text:
Talk:Jews/Archive 12

Shoud I add mary?
Mary is obviously famous and she is in mentioned in List of Jews so should I add her in famous jews?

Zain 20:16, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * She's only famous for being the mother of someone famous. Also, she may be mythical. Jayjg |  (Talk)  20:33, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I hope that was a rhetorical question. Clearly if one person involved in the origin of Christianity is to be added to the list it would be Jesus himself. -- Jmabel | Talk

Well I didn't ask for Jesus because I thought he was not on the list of jews. (Now checked he was on the list).

Ok now to original issue. Well I think 'reason' of being famous is not an issue here. It is only the result, 'famous' which is relevant. Second if 'mythical' (, a lot of people will disagree on usage of this term here,) is a problem then this article should write some thing like. 'People who are considered mythical by some people are not mentioned in this article'. It will be ok.

Zain 20:48, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

How about Paul of Tarsus
Well he is quite 'non-mythical' Paul of Tarsus.

Please I am not asking to add some/all of them. It will make article difficult to manage. Only thing I am asking for is that this article should clarify that people who might be seen as Jews by few because of their descent are not discussed in this article because they are not see as Jews by majority. Zain 21:10, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Paul is considerably earlier than any of the Jews listed here, and his fame is in converting to/creating Christianity. Jayjg |  (Talk)  01:59, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Well that list of Jews includes a lot of non-religious Jews. This is supposedly an ethnic group article.  It is noteworthy Jesus of Nazareth is a Jew too.

But the end result is that he is a famous jew!. Zain 20:32, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

On Zain's Points
Zain, on your many points above, I am not accusing you of not operating in good faith, and I am glad that you have used the talk pages. I am saying, however, that there needs to be a reasonable attempt to listen to the many arguments raised by others here, and that your threat to "POV" this article was inappropriate, given that everyone has acted very civily to your suggestions. The situation is simple: I would ask that any future reply respond to each of these four points, thanks. --Goodoldpolonius2 21:20, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) The arguments about who is and is not a Jew are not covered in this article, they are covered in Who is a Jew?. In fact, the Who is a Jew? article covers exactly the cases we discussed, such as Madeline Albright.
 * 2) Any "disambugation" on this page seems inappropriate, since you have not been able to show that anyone is confused by the fact tht this is the entry they reach when they look up the word "Jew." You have also provided no outside sources that indicate such confusion exists (ie that there is some significant minority of Jews and Pashtun that considers the Pashtun explicitly Jewish (not of Jewish descent), that not listing "possibly mythical" people confuses the list, etc.)
 * 3) The list of famous Jews is not exhaustive, it focuses primarily on people whose Jewishness was significant in some way. It seems that the appropriate place to discuss Jesus, Paul, etc and their Jewishness (or not) would be the pages for those people. I personally have no problem listing Jesus on this page, but others objected, and it did not seem deeply relevant, that is the way consensus is achieved.  Which leads me to...
 * 4) It is not an NPOV problem if people don't agree with you, it could just mean that your arguments are not convincing or correct. At least four different people have responded in a serious way to your points, and changes were made to Who is a Jew? based on your need for clarification.  You are being treated seriously, but you are also not necessarily correct in your assertions, nor are you fully engaging with the various objections to your claims brought by a number of people. Again, just because your points are not accepted does not make an article POV.

That's positive so here is point 2 point as u asked.

 * 1) I am not asking for any discussion here that who is Jew.
 * 2) Well there were earlier problems before I discussed. Like question of Jesus.
 * 3) I can also tell that a lot of people will reject it. But some people will like to add it. So an easier method is to clarify in article that, people who are affiliated with other religions are not discussed here.
 * 4) No body disagreed including you that, some 'minor' people might see, Jewish descend as enough of a reason to consider some body as Jew. Only problem is whether this 'minor' claim should be clarified in the article or not. And it is not only my claim. I tried to find other sources and I found some Please see British-Israel-World Federation

Zain 21:49, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Zain: Does this address your concern? --Goodoldpolonius2 22:10, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Your argument about what you want is not entirely clear. The article Who is a Jew? does deal with people who are affiliated with other religions but are ethnically Jewish, and the question of their Judaism.  This article does not define who is Jew at all.
 * 2) The British-Israel-World Federation is generally considered to be anti-Semitic, but it works as an illustration of a long tradition of groups claiming relationship to (or superseding) the Jews via the Lost Ten Tribes -- the Rastafarians are another. These groups are not Jews, and especially not ethnic Jews; the subject of the Jew article. Given the existance of the Lost Ten Tribes article, as well as individual articles on each subject, this seems well covered. And, again, none of these groups are claiming to actually be Jews.
 * 3) Remember, this article covers Jews as a nation or ethnic group. You would need to show some evidence that there are substantial (not fringe) groups that are considered Jews (by someone other themselves), and don't just consider themselves inherentors of the Jews' religious mantel or something.

If this article excludes other claims it should simply say that they are excluded. Doing following two simultaneously will cause problem

 * 1) We exclude these claims
 * 2) We don't write that we have excluded them.

It will cause future problems too. Let me try to give example of future problems. These people can claim a place in this article. Unless we clear in this article that these people are not discussed in this article. One example I gave earlier which u said are anti-Semantic. Please note that if a claim is viewed as anti-semantic we can't exclude it. We even have article on 'holocaust denial'. Following is list of additional potential problems unless we clarify.

Zain 22:33, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Anglo-Israelism
 * Christian Identity
 * Talmidaism
 * Nazarene
 * Messianic Judaism
 * Judaizing teachers
 * Jews for Jesus
 * Messianic Renewed Judaism

 * Zain, we do not need to include anti-Semitic movements (Christian Identity, Anglo-Israelism), Christian movements designed to prostelyze Jews (Jews for Jesus, Messianic Judaism), or clearly Christian (and in some cases extinct) sects (Talmidaism, Judaizing teachers) in an article about Jews. There are articles on these movements in Wikipedia.  If you look up Jews in any dictionary, go to the Jew entry in any encyclopedia, or go to the Jewish history section of your local bookstore, these groups are not what you would find.  They do not have any connection to traditional Jewish ethnic and religious identity and have not been part of Jewish history, in some cases, they explicitly want to destroy the Jews (look at the article on Christian Identity, which has a quote referring to its "demonic anti-Semitism"). Aside from themselves (and in many of these cases, not even themselves, see Talmidism, Christian Identity, Nazarene) nobody considers these people Jews, except in the cases of individual Jews who convert to these religions.  The case of these individual Jewish members of non-Jewish religions is already described in the Who is a Jew? article.
 * Also, your argument is tautological - you state that if we do not mention these groups as excluded, we have to include them. This is illogical -- not including counterfactual claims is also acceptable.  For example, the physics article on Einstein does not have to include or explicitly exclude crank scientists who criticism him with no backing, peer review, or cause.
 * Zain, I do have to repeat my concerns about the nature of your arguments, which seem less based on real concerns, and more about poking holes in the Jew article. You seem to be attacking the current definition of Jew, moving from position to position as your arguments are rebutted:
 * First, you argued that people of Jewish descent like Madeline Albright should be included. It was pointed out that this is already covered in the article Who is a Jew?, and you dropped the point.
 * Next, you argued that groups that might be descended from Jews in the distant past (Pashtuns, etc.) should be included. It was demonstrated that these groups did not claim to be Jewish, among other objections,and you dropped this point.
 * Third, you argued that figures that converted out of Judaism, or are not associated primarily with Judaism, should be covered. You were told that they were, in both Who is a Jew? and in the list of Jews (Jesus, Disraeli)
 * Side issue: I do not believe that Jesus ever "converted out of Judaism". No need to discuss it here at any further length, but I didn't want that remark to stand without comment. -- Jmabel | Talk 03:17, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC) Point taken -Pol.
 * After that, you argued that groups that claim to descend from the Ten Lost Tribes should be listed. It was pointed out that an article on this topic exists
 * Now, you are claiming that any group that proclaims itself the "true Jews" should be listed. An argument that (if you look back through Talk) has been addressed many times, and ultimately would damage the article and set a bad precident.
 * I definitely assume good faith, Zain, but this progression shows a general desire to widen the definition of Jew, rather than actually addressing a perceived confusion. Please demonstrate that others are confused looking up Jew and getting an article on Jews, rather than the Christian Identity Movement--Goodoldpolonius2 23:23, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * Zain, this article is about the people known as Jews, not about the many religious groups practicing various faiths and having some Jewish membership, nor about the many groups claiming to be Israelites. There is no confusion here, except the confusion you appear to be trying to create in your attempts to broaden the definition of Jew, and you've already stated on your own user pages why you wish to broaden this definition.  Regardless, Wikipedia is not a soapbox, and certainly not the place to promote a political agenda by pretending there is confusion about what a Jew is, when in reality none exists. Jayjg  |  (Talk)  02:05, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Please note the following.
 * 1) I have not asked to add any of these in this article.
 * 2) I personally don't believe that all/any of them should be considered as Jews.

As far as widening of the definition is concerned I only tried to show that if we don't clarify that who are excluded, they have right to claim a place in this article, even if their believe is 'incorrect' or their have 'bad faith'.

As per wikipedia policy.

 * "Ideas that a lot of people believe or once believed deserve not only mention but respectful treatment"

So I only had to show that people believe in it. Whether those believe is 'correct' or 'incorrect'. Whether these believes are 'good faith' or 'bad faith'. These issues are covered thoroughly in the articles which I referred.

As including all these will make article difficult to manage. We should simply say that they are excluded.

Zain 14:42, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * Zain, you have ignored the points I have made:
 * These people are not Jews, except where they are converts from Judaism (covered in Who is a Jew?).
 * You are arguing a tautology ("mention them or else you have to mention them!") which is both logically and factually incorrect, as I explained above.
 * You are misusing "Wikipedia Policy." The same article you sited on NPOV mentions that points of view included should be important and backed up by outside experts, something which you have not done. Also, respectful treatment does not require us to specifically mention points of view that are incorrect, fringe (note wikipedia policy you quoted "a lot of people believe"; do a lot of people believe the Christian Identity movement members are Jews?), or irrelevant to the article in question.
 * You have not demonstrated that there is any confusion over the concept of Jew, except that which you are attempting to manufacture. --Goodoldpolonius2 16:35, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * Zain, you haven't shown anything so far about Jews except your own attempts to broaden the definitionof Jew based on no supporting evidence. Jayjg |  (Talk)  16:43, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * 1) Some people believe they are Jews (I listed the sources earlier)
 * 2) Nope my opinion is this.  Mention that 'we have excluded them', because we have excluded them.
 * 3) I don't believe that, any 'expert' believes that interpretation of Sun by ancient Greeks is correct. But wikipedia policy says that even those are required to be mentioned.
 * 4) These views are already covered in wikipedia. This means that number of 'believers' are enough worth mentioning.

Zain 20:21, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * Zain:

Zain, the burden of proof rests with you. Please provide some substantial evidence, or else be willing to let this argument drop. --Goodoldpolonius2 20:42, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC) It would also be helpful in understanding your argument if you let us know exactly what language you would like to insert into the article and where so that we can discuss exactly those changes. Thanks. --Goodoldpolonius2 05:27, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) You are the only one creating this confusion over which groups are Jews. I have demonstrated (and you have not rebutted) that I think that your effort is part of a personal, POV effort to expand the definition of Jews.  This is not a personal attack on you, but rather a request that you demonstrate that this confusion is held by some reasonably significant group of people, rather than just yourself, and is not dealt with in the Who is a Jew? article.  Please do so - provide sources outside Wikipedia to confirm this confusion.
 * 2) Which of these people believe that they are ethnically Jews (outside of the individual cases discussed in Who is a Jew?)? Your article didn't say anything of the sort. You provided one article in which a group claimed that they were Israelites, and, reading it, explicitly said they were not Jews.  This is not evidence of anything like what you are claiming.
 * 3) Existance of a wikipedia entry on a group does not make the group significant -- wikipedia has no editors that ensure significance of articles. There needs to be some preponderency of reputable, outside confirmation that others consider these groups to be Jews. Again, outside sources please.
 * 4) The Sun example is in the NPOV tutorial project, it is not part of official Wikipedia policy, and, in fact, is (in my opinion) a somewhat misguided and confusing example that has been argued about before. Even if this example was policy, there is a difference between a once-widely held and at one point significant view (the Sun is Apollo) and a view that is fringe, insignificant, and not widely-held.  Again, I would ask you to provide outside sources.

Ethnicity
Cross posted from User talk:MPerel.

Can you tell what you mean by 'ethnic'. Do you mean 'race' ? ethnic here appears to be more of a vessel term. Please use some explicit term. And if ethnic is the only term to describe it, then tell that what ethnic means here?

Zain 01:53, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * In the case of Jews, they are considered an ethnicity or "nationality" -- race is a problematic term, and one that carries a lot of cultural baggage. From the start of the Jew article: "This article discusses the term as describing an ethnic group; for a consideration of the religion, please refer to Judaism. Most Jews regard themselves as a people, members of a nation."
 * If you don't mind me quoting further, I think Jmabel's response to you earlier addresses exactly this issue: "Nationality and ethnicity are always tricky concepts. There is certainly a place in Wikipedia for an extensive coverage of these subtleties, but the article on one particular ethnic group is almost certainly not the place to do it. Jewish ethnicity is probably slightly better defined than most (in specific focus on matrilineality), but the rest of these issues apply almost as much to any ethnicity. At some point, if a person is a few generations removed from the Jewish community and makes no active effort to claim to be a Jew, they tend to drift out of the self-defined community. If the continuity is clear and someone chooses to reassert that identity (as a number of Marranos have done in recent years), they are usually accepted without much difficulty. When it is more like millennia, it gets trickier, partly because there is so unlikely to be any continuous tradition. Sometimes entire groups (such as the Ethiopian Jews) have been generally recognized as genuine Jews even at that distance in time, but it is rare. Little of this has any agreed-upon formality."
 * In further response to your point, Jmabel edited the Who is a Jew? article a few days back to discuss how ethnicity fits into Jewish identity. See Social and anthropological approaches to Jewish identity for more information.
 * Finally, I would like to point out that there have been changes to Alternative Judaism and Who is a Jew? made in response (at least partially) to your concerns, in addition to the article on Lost Ten Tribes, and individual entries on various groups claiming descent from the Israelites. There really seems to be a lot of information on other groups around, you have not proven that any of the groups you name actually think they are Jews as a group (besides those of ethnic Jewish background in the first place).  Your points are taken seriously, but you have been recycling the same argument. As I said several times - please provide some evidence (besides Wikipedia links) for your views.  Thanks.

--Goodoldpolonius2 03:19, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Well frankly initially my concern was only descend. I know the pushtoon claims, first hand. Most important thing is that they don't use this claim to get any advantage. In fact many pukhtoons see this claim true although they feel it is offensive! Other claims of descend came into my mind when I read articles like Silent Holocaust and mentions of willfully/forcefully conversions in various Jewish articles/sources.

After you asked for additional sources which specifically call them self Jews. I did a small research and found there are many others which specifically use the word Jew. I also discovered that in Bible the word 'Jew' is only used to describe the race. Many like 'Paul' also used the same term. Paul continued to call himself a 'Jew'. After seeing these and many other claims, I felt more stronger that article needs more clarification that, which people this article actually discussed.

'who is jew' article discusses various definitions. But this article doesn't makes clear that which one of these choices is chosen here and which of the choices are rejected. Whole sections of history/Statistics/Famous people depend upon the choice of the definition. So it should be made more clear that which choice(s) are employed in this article. Currently it only says that religion is not the only base chosen in this article.

Zain 12:24, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Zain, please look at my previous post, since I do not think you had a chance to see it and respond. Also, I would again request that you provide some credible, outside links to sources that are about groups that are considered Jews by some significant and contemporary minority, but are not addressed in the Who is a Jew? article (as converted "Messianic Jews" are). You have not done so despite four or five requests, just as you have never responded to my criticisms of the list of Wikipedia articles you keep reproducing at various locations, claiming they are also Jews. If you want to continue to discuss, please (1) be specific in what you want in the article and where, (2) be specific in your outside evidence about why your opinion is accurate, and (3) please respond to the challenges you have received about your evidence to date. Otherwise, there is not much to say. Goodoldpolonius2 15:18, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

- Sorry it's taken me so long to reply here. First let me say, Zain, that having a non-native-English-speaking contributor like yourself participate on these articles is beneficial since you have fresh eyes to give feedback on points the article may not make clear. I don't think anyone considers you anti-Jewish, however, I can see the communication gap is frustrating on both ends : )

What I observe is that this article only attempts to define “Jew” in a very broad general sense, and is not intended to specifically include or exclude any particular groups. It merely points the reader to more specific articles where finer definitional aspects are further explored.

So lets consider whether it is successful in leaving a broad enough definition to at least leave open for discussion some of the sample groups you’ve mentioned in the sub articles. (Let me mention that I think you have uncovered some problems that DO need to be addressed). I only see two sentences that actually offer any kind of definition of Jew in this article. The first is found in the first sentence of the first paragraph. The second is found in the last sentence of the second paragraph:

1) “The word Jew is used in a wide number of ways, but generally refers to a follower of the Jewish faith, a child of a Jewish mother, or a member of the Jewish culture or ethnicity and often a combination of these attributes.”

 * This sentence defines Jew in three ways:
 * religious (a follower of Judaism)
 * matrilineal descent (defined by Halacha, Jewish Law)
 * ethnic group

 * A qualifying sentence after the first sentence appears to limit further discussion of Jewish definition in this article to “ethnic group” and relegate discussion of who is considered a Jew by religion to the Judaism article. As far as covering Jews who may be considered Jews in the religious sense, this seems to be covered since it does appear that the Judaism article addresses even non-mainstream Jewish religions (e.g., Karaites, Christian groups like Messianic Judaism and “Jews for Jesus”, etc).  Do you agree?

2) "Ethnic Jews include both so-called "religious Jews," meaning those who practice Judaism, and so-called "secular Jews," those who, while not practicing Judaism as a religion, still identify themselves as Jews in a cultural or ethnic sense."

 * This sentence attempts to clarify “ethnic Jew” as
 * “religious”, one who practices Judaism
 * “secular”, one who identifies as a Jew in a cultural or ethnic sense

 * This second sentence attempting to define “ethnic Jew” is problematic. It’s confusing and inconsistent with sentence #1.  Your example of Madeline Albright is a perfect example, because by this definition in sentence #2, she would be excluded as an “ethnic” Jew since she is neither a “religious” Jew practicing Judaism, nor is she a “secular” Jew since she is a Catholic.  The definition of ethnic Jew here seems to limit the discussion to Jews who either practice Judaism or no religion.  You’re right that “ethnic Jews” here does not appear to include people who identify themselves as Jews due to Jewish heritage, perhaps having one or both Jewish parents or Jewish ancestry (perhaps even remote ancestry).  I believe the remedy is to expand the second sentence about “ethnic Jews” to include general mention about Jewish heritage, and leave it open enough to allow further discussion in the “Who is a Jew” article.  What do you think?

--MPerel 20:56, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC) - MPerel, thanks for breaking this down into digestable chunks. I think the issue with the second sentence is the two part catagorization into religious and secular traditions. Perhaps we can say that "Jews include both those Jews actively practicing Judaism, and those Jews who, while not practicing Judaism as a religion, still identify themselves as Jews by virtue of their family's Jewish heritage and their own cultural identification." This excludes individuals that decide they are Jewish without any Jewish parents/grandparents/etc or any formal conversion, which is what you would expect from any nationality - you are either born into it, or you naturalize into it (coversion). You can't simply select it without either of these qualifications

Incidentally, I have a problem with our use of Jew as "ethnic" group, rather than cultural or national group. The soc.culture.jewish FAQ has a really good description that I put out there for people's consideration, although I certainly do not feel a need to push this point (nor do I agree with all of it):

''"Judaism can be thought of as being simultaneously a religion, a nationality and a culture.

''Throughout the middle ages and into the 20th century, most of the European world agreed that Jews constituted a distinct nation. This concept of nation does not require that a nation have either a territory nor a government, but rather, it identifies, as a nation any distinct group of people with a common language and culture. Only in the 19th century did it become common to assume that each nation should have its own distinct government; this is the political philosophy of nationalism. In fact, Jews had a remarkable degree of self-government until the 19th century. So long as Jews lived in their ghettos, they were allowed to collect their own taxes, run their own courts, and otherwise behave as citizens of a landless and distinctly second-class Jewish nation.

''Of course, Judaism is a religion, and it is this religion that forms the central element of the Jewish culture that binds Jews together as a nation. It is the religion that defines foods as being kosher and non-kosher, and this underlies Jewish cuisine. It is the religion that sets the calendar of Jewish feast and fast days, and it is the religion that has preserved the Hebrew language.

''Is Judaism an ethnicity? In short, not any more. Although Judaism arose out of a single ethnicity in the Middle East, there have always been conversions into and out of the religion. Thus, there are those who may have been ethnically part of the original group who are no longer part of Judaism, and those of other ethnic groups who have converted into Judaism.

''If you are referring to a nation in the sense of race, Judaism is not a nation. People are free to convert into Judaism; once converted, they are considered the same as if they were born Jewish. This is not true for a race"'' --Goodoldpolonius2 21:23, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC) -

Exactly, good points, that as with any nationality - you are either born into it, or you naturalize into it (conversion). Before I saw your suggested sentence, I came up with the following: ''Ethnic Jews include people who identify themselves as Jews due to ancestral heritage, religion, or culture. It should be noted that not all people who identify as Jews are accepted as Jews under Jewish law, or by the larger Jewish community. For further discussion of this, see "Who is a Jew".'' Something that mentions the larger group of people who self-identify as Jews, but yet addresses the fact that not everyone who says they're Jewish is considered Jewish by all. --MPerel 22:17, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)

 * Maybe we should just stick with nationality, and avoid ethnicity altogether? Jayjg |  (Talk)  22:25, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * Yes I agree with both of you and think perhaps we should move away from the term "ethnic" Jew. It gets sounding circular anyway, the first sentence in the article makes it sound like there's a dichotomy between "religious" Jews and "ethnic" Jews, and yet the latter sentence describes ethnic Jews as including "relgious" Jews.  So the overlap is confusing to the reader.  --MPerel 23:04, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)

 * I disagree. Etymologically, ethnicity and nationality come from Greek and Latin words, respectively. As far as I know, there is no difference at all in the ancient meanings of these words. However, in the present-day world, "nation" is strongly related to "state". We call the U.S. a "nation". We don't call it an "ethnicity". Conversely, we call African Americans an "ethnicity". We, except for the stray Black Nationalist, don't call them a "nation".

 * The case is trickier with the Jews, because arguably we constitute multiple ethnic groups (Ashkenazi, Sephardi, etc.). Still I lean towards ethnicity; I think the very common term "ethnic Jew" is an indication of its appropriateness.

 * As for "Jews constituted a distinct nation" and all that: most of the languages in which this discourse took place would not at that time have had the distinction we make in modern-day English between a "nation" and an "ethnic group". -- Jmabel | Talk 01:14, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)

Avoidance of Weasel word and explaining with Link when no other option
Well I think both terms 'national jew' and 'ethinic jew' are some what 'vessel terms'. But to write a practical encyclopedic article we have to use it. I didn't disagreed with any content of the article. I only asked that more explanation should be offered to avoid potential confusion. Only disagreement was that there is not even slight confusion (except for me of course) worth more explanation.

So here is a practical solution. If we use the term 'ethinic jew', we should make an article Who is ethnic Jew? and give it as a link here. If 'national jew' is chosen we should make an article titled Who is national jew?. So we will get rid of need of explanations in this article.

These reference articles will be very helpful. And if we ever get in dispute again that whether Jesus, merry or paul should be mentioned here. The decision will be very easy. And all that dispute will go in those articles not here.

A personal note: Although I am not anti-jew. I don't believe in hate due to religion or race. But problem is that I am pro-Palestinian. This makes me at odd with others here, on regular basis. Now mostly my interest in this article, is due to my current interest in 'Arab-Israeli conflict'. Ironically my interest 'Arab Israel conflict' developed due to my interest in this article, when I was very new to wikipedia. And just by the way my interest in wikipedia was due to my interest in open source. Now the interest is almost exclusively due to articles with high difference of opinions.

Zain 21:02, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * Zain, a few things.

--Goodoldpolonius2 21:29, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * First, I think some of the concern that people (including myself) have had about your opinions is not about your feelings on the the Palestinians, you can be pro-Palestinian, neutral, or anti-Palestinian, that is not relevant to the Jew article. The concern is the fact that you have announced before that you are interested in creating a bridge between this article and your POV on the Arab-Israeli conflict (that all people of possible Jewish descent are all Jews, and therefor all have rights to Israel, etc.), rather than a desire to actually improve the information about Jews in the article.  This may not be the case, but it has appeared that way from your statements on other Talk pages.
 * I don't understand "vessel terms" -- could you explain what you mean?
 * Judaism is, in some ways, an ethnicity, a nationality, a religion, and a culture. They are not entirely seperable elements.  Can you point out explicitly what confusion you have with the Who is a Jew? article that you feel needs to be fixed with multiple articles?
 * Did the change I made to the article after the discussion above resolve your confusion? And, again, if not, can you provide some evidence of the confusion going beyond your personal view?  You still have yet to provide outside sources.

Any way although irrelevant to original discussion but these have to be answered. I had no intention to make a 'bridge'. That's why I never asked any of them to be mentioned here. The post which is not even on this page (Although I can have an idea that how that information of that post got into this article), On that 'unrelated' post I mentioned that I am not sure whether it is 'correct' or 'incorrect'. My obvious choice to find relevant information just for sake of encyclopedic context was this article. This article although looked to be most relevant by title, but had nil information about the subject. That was fully acceptable because descent is not accepted as mainstream definition especially among those who are converted to other religions. The other part was that, this article never clear that this article excludes such information. So it gave me the impression that probably this doesn't exist. And my perceived possibility is incorrect. So for sake of curiosity I posted that why they are not mentioned. But alas the answer was not very objective. All answers were very subjective (with few exceptions).

As an encyclopedia, it is for information. The information was not there. And explanation why it is not there was also very clear. But any how if you see my entire posts carefully. I have said repeatedly that I don't want any change in this article. Basically such believes (if exist) are of minor opinion.

Now about the term I misspelled it. It is Weasel word Let me put some quotes from the article

 * '' ..weasel terms are statements that are misleading because they lack the normal substantiations of their truthfulness, as well as the background information against which these statements are made.

 * ..words obscures the fact he has omitted vital information ..

 * ..employs the vocabulary that heightens the expectations of his audience without his being in the position of fulfilling these expectations..

Wikipedia policy say to avoid such words. So does the 'ethnic jew' term helps reader to decide whether Jesus, Paul, or marry, or all Israelites are 'ethnic jew'. Whether Albright is 'ethnic jew'. Where to draw the line?

The wording should be such that reader should be very clear that which people this article discusses. And which people this article excludes. If such distinction is not very easy. Just make a separate article of Who is ethnic jew?. And the problem will be exported from this article at least for now. And in this article we will be more comfortable to tell that which person is excluded and which is included and why?

'Who is jew' article is not the solution. It tells about different definitions. While in this article we are sticking with only one definition. (Which is understandable to avoid disputes). Now if we are taking one of the many definitions present. The 'ethnic jew' definition is most difficult to draw the line (At least theoratically). But is the broadest to give a national sense. (which is the most used sense of the term). As this is an objective an factual article. (history, statistics, famous people). It needs a very sharpened definition because many sections in this article require clear distinction between 'ethnic jew' or 'non-ethnic jew'.

Zain 23:32, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * Zain, your personal confusion about the articles, whether feigned or real, is not relevant to the article itself, which is quite clear. If you have any other concerns, please state them succinctly, I'm afraid we're going to have to archive this Talk: page again soon. Jayjg |  (Talk)  00:53, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Zain, I am getting a bit depressed here. I have written maybe 30 replies to you, rationally and with great consideration, answering every point you have ever brought up. You almost never directly reply to these challenges. Additionally, I have edited the begining of this article in response to your point and Jmabel edited Who is a Jew? similarly. Yet you keep inventing new objections -- most recently the distinction between ethnic and non-ethnic Jews. There is no such thing as ethnic and non-ethnic Jews - there are simply Jews. This article discusses Jews, and leaves the tasks of defining Jews to the Who is a Jew? article, which includes information on the elements that might make someone Jewish under various definitions such as ethnicity, religion, nationhood, etc. For example, the article describes how Mary and Jesus would be considered Jews, and describes the objections of who might disagree with that view. It specifically talks about Albright. Yet you keep raising these issues again and again, without any outside support for your assertions.

The nature of the cases you feel are not covered in the article are not clear. I have asked you a dozen times to provide sources indicating that the Who is a Jew? article is not inclusive enough of the definition of Jew. '''Yet you keep quoting wiki rules that don't apply without ever stating exactly what changes you would like to make to the article, and what your outside support for those changes are. ''' Please do this now, provide sources outside Wikipedia, or there is no reason to keep considering your objections. Regretfully, --Goodoldpolonius2 01:46, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

In what sense is "ethnic Jew" a weasel term? It is used because "Jew" is a word with several different definitions (as discussed in the lead of this article). It is a term that emphasizes inclusion of people who may not practice Judaism. To draw an analogy: the word "Romanian" can mean either a citizen of Romania, regardless of ethnicity, or an ethnic Romanian -- a person of a particular heritage -- regardless of citizenship. Is the latter category perfectly defined? No. Is it clear enough in most cases to be useful? Yes.

There are other topics where imprecision is inherent. For example, we have articles on Left-wing politics, Right-wing politics, Liberalism, Conservatism etc. It's not always easy to say whether each particular individual or even political viewpoint clearly fits one of these categories, but that doesn't mean that they are not useful in talking about politics. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:21, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)

 * I think Zain has identified a defect in the Weasel word article, which apparently does not emphasize the important point that the difference between difficulty of definition (or imprecision) and a "weasel word" is the matter of intent. In the case of this article, we have a problem of exactly describing something for which there isn't a good precise term that everyone could agree on. A weasel word on the other hand, is intended to deceive. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 07:04, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Nationality
Found an intersting tidbit on identification as a nationality (or not). According to Michael Riff, The Face of Survival: Jewish Life in Eastern Europe Past and Present, Valentine Mitchell, London, 1992, ISBN 0853032203, page 87–88, the Polish national census in 1931 asked separate questions about religion and nationality. Of about 3.1 million Jews (by religion) in Poland at that time, about three quarters also identified it as their nationality. The remainder, explains Riff, were "either assimilated Jews or ultra-Orthodox and Chassidic Jews who opposed the concept of Jewish nationality for religious reasons." Not sure if there's somewhere this belongs in an article, but it is one of the few statistics I've ever seen polling a large number of Jews on whether they consider Jewishness a "nationality". -- Jmabel | Talk 05:18, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * I believe the Candian census allows one to enter "Jewish" under both religion and ethnic origin.  While the majority of respondents enter Jewish for both, inevitably some people enter Jewish for one, but not the other. Jayjg  |  (Talk)  05:27, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Cut from article
I cut the following recently added paragraph.

 * In 1995, a group of Jews of color from the United States and abroad met in Chicago to form the Alliance of Black Jews, estimating black Jews in the United States to number about 200,000, or about three percent of the American Jewish population. The figure, which included "black Hebrew" and "Israelite" congregations not necessarily recognized by mainstream Judaism, and also black Reform, Conservation, Orthodox and Reconstructionist Jews by birth or conversion, was based in part on the Jewish Population Study that gave various figures ranging from 120,000 to 260,000. Some prominent Black Jews are named in the list of Black Jews.

Inclusion of this would give more space to discussion in this article of Jews of color in the United States than we give to Ashkenazim or Sephardim. This may well belong somewhere in Wikipedia (although I'd sure like to see a citation), but not here. -- Jmabel | Talk 22:19, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)

Britain != England
Why does the link 'Britain' under Jewish populations lead to the article History of the Jews in England. Unless this was done for a good reason, the link text should be changed to England, or the article be changed to cover all of Britain.

Ezrahut / leom
My (genuinely) ignorant question: I don't speak Hebrew. I gather that with reference to Jews as citizens in Israel there is an important distinction that is expressed by two Hebrew words, roughly ezrahut and leom. Is this true, if so what is the distinction, and is there some article that should mention this? -- Jmabel | Talk 23:05, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)
 * So... someone recently got back to me, asking not to be quoted so I won't name him, saying ezrahut is roughly "citizen" and leom is "national". Which is a clue, but not a full explanation. And I'll ask again: is this something that belongs somewhere in Wikipedia, and if so where? -- Jmabel | Talk 21:23, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * In modern Hebrew Ezrahut would be "citizenship", Leom would be "nationality". Leom can be Jew, Arab or Druze, or it can be left blank. Ezrahut would typically be "Israeli".  I don't think they put "Leom" on identity cards any more. Jayjg (talk)  22:00, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ethnicity (redux)
Goodoldpolonius2 reverted my edit. His/her revert implies it's a fact that Jews are ethnic group when it's not. Marcus2 21:39, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Why do you think Jews are not an ethnic group? Jayjg (talk) 21:40, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Because I believe Jews are members of a religious sect and I don't think they can have two ethnicities. They are Russian, Ukrainian, Polish, German, etc. Marcus2 21:50, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * As I remarked at Jewish American, race is a generally discredited concept that mainly reflects 19th century anthropological thinking, and was presumed to have a genetic basis that has now been largely disproved. Ethnicity involves identity, and while Jewish Americans may not constitute an ethnic group in the narrowest sense of the term, they fit it every bit as much as Italian Americans (who include people from Milan as well as Sicily), and far better than Chinese Americans (who include, for example, Hukka who have no particular biological relation to most other Chinese). -- Jmabel | Talk 21:57, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * Practically no Russian, Ukrainian, Pole, or German, would consider any Jew to be of Russian, Ukrainian, Polish, or German ethnicity. -- Jmabel | Talk 22:00, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * Responding to your quote, "Practically no Russian, Ukrainian, Pole, or German, would consider any Jew to be of Russian, Ukrainian, Polish, or German ethnicity", that's the way people thought in the past, but not in modern times. Their religion is Jewish, but they're Caucasian or European, aren't they? So why would they not be considered an ethnicity like Russian, Ukrainian, Polish, or German? Marcus2 22:07, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * What do you mean when you say "they're Caucasian or European"? Jayjg (talk) 22:16, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Marucs2, it might be worth rereading the discussions with Zain above. In any case, I think that there is a fundamental problem here with the way that you are defining ethnicity, as equivalent to the standard concept of "race." People can be of more than one ethnicity, since it is an affiliative grouping, while, in the old conception of race, they could only be "white" or "black," or some other race, part of why the concept is so bad. This overlapping concept of ethnicity depends on level of analysis -- an ethnic Swede could also be considered an "ethnic European" as well, depending on their affiliation, despite your claim that people only have one ethnic group. Generally, ethnicity is a fuzzy term, but "Jewishness" would almost always be considered to meet the standards of ethnic group, both historically and today. --Goodoldpolonius2 02:15, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

title: Talk:Jews/Archive 12


text:
BPB plc

BPB Ltd (formerly BPB plc) (British Plaster Board) was a British building materials business. It once was a constituent of the FTSE 100 Index. In 2005, the company was purchased by Saint-Gobain of France. The company's subsidiary British Gypsum, which was the UK operating arm of the company, operates as a subsidiary of Saint-Gobain, with five manufacturing sites in Britain as of 2012.

Inter-war period
The development of plasterboard (a sandwich of gypsum plaster between two sheets of paper) dates back to the late nineteenth century in the US. The first patent was granted in 1894 but it was not until an American, Frank Culver, persuaded his new employer, Thomas McGhie and Sons, to buy a plasterboard plant from the US that this new product was introduced to Britain. A site was acquired at Wallasey Cheshire and building started in 1916. However, McGhie's shareholders could not supply sufficient funding and in 1917 the plasterboard assets were sold to a new company, British Plaster Board Limited [BPB].

The British building industry was initially slow to adopt the new product. Helped by a more modern plant, purchased in 1927, sales gradually increased and by 1932 the Company was able to float on the London Stock Exchange. The additional capital enabled BPB to build a new factory at Erith in 1934. The Erith plant had the capacity to manufacture the gypsum plaster (the core of the plasterboard product) and BPB began importing gypsum rock from Canada. This encouraged negotiations with other gypsum companies in Britain and a "breath-taking series of take-overs" followed in the next two years, making BPB the dominant force in the industry. In particular, these included the Gotham Company with plaster works in the north of England, and The Gypsum Mines Limited, with its large gypsum mine at Mountfield Sussex.

Early post-war history
In 1944, BPB acquired its large rival, Gyproc Products Limited; after that there were only a handful of small companies and when ICI withdrew from the market in 1968 BPB was the only British producer of plaster and plasterboard. Organisationally, all domestic gypsum activities were consolidated in the British Gypsum subsidiary and the parent company was BPB Industries. BPB had also acquired the main paper supplier in 1953 – the Aberdeen firm of C. Davidson.

The post-war period saw extensive overseas investment through subsidiaries and associates. South Africa was the first investment (1946) followed by Placoplatre in France (1952), Western Gypsum of Canada (1954) and Sweden (1957).

Recent history
In 1987 it bought Rigips, a well-known brand in Austria, Germany, Italy and the Netherlands.

In April 1996, it bought Borgadts of Germany for £21m. In June 1996, it bought Gypsum Industries of South Africa for £28m. In October 1998, it bought Gyproc of Scandinavia for £95m, already having a joint venture called Scancem. In March 2000 it bought Heidelberger Dammsysteme of Germany, which made polystyrene insulation, for £22m. In June 2000, it acquired the Celotex company of the US, which made ceiling tiles, for £230m. In January 2001, it bought Rawlplug Ltd. for £27m. In October 2002, it acquired Gyproc Benelux of Belgium for £52m.

In March 2002 it acquired James Hardie Industries, another US business, for £245 million.

Takeover
BPB regained its place in the FTSE 100 Index in June 2005 after an absence of 14 years.

However, since May 1996, BPB had a joint venture with the French company Saint-Gobain, making glass fibre insulation. In August 2005, BPB received a hostile takeover bid from Saint-Gobain, which set a price of 720 pence per share.

The BPB initially resisted this strongly, but eventually accepted a revised bid of 775 pence per share, which valued the company at £3.9billion (US$6.7 billion). BPB was delisted in December 2005.

Operations
BPB was a multinational company with operations in Europe, the Middle East, Africa and Asia. In Europe its main rivals are Lafarge of France and Knauf of Germany, which has a UK plant at Immingham.

Plasterboard is mainly used for internal partition walls. BPB's other products include plaster, insulating materials, fastenings, decorative wall covering and ceiling components. British Gypsum has plants at Barrow upon Soar in Leicestershire, Kirkby Thore in Cumbria, Mountfield near Robertsbridge in East Sussex, Sherburn-in-Elmet in North Yorkshire and East Leake in Nottinghamshire. It also has training facilities in Erith, south-east London, Clevedon, North Somerset, and Flitwick, in Bedfordshire.

News items

 * BPB accepts French bid in November 2005
 * Hostile bid in August 2005
 * Fined in November 2002

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: BPB plc


text:
Eduard Nápravník

Eduard Francevič Naprávnik (Russian: Эдуа́рд Фра́нцевич Напра́вник; 24 August 1839 – 10 November 1916 ) was a Czech conductor and composer. Nápravník settled in Russian Empire and is best known for his leading role in Russian musical life as the principal conductor of the Imperial Mariinsky Theatre in Saint Petersburg for many decades. In that capacity, he conducted the premieres of many operas by Russian composers, including those by Mussorgsky, Tchaikovsky and Rimsky-Korsakov.

Biography
Nápravník was born in Býšť, Bohemia, in 1839. His studies of music were precariously uneven as a child, being the son of a poor teacher. Orphaned in 1853 at the age of 14, he first worked as a local church organist. In 1854 he entered the Prague Organ School, where he studied under Jan Bedřich Kittl and others, eventually becoming an assistant teacher as Kittl's generosity allowed him to continue his studies. In 1861, he worked in Russia for the first time as conductor of the private orchestra of Prince Yusupov in St. Petersburg.

Nápravník became organist and assistant conductor at the Imperial theatres in 1863, second conductor in 1867, and chief conductor, succeeding Liadov, in 1869, holding the post until his death. He led the first performances of Boris Godunov in 1874, conducted five operas by Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky, including The Maid of Orleans, Mazepa and The Queen of Spades, and five by Nikolai Rimsky-Korsakov, including May Night, The Snow Maiden and Christmas Eve. He also conducted concerts of the Russian Musical Society. In 1914, after a productive career in the service of Russian opera, he was forced to retire due to ill health.

In November 1875, Nápravník conducted the first performance in Russia of Tchaikovsky's First Piano Concerto with Gustav Kross as soloist (whose playing was described by the composer as "an atrocious cacophony"). Nápravník is also well known for leading the second — and overwhelmingly persuasive — performance of Tchaikovsky's Pathétique symphony on 6/18 November 1893, twelve days after the composer's death. The premiere, under the composer's baton, had not fared so well, partly due to the audience's and the orchestra's unfamiliarity with a work that contained so many novelties, compositionally speaking, and partly due to Tchaikovsky's conducting (although Rimsky protested after that second performance, in his autobiography Moy Muzikalny Zhizn [My Musical Life], that the first performance had also gone well under the baton of its creator). Under Nápravník's baton, however, and under the solemn influence of Tchaikovsky's sudden passing, the work was seen as a masterpiece with an overwhelming emotional message. It included some minor corrections that Tchaikovsky had made after the premiere, and was thus the first performance of the work in the exact form in which it is known today.

Of Nápravník's own four operas the most successful was Dubrovsky (1894, staged 1895) written to a Russian libretto by Modest Ilyich Tchaikovsky after the story by Alexander Pushkin.

He died in Petrograd in 1916. In May 1917, his family went abroad and eventually settled in Belgium.

His wife was singer Olga Shryoder (ru: Ольга Эдуардовна Шрёдер).

Operas

 * Nizhegorodtzy (The Nizhniy-Novgorodians, 1867, staged 1868)
 * Harold (1884, staged 1885)
 * Dubrovsky, libretto by Modest Ilyich Tchaikovsky (1894, staged 1895)
 * Francesca da Rimini (after Stephen Phillips's play based on the fragment from Dante's Divine Comedy, 1902)]

Orchestral and choral

 * Ballads for voices and orchestra: The Voyevode, The Cossack, and Tamara (after Mikhail Lermontov)
 * Four symphonies: (1860–1879; No. 3 The Demon (after Lermontov's poem of the same name)
 * Suite for Orchestra
 * Solemn Overture
 * Marches and national dances for orchestra
 * Fantasy and suite for violin and orchestra
 * Concerto for piano and orchestra (Concerto symphonique) in A minor, Op. 27 (1877)
 * Fantasy on Russian themes (Fantaisie russe) for piano and orchestra in B minor, Op. 39 (1881)
 * Vlasta, overture on Slovak themes (1861)
 * The East [Восток], symphonic poem for orchestra (1881)

Chamber music

 * Three string quartets (1873–78)
 * String quintet (1897)
 * Two piano trios
 * Piano quartet
 * Violin and piano sonata
 * Two suites for cello and piano
 * String instrument and piano pieces

Incidental music

 * Don Juan, incidental music for Aleksey Konstantinovich Tolstoy's play (1892)

Selected discography

 * Piano Concerto in A minor, Op. 27 and Fantasie Russe in B minor, Op. 39. Yevgeny Soifertis, piano; BBC Scottish Orchestra conducted by Alexander Titov (Hyperion CDA67511).
 * Night Intermezzo (from opera "Dubrovsky" (Act IV); Melancholy, Op. 48 No. 3 [with music by Anatole Liadov] The USSR Symphony Orchestra, conductor Evgeni Svetlanov (Melodiya SUCD 10-00140, 1990)

Legacy

 * A school in the village of Býšť bears Nápravník's name today.
 * His son Vladimir published a book about his father's life: Eduard Frantsovich Napravnik i ego sovremenniki, ISBN 5-7140-0412-4, 1991, in Russian.

Quotations
"Mr. Napravnik is our well-known Russian orchestra conductor" (Fyodor Dostoyevsky: "The Brothers Karamazov" (1880), book 2, chapter 2).

title: Eduard Nápravník


text: Category:Bridges in Slovakia

title: Category:Bridges in Slovakia


text:
Talk:Jews/Archive 13

Alleged Holocaust
I have recently been replacing the word holocaust with "alleged holocaust", which seems to have resulted in this page being protected from further editing. For the sake of the other wikipedians I will refrain from making anymore changes now to this page even if the protection is lifted.

I believe there is still far too much uncertainty over the holocaust as it's being presented. The Institute for Historical Review has presented plenty of information that debunks the holocaust theory. Please see [ Institute of Historical Review website].

In my opinion there is not enough evidence to prove it one way or the other. That being the case, it should not be refered to without some question. NSM88 10:55, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * The rules of neutral point of view states that minority views are represented according to their prevalence. The_Holocaust discusses holocaust revisionism and denial. David.Monniaux 11:09, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Major recent anonymous additions and changes
There have been some major recent anonymous additions and changes. They offhand don't look all good or all bad. I'd be a lot more comfortable if some known reasonably expert individual would look through these, revert (or bring to talk) anything they think is wrong, and endorse the rest. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:19, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

 * I started trying to do just that, but more keeps getting added. Most of the changes are so-so, a few are good, and a few are mediocre.  In general, in my opinion nothing critical would be lost by a revert, but someone should go through in detail instead, as you suggested.  If nobody will, it might be better to revert and then re-add as needed.  I also left a message on the talk page of the anonymous user, though I don't expect a reply.  --Goodoldpolonius2 04:13, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree with polonius; some good, some bad, and ideally should be gone through in detail. I'm highly skeptical of the etymology changes. Jayjg (talk)  16:33, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Usage of the word "Jew"
Goodoldpolonius added this usage note to the page:
 * Usage note: In English, the word "Jew" has been used often enough in a disparaging manner by anti-Semites that even today some people are wary of its use. In many contexts the word "Jewish" is preferred when appropriate; thus "She is Jewish" rather than "She is a Jew."  When used as an adjective (e.g. "Jew lawyer") or verb (e.g. "to Jew someone"), the term "Jew" is always considered offensive.

However, the Usage Note at Jew of The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition, 2000, says something different:
 * It is widely recognized that the attributive use of the noun Jew, in phrases such as Jew lawyer or Jew ethics, is both vulgar and highly offensive. In such contexts Jewish is the only acceptable possibility. Some people, however, have become so wary of this construction that they have extended the stigma to any use of Jew as a noun, a practice that carries risks of its own. In a sentence such as There are now several Jews on the council, which is unobjectionable, the substitution of a circumlocution like Jewish people or persons of Jewish background may in itself cause offense for seeming to imply that Jew has a negative connotation when used as a noun.

I think the note by Goodoldpolonius2 strays, in fact, into this territory, of implying that any use of the word "Jew" is offensive, and that therefore people should use circumlocutions like "Jewish person", which is in itself offensive. Jayjg (talk) 03:06, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Fair enough. I still think a usage note is useful though - I saw a lot of Talk messages misusing "Jew" and causing offense -- "Jew politics".  If you think of a better way to do it (maybe just the adjective or verb warning?), we should include it.  --Goodoldpolonius2 03:44, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * How about The word "Jew" is a noun. Its use as an adjective (e.g. "Jew lawyer") or verb (e.g. "to Jew someone") is offensive, and there "Jewish" is the only acceptable possibility.  However, when used as a noun (e.g. "He is a Jew"), circumlocutions like "Jewish person" can be seen as offensive, and "Jew" is preferred. Jayjg (talk)  23:41, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Good, I like it. --Goodoldpolonius2 22:12, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * O.K., trying it out. Jayjg (talk) 15:52, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

In my (non-Jewish) experience, it still seems to me that "Jewish" is preferred to "Jew" where no circumlocutions are necessary. Observe, for instance, the common question, "Are you Jewish?", never "Are you a Jew?", which I think might very well be considered offensive. "Are you a Jewish person?" would be odd usage indeed. NTK 14:16, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I think few Jews would take offense at "Are you a Jew?", unless it were asked as an accusation rather than as an innocent inquiry. That said, I have heard "Are you a Jewish person?", and while I don't find it offensive, I find it unspeakably ridiculous.  Tomer TALK  06:11, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

I agree with NTK. You can't have your cake and eat it too. If you're going to be offended by a phrase like "jew politics," then it's hypocritical to be offended by circumlocutions that imply you would be offended by the word "jew." Anyway, people are typically more offended by "jew" then circumlocutions. So in my everday speach, I always avoid the word "jew." I also avoid the world "black." I would prefer "people of jewish descent" and "people of color/african descent," to "jew" or "black." So far no one has gotten offended by the almost fanatical political correctness all American's must hold to. Except of course the people that are forced do use it, but we're talking about offending those the circumlocutions refer to of course. And that would be people of jewish or african descent, since political correctness doesn't seem to apply to us "yellows." (anon, 9 Apr 05)
 * Perhaps I depart a bit from the educated hypersensitive norm in this area...I call black people "black" on the rare occasion that it is for some reason necessary to specify a person's color. I also call, in such rare instances as it is necessary to refer to "yellows", which I assume are Chinese, Japanese, Koreans, Thai, Vietnamese, Shinlung, etc., basically Old World peoples w/ epicanthic folds, as "orientals", instead of the ridiculous newspeak "Asians".  As for political correctness not seeming to apply to orientals, that's just as untrue as saying that it doesn't apply to Jews.  Personally, I'd like to see anyone who adheres to PC-speak banished to France, but that's not likely to happen anytime soon.  Meanwhile, I think that if you let common decency and common sense serve as your guideline for what is acceptable to say, you'll do alright, even if you inadvertently offend someone in the process.  That's one reason God gave us the ability to apologize--sometimes we screw up.  Tomer TALK  06:11, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

 * Um, I don't know where you live, but "Oriental" is very offensive, at least as offensive and retrograde as "Negro" or "Hebrew." What the heck is "newspeak" about "Asian"?  It's the continent of a person's ancestry, just as Africa is the content that African (with or without the appropriate hyphenation) people of color are from.  If you can't tell whether someone is Chinese/Japanese/Korean from their name and appearance, then "Asian" is the appropriate delineator for that person's ethnicity. NTK 06:29, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * None of which has anything to do with the subject at hand. Let's try to stick with the subject matter of this particular article on its talk page.  Tomer TALK  13:30, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

Hasdrubal's changes
Hasdrubal, why not discuss changes here first? Jayjg (talk) 23:37, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Oh, and if you're offended by unsourced claims, you shouldn't make your own (regarding many converts to Reform Judaism, for example). Jayjg (talk) 23:44, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * I agree with your deletion of that comment (I said "substantial", rather than "many", but still) - it came out of a somewhat clumsy reformulation of something else.

I disagree with the bulk of Hasdrubal's changes. I suggest that we discuss them one by one. In particular, I notice that there in no longer anything in the article to indicate that Jewish ethnic identity is traditional based on matrilineal descent, which seems to me like a stunning omission. -- 03:40, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * I see that this last issue has been remedied by a recent edit. I still think we should look at these one by one, though. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:04, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)

 * I agree, but I really wanted to make the revert to the begining since there was no good reason for removing matrilineal descent of the term nation -- both critically important. Lets go through the other changes step by step.  Any thoughts.  --Goodoldpolonius2 04:13, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Jmabel -- I agree that this is an important issue; note, though, that (a) it is treated in full in the Who is a Jew? article, as well as the article on matrilineal descent; (b) my objection was to have it be part of the definition. In my view, a definition should state *what* is a Jew, not *who* is a Jew.
 * The issue of what criteria there are to determine membership belongs later. Note also that (1) the statement that "Jew" can be used to

refer either to the adherents of a religion or to members of an ethnic group does not run counter to anything in any branch of Judaism, and, in fact, coincides with the traditional distinction between an Israelite and a Jew; (2) the statement that a Jew is a child of a Jewish mother is an incomplete description of the traditional Rabbinic criterion, as it omits converts as well as, so to speak, the base case for recursion (namely, that the first Jews were those who accepted the covenant at Sinai). Hasdrubal 01:16, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Talmud Eretz Israel - Sephardim
The claim about the supposed descent of Sephardim from followers of the Palestinian Talmud is completely new to me, and very surprising. For one thing, halakha follows the Bavli in Sephardic communities. Could whoever made that claim please give some sources. Otherwise, I feel the claim ought to be deleted. Hasdrubal 23:58, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * If you read the section, you would have seen the claim was the exact opposite, that Ashkenazi traditions descended in part from the Yerushalmi. Jayjg (talk) 00:35, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Awful sentence
Who is going to do something about the sentence "Many empires and rulers have sought to "liquidate" the Jews through wars of destruction, extinction, genocide, expulsions, exiles, and torture."? It sounds really stupid. You can't "liquidate" a people by torture. "Extinction" is a symptom, not an action. And only the Holocaust matches "sought to liquidate the Jews" amongst the events listed afterwards. --Zero 23:47, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm with Zero here. Can someone propose an alternative? -- Jmabel | Talk 00:57, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)

 * "Throughout history, many rulers, empires and nations have sought to either eliminate their Jewish population or diminish its influence. Methods employed have ranged from expulsion to outright genocide; within nations, often the threat of these extreme methods was sufficient to silence dissent."  Just an idea; feel free to edit or change.  Antandrus 01:07, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * I'm not keen on "diminish its influence", that's treading awfully close to "Protocol" territory. How about "Throughout history, many rulers, empires and nations have oppressed their Jewish populations, or sought to eliminate them entirely.  Methods employed have ranged from expulsion to outright genocide; within nations, often the threat of these extreme methods was sufficient to silence dissent." Jayjg (talk)  17:09, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * That's an improvement over my version. Put it in? Antandrus 17:13, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * Well, it's fine with me, obviously. :-) Jayjg (talk) 17:19, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * Personally, I think "oppress" has been dimished as a word through overuse almost to a point of cliche.  People even find it a little whine-y.  I recommend "suppress." (anon 9 April 2005)

Michael Howard
Does Michael Howard really deserve a mention? Not exactly a household word outside of the UK. -- Jmabel | Talk 16:49, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)

Iran
The newly added claim of 25,000 Jews in Iran should have a citation. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:17, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)

 * I see it here, though I have no idea how accurate these figures are. The link on the page to the alleged source (the World Jewish Congress site in Israel) fails to resolve. Antandrus 23:26, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * Elsewhere on the JVL, it lists 11,000, and this site lists 11,200. --Goodoldpolonius2 23:40, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * The higher estimate is significantly older than the lower one. I think the number should be changed to 11,000. Jayjg (talk)  04:09, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * I think that's reasonable. I changed it; considering what the current situation in Iran is like, I doubt the Jewish population has more than doubled since 2003. Antandrus 04:26, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * The anon changed it back again to 25,000. I left a note on his/her talk page  ( User_talk:134.130.54.14 ) to come here and give the source.  Antandrus 15:52, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * I've changed it back, pending a source. Jayjg (talk) 17:03, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Usage note
The last sentence (Conversely, when used as a noun (e.g. "He is a Jew"), circumlocutions like "Jewish person" can be seen as offensive, and "Jew" is preferred.)is confusing because the example given does not require circumlocution -- "He is Jewish" is neither wordy or akward. (anon 14 March 2005)
 * But "he is a Jewish person" rather than "He is a Jew" is awkward. Yes, "He is Jewish" is equally acceptable. That's not the example given as being awkward. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:03, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)

 * Can I suggest just deleting that sentence? Since when is "Jewish person" offensive anyway?  It gets over 60,000 Google hits including thousands on Jewish websites.   A (very) quick search for websites claiming that "Jewish person" is offensive only managed to find the opposite (which is just as wrong):   --Zero 07:11, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * Aside from being needlessly over-wordy, "Jewish person" is offensive because it implies that the noun "Jew" is somehow an insult or bad thing. I'll repeat the point I brought up in the "Usage of the word Jew" section of the Talk: page, a few sections before this:
 * The Usage Note at Jew of The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition, 2000, says:
 * It is widely recognized that the attributive use of the noun Jew, in phrases such as Jew lawyer or Jew ethics, is both vulgar and highly offensive. In such contexts Jewish is the only acceptable possibility. Some people, however, have become so wary of this construction that they have extended the stigma to any use of Jew as a noun, a practice that carries risks of its own. In a sentence such as There are now several Jews on the council, which is unobjectionable, the substitution of a circumlocution like Jewish people or persons of Jewish background may in itself cause offense for seeming to imply that Jew has a negative connotation when used as a noun.
 * Many Jews find attempts to turn the word "Jew" into a "bad word" offensive. Jayjg (talk) 16:11, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * I think it's ridiculous. It seems like some people spend all their spare time thinking up excuses for being offended.  "Jewish person" is a perfectly ordinary and innocuous English phrase that is no more offensive than "British person".  A look around the web proves overwhelmingly that most people agree. It does not imply anything at all about the word "Jew".   At a minimum, this article should mark the opinion as marginal.  I still think it should get deleted. --Zero 23:54, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * I find your comments highly offensive, and it took me all my spare time to think up that excuse for being offended! ;-) Anyway, I understand your viewpoint, but obviously others disagree, and the American Heritage Dictionary is not a crank source. If arguably not offensive, "Jewish person" is certainly a circumlocution. Jayjg (talk)  00:30, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * It's all a matter of context. "I don't know if there are any Jewish people in that neighborhood" is fine. "The letter was signed by two Protestants, a Catholic, a Jewish person, and a Muslim" sounds like someone has a problem with the word "Jew", and there are a lot of people who would take that as a slight. I'd let it slide myself, but I'd understand why someone was offended. I do think the dictionary's remark that it can be offensive is worthy of mention, and should be cited explicitly. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:04, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)

 * Ok, how about this: Some sources, such as the American Heritage Dictionary, suggest that phrases like "Jewish person" may be offensive if pointedly used to avoid the word "Jew". ? --Zero 10:45, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Fine by me. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:21, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)
 * I like your wording, but the whole reason the section was inserted in the first place by GoodOldPolonius, if I'm not mistaken, was to point out the use of "Jew" as a verb or an adjective is definitely offensive. Shouldn't that part be retained? Jayjg (talk)  14:41, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * But of course. I'm only complaining about the sentence that refers to "Jewish people". --Zero 15:31, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * So we keep the first three sentences and change the last? That works for me, and seems less awkward. Good job, Zero.   --Goodoldpolonius2 16:36, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I fail to understand the argument either way for italics or not with the usage note. Personally, I only find the use of "Jew" as an adjective to be offensive if used by someone who is using it in a way that's openly hostile toward Jews. But, that's me. The sniping about putting this paragraph in parentheses as "shrill" however, is equally offensive. To put it in non-italic face would be grand in the wiktionary, but since the definition of a word rarely includes delimiting what the word does not mean, nor notes on its use as other parts of speech, this is an important point that (a) given the frequency with which this article is viewed on a daily basis, should appear early on in the article, unfortunately it probably (b) should be the final part of the opening of the article and (c) should be noticibly set apart from the definition itself, e.g., by italicizing it. Tomer TALK 03:20, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)

 * I agree that the italics are the standard way to go. Pcpcpc makes a pointed argument that they sound obnoxious when I put the question to him on his Talk Pages.  Is he the only one who holds this opinion? --Goodoldpolonius2 15:33, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * I reread my statement, and today it sounds ridiculous...I started saying one thing, and then changed it, but neglected to change the whole thing. :-)  Oh well.  What I was originally going to say yesterday was that I fail to understand why italics are "shrill", and propose that perhaps people who oppose the usage note as part of the opening, or who oppose its italicization, would be happier with an opening sentence or two (what now comprises the first paragraph of the article), and then making a new first section to the article, Meaning of the word "Jew" or Meaning and Usage of the word "Jew", which includes the brief discussion of peoplehood/nationness and concludes with a non-italicized and unintroduced paragraph containing what is now the "Usage note"...or perhaps retaining the first two paragraphs where they are, and making a new initial section Usage of the word "Jew".  I get awfully sick of non-Jews (and this is also coming from rereading some of the other sections of this Talk page, as well as real-life experience) who insist that Jews have a persecution complex (which some do, but that's not the point), and cite that as a reason for their own dislike of Jews, without bothering to think about the fact that their own stupidity, i.e., in making such statements, validate and perpetuate the persecution complex they belittle Jews for having.  Tomer TALK  21:38, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)

Question about the term
I read this article and I still have a question about the term. Now, as I always understood it, "Jew" can be used to describe someone who is part of the Jewish ethnic group, or a follower of the Jewish faith (or both). Now, I understand that the according to whatever religious writings there are, matrilineal descent is required for you to be a Jew. However, that seems to me to be a religious "rule" about Jewish descent. Ethnically and genetically speaking, wouldn't a person who had a Jewish father but a Jewish mother be "half Jewish" since part of his "blood" comes from Jewish ethnicity? Or does the father's ethnicity get disreguarded in that case? Is it term "Jew" mean what it means because originally the religion was so intertwined with the culture and identity that it's not really considered an ethnicity per se, but a religious based ethnicity?

I was thinking about the question because I know someone who has a Jewish father and a Russian mother. Does that make that person 100% Russian?
 * According to Jewish law, it makes the person 100% not Jewish. Jayjg (talk) 01:31, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * Yes, that's what I was wondering about. According to Jewish law, the person is 100% not Jewish. But what about from a purely non-religious, genetic perspective? Wouldn't it be incorrect to say the person is not Jewish at all? Or can the term "Jew" not be used when dealing with a non-religious perspective? 65.161.65.104 02:34, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * You're perhaps confusing race, ethnicity, and religion. Someone born to a Jewish mother is a Jew, regardless of whether they practise or not, according to Jewish law. What that says is that this person is connected to a collective past: a set of traditions, a culture, and a nation. People of many different racial categories are Jews. SlimVirgin 02:49, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

 * Alternately, you could say the person is, according to Conservative and Orthodox traditions, non-Jewish. According to Reform traditions, he would be Jewish.  In a general secular sense, he would have the right to claim he was Jewish if he had some sort of active connection to the Jewish people and traditions, secular or religious.  The genetic perspective doesn't make a lot of sense because Jewish is not a religious or genetic trait, it is an ethnic and religious identity.  --Goodoldpolonius2 03:08, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * More accurately, according to the Reform view ("tradition" is a bit too strong a word for a view that new), he "might" be Jewish, depending on whether on not he was "raised as a Jew". Jayjg (talk) 03:53, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * Of course, Conservatism is newer than Reform, so "Conservative traditions" might also be too strong a term (not that you used it). As for the comment below - "half Jewish" is not necessarily a modern European concept alone; for Philo of Alexandria, the child of a Jewish or a non-Jewish parent (whichever way) is a nothos, or half-breed. Hasdrubal 23:38, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Colloquially, in terms having nothing to do with Jewish law but with the traditions of European culture, the person in question is "half Jewish". Many people identify this way, and most people with no Jewish background are utterly unconcerned with Jewish law and consider them so.

 * Halakha, of course, doesn't recognize such a concept: it says you are either Jewish or your not. Thus a particular female relative of mine, whose father is Norwegian and whose maternal grandfather is Scottish, is considered Jewish because her matrilineal descent is Jewish. And, under Halakha, her children will necessarily be Jewish as well! Conversely, a particular friend with a Jewish father and an Italian mother had to formally go through conversion to be considered a Jew.

 * Another ethnic group with similar rules are the Pashtun, who consider only patrilineal descent. Unlike Jews, they have no established method of conversion to join their ethnicity.

 * You may find further relevant discussion in Who is a Jew? -- Jmabel | Talk 06:11, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

 * Thanks for the information, I'll try to read over it and make sense of it. Maybe I got confused because of the way the Soviet Union classified Jews. I believe I read that on Soviet passports, Jew was treated like an ethnicity. Under the "Ethnicity" section, you could have anything like "Russian", "Ukrainian", "Latvian", or "Jewish". So it was my belief that the term "Jew" could be used to describe an ethnicity like any other ethnicity, and that the term was used completely outside of the religious realm (and thus, "blood" could be passed down so you could be 1/2 or 1/4 Jewish). In fact, I believe I've heard some Russians refer to themselves as being half-Russian/half-Jewish, perhaps for the reason I mentioned before. This CNN review uses that terminology, for example.

 * So I guess that's where my confusion came in, I've heard it described simply as an ethnicity in addition to a "ethnic and religious identity" 65.161.65.104 06:45, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * Pretty much the same in countries such as the U.S. where it isn't a legal issue. Again, Halakha is reasonably clear, but we are not living in societies run by Halakha. A much more modern model of ethnicity tends to supersede it in common parlance. -- Jmabel | Talk 18:47, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

 * I think someone who knows about this aspect should add this information to the "Jew" and "Who is a Jew" pages. I think the use of Jew in that way is significant enough to have something about it written in those pages. 65.161.65.104 21:32, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * It's pretty much there at Who_is_a_Jew?. If you feel something is missing, feel free to add it; if you're not sure quite what should be added, but can explain what you think is missing, I suggest taking it to the talk page of that article: it's beyond the scope of this one. -- Jmabel | Talk 22:28, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)

Incidentally - I may have made this point before and not have got a reply - it seems to me that descent rules belong entirely in the Who is a Jew? section, rather than in the first sentence of this article. First of all, What is a Jew? and Who is a Jew? are two different questions; in the first sentence, it seems, we are trying to answer the first one. The answers given sometimes overlap because they have to (a follower of the Jewish faith may also be a member of the Jewish ethnicity, and generally is) but, in the case of this issue, they overlap because they address different issues: a child of a Jewish mother is, for the Orthodox and the Conservative, automatically a member of the Jewish people (or "ethnicity"). Note that a simple sentence stating that "Jew" refers either to a follower of the Jewish faith or a member of the Jewish ethnicity (or "a member of the Jewish people", or, as in the current version, "someone of Jewish descent with a connection to Jewish culture or ethnicity") would fit in neatly, not just with the current usage of the term, but also with a dichotomy drawn traditionally (between an Israelite and a Jew proper: an apostate is still an Israelite, but no longer a Jew).

Note also that if we are including descent criteria in the definition (as opposed to a separate article and/or a separate section), we should probably include all descent criteria of all subgroups of importance in history (including not only today's Reform and Reconstructionist Jews, but also Karaites, Hellenistic Jews, ancient Israelites,...). That would get a little long, at that place.

Lastly, the phrase included in the definition is not even an accurate and full representation of the Orthodox position. By halakha, as we all know, somebody is a Jew either if his/her mother is Jewish *or* if he/she underwent a halakhic conversion; we would have to include the full criterion - especially given that a backsliding convert, though no longer a follower of the Jewish faith, is still, according to halakha, an Israelite, or member of the Jewish people. Note, moreover, that this is a *criterion* for membership, not a definition of what the person in question is or is not a member of: this is what makes it different from, let us say, a criterion for being or not being an Antartican or an alien entity. Even if we wanted a purely formal definition, the given criterion (as stated above or in the current text) would by itself be insufficient, and indeed meaningless as a definition: we would have induction (or recursion) without a base case. The full answer of "Who is a Jew?" according to halakha is as follows: a Jew is someone who stood at Sinai, or a matrilineal descendant thereof, or a convert to halakhic Judaism. If there is no reference to Sinai, there is no formal definition.

In conclusion: it seems to me to be best to have the definition say simply that "Jew" is a label sometimes used to refer to followers of a religion, or (with a large overlap) to members of a people/members of an ethnic group/participants in a culture/what have you. I think the current first sentence would do nicely, if the phrase on descent were moved to a point later in the article (or left entirely to "Who is a Jew?", though on that I have no preference) and if, perhaps, "people" were added to ethnicity or culture, so as to match more closely with the traditional dichotomy drawn above.

As I have learned (and should have guessed), this is a controversial topic here, so I won't make any changes to the first sentence myself now (or on the matter). What is your opinion? Hasdrubal 23:38, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * It seems to me that a specific tradition of matrilineality is unusual enough that it deserves prominent mention in an article on an ethnicity. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:53, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

 * We are hardly speaking of the only matrilineal descent rule in the world. If a comparison between cultures is the main point, that is best taken care of by a link to Matrilineality. In any case, there are places in the article other than the definition; there are other ways of giving something "prominent mention". Hasdrubal 19:46, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * I don't have a good sense of whether many of the main contributors agree with what I've said above, or disagree and would revert a change, and if so, for what reasons. Please state your opinions below. (It would perhaps be better if somebody else took care of the editing, if any - I will be quite busy this week.) Hasdrubal 15:47, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Matrilineality is unusual, and Judaism is noted for it; I would object to removal of its mention. Jayjg (talk) 17:13, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Holocaust
Seems to me like we have an awful lot of links to the Holocaust in this article. I count five. I can see an argument for there being more than one, but this seems excessive. Other opinions solicited. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:02, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)
 * O.K., what exactly is the rule for links; I thought you put links in each new section, is that wrong? Jayjg (talk) 22:44, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * (As I understand it, and someone may correct me if they know just where rules are laid out) there isn't a full set of hard and fast rules, but some are:
 * One doesn't link in titles and headings.
 * Other than that, one links on first mention.
 * Links in tables and picture captions are a separate issue from first mention.

 * Generally one doesn't link twice in the same section, although occasionally that's needed where a link is intended as a disambiguation (e.g. which of two books by the same title or two cities with the same name). Other than that, we may link on first mention in a new section if the term hasn't been used in the last few paragraphs; this is especially valuable for something obscure, where many readers will not know the reference. I don't think the Holocaust is an example of this last; I would certainly link on first mention, but after that only if it is really the focus of the passage in question. No individual link in this article is objectionable; I just think five is a bit much. -- Jmabel | Talk 02:39, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

title: Talk:Jews/Archive 13


text: Category:Buildings and structures in Slovakia