Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.
Request for input in discussion forum
Given the closely linked subjects of the various religion, mythology, and philosophy groups, it seems to me that we might benefit from having some sort of regular topical discussion forum to discuss the relevant content. I have put together the beginnings of an outline for such discussion at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Religion/2011 meeting, and would very much appreciate the input of any interested editors. I am thinking that it might run over two months, the first of which would be to bring forward and discuss the current state of the content, and the second for perhaps some more focused discussion on what, if any, specific efforts might be taken in the near future. Any and all input is more than welcome. John Carter (talk)
Yes, I understand that having an article titled Jews and banking sounds like an antisemitic canard and I am open to changing the title. However, I do think that there is an encyclopedic topic around the role of Jews and the emergence of modern banking.
My interest in this topic was sparked by the disastrous attempt by Noleander to create an article titled Jews and money, subsequently retitled to Economic history of the Jews which has since been deleted via AFD (see Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Economic history of the Jews).
It has been widely recognized by participants in the AFD discussion that there were many problems with Noleander's initial attempt including overly broad scope which suggested a coatrack, poor organization of the article, injudicious selection of sources and misrepresentation of some of the sources. However, a number of editors (myself among them) felt that there were one or more encyclopedic topics covered. It was proposed here that some of the issues could be resolved by pulling out the encyclopedic topics and making articles about those specific topics. The two articles above represent my efforts to begin that process.
I would like to ask enlist the help of members of this project to review the entire text of these proposed articles as well as critique the article title.
I think the judicious selection of article titles is almost as important as article text because titles change much less frequently than article text does and the article title implies a scope that strongly influences what text is added and deleted from the article.
I am not too thrilled with the title "Jews and banking" as it still sounds antisemitic to me. I'm playing with "History of Jews in banking" but I'm open to other suggestions.
On cursory skimming of the opening paragraphs I think I like the approach you have taken. At the same time, I would strongly suggest you delay moving this article to the main namespace until Noleander's arbitration case has closed. JFW | T@lk15:21, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
I'd like to see less reliance on the ADL in debunking the antisemitic canards. Antisemites immediately dismiss anything the ADL says, and in any event scholarly sources would be best for this minefield of a topic. Jayjg 19:06, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
Yeh... I understand your point. It's just that the ADL stuff was easiest to find via Google. There are other sources available through Google Books but it's been heavy slogging to turn up the appropriate sources. Maybe other editors can provide better sources if and when this goes into article mainspace. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 16:24, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
I would just ask that you do think of another title, as I think your instincts regarding how the title would be perceived are correct. I am frankly more concerned on how anti-semites would perceive it (unfortunately, they are still a substantial group) than how Jews would.Mzk1 (talk) 21:49, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Yeh... I'm still struggling with article topics and article scope. I decided for now to give up on History of Jews in American banking and just create an article titled History of investment banking in the United States. About 20-25% of that article is devoted to the Jewish part of the story. I expect that percentage will shrink to 10-15% over time. For now, my thinking is that it is sufficient for the German-Jewish part of the story to be presented in the overall context of this article and that we don't need an article that focuses on the Jewish part of the story.
However, I'm still struggling with Jews and banking. I really think there is an encyclopedic article here and this thesis is supported by the existence of reliable sources in the form of books on the subject of "Jews and money" by Gerald Krefetz and Abraham Foxman.
Especially given the recent
ARBCOM case regarding Noleander, I want to step very carefully in this area. I think my proposed draft eliminates most, if not all, of the issues that were present in Noleander's failed attempt at an article on Jews and money. However, I'm concerned that moving my draft into a title like Jews and money or Jews and banking will set off tripwires unnecessarily. I am very much open to suggestions to changes in title or even changes in article scope. I am more interested in presenting the information and not interested in pushing any particular POV thesis (with, of course, the exception of debunking the antisemitic canard that there is/was an international Jewish conspiracy to control international finance).
In this regard, I've contemplated an article titled Jewish control of international finance (antisemitic canard) which would focus specifically on the canard, the facts and arguments that are used to promote it and the arguments used to debunk it. For example, I found it interesting that, after Jacob Schiff died in 1921, the Jewish presence in investment banks founded by German-Jewish immigrants diminished. There are sources who provide statistics indicating that Jews are barely present in banking throughout much of the 20th century. Most of the data I've seen relates to the U.S. banking industry but I also saw one reference making a similar point about the French banking industry. Does anybody have thoughts on the desirability/undesirability of creating such an article?
There has just arisen a broad-based attempt by a user to slant various articles to match the philosophy of a new denomination connected with a school in Toronto. The denomination claims to be reconstruction (N.P.I.) of the original Judaism. No problem there, but the author is not only writing POV, but slanting writing about other denominations (Orthodoxy, to be specific) to match. (See my revert in Jewish religious movements; there is nothing wrong with the comment on Orthodoxy, but it clearly is there to support the conclusion of the article, where he gives his denomination as an alternative.)
The basic article is Classic Judaism; nothing wrong with his describing his denomination and even slanting a bit, but the article is so POV/COI (particularly with the implications about current Orthodoxy) that I am wondering if it should be deleted. However, I am not familiar with the criteria for such a move or better alternatives.Mzk1 (talk) 13:27, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
I think it would be a very good idea for knowledgeable members of this project to take a look at Tahash. I'll be frank; the reason I ask this is because the article has had hundreds of edits by an editor who has recently said that he's leaving Misplaced Pages in a huff, mainly because he's not getting his way at Ark of the Covenant and who has some very odd ideas about sourcing, including using Conservapedia as a source]. I'll be honest; there's so much scattered crap at the article, I'm more than half tempted to revert it to the state it was in before his first edit there. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 07:30, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
A good number of editors have tried their (our) best at Tahash. The editor in question has a real problem with WP:OWN. He has some good content but is difficult to impossible to work with. I've dropped the article from my watchlist in frustration as may have others. If you are willing to give it a shot I'll join you but I'm short on patience for problems of WP:OWN. Joe407 (talk) 11:50, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
As I mentioned, the editor in question seems to have left in a fit of pique, so there may be hope for the article, I made two small edits, then took a longer look at the article and concluded that the sort of minor revisions I was making weren't going to help much. The article is about 75,000 bytes long right now. (It has been as high as 100,000) I figure that's about 70,000 bytes too long. Take out all the irrelevant speculative nonsense, like disputes about the dates for Moses, that have nothing to do with tahash, and we'll probably be in about the right neighborhood. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 19:16, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
The attention of others should be brought to this matter. Should a reliable source referring to Nikki Yanofsky as a "Jewish artist" be removed as here? I have restored that source here. Would 2 sources be an excessive amount of sources to support that Yanofsky is Jewish? Bus stop (talk) 11:32, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
The source, which uses the adjective "Jewish" to describe her does not actually verify the text in the entry, which says that she was raised by a "close-knit Jewish family," but another source, already in the entry does. Why do you keep on adding back? It is not needed. Leave it be.Griswaldo (talk) 03:11, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Bus stop why are you asking questions that I have already answered. The entry does not say that she "is Jewish" it says she was raised in a Jewish family. The references you cite here don't say that she was raised in a Jewish family but refer to her as Jewish. We have a source being used in the entry that clearly states what the entry does. Case closed. Move onto something more productive. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 11:45, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Griswaldo—I find you stating here that it would constitute "obsessive ethno-tagging" for our article to state that Nikki Yanofsky was Jewish. Do you still stand by that? I find that our two sources—here and here—support quite appropriately, even by our more stringent WP:BLP standards, that Yanofsky is Jewish. Bus stop (talk) 04:37, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
She is a minor who has made no statement about her own identity being Jewish (ethnically or religiously). This is a BLP issue. And yes you do seem to be obsessive about your ethno-tagging. I suggest taking a break from it and doing something else. It would be much more relaxing and productive for you. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 11:48, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Nor need she. No policy says that "self-identification" is necessary for placement of this material in the body of an article. Such assertions have to be reliably sourced, which this material is.
You may be referring to the policy found at WP:BLPCAT.
No policy exists to require "self-identification" for placement of such material in the body of an article. But if you feel that such policy exists will you please bring it to my attention? Bus stop (talk) 14:53, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Bus Stop, a simple question. Are you claiming that the sources you cite state that Yanofsky is Jewish (a) by ethnicity, or (b) by faith? These are two different questions, and need to be considered as such. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:57, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Bus Stop, consensus is against you. I have certainly not said personally that there is a clear BLP policy prohibiting what you want to do. Yet you do realize there is no policy saying it needs to be done either, or that it is wrong for consensus to go against your wishes on this. Let it go.Griswaldo (talk) 16:09, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Let me respond to that. I would love to address other topics on Misplaced Pages. Would doing so be more "relaxing" for me? Probably so. But I find myself repeatedly up against the group of editors, of which you are a part, who insist that a Jew can't be called a Jew on Misplaced Pages—despite the overwhelming support in sources as seen in this instance.
And you are now conceding that no—WP:BLPCAT would not apply to require self-identification concerning saying someone is Jewish in the body of an article. But still you are saying to "Move on".
This is a collaborative process. Here we see "AndyTheGrump" and "Off2riorob" weighing in with their predictable objection to following sources.
It is the same group of people making the argument in so many of these instances. Here we see a typical turnout of some of the usual members of the group of editors I am referring to. Misplaced Pages is supposed to be based on sources but this group of editors seem to often feel that we can not state in our articles that an individual is Jewish.
Jewishness is an attribute of identity. Where it is thoroughly sourced it is certainly valid material for inclusion. WP:BLP only requires enhanced stringency in sourcing. Bus stop (talk) 17:03, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
"Jewishness is an attribute of identity". Exactly. Yanofsky's identity is for her to define. Any outside source claiming to be able to assert her identity for her is therefore not a reliable source - you cannot assert that someone else is X or Y, only that you chose to identify them as such. And I note you've refused to answer the perfectly simple question I asked earlier. Or is it too complex for you to understand? AndyTheGrump (talk)
AndyTheGrump—do you find any policy in support of what you are saying? I think you are saying that otherwise reliable sources are not reliable for the purposes of reporting that someone is Jewish. I would assume you mean in the absence of self-identification. Is this proposed policy? Or is this already-existing policy? If so—please point to policy. Bus stop (talk) 17:22, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
What question would you like me to answer from your above post? You are not asking a question that can be answered because our sources for the Yanofsky article don't employ the terms "ethnicity" or "faith".
Do you feel that the sources are thereby invalidated for the purposes of supporting that the individual is Jewish? Should we throw out the information that we derive from those sources, such as that Nikki Yanofsky is Jewish, because an editor has further questions?
Misplaced Pages is said to be not finished. We don't throw up our hands in despair because someone has further questions.
An additional problem with your "question" is that sources don't use the term "ethnicity" by-and-large in relation to Jews. When used, it has a specific purpose. (There's no reason to go into that now.) More common terms are "religious", "secular", "observant", "nonobservant". There are others too. But you won't find "ethnic" used very often. If you doubt this, please bring me some instances of this use. Bus stop (talk) 18:19, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
The blind unexplained statement that whoever is Jewish is completely valueless in a BLP. She is a Canadian. Born in Canada to Canadian parents goes to a Canadian school. If you think her genetic ancestry is notable then please provide some details as to why that requires us to go beyond what we already have in the article. Where was her mother born? and her father? what about her grandparents.... when did her ancestors last live in Israel or which of them are religious believers, is the subject herself interested in the Jewishness of her ancestors? Does the user follow the Jewish religious faith? What percentage of her ancestry is Jewish? and ultimately why is any of it notable beyond what we have already in the article? Here in the were opening of the article is the reason she is notable and who she basically is, read it and accept it , Nicole "Nikki" Yanofsky (born February 8, 1994) is a Canadian jazz-pop singer from Hampstead, Quebec.Off2riorob (talk) 18:59, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
So Bus Stop,in other words if a source says that someone is 'Jewish', the reliability of the statement has to be determined according to its meaning to Jews, who can then decide exactly what it means, or apply it arbitrarily to 'mean' anything? Wrong, just wrong. Scientologists could claim (indeed, they probably would) that Yanofsky is an an immortal spiritual being - a Thetan - currently reincarnated in in Yanofsky's "meat body". We don't apply the rules (or opinions) of particular ethno-religious groups to determine identity, for obvious reasons. Instead, we determine the reliability of statements from their context, and the meaning given to them. On this basis, a statement that Yanofsky is 'Jewish' that does not expand on this to indicate in what sense the term is used cannot be cited except as opinion - and even as that, it isn't much of a source. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:16, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
So Bus Stop,in other words if a source says that someone is 'Jewish', the reliability of the statement has to be determined according to its meaning to Jews, who can then decide exactly what it means, or apply it arbitrarily to 'mean' anything? Wrong, just wrong. Scientologists could claim (indeed, they probably would) that Yanofsky is an an immortal spiritual being - a Thetan - currently reincarnated in in Yanofsky's "meat body". We don't apply the rules (or opinions) of particular ethno-religious groups to determine identity, for obvious reasons. Instead, we determine the reliability of statements from their context, and the meaning given to them. On this basis, a statement that Yanofsky is 'Jewish' that does not expand on this to indicate in what sense the term is used cannot be cited except as opinion - and even as that, it isn't much of a source. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:20, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Excuse me Off2riorob, but are you saying that it is notable that she's a Canadian? How is it notable that ANYONE is Canadian? Is she notable because she's Canadian? If you say we can't put she's Jewish (if she really is) then it should apply equally to her being Canadian. A reliable source that happens to state she's Jewish is good enough. Frankly a reliable source stating her mother is Jewish is also good enough, because she would be considered a Jew. Of course I wont press that last part anywhere because technically if my cat ever becomes famous then a Misplaced Pages article could concievably be written claiming that my cat is a Muslim (in the Islamic religion all animals are by default Muslim, regardless of their owner's religion).
We need to realize that Misplaced Pages can NOT treat the Jews the same as a religion, it is not the same as being Catholic where you can through your life be or not be a Catholic on any given day. You ARE Jewish or you are not. With exception of converts. You can not change being Jewish any more than a person can decide "Oh, I'm not an Australian Aborigine, I'm now a Scandinavian". No, you're not a Scandinavian, and Misplaced Pages at best could only state "XY is an Australian Aborigine who declares themselves to be a Scandinavian". Also Jewishness IS a nationality ON EQUAL TERMS with being a Canadian, and has nothing to do with the State of Israel.Camelbinky (talk) 19:33, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Your opinion on this is of no relevance - I note that this 'Jews are always Jews, and their nationality is of limited consequence' has been used before. Can you please find a less inappropriate place to push this bigoted nonsense. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:40, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Yes, its commen practice at wikipedia that someones place of birth and their nationality is mentioned and worthwhile descriptive in the lede. Genetic ancestry is only notable if it is notable and has a specific value. If Jews are not from Israel then .... Off2riorob (talk) 20:14, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Andy if you cant give me an apology for 1- calling me a bigot (I AM A JEW, so how am I being bigoted against Jews?) and 2- saying my opinion is of no relevance. ALL OPINIONS are relevant in Misplaced Pages, I have just as much right to state my opinion as forcefully as the rest of you who have been quite arrogant in trying to cut off each other and state that YOUR opinion is the only one relevant; then I will have to bring this to the wikiquette noticeboard and further if so be. You were rude and uncalled for in dismissing my opinions and stating that I was pushing bigoted beliefs.
Off2riorob- Jews are not from Israel as the State of Israel has only existed since 1948, being of the nationality in regards to Israel makes one an Israeli and there are Israeli's who are ethnically Arabs, religiously of any religion, and racially African for example. Being the nationality of Jewish implies you are of the nation of Judah, which regardless of not existing for several thousands of years does not matter. You are basically saying when you say ethnic or genetic declarations do not exist that then- no Palestinian can be declared in their Misplaced Pages entry as such, no Scotish person either (must be declared as British I suppose), no Sami (must be declared Finnish or Russian depending on nation of birth), no Crimean (which many of them regardless of being born in Ukraine would say they are Russian, which ethnically they are). You would end up classifying people by arbitrarily by birthplace. My sister must be a Filipino then, and not an American Jew. My mother may be a bit disappointed.Camelbinky (talk) 20:46, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Well, at wikipedia such issues also include weight to self declarations.Ed Miliband has citable strong Jewish history and ancestry and has commented about his own Jewishness so although he is British by birth we came to the situation through lengthy discussion that his ethnicity is included in the infobox as Jewish. We don't have any of that here with Yanofsky.Off2riorob (talk) 21:22, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
So Jews are not even from Israel, they are originating from somewhere around that area though aren't they? Are Palestinians from Palestine? Is there such a thing as a Palestinian nation? This nation thing, we have that here, Danish and Roman genetic British people from invaders and suchlike. So your assertion is that Nicky Yanofsky is part of the Jewish Nation? Or do we have a citation that states she self declares as a member of the nation of Judah? One of my issues with all of this is that you can't have a whole section of articles and an extremely complicated description and understanding of who is a Jew and yet on the other hand insist on adding Nicky is a Jew when all you have is a couple of blind unexplained comments in externals. Off2riorob (talk) 21:03, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Jews, although known as a nation, are in fact a racial group. Similar to blacks, hispanics and asians. That's why anti-semitic legislation is governed under the Race Relations Act. It also happened that people who practice Judaism are also call Jewish, not "Judaics". The same term for two different things. It is confusing. Chesdovi (talk) 21:34, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Andy please don't be so attacking, Chesdovi's comment is not garbage at all and you would do well to strike that comment. Its a difficult enough subject to discuss calmly at the best of times - thanks to all for the input with Andy's comment I am out of here. Off2riorob (talk) 21:42, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Let's deal with the facts. Even 'scientific racism' in it's heyday didn't consider Jews as a 'race' - they were seen as part of the Semitic peoples, along with other people of Middle-Eastern descent. Likewise, 'hispanics' has never been a 'racial' category, and 'asians' wasn't normally used as a category ether. I can think of one obvious example where Jews have been identified as a race, but I hardly think it is necessary to point out, nor indicate why it is of dubious merit. In any case, since the diaspora, intermarriage with other populations have made any 'racial' aspect of Jewishness of less significance. From an external perspective (the appropriate one for Misplaced Pages), 'Jewishness' combines elements of ethnicity (which isn't the same thing as 'race'), and faith. These are the facts - though facts relating to social constructs, rather than biology, 'racial' or otherwise. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:59, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
I think it has to be said that we have to respect the primacy of Misplaced Pages policy. This isn't about the nature of Judaism in relation to Christianity or Islam—to mention a couple of somewhat related identities. It doesn't matter how being Jewish might be different than being Christian for instance. What matters is what reliable sources say. We can weigh reliable sources against one another if they present contradictory assertions as to whether someone is a Jew. But in the absence of countervailing indications emanating from reliable sources, and in the presence of some reliable sources saying that someone is Jewish, we should be stating straightforwardly that so-and-so is Jewish. Bus stop (talk) 21:54, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Andy, if you can not stop with the "utter garbage" and such comments towards editors AND now apologize for your rudeness, as I asked before, you will indeed be brought to AN/I for such rude behavior. Being a Jew is a racial/ethnic designation whether or not you find it "offensive", it is fact.Camelbinky (talk) 22:07, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Camelbinky, given that you made disparaging remarks about Canadians and Moslems, as well as repeating a particularly questionable stereotype about Jews - that their ties to 'Jewishness' are always stronger than any national allegiance - I see no reason to withdraw my remarks about you. That you yourself are Jewish (as you informed me on my talk page) is irrelevant - you are still propounding a stereotype which has done agreat deal of harm in the past. Yeu might also do well to learn a little more about nationality as a subject, and why 'the Jews' cannot be 'a nation' in any sense comparable to 'Canadians' - not because of who they are, but because 'nationality' is a much more recent concept than Judaism, the Diaspora, and much of Jewish history, amongst other reasons. I've struck out the comment I made regarding Chesdovi however - I suspect it was made largely as a result of fighting with edit conflicts, though that doesn't excuse my rudeness, and I offer him my apologies. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:57, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
Your comments continue to be insultive, not just to me but to Jews in general. Jews are a nationality, YOUR OPINION may differ. All I asked for was an apology. But apparently you continue to feel that your opinions on Jews are "law" around here. I have brought you to AN/I and you may respond there. I however will not discuss this topic here anymore with someone who does not know about Jews and will continue to insult them and their culture and community.Camelbinky (talk) 01:49, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
Talk:The Holocaust in Serbia
We have a little content dispute over here at Talk:The Holocaust in Serbia, so a third opinion (or contribution) is appreciated. Basically, another editor created the article, but only to a level of a poorly referenced stub, and then left. I don't see a point of such an article, so I merged what's usable into History of the Jews in Serbia.
Good point, but I am even more concerned that the header of The Exodus ignores the traditional view entirely. What happens when people do school reports about Passover? I believe the NPOV page (see the questions) allows traditional views. I fixed this somewhat at the Daniel page.Mzk1 (talk) 19:20, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Now that the Arbcom case and Passover are both out of the way. What should happen with this article? Is it salvageable in its current form? Or would an AfD be better with the option of someone with a less dubious editing history being able to start again from scratch?--Peter cohen (talk) 20:16, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Would you mind to explain the issue? Not everybody here (me specifically included) knows what the problem is with this article and/or its editors. And what Arbcom case (link)?Debresser (talk) 20:24, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
I can only say this about Noleander. Some months ago (over a year?) I did a reliability check on his use of sources at Criticism of Judaism. What I found was that, of the online sources I could easily check, none of them was free of distortion, misuse, original research or other fundamental problems. Since then, I have noticed that he heavily favors print sources over sources that are easier to verify. However, I didn't really have time to chase them down so I left them alone. Now that this arbcom decision has been made, I think it's clear that nothing Noleander says about a source can be taken on trust. It should all be treated with a presumption of having been falsified unless proof is provided to the contrary. I don't know if the arbcom decision went this far, but I favor deleting or reverting all his contributions on the subject of Judaism. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 06:16, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
One of the edits is this sick edit, which shocked me by its antisemitic POV. Please see a few more examples of things that need to be fixed.
In addition, I think it is about time this WikiProject take note of the subject for which the WP:ANI case was opened, since I feel a little like a lone voice in the wilderness in my arguments with Chesdovi, who - as I just now found out - has a history of quite a few blocks in connection with WP:ARBPIA. Debresser (talk) 21:43, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Calling the Arizal Hakodosh Palestinain in neither anti-semitic nor achronistic. You are confusing modern day politics with centuries old classification of Jewish sages in the Holy Land. Don't let the I-P conflcit blind or confuse you. The Category:Rabbis in Ottoman and British Palestine is out of sink with all other similar categories, and spans to larger period. A category for all Palestinian rabbis throughout the centuries if sorely needed. There is no shortage of RS which refer to such rabbis as Palestinian and we should not be any dfferent. We simply cannot have a category called the Land of Israel Gaonate or Gaonate in the Land of Israel instead of its proper usage in RS, namely as the Palestinian Gaonate. Chesdovi (talk) 22:13, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Personally, I don't have strong feelings one way or the other but I think the right thing to do is to bring more editors into the discussion rather than edit war between yourselves. It's clear that each of you has strong opinions on the subject, but please, let's try to discuss this calmly, okay? — Malik Shabazz /Stalk22:21, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Just to be clearer: I was speaking of the dispute at AN/I concerning categorizing rabbis. With regard to the specific edit cited above, I reverted it because it was redundant: it resulted in a sentence that read "Palestinian rabbi ... in Ottoman Palestine." — Malik Shabazz /Stalk22:38, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
I agree that the statement that the rabbi was a Palestinian is problematic. Due to the current meaning of the term, we should be very careful before applying it. This doesn't seem like a case where it's necessary. —Ynhockey19:30, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Please ignore Debresser and kindly answer for yourself. Thanks. (Debresser, whatever the "current meaning" of the term is, it should not impede on us using "Palestinian" as a classification for Jews who historically lived there, as the term is used by contemporary sources to do just that. Indeed, Having asked SD no less than 3 times what the definition of Palestinian is so I could understand the "controversy" here, she bascilly shyed away saying "Thats not up for me or you to decide." It all depends on the sources! (All she did say is that "Palestinian" is not what I think it is!) All you answered is something about being not being born there and that we can't use it because "there is too much confusion with the term Palestine being an ethnicity and not a geographical location." (I'm sure I responded that that is not an issue which should preclude our usage here.) But you never, and I repeat, never spelt it out what exactly the confusion is about such a rabbi being regarded as of Palestinian ethnicity; It may just be that many of these rabbis are in fact of Palestinian ethnicity? Believe it or not, there have always been Palestinian Jews. If on the other hand you meant all along what Ynhockey has called "confusion with regards to current usage", well you should have said so. You never did, even after I signalled that may be the case at 09:50, 28 April 2011. My answer to that is, notwithstanding the fact that the media and political arena may refer soley to the Arab Palestinians of today as "Palestinians" that does not preclude us using the term for the historic group of Palestinians. We cannot limit wikipedias view of Palestinian to being people of only the WB and Gaza, the modern nationalitiy of today, when Palestine was regarded as the whole region for hundreds and hundreds of years beforehand. You see, the term may have a number of meanings, and they are all current. The difference between them is really not enough for us not to use the term in reference to Jews who lived in historic Palestine. I reiterate: This classification is used in RS. I will agree however, that the categories in our case be placed under Rabbis by Geography, and not nationality b/c of this issue. Chesdovi (talk)
Don't you realise that "Jewish viwes" is the same as "Views". "Over the course of Jewish history, different attitudes have been held towards poverty and wealth." Of course there has. There is not a cabal of Jewish ringleaders who decide what all Jews are to think or how to behave. I am sure the "Jewish views" throughout the ages on this matter range from one extreme to the other. This is not the palce to document opinions of various Jews on such an impossibly ill-defined subject. Besides, for a page about "Jewish" views, there seems to be an awful lot of Chrisitianity. Using Christian values to contrast and be used as a yardstick to measure the morals to those of another religion is a terribly bad move. And why the massive section on moneylending. Does this page document how Jews became wealty or poor aswell? Maybe rename to Views on how rich Jews made money off the poor Christians using biblically prohibited usury. Yup, that's much more accurate. Chesdovi (talk) 16:00, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
It's no different from what Noleander did. It is cherry-picked from minor sources and ignores some very important ones. It might have helped if you'd sought opinions before moving this to article space, because I was sorely tempted to send it back to AFD. JFW | T@lk22:07, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
So what do folks think the best grounds for deletion are? Re-creation of Noleander's content? Coatrack of every bad thing anyone has ever said about Jews and money? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 22:34, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
OK... so Jayjg sent the article back to the drawing board (by moving it back to my userspace) for some rework. I've reworked it somewhat but the reason that I'm moving it back to article mainspace is that I've taken it about as far as I can on my own and I would like to solicit the help of other editors in improving it. I removed the content contributed by Noleander, expanded the article to discuss Jewish views towards charity and welfare thus motivating a change in title to Jewish views of poverty, wealth and charity.
I would really like to ask people to read the article and look at the references before vomiting all over it. I think the rewritten article does say something substantial and, taken together with Christian views on poverty and wealth, actually provides some insights. (Well, they were insights to me, anyway.) The key thing that I took away from researching and writing these two articles is that, perhaps one reason that Christians thought Jews were greedy is that there is a strong strain of Christianity that holds up poverty as an ideal and wealth as evil whereas such notions are kind of alien to Judaism. Judaism seems to be much less conflicted about wealth as long as it does not oppress the poor or lead to arrogance. Judaism calls upon wealthy people to care for the poor but does not castigate them just for being wealthy.
Another insight that I gained from reading Lifshitz was that coerced charity in the form of communal welfare is a concept that is rooted in the Talmudic times whereas it is a relatively recent invention in Western societies (late 19th century). Thus, communal charity is a very strong part of Jewish society (for example, American Jews are the largest donors to charity in the U.S.). The issue also leads to a continuing heated debate about the extent of the welfare state in Israel.
@Jfdwolff: It's true that the sources used are "minor". They are arguably even more "minor" than Noleander's were. This is an unfortunate consequence of my using Google Books as my primary research tool. Can you improve the article by using better sources? I would appreciate the help.
@Chesdovi: Please re-read the article. The original article was never as POV as your comment suggested. The rewritten article is even less so.
The idea put forth by Kravitz and Olitzky is that Jewish attitudes towards wealth changed as the Hebrews transitioned from being nomadic herders to being farmers and then to being urban dwellers. One might argue that all civilizations made these transitions but not all civilizations had written Scriptures that dictated specific rules of social conduct such as protection of the poor and provision for the needy. Kravitz and Olitzky assert that the rabbis were compelled to modify the mitzvoth in the Torah to accomodate the needs of urban society.
A key idea from Lifshitz is that an urban society can no longer rely on the voluntary efforts of individuals to provide for the poor. An organized communal approach that includes coerced donations is required.1
Of course, there is no "Jewish cabal" but there is the collected wisdom of the rabbis as ccmpiled in the Mishnah and the Gemara. For a while, I contemplated using the phrase "Judaic views of..." instead of "Jewish views of..." in an attempt to signal that the article intended to discuss specifically what Judaism's views were as opposed to the views of arbitrarily selected individuals who happened to be Jews. However, the convention in use seems to be to have articles that begin with "Jewish views on..." so I decided to follow the convention.
Quit the "warnings" Chesdovi, that's a terrible way to "discuss" things and rather try starting discussions to achieve realWP:CONSENSUS to long-standing category names instead. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 17:40, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi Chesdovi: No point in being funny. You should know by now that if well-know Judaic editors are busy and not checking in with this project page, it is perfectly ok and in fact necessary to notify them on their talk pages and ask them to come over here. I would suggest you contact some key well-known Judaic editors such as Users Jayjg (talk·contribs), Jfdwolff (talk·contribs), Lisa (talk·contribs), Dfass (talk·contribs), Avraham (talk·contribs), Yehoishophot Oliver (talk·contribs) and invite them over, especially if you see, and obviously know by now, that your proposed changes are stirring controversy. That is the way WP:CONSENSUS is built and how WP:WAR is avoided. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 03:23, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
First you berate me for having the audacity to nominate without discussing here first. Then you tell me leaving a message here is not good enough and expect me to go round chasing people. Is that really how things work round here? Just to let you know, as far as I'm concerned my nominations are not controversial. If you feel slighted that your darling categories are being tampered with, you go get other people invovled to stick up for you. Chesdovi (talk) 03:35, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Even if you thought when creating them that they were not controversial, but by now you must have noticed that they are controversial. Debresser (talk) 06:19, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi all, I am reviewing the city of Białystok for GA status and it needs sourcing - this has been removed and I wondered if anyone thought it sourceable and notable? Old-country heritage and all that? If anyone does and can source it, great. If folks think not notable then no big deal. My knowledge of the subject matter is minimal. Casliber (talk·contribs) 00:26, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
