Talk:Jew

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ive been asked a question called who is a jew. i needhelp here

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.76.87.180 (talkcontribs)

You can get all kinds of different answers. But in my opinion, the best one is to look at where the name started out first.
It started out with a man named Judah. (Yehuda). This man is in the Bible, he was one of the twelve sons of Jacob, also known as Israel, who started the twelve tribes of the Israelites. So this man Judah's children and grandchildren started the original Tribe of Judah.
This grew to be one of the most important tribes, because the capital of Jerusalem was in their territory, and later it had its own kings, while other tribes of Israel to the north had a different king. When the Assyrians came in, they took away the other ten tribes and they never came back, leaving only the Kingdom of Judah, which also included another tribe, Benjamin. They were known as "Jews". They were taken away by the Babylonians, but many of them did come back. The Romans called the area Judea, but later sent them out of the country again and changed the name to Palestine.
The Hebrews or Israelites had always allowed other people to convert to their religion, even if they were not related to them by blood. After the Romans scattered the Jews in many different countries, they continued to get more people who converted to their religion. So a lot of people today are called "Jews", in some cases because they follow the Jewish religion, in some cases because they are from a Jewish family, and in many cases, for both reasons. Blockinblox 14:49, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Protection?[change source]

Call me a protection hog, but I think we should consider a silver-lock on this. It's been vandalized several times in the last few days, and has the potential for hate vandalism. In six months, there's only been one edit that wasn't vandalism, reverting vandalism, or interwiki bots (it was made by me on March 7). It has a silver-lock on the big Wikipedia. Purplebackpack89 (Notes Taken) (Locker) 05:08, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean semi-protection so that only established users can do it? If so, I think I support it. We shouldn't protect as a precaution, but as you said it's been often vandalized...Classical Esther 05:20, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah. I call semi-protection "silver lock" because its symbol is a silver [pad]lock. I'm thinking 3 months semi-protection Purplebackpack89 22:55, 1 April 2010 (UTC) I ♥ Griffinofwales[reply]
Two weeks semi-protection as a preventative measure. Let's see how it goes. Bluegoblin7  23:17, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(<-) Added three months of semi-protection (autocofirmed); recently vandalism has been up again. --Eptalon (talk) 14:55, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vadalism of 11 January 2013[change source]

Please note: vadalism of 11 January 2013 undetected until I stumbled over the article almost two weeks later. Semiprotection might help. Ajnem (talk) 11:07, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reason for the Holocaust ?[change source]

@Djsasso: I think the subclause because they believed the Jews were responsible for the problems in Germany during and after the First World War has three problems:

  • The reasons for the Holocaust are the subject of a long and complicated scholarly debate. Among them are anti-Jewish prejudice inherited from medieval times, scientific racism, competition between Jewish and non-Jewish people, perceived "Otherness", perceived influence of Jews in the communist movement, in capitalist economy, in liberal politics, in the press. Hitler's antisemitism seems to have been formed during his Vienna years before WWI. So the reason given in the subclause is one of the many reasons, and maybe not the most important.
  • If you write they believed the Jews were responsible, you also have to explain that in fact there was not the slightest trace of any responsibility of "the Jews".
  • Giving a reason for the Holocaust might give the reader the impression that the Holocaust was something like a "reasonable" deed, at least in the same sense that other genocides can be called "reasonable" if their object was to secure power or to get rid of competition. There has been a lot of scholarly debate about the singularity of the Holocaust, and one of the points often mentioned in favour of singularity is that there was no "reasonable reason" for it. --Rsk6400 (talk) 15:36, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Rsk6400: You're correct. There is not enough reliable sources to conclude definitely that that was the reason. I agree this needs to be changed. IWI (chat) 15:37, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yes it should very much be explained that about the fact they were not. But removing what was declared by them quite actively as the reason is removing critical information to the Holocaust. There is a big difference between being a "reasonable reason" and a "reason". Something can still be a reason they acted the way they did, even if it was not reasonable. For example Chapman killed John Lennon because he said the fictional character Holden Caufield told him too. That is the reason he did it, however, that doesn't mean it was a reasonable reason. -Djsasso (talk) 16:24, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think I removed "critical information". We'd need a source (by an expert on the Holocaust) stating that Nazi belief in the Jews' responsibility for Germany's problems after 1914 was the cause (or at least the principal cause) for the Holocaust. I personally don't believe that such a source exists. --Rsk6400 (talk) 17:43, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say cause, I said reason. There is plenty of propaganda out there all easily sourced that shows they were using it as a reason. -Djsasso (talk) 17:45, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt it was the true reason; that's just what they told the people. I'm by no means an expert. I'd like to see independent literature. IWI (chat) 21:45, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well that is what I mean is the difference between reason and cause. What actually caused it can be different than the reason they used to justify it. (and of course there is no true justification) -Djsasso (talk) 12:30, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
When I spoke of "cause", I just re-worded the subclause mentioned above: because they believed became Nazi belief was the cause. Of course, Nazis said that Jews were responsible, many of them even believed that. But to support that subclause we'd need a source saying that their belief in the responsibility of the Jews was the only cause or at least the main cause for the Holocaust. --Rsk6400 (talk) 15:21, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]