![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | ← | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | → | Archive 20 |
This is a very good article and it should be published. -- Zondor 08:57, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
The article should be changed to "Jewish People" not "Jew", which is derogatory 64.121.37.90 06:40, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
"Jew" is a perfectly legitimate word.
Blastfromthepast 05:28, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
It's censorship and completely ridiculous to limit the ability to change the wikkipedia " JEW " page. Look up the "Muslim" page. Is it restricted? Of course not. How this reminds me of the google search. Search for "Jew" on google, and google tells you you've been bad. Try "Nigger" and it does no such thing. Apparently Jews are untouchables in society now. You can't criticize anything they do or say or you've been a bad anti-semite. And another thing. What is with jews calling arabs anti-semites? arabs are semites.. wtf? anyone want to argue with me? nischt@gmail.com
Anti-semite is a word that has been overused and as a product of this, become inaccurate and oft misused. People of Aramaic descent (certainly Arabs) are also semitic as much as the Jews are. Ideally, a new word should be coined for anti-Jewish behaviour (humorous in fact that the latin word anti does not mean against but rather instead of). Unfortunately, words this popular aren't often changed to be politically or religiously correct. Unless it's changed, anti-semitical will continue to refer exclusively to people and actions towards the Jewish people, which is unfortunate to all other semites.
nischt@gmail.com Wikipedia has policies in place to protect pages which are subject to repeated vandalism. Temporarily restricting a page is not censorship. In any case most of your comments have nothing to do with the article Jew, hence this is not the place for them. Blastfromthepast 05:28, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
If the following is true, why does the Jewish population not reproduce itself? With a small family in the modern era, a slow reproductive rate, long lifespans and a population of approximately 12 million Jews following WWII, there should be about 30 million Jews in the world at a minimum. How is it that the Jewish population barely replaces itself?
Population
Main article: Jewish population
Prior to World War II the world population of Jews was approximately 18 million. The Holocaust reduced this number to approximately 12 million. Today, there are an estimated 13 million [2] to 14.6 million[3] Jews worldwide in over 134 countries.
I bring the above issue up, because the numbers don't make the slightest logical sense based on the mathematics of population statistics. Stevenmitchell 16:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Most Jews are in the US or Israel; those countries don't have the sorts of exponential growth rates you see in the developing world. (J)
Just a thought; the article about people from Poland is called Poles, not "Pole", and the same plural naming convention seems to be used in most other similar articles describing groups of people.
Should this article, on that principle, therefore be called " Jews" instead of " Jew", and a separate article " Jew (word)" be created to deal with the issues about the word itself?
Or has this idea been already discussed ad nauseam here already? -- The Anome 14:46, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
I've recently been looking at a bunch of articles on ethnicity, and this naming in the singular is almost unique. See [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups#Partial list of pages covered by the project]. I don't have a big issue with this, but Jews would probably be more normal for Wikipedia. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:16, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
I agree with the plural being more natural. The Jews are a group of people and the subject of this encyclopedia article. A Jew is a single person and more the subject of a dictionary definition. keith 05:33, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
I agree that the title should be "Jews", not "Jew". Regarding "African American", I know hundreds of them and they all refer to themselves as "blacks".
I know it's a stupid question but … if the title of the article is "Jew", how come the first word is "Jews" and the Hebrew word is plural? Nu? (Of course, I have to answer a question with a question …) Light Orlanu Brecker 05:09, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
There seems to be a consensus to move it. I've added this page to Requested Moves since it can't be moved without admin assistance. -- Kotzker 22:13, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
I hate to say this, but I just checked "What links here". If the article name is changed several hundred pages will need links fixed. "Jews" is currently redirected to this article. Light Orlanu Brecker 05:51, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Vote To Keep —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SirIsaacBrock ( talk • contribs) 1 Jan 2006.
I have delisted this as a good article, because while that is generally the case, it is not stable - in fact it is one of the most unstable articles in all Wikipedia. It thus does not meet the criteria, and makes us permanently and unwavering mark a frequently vandalized article "good." I think this is why it isn't featured, incidentally. -- Tothebarricades 04:54, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Since this issue is really not specific to this article, I have brought it up at Wikipedia_talk:Good_articles#Stable. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:44, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Netizen, you wrote "For example, in early 20th-century Germany, a German of Christian faith was a "German" ( German: Deutscher), but a German of Jewish faith was a "Jew" (German: Jude), even though both were equally German citizens." I find that claim unsubstantiated, please cite sources. Cyberevil 02:56, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Edits over the last three or four days have been almost exclusively vandalism from anonymous users, and reversion of said vandalism. Would anyone object to semi-protection for a short time? android 79 14:42, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Since no one logged any objections here, and all that I've seen since I mentioned this has been more anti-Semitic garbage, I've semi-protected this article. I will lift it tonight to see what level of vandalism we get then. android 79 19:15, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
To the anon who removed the para about the term "Jew" used as objectifation and comparing to "women," yes, absolutely the term "woman" or "women" can be used and has used to objectify half the population. In a petty sense, in phrases like "a man and his woman." But more particularly, if you were to refer to a population as "citizens and women," "Germans (meaning men) and women," "women" would be objectifiying.
The problem in the paragraph, which I originally wrote, is that the attempt to make it politically correct (first remove the reference to "Christians" and then to "Germans" gutted it of its meaning, and I intend to restore it. If Europe had not so effectively wiped out its Jewish population, perhaps mentioning particular countries wouldn't be fair, but history is what it is. -- Cecropia 20:42, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Just a thought, but this link to an 1828 dictionary's definition of the word Jew suggests a more derogatory etymology for the word jew.
JEW, n. [a contraction of Judas of Judah.] A Hebrew or Israelite.
Does this perhaps suggest that, instead of the middle-english origin of the word jew, it may have had an origin linked to a derogatory contraction, to perpetuate the common excuse for anti-jewish bigotry that the Jews were the betrayers of christ and therefore enemies of chrisianity.
Again, just a thought (coming from a non-jewish, non-christian, impartial commentator)...
http://65.66.134.201/cgi-bin/webster/webster.exe?search_for_texts_web1828=jew
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.243.5.186 ( talk • contribs) 11 Jan 2006.
I see my extended entry explaining the nature of objectification of considering (e.g.) a German Christian = German; a German Jew = Jew, has been eviscerated again. If you think this is not an issue in our modern enlightened times, see the adminship nomination of Alex Bakharev under the third Oppose vote in which one Wikipedian Anittas refers to a fellow Wikipedian Node as follows:
Point made? But we have to pussyfoot on this point in our article text? Wow. -- Cecropia 05:04, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
A couple of editors seem to want to include this:
The words "Jewish" and "Jew" are now commonly used as insults. Phrases like, "You stupid Jew," "You nigger-loving Jew" and "That was a Jewish thing to do" are considered offensive regardless of race or religion.
It strikes me as pure ugliness that doesn't add anything to the article; perhaps I'm just a bit too sensitive, but I don't see how "nigger-loving Jew" really is an example of anything other than general vileness, and certainly nothing to do with "Jew". Thoughts? -- jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 03:33, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
jp, we probably had a slight conflict there who would get that out first. I corrected it now. Cyberevil 04:24, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Could we improve the intro? I know the Jews are special, but I find this "is used in many ways" confusing. See Hindu for example. Is this intro better:
I would leave the text "a child of a Jewish mother, or someone of Jewish descent with a connection to Jewish culture or ethnicity; and often a combination of these attributes." to the section Jew#Who is a Jew?. ← Humus sapiens ну? 22:35, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
My introduction at nl.wikipedia. This is a very quick translation, losing some nuance.
This article addresses Jews (also Israelites, the Jewish People or the People Israel) as a people or ethnicity. For a discussion of the Jewish religion and culture, see article Judaism.
The Jewish people live during at least three thousand years in the Land of Israel, where it developed a monotheistic religion and several times enjoyed self-determination. Most of the Jews were expelled by the Romans from Palestina and since had a troubled existence suffering poverty, discrimination, oppression and even extermination, but sometimes also cultural, economic and individual prosperity.
Throughout the years the Jewish religion, Judaism, was the prime binding factor between the Jews, although not strictly required (to follow) in order to belong to the Jewish people. Since the rise of modern nationalism and other change among the peoples around, Jews too have undergone a transition as a result of which gradually less people saw is itself as an independent nation and more saw themselves as an ethnic or etno-religious community within the nations around. Participation in all aspects of social life could now increase. Particularly from East and Central-Europe, where antisemitism was worst, a Jewish national movement had evolved, Zionism, that contributed to the growth of the Jewish popualtion of at that time Ottoman and later British Mandate of Palestine and eventually to the foundation of the State of Israel.
Before the Second World War the number of Jews was worldwide estimated as approximately 18 million. After the Holocaust approximately 12 millions were left. Today the estimates diverge from 13.0 up to 14.6 million Jews. Of the low estimate (13.0 million in 2005) live approximately 5.7 million in North-America (of which 5.3 million in the United States and 0.4 million in Canada), 5.3 million in Asia (of which 5.3 million in Israel), 1.5 million in Europe (of which 0.5 millions in France), 0.3 millions in South-America, 0.1 millions in Australia/Oceania and approximately as much in Africa. gidonb 23:08, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
I think the page should be unprotected. It's been semi-protected for over a week, which is just too long. Superm401 - Talk 07:51, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
It took about 12 hours from last unprotect for vandals to discover it, followed by a half dozen vandals in the following hours. Before uprotecting, consider that the nature of "Jew" will always attract vandals and ask what purpose is served by requiring someone to have an account for a few days (which can be blocked effectively--an IP may not be) in order to edit it. There are a handful of articles on Wikipedia which will always be vandal magnets and we should ask what shining principle is being served when we allow anons to edit them, in view of the reality that the overwhelming number of anon edits are vandalism to this article.
There is history to this and we should be open but not naive. Futile unproection is rather like requiring the KKK to take off their hoods for a few days after a lynching, then allowing them to put them back on again after to see if they've learned their lesson. Or perhaps more to the point, banning the Nazi Party for a week after Kristalnacht. -- Cecropia 15:44, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
I think we should try it out and see if it brings any worthwhile edits from anons. Occasionally they do occur, even on the
George W. Bush article which is permanently semi protected.
Calwatch 09:11, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
In an age of free speech should we stop new users to wiki from making their contribitions as these may provide good information that has before been missed. The majority should not be punished for the actions of a few neo-nazis it is just not right. Any decent person would relise that if they came across this vandilism they would know that it wasn't true and would delete it immeditaly. I have been discrimanted aganist countless times because of my race and I have learnt not to be offended by this as it is done by small minded ingornart fools who repeate the same insults as they cannot think of orginal ones, Jews and all other groups should just recongise that this is the way that the world is and has always been and they should accept that it will happen and when they come across it it will be deleted. No article in wiki should be protected to any degree as wiki prides itself on allowing anybody to alter its texts.
If a neo-nazi has written something moronic as you put it then they (the user) will realise that this is not true and so will either delete it or take no notice of it. As for the issue that this is not about Jews, if it is not I think it may be a bit misleading to have this discussion under an article called Jew.
When searching with keywords "wikipedia down" in google.com, the search results yield the article "Down syndrome" with a subreference to "Jew". Is this pure coincidence, and should this be rectified (it gives the impression that jews are related to down syndrome, which is false).
When is a disambiguation not a disambiguation? When it amounts to publicity for a minor rock group.
I removed the disambiguation link to Jew (disambiguation) since it only tells us that "jew" can be used as a racial slur (which is already covered in the main article and is a dicdef anyway, and that it can be an acronym for said rock group. "Jew" is not ambiguous and anyone who seacthes for "Jew" in an encyclopedia looking for a rock band is intellectually challenged. -- Cecropia 16:29, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Ryan asked me to discuss here whether the term "world Jewry" is anti-Semitic, as he's been removing it from articles. As far as I'm concerned it's fine, and replacing it with "the Jewish population," as Ryan's been doing, often leaves the sentence unclear. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:08, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
The term "world Jewry" may not have started explicitly as a slur, but my point is that the use of a term in one context does not change its meaning in another. You might not read the term as offensive or unprofessional, but others do. The first two contexts in which I heard "world Jewry" used were in translations of Nazi radio broadcasts from the middle 1930's, and again from a modern white nationalist organization. In those contexts, "world Jewry" is used as a synonymous term with the international Jewish conspiracy, since it is assumed that all Jews are innately "in" on the conspiracy. This ambiguity in meaning and perceived unprofessionalism of the term was shared with a few people I checked with before I started removing it and I have asked them to comment here as well.
In general, I think that "world Jewry" either refers to an amorphous international mass consciousness of Jews (as the Nazi's seemed to believe it was), or more generally "Jewish people around the world", the "Jewish community", or a "Jewish population". In general I've been replacing "world Jewry" with "Jewish population", but depending on context, there may be some other term that would be better, and I don't believe any meaning would be lost in so doing. ⟳ausa کui × 00:41, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm more or less neutral on this issue, but if the phrase is going to be used, it would be helpful if something existed to explain it- Jewry exists as a redirect to Jew, perhaps that could be expanded into a proper article?-- Sean Black (talk) 02:35, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
To put in my traditional two cents, you need to deal with context and meaning. "World Jewry" in and of itself is not anti-semetic. But even in a well-meaning article such as this, it does not have the same meaning as "world Jewish population." "World Jewry" has an institutional implication to it, suggesting a hierarchy or infrastructure capable of expressing an "official" Jewish position on things. "World Jewish population," OTOH, expresses a more organic sentiment, saying "this is something that people who identify themselves as part of the Jewish communities would tend to agree with or support." So which are we meaning to say? As a semantic point in context, I believe "world Jewish population" is more appropriate. -- Cecropia 04:48, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
We also need to keep in mind that many readers of English-language WP are not native speakers and that cultures vary widely even in English-speaking countries like Singapore. The chances are that someone from Singapore or Hong Kong would not understand the term "world Jewry" without an explanation. Light Orlanu Brecker 05:25, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Why should the majority be punished for the minority? This page should be unprotected, anything that is vandilsed can be changed back to the way it was before. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.135.77.85 ( talk • contribs) 19:40, March 19, 2006 (UTC)
Vandalism by anons has the character of random drive-by shootings. Creating a login seems to be an effective threshold: the number of vandalisms by (newly) registered users is much lower during semi-protection. Everyone can still edit this article, but here the ratio serious_contrution:vandalism from anons approaches 0. JFW | T@lk 21:55, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
NPOV tags in Wikipedia should not be placed simply because someone feela that the article has POV aspects. To place such a notice is in itself POV, since it is presenting an unsupported opinion. Please explain in talk what specifically in the article is POV, and how it may be fixed, before placing such a tag. -- Cecropia 20:38, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
"Please note that these populations represent low-end estimates of the worldwide Jewish population [the table says 15,471,000], accounting for around 0.2% of the world's population. Higher estimates place the worldwide Jewish population at over 14.5 million." So "low-end estimates" are actually higher than "higher extimates". I guess this should be corrected.
L.
When people want to know more about the Jewish people, they tend to use either the plural "Jews," or the term "Jewish people," and not the singular form "Jew," which might have derogatory connotations, as cited by Google [3]. Therefore, I suggest the name of this article be changed to "Jewish people" instead. -- 141.213.196.250 01:34, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
How about simply "Jews"? Makes more sense, doesn't change any meanings, and has no derogatory implication (like 'Jew' does). Miskin 02:11, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
The repeated insinuation that the word "Jew" is derogatory is rapidly becoming offensive. The statement that anything but "Jew" is more meaningful and appropriate is not only incorrect, it verges on insane. We should name an article about who and what a Jew is "Any name besides 'Jew'"? What convoluted logic leads to such a bizarre assertion? Using the Google disclaimer demonstrates almost unspeakable ignorance on the subject, since the disclaimer was written, it could easily be argued, in defense of the name of this article being "Jew" !!! The title "Jewish people" is not just as good as "Jews"; "Jewish people", and its singular "Jewish person", is a circumlocution invented by people who are hypersensitive about letting their antisemitism out into the light of day. The articles Chinese people and Japanese people refer to people from China and Japan, respectively. There are, as it happens, Chinese and Japanese Jews. I'm gonna stop now before I actually bite my tongue right off... Tom e r talk 05:04, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
The anon is not being anti-semitic, let's not be paranoid. IMO the singular declares some sort of generalisation, hence it's derogatory by definition. The fact that Hitler continuously mentioned "The Jew does this" and "The Jew did that", makes things even worse in the case of the Jews. 'Jewish people' is ugly and nothing but a wikipedia trend, "Jews" however sounds good. Miskin 05:20, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
I think the term 'Jewish people' is not needed since "Jews" already exists as a word. For example in the case of "English people", the word 'people' is needed to disambiguate between all the things that plain "English" (which has no plural form) could mean. In cases like "Jews" or "Greeks" or "Danes", disambiguation via the word 'people' is unecessary. Miskin 15:25, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
This is not simply my observation--it has been noted in the press and discussed online. Do a Google search on "Jew" and what do you get? Right at this moment number one is "Jew Watch," the rabidly anti-semitic site masquerading as scholarship, and number two is the Wikipedia arricle. These two have been running neck and neck for years. Make "Jew" a redirect and the Jew Watch people will have the field to themselves. -- Cecropia 16:03, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
I don't agree with you. The singular form used in such context is an old attribute of the English language. "Constantintinople" - they used to say - "heart of the Turk" (or of the Greek in older times). Such use of singular of form has no special connection to the Jews. Anyway I'm a Jew-sympathiser, but not Jewish myself, hence I don't know whether what you say has a cultural importance within Jewish ethnic sentiment. If that's the case, then I rest my case. Otherwise I find the article name "Jews" closer to the modern ethnoreligious definition of the people. Miskin 19:01, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
The "Jew Watch" issue is a tale-wagging-the-dog argument. We shouldn't name articles based on that kind of consideration. Paul August ☎ 20:44, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Group name | Singular ("Adherent") | Plural ("Adherents") | "Adherent People" | Logical variant |
---|---|---|---|---|
Jew | Main Article | Redirects to "Jew" | Redirects to "Jew" | |
Muslim | Main article | Redirects to "Muslim" | No article or redirect | No "Islamic people" either |
Christian | Main article | Redirects to "Christian" | No article or redirect | |
Catholic | Main article, inter alia" | Redirects to "Roman Catholic Church" | No article or redirect | |
Protestant | Redirects to "Protestantism" | Redirects to "Protestantism" | No article or redirect | |
Hindu | Main article | Redirects to "Hindu" | Redirects to "Hindu" | |
Buddhist | Redirects to "Buddhism" | Redirects to "Buddhism" | No article or redirect | |
Shintoist | Redirects to "Shinto" | No article or redirect | No article or redirect |
-- Cecropia 21:34, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
I find the image unrepresentative at best. ← Humus sapiens ну? 23:48, 5 April 2006 (UTC) I replaced it with Chagall's painting for now. ← Humus sapiens ну? 00:19, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
I think that it is a perfectly justified move to Semi-Protect the Jew article as Jews have always been more susceptible to perpetual vandalism and , therefore, must be more protected. It is neglectable to deem the Jewish people impervious to the vicious onslaught of insults it has had to endure through history. In response to the people who want to know what makes the word jew a negative term comaparitively to other religions my answer is that the nations of the world have made the very essence of the Jew a negative component time and time again. More recently, Michael Jackson uses the term "jew you" in his music as a negative phrase, mearly reiterating and affirming the disposition that being a jew is a negative trait. Protection is not a weakness or a sign of extreme sensitivity to the slightest back-handed comment, the Jews have had enough assaults to their values and priorities to understand that one must ignore the ridiculers and stick to who you want to be. Protection is a defence mechanism every single human has a right to, and the greater the need, the more protection is neccessary, and certainly justified. UriKest
One user has taken upon himself to request a name change from "Jew" to "Jews" without any consensus having been reached, so I think we need a formal vote of the traditional week to more accurately gauge sentiment.
Lexicographically, the article in question is actually centered around Jews as an ethnicity. Compare with the article Muslim, which mainly treats the noun “Muslim” and its usage. The difference to the article Christian is also fairly noticeable the same way. It is fine with me if we have an article about the word and concept “Jew” and we call that article “Jew”. As it happens, this article mainly treats Jews as an ethnicity. Pretty symptomatically, the first word — and one of the most frequent words in this article — is “Jews” in plural. Forcing the hence misleading name “Jew” on an article that is about “Jews” to prove some external point (“the singular ‘Jew’ {does|does not} have negative connotations”) is unencyclopaedic, leads to imprecise naming and may give readers a bad impression of Wikipedia. -- Olve 01:51, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
Leflyman, I was trying to give you an opportunity to state your core argument succinctly so I could address it, and only it, but I suppose I shouldn't have included an implied apology-in-advance (i.e., not accusing you of bad motives) because you immediately refused to assume good faith on my part and went straight to an attack on me on the basis that my saying that I wasn't accusing you really meant I was accusing you. Win-win siuation for your style of argumentation, if others accept it. I've been around Wikipedia for a while and I think anyone who knows me knows I am not that subtle: I try to say what I mean. So I will tell you my view of the issue, briefly:
I asked quite plainly for your motivation above ("Is consistency really your chief concern? You're worried about a style issue?") but you blew right past that complaining that I'm insulting you by saying I'm not trying to insult you, then you directly insult me by saying my question is "vile and contemptible" (wow, and that without me even trying!). So now I'm insulted! Shall we stand here and slap each other in the face with wet (presumably Kosher) fish until one of us apologizes in a completely acceptable form? You have answered none of my questions: Especially why you consider the article should be changed? (Is it consistency? That's it? Say so!) You have only offered rhetoric to support a change without stating a core reason. Others have (more, IMO) compelling evidence to keep it; and I asked you a straightforward question as to why you cite the fact that you speak Hebrew and are a "Jewish immigrant" and why this makes your opinion better than anyone else's. -- Cecropia 18:55, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
As has been requested, the poll has been reponed. — Nightst a llion (?) Seen this already? 08:21, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Does reponed stand for reopened??? I believe that the change from Jew to Jews actually creates consistency as most subs are in the plural form:
Not plural:
In conclusion, the usage of the word "Jew" or any singular name for that matter in an article name discussing the Jews does not not only come across as awkward, but is also very rare among the articles discussing the Jews. gidonb 23:12, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
I dont understand why the statistics of jews in INDIA are not in this section. They are more than 50 thousand jews in INDia, esp in bombay, cochin, delhi and calcutta. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.11.163.197 ( talk • contribs) 00:21, April 7, 2006
I think this whole debate about changing the title really surged up this article's rankings on Google. Now if you search "Jew," the first link that comes up is this article on wikipedia, and no more "message from Google" links anymore. So congratulations to all those who are involved in making this happen.-- 141.213.196.250 04:53, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
First we say "Today, there are an estimated 13 million [2] to 14.6 million[3] Jews worldwide…" Then we note: "Please note that these populations represent low-end estimates of the worldwide Jewish population, accounting for around 0.2% of the world's population. Higher estimates place the worldwide Jewish population at over 14.5 million." Then we have a table that shows a number of 15,471,000. These statements do not sit well together. I'm not really an active participant in this article lately, I've just been keeping an eye on it; would someone who is more actively working on it be interested in sorting this out? Thanks. - Jmabel | Talk 01:21, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
The numbers shown in the table under "Significant geographic populations" do not match those in the source given in the Notes section (Note 6: Jewish Virtual Library). This may be due to updated figures in the source. Since there are some significant differences, can the table be changed?-- KevinR 10:15, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
There are a TON of articles on folks who are of Jewish decent. I notice that in approx 90% of the AMERICAN BORN people, they are not "labeled" as "jewish-american" rather they are called americans and then their Jewsishness, if you will, is addressed further down in the article. I won't even go into foreign born folks here, but STRICLY American born "celebrities", how should this be addressed and is there ANY concensus on this issue or standard. I know I'll probable get 10 different answers and views but I find it to be an interesting issue. Thanks in advance and I know this has probable been covered quite ofter before. 198.176.188.201 03:18, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | ← | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | → | Archive 20 |
This is a very good article and it should be published. -- Zondor 08:57, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
The article should be changed to "Jewish People" not "Jew", which is derogatory 64.121.37.90 06:40, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
"Jew" is a perfectly legitimate word.
Blastfromthepast 05:28, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
It's censorship and completely ridiculous to limit the ability to change the wikkipedia " JEW " page. Look up the "Muslim" page. Is it restricted? Of course not. How this reminds me of the google search. Search for "Jew" on google, and google tells you you've been bad. Try "Nigger" and it does no such thing. Apparently Jews are untouchables in society now. You can't criticize anything they do or say or you've been a bad anti-semite. And another thing. What is with jews calling arabs anti-semites? arabs are semites.. wtf? anyone want to argue with me? nischt@gmail.com
Anti-semite is a word that has been overused and as a product of this, become inaccurate and oft misused. People of Aramaic descent (certainly Arabs) are also semitic as much as the Jews are. Ideally, a new word should be coined for anti-Jewish behaviour (humorous in fact that the latin word anti does not mean against but rather instead of). Unfortunately, words this popular aren't often changed to be politically or religiously correct. Unless it's changed, anti-semitical will continue to refer exclusively to people and actions towards the Jewish people, which is unfortunate to all other semites.
nischt@gmail.com Wikipedia has policies in place to protect pages which are subject to repeated vandalism. Temporarily restricting a page is not censorship. In any case most of your comments have nothing to do with the article Jew, hence this is not the place for them. Blastfromthepast 05:28, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
If the following is true, why does the Jewish population not reproduce itself? With a small family in the modern era, a slow reproductive rate, long lifespans and a population of approximately 12 million Jews following WWII, there should be about 30 million Jews in the world at a minimum. How is it that the Jewish population barely replaces itself?
Population
Main article: Jewish population
Prior to World War II the world population of Jews was approximately 18 million. The Holocaust reduced this number to approximately 12 million. Today, there are an estimated 13 million [2] to 14.6 million[3] Jews worldwide in over 134 countries.
I bring the above issue up, because the numbers don't make the slightest logical sense based on the mathematics of population statistics. Stevenmitchell 16:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Most Jews are in the US or Israel; those countries don't have the sorts of exponential growth rates you see in the developing world. (J)
Just a thought; the article about people from Poland is called Poles, not "Pole", and the same plural naming convention seems to be used in most other similar articles describing groups of people.
Should this article, on that principle, therefore be called " Jews" instead of " Jew", and a separate article " Jew (word)" be created to deal with the issues about the word itself?
Or has this idea been already discussed ad nauseam here already? -- The Anome 14:46, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
I've recently been looking at a bunch of articles on ethnicity, and this naming in the singular is almost unique. See [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups#Partial list of pages covered by the project]. I don't have a big issue with this, but Jews would probably be more normal for Wikipedia. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:16, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
I agree with the plural being more natural. The Jews are a group of people and the subject of this encyclopedia article. A Jew is a single person and more the subject of a dictionary definition. keith 05:33, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
I agree that the title should be "Jews", not "Jew". Regarding "African American", I know hundreds of them and they all refer to themselves as "blacks".
I know it's a stupid question but … if the title of the article is "Jew", how come the first word is "Jews" and the Hebrew word is plural? Nu? (Of course, I have to answer a question with a question …) Light Orlanu Brecker 05:09, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
There seems to be a consensus to move it. I've added this page to Requested Moves since it can't be moved without admin assistance. -- Kotzker 22:13, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
I hate to say this, but I just checked "What links here". If the article name is changed several hundred pages will need links fixed. "Jews" is currently redirected to this article. Light Orlanu Brecker 05:51, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Vote To Keep —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SirIsaacBrock ( talk • contribs) 1 Jan 2006.
I have delisted this as a good article, because while that is generally the case, it is not stable - in fact it is one of the most unstable articles in all Wikipedia. It thus does not meet the criteria, and makes us permanently and unwavering mark a frequently vandalized article "good." I think this is why it isn't featured, incidentally. -- Tothebarricades 04:54, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Since this issue is really not specific to this article, I have brought it up at Wikipedia_talk:Good_articles#Stable. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:44, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Netizen, you wrote "For example, in early 20th-century Germany, a German of Christian faith was a "German" ( German: Deutscher), but a German of Jewish faith was a "Jew" (German: Jude), even though both were equally German citizens." I find that claim unsubstantiated, please cite sources. Cyberevil 02:56, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Edits over the last three or four days have been almost exclusively vandalism from anonymous users, and reversion of said vandalism. Would anyone object to semi-protection for a short time? android 79 14:42, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Since no one logged any objections here, and all that I've seen since I mentioned this has been more anti-Semitic garbage, I've semi-protected this article. I will lift it tonight to see what level of vandalism we get then. android 79 19:15, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
To the anon who removed the para about the term "Jew" used as objectifation and comparing to "women," yes, absolutely the term "woman" or "women" can be used and has used to objectify half the population. In a petty sense, in phrases like "a man and his woman." But more particularly, if you were to refer to a population as "citizens and women," "Germans (meaning men) and women," "women" would be objectifiying.
The problem in the paragraph, which I originally wrote, is that the attempt to make it politically correct (first remove the reference to "Christians" and then to "Germans" gutted it of its meaning, and I intend to restore it. If Europe had not so effectively wiped out its Jewish population, perhaps mentioning particular countries wouldn't be fair, but history is what it is. -- Cecropia 20:42, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Just a thought, but this link to an 1828 dictionary's definition of the word Jew suggests a more derogatory etymology for the word jew.
JEW, n. [a contraction of Judas of Judah.] A Hebrew or Israelite.
Does this perhaps suggest that, instead of the middle-english origin of the word jew, it may have had an origin linked to a derogatory contraction, to perpetuate the common excuse for anti-jewish bigotry that the Jews were the betrayers of christ and therefore enemies of chrisianity.
Again, just a thought (coming from a non-jewish, non-christian, impartial commentator)...
http://65.66.134.201/cgi-bin/webster/webster.exe?search_for_texts_web1828=jew
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.243.5.186 ( talk • contribs) 11 Jan 2006.
I see my extended entry explaining the nature of objectification of considering (e.g.) a German Christian = German; a German Jew = Jew, has been eviscerated again. If you think this is not an issue in our modern enlightened times, see the adminship nomination of Alex Bakharev under the third Oppose vote in which one Wikipedian Anittas refers to a fellow Wikipedian Node as follows:
Point made? But we have to pussyfoot on this point in our article text? Wow. -- Cecropia 05:04, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
A couple of editors seem to want to include this:
The words "Jewish" and "Jew" are now commonly used as insults. Phrases like, "You stupid Jew," "You nigger-loving Jew" and "That was a Jewish thing to do" are considered offensive regardless of race or religion.
It strikes me as pure ugliness that doesn't add anything to the article; perhaps I'm just a bit too sensitive, but I don't see how "nigger-loving Jew" really is an example of anything other than general vileness, and certainly nothing to do with "Jew". Thoughts? -- jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 03:33, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
jp, we probably had a slight conflict there who would get that out first. I corrected it now. Cyberevil 04:24, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Could we improve the intro? I know the Jews are special, but I find this "is used in many ways" confusing. See Hindu for example. Is this intro better:
I would leave the text "a child of a Jewish mother, or someone of Jewish descent with a connection to Jewish culture or ethnicity; and often a combination of these attributes." to the section Jew#Who is a Jew?. ← Humus sapiens ну? 22:35, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
My introduction at nl.wikipedia. This is a very quick translation, losing some nuance.
This article addresses Jews (also Israelites, the Jewish People or the People Israel) as a people or ethnicity. For a discussion of the Jewish religion and culture, see article Judaism.
The Jewish people live during at least three thousand years in the Land of Israel, where it developed a monotheistic religion and several times enjoyed self-determination. Most of the Jews were expelled by the Romans from Palestina and since had a troubled existence suffering poverty, discrimination, oppression and even extermination, but sometimes also cultural, economic and individual prosperity.
Throughout the years the Jewish religion, Judaism, was the prime binding factor between the Jews, although not strictly required (to follow) in order to belong to the Jewish people. Since the rise of modern nationalism and other change among the peoples around, Jews too have undergone a transition as a result of which gradually less people saw is itself as an independent nation and more saw themselves as an ethnic or etno-religious community within the nations around. Participation in all aspects of social life could now increase. Particularly from East and Central-Europe, where antisemitism was worst, a Jewish national movement had evolved, Zionism, that contributed to the growth of the Jewish popualtion of at that time Ottoman and later British Mandate of Palestine and eventually to the foundation of the State of Israel.
Before the Second World War the number of Jews was worldwide estimated as approximately 18 million. After the Holocaust approximately 12 millions were left. Today the estimates diverge from 13.0 up to 14.6 million Jews. Of the low estimate (13.0 million in 2005) live approximately 5.7 million in North-America (of which 5.3 million in the United States and 0.4 million in Canada), 5.3 million in Asia (of which 5.3 million in Israel), 1.5 million in Europe (of which 0.5 millions in France), 0.3 millions in South-America, 0.1 millions in Australia/Oceania and approximately as much in Africa. gidonb 23:08, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
I think the page should be unprotected. It's been semi-protected for over a week, which is just too long. Superm401 - Talk 07:51, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
It took about 12 hours from last unprotect for vandals to discover it, followed by a half dozen vandals in the following hours. Before uprotecting, consider that the nature of "Jew" will always attract vandals and ask what purpose is served by requiring someone to have an account for a few days (which can be blocked effectively--an IP may not be) in order to edit it. There are a handful of articles on Wikipedia which will always be vandal magnets and we should ask what shining principle is being served when we allow anons to edit them, in view of the reality that the overwhelming number of anon edits are vandalism to this article.
There is history to this and we should be open but not naive. Futile unproection is rather like requiring the KKK to take off their hoods for a few days after a lynching, then allowing them to put them back on again after to see if they've learned their lesson. Or perhaps more to the point, banning the Nazi Party for a week after Kristalnacht. -- Cecropia 15:44, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
I think we should try it out and see if it brings any worthwhile edits from anons. Occasionally they do occur, even on the
George W. Bush article which is permanently semi protected.
Calwatch 09:11, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
In an age of free speech should we stop new users to wiki from making their contribitions as these may provide good information that has before been missed. The majority should not be punished for the actions of a few neo-nazis it is just not right. Any decent person would relise that if they came across this vandilism they would know that it wasn't true and would delete it immeditaly. I have been discrimanted aganist countless times because of my race and I have learnt not to be offended by this as it is done by small minded ingornart fools who repeate the same insults as they cannot think of orginal ones, Jews and all other groups should just recongise that this is the way that the world is and has always been and they should accept that it will happen and when they come across it it will be deleted. No article in wiki should be protected to any degree as wiki prides itself on allowing anybody to alter its texts.
If a neo-nazi has written something moronic as you put it then they (the user) will realise that this is not true and so will either delete it or take no notice of it. As for the issue that this is not about Jews, if it is not I think it may be a bit misleading to have this discussion under an article called Jew.
When searching with keywords "wikipedia down" in google.com, the search results yield the article "Down syndrome" with a subreference to "Jew". Is this pure coincidence, and should this be rectified (it gives the impression that jews are related to down syndrome, which is false).
When is a disambiguation not a disambiguation? When it amounts to publicity for a minor rock group.
I removed the disambiguation link to Jew (disambiguation) since it only tells us that "jew" can be used as a racial slur (which is already covered in the main article and is a dicdef anyway, and that it can be an acronym for said rock group. "Jew" is not ambiguous and anyone who seacthes for "Jew" in an encyclopedia looking for a rock band is intellectually challenged. -- Cecropia 16:29, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Ryan asked me to discuss here whether the term "world Jewry" is anti-Semitic, as he's been removing it from articles. As far as I'm concerned it's fine, and replacing it with "the Jewish population," as Ryan's been doing, often leaves the sentence unclear. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:08, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
The term "world Jewry" may not have started explicitly as a slur, but my point is that the use of a term in one context does not change its meaning in another. You might not read the term as offensive or unprofessional, but others do. The first two contexts in which I heard "world Jewry" used were in translations of Nazi radio broadcasts from the middle 1930's, and again from a modern white nationalist organization. In those contexts, "world Jewry" is used as a synonymous term with the international Jewish conspiracy, since it is assumed that all Jews are innately "in" on the conspiracy. This ambiguity in meaning and perceived unprofessionalism of the term was shared with a few people I checked with before I started removing it and I have asked them to comment here as well.
In general, I think that "world Jewry" either refers to an amorphous international mass consciousness of Jews (as the Nazi's seemed to believe it was), or more generally "Jewish people around the world", the "Jewish community", or a "Jewish population". In general I've been replacing "world Jewry" with "Jewish population", but depending on context, there may be some other term that would be better, and I don't believe any meaning would be lost in so doing. ⟳ausa کui × 00:41, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm more or less neutral on this issue, but if the phrase is going to be used, it would be helpful if something existed to explain it- Jewry exists as a redirect to Jew, perhaps that could be expanded into a proper article?-- Sean Black (talk) 02:35, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
To put in my traditional two cents, you need to deal with context and meaning. "World Jewry" in and of itself is not anti-semetic. But even in a well-meaning article such as this, it does not have the same meaning as "world Jewish population." "World Jewry" has an institutional implication to it, suggesting a hierarchy or infrastructure capable of expressing an "official" Jewish position on things. "World Jewish population," OTOH, expresses a more organic sentiment, saying "this is something that people who identify themselves as part of the Jewish communities would tend to agree with or support." So which are we meaning to say? As a semantic point in context, I believe "world Jewish population" is more appropriate. -- Cecropia 04:48, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
We also need to keep in mind that many readers of English-language WP are not native speakers and that cultures vary widely even in English-speaking countries like Singapore. The chances are that someone from Singapore or Hong Kong would not understand the term "world Jewry" without an explanation. Light Orlanu Brecker 05:25, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Why should the majority be punished for the minority? This page should be unprotected, anything that is vandilsed can be changed back to the way it was before. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.135.77.85 ( talk • contribs) 19:40, March 19, 2006 (UTC)
Vandalism by anons has the character of random drive-by shootings. Creating a login seems to be an effective threshold: the number of vandalisms by (newly) registered users is much lower during semi-protection. Everyone can still edit this article, but here the ratio serious_contrution:vandalism from anons approaches 0. JFW | T@lk 21:55, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
NPOV tags in Wikipedia should not be placed simply because someone feela that the article has POV aspects. To place such a notice is in itself POV, since it is presenting an unsupported opinion. Please explain in talk what specifically in the article is POV, and how it may be fixed, before placing such a tag. -- Cecropia 20:38, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
"Please note that these populations represent low-end estimates of the worldwide Jewish population [the table says 15,471,000], accounting for around 0.2% of the world's population. Higher estimates place the worldwide Jewish population at over 14.5 million." So "low-end estimates" are actually higher than "higher extimates". I guess this should be corrected.
L.
When people want to know more about the Jewish people, they tend to use either the plural "Jews," or the term "Jewish people," and not the singular form "Jew," which might have derogatory connotations, as cited by Google [3]. Therefore, I suggest the name of this article be changed to "Jewish people" instead. -- 141.213.196.250 01:34, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
How about simply "Jews"? Makes more sense, doesn't change any meanings, and has no derogatory implication (like 'Jew' does). Miskin 02:11, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
The repeated insinuation that the word "Jew" is derogatory is rapidly becoming offensive. The statement that anything but "Jew" is more meaningful and appropriate is not only incorrect, it verges on insane. We should name an article about who and what a Jew is "Any name besides 'Jew'"? What convoluted logic leads to such a bizarre assertion? Using the Google disclaimer demonstrates almost unspeakable ignorance on the subject, since the disclaimer was written, it could easily be argued, in defense of the name of this article being "Jew" !!! The title "Jewish people" is not just as good as "Jews"; "Jewish people", and its singular "Jewish person", is a circumlocution invented by people who are hypersensitive about letting their antisemitism out into the light of day. The articles Chinese people and Japanese people refer to people from China and Japan, respectively. There are, as it happens, Chinese and Japanese Jews. I'm gonna stop now before I actually bite my tongue right off... Tom e r talk 05:04, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
The anon is not being anti-semitic, let's not be paranoid. IMO the singular declares some sort of generalisation, hence it's derogatory by definition. The fact that Hitler continuously mentioned "The Jew does this" and "The Jew did that", makes things even worse in the case of the Jews. 'Jewish people' is ugly and nothing but a wikipedia trend, "Jews" however sounds good. Miskin 05:20, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
I think the term 'Jewish people' is not needed since "Jews" already exists as a word. For example in the case of "English people", the word 'people' is needed to disambiguate between all the things that plain "English" (which has no plural form) could mean. In cases like "Jews" or "Greeks" or "Danes", disambiguation via the word 'people' is unecessary. Miskin 15:25, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
This is not simply my observation--it has been noted in the press and discussed online. Do a Google search on "Jew" and what do you get? Right at this moment number one is "Jew Watch," the rabidly anti-semitic site masquerading as scholarship, and number two is the Wikipedia arricle. These two have been running neck and neck for years. Make "Jew" a redirect and the Jew Watch people will have the field to themselves. -- Cecropia 16:03, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
I don't agree with you. The singular form used in such context is an old attribute of the English language. "Constantintinople" - they used to say - "heart of the Turk" (or of the Greek in older times). Such use of singular of form has no special connection to the Jews. Anyway I'm a Jew-sympathiser, but not Jewish myself, hence I don't know whether what you say has a cultural importance within Jewish ethnic sentiment. If that's the case, then I rest my case. Otherwise I find the article name "Jews" closer to the modern ethnoreligious definition of the people. Miskin 19:01, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
The "Jew Watch" issue is a tale-wagging-the-dog argument. We shouldn't name articles based on that kind of consideration. Paul August ☎ 20:44, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Group name | Singular ("Adherent") | Plural ("Adherents") | "Adherent People" | Logical variant |
---|---|---|---|---|
Jew | Main Article | Redirects to "Jew" | Redirects to "Jew" | |
Muslim | Main article | Redirects to "Muslim" | No article or redirect | No "Islamic people" either |
Christian | Main article | Redirects to "Christian" | No article or redirect | |
Catholic | Main article, inter alia" | Redirects to "Roman Catholic Church" | No article or redirect | |
Protestant | Redirects to "Protestantism" | Redirects to "Protestantism" | No article or redirect | |
Hindu | Main article | Redirects to "Hindu" | Redirects to "Hindu" | |
Buddhist | Redirects to "Buddhism" | Redirects to "Buddhism" | No article or redirect | |
Shintoist | Redirects to "Shinto" | No article or redirect | No article or redirect |
-- Cecropia 21:34, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
I find the image unrepresentative at best. ← Humus sapiens ну? 23:48, 5 April 2006 (UTC) I replaced it with Chagall's painting for now. ← Humus sapiens ну? 00:19, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
I think that it is a perfectly justified move to Semi-Protect the Jew article as Jews have always been more susceptible to perpetual vandalism and , therefore, must be more protected. It is neglectable to deem the Jewish people impervious to the vicious onslaught of insults it has had to endure through history. In response to the people who want to know what makes the word jew a negative term comaparitively to other religions my answer is that the nations of the world have made the very essence of the Jew a negative component time and time again. More recently, Michael Jackson uses the term "jew you" in his music as a negative phrase, mearly reiterating and affirming the disposition that being a jew is a negative trait. Protection is not a weakness or a sign of extreme sensitivity to the slightest back-handed comment, the Jews have had enough assaults to their values and priorities to understand that one must ignore the ridiculers and stick to who you want to be. Protection is a defence mechanism every single human has a right to, and the greater the need, the more protection is neccessary, and certainly justified. UriKest
One user has taken upon himself to request a name change from "Jew" to "Jews" without any consensus having been reached, so I think we need a formal vote of the traditional week to more accurately gauge sentiment.
Lexicographically, the article in question is actually centered around Jews as an ethnicity. Compare with the article Muslim, which mainly treats the noun “Muslim” and its usage. The difference to the article Christian is also fairly noticeable the same way. It is fine with me if we have an article about the word and concept “Jew” and we call that article “Jew”. As it happens, this article mainly treats Jews as an ethnicity. Pretty symptomatically, the first word — and one of the most frequent words in this article — is “Jews” in plural. Forcing the hence misleading name “Jew” on an article that is about “Jews” to prove some external point (“the singular ‘Jew’ {does|does not} have negative connotations”) is unencyclopaedic, leads to imprecise naming and may give readers a bad impression of Wikipedia. -- Olve 01:51, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
Leflyman, I was trying to give you an opportunity to state your core argument succinctly so I could address it, and only it, but I suppose I shouldn't have included an implied apology-in-advance (i.e., not accusing you of bad motives) because you immediately refused to assume good faith on my part and went straight to an attack on me on the basis that my saying that I wasn't accusing you really meant I was accusing you. Win-win siuation for your style of argumentation, if others accept it. I've been around Wikipedia for a while and I think anyone who knows me knows I am not that subtle: I try to say what I mean. So I will tell you my view of the issue, briefly:
I asked quite plainly for your motivation above ("Is consistency really your chief concern? You're worried about a style issue?") but you blew right past that complaining that I'm insulting you by saying I'm not trying to insult you, then you directly insult me by saying my question is "vile and contemptible" (wow, and that without me even trying!). So now I'm insulted! Shall we stand here and slap each other in the face with wet (presumably Kosher) fish until one of us apologizes in a completely acceptable form? You have answered none of my questions: Especially why you consider the article should be changed? (Is it consistency? That's it? Say so!) You have only offered rhetoric to support a change without stating a core reason. Others have (more, IMO) compelling evidence to keep it; and I asked you a straightforward question as to why you cite the fact that you speak Hebrew and are a "Jewish immigrant" and why this makes your opinion better than anyone else's. -- Cecropia 18:55, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
As has been requested, the poll has been reponed. — Nightst a llion (?) Seen this already? 08:21, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Does reponed stand for reopened??? I believe that the change from Jew to Jews actually creates consistency as most subs are in the plural form:
Not plural:
In conclusion, the usage of the word "Jew" or any singular name for that matter in an article name discussing the Jews does not not only come across as awkward, but is also very rare among the articles discussing the Jews. gidonb 23:12, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
I dont understand why the statistics of jews in INDIA are not in this section. They are more than 50 thousand jews in INDia, esp in bombay, cochin, delhi and calcutta. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.11.163.197 ( talk • contribs) 00:21, April 7, 2006
I think this whole debate about changing the title really surged up this article's rankings on Google. Now if you search "Jew," the first link that comes up is this article on wikipedia, and no more "message from Google" links anymore. So congratulations to all those who are involved in making this happen.-- 141.213.196.250 04:53, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
First we say "Today, there are an estimated 13 million [2] to 14.6 million[3] Jews worldwide…" Then we note: "Please note that these populations represent low-end estimates of the worldwide Jewish population, accounting for around 0.2% of the world's population. Higher estimates place the worldwide Jewish population at over 14.5 million." Then we have a table that shows a number of 15,471,000. These statements do not sit well together. I'm not really an active participant in this article lately, I've just been keeping an eye on it; would someone who is more actively working on it be interested in sorting this out? Thanks. - Jmabel | Talk 01:21, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
The numbers shown in the table under "Significant geographic populations" do not match those in the source given in the Notes section (Note 6: Jewish Virtual Library). This may be due to updated figures in the source. Since there are some significant differences, can the table be changed?-- KevinR 10:15, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
There are a TON of articles on folks who are of Jewish decent. I notice that in approx 90% of the AMERICAN BORN people, they are not "labeled" as "jewish-american" rather they are called americans and then their Jewsishness, if you will, is addressed further down in the article. I won't even go into foreign born folks here, but STRICLY American born "celebrities", how should this be addressed and is there ANY concensus on this issue or standard. I know I'll probable get 10 different answers and views but I find it to be an interesting issue. Thanks in advance and I know this has probable been covered quite ofter before. 198.176.188.201 03:18, 22 April 2006 (UTC)