Talk:Jewish question

Requested move 06 August 2013

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the proposal was no consensus. --BDD (talk) 23:48, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Jewish question → Jewish Question – To conform with scholarly literature (see: "Jewish Question" in Google Books with 355,000 results) as well as the titles of the whole series of Wikipedia articles including the Eastern Question posed by the decay of the Ottoman Empire, the Armenian Question about Armenians, and the Polish Question pertaining to the rebirth of Poland. The capitalization is necessary in order to distinguish between any given question posed by Jews, from the one monumental question posed about Jews in world politics. See also Talk:Armenian Question mentioning this. Relisted. BDD (talk) 16:17, 14 August 2013 (UTC) Poeticbent  talk  17:48, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Survey

 * Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with  or  , then sign your comment with  . Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.


 * Oppose. It is not a proper noun. No need to capitalize. Hatagalow (talk) 16:54, 11 August 2013 (UTC).
 * Oppose – Google book search is not case-sensitive, but Google books n-grams are, and they show it's more often lowercase in books: .  Not close to the "consistently capitalized in sources" criterion of MOS:CAPS, even with the recent trend toward more capitalization.  Dicklyon (talk) 23:57, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * When you replace the year_end parameter value of 2000 with 2012, the trend continues to the point where capitalization became more popular in 2008. --B2C 17:31, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Support. I agree, from my own understanding and opinion, with the literature, that the "Jewish Question" is the proper name of a very significant human debate.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:05, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Per Hatagalow, this is not a proper noun. Side bar, I do believe that (while keeping WP:THE in mind) the article should be located at The Jewish question. I believe this is case where a definite is exclusively employed with the term.--Labattblueboy (talk) 00:23, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Support. It's a proper noun.  Henry Ford used it that way. It's doubtful this article would have this title if it wasn't a proper noun. -- Randy2063 (talk) 00:58, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * By proper noun, I think you mean "proper name". See Proper name/noun.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:21, 14 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose per Dicklyon. , if we carried this reasoning through, we'd be capping everything you can take a pot-shot at, like laws, principles, theories, fields of research, and occupations. It's profoundly against our style guidance and practice. Tony   (talk)  02:10, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Not at all. We simply need to look at how the topic is most commonly referenced in reliable sources.  --B2C 17:32, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * No, B2C. Again, this n-gram test is false evidence: you must (obviously) filter out the title occurrences. It's that simple. Tony   (talk)  02:38, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Support (as the nominator). Capitalization is for names, and this is the name of the Jewish discussion question. And why exactly, was the Polish Question mentioned in my rationale, unilateraly moved before the end of this discussion without WP:RM? Poeticbent  talk  06:45, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Support The Jewish Question is a name, a proper name, and Google Books n-grams show that the trend towards capitalization has crossed the point where capitalization became more popular in 2008 . --B2C 17:31, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose The WP:MOSCAPS criteria for avoiding WP's usual "avoid unnecessary capitalization" rule is, is it "consistently capitalized in sources"? Per Dicklyon the answer seems to be no.  Though it's true that the capitalized variation seems to have become more popular recently per Born2Cycle's response, the difference in usage between the two is marginal at best.  "Consistently capitalized" is a bit vague but if the "consistently" part of it is going to mean anything it must be the case that there's a more than 51% capitalization requirement. So I think it should be left lowercase unless and until there exists a more overwhelming majority in favor of capitalization.  AgnosticAphid  talk 17:39, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Support, this is not a thing, but a Thing, not a question asked by (or generically about) the Jews, but a singular proposition. DeistCosmos (talk) 19:52, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Any additional comments:

Moved response to Hatagalow from survey section:
 * There is no question that it is not a proper noun. The question is whether it is a proper name.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:07, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Here is a book page that will help Smokey Joe understand that he's wrong; it's not a particular debate, but rather a big range of topics. This book also illustrates the fact that a lot of the caps one sees in Google book search in titles and such are followed by lowercase in the text. We don't do caps in titles this way. Dicklyon (talk) 00:13, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Dicklyon, could you comment on the other capital Q Question articles mentioned in the nomination? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:43, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I have done so at Talk:Armenian Question. Dicklyon (talk) 03:19, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Moved response to Dicklyon from survey section:
 * These two curves are not so widely separated. I think the question is most appropriately phased as "Is the name a proper name".  I think that it is reasonable to assume that during the debate, and especially debate was leaning to deny full humanity to Jews, that it was not considered a debate so significant as to be a debate referred to with a proper name.  However, in these more enlightened days, with the question almost universally considered a historic debate, and with books trending to be more concerned with presentation of accuracy than author opinion and style, noting here the trend of the last fifty years in the Ngram viewer, I think it is reasonable to now consider the "Jewish Question" to be a proper name.   --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:18, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The criterion is in MOS:CAPS. If the curves are not widely separated, we use lowercase.  It is perfectly reasonable to consider it proper, and treat it as proper, as some authors do, but that's not what WP does unless sources do so reasonably consistently; so far they are nowhere close, barely approaching a tie.  Dicklyon (talk) 00:31, 14 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment the opposite direction is proposed at talk: Armenian Question -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 02:13, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Smokey, if you look more deeply at usage, using n-grams designed to exclude usages in titles and headings and focus on usages likely to be in sentences, that "trend" you hallucinated goes away:,. Try others. This term is clearly still not anywhere near the threshold for being treated as a "proper" whatever. It does not name a particular thing. Authors who capitalize it do so to emphasize it as key element of their work, not because it's a proper name of anything. Dicklyon (talk) 15:30, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * More on sources.
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Alt-right use of "JQ"
I added a sentence about contemporary use of the shorthand JQ by the alt-right (antisemitic white nationalists). I don't know whether this is considered inappropriate for an article about the historical use of the term, but it seemed relevant. 64.134.233.55 (talk) 17:04, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't think the grouping together of anti-semitism, white nationalism and the alt-right is productive, appropriate or factually accurate. I'll be making a related edit to this section in 48(+) hours unless the talk page convinces me not to (or gets me banned, why not).
 * Am I missing something or is the alt-right comprised of a large majority of non-Nazi's? And what definition of white nationalism are we talking about, what definition of anti-semitism? Do I use the "official" definition on Wikipedia, and what do I do if the articles describe various meanings/interpretations of those terms? Those terms have a seriously negative and I'd say destructive connotation and seeing how
 * I would suggest to at least change this to "the alt-right" (because it includes a lot of people, some of whom are Neo-Nazi's, white-nationalists, white-supremacists, supporters of white ethno-state but those groups which are definitely not PC are a small minority taken-together, ), or "the alt-right and white nationalists", however I also don't think that's quite accurate, because most content I have encountered related to "the JQ" (I looked it up, not "all of it" of course, could we actually index "all of it" or come close pragmatically?) was related to Zionism which AFAIK is mainly a political movement (although I'm under the impression that there are some Luciferian crossovers), and the commentators I've seen made the impression that they were not anti-semitic but anti-Zionist (the one being grounded in "bigotry" (in-group preference?) and the other in historical "manifest actions" and ideas, which to me seem like reasonable causes to dislike or not want to support a group of people (just like "those who hate blacks because they're not white" - note that I have not reached anything close to a conclusion on the IQ/intelligence/cognitive ability issue).
 * Does it make me a white nationalist if I'm skeptic of replacement migration, because I value the genes I have on the whole, have doubts about the motives of those who implement these policies and can't as of yet oversee the impact on both "Western cultural norms" and the human race? I believe in the good side of "black pride" in the same way I believe in the good side of "white pride"; I think it's good for people to enjoy their lives, no matter the way they have been shaped by genetics and their environment. I'm of above average intelligence and that might not have anything to do with my race, the "scientific information"/"alt-right propaganda" I've encountered suggests it does have a relation to my genetics and I tend to take that side, but that doesn't mean I hate other races, or even low-IQ people of all races (I still have to read the "great works" on eugenics and their criticsisms). StupidStudios (talk) 00:00, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Have you read the first paragraph of alt-right? It clearly states that people who call themselves "alt-right" are white supremacists and/or neo-Nazis. If you have some really compelling evidence otherwise, the talk page for the alt-right article would probably be a better venue to discuss this. --ChiveFungi (talk) 00:42, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Hey. I'm the IP who created this section. When I originally added the mention of the shorthand back in May, I just used the term "the alt-right". It was only changed to "the Neo-Nazi alt-right" a few days ago. In my experience the term is predominantly used by antisemitic members of the alt-right, which does include neo-Nazis and antisemitic white nationalists, and less so by moderate alt-liters. Again, in my experience (which may not be representative but I think it is), "JQ" is generally used to refer to a Jewish conspiracy against white people, and when asked to provide sources for the alleged conspriacy you will get references to the Culture of Critique series. Sometimes antisemitic white nationalists (or ~neo-Nazis) will complain that less antisemitic white nationalists (e.g., Jared Taylor) are too soft on the JQ, meaning that they don't acknowledge the Jewish white genocide conspiracy theory. Anti-Zionism is sort of related, but I think many of the people who push these ideas are antisemitic in general. Regardless, we have to go by what reliable sources say, so please include some if you would like to change the wording. GojiBarry (talk) 16:45, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

2604:3D09:D78:1000:C149:7FD0:EC31:824E (talk) 10:53, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Could you explain your objection to the current wording? GojiBarry (talk) 04:06, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't think the grouping together of anti-semitism, white nationalism and the alt-right is productive, appropriate or factually accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tadpolegaming (talk • contribs) 17:15, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The original wording when I added it was simply "alt-right". Then it was changed to "Neo-Nazi alt-right". I changed it to "white nationalists, members of the alt-right, and neo-Nazis" after the above discussion because 1) It's consistent with the source which uses all of these terms. 2) The previous version implied that all members of the alt-right are neo-Nazis, which is false (e.g., Jared Taylor isn't one).
 * Personally, I'd be fine with just leaving it at "alt-right" and letting people read the alt-right article if they want a detailed explanation of what the term encompasses. But maybe and  would disagree.
 * If you would like it changed, could you please propose an alternative wording and give some sources to back it up? GojiBarry (talk) 19:23, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

New Source Online: "Down With Hate!" by Adrien Arcand
https://downwithhate.wordpress.com/

Adrien Arcand (1899-1967) was a Canadian political figure who lived through two world wars he attributed to Jewish influence, and who wrote on the issue addressed in this Wikipedia page, the dilemma of integrating anti-Western Jews into the West. Until now, Arcand's work has never been translated into English. The above web site represents one of his books, À Bas La Haine! (Down With Hate!), published in 1965 at the time of a royal commission on "hate propaganda" convened in Canada with two leading Zionist and pro-Communist Jews on the panel, as well as non-Jewish leftists.

In this book, Arcand cites names mostly of Jews, authoritative Jewish authors, Jewish converts to Christianity, Jewish Talmudists, Jewish historians, etc., as well as major western political figures, Churchill, Chamberlain, Popes and others. Arcand takes in a wide range of subject matter relating to the difficulty of fitting the Jewish, anti-Christian, "Oriental" mindset into Christian western countries.

In fact, Arcand viewed this book as a reference work, and it is jam-packed with information analyzed and "reacted" to from the viewpoint of a Western Christian. Arcand ran for office in Quebec, garnered a respectable percentage of the vote, and was appreciated by many for his defense of the rights of French Canadians to be self-governing -- not subject to hostile foreign influence -- in their own hard-won homeland. I would recommend this book as a resource to anyone working on this Wikipedia page, who may be interested in the views of Westerners on this complex topic of Jewish integration into western society. --173.177.140.7 (talk) 23 July 2017

The Jewish Question today
The current article as it now stands makes the use of the phrase 'the Jewish Question' appear either passé - something from the not-so-distant last century, or before - or non-neutral (altho thankfully not quite conferring ownership to the alt right?). This has encouraged frivolous and politically motivated complaints of 'antisemitism' towards those using the phrase in the present century. Could the article be revised to clarify that there is still a neutral usage of the term in this century, or else offer up an alternative?--94.119.64.1 (talk) 10:00, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
 * No, because it is and always has been an antisemitic term. If you want to demonstrate that there's a non racist use of the term you'd better provide some reliable sources. --ChiveFungi (talk) 11:56, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Then I refer you back to the opening two paragraphs of the article, and a user comment on your own Talk page: Leftist SJWs like ChiveFungi smear anyone they don't like as racists. This is why Trump won. Normal people are sick and tired of this vile and racist leftist bullshit. Leftists like ChiveFungi are the real racists.--94.119.64.19 (talk) 10:55, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

What is the question, after all???
Can someone knowledgeable please add a simple statement in the opening of the article explaining what is exactly the question? I've read most of this article, I believe I understood most of the history of the question and different aspects of the debate, but I'm still very confused and unsure what is the question itself. I would expect that to be a basic information to have in this article. From everything that I read, it seems that the question is that jews in the past didn't have their own country, and lived as a nation inside other nations? Was the question "how to assimilate jews"? I'm not sure that's the question trying to be solved... this article is so confusing. It says it "was a wide-ranging debate (...) pertaining to the appropriate status and treatment of Jews in society (...) and dealt with the civil, legal, national and political status of Jews as a minority within society." So the question is how to treat jews in society, as a minority? How were they any different from other minorities, why was there so much debate specifically over this one minority? This article explains what people would discuss, but what exactly is the problem trying to be solved? I don't understand. Please someone who understands it well, write an explanation as if you were talking to someone who had never heard this term and don't have much knowledge of anti-semitism and the like. Thanks! 96.55.240.155 (talk) 00:01, 9 July 2018 (UTC)


 * The 'question' has surely always been 'How does any state treat any group of people living within it whose primary allegiance is not to that state but seemingly to a trans-national ideology?' Sometimes the question is expressed in racial terms, in others in religious terms. But the fundamental issue is nationalist, the worry about whose team someone is playing for. (A similar question is now being asked about Muslims in predominantly Christian countries). As a self-defined 'chosen people' Jews were kept, and kept themselves, separate. Being internationalists rather than nationalists they were (and often still are) inevitably seen as potential fifth columnists who might put their co-religionists' interests above national interests. The 'question' continues as politicians worldwide who are Jewish are often accused of supporting Israel and Zionism at the expense of morality and/or the national interest of the country in which they live. Cassandra. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.74.32.104 (talk) 13:50, 5 March 2019 (UTC)


 * No, we are NOT a self-defined 'chosen people'! Also, pre-1933 Germans Jews (unlike Jews in many other European countries) were not "kept separate" in a shtetl, i.e. ghetto. I need to read the article, because there would be no excuse for it being so unclear as to motivate IP user's inquiry. I would have hoped that SOMEONE would have responded before I arrived, and provided a better reply than Cassandra's (who is an unsigned, unregistered IP address user).--FeralOink (talk) 05:23, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 2 August 2019

 * 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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: moved (closed by non-admin page mover) DannyS712 (talk) 05:28, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Jewish question → Jewish Question – During the late 19th and early 20th centuries -- and even earlier -- the European question "What do we do about the Jews among us?" had become so extensively discussed that it had been reified into an entity, the "Jewish Question". Perhaps somewhat under the influence of German (although discussed throughout Europe, German-speakers were a significant portion of those involved in the controversy) where all nouns are capitalized, the reified entity was almost always capitalized as the "Jewish Question", and was rarely seen as the "Jewish question". For this reason, I believe the article should be moved to the capitalized form. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:53, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
 * P.S. I am aware there was a previous RM held in 2013. Six years is certainly a suitable time to allow reconsideration. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:00, 2 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Support per nomination. The Jewish question (disambiguation) page lists various works which use uppercase "Q", not simply because initial caps are used in titles, but also because "Question" used in this context becomes a proper noun. Also, as pointed out in the 2013 discussion, above, other such main title headers — Eastern Question, Armenian Question or Polish Question — used uppercase "Q". It may be noted, however, that in the middle of the 2013 discussion, one of the participants in that discussion unilaterally moved Polish Question to Polish question and it has remained in the lowercase "q" form since then. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 02:28, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Support per the solid reasons given in the nomination and Roman Spinner's !vote, to which I have nothing to add. – Levivich 03:17, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Support per nom.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 04:03, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Move as a large majority of sources use the capital. Also per Eastern Question, Armenian Question, and German Question, which I happened to notice. On the other hand see Thracian question, Irish question and indeed Polish question (which was rightfully moved in this edit, based on a majority of sources using the underscore "q"). Debresser (talk) 13:45, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Support per nom and also per all other reasons given above. warshy (¥¥) 15:08, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Rreagan007 (talk) 21:41, 2 August 2019 (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.

The word debate
The Jewish question has been thoroughly debunked as anti-semitic. Therefore I think we should label it as such rather - like we do on the article QAnon - rather than use 'debate' 78.150.129.45 (talk) 18:35, 11 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Well we can't all be chosen right? 2604:3D09:D78:1000:C149:7FD0:EC31:824E (talk) 10:45, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Marx and Bauer
Section #3 Karl Marx – On the Jewish Question includes "can the Jews become politically emancipated?". The reference leads to https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/jewish-question/index.htm but I don't see the quote on that page. Mcljlm (talk) 16:21, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Sartre?
Surprised Anti-Semite and Jew 1944, by Sartre isn't discussed in the article. Jimhoward72 (talk) 17:15, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

We can say ALL OF THIS with No citations at all?
From around 1860, the term was used with an increasingly antisemitic tendency: Jews were described under this term as a stumbling block to the identity and cohesion of the German nation and as enemies within the Germans' own country. Antisemites such as Wilhelm Marr, Karl Eugen Dühring, Theodor Fritsch, Houston Stewart Chamberlain, Paul de Lagarde and others declared it a racial problem insoluble through integration. They stressed this in order to strengthen their demands to "de-jewify" the press, education, culture, state and economy. They also proposed to condemn inter-marriage between Jews and non-Jews. They used this term to oust the Jews from their supposedly socially dominant positions. 2604:3D09:D78:1000:C149:7FD0:EC31:824E (talk) 10:44, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

General lack of citations
Seems like the least wiki could do is not spread lies. If you don't have time to do that, you need to reduce the number of pages. Duh. 2604:3D09:D78:1000:C149:7FD0:EC31:824E (talk) 10:45, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

In what way is this an "assumption"?
Marx concluded that while individuals can be 'politically' free in a secular state, they were still bound to material constraints on freedom by economic inequality, an "ASSUMPTION" (sic) that would later form the basis of his critiques of capitalism

What part of that is in question? Economic inequality is a FACT. The physical restrictions on "freedom" due to economic inequality is again, a FACT. So I changed this to situation. Observation may be better fitting.

2604:3D09:D78:1000:C149:7FD0:EC31:824E (talk) 10:50, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

So, are we just blatantly ignoring ancient Rome?
??? 2604:3D09:D78:1000:C149:7FD0:EC31:824E (talk) 11:07, 30 April 2024 (UTC)