Category talk:Jews

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This category was nominated for deletion, renaming or merging with another category on 2007 February 2. The result of the discussion was keep.

Contents 1 Please come weigh in on a potential name change to categories like this 2 Majority votes to keep Category:Jews 2.1 Moved from Wikipedia:Categories for deletion 3 Rus-Am 4 Individuals in category?

[edit] Please come weigh in on a potential name change to categories like this

There is a proposal on Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion#Category:Christians to rename Category:Christians to Category:Christian people, and it has been suggested that such a change may implicate a parallel name change for this category as well. Please come on over and let us know what you think. Thanks. --Gary D 01:53, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)

The change to Category:Jewish people would be OK. IZAK 14:10, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Majority votes to keep Category:Jews

Moved from Wikipedia:Categories for deletion

See also Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/resolved#Category:Jews:

Majority to Keep: Voting began Dec 1, 2004. Closed Jan 10, 2005: 9 votes to Keep; 3 votes to Keep or rename; 2 votes to Rename; 2 votes to Delete. The proposal was to rename to Category:Jewish people which is now defeated. (See Wikipedia:Categories for deletion policies#Normal closure: "Wait at least 7 days after nomination. Make sure there is a clear consensus to keep.") There is thus a "clear consensus to keep" Category:Jews unchanged. IZAK 05:59, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Moved from Wikipedia:Categories for deletion

Note: The following is now placed here as per the instructions on Wikipedia:Categories for deletion policies#Normal closure: "Wait at least 7 days after nomination. Make sure there is a clear consensus to keep. Copy the discussion to the category's talk page. Link to precedent-setting conversations from /resolved.

Remove the {{cfd}} tag from the category page." Thank you. IZAK 06:16, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Category:Jews Rename to Category:Jewish people, to parallel our decision on moving "Christians" to "Christian people". This category also needs a clear charter, since people may be Jewish by religion, by ethnicity, by matriarchal decent, by culture, etc. (See Jew.) I assume this category mixes the various classes without distinction. -- Beland 08:35, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Keep: Hi Beland, I don't know if you have looked at all the TALK pages of the article on Jew so I don't know what you mean by "charter"? The category is all inclusive as you suppose. IZAK 11:59, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • I would guess that what is meant is that the category description should explicitly state this, if this is to be the guiding principle. -Aranel ("Sarah") 20:25, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Aranel, it is a complex subject that is discussed within the Jew article where the various points of view are discussed. Have you read it yet? IZAK 09:25, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I started this change, and I support following through with it. --Gary D 23:00, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)

"Jews" or "Jewish people" what's the difference in any case, since a Jew is usually a member of the "Jewish people", which is NOT the case in Islam or Christianity. IZAK 09:25, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Delete. It is not easy to determine the "Jewishness" of the majority of famous Jewish people, any attempts to do so here will be inevitably POV, and it is both arbitrary and racist to group together people merely on the basis of their perceived ethnicity. Also, importantly, such a category violates the general guidelines at Wikipedia:Categorization of people. -- Simonides 10:58, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Actually, the ethnicity of Jews is usually quite easy to determine; generally the information is readily found in their biographies. Jayjg

Hi Simonides: Firstly, this is NOT just about "perceived ethnicity" as the Jews are ALL of an established religion (Judaism), people or nation, culture AND non-exclusive ethnicity. Secondly, can you explain EXACTLY which "guidelines" are being "violated" as you just leave it up in the air and expect people to swallow your non-reasoning by a mere "reference" (and please explain how you would reconcile what you claim with having the Category:Christian people which IS accepted by Wikipedia???) Thirdly, the "Jewishness" of many people is known and accepted, so what is wrong with that? Fourthly, in the article on Jew ALL the various ways of defining Jews and Jewish people are stated, to include religious, ethnic, and cultural definitions with long-standing historical roots and references. Finally, is this just another way of "doing away" with Jews on Wikipedia (how convenient for those who don't like them, isn't it?) And please remember... this is NOT an attempt to "delete" Jews from Wikipedia permanently. Thank you. IZAK 11:05, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

A typical factually-incapacitated, rambling, nonsensical reply from a well-known Wikipedia POV pusher. Firstly, no one is "deleting" Jews - the Jewish origins of famous people are mentioned in their biographical sections, but unless there is some direct relevance to the person's achievements/ career/ personality, or unless the person him/herself wished for it, there is no need to emphasize their Jewishness with a redundant category; and this has nothing to do with people who "dislike" Jews, because the same principle applies equally well to other such categories, like the one above, "Muslims", where exactly the same objection has been made. More importantly, it is gross and factually unsupportable POV to state that all people with some Jewish ancestry or Jewish beliefs "are ALL of an established religion (Judaism), people or nation, culture AND non-exclusive ethnicity" - such a broad generalisation is self-evidently rubbish; and finally, I have already linked the page which states the violated guidelines, and if you bother to read it, it is possible you will find the guidelines, but in case even that proves too difficult, here are more straightforward links at the same page (you have to click on them to read their contents): 1 , 2, 3 . -- Simonides 11:29, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Simonides I have NEVER encountered you or "crossed swords" with you on Wikipedia. I looked at all the links, and I don't see any violations at all! (Calling people "Jewish" is not insulting like calling them "Prostitutes" as one link syas. And connecting people with their ETHNIC origins, especially in RUSSIA is done sionce they have hundreds of nationalities including a province that was set aside for Jews once.) You are only using those points to push YOUR own POV and make it sound like opposing it makes me into a "POV pusher" which I resent! So do me the courtesy of NOT insulting me or my intelligence! You cannot squeeze religions and ethnicities onto "business cards", but you can classify and categorize the OBVIOUS facts, and the Jewish origins and connections of many people can be done according to either ethnic or Judaism's standards. I know it's a contentious issue, but it cannot be avoided as everyone has an objection to all types of Jewish "categories" secular or religious. Have you seen Jew#Famous Jews and List of Jews and Category:Lists of Jews with all the types of people on them? Do you plan to get rid of all that too? What nonsense and denial of history that would be. Many Wikipedia Users/editors think it's all very viable, and now, late in the day, you come along with "objections" that have already been re-hashed a hundred times in the talk pages of the Jew article. Go read it (and ALL its Talk pages) please, won't you. IZAK 12:27, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Here is something [1] that "got lost" due to some faulty editing so I am re-posting it IZAK 13:42, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC):

"If you don't see any violations you might be 1) batty 2) not literate enough 3) simply very slow to understand things. As for POV, you state yourself that such categorisations can be made according to "ethnic or Judaism's standards", and refer further to an anti-Semitic decision by Russians to keep Jews in the same area, thus proving my point that your category is inherently POV; this is different from merely making a general list. No more information is needed. -- Simonides 12:41, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)" [2]

Again I ask that you NOT break the rules of Wikiquette by insulting me. To call someone (1) "batty", or (2) "not literate enough" or (3) "slow" definitely count as a Personal insult and attacks and grounds for a RfC and possible RfA, so please stop it now and talk facts. Please do not confuse the way Russian Anti-Semites "think" or "not think" with legitimate scholarly and Judaic ways of understanding and categorizing facts, people, and events logically and correctly. Thank you. P.S. And please try to be polite at all times on Wikipedia. IZAK 13:42, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It seems to me that the semantic difference between "Jew" and "Jewish" is that the former denotes an identity; the latter, an attribute. As far as I can tell, Jewish people tend to prefer referring to themselves as "Jewish" rather than as "Jews," whereas antisemites tend to prefer referring to us as "Jews" rather than "Jewish." In dealing with the outside world, a person may be a plumber, and his/her Jewishness is entirely incidental. In a synagogue, we are a congregation of Jews. By what criteria you are Jewish will depend on the person describing himself/herself as such - some apply religious criteria, other ethnic, other cultural, etc. I vote for changing the category to Jewish because I think the attribute is more relevant than the identity. Issues of Jewish identity deserve their own article(s), but that's another discussion. --Leifern 12:47, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

As far as I know, Jews prefer to be called Jews, whereas non-Jews tend to use "Jewish people", because they think the term "Jew" is somehow a bad word, which is in itself offensive. See my comment below. Jayjg

Hi Leifern, I have no real objection to the renaming of the Category:Jews to the proposed Category:Jewish people. What Simonides is saying is far more radical, he would like to have no such category or any sub-category for a more acceptably named "Jewish people" category because he feels it's "racist" in essence, which is a very shallow argument since the fact of a person's Jewish identity, be it ethnic or religious, is important when considering the role of the Jews in history and in world events. We are talking about objective facts and obviously not anything related to "racist" POV opinions. It can be a fine line to deal with, but it should not be avoided on an encyclopedia that wants to include everything important. Thanks again. IZAK 13:10, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Keep or rename. Also, can some of you who are knowledgable weigh in on Talk:Atheism#Jewish_Views_on_Atheism. Thanks. Sam Spade Arb Com election 13:22, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Rename. I find these categories useful. For example, note that Category:Christian people groups together Christian religious leaders, as well as articles about specific sub-groups. It's possible that some restructuring may be necessary, but I don't see anything wrong with having such categories. People who are known for being Jewish ought to be listed in some sort of category. I agree that people who were only sort of "incidentally" Jewish might be better categorized elsewhere, but that doesn't meant that the category itself is inappropriate. -Aranel ("Sarah") 15:17, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Keep Jews are Jews. I can identify Jews: Moses, David, Jesus, all the apostles....Albert Einstein, Milton Friedman, Robert Rubin, Marc Chagall, Leonard Bernstein. God only knows what Jewish people are....do they eat rye bread more often? Prefer mustard to mayonaisse(sp) on sandwiches? Prefer a "good discussion" to a "quiet evening"? Does that include the recent fad of new-age Kaballah that Madonna and others have adopted? Lance6Wins 21:02, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Keep. Note that most of the articles in this cateogry are not individual biographies, but entries that related to groups or lists of Jews. Juko 22:47, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Strong Keep, could be renamed to Category:Jewish people if needed. GeneralPatton 12:04, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep and rename. Filiocht 12:12, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. We have Category:Baptists and not Category:Baptist people (sounds strange doesn't it). Category:Jews is a perfectly cromulent category. Jewbacca 11:59, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC) (I suppose I should go change my nickname to Jewishpeoplebacca !)
• Keep. Jewish people is a circumlocution, Jew is fine. In fact, avoiding the word "Jew" can be seen as offensive. As the American Heritage Dictionary points out in its Usage Note: 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. Jayjg 17:13, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Encyclopedia content should not be judged on what is “offensive”; everything is offensive to someone, and it is a quick way to let activists impose POV language on the project. Words that may be slurs should be judged on their POV content, and I fail to see any POV either in “Jews” or “Jewish people”. Susvolans (pigs can fly) 09:10, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Encyclopedia content is often tailored to avoid using terms that people find offensive. For example, the user of the term "Islamist" rather than "Muslim", to describe more extreme or traditional Muslim views. And in any event "Jewish people" is an unnecessary circumlocution. Jayjg 18:11, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Keep and do not rename. Adding "people" is unneccessary since there is nothing ambiguous about the term "Jew" that would indicate anything other than a categorization of people. --MPerel 17:45, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Jxg 22:00, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep and don't change. Don't add anything. Jews are not similar to christians and moslims, but to Druze and Sikhs which are also ethnicities with internal religions. Hence Sikhs in Manchester live in the Haredi enclave and Druze in Israel serve in the IDF. gidonb 11:22, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Leave this important (for history anyway) and complex category alone. Did I miss the discussion about Category:African Americans? ←Humus sapiens←Talk 05:07, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep at current name. Andre (talk) 01:41, Dec 19, 2004 (UTC)

Vote is now closed. This is a record of the original discussions and votes. Please do not edit.

---

[edit] Rus-Am

"category:Russian Jews", but "category:Jewish Americans"... I find it amusing. This really says something. Mikkalai 07:05, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Either way is ok I guess. Though I do think there is some sort of "cultural differentiation" at work. Somehow "Jewish Russians" is never commonly used (is the term "Jewish Russian" used at all by anyone?) and thus "Russian Jews" seems acceptable by default. On the other hand, "American Jews" may sound ok to Russians or non-Americans by birth but to Americans it may even be "offensive" because the word "Jewish" does not have any negative connotations within the USA so therefore "Jewish Americans" is better than "American Jews" within an American context even though it may seem like foolishness to a non-American. No-one said this was easy sailing... IZAK 12:46, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Yes, it does say something. One can be both a Russian Jew and a Jewish American. The first denotes an ethnicity and the second denotes a nationality. — Reinyday, 09:02, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Individuals in category?

I've been removing the handful of individuals listed in this category amid entries like Bukharan Jews, because it seems they have been added haphazardly and are only a tiny fraction of those on List of Jews, which seems like the place for this sort of info. Is this OK with those who are following this page?--Pharos 22:33, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It is not OK, if you are not placing them in another jewish-related category. Quite often people simply don't know which exactly category from the whole hierarchy is applicable and use their best judgement, to be reclassified later by those who know better. Mikkalai 23:42, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It seems to me like the categories are not really being fully used, and that the real comprehensive work is being done on the lists.--Pharos 00:19, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Pharos. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:28, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The real comprehenive work with lists started well before the categories were introduced. Unlike other nations, Jews seem to care more about their people, therefore the Jewish lists are much more comprehensive than those of any other nation. But this fact in no way removes the necessity of categories. Ethnicity/nationality is a major "passport category" for a person. Therefore if you cannot replace Category:Jews with a more precise one, like category:Jewish American artists, you have no right to remove it from an article, since this is loss of information. Mikkalai 02:13, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• I too think Pharos is basically correct. By comparison it would be ridiculous to place simply Category:Christian people alone into every article about someone who happens to be a Christian by birth or by religious practice. IZAK 09:37, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • IZAK, I thought you would knew better. Being a Jew is not simply a religious practice, like Christian. It is also ethnicity. Which is, I repeat, a passport category of a person. There is category:Russian people. Some time ago I tried to introduce category:Jewish people, but some smartasses argued that there already is category:Jews. This strange situation reminds me an old russian joke:

The teacher asks the class to produce a word that starts with the letter "A"; Vovochka happily raises his hand and says "Asshole!". The teacher, shocked, responds "There is no such word!" "How can it be," wonders Vovochka, "An asshole exists, but the word does not?"

Oy-vey, Jewish people exist, but they are not allowed a category? gewalt. Also, you are not reading what I say. Of course, using such a broad category is not good. That's what are subcategories for (I gave an example). But simply de-categorizing is an inadmissible editing by wikipedia rule, since this is loss of information, which is not a piece of trivia. Mikkalai 20:09, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Mikkalai: Firstly it is very difficult for me to take you seriously if you use profanity in such a serious discussion, as it shows that you are perhaps "playing games" rather then genuinely working to make the Wikipedia "Categories" a serious and workable feature.

To illustrate a point by a parable is in the best traditions of many cultures, including Jewish. Not all palabres are "politically correct". You will be probably shocked to read some 2000 year old Arabian tales. As for seriousness of a person, when in doubt I always look in the history of edits of the person in question.Mikkalai 17:48, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Sorry, "asshole" is not an acceptable "parable" for the language of an encyclopedia. And I don't much care for "2000 year old 'Arabian tales'", whatever that may or may not be. IZAK 07:18, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Back to the discussion: The problem with merely labelling someone "Jew" is that it is BOTH far TOO VAGUE (and hence both meaningless and useless) and it is also an unacceptable usage of the word "Jew" which is laden with very deep emotional meanings and conflicts for Jews themselves as well as for both Judaeophiles (i.e. "Jew-lovers") and for Anti-Semites. It is like throwing an unwelcome proverbial "hand grenade" ("stink-bomb"?) into an article! Category:Russian Jews is not perfect yet can be said to be validly tied in with both the Category:Ethnic groups of Russia and with Category:Jewish Russian and Soviet history which plain "Jew" could never achieve. One must proceed with great caution because of the sensitivity of this subject and not bandy it about and place "Jew"-labels in tens of thousands of articles that are about someone who may or may not be Jewish. There are also many divergent views of what or who a "Jew" is or is not, see Who is a Jew?, and in any case Category:Jews has as its sub-category: Category:Lists of Jews which contains multiple articles with lists of important Jews by region or country or subject, and Jew's names can go there as the "pro-list" people are saying above. So there is no need to create confusion and stirring up unfounded and suspicious debate. IZAK 07:48, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I understand your position. I am perfectly aware of situations, e.g., in Russia, when the person was labelled as "Jew" with the sole purpose to discredit his in the eyes of "patriots". I still don't see the problem with categorizing, when the article about a person says, e.g., that he/she is from Jewish family.

As for sensitivity, a devoted anti-Semite may as well be fueled exactly by non-usage of the category: "See? They are hiding their identities so that you coud not see their plot!"

Your language "labelling someone 'Jew'" is improper. If a person is a Jew, we are not "labeling" him. We are "categorizing" him. Are you inclined to think that this is like a yellow Star of David? I could understand this concern in articles about living persons, say, for security reasons.

Anyway, my sole point is consistent preservation of information. If you feel strongly about what we are discussing here, the proper solution is to have a proper charter of this category that specifies all whats and what nots.

Also, I am repeating, for the third time, if you feel that a category is too broad, the proper solution is to move an article into a narrower category, rather than decategorize.

I stated my points, but I will not further my opinion, with the exception of the charter issue, which I hope you'll find indisputable. Mikkalai 17:48, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Mikkalai: Thanks for your opinion/s. There is no "charter" for categories, as categories are constantly added then changed, removed, edited, deleted, and much more. It's a "work-of art-in-progress". But from the comments of some of the editors of "Jewish" articles, there is a consensus that individuals and their names should not be placed in the main Category:Jews and instead, all effort/s should be made to put famous Jewish individuals into the "Lists of Jews" first, and you will find plenty of them in Category:Lists of Jews which is itself a sub-category of Category:Jews, or into more specific categories such as Category:Russian Jews or Category:Jewish Americans which fit into the actual ethnic and religious minorities in those countries, or into broader, not narrower, categoroies that can validly include Jews of that country, such as Category:Jewish Polish history or Category:Jewish society. We don't need a "charter", and above all we need lots of good faith and common sense coupled with sensitivity to the subject. IZAK 07:18, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This consensus must be explicitely writen into the category:Jews , so that occasional people know about it. (The text into the category page that briefly states its purpose is called "charter" here; just in case if you thought something else when you wrote "we don't need charter".) And the charter itself may be "changed, edited, and much more".

And your repeated comments make me think that you still seem keep forgetting my main point, from what all this fuss started. Let me spell it for you on another example. Suppose I stumble upon an aricle "pneumoclacordialitis". I guess that it is a disease. But I am not a doctor. I have no idea what the heck it is: disorder, infectious isease, whatever. So I place it into category:diseases, hoping that an expert comes and places it into a better place. I not at all expect someone to come and revert my change.

Likewise here. If you see a miscategorized person, you put it in a proper place. If there is a consensus about other way dealing with the situation, it must be written in a noticeable place, so that you would not have to repeat this discussion with each new person individually. (But if you prefer individual explanations, fine with me. At this point I am satisfied with your explanations and agree with your position.) But, for the last time, it is not at all OK to simply revert me saying (or thinking) "you are wrong; I know better", even if you don't like my jokes. At the very top of this section user:Pharos wrote: "which seems like the place for this sort of info" (my boldfacing). Well; it turns out he guessed correctly and I did not. Do you prefer to leave it to be based on guessing by each and every newcomer? Mikkalai 16:38, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

IZAK, after some recent experience I now 100% see your point, and agree with it, even though basically I am right. Mikkalai 02:11, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Thank you... but as I said this is all "a work of art in progress" so there will invarioubly new things that come up for us to think about. IZAK 12:34, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)