Jump to content

Talk:Jewish nose/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Article Cites Racist Sources Without Context or Question

Hi there-

I don't really edit Wikipedia, but I felt I had to comment. This article is borderline racist as it stands giving readers a false sense that that Jewish people do have differently shaped noses than other people even though there is no evidence presented that this is true.

Aside from a 2001 article on rhinoplasty, the article cites three men each born in the 1850s and dying in the 1920s or so. One of the them, per Wikipedia, is "described in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography as a 'racialist writer'." Joseph Jacobs, who wrote an entry on Noses for the 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia, uses the idea of "nostrils" with support of a line drawing (a line drawing!) when he can find no empirical difference between noses! Also from Wikipedia, Felix von Luschan developed a skin color chart to classify races and in 1908 joined the German Society for Racial Hygiene. These are the men this article relies on for evidence!

Instead of discussing why these men might hold these views, they are taken as authorities to be trusted as equals to the said 2001 JAMA article. I did some searching of other stereotypical features. Asian Eyes is well-cited and up-to-date, but other stereotypes (Asian Intelligence, African American Physical Strength, Jewish Love of Money) have no pages.

For this reason, it is clear this article should be deleted or someone should provide up-to-date scientific articles on the factuality of the claim.

SciutoAlex (talk) 18:45, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

There is definitely such a term as "Jewish nose". That is already reason to have this article. I see nothing anti-Semitic about it, and I am Jewish. :) We have an article "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion". Being anti-Semitic is not a reason not to have an article. There are sources. In short, no chance this article will be deleted. Debresser (talk) 19:06, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
"There are sources." "Apparently not nominated correctly" Well I tried to help. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedians#/media/File:Active_editors_on_English_Wikipedia_over_time.png — Preceding unsigned comment added by SciutoAlex (talk • contribs) 20:11, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
I see a stable graph. Insinuating that you won't contribute because you met some disagreeing opinion, is very childish, and fails to arouse any remorse whatsoever. Debresser (talk) 20:54, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, SciutoAlex, that you find this article offensive. I thought it was enchanting, with huge potential. I have added a bit, and suggest that you do, too. My interest in Jewish noses was first awakened by a book I once had, "The secrets of the Face" (חכמת הפרצוף), a reproduction of a 19th century Kabbalistic analysis of facial characteristics, with a lot of attention paid to the "Jewish nose". Alas, I lent the book to someone years ago, so I can't cite it here. But, you see, the Jewish nose is not only a sign of disdain for antisemites, but also an element of self-identification for speakers of the Mamaloschen. Ravpapa (talk) 07:46, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

  • A sheynem dank for taking upon the job of expanding this subject. To my regret my brain no longer allows me write well-researched articles for wikipedia. I was planning no start this article for nearly three eyars. It is surprizing that until I finally started it nobody in wikipedia thought of this subject. - üser:Altenmann >t 18:50, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Jewish nose article for deletion (Copied from WT:JUDAISM)

Beginning of discussion as copied

I found the Jewish nose article, and I nominated it for deletion. Please see my note there. In short: No other stereotypical features get their own page that I can find, and the references on the page are racialist turn-of-the-century writers. The article serves no purpose but does give casual visitors the sense that Jewish Noses are different and that there is scientific evidence to back this up. It should be removed as soon as possible.

SciutoAlex (talk) 18:58, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Apparently not nominated correctly, because there is no Afd template on the article. Debresser (talk) 19:02, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
I don't know what you mean when you write "No other stereotypical features get their own page". Virtually every stereotype mentioned at Stereotypes of African Americans has an article of its own. In any event, that's not a valid reason to delete an article. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 22:14, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
I also opposed deletion, on the talkpage.[1] Debresser (talk) 23:48, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
The article is antisemitic and should be deleted. The very notion of Jewish nose is antisemitic. Bus stop (talk) 19:47, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
@Bus stop Where is the reason for deletion in that? (Even if I were to agree, which I don't.)Debresser (talk) 22:00, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
Debresser, educated people communicate by means of words. A nose is a symbol. When a person wants to symbolize "Jew", do they hold up a picture of a nose? Not usually. We are advanced beings. Unless we have mental issues we communicate by means of words. We are not gorillas. How can an encyclopedia host an article on "Jewish nose"? You mean, because antisemitism wants to replace the far more intellectual idea of a Jew with the mute picture of a nose, that we should enshrine this in an encyclopedia article? That page is offensive. Why should Wikipedia host it? Bus stop (talk) 22:22, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
Leave it. StevenJ81 (talk) 22:30, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
Could you be a little more brief? (sarcasm) Bus stop (talk) 22:42, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
OK. Seriously, many other stereotypes are enshrined here, because they're part of the world where we live, like it or not. As long as the article says it's a stereotype—and not necessary an accurate one—and that it is offensive to the target population, there's no reason the article can't be here. StevenJ81 (talk) 22:50, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
I have a Jewish nose, and never in my life felt any reason to be other than proud of this visible proof of my ancestry. Who says it is offensive? Debresser (talk) 23:14, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
Even Wiktionary has the sense to write "derogotary". (Unfortunately it misspells "derogatory".) The Wiktionary entry contains more than enough "information" on this subject. There is nothing in the Jewish nose article that expands on the Wiktionary entry for that topic. Bus stop (talk) 23:24, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

I corrected the spelling of "derogatory" on Wiktionary. Bus stop, if you think Jewish nose qualifies for deletion under any of the existing reasons for deletion, please nominate it for deletion. If an article's content satisfies the relevant notability criterion, it is not typically subject to deletion because it is racist or antisemitic. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:14, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

As the principle author of the article Jewish nose, I am delighted to see how much controversy it has engendered. And I am also pleased to find myself accused of writing something antisemitic. Many names I have been called in my long life, but this is a first for me.
I would urge the detractors of the article to devote a bit more concentration to reading it. I understand that the very term is a red flag for some of you. But, in fact, the article focuses largely on the ambivalence of Jews toward this aspect of the physiognomy (which, in fact, is not characteristic of Jews after all), and the changes in attitude toward it over the last fifty years.
The original version of the article, written by Altenmann, was somewhat superficial, and relied primarily on sources of questionable objectivity - Houston Stewart Chamberlain, for example, was one of the original developers of antisemitic ideas of the German Nazi party. But, not to belittle the groundbreaking work of Altenmann on the article, the article has moved a long way from that original skeleton, and it is hard for me to view it as anything like antisemitic.
That said, I am but one voice here, and if others want to nominate the article for deletion, I say, go for it! Ravpapa (talk) 12:29, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
Ravpapa bears a lot of blame for my returning to edit wiki, so I'll barge in here. There's a lot of stuff missing, but some source (I have storms in my area and can't search at the moment, since I must go off line) surely must mention the probable connection between penis envy and this stereotype? I know from personal reading that the cultural context in which this stereotype developed (the medieval period) widely identified large noses also with the sexually well-endowed (there's an analogy with the American white stereotypical assertion equating blacks with virility). It's a very curious case of a put-down that could not but betray a certain enviousness by goyim with an inferiority complex. Perhaps the magnificently erudite scholar of the 'Jewish body' Sandar Gilman, touched on this in his essay on the topic, read long ago. Must switch off.Nishidani (talk) 17:33, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
There is no shortage of material that can be put in the article. It is the existence of the article that is offensive. Wiktionary treats it with appropriate depth: "(informal, derogatory) A long, narrow and pointy nose". Bus stop (talk) 20:16, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
I have a book that sold well, The Ears of Japan on Japanese ears (Ogura Rō, Nihon no mimi, Iwanami Shoten 1977), that never upset anyone. I have a whole monograph on Nietzsche's moustache, which generated huge commentary. This topic is actually studied extensively as part of the huge bundle of stereotypes afflicting Jews, and scholars who study it display an equanimity and even a comic touch, you almost never get, sadly, in this area. I suggest you read Sander L. Gilman, The Jew's Body, Psychology Press, 1991 pp.169-193 ('The Jewish Nose: Are Jews White? Or, The History of the Nose Job,' pp.169-193). If there were such a thing as a Jewish nose, then a notable percentage of my goyim acquaintances or relatives would be, unknown to them, Jews. It's a silly notion, but has a long history, which, unlike such noses, should be set straight. Nishidani (talk) 21:00, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
Whether or not it is derogatory, it certainly appears to have sufficient references. Similar articles do exist such as Watermelon stereotype, see Category:Ethnic and racial stereotypes and the subcategories.Naraht (talk) 20:41, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
As I've said twice before, Wiktionary treats this with appropriate depth: "(informal, derogatory) A long, narrow and pointy nose". Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. The present article could be emptied out and refilled with replacement "information" on the Jewish nose. An article like Self-hating Jew is almost the same thing. All that these articles can be are essays. They are not encyclopedia entries. They show the creativity of Wikipedia editors, being put to a negative use. Any material, beyond that which we see in for instance the Wiktionary definition, is only serving as an excuse for the "article's" existence. These are formless essays at the whim of undisciplined "editors". As such they are unbefitting of an encyclopedia. Bus stop (talk) 22:19, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
Why don't we have an article on Jewish horns? Here is a source for the article: "Ben Bernanke dealt with prejudice as a Jew crowing [sic] up in South Carolina — including being asked if he had horns — according to his new memoir. Several times, the former chairman of the Federal Reserve writes, elementary school classmates asked 'quite innocently, I believe' whether he had horns."[2] We can also mention that Michelangelo depicts Moses with horns on his head. I'll see if I can find any more sources. (sarcasm) Bus stop (talk) 22:35, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

I believe, Bus stop, that Michelangelo actually intended the protrusions from Moses's head in the sculpture to be beams of light. Though I know there is some dispute in the matter. Ravpapa (talk) 02:32, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

I would also note that the Wiktionary entry for Jewish nose is unsourced and incorrect - the Jewish nose, by any description I have read, is not long and narrow, but fleshy and usually with a slight hump in the middle. So I would not rely on that for a proper description of the phenomenon. Just some friendly advice. Ravpapa (talk) 02:35, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Articles should not be written about silly nonsense, or more correctly, silly nonsense should not serve as titles for articles. In an article on Stereotypes of Jews, the notion of a "Jewish nose" can be addressed. One thing that an article title does is it provides context. In the context of "Stereotypes of Jews", we can discuss Jewish noses, horns, cloven hooves, and tails. I have nothing against encyclopedic content. I am opposed to the misconstruing of the purpose of an encyclopedia. An encyclopedia is not a place for the willy-nilly compilation of material related to just any verbal cue. That is what "Jewish nose" is. It is merely a verbal cue. It signals editors to add material relating to "Jewish nose". But the addition of such material is done without rhyme or reason. Each editor has their own conception of what belongs and what does not belong. There is plenty of material. But there is no structure because there is no context. Bus stop (talk) 02:57, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
I agree with Bus stop that this should be merged into Stereotypes of Jews. The majority of sources are outdated and/or unreliable and if we went through it and got rid of all of the poorly sourced, dubious content, there wouldn't be enough for its own article. —PermStrump(talk) 05:32, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
Point at which discussion was moved
While I appreciate the concerns that lead some to suggest merging this into Stereotypes of Jews, I think there's too much useful material for it to fit well inside that article, including the Sander Gilman chapter on "The Jewish Nose" that Nishidani mentions above. --Arxiloxos (talk) 14:41, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
I agree with that assessment. This is good enough for a standalone article. Debresser (talk) 18:30, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not paper. In fact, Some stereotypes in article "Stereotipes of Jews" must be split out. I find it weird that "Yidische momme", in fact, a Yiddish cultural heritage, by someone's whim, does not deserve a separate article and lumped into "stereotypes". - üser:Altenmann >t 05:12, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Sex and literature

First of all, Nishidani has suggested adding material on the connection between big noses and big shlongs. In fact, despite the Freudian contention that the two organs are associated in the subconscious, I found nothing to support the idea that stereotypes of Jews included claims of impressive endowment in the genital area. On the contrary, antisemitic stereotypes generally view Jews as sexually perverted, quite the opposite of stereotypes of African Americans, for example. So I don't think there is much reason to mention this in the article. Gilman's essay on the Jewish Nose, incidentally, deals mostly not with nose but with skin color, although there is a good deal of material on nose jobs (already amply covered in the article).

What I do think is missing is material on the Jewish nose in American Jewish literature. I believe that all the leading American Jewish authors - Heller, Roth, Malamud, Bellow, and others - have referred to this. It would be nice to have a section on this, but I am too lazy to research it and write it myself. Volunteers? Ravpapa (talk) 13:22, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Well, to be precise, I just wondered how it was possible for the medieval mind to (a) develop the stereotype of the Jew with a big nose without (b) realizing the implications since in France and Italy in particular, medieval culture associated big noses with huge cocks (Rabelais at Gargantua and Pantagruel Bk. I, ch. xl in writing 'Mais guay, guay, ad formam nasi cognoscite ad te leavi,' gives a blasphemous twist to the old Latin dictum that one can tell the size of a man's rod (spear) by the shape of his nose (formam nasi cognoscitur quanta sit hasta viro ).
The mind just doesn't work that way, with concepts beliefs etc neatly quarantined one from the other. Perhaps no scholarly RS has made the connection - I haven't looked -but that big noses automatically translates the idea of a big cock in the Mediterranean is unavoidable. In Roman dialect peperone (a big nose) means a big cock, for example. There's an old Roman dialect poem on it. It's rough, and I hope no one's offended but it's addressed to a chap's girlfriend but here's a quick translation that demonstrates the point.
On the ground,standing, up against a wall or in bed,
When I’ve get a chance to use my tool and dip my wick,
I’ve always blown my load and left hundreds half-dead,
I’ve left my mark, tho’ far be it from me to boast of my prick.
But when I found myself with my nose to the grindstone
Slap-bang up in that hay barn of yours, minus the roof,
By Christ, I felt like I’d become a kid again, with a bone
For a widdler no bigger than a pinenut, to tell the truth.
And still, when it comes to dicks, I’ve always claimed I was
Hung well enough to worry the monks, or scare any palooka.
It’s enough to take a squizz at my face and judge from my schnozz (peperone).
But with you, to take your measure, and find the right grist
For your mill, you’d need to have something bigger than a bazooka,
Nothing less than the Needle in People’s Square, the obelisk!
My intuition that traditionally in this cultural milieu you couldn't say Jews had big noses without an at least unconscious awareness that big noses implied large marriage tackle (hence a manic sexual jealousy fuelling the resentment so characteristic of anti-Semites), can't be used of course (WP:OR), but I threw it out as a clue as to what to search for.Nishidani (talk) 15:00, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
No question that you are right in this matter, in general. There is also a quote from Ovid, that, of course, I have forgotten. So why, when it comes to Jews, the association dissolves? good question. As far as the Jewish self-perception goes, it perhaps exists. Consider Portnoy's Complaint - he just couldn't get enough of it. Ravpapa (talk) 15:36, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
Thinking about this, one would probably have to approach it in terms of the anthropology of taboo, which deals with the self-censorship that comes when there is a dangerous cognitive overlap in sensitive ritual or body terminology. It's interesting, if slightly off-topic, that the Yiddish response to the Dreyfus affair was to hear in his name the meaning of 'third foot', a concept which means penis, so the social (un)conscious of the persecuted certainly took this kind of bestial victimization by anti-Semites as an index of an assault on the Jewish penis (Well, I did promise myself not to intrude my interest in psychoanalysis into topics while beginning to edit wiki, but nonetheless, no harm in mentioning it in these contexts). Nishidani (talk) 15:55, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Sources

First let me say that so far as I'm concerned, having an article on this topic is appropriate - we just need to make sure that the content follows our guidelines and policies. So far as plastic surgery goes, I found this: A NOSE DIVE FOR NOSE JOBS which was published in Tablet (magazine).

There's also The Myth of the Jewish Race [3] although I can only see p.208 - different pages might be available in different countries. Doug Weller talk 14:36, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

  • One could write a whole section on that extraordinary bizarre correspondence between Freud and Fliess on the issue of the nose (which has an extensive psychoanalytic literature itself), interpreted within the stereotypical background of the so-called Judennase. Gilman writes somewhere of this. But you can get a summary of it in Jay Geller, On Freud's Jewish Body: Mitigating Circumcisions, Fordham Univ Press, 2007 pp.102ff.


z*Jay Geller, On Freud's Jewish Body: Mitigating Circumcisions, Fordham University Press, 2007 p.70


Nishidani, thanks! Very interesting. I wonder if it makes sense to add an "In the media" or "In popular culture" section (or whatever that section is usually called in other articles)? —PermStrump(talk) 21:10, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
In the media? Oh, no! Let me remind you about the guideline: the subject must play a significant role in the plot, not just an Isaac complains or jokes or prides about his schnozz or a racist dwells on judeo-probostics. - üser:Altenmann >t 03:00, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
Oh, I didn't know there was a guideline for that. Good thing to know now since I haven't added that section to an article before. —PermStrump(talk) 04:56, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
See WP:TRIVIA. - üser:Altenmann >t 05:04, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Title

Retitle the article Stereotype concerning Jewish nose. Also create a paragraph in Stereotypes of Jews at the same hierarchical level as the paragraph Jewish lawyer and the paragraph Jewish-American princess. That paragraph can have the heading "Jewish nose". We should expend effort even if it means using a cumbersome title to make it immediately clear that it is a stereotype that we are talking about. A redirect can be created from the present title. Bus stop (talk) 03:26, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Strong oppose. Current title is correct and clear. And the text is not only about stereotypes. - üser:Altenmann >t 03:51, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
The text need not be "only about stereotypes". We are choosing a best title, not a perfect title. Bus stop (talk) 04:15, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
If it to say stereotypes it must be stereotypes. If about Jewish nose, then the title is perfect. The suggestion is plain ridiculous. Barbara Streisand is proud of her Jewish nose, not of a "Jewish nose stereotype" - üser:Altenmann >t 05:03, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
There's no such thing as a "Jewish nose" other than as a stereotype, so all of the current material would still be relevant. —PermStrump(talk) 05:14, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
there is no such thing as aquiline nose either, just a stereotype. - üser:Altenmann >t 05:16, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
I'd be open to arguments for changing that one too. I never heard of that word until the other day from this article. —PermStrump(talk) 05:19, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
That's a huge problem with wikipedians who are full of cravings to mess with what they never heard before. - üser:Altenmann >t 05:23, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
Altenmann—I doubt that Permstrump never heard the term "Jewish nose" before. Bus stop (talk) 09:00, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
I was talking about their intentions towards eagles.- üser:Altenmann >t
  • Strong support. I was totally just thinking this same exact thing while I was driving just now, but with the title "Jewish nose stereotypes", and I came on here to make this post before I forgot about it and to my surprise, it was already here! The word "concerning" seems a little awkward though. Maybe "Stereotypes of Jewish noses" or "Jewish nose stereotypes"? —PermStrump(talk) 04:53, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Comment Yes, the thought that all Jews have Jewish noses is a stereotype. That a Jewish nose is a deformity is a stereotype. But the nose with specific features called "Jewish nose" is a nose, not a stereotype. Many things are called in some accidental way. Fedora hat is not worn only by Fedora, neither Fedora wore only Fedora hats. But Fedora hat it is. - üser:Altenmann >t 05:56, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi Debresser—why do you think the title Jewish nose would be preferable to for instance Stereotype concerning the Jewish nose? Can you please tell me what would be your thinking on this? Bus stop (talk) 19:31, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
@Bus stop I know you have a tendency of pestering editors with divergent opinions to yours, and you just can't back down. However, I am not in the mood to play nice, so I take the liberty to point that out to you, and to refer you what I said before: "per Altenmann". You are kindly requested to accept the fact that I disagree with you, and that my reason does not have to be to your liking. Debresser (talk) 20:04, 12 June 2016 (UTC)


"So called"

Please explain the purpose of "so called" in "Jewish nose, so called, is a....>. Yes, the nose with described parameters is so called. Just as Roman nose is "so called" (despite the fact that not all Romans had one). Fedora hat is "so called", and even wikipedia is so very so called so. - üser:Altenmann >t 05:52, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

In "The Myth of the Jewish Race" by Di Raphael Patai and Jennifer Patai, we find "Much has been made of the so-called Jewish nose as a distinguishing racial feature."[4] Bus stop (talk) 18:43, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
While I still disagree, your recent change of the wording does not look so weird. - üser:Altenmann >t 18:51, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
Well it looks mighty weird to me. I think, Bus stop, that you are trying to make a valid point, but adding the words "so called" doesn't make it. Maybe you can explain what you are trying to say, and we can find a better way of saying it. Ravpapa (talk) 18:56, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
Drive by comment: I think opening with "A so-called Jewish nose..." is appropriate. Otherwise, it sounds like Wikipedia's voice is used for what appears to be a derogatory term, no? K.e.coffman (talk) 20:11, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
Bus stop is correct. To identify as a 'Jewish' nose a type of nose that is no more common among Jews than it is among many other populations, a usage that reflects European racism, is unacceptable, and it is astonishing we do not use what dozens of scholarly works use to introduce it. I could add 30 more if needed. Nishidani (talk) 20:14, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
Relevant examples, potentially related: "Polish death camp" controversy or Jewish Bolshevism. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:11, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
@K.e.coffman: It is no more derogatory than, say, "Jewish state" or "Jewish mother". It is racists which made it sound derogatory. An extreme case, the words "Zionist" and even "Jew" itself were made derogatory by aggressive anti-Semitism. - üser:Altenmann >t 20:25, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
Do I understand correctly that you are describing it as a "racist term"? If yes, I agree and then it should be couched appropriately, as the article on Jewish Bolshevism does. Does that make sense? K.e.coffman (talk) 20:29, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, that's not what I mean. I meant when a racist say a word "zionist", he means an insult, while in fact it is not. Same IMO with Jewish nose. At the same time I do see why the term may be sees as racist. Turks are famous of big noses (even Guinness says so :-)) . Arabs are stereotypical of hooked noses (also [5]). Persians too (amazingly similar story of nose jobs). But there are no terms "Turkish nose" and "Arab nose". At the same time the phrases "big Turkish nose" of "hooked Persian nose" are not called racist (unless it is used as an offensive stereotype). So, to imply that it is an exclusively racist term, we have to have sources which say so. - üser:Altenmann >t 20:53, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
Ultimately it is not any antisemitic or derogatory or racist implications that matter but misinformation that matters. We should be explaining that the term has no basis in reality though it has currency in common speech. President Obama is not likely to refer to someone as having a Jewish nose in a speech before the White House Correspondents' Association. But in various other usages the term "Jewish nose" might come up. Most of these usages are an embarrassment to those who try to speak the English language properly. They try not to be vectors of misinformation. Bus stop (talk) 21:07, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
I've just updated the intro to this end. President Obama may be not, but Hillary Clinton is stupid enough to take part in racist jokes in public. - üser:Altenmann >t 21:19, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Altenmann, by "I've just updated the intro to this end" were you referring to this edit where, apropos of nothing, you added an awkwardly worded sentence that didn't address the current conversation and was redundant to, but less accurate than, this sentence that was already in the lead: "In fact, this nose shape is not characteristic of Jews—only about a quarter of Jews have this nose shape, which is the same as its presence in the general population."?

Not to mention, no one uses "Semitic" that way. Where are you from? —PermStrump(talk) 22:33, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

I would like to re-add "so-called" to the opening sentence, to read: A so-called Jewish nose[1][2] is a large nose... (btw, is the a need to link "nose"? I assume people know what a nose is. :-) )

References

Source: The "Jewish Nose" and Plastic Surgery: Origins and Implications already used in the article; one assumes that "so-called" and using quotation marks are equivalent.
Would there be any objections? Separately, are the two inline citations needed? K.e.coffman (talk) 23:16, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support addition of "so-called" given that's how it appears in several reliable sources and the same sentiment is expressed in many others either with scare quotes or by referring to it as a stereotype, etc. —PermStrump(talk) 23:23, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Revisions to lead

I revised to the following:

  • Jewish nose is a term that describes a particular kind of a hooked nose, more specifically defined as one with a convex nasal bridge together with downward turn of the tip of the nose. Though found with the same frequency among non-Jewish Mediterranean and Near Eastern peoples,[1] it was singled out as a hostile caricature of Jews alone in mid-13th century in Europe, and has since become a defining element of racial stereotypes of the Jews.[2][3] The representation of the Jewish nose has appeared often in antisemitic caricatures throughout the years, but has also been adopted by many Jews as a part of their ethnic identity. At the same time, already early 20th century statistics demonstrated that the majority of Jews had straight nose.

References

  1. ^ Patai, Raphael (1989), The Myth of the Jewish Race, Wayne University Press, p. 208
  2. ^ Preminger, Beth (2001), "The "Jewish Nose" and Plastic Surgery: Origins and Implications", Journal of the American Medical Association, 286 (17): 2161, doi:10.1001/jama.286.17.2161-JMS1107-5-1
  3. ^ Jacobs, Joseph; Fishberg, Maurice (1906), "Nose", Jewish Encyclopedia

I rephrased the opening sentence from simply "...is a nose..." to "a term that describes..."—similar to the treatment in the Black supremacy article, with which I've been involved in the past. Now that I look at the sentence, if we indeed were to use the "term" as an approach then perhaps we don't even need "so-called"? Then the article becomes about the term rather than trying to define what a "Jewish nose" is, its morphology and genealogy, etc. Again, very similar to "Black supremacy".

Please let me know what you guys think. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:20, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

I feel like something is still missing to make it clear that it's not a real thing. The black supremacy article says, "Black supremacy is a term that describes the belief that black people are superior..." Maybe this one can weave in the word stereotype somewhere? I'm trying to think of ways to word it that don't sound awkward and will reply again when I think of anything unless someone else comes up with something good first. —PermStrump(talk) 00:58, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
You removed "human nose" and introduced "term". Two bad moves IMHO. Reverted. Debresser (talk) 15:13, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
We are basically talking about a "term". We are basically not talking about a reality. You've degraded the article in this edit. Your error is understandable, because you have said "I have a Jewish nose, and never in my life felt any reason to be other than proud of this visible proof of my ancestry. Who says it is offensive?"[6] We don't write articles based on anecdotes about the way individual editors feel. You may be under the misunderstanding that there is a typically "Jewish nose" but we don't have to foist that misunderstanding on the reader. Bus stop (talk) 15:37, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Debresser. This is not a personal issue. The fact you have a 'Jewish nose' entitles you to feel 'proud of your ancestry', sure, but racists like Houston Stewart Chamberlain maintained the 'ancestry' of the Jewish nose lay in the 'Hittites', while such a nose can equally attest to any number of possible ancestries from Armenian to Lezgins. Nishidani (talk) 15:52, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
I reject the claims that my edits are personal in any way. Editors here should know better. I can live with "term", but think that "human nose" should stay. Debresser (talk) 16:01, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Reread what you wrote. It gave a new meaning to our default term POV, i.e. Personal Olfactory Vector.:) Nishidani (talk) 16:03, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

I restored the prior consensus version as more that the word "term" was changed in the most recent three edits. K.e.coffman (talk) 16:07, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

You "reject the claims that [your] edits are personal in any way" but you quite obviously accept the falsehood hook, line and sinker that there is a "Jewish nose". (You say "I have a Jewish nose, and never in my life felt any reason to be other than proud of this visible proof of my ancestry."[7]) This article is about nonsense. It documents a poor usage of language. This article should expend effort to distinguish between perpetuating nonsense and merely documenting it. It has past usages, yes. But intelligent people in respectable circles would not touch this term with a ten foot pole. Do you see the distinction? It doesn't matter what your nose looks like. This is an article on a dumb misuse of language. Such usage of such terminology can be turned to a variety of purposes. It is obviously used antisemitically. But it is also accepted by some Jews. Its acceptance by some Jews does not change the fact that its use has largely been carried along by at least mildly antisemitic usages. A nose can be described. It can be broad. It can be bent. It can have pronounced nostrils. It can be noted that a person having such a nose is Jewish. But once you have reduced this to the shorthand of "Jewish nose" you have clearly entered an area which has been a playground for antisemites. You as an individual may get out of that area unscathed by any negative connotations associated with that language but unfortunately you've furthered the currency of that term. Educated people are embarrassed by the presence of a term such as "Jewish nose" in the English language. Show me a current high profile use of that term. Would the White House Press Secretary use such terminology? Would an art historian speaking in the 21st century blithely refer to a "Jewish nose" on a painting or sculpture? This term is a total embarrassment and our article should, every step of the way, be making that clear. Bus stop (talk) 18:09, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
On a related note, I think the article should probably also highlight the variation "Jew's nose", as probably a more antisemitic variant of the term. I actually looked for a "Jew nose"; compare to real life example from Wiki editing "not a 'Nazi' term. It's a jew term" (for real). But sources seem to point to a "Jew's nose" as an alternate usage. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:26, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
K.e.coffman, I think it's a good idea to add the variation. Not that you asked, but personally, I'm indifferent if we put it as an alternative title (i.e., "A Jewish nose (sometimes called a Jew's nose) is...") vs just mentioning it in the text with an explanation, but not in bold.
Re: The opening sentence. This was the original wording when Altenmann created the article in 2015: The Jewish nose or Semitic nose is an element of the racial stereotype of the Jews.[8][9] Typical descriptions: "has a very slight hump, somewhat broad near the tip and the tip bends down" (Jerome Webster, 1914),[1] or "a large, massive, club-shaped, hooked nose" (Robert Knox, 1850).[10] A few weeks ago when Ravpapa made a lot of good improvements to the article on May 29. I can see the thought process behind this edit that changed the first sentence to say, "A Jewish nose is large nose, typically convex or with a slight hump in the middle. This nose shape became associated with Jews in the mid 13th century in Europe, and became a defining element of racial stereotype of the Jews", but I don't agree with the whole change. Getting rid of "Semitic nose" was good because that's really outdated (sourced to the Jewish Encyclopedia from 1906) and the description in more in WP's tone, but I liked the way the first version said right up front that this article is about a stereotype, because that's the main thing this article is about. It's only secondarily about specific descriptions of a stereotypical "Jewish nose" that doesn't even exist in the first place and varies from decade to decade, so I think it makes sense to merge the wording in the original version and Ravpapa's version. But an even better option, IMO, is Bus stop's suggestion from a few days ago, which was to move the article and incorporate the word "stereotype" in the title, i.e., Bus stop's suggestion: Stereotypes concerning the Jewish nose or my suggestions: Jewish nose stereotypes or Stereotypes of the Jewish nose (or Stereotypes of Jewish noses). —PermStrump(talk) 20:02, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
I would not be opposed to moving the article, such as "Jewish nose" stereotype, or whatever other suggestions may be workable. Otherwise, the article name does sound a bit like it's about a "Jew nose" in Wikipedia voice. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:08, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Problematic content?

Would it help if the article were submitted to the Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard for wider community participation? At a very brief glance, it contains problematic statements such as:

  • There is no real agreement about what shape the Jewish nose is. Robert Knox, an 18th century anatomist, described it as "a large, massive, club-shaped, hooked nose."[1] Another anatomist, Jerome Webster, described it in 1914 as having "a very slight hump, somewhat broad near the tip and the tip bends down."[1] In his essay "Notes on Noses" from 1848, George Jabet offers quite a different description: "very convex, and preserves its convexity like a bow, throughout the whole length from the eyes to the tip. It is thin and sharp."[2]
  • Jewish folklorist Joseph Jacobs, in the mid-19th century, suggested that the main characteristic of the Jewish nose was large nostrils... Etc.

References

  1. ^ a b Preminger, Beth (2001), "The "Jewish Nose" and Plastic Surgery: Origins and Implications", Journal of the American Medical Association, 286 (17): 2161, doi:10.1001/jama.286.17.2161-JMS1107-5-1
  2. ^ Gilman, Sander (1991). The Jew's Body. Routledge. ISBN 978-0415904599.

This is discussing, in Wikipedia's voice, concepts such as the so-called agreement on what the "real" shape of the Jewish nose is, what its "characteristics" are, etc. This strikes me either as POV or fringe or not using appropriate perspective -- cannot quite place my finger on it. Note that the first source uses "Jewish nose" in quotation marks: The "Jewish Nose" and Plastic Surgery: Origins and Implications.

What do other editors think? K.e.coffman (talk) 21:22, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree we have phrase all this very carefully. Preminger writes "In this way, the "Jewish nose" was transformed from a facial variation into a specific, pathological condition for which there existed a medical protocol for correction." I.e., his opinion is that there is a facial variation commonly known as a Jewish nose. The phrase about "real agreement" must be deleted as dubious editorializing: to my mind there is no substantial disagreement between cited Knox and Webster. Obvously there are no 100% coinciding noses. And it is quite possible that personal experiences of the two were different, not to say that did some real stats: arrogance of English is well-known: their opinion was all what matters. - üser:Altenmann >t 21:35, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
I've updated according to what I wrote above. At the same time I would like you to bring an attention to the fact that just as not all Jews have a Jewish nose, not all Jews wear kippah, but this does not change the fact kippah is a distinctly Jewish attribute, while "there is no real agreement about what shape of kippah is" :-). - üser:Altenmann >t 21:55, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
K.e.coffman: Maybe WP:NPOVN is more relevant than WP:FTN? I'm not sure. I'm always wishing there was a bigotry noticeboard. In any case, yes, I think more input would be helpful. I was jarred by the same phrasing you pointed out when I first came to this article the other day from a comment on WT:JUDAISM. —PermStrump(talk) 21:49, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
There is WP:RFC thing. But in order to file it, you must formulate the significant disagreement clearly. What K.e.coffman wrote is easily resolved by proper sticking to the sources. BTW what do you mean about bigotry n'board? Are you accusing someone of bigotry here? - üser:Altenmann >t 21:59, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

I've taken out this extensive quote from 1866 source:

  • [Quote from folklorist]: "A curious experiment illustrates this importance of the nostril toward making the Jewish expression. Artists tell us that the best way to make a caricature of the Jewish nose is to write a figure 6 with a long tail (Fig. 1); now remove the turn of the twist as in Figure 2, and much of the Jewishness disappears; it vanishes entirely when we draw the continuation horizontally as in Figure 3. We may conclude, then, as regards the Jewish nose, that it is more the Jewish nostril than the nose itself which goes to form the characteristic Jewish expression."[1]

References

  1. ^ Joseph Jacobs, "On the Racial Characteristics of Modern Jews", Journal of the Anthropological Institute, 1886, xv. 23–62; as cited in Jewish Encyclopedia.

The quote appears to be too extensive and given undue weight given how dated the source is.

Also, thanks to Altenmann for taking out some of the problematic content. It seems there's enough interest from existing editors in improving the article, so perhaps my suggestion was premature. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:02, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Sorry to revert you, but it is a well-known description significant enough to be used in Jewish Encyclopedia (and by Nazists). - üser:Altenmann >t 22:04, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps this can be actually sourced to the encyclopedia, to appear less fringy? The appearance is that the passage is being quoted to Jacobson 1866, with only a brief reference to Jewish Encyclopedia. What is the "Jewish Encyclopedia"? When was it published and by whom? Did it have anything to say about Jacobson's experiment? Again, this needs to be put into context to avoid the appearance of fringe science. Hope this clarifies my initial problems with this passage. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:52, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm not sure that this quote is so well-known. If it is, there should be reliable, secondary sources covering it and giving context to its significance. Right now it's sourced to the original version of the Jewish Encyclopedia.
  • Jacobs, Joseph; Fishberg, Maurice (1906), "Nose", Jewish Encyclopedia.
I'm pretty sure the quote is on the website I just linked in the citation. —PermStrump(talk) 23:03, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Recent mess with talk page

This was because Nishidani restored the following piece:

*Janet Liebman Jacobs, [https://books.google.it/books?id=xTFMIUllFTwC&pg=PA33 ''Hidden Heritage: The Legacy of the Crypto-Jews,''] University of California Press, 2002 p.33.</ref><ref>[[George L. Mosse]], [https://books.google.it/books?id=Y9XhBwAAQBAJ&pg=PT81 ''The Image of Man: The Creation of Modern Masculinity,''] Oxford University Press 1998 p.81

Please notice ref/ref. - üser:Altenmann >t 22:44, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Proposal to move article to "Jewish nose stereotype"

This article is about a stereotype of the Jewish nose, not about an actual kind of nose. Whether one embraces the stereotype or uses it as an antisemitic epithet, a "Jewish nose" doesn't actually exist (except as a stereotype), according to sources. It makes sense to move it to a new title, so there's no ambiguity about what this article is talking about, especially since there's a risk of people taking offense. Here are two examples of wording from a peer-reviewed academic journal:

Schrank, Bernice (2007), "'Cutting Off Your Nose to Spite Your Race': Jewish Stereotypes, Media Images, Cultural Hybridity", Shofar: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Jewish Studies, 25 (4): 18

Included are the following, discussed roughly in this order: (1) the construction of the Jewish nose stereotype; (2) the recurring phenomenon of antisemitism, which exploits the stereotype of the Jewish nose and suggests that it is an infallible means of identifying Jews...

I like "Jewish nose stereotype" best because it says the same thing in the least amount of words. Thoughts on the title and if I should I do an RFC? —PermStrump(talk) 15:52, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

I like that, and I think you should do an Rf(whatever). StevenJ81 (talk) 16:46, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Yes, if someone could do the Wikipedia:Requested moves thingy, that would be great. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:47, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
I forgot about that thing. Thanks for the link. I will figure it out now and do it. —PermStrump(talk) 18:59, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Support.Nishidani (talk) 21:47, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Strong oppose. The term is "Jewish nose". That the refers to a stereotype does not change the name. Debresser (talk) 20:20, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
In Bessarabia, the same schnozz is called an 'Armenian nose'. To make a very bad pun you just might be kith(rough pronunciation of k'it', one of several words for that organ) to the Armenians. Check the first photo in this article, which would make the Italian conker of Jimmy Durante twitch in its grave, with envy.Nishidani (talk) 21:57, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

STOP. Don't respond here. Conversation moved below. —PermStrump(talk) 06:55, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

If editors want to continue a conversation, they are free to do so. Your post basically points out that in your opinion part of this discussion is best continued below, and thank you for that, but please refrain from using the imperative on Wikipedia. Debresser (talk) 11:33, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
?? This entire thread above the point where I said, "STOP. Don't respond here. Conversation moved below", was copied below verbatim, so I don't think most people will notice new comments here and it's always better when the same discussion isn't split in more than one place. Assume good faith. —PermStrump(talk) 18:23, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Then why didn't you just say so? You said "moved", not "copied".
Why the commanding tone? That is what you shouldn't do on Wikipedia.
Point taken. I will try harder to assume good faith. Debresser (talk) 19:31, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 14 June 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. While those in favor of the move argued that the suggested title was more precise, the opposing arguments were simply far more convincing, stating that the proposed title implied that there was a type of Jewish nose that isn't a stereotype, and that the current title is the common name. (closed by a page mover) Omni Flames (talk) 07:15, 23 June 2016 (UTC)


Jewish nose → Jewish nose stereotype – [Note: Rationale provided by Permstrump; I'm just posting the template]: This article is about a stereotype of the Jewish nose, not about an actual kind of nose. Whether one embraces the stereotype or uses it as an antisemitic epithet, a "Jewish nose" doesn't actually exist (except as a stereotype), according to sources. It makes sense to move it to a new title, so there's no ambiguity about what this article is talking about, especially since there's a risk of people taking offense. Here are two examples of wording from a peer-reviewed academic journal:

Schrank, Bernice (2007), "'Cutting Off Your Nose to Spite Your Race': Jewish Stereotypes, Media Images, Cultural Hybridity", Shofar: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Jewish Studies, 25 (4): 18

Included are the following, discussed roughly in this order: (1) the construction of the Jewish nose stereotype; (2) the recurring phenomenon of antisemitism, which exploits the stereotype of the Jewish nose and suggests that it is an infallible means of identifying Jews...

I like "Jewish nose stereotype" best because it says the same thing in the least amount of words. —PermStrump(talk) Reposted from previous thread with template by K.e.coffman (talk) 22:20, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

In Bessarabia, the same schnozz is called an 'Armenian nose'. To make a very bad pun you just might be kith(rough pronunciation of k'it', one of several words for that organ) to the Armenians. Check the first photo in this article, which would make the Italian conker of Jimmy Durante twitch in its grave, with envy.Nishidani (talk) 21:57, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
From my experience, Armenians do have some nose problem. :) Nice people, by the way (again from experience, without exception). Debresser (talk) 01:57, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Debresser—whether something is a "problem" or not, is not the question. The question is whether or not a type of nose identifies Jews and only Jews. A secondary question concerns what exactly is that type of nose? Were these questions within the realm of science, there could be answers to these questions. There are no answers to those questions. There are anecdotal comments that span long historical periods of time. The present title suggests scientifically-known information. But that suggestion is misleading. Science is not built on a foundation of anecdotes and in the absence of disciplined study. A title for this article should be reflective of the haphazard hodgepodge of "information" that is found in this article. Bus stop (talk) 05:11, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Why don't you edit Bessarabian Encyclopedia, then? Anyway, if you have a reference to support your statement, you are very welcome to expand this article. - üser:Altenmann >t 02:55, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
And you think that the guy in the photo may be mistaken for a Jew? In medieval Poland there were two distinct social classes: Jews and Armenians, and nobody confused them by their shnozz. - üser:Altenmann >t 02:59, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support, per nominator. The article is about the stereotype; please also see my note below. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:22, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
    • Comment: As of 13 June 2016:
      • The lead opened with: "A Jewish nose is a term designating a large nose, a particular kind of a hooked nose, more specifically defined as one with a convex nasal bridge together with downward turn of the tip of the nose", and
      • Had a section on "Morphology and genealogy", reading in part: "For a long time the term "Jewish nose" was used to describe a certain physical feature, thought to constitute a particular deformity characteristic of Jews." The renaming would help the article avoid reverting back to this scientific racism language. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:00, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support. This article is not about the noses of Jews. Are the noses of Jews different from the noses of non-Jews? This article is about the stereotype which equates what is generally considered to be an unattractive nose type with Jews. Like many other stereotypes it is a negative stereotype. A simple redirect would take the reader from "Jewish nose" to "Jewish nose stereotype". Bus stop (talk) 22:37, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
The terminology has historical currency only. This is a meaningless term. The present title fails to capture the fact that this is a fiction. I would not say that the present title has "ambiguity". I would say that the present title is misleading. Bus stop (talk) 02:21, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I hope that the addition of the latest section of the article on literature and cinema has put to rest the absurd notion that discussion of the Jewish nose should be relegated to the nether world of Treblinka and Auto Da Fe. Isaac Bashevis Singer, Philip Roth, Joseph Heller and Woody Allen are not Nazis and are not antisemites, and they discuss the Jewish nose freely. The numerous academic sources cited in the section and in the article are not discussing the Jewish nose as an icon of Jew hatred, but as an element of Jewish self-identification. So let's move past this knee-jerk, we-are-the-victim response and start relating to the topic seriously. Ravpapa (talk) 02:43, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Ravpapa: Stereotypes can have positive connotations and still be stereotypes. It's great when people can embrace or re-appropriate a term that used to be a pejorative stereotype and turn it into a positive one, but it's still important to make it clear that it was always, and still is, a stereotype. All of the sources you added today make some reference to the "Jewish nose" being a stereotype. One I already used in the example I gave in the nom and here's another one (the rest were google books that I couldn't copy and paste):
The nose has clearly lost its negative connotations, but...it still occupies center stage amid the other stereotypic features characterizing the Jew: olive skin, dark, kinky hair, a plentitude of facial hair, and almond-shaped eyes. As Bernard Malamud is reputed to have said, "all men are Jews, they just don't know it. (Goildblatt 2003)
All of the reliable sources cited in the article so far (excluding the primary sources written in the late 1800-early 1900s by eugenicists that needs to be replaced with more recent secondary sources) either explicitly define the "Jewish nose" as a stereotype, use scare quotes every time, or they call it a "so-called Jewish nose". —PermStrump(talk) 04:05, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Ravpapa: Yes, let us move past the knee-jerk, we-are-the-victim response and start relating to the topic seriously—such as by giving it a non-misleading title. The term "Jewish nose" has been used antisemitically but that is not—in the final analysis—why the title Jewish nose is unacceptable. That title appears to be about physiology. There is nothing scientific about the term "Jewish nose". A title is called for that alludes to the essential falseness of the notion that there is a type of nose that identifies Jews and Jews only. Bus stop (talk) 04:12, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Ravpapa as always, has a very serious point (one that worried me from the outset). We should loosen up here. The tip of the nose is not the end of the world, and we're rapidly losing sight of the long comic side in Jewish culture attached to the stereotype. One thinks of the caricature of the upstart Gumpelino in Heinrich Heine's 'The Baths of Lucca' which any Yiddish speaker can understand at sight:'Sind vielleicht ihre Nasen eben durch dieses lange an der Nase Herumgeführtwerden so lang geworden? Oder sind diese langen Nasen eine Art Uniform, woran der Gottkönig Jehova seine alten Leibgardisten erkennt, selbst wenn sie desertiert sind?' 'Die Bäder vom Lukka',ch 2 Christa Stöcker (hrsg), Reisebilder II. 1828-1831, Akademie Verlag, Berlin, 1986 p.77 (Jews being 'led by the nose' by God for thousands years, to the point that our poor fellow trying to make it into 'good society' has a problematical schnozz, so long that you risk having your eyes poked out if you talk to him), etc.Nishidani (talk) 07:50, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Jewish nose is not just a stereotype. We are trying to choose a title that distinguishes between reality and fiction. A possible title would be The fiction of the Jewish nose, or The partial fiction of the Jewish nose. Or the title I suggested, Stereotype concerning the Jewish nose. Or, under consideration in this RfC, Jewish nose stereotype. You mention Jewish mother. Do you doubt that Jewish mothers exist? There is no need to distinguish between reality and fiction in that article title. You just have to read the article to find out why we would write an article on the "Jewish mother". But there is no such thing as a Jewish nose. The subject of this article is a historical verbal sleight of hand. There is no agreed-upon definition of a Jewish nose. Definitions are contradictory. No one did a study to arrive at a rational meaning of a Jewish nose. People who are not Jewish have noses that fit some descriptions of the Jewish nose. "Jews" are real and "noses" are real. But when you combine the terms you come up with an indication that is largely fictional. And yet the term has all the appearance of reality. When you create an article on this topic and you give it the straightforward title of "Jewish nose" you are misleading the reader. A title for this article has to allude to the falseness of the concept of the Jewish nose. A title for this article has to counteract the apparent straightforward meaning of the term "Jewish nose". It is not straightforward—though it appears straightforward. Bus stop (talk) 03:53, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Jewish mother exists to the same extent as Jewish nose exists. And just as with Jewish noses, not all mothers of Jews are ""Jewish mothers". re: "Definitions are contradictory." - no they are not. The title of the article does not have to allude to anything: it is the name of the concept. We use descriptive titles only in cases when there is no established term. Title "Jewish nose stereotype" is as redundant as "month of May". - üser:Altenmann >t 04:26, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
We use titles that are not patently misleading. Bus stop (talk) 04:48, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Altenmann See Blonde stereotype, Albinism in popular culture, and Physical attractiveness stereotype. All of the articles about stereotypes pertaining to visible physical features or body parts are qualified in a way that makes it clear the article is about a stereotype. The "Jewish nose" doesn't occur in the majority of Jewish people and it occurs in Jews with the same frequency as it does in the general population (sources cited in main article). That's what I mean when I say it doesn't exist. It exists as a shared understanding that a certain physical attribute is characteristic of a group of people even though in reality it isn't, AKA a stereotype. Literally all of the reliable sources I've seen on this topic refer to it as a stereotype or some other synonym. Also, most of them use it interchangeably with Aquiline nose, so if this article isn't about the stereotype of a Jewish nose, then it is about another term for an aquiline nose and it would be easy to argue that this article is a POV fork. —PermStrump(talk) 04:06, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
    • Blonde stereotype and Blonde are two different things, and Jewish nose is one. Aquiline nose is an illiterate misnomer in application to Jewish nose. No one in right senses would confuse Roman nose (aquiline) with Jewish or Turkish, of Armenian. - these four have a common name "hooked nose", but hooks are of different shape. - üser:Altenmann >t 04:14, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
    • re: That's what I mean when I say it doesn't exist. - I suspect you are under the effect of etymological fallacy. The meaning of a term is not the sum of the meanings of its parts. - üser:Altenmann >t 04:20, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
@Permstrump Star Wars is fictional, and yet the article is not at Star (not really) Wars (that never happened, don't worry)... It is not the goal of article titles to explain anything, just to reflect the most common name. Debresser (talk) 04:37, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Debresser—at the present time there have been no "Star Wars". But at the present time there have been Jews, and most of them have had noses. Bus stop (talk) 04:52, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Star (not really) Wars (that never happened, don't worry) lol. at the present time there have been no "Star Wars". But at the present time there have been Jews, and most of them have had noses. lol again. I was going to say something about ambiguity but I think Bus stop said it better. —PermStrump(talk) 05:03, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
[[Jewish mother[[ is a redirect to Stereotype of Jews, which kind of disproves your point. Sir Joseph (talk) 15:18, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
I think Sir Joseph makes a valid point. "Jewish mother" is a section of the article Stereotypes of Jews. I think the word "stereotype" is missing from the title of this article. As such the title of this article is unnecessarily offensive. Many good quality sources suggest to us that this term is controversial and that its use is sometimes tinged with the antisemitic. There is no justification for this title because a redirect from "Jewish nose" would quite easily take the reader to this article. Bus stop (talk) 20:57, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose I came here to support, but read some persuasive and logical arguments that changed my mind. An excellent discussion. Kudos to all the participants, on both sides of the debate. So far, at any rate. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:51, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
The literal meaning of "Jewish nose" is the nose of a Jew. That isn't what this article is about. If the reader isn't to be misled into understanding "Jewish nose" literally, there has to be something to alert the reader to the other-than-literal meaning. This is not rocket science. We can debate what title best serves that purpose. But there can be no doubt that the literal significance of "Jewish nose" is not what this article is about. And by the way, there are no article titles comparable to this article title, though Angry Black Woman, Beatnik, White van man, Jock (stereotype), Watermelon stereotype, Yellow cab (stereotype), Blonde stereotype, Driving while black, and Russian Winter have been mentioned. That is due to the nature of a nose. A nose is as plain as the nose on one's face. The significance of "Jewish nose" follows from the plain and obvious nature of a nose. This article title, unlike any other, is primarily understood literally. Our task is to alert the reader that this isn't literally an article about Jewish noses. Bus stop (talk) 01:46, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
You are taking the reader to be stupid enough and not understand the very first sentence. And BTW it is about Jewish noses (some of them). - üser:Altenmann >t 02:48, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
No it's not about "some" Jewish noses. And every time you say that, it reinforces why this article should be moved to "Jewish nose stereotype". This article is either about a nose shape that some people have, Jews and non-Jews alike, or it's about the stereotype that's been attributed to Jews because of that same nose shape to the point that many Jews have even internalized it and some have embraced it (which is true of many stereotypes, but it doesn't validate them). We already have an article about the former (aquiline) and the sources do not agree with you that an aquiline nose is different than a "Jewish nose". —PermStrump(talk) 04:07, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Dweller—you say you have "read some persuasive and logical arguments". Can you mention any? Bus stop (talk) 16:23, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Indeed there is a "non-stereotype version". It is the literal nose found on the face of every Jew. Is this article about the nose found on the face of every Jew? No, it is not. This is an article on a type of nose associated with Jews. Just look at the article. Is it about the nose found on every Jew's face? Some Jews do not have the type of nose that this article addresses and some non-Jews have the type of nose that this article addresses. It all depends on what is found in the literature. This is an article on instances of references to "Jewish nose". This is not an article on every Jewish person's nose. That is nonsensical and the present article title is nonsensical. We only write an article on this subject because the two-word term "Jewish nose" has widespread historical currency. We are dependent on citations in literature and journalism for the writing of this article and none of those citations support the bizarre notion that a type of nose is associated with all Jews and that that type of nose is never found in the non-Jewish population. Let's title the article according to the subject matter found in the article. By the way, the article you reference is not titled Roman nose. That is only a redirect. Bus stop (talk) 09:33, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
Ah so you agree it has widespread usage in history? Great. WP:Commonname then. Job done. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:44, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
It is in sufficiently widespread usage to constitute an article. Bus stop (talk) 09:46, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
Which we have. Titled under the most widely used name for it 'Jewish nose'. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:49, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
To avoid the confusion and the unintended implication that all Jews have a certain type of nose and that no non-Jews have that type of nose we should not title the article "Jewish nose", therefore WP:COMMONNAME would not be applicable. By the way there has never been any doubt that the term has widespread currency. Bus stop (talk) 09:51, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
The people to be confused by the title likely exist only in your head. If you are seriously arguing that someone merely seeing the article title 'Jewish nose' on wikipedia is going to be confused into thinking 'Clearly all Jews have the same nose! What a wonder!' and then close their browser without reading the article to find out what the nose looks like or in fact, that it is a stereotype... Well that is frankly, laughable. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:59, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
Anyone reading the title "Jewish nose" sees the same literal significance of the two-word term. That is the problem. It is remedied by relieving the literal meaning of the two-word term by the addition of a third term. The most obvious example of a third term to serve that purpose would be "stereotype". Wikipedia has common practice of employing the term "stereotype" in article titles. Even if this is not the most precise term, it is preferable to "Jewish nose" with its unintended implication that all or even most Jews have a certain type of nose that is not generally encountered in the non-Jewish population. That is problematic and that is to be avoided. Bus stop (talk) 10:20, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
I think almost everyone with more than one brain cell who sees 'Jewish nose' do not take 'Jewish nose' as a literal implication that all Jews and only Jews have that nose. To think otherwise is to assume that the general population has the same intelligence as a plank. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:27, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
The "Jewish nose" bears some correlation to some Jews. This article title implies a complete correlation between a "Jewish nose" and all Jews. This is not open to interpretation and this has nothing to do with whether the reader is smart or not smart. What is open to interpretation is whether the "Jewish nose" is attractive or unattractive. The general opinion is that a "Jewish nose" is unattractive. Therein lies the impropriety of the title. An article title need not compound a problem that it documents. Bus stop (talk) 15:57, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
By the way, the ball got rolling here as a result of a person who describes himself as a non-editor. He does not seem stupid to me. He writes "I don't really edit Wikipedia, but I felt I had to comment. This article is borderline racist as it stands giving readers a false sense that that Jewish people do have differently shaped noses than other people even though there is no evidence presented that this is true."[11] That editor, named SciutoAlex, made only a few more posts on this page, or to Wikipedia in general. I would guess that this is a fair gauge of the impact that this title has on a casual reader. Bus stop (talk) 20:27, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
Piotrus—you say that you "have reviewed Category:Ethnic and racial stereotypes and the word stereotype is not used for clarification". When I look at "Category:Ethnic and racial stereotypes" I find "Jewish lawyer stereotype", "Jewish mother stereotype", "Stereotypes of Jews", "Stereotypes of Jews in literature", "Stereotypes of African Americans", "Criminal stereotype of African Americans", "Watermelon stereotype", "Stereotypes of white people in the United States", "Appalachian stereotypes", "Stereotypes of Americans", "Ethnic stereotypes in comics", "Ethnic stereotype", "Implicit stereotype", "Jamaican stereotypes", "Nice Jewish boy stereotype", "Stereotypes about indigenous peoples of North America", "Stereotypes of Argentines", "Stereotypes of South Asians", and "Yellow cab (stereotype)". You also say "I think WP:COMMONNAME and such discourage clarification". I don't think any policy discourages clarification. And simple redirect would take a reader from "Jewish nose" to "Jewish nose stereotype". Bus stop (talk) 15:53, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Bus stop Do note that entries in the format of "Foo stereotype", like the Nice Jewish boy stereotype, are just redirects. The only articles with the word stereotype in them are ones about the concept of a stereotype (Implicit stereotype), a single disambig (Yellow cab (stereotype)) and articles in the format of "stereotypes of Foo-group", like Stereotypes of Jews. I stand by my conclusion that the name change proposed here goes against our current naming conventions, and is unnecessary. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:08, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
Piotrus But I think that's meaningful in that it shows people's natural train of thought for those topics and suggests to me that maybe those names should be changed too. —PermStrump(talk) 02:44, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
Piotrus—Nice Jewish boy is one section in the article Stereotypes of Jews. As a section of an article with "stereotype" in the title, it does not need "stereotype" in the section heading. If it were a separate article it would probably be titled Nice Jewish boy stereotype. Bus stop (talk) 07:29, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Taking Bus stop's suggestion to heart, I have created the article Jewish nose stereotype, which redirects to this article. Ravpapa (talk) 06:47, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Ravpapa—this is not an article about Jewish noses. According to this article a "Jewish nose" is "a hooked nose with a convex nasal bridge and a downward turn of the tip of the nose". Do all Jews have "a hooked nose with a convex nasal bridge and a downward turn of the tip of the nose"? This article is only about the stereotype of the Jewish nose. The redirect can be inaccurate but the title of the article should be accurate. Bus stop (talk) 07:29, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

  • Comment – the discussion in this section should be about article title, not article content:
  • when the article content is exclusively about the stereotype, "stereotype" should not be mentioned in the article title (see above), unless there is a separate article about a non-stereotype treatment of the topic (I see nobody advocating two articles, one about the stereotype, and one not about the stereotype – the last one would probably be soon deleted as a DicDef or merged again into a single article)
  • when the article contains information about whether or not it is a real thing, the article title should still not contain the "stereotype" qualifier.
So such article content discussions have no effect whatsoever on the article title, and should maybe better be held in a separate section, as they are not really germane to this WP:RM. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:20, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Comparison: it can be discussed to death whether a red neck is a real physical appearance of people stereotyped as rednecks – since there is no separate article on the alleged physical appearance the single Wikipedia article that treats the term has no qualifier in the article title. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:35, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Altenmann—whether the reader is stupid or not, and whether Jewish noses exist or not, a billboard does not need to exist in an encyclopedia advertising that Jewish noses exist. There is a literature of the phrase existing in history. A simple and obvious and straightforward title for this article is "Jewish nose stereotype" although I think other titles are possible too. You initiated this article with a title of "'An explanation of the caricature of a Jewish nose (Fig. 1), as described in 'Jewish Encyclopedia'". The word "caricature" could be a part of a title of this article. See a Google image search for "caricature". We are talking about the exaggeration of a feature associated with some Jews (but not all Jews, and including many people who are not Jewish). Encyclopedia articles don't try to mislead readers by article titles that are not attuned to the subject matter found in the article. Also note that the Google image search primarily has to do with faces. That is why this article title is not comparable to any other article title. When you are talking about the nose, which is a central feature on a face, which in turn is a central feature concerning a human being, it becomes especially important to distinguish between the literal and the merely figurative. This article is decidedly not about the physical feature that is central to the features of Jews. Yet the present article title implies precisely that. There is no reason I know of that Wikipedia should use a misleading title when an accurate one is available. Bus stop (talk) 08:48, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Nah, we have cheesehead and white nigger as article titles, not cheesehead nickname nor white nigger slur. Again, the explanations go in the article content, not in the article title. I reject the rationale that attempts to extract this from normal article titling policy (WP:CRITERIA etc) for not being comparable to any other article title. Groups of comparable article titles are often subject to dedicated naming conventions guidelines. Being incomparable in that sense, still makes or keeps an article title subject to the overarching policy. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:12, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
So, you are of the opinion that the reader might think that a "cheesehead" might actually have a head of cheese? Or you think that the reader might actually think that a black person is white? If so, you're not understanding why this article is not comparable to any other article as concerns the title presently on this article. Every human being has a nose. Jews represent a subgroup of humanity. When you have an article titled "Jewish nose", you have an article about the nose of Jews. That is the straightforward meaning of "Jewish nose". Despite the argumentation of a couple of editors in this thread, this article is not about the literal nose on the face of Jews, even if there is sometimes an overlap between the use of the term and a particular nose that fits the bill. Rather this article is about any and all references in literature to the term "Jewish nose", which may or may not correspond to a cogent description of a defined type of nose. It is not 100% clear what that description of a "Jewish nose" consists of, as there are contradictory descriptions, and these are entirely anecdotal. Add to this that not all Jews have a "Jewish nose". Add to this, that many non-Jews have "Jewish noses". The word "nose" and the word "cheese" are not comparable. There is no literal meaning of "cheese head". There are no people with emmental or any other variety of coagulated milk product attached by a neck to their shoulders. This is an article about historical usages of a phrase that is often not rationally applied. Our title should not mislead the reader into thinking that there is anything approaching a one-to-one equivalency between Jews and their special noses. The present title should be changed as soon as possible. We should be discussing which title it should be changed to, not whether it needs to be changed, as it is completely clear that the present title is problematic. Bus stop (talk) 17:35, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
WP:DEADHORSE. Get over it We can exchange examples bach and forth, which prove nothing. "Polish joke" is not a joke make in Poland, Russian roulette is not made in Russia, and please, please, stop telling that "Jewish" is something special; you know what stereotype goes here. - üser:Altenmann >t 03:42, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
P.S. And it is "Chosen people," not "Chosen people superstition" - there are no chosen people in reality (or are there?) but we are not afraid to confuse a cheesehead reader who may think otherwise. - üser:Altenmann >t 03:50, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
You say "We can exchange examples bach and forth, which prove nothing." Then why are you presenting examples of other article titles? If it proves nothing, then why have you just presented the titles of 3 more articles? You just presented Polish joke, Russian roulette, and Chosen people. Can you please tell me what is compelling you to introduce the titles of other articles to this discussion if doing so proves nothing? Bus stop (talk) 04:47, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
Nor do your reasonings that there would be an exceptional tension between article title and article content prove anything. The examples illustrate how the applicable policy (WP:AT) deals with such constructions of perceived tension. They don't prove, they illustrate. I'm totally unconvinced that your claims to convolute exceptionality have anything to do with whether or not WP:AT should be properly applied. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:58, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
You are comparing the article title Cheesehead to the article title Jewish nose. But is it comparable? A nose is literally what is found on the face of every Jew. Is a chunk of cheese literally what is found on the shoulders of every person from Holland/Wisconsin? You are presenting inapplicable examples for comparison. My argument is that there are no comparable examples. But I don't know that for a fact. I only know that I am not aware of any comparable article titles. Bus stop (talk) 09:02, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
Both "cheesehead" and "Jewish nose" primarily return faces when fed to Google image search. Whether that makes a point of comparison is irrelevant to me: WP:AT advises to rather use Google Books and News Archive in article titling matters. The whole reasoning "why this article title is not comparable to any other article title" based on Google image search appears to be wanting from whatever angle it is approached. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:48, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
I am not the one who chose Cheesehead for comparison. You chose "Cheesehead" for comparison. The comparison is not apt. We are not talking about real people when we talk about "cheeseheads". The folks so-labeled in Holland and Wisconsin are real people but the article title contains its own indication of its non-literalness. Not so with Jewish nose. What is the distinction? A nose really does exist on the face of every Jew. But a hunk of cheese is not a body part. It is not a component of any of the people of Holland or Wisconsin. These are different sorts of article titles. You cannot present an article title such as "Cheesehead" and think that it provides a parallel to an article title such as "Jewish nose". They are very different article titles in fundamental ways. Bus stop (talk) 16:12, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Dear friends and colleagues: As one who is somewhat to blame for setting off this debate, I would like to proffer some friendly advice. For quite a while - longer than usual for most Wikipedia talk-page debates - this discussion has been stimulating and convincing. Several people have confirmed that they have changed their minds because of the arguments on each side presented here. But, to paraphrase Alexander Pope, the discussion "like a wounded snake, drags its slow length along." You have all presented your positions cogently, and all your are doing now is retreading beaten paths and raising your own blood pressures. So, for the sake of your health, I suggest you leave things be for a while, and devote your boundless and valuable energy to more positive endeavors. The article on Gideon Klein could certainly use some expansion. Ravpapa (talk) 11:34, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Whaddya expect. Long noses get long discussions, according to the principle 'form mimics content'!
Job preached patience,and God only knows
This has dragged out like the ‘Jewish nose’,
But fashion now dictates a smaller size
So we too take note that this applies
To our contentions: gentlemen, let's drop
The bickering and, per Ravpapa, put a stop
As I myself, in search of some closure
To these verses, risk losing composure. Nishidani (talk) 12:03, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
I believe you are thinking of form follows function. Bus stop (talk) 16:15, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
Though my old man was an architect in the Frank Lloyd Wright tradition, and I was raised with that jargon, I was varying a the Marxist concept, which is often used in theories of aesthetics. I used 'mimic' because just earlier today, I had a long telephone conversation on Plato's Theory of Forms. This influenced me, quite consciously , because in that context, I couldn't help but connect the Greek meaning in Plato's name 'πλατύς' (broad, flat), which is usually linked to the putative broad brow of the philosopher, but could for that refer equally to a broad/flat nose (πλατυρρῑνος) with the use of the German adjective flach used by Thomas Mann to describe the nose of the Jewish doctor Sammet, as I added to our article this morning.' I’d been thinking of this because ‘’flach’’ usually means ‘flat’ but Elsaghe in the source translates it as ‘broad ‘, and I was a tad worried by the slight discrepancy. Just for the record and, for once on-topic, I must go and poke mine into the evening nosebag. Regards Nishidani (talk) 17:08, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
You say "Just for the record and, for once on-topic, I must go and poke mine into the evening nosebag." I wish I could avoid seeming humorless but all references to noses are not "on-topic" nor is much of your above recent contribution "on-topic". You aren't even discussing the topic of the RfC and yet you are opposing the move suggested in this RfC. If you wish to engage in discussion on the topic of the RfC, then please do so. Please be aware of WP:FORUM and WP:TALK. I find the title of this article to be gratuitously offensive and not attuned to the contents of the article. In the context of the topic of the title of this article I find your longwinded and lighthearted chatter objectionable. Bus stop (talk) 19:55, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
There you go. You politely suggested I didn't know my own mind, or rather that it was confused. In correcting your misapprehension, I made a gentle overture to you, a comic parody -true in its reconstructive details-, of my notorious pedantry. I did so to someone who has, with inflexible certainty I'm always wrong, weighed in against me in every issue in which people have complained about me at the various boards for several years. What's the result, translated into layman's language? 'get fucked you windbag'. Ah well, I'll stick to referencing the page, but drop the regulatory Parthian shot: Your constructive work on the article consists of 2 edits: one revert, and the addition of 'so-called' to the lead 10kb. I made 20 edits, constituting over 6,000kb, about 25% of the text. Your talk page interventions, longwinded, constitute 18.61% of the total, mine 10.39%. 'Nose/No's/Knows', as James Joyce might say. Ravpapa told us all to drop it, and it was sensible counsel. Let's adopt it.Nishidani (talk) 20:21, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
It is not just the block of writing that I just responded to, that is unrelated to this RfC. Much of your writing in this RfC is unrelated to it. A longwinded response can be defensible. The distinction is in whether or not such input is substantive. This discussion has a topic. There is a topic and it has limitations. In my opinion we are not free to prattle on however we please. The discipline called for in this discussion is determined by the opening proposition of this WP:RM. It asks whether the title, "Jewish nose", should be changed to "Jewish nose stereotype".[12] I find myself unable to laugh when you for instance write "Job preached patience,and God only knows This has dragged out like the ‘Jewish nose’".[13] It may be funny but I'm just not amused. Bus stop (talk) 20:40, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Proposal: one-year moratorium on article renaming

Ravpapa's suggestion above to stop "retreading beaten paths" in this WP:RM discussion spurred some participants to present more of the same. I propose we stop all page name discussions & page moves officially for a year after the conclusion of the present WP:RM. Use the time to update the article: if after a year its cast has shifted with stable content, so that it no longer fits whatever article title results from the current WP:RM the page name is open for discussion again. I propose this while such moratoriums have proven effective is similar cases of protracted and somewhat circular debates over page names. I'm no fan of moratoriums in general, but here it seems the best way forward. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:22, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Support moratorium as proposer. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:22, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose If people have proposals for a rename, let them discuss it. I do not agree with the proposing editor that the rename discussions are detrimental to the article. To the contrary, I see this article has largely benefited from the amount of attention it has received. In general I have a hearty dislike for needless restrictions. Debresser (talk) 17:47, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose I agree wholeheartedly with all of the points made by Debresser in the above post. On a related note, the proposer posits that if after a year the "cast has shifted" we can revisit the question of the title. But what is the possibility this article will ever be about Jewish noses? Absolutely nil. This article will always be about the stereotype concerning Jewish noses. Bus stop (talk) 19:09, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
  • I dont think we need strong actions here. We have only a single passionate enemy of the current title, and the best advice here is "don't feed trolls" who hear only themselves. - üser:Altenmann >t 20:15, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
Altenmann—please try to be cognizant of our policy of Wikipedia:No personal attacks. I don't know which troll[14] you are referring to but I think casting an aspersion on another editor would fall under the heading of a "personal attack". Bus stop (talk) 19:57, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

WikiProject Judaism notified

I've posted a notice here about this discussion, as I feel additional input is called for. Bus stop (talk) 13:17, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't think Judaism "owns" Jewish nose. Therefore, to counter selective forum shopping, I reposted the invitation elseshere:

  • 13:29, June 19, 2016 (diff | hist) . . (+438)‎ . . Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anatomy ‎ (current)
  • 13:28, June 19, 2016 (diff | hist) . . (+438)‎ . . Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Body Modification ‎ (current)
  • 13:27, June 19, 2016 (diff | hist) . . (+438)‎ . . Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Palestine ‎ (current)
  • 13:27, June 19, 2016 (diff | hist) . . (+438)‎ . . Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States ‎ (current)
  • 13:26, June 19, 2016 (diff | hist) . . (+438)‎ . . Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spain ‎ (current)
  • 13:26, June 19, 2016 (diff | hist) . . (+438)‎ . . Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Germany ‎ (current)
  • 13:25, June 19, 2016 (diff | hist) . . (+438)‎ . . Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Poland ‎ (current)
  • 13:25, June 19, 2016 (diff | hist) . . (+438)‎ . . Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Russia ‎ (current)

You are welcome to expand the list of projects for which Jewish nose may be of concern. - üser:Altenmann >t 20:32, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Altenmann—this topic has already been discussed at length elsewhere on Wikipedia. It has been discussed at the article Human nose. The language that other editors have arrived at for that article reads "Antisemitic propaganda often portrays Jewish people as having 'Jewish noses': large and hooked.[6] The term 'Jewish nose' is controversial.[7]" And the Talk page of that article contains a related discussion. See Talk:Human nose#Jewish Nose, hooked nose, hawk nose, jewish six. If this is the language of "antisemitic propaganda" and this language is "controversial", why would we employ it as a title for this article? We are only documenting a problem. The problem is the stereotype concerning the Jewish nose. The article should be titled in accordance with an accurate description of the contents of the article. We should not be choosing language that serves as "antisemitic propaganda" or is "controversial". The discussion held by fellow editors at "Human nose" was not for the purpose of finding a title for an article. But the conclusions they reach, as evidenced by the language that has found its way into the present version of the "Human nose" article, show us the impropriety of the phraseology presently gracing this article. Bus stop (talk) 23:14, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Images

This article desperately needs a better image. What we have for now is User:Altenmann's interesting but ORish File:Noses Judensechs.png (based on "the description in the article "Nose" of the 1901-1905 Jewish Encyclopedia", but with no link or even page range to verify it), a medieval picture File:Illustration of Psalm 52.jpg where you really have to squint to see said nose, which frankly doesn't look particularly caricaturish, and File:Streisand - Clear Day 1970.JPG, which IMHO just confuses people (given the lack of better pictures). I created commons:Category:Jewish nose and added File:Antisemitic caricature 1873.jpg to this article, as it seems to be show the caricatured nose more prominently. I think most pictures from [15] are public domain and could be added to this article/Commons category. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:32, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

My image is not based on description. This image is actually in the source cited. I fixed the description in Commons image page. - üser:Altenmann >t 06:18, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jewish nose. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:36, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:22, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

"Wolfshiem"

In the edits reverted here, I gave a fuller rendering of what the source says, even verbatim. What I can see that could be called "additions" would be 1) the reverted name form "Wolfsheim" – which is the one the source uses – and 2) the link to Other (philosophy) – which deals with (among other things) the study of precisely the phenomenon of making "others" (to fear etc.) of people perceived as "ethnically" different. If such a link is disallowed in a quote, you couldn't link to much in them. For example, if "biological characteristics" are mentioned, you couldn't link to biology. 151.177.56.148 (talk) 15:26, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jewish_nose/Archive_1&oldid=1209439125"