to deny the extent of the slaughter of Jews."

"Nazi Germany first built concentration camps to incarcerate and kill its opponents"

I dispute these two sentances. Sam [Spade] 00:39, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Comparing with the previous version "Since the aftermath of World War II there has been an ongoing debate between holocaust revisionists and jewish organizations as to the extent and nature of the Holocaust.", the actual "point 1" looks more accurate. There is no semantic distinction between Holocaust denier and Holocaust revisionist and there is no proper debate about the extent and nature of the Holocaust. --Vasile 04:04, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Sam: For two points, out of hundreds, you are prepared to knock this entire article out? Hmmmm. IZAK 01:10, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

What are you talking about "knock this entire article out"? I disputed the article. When its fixed, the disputes go too (assuming concensus). I think you need to go take a break, and come back to this refreshed, ready for a new perspective. Sam [Spade] 01:14, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Discussion about concentration camps

I haven't been following this article but, as regards Sam's points: Point 2 is correct. Concentration camps were first built to incarcerate, not kill opponents (though many died in them from abuse, malnutrition, disease, overwork, summary execution, etc.) In fact, until November 1938, the vast majority of prisoners in concentration camps were not Jews. It is important to distinguish between concentration and death camps. I am not sure about Sam's objection to statement one. Yes, Holocaust deniers deny that six million Jews were murdered. Sam, please clarify what your objection to the sentence is. Danny 01:24, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Actually I am disputing "slaughter". Read above. Sam [Spade] 01:44, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Would "persecution and murder" be better? Danny 02:12, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The first sentence is gone, the second sentence has been clarified. It is now more or less in the form it was before the furor erupted, with some clarifications around concentration camps. Jayjg 04:58, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

This article is obviously a farce considering the truth and NPOV, but basically 'political correct' historical view is what wikipedia stands for and that it truly provides. The Holocaust(R) is a religious (and polical) matter for the Jews, where Spielberg provides the facts in black and white 'documentaries'.

Oh yeah, the holocaust never happened. Uh-huh. And those numbers on my grandmothers arm were made up as part of the "Jewish Conspiracy". Take your crud elsewhere--Josiah 10:33, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Of course, if your grandmother had been gassed and cremated, she wouldn't have had a tattoo to show you, right? I hate to break it to you, but the tattoo on the arm of your LIVING grandmother is not particularly persuasive evidence for a holocaust. -- Igor.

That's one of the most hateful things I've ever heard said on this website or any other. Jdavidb 20:14, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Hateful? I stated a rational, dispassionate argument against the person's suggestion that a tattoo constitutes evidence of a holocaust. If you feel that a tattoo on his grandmother's arm constitutes proof of a holocaust, then please your reasons why. Your statement above is a bunch of knee-jerk, sentimental bunk, it's not a rational argument. -- Igor.

By the way the zealots forgot to revert the last of my edits, the one that used to claim that "Nuremberg laws were fascist". Of course if it were so, then the very similar laws of modern Israel should be also called "fascist and racist" (e.g. the right to return for an ethnic jew, non-Jews secound class citizens).80.221.0.204 10:06, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

And another ignoramous shows his ignorance.--Josiah 10:33, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The edit seemed reasonable; facism and racism are not particularly tightly linked. Agenda based commentary attempting to link Israel and Nazis ignored. Jayjg 16:22, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Simplification

I just want to say that I have always thought this article much to large and rambling. The title is "Jew" which is a title for a dictionary entry for a start. The Title should be Jews. It is fairly simple to define. The openning should be the traditional interpretation of who Jews are, then we should move through time indicateing when new movements arose and how they defined who Jews are. There is room for every POV currently observed in the present atrticle to be presented in unbiased report-style language as if written by a neutral observer. The article can be reduced in length and a lot of "see also" pages linked at the bottom. This time lets not omit ANY group which considers itself Jewish. Lets just make an unbiased report about each movement in chronological order with neutral language. Otherwise, leave it as it was. Zestauferov 11:44, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Re: "lets not omit ANY group which considers itself Jewish", there are all sorts of groups today who claim to be Jews; for example, a number of Christian groups claim to be Jewish, or "true" Jews, based on their theology that belief in Jesus is what makes someone a true Jew. However, these groups have no historical relationship to the people commonly known as Jews, and who are described in this article. Jayjg 16:26, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Thats the problem, they should be in the article. If you want a section for groups not widely considered to be Jews, but who call themselves Jews, thats fine, but its wrong to exclude them. I would point out that you already discuss people not considered to be Jews by most Jews (reletives of Jews who intermarried) as well as those who insist they are not Jews ("turkic" russian karites). Sam [Spade] 19:14, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The problem is that they shouldn't be in the article; the article discusses a specific people, and possibly (and quite incidentally) others related to them. As for the "turkic" stuff, that's just a POV attempt on the part of some modern converts to Karaism to dissociate themselves from other Karaites. Jayjg 19:52, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Either take an absolute and hard-line traditional stance, or mention ALL groups calling themselves Jews who would otherwise be considered apostate from the traditional perspective. Either way the netzarim issue cannot continue to be suppressed.Zestauferov 15:34, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Messianist Jews

This is an article about the people historically known as Jews, not an article about Judaism and the various groups which claim to practice it. Karaites are a group of Jews who have (for many centuries) practiced a faith which differed in some aspects from the faith practiced by the majority of Jews. Apostate is a religious term for people who have left a religion, so is more relevant in an article about religion. In that context I note that one cannot be apostate from a religion one was never part of to begin with. Your personal and barely hidden agenda of attempting to promote the legitimacy of the tiny modern religious movement known as "Netzarim" is noted. Jayjg 16:10, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I didn't claim that not everyone who claims to be Jewish practices legitimate Judaism, but am I mistaken in perceiving that you are saying that not everyone who practices legitimate Judaism is a Jew? There are Ger Toshav, Ger Tzedek and Born Jewish Netzarim. They do not hide their beliefs and they attend legitimate orthodox synagogues and operate under legitimate orthodox rabbis (they do not set up either of their own). If such orthodox rabbis and synagoges do not take it upon their shoulders to complain about them then why should anyone else feel it necessary to write about them in negative terms? They are significant because they are one of the messianist movements within legitimate Judaism.Zestauferov 03:57, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Here we go again:

A Ger Toshav is not a Jew but a non-Jew who adheres to the Noahide Laws and gains a special status. As a form of "personal status" in the framework of Jewish law, it is non-existant nowadays.
Born Jewish Netzarim are considered apostates by the overwhelming majority of mainsteam Judaism. The fact that they are not being shouted at from pulpits is because they're a tiny fringe organisation (just like the Talmidi Jews who have a WWW presence. Most Orthodox leaders would have not a minute of patience for the Netzarim, however Orthodox these people claim they are. The fact that their "Beth Din" is endorsed by the board (not the rabbi) of one Jewish congregation does not lend legitimacy to this group of people.

This discussion has raged between IZAK, Zestauferov and myself on a number of Wikipedia talk pages, and I'm unsure if any progress has been made at all, given the above discussion. JFW | T@lk 07:51, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

You are correct on all points JFW, including the point that no progress has been made at all. For more of the debate, please see Talk:Nazarene Judaism. Jayjg 17:39, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

You IZAK & now also Jayig (I hope its not going to effect our friendship). I always have to state this for the record at the openinning of this topic, I am NOT a netzarim nor interested in becomming one, but I am interested in orthodox Judaism and NPOV. Now you say "Born Jewish Netzarim are considered apostates by the overwhelming majority of mainsteam Judaism", but where is your evidence for this, and what does "the overwhelming majority of mainsteam Judaism" literally mean? I am talking specifically about original, i.e. traditional i.e. orthodox, i.e. undeniably legitimate Judaism beyond any shadow of a doubt nor debate. There are Netzarim Jews who (like the Lubavitchers) are messianists and are not considered apostates which is enough reason to mention them as a curiosity especially when considering that the reform Jews are mentioned in the article. Here is my evidence for saying so. The main points are that

they do not hide their beliefs,
they attend orthodox synagogues openly,
and they are proud to submit to the orthodox rabbis.

Now can anyone mention by name and location any such synagogues or rabbis (like the Beit ha-K'nêsêt Môrêshêt Âvôt (Beit K'nesset Moreshet Avot) – Yad Nâ·âmi in Ra'anana Israel under orthodox rabbi Môri Khaiim (Khaiim Vashdi (Moreh))) which

really know about them and about what they believe AND have declared them as apostates,
or really know about them and about what they believe AND have put a ban on them,
or really know about them and about what they believe AND have asked them to stop attending the synagogues,
or really know about them and about what they believe AND have asked them to stop consulting with the rabbis?

I have been looking for one and have not found any. In fact I have only found a deeper understanding of the points of halakha regarding their positions. My continued defense of NPOV on this issue is a a defense and promotion of the status of Halakha and the orthodox system in general. There may even be Netzarim praying in your nearest Neo-Orthodox (Torah im Derech Eretz) synagogue. It benefits us all to consult our local orthodox rabbis on Halakha and come to see the true unity which underpins of our wider community despite its apparent division on the outside. Plurality of opinion has always been the rabbinical system as long as each opinion is firmly grounded in Halakha. The point is that being Jewish is just that -a way of BEING- and not a system of belief which aims to restrict our minds. It really is a culture. It is only the religionists who try to compartmentalise it and keep it locked up in a specific drawer on the shelf marked religion who will argue otherwise. Shalom & Gut Shabbes.Zestauferov 09:42, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Neither this tiny group, nor this discussion, are relevant to this article. Jayjg 17:41, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Now that comment, Jayig, is in desperate need of neutral peer-review. How can a discussion about a very curious group of Jews (or any group which calls themself Jewish for that matter) not be relevant to an article about Jews?Zestauferov 13:25, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

P.S. I have heard from you a few times now that their movement is insignificant in numbers. I was just wondering where you found this out and what evidence you are basing it upon. Or are you just building an argumentum ignorantium?Zestauferov 04:58, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Talk: pages are not supposed to be NPOV. Regarding your other comment, this article cannot possibly address every tiny group claiming to be Jews, much less every sub-division among Jews. Encylopedia articles are overviews, catching the highlights, not detailed treatises. Jayjg 02:32, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

But a scholastic discussion should strive to discover the NPOV.

There is no way this article can be comprehensive about Jews, although it seems to me that it is important that one can start here and in no more than 3 reasonably obvious hops get to any article about a particular Jewish-related topic. There will obviously be significant groups of Jews not directly mentioned in this article. -- Jmabel 19:55, Aug 21, 2004 (UTC)

Agreed. To be honest, some of these groups don't need a Wikipedia mention at all; it seems these days everyone with a Website and a dozen followers feels the need to create a lengthy Wikipedia article promoting their tiny sect. Jayjg 02:32, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I have heard from you a few times now that the movement is insignificant in numbers. I was just wondering where you found this out and what evidence you are basing it upon. Or are you just building an argumentum ignorantium? If Lubavitchers are mentioned then why not Netzarim? I think the point here is that it is just too gutting to be reminded that netzarim are accepted in orthodox synagogues as non-apostates while adherants of certain other sects aren't but no matter how much the truth hurts the fact is that these people are a very interesting curiosity in that they are considered to be real legitimate Jews in the traditional sense of the word while other sects denouncing them as non-Jews are not. This is worthy of comment.Zestauferov 10:35, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

They are insignificant in numbers because they are not known or mentioned anywhere outside their website. Lubavitch has hundreds of centers around the world, synagogues, schools, etc. and tens of thousands (likely over 100,000) followers. I can't make heads or tails of your next comment "too gutting to be reminded that netzarim are accepted in orthodox synagogues as non-apostates while adherants of certain other sects aren't". Curiosities are fine for Ripley's Believe It or Not museums, but don't belong in encylopedias attempting to give overviews of the important facts on a topic. And there are no "other sects denouncing them as non-Jews", in part because no-one has ever heard of them. Jayjg 22:19, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Zestauferov is clearly demanding that we accept that this extremely tiny, non-Jewish messianic quasi-Christian group is somehow a part of mainstream Orthodox Judaism He even claims that they worship in Orthodox synagogues. Frankly, I've done a lot of reading on both Orthodox Judaism, and on messianic quasi-Christian Judaism, and I have never even heard of this very tiny sect. I doubt there are more than 100 of these people in the world; they certainly do not belong in any article on Judaism, Jews, or Orthodox Judaism. They probably don't even belong in Wikipedia at all. But we can say for certain that Zes's claim that they are Orthodox Jews is totally, absolutely false. RK 17:37, Aug 26, 2004 (UTC)

Zestauferov has been quite unamenable to negotiation on this issue. I have been reiterating my stance (together with IZAK and recently JayJG) that he's making an awful lot of noise about a group that is apparently in a lot of need for promotion. JFW | T@lk 17:46, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

From article

Firstly I am glad to see that the necessary changes were made. Since then however some new additions have been made which appear at minimum to be POV. see:

the relationship between the different "types" of Jews in Israel flucutuates to both the positive and the negative side.

assimilation always brings about the destruction of a peoples

The first is strange and needs better explanation, the second is hopelessly POV. Sam [Spade] 15:28, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I brought in the following portion from the article, for what should be obvious reasons:

"If looked at purely in the aspects of the physical world, assimilation always brings about the destruction of a peoples. Accordingly, relating to the spiritual, or Heavenly aspect of Jewish tradition, God showed discontent for the Children of Israel (as a nation) for failing to adhere to the commandments (the Torah). In religious Jewish thought, the Heavens, or World to Come, and Earth, this World, are connected to and intertwined with each other, so that what happens here affects the Heavenly Realm, and what happens in the Heavens affects this World. Thus, the exiles, destruction, as well as all aspects of positive national and individual occurences (liberation from slavery in Egypt) are manifestations of the inter-relationship between Heaven and Earth, and ultimately, of God's will. According to Jewish teaching, the Temple in Jerusalem will be rebuilt when spiritual and physical benevolence occur, culminating in the Messianic Age, or the (first and only) coming of the Messiah, which will usher in an era of peace and human unity under God."

Not sure what can be salvaged, but have at it. Sam [Spade] 15:37, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

attention tag

Why do you keep removing the attention tag? It is legitimate. The page is listed on wikipedia:pages in need of attention, mainly because... it is in need of attention! Do not remove the header until there is consensus to do so and the page is no longer listed on wikipedia:pages in need of attention. Thank you. Sam [Spade] 20:03, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I see. It is in need of attention because it is in need of attention. Please see Begging the question. In fact, there is consensus that it is not in need of attention, aside from one user abusing the attention tag. If you have any specific reasons why the page needs attention, well, that's what the Talk: pages are for. Jayjg 20:09, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Oh, and regarding the Pages needing attention page, there are no current debates (heated or otherwise) in the Jew article about "loaded terminology". Jayjg 20:16, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

If you think this article is in such great shape, and thaty problem has been solved, list it on FAC, or at least remove the listing. I clearly think the page could use an eye or two. Sam [Spade] 00:29, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The only reason this page was listed on the Pages needing attention page today is because you objected to some controversial edits which had been made a day or so earlier by some anonymous editors, and which have since been reverted. In other words, you claimed the page needed attention, as a result it was listed to the Pages needing attention page, and then you claimed that you were adding the attention tag because it was listed on the Pages needing attention page. Please see Self-fulfilling prophecy. In any event, the cause of the kerfuffle is now gone, so if you think the page still needs attention, then please state specifically why. Jayjg 01:09, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Ask User:Eequor. I think it needs attention because of the consistant attempts to insert POV or dubious info, and the fact that you yourself have told me that some of the info in the article was "POV attempt on the part of some modern converts to Karaism to dissociate themselves from other Karaites". Also, whats a kerfuffle? Is that like a brouhaha? ;) Sam [Spade] 05:09, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

User:Eequor made the changes to the controversial area, so the problem is solved for that user. People consistently try to insert POV/dubious info into most popular articles, and it is extremely rare for them to have attention tags, so this rationale doesn't hold water. The small amount of POV stuff in this article is regularly taken care of, as it is in every article. The "attention" tag is intended for articles which are new, and need a great deal of work, or which are mostly written POV; this article doesn't qualify.

kerfuffle

Main Entry: kafuffle

Function: noun

Definition: disorder, commotion; also written curfuffle, kerfuffle, gefuffle

Etymology: Gaelic cur 'twist, bend' + fuffle

Sam: It was you who placed this article on "Pages needing attention" so it's disingenious to talk about it as if it it's still there and therefore has any meaning when it does NOT. Furthermore,User:Eequor has already edited the section you had problems with at Jew#Nazism, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Jew&diff=5277975&oldid=5275985

Even I'm getting confused about the timeline of events now. All I did with the notice was to reword it so as not to misrepresent the discussion here. Why are y'all arguing about the attention notice, anyway? --Eequor 16:59, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

User:Eequor took this:

Modern persecution of the Jews reached its peak under the Nazis from 1933 to 1945. The Nazis, who thought of themselves as a "Master Race", considered the Jews inferior and subhuman. These racist beliefs and acts were embodied in the Nuremberg Laws specifically designed to discriminate against Jews. After emerging from Germany and capturing most of the European mainland, and in accordance with its Wannsee Conference, Nazi Germany first built concentration camps to incarcerate and kill its opponents and then the extermination camps designed for pure genocide, to kill Jews for the mere "sin" of being born ethnically Jewish. Approximately six million Jews perished under the genocidal policies of the Nazis. Even Jews who had long assimilated and had been baptized into Christianity were not spared. With the defeat of the Axis Powers by the Allied Nations, many high German officials were punished by the Nuremberg Trials and Germany paid reparations to Holocaust survivors and to the State of Israel. To this day, Holocaust deniers continue to deny the extent of the slaughter of Jews

and made it into this:

Modern persecution of the Jews reached its peak under the Nazis from 1933 to 1945. The Nazis, who thought of themselves as a "Master Race", considered the Jews inferior and subhuman. These racist beliefs and acts were embodied in the Nuremberg Laws specifically designed to discriminate against Jews. After emerging from Germany and capturing most of the European mainland, and in accordance with its Wannsee Conference, Nazi Germany first built concentration camps to incarcerate and kill its opponents and then extermination camps intended solely for the genocide of all Jews. Approximately six million Jews perished under these policies. With the defeat of the Axis Powers by the Allied Nations, many high German officials were punished by the Nuremberg Trials and Germany paid reparations to Holocaust survivors and to the State of Israel.

And for now, that is where matters stand, seemingly to the satisfaction of everyone INCLUDING you, because you have now evidently chosen to over-look User:Eequor's skillful edits and now pick at other irrelevant out-of-context points in the Jew article, NOT related to your original complaints, which makes one wonder what this "game" is all about..? IZAK 06:58, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

What a bunch of foolishness. I should dispute this talk page as factually innaccurate and POV. Sam [Spade] 16:01, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Well, thank you. I still think it could use some revision, but I don't know how that ought be done. --Eequor 16:59, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Hey everytime we post anything we are agreeing to have it edited mercilessly. "If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, do not submit it." there is nothing in the wiki policy pages about editing talk pages. Many a time someone has edited one of my headdings to something I did not write or intend. I also have no qualms about editing a comment attributed to me by someone else which I did not say. So I think that editing talk pages has some merit. Otherwise the submit agreement should be changed to make such editing beyond our wiki rights.Zestauferov 13:36, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

As you have been told before, the "edited mercilessly" policy applies to article pages, not to Talk: pages. Headings and comment are not the same thing, and editing of other people's comments in Talk: pages is very strongly frowned on in Wikipedia. Jayjg 02:34, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. What people write in talk pages should be left as they write it. That's why I left that "Qouted figure" post up there this morning after reverting everything that anon user did in the actual articles. Revert nonsense in the articles mercilessly, though. Peace, Antandrus 02:55, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

What if one person tries to build up a strawman argument by misquoting you or misrepresents what you have said? Surely you have a right to edit that comment to mean exactly what yu said before addressing it. especially considering that there is a disclaimer we all agree to every time we submit. Anyway this discussion really does not belong here, so if anyone would like to move it to a more appropriate location please feel free.Zestauferov 03:31, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Regardless of how one views the comments of the person one is disputing, one should not edit their Talk: comments. Rather, one should respond to the comments, and point out what one feels are strawman/misquotes etc. and why. One cannot revise the record to have people say what one thinks they "should have" said; if that were accepted practice, then little would be left in Talk: pages. The disclaimer itself refers to article pages, not to Talk: pages, as has been explained many times, to little avail. And if this discussion doesn't belong here, then it shouldn't have been brought up here in the first place. Jayjg 03:40, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Assimilation, hurtful when forced

"Many if not most anti-semitism presents as a key evidence for their claims the lack of Jewish assimilation. The subject of forced assimilation and Marrano Jews is hurtful to many, Jewish and not, in its remembrance."

What is this sentence intending to convery? Jayjg 18:32, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Well, its two sentences, and they intend to convey at least two things.

That the subject of Jews not assimilating is controversial, and has been a focus of anti-Semitism.
That the subject of the forced assimilation of Jews is quite an ugly history in the views of most people involved, particularly Jews and Catholics.

Also I wanted to have a mention of the Marranos in this section.

Sam [Spade] 18:44, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Got it. "Hurtful" is almost always POV. The material is now in the relevant sections. Jayjg 19:23, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Good recent edits, Jayjg. Cheers, Sam [Spade] 19:27, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

merge?

Jew#.22Jew.22_in_Israel_and_Israeli_law

Jew#View_of_the_State_of_Israel

These two sections need to be condenced or merged, so as not to repeat information. Sam [Spade] 19:12, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Done. Jayjg 20:11, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The definition, revisited

The current def. is completely unacceptable: "Jew is a term used in a wide number of ways, but generally referring to either a follower of Judaism, a child of a Jewish mother, or a member of the Jewish culture or ethnicity". a wide number of ways? a member of the Jewish culture??? ←Humus sapiens←Talk 05:26, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Humus I agree with your objections, but why the heck do we need Jean-Paul Sartre's "definition" (if it is even that) to tell Jews who they are? IZAK 05:42, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Thanks. I find it deeper than it seems at first sight and think it is applicable in some cases where other defs miss. Unfortunately, I can't find the exact quote, so I'd appreciate any corrections. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 05:49, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

It doesn't seem reasonable to me that the unique and idiosyncractic definition of one 20th century philosopher (regardless of how prominent) should be given such weight. Jayjg 15:12, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Humus, could you respond here? I don't think Sartre's idiosyncractic definition should be given such prominence. Jayjg 14:22, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Why don't we Just say, that Jew is a way someone who can be considered within the folds of orthodox Judaism may be described, or a self-definition by someone who lays claim to that heritage regardless of the traditional view. This covers both sides of the coin and is very general.Zestauferov 10:30, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Actually it's fairly incomprehensible, and in any event doesn't describe the people referred to in this article, which is the group of people historically known as Jews, and not just anyone who today wants to lay claim to that title. Jayjg 15:06, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

but thats what the reform jews are doing. And it is perfectly comprehensible (except perhaps to you but then we know why and so you are excused) and would naturally lead onto a clarifying paragraph. Perhaps we need peer review on your comment once more.Zestauferov 15:15, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Most Reform Jews do, in fact, still descend from the people who have been historically been referred to as Jews. Ad hominem insinuations, as usual, ignored. Jayjg 15:56, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Here is a review of Ad hominem for you since it seems you have forgotten what it means. Subject 'A' argues poit 'B'. Subject 'C' defames subject 'A' as something bad and subsequently concludes that point 'B' cannot be of any value.Zestauferov 20:15, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Before being allowed to become orthodox, a reform Jew would have to go through a genealogical enquiry to ensure that matrilineal descent was not from a convert to the reform movement but from an orthodox (or as you put it someone historically referred to as a) Jew. I know this from experience. It is scientificaly not possible to say most without reference to the evidence which I am pretty sure is not available to the average wiki editor. Before you attempt to insinuate it about me again I have nothing against the vast majority of Jews in the reform movement (I cannot say reform Jews because the term might be misunderstood) since they are mostly (just like I was one of) many good people in ignorance about the traditions.Zestauferov 21:56, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The inquiry would not be about the denomination the person's female ancestors adhered to (Orthodox etc.), but rather whether or not they were Jews according to the traditional definition. This is a critical point, and other terminology is misleading at best. Jayjg 14:22, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I object to the statement "a person who is of Jewish ethnicity" because it is either a euphemism for a racialist comment or if it is used to mean culturally Jewish, then it is redundant because Judaism is a culture an ENTIRE way of life and not just a faith or religion as some people try to belittle it as.Zestauferov 15:20, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Some Jews view Judaism as a way of life, others as a faith or religion; your POV is interesting, but not accepted by many Jews, and in any event not appropriate for a Wikipedia NPOV definition. Jayjg 15:56, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Didn't someone say a few lines up that comments on talk pages don't have to be NPOV? I wonder who it could have been?Zestauferov 19:50, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

You don't wonder at all, since we both know it was me who said it. And it is correct; you can put all sorts of POV stuff in Talk: pages, but it is not appropriate to put that same POV stuff into the article itself. Jayjg 14:15, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I am afraid that you cannot say "Not accepted by many Jews" because the term "Jews" is under debate. According to my POV for example the only Jews who do not accept the definition are those who descend matrilinially from an orthodox maternal ancestor or who have become orthodox Jews once but who for some reason or another both no-longer accept orthodox Judaism. But that is just one of the many POVs on the subject and in fact is the orthodox i.e. traditional view on the subject. Only certain non-orthodox splinter groups attempt to sell Jewishness as being something different from Judaism and attempt to belittle Judaism as nothing more thana "faith" or "religion". Zestauferov 20:15, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Yes, the Orthodox view differs from others. That is why the article presents the POVs of various groups. Jayjg 14:22, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Well then if you include the POVs of some groups of apostates (e.g. reform), then why not others (e.g. messianic renewed Judaism)? What is the objective rule of measure being used?Zestauferov 18:35, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Zes, give it up. Even Orthodox Judaism does not view Reform Judaism as being the same as "messianic Judaism". In fact, the mainstream Orthodox Rabbinical Council of America worked for five decades with Reform Judaism in the Synagogue Council of America. Even after the SCA became defunct, many Reform and Orthodox rabbis still work together across America and Canada on a local and community basis. In stark contrast, neither Reform nor Orthodox Judaism accept any of these quasi-Chrisitan messianic groups as a part of the Jewish community. You are unilaterally pushing your own personal views of what you wish Judaism would be: You wish that Orthodox Judaism would accept messianic Jewish quasi-Christian groups as a form of Judaism...but in the real world they do not. Neither does any form of Reform or Conservative Judaism. RK 21:16, Aug 26, 2004 (UTC)

Peoplehood and matrilinealism

I want to clarify a comment I made in an edit connecting "peoplehood" and "racialism." I didn't mean that a sense of peoplehood was racist; I mean that connecting a sense of peoplehood specifically with the mother only borders on doubtful racial concepts. -- Cecropia | Talk 17:37, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The language itself in this section (formerly two sections) was completely convoluted and difficult to understand, and spent way too much time saying what things were not, rather than what they were. Over the past few days I've made a number of attempts to clean it up, and I think it's now at the point where it is generally comprehensible, if perhaps still a bit over-wordy. Jayjg 18:20, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Basing it on the mother only has only cultural traditions implied, while taking it that having some "Blood" from either side is counted enough to make one Jewish certainly is racialism. The point is that ethnicity used to be a word used for culture but has come to be a euphemism for race a word which genetic science has proved is not suitable for any sub-population of the one human race.Zestauferov 19:53, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The proscription is apparently religious, not cultural. Still in all, the plain meaning would be that you're sure who the mother is, making it an issue of blood. The question is whether this is still appropriate in the modern context. -- Cecropia | Talk 00:26, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Whether or not this is "appropriate" is not particularly relevant. In the traditional view it is based on the mother, so that is what needs to be reported. Jayjg 14:18, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

But we may ask if the "traditional" view is Biblically-based, or came in to being to meet the needs of a time. Is the tradition based on law, or interpretation of law, or on then-exigent conditions? Times change. To believe many writers, Judaism is in a crisis of assimilation. If it could be proven to everyone's satisfaction that a Jew is the natural father of a child, is it better to deny that child's Jewishness at a time when so many are complaining that the Jewish faith is endangered by diminishing numbers? But what we were discussing here was the use of the term "peoplehood," which is not exactly the same as religious acceptance. Since that word is striken (I think), the point is moot in terms of the article. -- Cecropia | Talk 03:34, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Regarding your first question, some argue the traditional view dates back 2,000 years, others over 3,000 years; the article reflects this, though, strictly speaking, it should probably only reflect the latter view in the "Traditional Views" section. Regarding your other comments, they assume that a) matrilineal descent is a response to concern that the father might not be a Jew, and b) that the child of a Jewish father has a "Jewishness" which can be "denied"; both of these assumptions are speculative at best. In any event, while your suggestions for ways of "saving" Judaism have been proposed by others (particularly the Reform movement), I don't see how they are relevant to the Traditional view of "who is a Jew", or what constitutes the Jewish people. Jayjg 04:20, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Regarding your other comments, they assume that a) matrilineal descent is a response to concern that the father might not be a Jew -- Perhaps I'm misunderstanding what you're saying, but the fear would be that the father of a child of a non-Jewish mother might also be non-Jewish, thereby imparting "Jewishness" on the child of non-Jews. Conversely, if the mother is Jewish, you are certain of at least half Jewish parentage. What do you think the purpose of a matrilineal descent is? Cecropia | Talk 23:35, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I don't understand your first statement, but I don't see why matrilineal descent has to have a "purpose". It simply is the traditional practice. Jayjg 03:59, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

b) that the child of a Jewish father has a "Jewishness" which can be "denied"; both of these assumptions are speculative at best. Well, what is Jewishness? I believe the Jewish bible and law to be practical documents, not as mystical as some religions. What makes the child of a Jewish mother inherently Jewish and the child of a Jewish father inherently not? Cecropia | Talk 23:35, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The Talmud finds strong support for matrilineal descent in the Jewish Bible. As far as Jewishness goes, one could argue that the whole concept is unproven. However, that wouldn't be a relevant argument, since all we really need to do is report the traditional view (at least in the section in question), which is that there is such a thing, and that it passes from the mother only. Jayjg 03:59, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

your suggestions for ways of "saving" Judaism -- I don't think I used the term "saving" Judaism, but some would say that. But if the issue is "saving" is there any general agreement on what precisely that means? Is it religious practice (like Lubavitchers who want even non-religious Jews to follow practices)? Is it continuity? It is numbers? Is it culture? Or is there something else? -- Cecropia | Talk 23:35, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Orthodox Jews do not believe that the Jewish people are in any danger of disapppearing, but they do believe that non-Orthodox Jews are losing Jewish identity and their descendants will be lost to the Jewish people. What is that identity? A complex mix of practices, attitudes, shared values, shared history, shared religion, shared scriptures, etc. Jayjg 03:59, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Return of the Prodigal

From the article:

Generally, Jews who have been raised as non-Jews would be expected to make some sort of public sign that they are returning to Judaism, for instance engaging in a course in Jewish Torah education, joining a synagogue, observing the Jewish Sabbath and festivals, keeping kosher, having an adult bar mitzvah ceremony, and a variety of other observances. If not circumcised, males are required to have a brit milah (ritual circumcision).

Do we have any reference or statistic for that? What does raised "non-Jewish" mean? Raised in another religion? raised as an atheist? raised as culturally Jewish without religious education? And who would "expect" "some sort of public sign"? A synagogue? The secular Jewish community? A prospective Yiddishe mother-in-law? How much of a "public sign"? There are an awfully lot of people accepted as Jews who don't know a word of Torah, attend shul, observe Shabbos but do eat traif. Would a Jewish returnee showing up at Temple be expected to make some kind of representation before being allowed in the door? -- Cecropia | Talk 19:15, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, that's a paragraph I'm still wrestling with. I haven't really liked it since I first noticed it, and I've already cut it down a little, but it still seems over-wordy. Raised "non-Jewish" I think in this context means "raised in another faith" or "raised without the knowledge one is a Jew". All those various things these people are asked to do aren't really documented anywhere, and are certainly not formalized. OTOH, some returning "apostates" are definitely asked to go to a mikvah, even if they don't have to formally convert. I'm going to try to figure out who originally wrote the paragaph, that may help. Jayjg 19:38, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Ah, I see, the material was inserted on Dec 24, 2003. I understand better why it was placed there; I'm going to try another re-write attempt. Jayjg 19:56, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Orthodox view

I would like to keep a clear distinction between orthodox and non-orthodox views instead of this farce of tying to present a non-existant wholistic view.

For example Jayig does not understand the orthodox system and always tries to present it as in harmony with reform where the two in reality are as different as Christianity is from orthodox Judaism. e.g. he changed this

All Jewish denominations welcome the return of any Jews who have left (or who have been raised in a faith other than) Judaism. This return is called Teshuvah and such Jews would be expected to make some sort of public sign that they are returning to Judaism, for instance engaging in a course in Jewish Torah education, joining a synagogue, observing the Jewish Sabbath and festivals, keeping kosher, having an adult bar mitzvah ceremony, and a variety of other observances. However if these individuals do not posess documented matrilineal descended from an orthodox Jew, they would require a formal conversion to adopt Judaism. Males would be required to have either a full brit milah (ritual circumcision, or a symbolic one if already circumcised but raised as a non-orthodox Jew.

into this

All Jewish denominations welcome the return of any Jews who have left (or who have been raised in a faith other than) Judaism, and these individuals would not require a formal conversion, though they would be expected to abandon their previous beliefs and adopt Judaism. Males would be required to have either a full brit milah (ritual circumcision), or a symbolic one (if already circumcised).

Zestauferov 16:47, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I am not trying to harmonize different views; rather, the fact is that Orthodoxy does not require conversion of non-Orthodox Jews, nor does it insist that the ancestors of Jews believe in or practice Orthodoxy in order to be accepted as Jews. Rather, as the movement has made clear in a number of public statements, it considers Reform, Conservative, apostate, raised Christian, etc. Jews to be Jews (though it affords no legitimacy to the movements), so long as their female ancestors meet the traditional definition of a Jew, as outlined in the Talmud. It does not demand any specific observances in order to be considered a Jew. Jayjg 17:49, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

As for the statement regarding "documented matrilineal descent", this is already implicit from the previous paragraph, and the fact that the current paragraph is talking about Jews. Jayjg 18:01, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

You miss thew point. It is possible that a Reform Jew may eb descended from a great grandmother who converted to Reform Judaism in which case her matrilineal descendants would not be considered Jewish at all by orthodoxy. Hence these days it is not uncommon for Reform Jews to have to proove the validity of their matrilineal descent if making teshuvah to orthodoxy. If it is discovered that their matrilineal Jewish ancestor was a convert into a movementother than orthodoxy, then such a "Jew" would be required to convert to orthodoxy. That is what my paragraph attempts to illustrate and that is what your paragraph hides. And you should not have tried to portrtay me as so gobsmackingly ignorant as to be claiming that non-orthodox Jews with a solid matrilineal descent need to convert especially when I wrote about teshuvah in the paragraph and have shown you up with my knowledge of orthodox systems several times on various talk pages. That is called a straw-man when you build an argument and knock it down pretending that you have knocked your opponent down while the opponent is in fact still standing. It only works on ignorant readers and makes the strawman builder look a fool to those who can see exactly what is being done.Zestauferov 16:53, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

While it is possible that a Reform Jew may be "descended from a great grandmother who converted to Reform Judaism", it is not likely, as conversion in all movements were rare until the late 20th century. However, in the rare case that this occurred, the individual would indeed have to convert to be accepted as a Jew by Orthodox Judaism. More to the point, descendants of Jewish apostates to another faith (almost invariably Christianity) who now wish to be accepted as Jews by Orthodox Judaism do not need to prove that they are descended from Orthodox Jews, but merely that they are descended from Jews. Jayjg 17:30, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Finally you understand.Zestauferov 17:57, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I understand, which is why I put my version of the text in, as opposed to yours, which said the opposite. Jayjg 18:11, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Mine does not say the opposite and yours does not make clear what is clear here in this discussion. Zestauferov 18:29, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Your version says they require documented descent from an "orthodox Jew". You have since agreed that they do not, but merely that they are descended from Jews. See your comment of 17:57, 25 Aug 2004 directly above. As for the rest, contrary to your paragraph, they do not need to make any sort of public "sign" to be considered to be Jews; in fact, as the article makes clear, even if they continue to practice another faith, they will still be considered Jews. Jayjg 19:13, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Straw man argument, Wishful thinking, and Argumentum ad nauseam ignored. Jayjg 17:30, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

WhateverZestauferov 17:57, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Zestauferov writes "For example Jayig does not understand the orthodox system and always tries to present it as in harmony with reform where the two in reality are as different as Christianity is from orthodox Judaism."

I totally disagree. Jayjg isn't doing anything of the sort, and none of the other contributors to the article are doing anything like this either. RK 21:29, Aug 25, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks, RK. Zestauferov believes I am an Reform Jew, and therefore views all of my edits as an attempt to promote Reform Judaism against Orthodox Judaism. In the past he regularly insisted that I was a Reform Jew, and that my arguments were therefore invalid, until I protested that this was Ad hominem and Poisoning the well. Since then he no longer states this outright, but continues to make not-so veiled references to this belief, such as "but thats what the reform jews are doing. And it is perfectly comprehensible (except perhaps to you but then we know why and so you are excused)..." and "the point here is that it is just too gutting to be reminded that netzarim are accepted in orthodox synagogues as non-apostates while adherants of certain other sects aren't but no matter how much the truth hurts..." It is interesting to note that in the same week you accused me of being "Ultra-Orthodox", Zestauferov accused me of being "Reform", and a third Wiki editor accused me of being "atheist"; I take this as proof positive that I am indeed adhering to the NPOV policy. Jayjg 22:08, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I think there is some confusion over the wording of a recently edited section. Neither Orthodox or Conservative Judaism require apostates to "convert" to Judaism. When apostates are practicing a non-Jewish faith (e.g. Christianity) they are still halakhically considered Jews, yet they are not practicing the religion of Judaism. Jewish person, yes, Judaism adherent, no. The question here is what happens when such a person wants to leave the faith that they are currently practicing, and return to practicing Judaism? I know for certain that the Committee on Jewish Law and Standards, in Conservative Judaism does mandates that the returning Jew make some sort of public sign that they are now returning to Judaism. This may include immersion in a mikveh, taking part in Jewish education classes and reading Torah at services, or some other significant act. However, this is not a conversion; the person in question is Jew the entire time. If I understand correctly, the same is unofficially true in Orthodox Judaism. People who return to Orthodox Judaism usually are often observant than the average returnee in the Conservative Jewish community, and so engage in many public signs of adherence to Judaism as religion anyways! (Becoming a regular worshipper at an Orthodox Jewish synagogue and keeping Shabbat is a major public sign of adherence to Judaism!) RK 21:29, Aug 25, 2004 (UTC)

Exactly. The standards for being accepted as a member in good faith of a certain denomination (e.g. Orthodox Judaism) are not the same as the standards for being accepted as a Jew. Jayjg 22:08, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Don't we all know all this? In orthodox system it is called Teshuvah not conversion. The point I am trying to highlight is that sometimes people accepted as matrilineally Jewish in a non-orthodox denomination might not actually pass the acid test withing orthodox Judaism (which is I understand increasingly checking up on matrilineal descent of non-orthodox Jews making Teshuvah) and in such cases these people must go through full conversion. Zestauferov 16:21, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Seesaw

This whole article will never be finished because it is a constant see-saw between traditional (i.e. orthodox) and revisionist ideas in all shapes and forms. We need a neutral presentation of both sides of the coin under clear sub-headdings and neither should cross over onto the otrher's territory. The problems are arising because the discussion attempts to paint a picture of one Jewish people which is unrealistic.Zestauferov 20:44, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Jfdwolf would you like to give a reason why you reverted my edit? Do you claim that Judaism is nothing more than a religion?Zestauferov 23:25, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Yep. To claim (right at the top of the article) that Judaism is a "way of life" is trivialising. For the vast majority of readers, Judaism is to be classified as a religion, even though I (and you) might not agree. The distinction ought to be made in Judaism, and not in Jew. JFW | T@lk 23:30, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

IC though the phrase as it stood does seem to promote one POV over another.Zestauferov 00:00, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

5 Jews ==> 6 opinions

With all due respect, folks, for some time we have been arguing over trivial differences here and doing little to appreciably improve the article. Most of the edits have amounted to gonig back and forth over the same ground. There is probably plenty that could be done with this article, but this isn't it. Also, there are certainly all sorts of Jewish-related topics that could use some serious work.

May I suggest that rather than argue repeatedly over the same matters, that each of the people who is significantly involved in this article would do well to indicate here on the talk page what they would see as up to three areas where the article could be strengthened, either through broader (or narrower!) coverage, improved citations, parts they really thing need a serious rewrite, etc. and we can see if we can get consensus on pursuing some of these rather than playing tug-of-war? -- Jmabel 00:58, Aug 24, 2004 (UTC)

I think the whole article needs shortening for a start. and I would like to keep a clear distinction between orthodox and non-orthodox views instead of this farce of tying to present a non-existant wholistic view.Zestauferov 16:47, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

This really wasn't an invitation to resume the same arguments in a new section. I was serious about my request for areas that could be strengthened. -- Jmabel 02:19, Aug 25, 2004 (UTC)

I've been working hard at that, Jmabel. Jayjg 04:22, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, for that as you can see I have moved the discussion under another headding.Zestauferov 16:53, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

A threat?

I just received this message from a user here: "Stop trolling on Jew. Your agenda is obvious. This is also your first and final warning. JFW | T@lk 17:14, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)." Sounds an awful lot like a threat, doesn't it? Unsigned by Igor, User:149.99.133.209

who is it from?Zestauferov 17:23, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

It's from me. Adding the inflammatory link from the National Vanguard is trolling, and will lead to banning. Yes, this was a legitimate threat. JFW | T@lk 17:26, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Also from you:"Your response on Talk:Jew is noted. I have every right to issue this "threat" if you insert links to the National Vanguard that have little to do with Jew/Judaism and more with Google (and perhaps Wikipedia), and are clearly intended as trolling. JFW | T@lk 17:33, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)". The National Vanguard article is relevant to this page on many levels, most notably in that it specifically mentions this - Wikipedia's - "Jew" article, and explains how this article came be ranked as Google's #1 search result for the search term "Jew". According to the article, it came to be ranked as #1 through the UNETHICAL practice of 'linkbombing' Google in a campaign organized by Jewish lobby groups and Jewish individuals. Jewish censorship on the internet (and elsewhere) is certainly relevant to the "Jew" topic and should be discussed in the article. The fact that you - JFW | User_talk:Jfdwolff - have attempted to block me from Wikipedia is a BLATANT example of Jewish censorship of the internet. -- Igor.

To more fully explain, the anonymous person is pushing Nazi propaganda, Holocaust denial, and is linking this article to Nazi websites. What could constitute a greater case for banning? RK 17:43, Aug 26, 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps you're resorting to Ad hominem attacks and censorship because you're unable to refute the charges made in the National Vanguard article? -- Igor.

Hi, I'm a Gentile. We do not worry about refuting charges here on Wikipedia. Our purpose is not to determine the truth or falsehood of charges, only to report appropriate information in the proper context. We report what various groups believe and allow readers to determine truth for themselves.

This is not a case of Jewish censorship. I'm a Gentile, and I'll cut out Nazi junk from Wikipedia, too.

It's not even a case of censorship. It's a case of removing something that does not belong in a particular encyclopedia article. This is what makes WIkipedia a source of unbiased information for all.

For more information, please read about the Wikipedia:NPOV policy. Jdavidb 18:34, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The article in question - which I don't believe you've made any effort to read before classifying it as 'Nazi junk' - most certainly IS relevant to the article, and the attempts by certain individuals to ban me from Wikipedia for posting a link to this article most certainly ARE censorship. -- Igor.

I can't read it. My employer's internet system blocks the article as being hate speech. Sounds like Nazi propaganda to me.

You "can't read it", and yet it "sounds like Nazi propaganda" to you. I'd say it is YOU who are having a problem with NPOV, not I. -- Igor.

You will not be allowed to use Wikipedia to promote this stuff. There are plenty of Gentiles AND Jews who will prevent it. Jdavidb 20:16, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Incidentally, you're not being censored. If you were, the right to download Mediawiki and make your own website saying whatever you want would have been taken away. Why don't you go do just that and leave the rest of us alone? Jdavidb 20:18, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Because Wikipedia does not belong to you or to the little Jewish gang that tries to control this page? -- Igor.

Dude, wake up. It's hate speech. Jdavidb 20:56, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Dude, read the article or zip it. Oops, you can't read it - someone's censoring your internet access! (Gee, I wonder who would do that?). So on second thought, just zip it. -- Igor.

The link is not relevant to the topic of this article. You could try linking it to articles on Google rankings; that might be more appropriate. Jayjg 21:23, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

You don't know if it's relevant or not since you haven't even read it. You are clearly very biased and are unable to maintain NPOV on this matter. You are simply arguing for argument's sake at this point. -- Igor.

Page protected due to edit war

I've protected this page as of 17:39, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC) due to an edit war. BCorr|Брайен 17:39, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Thank you Brian. It was more vandalism than a proper edit war (unless you count my months-spanning disagreement with User:Zestauferov whether the fringe organisation Netzarim is a legitimate form of Orthodox Judaism).

The problems at the moment are relatively minor, and AFAIAC (as far as I'm concerned) protection can be removed in a day or two. JFW | T@lk 17:43, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I'll check back in a couple of days. Thanks, BCorr|Брайен 21:06, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

This is fascinating - why did you just remove the link I had placed below to the controversial National Vanguard article? Why are you editing my messages without saying so? An impartial observer might be tempted to believe that some people here don't want the National Vanguard article to be seen by anyone. Oh well. Here's a link to the article again: [Top Ranked 'Jew Watch' Site Under Attack]. It only seems fair that people get to read it, since it's what JFW tried to ban me from Wikipedia for posting. -- Igor.

I am not a vandal, or a troll, and you Jfdwolff, are a shameless liar and a censor (the article in question is NOT an "anti-Google" article, as you mendaciously claim). I can think of no better first-hand example of Jewish censorship on the internet than what has just transpired here. I propose that a category in the external links section be called "Jews and Censorship" and that the controversial link be placed there. Wikipedia is meant to be an unbiased educational resource for all, not a showcase for Zionist propaganda. -- Igor.

"Zionist" propaganda? The Google rankings for the article Jew have nothing to do with Zionism, though this is an interesting demonstration of the way anti-Semites use "Zionist" and "Jew" interchangeably. Thanks, it will come handy in a discussion I've had on another Talk: page. Jayjg 21:26, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

So why is there a link to ZOA (Zionist Organization of America), among others, at the bottom of the article? Those links lead to Zionist propaganda. -- Igor.