User talk:Goodoldpolonius2/Archive2

Genghis Khan/temp fork?

Hey mate,

Just wondering - what's going on with this?

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Genghis_Khan/temp

There have been several requests for copyediting and merging with the main Genghis Khan article, and I was wondering if you might be able to shed light on why this was forked in the first place.

That may be able to help me re-merge the articles :-) Leave a message on my User talk:Splintax if possible. :)

splintax 14:11, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Talk page

You placed a comment about Genghis Khan on Wikipedia:Talk page. I'm assuming it was put on the wrong page by mistake, and I've removed it. You may want to retrieve it from that page's history and put it somewhere else. -gadfium 21:14, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Drowning in Numbers

Letter by Steve Parsons, July 2002

In a review of Antony Beevor's 'Berlin: The Downfall' (June SR), mention is made of 'the greatest maritime disaster of all time', the sinking of the Goya by a Russian submarime with the consequent drowning of 7,000 refugees.

However, a disaster of even greater magnitude took place on 3 May 1945, when the RAF bombed and machine-gunned the German luxury liner, Cap Arcona, in the Baltic in the bay of Lubeck, south of the Danish island of Lolland. On this occasion 7,700 died, and what makes the incident even more grotesque was the fact that the victims were concentration camp prisoners.

At the close of the war a determined effort was made by the Nazis to kill the surviving concentration camp inmates by commanding them on forced marches away from the advancing Russians--the infamous death marches. Ten thousand prisoners from Neuengamme, a camp in the vicinity of Hamburg, ended up in Lubeck, where they were then ordered aboard the ship Cap Arcona, and fully expected to meet their deaths by being sunk by the Germans. Sighting British planes they were overjoyed, believing they would now be saved. Of course the British airmen did not know the ship was full of prisoners. Yet their fate has been allowed to disappear from the general historical consciousness, and instead it is the Russians who are given the responsibility for the world's 'greatest maritime disaster'.

Steve Parsons

Denmark

Steve, the issue is not that the Cap Arcona was not a disaster and a tragedy - it was just not a massacre, a knowing slaughter of deportees. The German machine-gunning of the survivors, however, was certainly a massacre. --Goodoldpolonius2 15:12, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

From A SURVIVOR : Benjamin Jacobs/Eugene Pool - The 100-Year Secret : Britains's Hidden World War II Massacre - The Lyons Press, October 2004 [1]

Talk:Mizrahi Jew

Hey GOP2, you might be interested in the discussion at Talk:Mizrahi_Jew#Requested_move. Cheers. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:35, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Technology

Greetings, just a word to encourage your continued contibutions to the technology page. Please see the Talk:Technology page for other words of encouragement. Sincerely, Steven McCrary 02:07, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

Pale of Settlement

Thank you for your excellent editing and link-adding to the "Life in the Pale" section of Pale of Settlement. Could you please add a reference to the statement, The Bolshevik Revolution of 1917 also resulted in some of the worst pogroms—over 900 of them—in which 70,000 to 250,000 Jews were killed. Thanks, Yoninah 18:03, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks—great source! Yoninah 21:01, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Image:Modernanti.pdf has been listed for deletion

An image or media file you uploaded, Image:Modernanti.pdf, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

Conspiracy theory

Just so you're aware, there's another attempt being made to remove the term "Conspiracy theory" from Wikipedia. You'll find the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Words_to_avoid#Summary. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:30, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Israel page

Thanks for coming to the rescue there. It was getting a little heated and the other editor was saying that I was the one who had to discuss it in order to return it to its ORIGINAL form....unbelievable.Gator1 02:43, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

List of massacred

It interesting that your comment was (-rv incorrect summary of Laconia incident) when what you did was remove it completely. If your going to revert things you should atleast be honest in your edit summary. This looks like you are trying to remove it without saying that that is what you are doing. The US forces clearly broke with the rules of war and commited a war crime. Is it that you don't want the US being the bad guy's or is it you don't like Germans being the good guy's.--Son of Paddy's Ego 17:35, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

I have never heard of Mr White. I did a search and most of the hits I found where clones of Wikipedia, which does not have an article on him. If he's going to be referenced an explanation of why should be their. It is a massacre as it was commited under order and was contary to the practice of war. It was a typical America kill them all and let god sort them out kind of crime.

'Hartenstein signalled to the pilot requesting assistance. Lieutenant James D. Harden of the U.S. Army Air Force turned away and notified his base of the situation. The senior officer on duty that day, Captain Robert C. Richardson III, replied with the order "Sink sub."'--Son of Paddy's Ego 21:04, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

So you start lying now do you. I have not broken the 3RR. I have discussed it with you, but you just keep claiming this person is important. Is he a mate of your or something.

--Son of Paddy's Ego 21:41, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

I am certainly not lying. You have reverted the page 3x over the last day, despite reversions by myself and Philip. I wasn't posting you to the 3RR board or anything, but you are not engaging in discussion on the Talk page over this, just in ad hominem attacks. Your changes are against consensus.

Either you are lying or you cannot count. In either case you are unfit to edit an encylopedia.--Son of Paddy's Ego 21:52, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

As for the two substantive issues. I don't think Matthew White is important as a person, but his page is a valuable bibliography and reference. Have you read it? Why would you want to delete it? It is directly relevant, and compiles many sources. Secondly, as for the Laconia incident, I hardly think that the two sentences you have indicate that there was a knowing massacre of POWs and civilians, otherwise, any bombing or sinking of a ship might qualify. See the consensus on the Talk page over the Cap Arconia. --Goodoldpolonius2 21:42, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

The attack by the US was in direct contravention of the practice of War, of case law, of precedent. I have read it and it is rubbish. It simply ignores all the history of warfare and imposes a typical American misunderstanding of the traditional practice of war. If the Laconia isn't a massacre then it is very difficult to find anything in WWII which is. Non combatants and POW attacked, whilst under a flag of truce. If it was the Germans doing it, it would be here. If it had been America POW it would be here. Doesn't the US recognise flags of truce?--Son of Paddy's Ego 21:50, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Your views of what is rubbish are original research. The article on the incident says that this was not in contravention of the rules of war, and, even if it were, there is no evidence that the US knew it was attacking non-combatants and POWS, which is required for the page. Please post your future comments to the Talk page. --Goodoldpolonius2 22:14, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Marsden

hi, I've been looking through this guy's User contributions links and it looks like he has been attacking a few users here including you, and putting bias in articles. Is there something that can be done about this? John McW 18:21, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Remember the good old days when you were asking me for assistance in mediation with Marsden? At that time, I thought it would be an easy matter to sort things out between you amicably. Now, I'm his primary target. Sigh. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:36, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Tibor Rubin

I added to Tibor Rubin Thank you for starting it!

"History of... in Spain"

FYI, I've expanded the article a bit more, specifically the part about the time of Visigothic rule. I hope you don't mind (I did incorporate some of your information, which I did not have). And added additional references.

Ex0pos 01:37, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Ashkenazi

Hey, could you take a look at what the anon did at Ashkenazi? It was more of a replacement than a merge, and I think there was value in the old stuff. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:24, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

ADL

Hi Goodoldpolonius, please consider watching [2]. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 02:56, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

"Conspiracy theory"

Most editors eventually get to the backing away point when dealing with him; you just did it more rapidly than usual. :-) Jayjg ^(talk) 04:53, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Holocaust

Sorry, Goldpolonius, but what have I done that you write this:

"made the Slav section clearer, but Str1977, you keep lowering #s of victims of the Ustashe and deleting other information, see reference. Bleiburg is not the Holocaust& your #s don't match article"

Scrolling down, I now see what you mean. I hadn't noticed. Sorry. I had seen only the upper part of the revert. And at that time this didn't seem to make sense. If you intended only to point me to that, than that's o.k., though maybe a message on my talk page would have been better. Str1977 21:50, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Sry could not find your talk page

Regarding Blaiburg and nazi holocoust. The atrocities againnst Croats were committed mostly by chetniks converted in 1944- 45 in Partisans You have chetniks - Nazi colaborators, and racial ground on which they acted when they killed Croats. So Blaiburg is under the subject of nazi holocoust. My late grandfather was Croat partisan in WW2 on costal front and he used to tell me that Croat partisans, which ware majority in 41-44 era, used to send units to Slavonia in 45 to protect Croat civilians from so called Chetnik partisans who committed numerous atrocities against ordenery Croats.

Would you mind taking this discussion to the Talk:The Holocaust page?

---

Dear Polonius, please note that I have no intention to get into this discussion. I did one revert which was a mistake. I only saw the upper paragraph that was changed, in which Ustasha was mentioned in Poland. I did not see (forgot to scroll down) the second paragraph with the figures. Please don't mention me in edit summaries in regard to this. My user page, BTW, is User talk:Str1977. Good day. Str1977 14:01, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Apologies accepted. Note that, if I happen to post something not logged in (which I'm trying to avoid, but sometimes PCs mess up things), my IP starts with 132. Cheers Str1977 19:15, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Image:Neccruel.pdf has been listed for deletion

An image or media file you uploaded, Image:Neccruel.pdf, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

--Bash 22:21, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Disputes and methods

Thank you, my girlfriend is a long-time member of the Wikipedia community and is the one responsible for bringing me onboard.

I have, on at least three different occasions, let Marsden know that I have found his approach to have been 'less than constructive'. I do, however, feel slightly uneasy about reprimanding him once more - I did accuse him of being an anti-Semite (which he probably isn't) and I've been unnecessarily harsh when communicating with him. Right now I feel that maybe I owe him an apology rather than another scolding. I agree that the actual debate is more important than mudslinging and disruptive behaviour and that the situation on the discussion page is out of control. Since I'm a part of that I share responsibility for the unpleasant atmosphere. But I strongly object to any notion that me and/or Marsden are the ones who should be blamed for the havoc, even if Jayjg and SlimVirgin are long-time editors. I think this would be obvious to anyone who read Talk:Territories under Israeli control, Talk:Israel and the respective user pages. It is frustrating when different standards are applied, that rules/guidelines can be broken if you 'know the right people'. It is frustrating that sources like CIA, U.S. State Department, Amnesty International, the United Nations, etc, are so easily dismissed while the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs is viewed as credible. It is frustrating that people like you don't want to argue the points of the debate because of the behaviour of one of the editors, and also that you give leeway to the equally bad behaviour of other editors. I feel this give readers an impression that Marsden (and probably me?) are lose cannons while Jayjg and SlimVirgin are acting in an honest and responsible way.

I have disclosed my personal POV, I did it because I wanted other Jews here on Wikipedia to take notice of what I perceived to be a group of rightwing Israeli Jews (and sympathizers to them), who have succeeded in having their narrow minority view presented as a factual NPOV majority view in a number of Israeli/Palestinian pages. I had a, sort of, not-in-my-name reaction, and I was hoping that others (non-Jews also of course) would feel the same. I believe there is an unhealthy groupmentality thing going on right now where changes/edits made by 'outsiders' are opposed and/or reverted on sight. I believe you're part of that (note; this doesn't mean that I believe you're involved in bad faith editing). I also believe that Jayjg and SlimVirgin are part of this 'group'. As is MPerel, Klonimus, Guy Montag, and Humus sapiens. I think that this is a serious problem for Wikipedia, not just in this case but also as a meta-issue; if I get 50 friends to start edit Ariel Sharon, we could coordinate efforts to have the article say that Sharon had Muslim parents. This kind of 'loyalty' between editors damages the credibility of Wikipedia.

I will try to be more civil and constructive, and I ask you to reflect upon if any of my criticisms ring true. --saxet 00:26, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

I assure you that it wasn't my intention to offend you when I cross-posted our exchange; I felt that since we both were discussing Marsden, it would only be appropriate to make the comments available for him to read. I apologize for not asking you first. I apologized to Marsden since I had accused him of having an anti-Semitic agenda (and also, I think, for speaking down to him).

It seems that you and I are in perfect agreement regarding Marsden's threat, it was beyond the pale. Completely unacceptable and, as I told him, I would fight such a proposal every step of the way. What I think you and I disagree on is that I don't find that what he did was the "most destructive approach to editing possible". My reasoning here is that it was an empty threat, it didn't seem to be a calculated move, and it certainly wouldn't have been successful. The most destructive approach, in my opinion, is when editors that share a fringe POV collaborate in such a way so that a large number of Wikipedia articles (for months/years) remain inaccurate and dishonest. That is a bigger problem, because a lot of average readers actually believe what they read in Wikipedia.

I accused you of the group mentality thing, because I thought you made the wrong choice between two ethical principles (translated to Wiki language; POV vs. POINT). Also, I don't know if you remember this but on 02:42, 24 September 2005, you entered a minor edit war that was going on at Talk:Israel, I had provided numerous sources (CIA, Amnesty International, etc) to back up my claim that Israeli Arabs didn't "enjoy full political and civic rights". You then provided Steve Forbes' Freedom House as a countersource to my sources and the other editors thought that your source trumped all of my sources. Since you are intelligent and knowledgeable it was/is hard to fathom why you did that. If you really think that Palestinians enjoy full rights in Israel?

You are, most definitely, to be taken seriously. You will be here long after I'm gone and from your recent comments I sense that you're not a close-minded ideologue. But just like you I have principles, and my conscience demands that I follow them. If Wikipedia consensus is that I haven't been respectful enough in regard to long-time editors Jayjg & SlimVirgin, when I try to include terms that is used by 99.5% of the people in the 'real world' (including Jacques Chirac and George W. Bush), then I will take my leave. Sincere thanks for taking your time to talk to me. --saxet 07:41, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

My POV is not that "Israel is an apartheid state", my POV is that Israeli Arabs doesn't have equal rights, and that comparisons can be drawn to apartheid era South Africa (the later years). And when that was inserted in the article, I cited a newspaper article where a person (Desmond Tutu) made that comparison. My POV is also that it's very dishonest to have an article present the POV that Palestinians are equal under the law as if it was factual, using a source like Steve Forbes' Freedom House.

And as you are far from a rightwinger, I'm far from a hippie. I don't get shocked when I encounter anti-Semitism, I've been in, quite a few, 'heated situations' with neonazis over the last nine years and I know what they are about. But I have also realized that sometimes we get this tunnel vision, we see what's happening to us but we fail to see what we are doing to others. I try to be (as little as possible) in the us/them frame of mind, and to be equally intolerant of intolerance.

If you would take the time and, for an hour or so, try to read articles relating to Islam with an empathic mindset you will notice, I think, the same kind of hatred that you get shocked by in your articles also exist on those pages. I replace "Muslim" with "Jew" when I read in such a way, and it is disturbing. I did the same thing when I read Guy Montag, explaining to Ramallite in a very calm and collected manner, why it was necessary to get rid of all Palestinians [3], I replaced "Palestinian" with "Jew", and it was as if Hitler had written it. Like Guy Montag was talking about animals.

There are things about Wikipedia I find very fascinating, and other things I find deplorable. Yes, I will most likely quit this project soon, if I don't get banned first of course. You say that "establishing and enforcing norms matter more than anything else" [4]. I don't necessarily agree with that. Anyways, Shalom Aleichem. --saxet 00:50, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

GOP, while I appreciate your attempts at mediation, I'm doubtful they will help. Saxet seems to be all about making assumptions about various editors POVs, and editing and commenting based on those assumptions, interspersed with various personal attacks. He also also knowingly made false accusations about me (that I used a sockpuppet and two admins confirmed this), and seems to be modelling himself on HistoryBuffEr, one of the most persistently POV and disruptive editors Wikipedia has seen in the past year. I'd love to give him the benefit of the doubt, but the signs are very bad, and there's no indication anything will improve. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:36, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

"Saxet seems to be all about making assumptions about various editors POVs", yes, an assumption that seems to be shared by many people and even more every single day. Could it just be coincidence? I don't think so. --Vizcarra 20:39, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

History of the Jews in Poland

Did you get around to adressing the last FAC objections so we can resubmit this to FAC? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 15:44, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

As long as you are ready to address objections during FAC, I feel confident we can push it through. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 15:11, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

I did email some, I received no responses other then from Auschwitz Museum, IIRC. I believe I have written everything on the relevant pages. What other images are missing permissions? It was so long ago that I forgot :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 19:05, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Romania

Please see my question at Talk:Romania_during_World_War_II#Citation.3F. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:43, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Holocaust Denial

GOP, would you mind taking a look at a dispute I'm having at Holocaust Denial? I'd appreciate it. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:43, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Good comment, thanks. You might want to look at the Institute for Historical Review page as well. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:26, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

• I'm not sure what I can do other than pitch in and undo his changes. He seems pretty immune to logic; RJII has a history of doing exactly what he pleases, heedless of the opinion of anyone else. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 01:29, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Religion in Israel

Hi Gop2. I thought you might be interested in improving the Religion in Israel article. Cheers. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:12, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Freemasons vs Nazi's

From what I understand Hitler felt by becoming a Mason one "sold out" and higher up Masons were willing members of "the Jews conspiracy".

So early on he banned all Masons.

However some continued to practice in secret.

Those who were willing to continue to practice in secret though were often also those who were willing to undermine Hitler.

Hence people would be arrested not usualy for being Masons but for other activities like dissent.

However it was frequently if not always noted that these people were Masons when their punishments was decided.

grazon 03:23, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Can you give me a source that Freemasons were targeted in the Holocaust? Specifically, that anyone was killed for being a Freemason? That is what your addition to the article implies. --Goodoldpolonius2 03:46, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Off the top of my head I know of a death in Italy but that's all I can think of.

check the link I placed on the article.

grazon 03:53, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Szare Szeregi

Hi there! While I will not insist on inclusion of a link to Szare Szeregi into an article on the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising, the organization was indeed relevant to it. Before the Uprising it was the Szare Szeregi guys who served as links between the Jewish resistance and AK, RGO and the outside world. Also, during the fighting the attempt to break the wall and was carried out by an Szare Szeregi assault group. Halibutt 06:41, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Controversy on collaboration in Soviet persecution against Poles as one of the factors leading to the massacre

Yes there ware such opinions, such articles were published in Rzeczpospolita- a respectable polish daily.This of course doesn't excuse or justify the crime but is given as one of the reasons behind it. You can read it here : http://wiez.free.ngo.pl/jedwabne/article/22.html A fragment :

Did Jedwabne Jews, like others, cordially welcome the Red Army incursion? The accounts recorded during the war as well as those I obtained at the start of the 1990s indicate that this was indeed the case. First, accounts submitted to the army of Gen. Anders and archived in the Hoover Institution, and now also available at the Eastern Archives in Warsaw. Account No. 8356, recorded by cart maker Józef Rybicki from the town of Jedwabne: " The Red Army was received by Jews who built arches. They removed the old authorities and introduced new ones from amongst the local population (Jews and communists). The police and teachers were arrested..." Account No. 10708, recorded by a municipal government employee in Jedwabne, Tadeusz Kiełczewski: "Right after the encroachment by the Soviet Army, a municipal committee was spontaneously set up, composed of Polish communists (the chairman was the Pole, Czesław Krytowczyk, and the members were Jews). The militia also consisted of communist Jews. At first there were no reprisals, because they did not know the population. The arrests started only after local communists had provided the necessary information. Local militiamen searched the homes of people they felt were concealing weapons. The main arrests by the Soviet authorities only started after the first elections." Account No. 8455, recorded by a locksmith-mechanic from Jedwabne, Marian Łojewski: " Following the incursion of the red army, first an order was issued for all the weapons owned by the local population to be turned in. Anyone who held back would face the death penalty. Next, searches were conducted in various houses, and that as a result of accusation by Jewish shopkeepers who accused Poles of stealing different goods from them in their absence. The arrests took place of many people against whom local Jews had held grudges over having been prosecuted by the Polish State and over their persecution." Account No. 2675, recorded by wood sorter Aleksander Kotowski of Jedwabne: "I was not present when the red army entered. Admitted to the authorities were Jews and Polish communists who had done time in prison for communist activities. They led the NKVD to apartments and houses and the denounced patriotic Polish citizens." And finally, the account given by Łucja Chojnowska, née Chołowińska, on May 9, 1991. Mrs. Chołowińska, the sister of Jadwiga, whose married name was Laudańska, found herself in the spring of 1940 in a partisan camp at the Kobielno forest range, situated amidst the Biebrza Marshes. During a battle between Polish partisans and the Soviet army on June 23, 1940, she was captured. Our conversation, which took place in Jedwabne, pertained to that battle, not the situation in the town both women had formerly lived in. Nevertheless, in the course of the conversation, Łucja Chołowińska-Chojnowska said: "In Jedwabne, inhabited mostly by Jews, there were only three houses that had not displayed red flags when the Russians marched in. Our house was among them. Before the first deportation, a Jewish woman, a neighbor lady (we had got along with the Jews very well) ran over and warned us we were on the deportation list. Then my sister Jadwiga, her child (a four-year-old girl), and I fled to Orlików, taking along only some clothing." Let us note that the Jewish neighbor lady knew who was on the deportation list, even though that was the most closely guarded of secrets. --Molobo 23:29, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

See my reaction on your talk page. --Goodoldpolonius2 23:37, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

The mentioning of collaboration during Soviet times did indeed provoke harsh responce.I have nothing against mentioning that. Notice that neither responce denies the collaboration instead trying to attack Strzombosz, not his arguments or examples he gave. --Molobo 23:38, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Oh and btw

Since I see you are a bit interested in Nazi Germany during WW2 and topics involved with Jews. You wouldn't know a good listing of all German units involved in massacres in WW2 ? Almost all entries on Wiki are without this information. Perhaps you would like to look at Waffen SS also-current entry is a bit "enthusiastic" so to speak at certain points...--Molobo 23:59, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Map

Your call came in high time :) It's tha I'm currently working on adaptation of my pre-WWII Poland map to WWII reality, that is I'm working on a map of General Government, Reichskommissariat Ukraine and so on, with ghettos, concentration camps and mass murder sites marked. However, I'm not sure when the work will be completed as I also owe Piotrus one map for his Polish-Muscovite War. Halibutt 11:47, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

History of Jews...

GOP, it has been discussed more than once, most recently at [5]. "History of Jews in" is not the common way of titling articles on ethnic groups; rather, the article is titled after the name of the ethnic group, and a history section discusses their history. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:22, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Try this link: [6]. There were a number of older articles already named this way. I'm sorry I didn't talk to you about this first, I didn't realize you had created all these articles. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:29, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Maybe we should try some sort of discussion/vote on this somewhere? Jayjg ^(talk) 16:48, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Regarding the title itself, one thing I noted was that regardless of the title, the articles themselves invariably and consistently referred to ...Jews (American Jews, Polish Jews, Canadian Jews, etc.). Also, how would you handle the Ashkenazi Jews etc. articles? What about Bene Israel, Italkim, etc.? Jayjg ^(talk) 18:53, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi, this is somewhat related: in the light of the latest events, I've created History of the Jews in Iran as a redit to Persian Jews. There is also Iran-Israel relations. Shabbat shalom. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 23:51, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

O.K., the proposal can be found here: Template_talk:Jew#Name_of_articles_on_Jews. Jayjg ^(talk) 07:52, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Jeff Rense

Our one-topic editor made a deceptive edit that you probably missed there. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:41, 31 October 2005 (UTC)