Template talk:Jew/Archive01

Division of template

Given this division, some of the articles in the template were in desperate need of help. I got caught up in a wiki-binge and created a number of new articles, modifying the template slightly to accommodate.

• Added Jewish religion link to top of the template, since the Jew-as-ethnicity issue is not as clear in the subpages, and readers may want to find out about the religions
• Jewish Population Centers - Took you to a list of famous Jews by country. I moved that to a subcategory and created a new article Jewish population with information about current population centers and population changes. I also created subarticles specifically on History of the Jews in France and History of the Jews in Germany for the population links
• Subcategories of Secular Jewish Culture - Do we need to list several types of Zionism? I narrowed it down to two, but we could improve further with some other ideas of secular culture
• Jewish History - main article is weak and incomplete, I did some substantial work, including creating new articles on Jews in Italy, France, and Germany, as well as a new Jews in the Middle Ages article. The categories were also a problem. 2000 years of history is covered by one article, "Rabbinical Leadership," which did not link to an article on the subject. I added links to Jews in Islamic Lands, Haskalah, the Middle Ages, and the Holocaust.
• Jewish History/Rabbinical Leadership - I cut
• Schisms among the Jews moved to a subpoint of history

Still needing work:

• Jewish Symbolism - I think that this could be eliminated, as it is religious in nature and covered elsewhere
• Secular Jewish Culture - very weak article --Goodoldpolonius2 04:44, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Jewish ethnicity and Judaism

Also, I think we should consider making it clear this is a Jewish national/ethnic template not a religious one, perhaps: Jew_temp_sand --Goodoldpolonius2 03:54, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You are of course aware that it is impossible to cut the Jewish religion out from the Jews and their history, and I have tried to keep to the format of the original Jew article which, while it focused on the notion of the "Jew" as an "ethnic" entity, it nevertheless functioned with the working assumption that the Jews' connection to Judaism over the past 3,300 was in reality inseparable. IZAK 05:50, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Of course, as I think you can see from the articles I authored, I do not believe this is the case, but the article had just such a disclaimer. I inserted the Judaism link near the top for just this reason. Perhaps we should make it the same background color as Jew and also label it "Main Article" --Goodoldpolonius2 06:18, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

NO, I strongly disagree, we should NOT insert "Judaism" at the top equal to Jew, because then you will have to link to articles such as Torah, Tanakh, Mishna, Talmud, Halakha, Shulkhan Arukh, 613 mitzvot, etc, etc, etc,(all the stuff to be found in Category:Judaism)... This is NOT a template about Judaism, it must remain a template PRIMARILY helping the Jew article, with some responsible mention of the Jews' connection and part of their Jewish religion whwich is fine. So let's keep to the original principles behind the seperations between the Jew and the Judaism articles working here too. (Later we may create a completely new template for Judaism. But for now let's work with this one on Jew.) IZAK 07:06, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Okay, you convinced me. Are you okay keeping it where it is? (at the top, not equal) --Goodoldpolonius2 07:07, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I am not absolutely certain. In the meantime you have disguised Judaism by calling it "Jewish religion". Let's leave it for now and see how others react, after all there is a whole list of articles here relating to Jew called "Jewish this-and-that" so why not have "Jewish religion" too, but it may be too much for some people. IZAK 07:38, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I have not disguised Judaism, IZAK, I was simply trying to make the template easy to understand. The Jew article begins by explaining it is not about the religious beliefs of Judaism, but about Jews as a national and ethnic identity, which is, granted, entwined with the religion. If you want, rename the "Jewish religion" section "Judaism," that would be A-OK, it just seemed less clear to have the top two lines be "Jews" and "Judaism" without explanation. But I will wait for others comments as well. --Goodoldpolonius2 20:36, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Secular Jewish Culture

IZAK, I think we should make the links under this more inclusive. It is not that the varieties of Zionism are not important, it is just that they do not all need to be listed in the template. Perhaps remove one or two of the Labor/Zionism links and include a link or two to Israeli culture or klezmer or something? --Goodoldpolonius2 03:50, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Hi, it was actually User:Jmabel who started this topic in the original Jew article, and I was trying to broaden its sub-categories as a spin-off article. My feeling is that since basically close to half of the world's Jews presently live in Israel (and many secular Jews in the diaspora identify with it), it made sense to include the two main divisions of secular Zionism. I will try to get Jmabel's input here. Obviously this is a "work in progress" and many gaps need to be negotiated, written, and/or filled-in. Thanks for the on-going input. IZAK 05:05, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I agree with the importance of including Zionism, but I would argue that the clear intellectual movements behind Revisionist Zionism and Labor Zionism have faltered in recent years, or at least are not great indications of secular Jewish culture (it is not clear even in Israel that Labor holds to Labor Zionism and Likud to Revisionist Zionism, certainly not in their pure forms). Similarly, the Russian labor movement is historically relevant, but not as critical to modern Jewish culture. I would suggest that the links under secular culture consist of Zionism, Israeli culture, and perhaps one other? --Goodoldpolonius2 06:15, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hi, I looked at Culture of Israel, it's an empty shell with some names (singers what have you...?), nothing there of any import to explain why it has any meaning. And if you like this, it then makes sense to include the article of List of rabbis because rabbis have had more impact on Jewish culture over the past two thousand years then a bunch of Israeli or Jewish American singers and actors do today...I guess I tend to view the political aspect of Israeli life as important, and in the secular camp the main groupings are either Labor or the Likud/Revisionists...now obviously, "politics makes for some strange bedfellows" and in terms of the practicalities of every-day Israeli politics the differences are not always very clear between the movements, but they are there nevertheless and have been for some time. We cannot now just throw out over 100 years of Israeli and Zionist history in favor of the Maddona pop-culture phenomenon. Where is your perspective? IZAK 06:51, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Gee, you are pretty aggressive your replies, no? I have not proposed adding Madonna, thank you for the mockery, and I indeed think that perspective is what is missing. I just added several new articles on Jewish history, and edited three or four others, so I am not saying it is worth ignoring at all. I am arguing that since we have a history section AND we have a culture section, it would be a good idea to give some idea of contemporary, or somewhat contemporary, Jewish culture in that section, not just political movements. Yes the Israeli culture link needs improving (I didn't write it), but the two Zionist links are stubs also, and hardly seem relevant enough as separate categories -- wouldn't the main Zionism link, which explains both, make more sense? Also, do you really think that the Bund is a deeply relevant topic? Anyhow, what would you suggest if you absolutely had to have two links on contemporary Jewish culture (either Israel or Diaspora)? What if we created the articles if none existed? --Goodoldpolonius2 07:06, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Hi, sorry, I didn't realize something bothered you, it's just that I'm trying to emphasize the obvious fact of just how shallow the current "culture" is. Sure write up what you think would fit this topic. As I said above, it was originally User:Jmabel who wrote the material as he wanted to insert material about non-religious yet Jewishly-identified culture of modern times. Since in modern times, secular Jews have been involved with Socialism and secular Zionism I thought that the articles were pretty well representative. I sense that what you want to deal with is the very up-to-date "culture" of secular Jews, and in that case, I am not sure if it differs all that much from the "culture" and life-style symbolized by Madonna whom many secular Israelis adore (and in America, secular Jews follow the trend-setters not far-removed from what Maddona represents, and in fact now she is a "Jewish" role model, calling herself "Esther", imbibing and practising the "Judaism" of the popular Kabbalah Centre), so it's a tough call to define exactly what constitutes "modern Jewish/Israeli culture" I bet!IZAK 07:34, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• About Zionism, it would NOT be accurate to list Zionism as something purely "secular" as its origins and practice for many (especially those following Religious Zionism) is rooted in the Torah and has always been part of Judaism, its hopes, prayers, and aspirations for two millenia (see as a profound example Jerusalem#Jerusalem, Jews and Judaism (sidebar)). Labor Zionism and Revisionism are secular manifestations of the original widely-shared Zionism rooted in Judaism (I think you are confusing some extreme views opposing Zionism by the Haredi Judaism minority outlook with some objective facts, that most Jews had always been Zionists as part of their Judaism.) IZAK 07:34, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Point taken on the difficulty of identifying modern Jewish culture, but see the expansions I made to the Secular Jewish culture article as a start -- and there certainly has been a distinct Jewish culture, however, as intertwined with religion as it is. In any case, I was not trying to list Zionism as purely secular, but simply saying that "top-level" template pages should be strongly relevant. Thus, one Zionism link would work, and possibly a link to Jewish culture (ill defined as that is), I still do not see why the Bund should be a top-level link. Perhaps we could write a new article on Jewish political movements (the Bund, kibbutz/Labor Zionism, etc.?) and link that, just so there is a starting point for researchers--Goodoldpolonius2 20:36, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

For whatever it's worth, I will plunge into some of this soon (though probably not the next day or so). As a convinced diasporist myself, I will certainly help out on Secular Jewish culture, though I probably will be more focused on diaspora Jews than on Israel.

I actually do think that giving some prominence to the Labor Zionism / Revisionist Zionism distinction may be valuable, especially with Zionism so often used these days simply as an epithet. I think it is valuable to emphasize the complexity of a movement that many outside of Jewish culture see as a monolith. However, I don't think I'm expert enough to contribute a lot to those articles.

Anyway, I think the most important thing is to write and expand articles. Let's look again a month or so from now, and if there are areas where we can develop strong articles, then obviously those belong in the template. -- Jmabel | Talk 21:21, Dec 12, 2004 (UTC)

Problems with the template

This table stacks up really ugly with the other tables on articles such as Romaniotes and Bene Israel on higher resolutions. You should probably fix this.

Also, isn't it a bit over-zealous to try to include all Jewish history, ethnology, linguistics, etc. in a single table?

Last, did you forget to include the Italkim] among the other ethnic groups? Etz Haim 03:39, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Hi, I just added Italkim. IZAK 05:37, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I think the table actually works quite well, even if it is long, it helps tie together the many articles in the subject. IZAK, I think that the "English" versions of the ethnicities are confusing, it would be better to let the article speak for themselves - calling Sephardic Jews "Spanish" and Ashkenazic "German" for example, seems to oversimplify. It also creates confusion with the population cetners in the next section. Your thoughts? --Goodoldpolonius2 05:09, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hi: The reason/s I thought the English would help, is that "letting articles speak for themselves" is a problem. Many things in this area are "over-simplifications", and my aim is to make the template BOTH user friendly and intelligible. Perhaps you are right, and I will just tweak the names to make them consistent. IZAK 05:37, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This template is far to tall, it should be broken up into its subsections which should be used on the relevant pages. ed g2s • talk 18:48, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hi ed_g2s: The point of this template is that ALL these subject are connected to the original Jew article, so breaking it up would be self-defeating. Let the "Jew" be. Thanks. IZAK 09:06, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

--Goodoldpolonius2 02:56, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hi, I love the idea. Here are some problems (and possible solutions), hope you'll find them constructive:

• It repeats the word "Jew" far too many times. IMHO, we can safely skip it in most cases. It's good we are not talking about Argentinians (BTW, are there S. American Jews?)
• I would combine few items per line (as is already done with denominations) where it makes sense - e.g. Bene Israel and Cochin (both are Indian Jews)
• Some qualifiers may be safely skipped also, such as "Uzbek"
• The Bund is not a part of Jewish culture, I'd get rid of it. OTOH, the consequences of Bar Kokhba's revolt are important enough for the history.
• Is Jewish symbolism listed under the Jewish leadership?
• I think ethnic divisions should be changed into ethnic groups (especially as they are being mentioned so early)
• IMHO the Holocaust belongs to Anti-Semitism panel, right before H. denial

HTH. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 10:40, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Simplifications?

This template is getting very long, and should be simplified a bit. My suggestions:

• I would suggest that we leave Jewish Languages without its sublinks - the individual languages are easily located in the main article, and this just expands an already large template. *Similarly, we could possibly cut down the number of ethnic divisions listed (Italkim for example), or at least put ethnic divisions with smaller populations in smaller type, say those below 25,000 people or so.
• Perhaps we could make the links about secular Jewish culture in smaller type? Or remove a few? Or remove them all, leaving just main links for Secular Jewish culture and Zionism?

Anyone (IZAK, jmabel, etc.) have any thoughts? --Goodoldpolonius2 21:21, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I agree, I think several of these sections would be better off without a complete list. The "Who is a Jew?" link seems out of place. Ethnic naming divisions is too long. I dont think we need any of the Jewish populations section. I think the Jewish Leadership banner belongs inside the History section, as does the Jewish symbolism. I dont think the Anti-Semitism section needs to be itemized, but rather just Anti-Semitism. The ONLY section which deserves to have the extreme length it does, is the history section IMO. I think i'll make a copy in my user space and if it passes muster here, change the Template for my edit Alkivar 22:40, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

OK I crunched it down as much as I think is fair/possible. You can see my reduced version here: User:Alkivar/Jew. Alkivar 23:00, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Alkivar: Please leave the {{Jews and Judaism (sidebar)}} template alone! If you think that "The "Who is a Jew?" link seems out of place" (as you say), then you are absolutely NOT qualified to deal with this topic at all. One needs a greater knowledge of Judaism to propose to do what you say. See my other comments below. IZAK 06:48, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You misunderstand, I think it belongs, but not as a sole background shaded box. It belongs as a subsection. Did you see my version of the template? it is still included! Alkivar 01:34, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I mostly agree, but I'd make two changes:

• One, I see, was already there: why on earth say "Ethnic naming divisions" instead of "Jewish ethnic divisions" which is clearer and is the article name.
• "Jews by country" is really "Famous Jews by country". It only sort of barely belonged under "Jewish populations" but was OK when that was a long list. If we are going to cut out the list, this needs to be differently approached. Also, if we are going to cut out the list "Jewish populations" really needs to link to the country-specific articles, which it currenly doesn't. I think it might be simpler just to leave this as it was, but the specific proposed change is not good.

I could agree to the rest of these changes. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:26, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)

Did you review the modified template in my user space? I agree with the first change and made it. As for the other, I reduced it down to a list of Jews by Country since there is already a SEPERATE template for {{JewsByCountry}}. I also did not remove the link to Jewish populations, because I think that article is a more appropriate place for the content being removed. Alkivar 00:33, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

But the current template links to some (often rather good) articles about the history of the Jews in various countries, and {{JewsByCountry}} just links to lists of famous Jews. Two different matters. I'm a lot more concerned to get people easy access to articles about the situations of large Jewish populations than the booster-ish lists of famous people who happen to be Jews. -- Jmabel | Talk 02:08, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps then {{JewsByCountry}} should be modified to include them then? MY primary goal was to reduce the overall size of the Jew template, as I am not Jewish I felt my religious neutrality would help stem complaints when reducing the list size. The Jew template is simply too damn large, on a screen thats 800x600 its the equivalent of 3 screens tall! The {{JewsByCountry}} template is tiny, IT could stand to be enlarged, I feel that would be a better template for the content anyways. Thats my $0.02 anyway. Alkivar 02:24, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Individual pages in the JewsByCountry series already link to the appropriate history pages. However, as Jmabel says, JewsByCountry is just a list of famous Jews. Perhaps we should create a new page for all the history articles: say Jewish history by country (split off from the current Jewish history article). Just my ₪0.02. (PS Thanks IZAK for the link here.) Juko 10:27, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

With a {{JewishHistoryByCountry}} template, presumably? Udzu 10:36, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• This is a good improvement, but I agree with Jmabel, include the individual country links under Jewish population, since they cover present major Jewish populations, and a huge amount of history and detail that should be accessible from the main template. The famous person list can be included or dropped. I again would say that the language list should be shrunken, there is no need to include the actual languages under the main link. --Goodoldpolonius2 02:56, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • So your vote is to remove the language section and include Jewish Population centers? What do you think about my latest suggestion above to include that data in the {{JewsByCountry}} Template? Is that an acceptable alternative? Alkivar 03:14, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Alkivar Hi: You seem to be missing a big point here: The reason the {{Jews and Judaism (sidebar)}} template was created in the first place was because the original Jew article was too long and needed to be edited even though it had already spawned a number of "break-off" articles earlier. So the template was created to cut down the KB of the Jew article and at the same time unite all the articles "under one roof". By cutting down and and detaching articles from the template you are defeating the purpose of the template. Yes, it can use a little "trimming" as not all article have to be connected here, but mostly it should be left alone. IZAK 06:42, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

IZAK, I don't see it as a problem if some things end up at one remove, just as long as it is obvious how to navigate toward them. -- Jmabel | Talk 18:28, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)

IZAK, I don't see how removing links to each individual language would hurt the template, the information is still easily accessible. Akivar, I think that the Jews by country template isn't a good solution -- I think it is better to still link to each of the population centers - they are relatively few major ones, and where they are and what they are like is quite important to the study of modern Jewish identity and nationality. Also, please note everyone that I created a new article History of the Jews in the United States to address a severe lack. Please stop by and modify and comment. --Goodoldpolonius2 18:49, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I think the template needs to be shrunk, it's far too long as it is. Akivar's attempt is reasonably good. Rather than removing the Jewish languages entirely, I would suggest removing only Judeao-Arabic, which was never as widespread as Hebrew, Aramic, Yiddish, or Ladino, and which is in any event almost extinct now (as opposed to the others, which are still used). Regarding the Jews by country, perhaps only the major population centres should be including, Israel, United States, France, Russia/USSR. Other listings there have relatively few Jews, and in some cases larger population centers are excluded over smaller ones (e.g. U.K. there, but Canada not, Germany there, but Argentina and Brazil not). Also, perhaps the template could be made wider, along the lines of the {{Islam}} template, so that it is not so many screens long. Jayjg | (Talk) 19:02, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I still think that langages can be excluded, but I would argue strongly for keeping in France, England, Germany, the FSU, Israel, and US as main links. Germany is currently home to the fastest growing community in the world, as is deeply linked to Jewish history, while Canada is not. England is the third-largest Diaspora Jewish population. Also, these are also not articles that could be found easily otherwise, so the template is really needed to guide people appropriately. --Goodoldpolonius2 19:19, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Jewish population growth in Germany seems to have tapered off. And how do you get England as third largest diaspora? The order is U.S., France, Russia, Ukraine, Canada, U.K. This link [1] gives the numbers as of 1999, and since then the Jewish population of Russia and Ukraine have dropped further, as has the Jewish population of the U.K., while the Jewish population of Canada has grown. Jayjg | (Talk) 19:52, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Jayjg -- you are right about England, sorry, I may have been thinking of percentage of population. As for Germany, it is still reported as the fastest growth. I still think that it would be better to include all of these links rather than, say, the Jewish cuisine link, or Yiddish theater. They are decent articles (or could be) and much more useful and difficult to find without the template. --Goodoldpolonius2 20:00, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I think the whole "Jewish culture" section can go, and Zionism should just be its own topic. Jayjg | (Talk) 20:14, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I suggested that we keep Jewish culture and keep Zionism, both as top-level topics, and drop the others under Jewish culture. IZAK and possible jmabel disagree, however, so I did not push this)--Goodoldpolonius2 20:24, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I have no problem with this either way. -- Jmabel | Talk 20:29, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)

Actually on second thoughts I was looking over Alkivar's somewhat shortened version again and it does seem to be a good job after all. Don't cut the "Secular culture" part as the majoriy of Jews today are secular and ways must be found to seriously reflect that reality. IZAK 04:19, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yes, please, I would like to have Secular Jewish culture back, I'm doing a lot of work in that area (especially around Yiddish theater) and I think it is an important piece of Jewish life. But, again, I don't care if we resolve all these details before making the basic change in the shape of the template, which I think is an improvement.-- Jmabel | Talk 23:42, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)

Talk: Possible alterations to template at User talk:Alkivar/Jew

See discussions about possible alterations to this template taking place at User talk:Alkivar/Jew. IZAK 02:59, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Vote on new template

I believe i've made all the necessary corrections to the template. I think now its time to put it to a vote.

I am neither pro nor against at this point. Please allow this vote to remain open for another few days. There are few more people I would like to contact, to ask for their input! Thank you. IZAK 06:59, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Support: (I support the revised template as seen here.)

1. Alkivar 19:13, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
2. --Goodoldpolonius2 19:23, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
3. --Following polonius' lead, I've edited it. I didn't delete any categories, but I added one (General Zionism), and tightened it up, making it 7 characters wider, but 11 lines shorter. I think that the template really should fit on one screen, and I've seen much wider templates. Jayjg | (Talk) 20:31, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
4. I think it looks very good, nice job : ) --MPerel 23:18, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
5. I've replaced "/" with "·" for consistency. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 00:35, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

   • Reverted this change, they were done with ( / ) intentionally. This is to show they are grouped together and related. Alkivar 01:06, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

   • I made a slight adjustment - I moved Holocaust back to history, and added the modern antisemitism article along with the history of antisemtism under the "Persecution of the Jews" category. --Goodoldpolonius2 01:58, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
   • I also made a slight adjustment; I had the Anti-Semitism articles follow the format of the Zionism articles, and saved us another line in the process. Jayjg | (Talk) 02:10, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
   • I made another small adjustment: Mizrachi Jews was in there twice (fixed). Agree, but with some small provisos, see comments below. -- Jmabel | Talk 02:32, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)

   • See my comment below, I don't agree it was in there twice. Jayjg | (Talk) 02:42, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

   • I give up, you cant run a vote on a template WHEN IT KEEPS CHANGING!!!! LEAVE IT ALONE TIL AFTER THE VOTE! Alkivar 02:39, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

   • Alkivar, your vote was a good idea, it got people to take the template seriously. I think if you let people play with it for a few more hours, you'll be able to take a new vote and find you have consensus. Jayjg | (Talk) 02:42, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

   • They had 5 days to play with it already. The problem becomes lets say User A votes at 8am on a specific version... User B makes changes User A disagrees with, but wait he's already voted! hence his vote could mistakenly be counted. Thats like having a political election then at the last second changing candidates... Bush vs Kerry becomes Bush vs Bush ... kerry voters have already voted and become voters for Bush essentially defeating the whole point to the vote. If I had ability to protect the page I would have before the vote began to stop this sort of thing from happening! Alkivar 02:48, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

6. Nice work Alkivar. (Note -- I don't know why, but the number of my vote is not a continuation of the above. Did I mess something up here?) Mikeage 08:09, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

   • fixed numbering --MPerel 17:28, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)

7. Very good effort. It is nice and elegant. MathKnight 17:52, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Oppose: (I think the template as seen here is better.)

Neutral/Comment:

1. Do you think "The" is necessary in "The Bund", "The Talmudic Era", "The Holocaust"? Also, I question the choices of countries listed under Jewish populations...there are more Jews in Ukraine and Canada (not listed) than Britain and Germany (is listed) [2]. --MPerel 21:20, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)

I dont think the use of "the" matters really. "The Holocaust" makes more sense to me, "The Bund" perhaps just "Bund" is ok but it wont change the width at all, "The Talmudic Era" makes more sense to me as well; Thats my 2 cents worth on those anyway. As for countries listed under Jewish populations, regardless of which template we go with, its the same countries so thats inactionable/irrelivant to the vote. Alkivar 21:57, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I've made the same argument regarding Jewish populations, but Goodoldpolonius is quite attached to Germany and the U.K., regardless of the fact that Germany in particular is an unimportant community these days. Regarding the words "The", The Bund is always called "The Bund", I agree with Alkivar about the others reading better that way, and removing the other "The"s won't make it any shorter. Jayjg | (Talk) 23:15, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

On the countries, Ukraine is handled under Russia/Former USSR. Canada could be added, if someone wants. I will continue to defend the inclusion of Britian and Germany, both because of the existance of large and fast-growing communities, respectively, important roles in the history of Judaism, and decent articles on each subject.

They're all in there now anyway. Jayjg | (Talk) 23:15, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

We can tweak details afterwards. The layout is clearly an improvement. -- Jmabel | Talk 02:32, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)

The elimination of some material does mean, though, that in the main Jew article (though not in all of the many other articles using this template) we have some material to restore. We removed the ethnicity infobox when we added this template. Only the population statistics got their own new table. The various minor Jewish ethnic groups will need one, too. -- Jmabel | Talk 02:32, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)

Regarding your removal of Temani (as a subset of Mizrahi), I prefer the previous version for three reasons:

1. Temanim are different enough from other Mizrahi Jews that they are often considered a separate group,
2. The Temani Jew article is quite good, the Mizrahi Jew article is extemely weak,
3. It adds an extra line.

Would you be o.k. with the previous version? Jayjg | (Talk) 02:35, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• If you look at my edit you will see that Temani Jews were not mentioned at all before I edited and Mizrahi Jews were mentioned twice. My edit was mainly about formatting, and I want once again to do the slight reformat this was mainly about, then I'm done.
  • I'm baffled here, Jmabel. I'm looking at the "before" version, and it has both Asheknazi and Mizrahi on the first line, and Sephardi and Temani on the second line. I was sure it did, since that's the way I created it. However, the after version (yours) removes Temani and puts the remaining groups (Ashkenazi, Sephardi, Mizrahi) on three separate lines. Jayjg | (Talk) 04:45, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • I'm baffled too: This is what I saw when I edited, this is what I saw when I reconfirmed before making the remark here, but now I see what you describe. I have no idea why I saw one thing and Jayjg saw another, but we don't seem to disagree about what should be there. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:34, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
• BTW, I think it is clear that we have consensus to replace the existing template, and small edits can just as easily happen downstream of the replacement. I don't think we need to vote again. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:37, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)

Is everyone done their changes?

Can we agree not to change it from here on in, so that we can take a vote? Anyone who disagrees, please speak up now. Jayjg | (Talk) 02:56, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'm done correcting the changes now :)  ALKIVAR™

Cool sig. I like your corrections. Jayjg | (Talk) 03:13, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'm now done. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:43, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you keep making that change, Jmabel. The current template is two lines shorter than your version, but the same width and contains the same information. What is the purpose of your change? Jayjg | (Talk) 04:49, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Done, I moved Beta Israel back to ethnic divisions (the article covered the ethnic group). I also fixed the ethnic divisions text a bit. --Goodoldpolonius2 06:06, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

---

From User talk:Alkivar/Jew:

---

Wider?

Can you try making it wider? Also Zionism and the Bund are not Jewish culture, they are Jewish political movements. Jayjg | (Talk) 03:14, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Ethnic content

I think the removal of ethnic diversity is unfortunate — I am sure I am not the only one who may think that it is at least as essential to include Cochin Jews, Bene Israel, Beta Israel, Romaniotes and Italkim as to include Yiddish theatre here... Also, I think that Judaeo-Arabic is too important to leave out, given that this was the main written language for as important Jews as Maimonides and Saadiah Gaon. (The lack of precision in calling Judaeo-Spanish "Ladino" (which is really a different thing in a historical Jewish context) I can live with, given that this coinage is as widespread as it is today...) I know that the goal is to make the thing less bulky — but it is a rather diverse topic we are dealing with here, so it is no easy task... :) -- Olve 06:20, 29 Dec

I think I said before that all of these topics you mention are either small/disappearing groups or languages. There is only so much that can be included. Jayjg | (Talk) 18:28, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I added the Bene Israel to this section (numerically as important as the Beta Israel and Teimanim), and cut out the explanation of what each ethnonym refers to—such explanations are appropriate in the articles, but are just deadwood in the template...besides, the parenthesized "clarifications" were incomplete...they didn't bother to say "Ethiopian" for Beta Israel. They may now be slightly more cryptic, but at least they're consistently so. :-p Tomer ^TALK 06:53, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

It may be worth considering adding several other groups, as long as the additions are limited to a single line in the template. Since this subject has its own article, most of the description thereof should be left to that article. Tomer ^TALK 06:59, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

Language section

Now that there is a Template:Jewish languages, can the languages section of this Template be removed? Jayjg ^(talk) 23:16, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I think it's still useful. I'd keep it here. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:48, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)

I concur that it should remain. I trimmed it a bit so that it now (compare my similar trimming of the Ethnic Divisons section for the same reason—it has its own article...) takes up only 2 lines in the template. I also added the numerically and historically significant Dzhidi to the template. Tomer ^TALK 06:57, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

Kibbutz

Kibbutz (now a FA) sorta belongs on this template somewhere, would someone kindly add it where appropriate?  ALKIVAR™ 07:05, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure it really belongs; it a subtopic of Israel or Zionism, not really Jew, in my opinion. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:09, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I second JayJG's remarks. It's nice that it's a FA, and appropriate to ensure that it's easily accessible from the Zionism and Israel articles, but it doesn't really belong here. Tomer ^TALK 06:28, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

Link to Template

Please leave the link there, so people know what they are discussing, until an agreement or alternative is reached.

---

It took me forever to figure out how to edit a template. I embedded a link to the template page in the template itself, for newbies. The idea occurred to me when I saw that many other templates do the same. The link was recently removed with this reasoning: "Template is long enough. Those who want to, will get to it in any case."

The second part of his statement is a valid argument, which is why I've restored the link, and opened the topic up for discussion.

The first part of his statement, though, in my opinion — is his opinion. Free access, and being able to contribute edits, are fundamental principles of Wikipedia. Every document is a living, and ever-changing document. Input should never be limited solely to an elite group of Wikipedians.

Please, let's discuss.

— <TALKJNDRLINETALK> 23:06, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

"Not that it need be long, but it will take a long while to make it short." — Henry David Thoreau

I actually agree with (I think it was IZAK's) his remark, on both counts. I'd actually like to see the template split up, so that there's one template that goes across the bottom with "Jews, Judaism, Jewish denominations, Jewish languages, Israel, Israelis, Jewish history" etc. with links in it to the main articles for each separate group of articles, each set of which would have its own smaller template to go on the right hand side of the main article and the set of related articles. You'll find tho, that there are some pretty fierce defenders of status quo, vis à vis the current state of this template. Tomer ^TALK 05:24, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

I was trying not to use names :)

There is a difference between staunchly defending work you have already done, and preventing others from contributing - by blocking new paths for them to get here. Even you suggested changes you would like to see. So long as the Wikipedia is not an archive, this Template will never be a static document.

Thank you for sharing your insights.

— <TALKJNDRLINETALK> 14:15, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Repeated vandalism ... I guess that's a very persuasive reason. *sigh*

--— <TALKJNDRLINETALK>    

History Grouping

At least three lines of the History section are where Jews are subjects of a larger empire (I'm thinking Bab/Grk/Rmn Empires) and think that they should be combined. To this end, I created Jewish Nation Under Foreign Rule.

Perhaps it would be better to discuss?

— <TALKJNDRLINETALK>       21:27, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

While I appreciate the impulse, I personally think the simplification doesn't help -- there weren't a lot of similarities between these periods, and they aren't usually grouped together in any histories of the Jewish people. Also, given the nebulous definition of nation this title makes it unclear when the Jewish nation wasn't under foreign rule between 576 BCE and 1948. --Goodoldpolonius2 22:11, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Maybe the problem, then, isn't with the "simplification," but using the word Nation, rather than People? One way or another, there's a lot more history than what's there, and what's there is fairly specific (versus the broad and general <pov> that should appear on a template </pov>). I'm not hurt if Jewish Nation Under Foreign Rule isn't the solution, but I would like to see an alternative to what's there.

— <TALKJNDRLINETALK>    23:02, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Picture

Um, isn't there a better picture representing Jews than a circumsized dick? Haverton

is this a trick question--152.163.100.7 01:20, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

There have been way too many vandals attacking this page and replacing the picture. Can we protect for a couple days? --Goodoldpolonius2 01:19, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

How about forever? ‡ Jarlaxle 01:23, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

Protected due to repeat vandalism

Given that there are now over 400 sysops, it may be a good idea to harden certain vandal targets for the longer term. This would require some convention for communicating with sysops interested in particular articles, to make requested changes. Maybe a sysop-request section for each sysop. -St|eve 01:31, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

You protected a broken copy -- the original had the Magen David at the top of the template. --Goodoldpolonius2 01:32, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Better? In any case its also a good idea to not use obvious "edit this" links for templates. -St|eve 03:38, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

The protected copy still has the view/edit link. (my change of heart is above)

— <TALKJNDRLINETALK>     30 August 2005

Unrelated New Page: Brit-Dam

Please visit Talk:Brit-dam and add your two-cents.

— <TALKJNDRLINETALK>     30 August 2005

Requested addition

As I am not an administrator, I can't edit this page, but I am all for keeping this template protected due to frequent vandalism. I do have a request for an admin to add, however. Please insert Jewish diaspora (It can simple be called "Diaspora") after Era of the Pharisees, since otherwise we leap right to the Middle Ages. Also, I am not entirely sure that the current Talmudic Era and Era of the Pharisees are the right articles, since one is literally the Talmud article and the other a rather narrow view from just the Pharisees perspective. Perhaps some of the material from History of the Jews in Iraq might work for beefing up the Talmud history, I will take a look. --Goodoldpolonius2 02:23, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

• I linked the one you asked for. What is the Iraq article you mean? What you wrote is redlinked. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:09, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Thanks, sorry History of the Jews in Iraq, specifically on the academies. (corrected above as well). --Goodoldpolonius2 04:12, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

The following request was recently anonymously placed on my user talk page. I'm placing it here for comment before making any edits; the particular groups listed may be too specifically American: -- Jmabel | Talk 19:01, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Jmabel -- Can you please edit the template "Jew" to include the section "Jewish policy groups"? I suggest placement just between "Jewish denominations" and "Jewish political movements". My suggested initial links in that category are: American Jewish Committee, American Jewish Congress, Jewish Council for Public Affairs, and Religious Action Center.

The policy groups have played a major role in American Jewish life for the past century, and have been an important location (?) for Jewish American leaders, both secular and religious.

Much of the public voicing of opinion by the Jewish community has been performed by these organizations.

Thank you. 207.67.145.229 18:53, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

• I'd be against including this. First, the template already has an article for Jewish political movements, which could be expanded to cover these groups, as it already addresses them to some extent (History of the Jews in the United States also includes some of this). Second, I am not sure what one could say about the full range of Jewish organizations in an article that would be meaningful, other than to list them; since they cover such a wide range of opinions, groups, and ideas. Third, many of these are not policy groups, but aspects of either various branches of Judaism or of particular streams of the Zionist movement, also covered in the article. I think listing these groups together is fine, but a seperate part of the template isn't needed, especially as the template has so many larger holes and is already quite long. --Goodoldpolonius2 14:56, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Name of articles on Jews

Currently the names of articles about Jews are inconsistent:

• Some are named "History of the Jews in...", including History of the Jews in Poland, History of the Jews in Ireland, History of the Jews in China, History of the Jews in Canada, History of the Jews in Iraq, History of the Jews in Italy, History of the Jews in Hungary, History of the Jews in Germany, History of the Jews in Egypt, etc.
• Others are named "...Jews", including Ashkenazi Jews, Sephardi Jews, Mizrahi Jews, Bukharan Jews, Yemenite Jews, American Jews, Lithuanian Jews, Cochin Jews, Persian Jews, Indian Jews, South African Jews etc.
• Still others are named using the local (non-English) names, such as Bene Israel, Beta Israel, Italkim, Gruzim, etc.

I have proposed that the articles all be switched to the "... Jews" naming convention, for the following reasons:

• The "History of" names are unwieldy, do not follow Wikipedia convention, and are inaccurate, since they describe the current situation of the communities in these countries as well.
• The local language names are difficult for English speakers, and don't follow Wikipedia naming conventions either, since they rarely use the common English name.
• The "... Jews" names are short, and the common way the groups are referred to.

Goodoldpolonius2 has object to moving the articles to the "... Jews" titles, but has said he would not object moving them to "Jews in ..." names (e.g. "Jews in Hungary"). (GOP2, please feel free to add your reasons for this here).

I'd like to get some discussion going on a consistent naming scheme here, and invite your comments. Jayjg ^(talk) 07:51, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

• I fully agree with User:Jayjg because there are now many articles that have and are (being) produced in this area and it therefore must be standardized ASAP to avoid confusion and for the sake of orderliness and consistency which will only gain the respect of intelligent readers and make it easier to navigate through the "sea" of all things Jewish, pertaining to Jews, about the Jew, etc IZAK 08:40, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Good idea: consistent searchable predictable titles. I would generally prefer "Jews in ..." to "History of the Jews in ...", but I don't see a reason to rename Ashkenazi Jews, Mizrahi Jews, Mountain Jews or Bukharan Jews. Also, could we find a place (a cat? a list?) to find them better than Jewish history#Jewish history by country or region. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 09:10, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Humus: The categories you desire basically exist already (I have been working long and hard on them for over a year now -- of course others have added to them as well)! See Category:Jews and Judaism (sidebar) and Category:Israel and Zionism. See also for example the subcategories Category:Jewish history or Category:Jews. There are also some lists, but not as comprehensive as the categories. IZAK 09:24, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Short, easily remembered names are always better in principle. Of course, any large-scale renaming will cause some problems and there will always be people dismayed by the change to an old favourite, but I think that the proposal has the balance of advantage. There always seems to be a dispute about whether it is better to have a list or a category; the attempt to delete my List of Jewish Fellows of the Royal Society was a recent example. Local names are more of a problem, as they may arouse strong feelings among the members of these communities; extensive cross-referencing may be the best way out here.
RachelBrown 09:23, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

By the way Rachel: I have recently had a serious change of mind regarding the growing mind-numbing number of lists about Jews who neither cared for nor acknowledged their Jewishness in an meaningful or open way. Where will the trend of Jews' lists end? Jewish shoemakers? Jewish barbers? If this goes on much longer it will only add to what has already become a collection of essentially meaningless names of people who barely identified with their truly Jewish brethren and in many instances are not Jewish by many accepted religious or ethnic definitions of the term in any case. For example, hasn't the pop singer Madonna done enough to be called "Jewish" by now? ...she's gives heavy millions of $$,$$$,$$$ to the Kabbalah Centre people, she supposedly changed her name to "Esther" and she does not do shows on Shabbat they say, she studies Zohar with rabbis so why not call her "Jewish"...it's a lot more than Marx or Freud or Disraeli ever did?? Anyhow, just some tangential thoughts here while we are on the topic of how to "label" things pertaining to Jews (and since you cite "lists" as examples). IZAK 09:36, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Jayjg, that a standardization of the names should be done. I'm just not sure yet which method is best, his or Goodoldpolonius2 which I will see once Goodoldpolonius2 elaborates more. --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 16:16, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

I am not enthusiastic about this proposal, but I certainly won't object to what looks like an emerging consensus. I appreciate the importance of consistency, but it does not surprise me that all articles involving Jews have varied formats. It seems to me that the titles of articles Jayjg lists are of two sorts: first, the names of subgroups of Jews, and secondly, regional histories. Note: these are not isomorphic classes. The history of Jews in the Netherlands will include an account of Sephardic Jews as well as Ashkenazic Jews; the history of Jews in the Ottoman Empire will include Sephardic Jews and Temani Jews. Personally, I see two different problems here which do not have to do with the consistency of the form of the titles so much as the logic underlying them. One problem is identifying subgroups of Jews in English or a non-English term. Personally, I favor the non-English term. I prefer "Beta Israel" over "Falasha" for obvious reasons, but also over "Ethiopian Jews" because I have a personal and professional bias towards acknowledging how people identify themselves. Also, thanks to the fabulous powers of "redirect" no user will ever get confused; they can type in "Falasha" and be redirected to "Beta Israel" and the first paragraph will explain to them why. Similarly, I prefer Litvak over "Lithuanian Jew," and "Galitziana Jews" (perhaps because I am half and half), and maybe even "Yeki" because I am not (admitedly, I may be being inconsistent with this one) over English terms. The second problem is confusing a subgroups of Jews with a geographical region. Although one can argue quite plausibly that all subgroups have origins in specific geographic areas, Jews have moved around so much that I think we need to be careful to distinguish the two. So if an article called "Lithuanian Jews" is specifically the history of Jews who have lived in Lithuania, call it "History of Lithuanian Jews." If it is about Litvaks, many of whom do not live in Lithuania, call it "Litvak Jews." All articles would have under categories "Jews." Some of them would also be under the category "Jewish history," and others "Jewish ethnic groups." Well, given the above discussion, I suspect no one will agree with me. Frankly, I do not want to argue over this. If everyone, or a clear majority, favors Jayjg's suggestion, I will support it. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:51, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Ditto Kuratowski's Ghost 23:36, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

By the way, I agree entirely with IZAK that lists of Jews is silly; I have long thought that most "people" lists here are silly. And aside from IZAK's point about the frequent arbitrariness, there is a racial tinge to it that I do not like (I find anti-Semitism abhorrent, of course, but I find philo-Semitism distaseful, and do not see how this list can avoid serving one of these two purposes) Slrubenstein | Talk 16:54, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

I'd be perfectly glad to lose "History of…" off the front of the first set of names. The second and third sets seem to me to be correctly named. I think Slrubenstein is correct about the need to distinguish ethnic groups from geographically oriented articles. In some cases, the two may coincide, but "Sephardic Jews" and "Jews in Spain" are, especially in the last half-millennium, two separate topics. Similarly, there are several very distinct populations of Jews that were historically in what is now the country of India, they deserve separate articles, with the requisite links between them. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:55, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

To weigh in -- I have written about 20 of the "History of the Jews in ___" articles, and I am in no way wedded to the "History of the" part -- I just copied it from an existing article when I wrote my first of these a year ago. On the other hand, I object strongly to using "Spanish Jews" or "Lithuanian Jews" or whatever as a blanket replacement. To explain, and to expand on Slrubenstein's point, that we have two flavors of articles:

• Articles about groups of Jew. These articles follow the groups of Jews involved, tending to concentrate on their curennt situation. Witness Sephardic Jews, Bene Israel, etc. I would suggest that these are the articles that should remain "____ Jews"
• Articles about places where Jews have lived. These articles tie to a country or region, and describe how it interacted with its Jewish population, which may have many points of origin. These should be labelled "History of the Jews in ___" or "Jews in ___"

The only two regions to have both types of articles right now that I can think of are History of the Jews in the United States and American Jew (but that is a somewhat uncomfortable match, given that the history article is really a subset of the American Jew article) and History of the Jews in Spain and Sephardic Jew which I think is a much better example of this done right. None of the current History articles are about the groups of Jews after they leave the country in question, though some of the current groups of Jews articles (Persian Jews) do include a lot of historical information. Therefore, I would suggest that we stick with two kinds of articles, as Jmabel suggests, one about the experience of Jews in particular countries, and the other about groups of Jews. I think titling the first ones "History of" still makes sense (but I would be okay with Jews in ___), and the second should be "___ Jews." There will be less of the second type than the first, of course, but I don't see that as a problem. --Goodoldpolonius2 21:16, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm in favour of "[location] Jews". The "History of" or "Jews of" have their own problems. It should be plural, as only meaningful things can be said about groups in this instance. I would even support a move from Jew to Jews, by the way.

"History of ..." ignores that Jews have more than just a history. They may have pecular observances and minhagim that should be documented without trying to put this into historical context. Dutch Jews, for example, should mention that this group unusually waits only for one hour after having meal containing meat before partaking in anything containing milk (worldwide 3 or generally 6 is the norm).

JFW, I genuinely do not understand your point. An article on the history of Jews living in a particular part of the world is necessary becayse an article on "Jewish history" would go way, way, way over the size limit of Wikipedia articles; we need to break them down. Second, "History of ... does not ignore the fact that Jews have more than history, and I honestly don't see how you can come up with this interpretation. All these types of articles assert is that Jews do have a history (and if you have read Hegel or Toynbee, you'd know that this is actually an important claim). To say that Jews do have history does not mean that that is the only thing they have, it is not an exclusive claim. (as an analogy, I don't see any problem to a "Polish history" article and a "Polish culture" article" — my point is that having one kind of article about a particular phenomenon has never meant (at Wikipedia) that there cannot be other articles about it (articles that look at diffeent facets of it, or from different perspectives). Finally, what you wrote suggest that you have a very narrow notion of "history." There is a branch of history called "social history" and although you may not have heard of it in the US at least it is a major branch of history. Among other things, social historians do look at the development and changes of customs and cultural practices. So a "History" article can also inform us about the social organization and culture of the people living in that place. It would just do it in a historical context, that's all (and by the way, I think that is one good — I mean, useful and important — way to look at customs. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:47, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

"Jews of ..." ignores another fact, namely that Jews can live in a country without considering themselves "[...] Jews". I need only give the example of a German-Jewish businessman who settles in Poland, but would oppose vehemently at being called a "Polish Jew". JFW | T@lk 21:32, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

JFW - none of the proposals are for "Jews of..." instead they are "Jews in..." or "History of the Jews in..." which should resolve some of your concerns. And, again, having solely [Location] Jews is a huge problem, in that Spanish Jews refers to... what? Sephardim? Jews currently in Spain? Morranos? Conversos? Jews during Moorish times? Again, we can cover the observances in the [location] Jews articles, where needed, but the [History of the] Jews in... articles are also needed for the reasons outlined above. --Goodoldpolonius2 21:41, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

In the interest of correct information, generally speaking, Dutch Jews wait 55 minutes, not an hour...it is Yekkes who generally wait "only" an hour, and predominantly only Litvaks who wait 6 [although many, under the same rationale as the Dutch waiting 55 minutes instead of an hour, wait only 5½ hours...]. I lean heavily in favor of Steve's comments on the naming conventions, but I'm on a rather flaky dialup connection until I fix our cable service [again! argh!] [tomorrow hopefully]...I just returned from Sukkoth in NYC, and have a lot of catching up to do, but will do my best to formulate a cogent response to this issue prior to shabath.... Tomer ^TALK 09:30, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree with the trend here: "Jews in [location]" and "[Ethnic group] Jews". However, I might favor, like SLR, acknowledging people in the way they identify themselves over consistency, though as he mentions, this could be handled with a redirect. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 04:29, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

By the way, people participating in this discussion may want to llok at Talk: Jesus in the Christian Bible. The primary author of this article, User: Scifiintel, originally named it "Jesus in the Bible," which I objected to on NPOV grounds (that there is one Bible, and Jesus appears in it, being a Christian POV). Scifiintel redirected it back to the old name, and I redirected again. Most of his explanation for his position is on my talk page [3]. The situation may be stable — he has made no recent attempts to rename it — but he nevertheless contines to express strong diagreement with my re-naming of the article. I don't want this to be a squabble between me and him ... I am also not trying to get a group of people to gang up on him. But perhaps some of you can explain why I changed the title more eloquently and convincingly then me (and if any of you disagree with what I did, well, I sure would like to know that, and know why), Slrubenstein | Talk 17:18, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

The above two discussions make me wonder if we shouldn't have a Wikiproject or, even better in my view, a notice board along the lines of the Irish Wikipedians' notice board devoted to Jewish history, culture, etc. There is a WikiProject Judaism, but they specifically discuss issues relating to Judaism as a religion. RMoloney (talk) 10:54, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

"Mainly", but not "specifically". Non-religious issues about Jews certainly come up in WikiProject Judaism. Maybe overtly widen its scope to "Jews and Judaism" rather than start another project? You might want to suggest that there. -- Jmabel | Talk 20:52, 6 November 2005 (UTC)