Wikia

Memory Alpha

Talk:Jew

37,549pages on
this wiki

Back to page

Judaism in TrekEdit

I have made some changes to conform to Judaism as seen in Trek. Speculation about what Hitler was doing is not appropriate, and I personally find it a particularly offensive leap since Judaism is not explicity referenced in the show. The origin of the Vulcan greeting is interesting and relevant; the religion of writers is not. Many stories are drawn from prior myths and fables, but their sole attribution to a religion is not appropriate and cannot be wholly correct as many people worked on each episode. Aholland 14:00, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I can't vouch for the Background information, since that comes straight from what was on the Human religion page. I extremely apologize for adding the "Storm Front" information, as I did not realize the offensiveness of it. Would it be alright including in the background, since it was a hidden reference to Judaism?--Tim Thomason 14:07, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Just so you know, I fully believe that no harm or insult to anyone was intended. But I still don't think, without something more from the show, that we should explicitly make a connection on the "Storm Front" stuff to Judiasm. Had the producers wanted to make the connection it would have been a very easy thing to do; they didn't and their reasons, motivations, and intent are unknowable from the show itself. The point is we shouldn't make it explicit either (again, unless some kind of resource pops up that links it.) As to the other background information, I don't think it was appropriate on the Human religion page either. I really think that linking the religion (or lack thereof) of a writer (or producer, or editor, or SFX artist, or etc.) to creative choices is not what this site is about. We chronicle the information, not philosophize about why some particular story was chosen or rejected. So I'd still leave it out. Aholland 14:20, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

The origin of the Vulcan greeting is interesting and relevant; the religion of writers is not.
I wasn't aware you spoke for all of us, Aholland. ;) Seriously, I personally have interest and can see the relevance of writers' religion, as long as A.) it centers on the religion at hand, and B.) it's in the background information, where things like this are supposed to go. --From Andoria with Love 14:25, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
The background fact wasn't about the writer (Shimon Wincelberg)'s ethnicity; it was about the fact that he used his origin and roots in his "creative choice" for the episode ("Dagger of the Mind"). I find it interesting that he referenced Jewish parables, as is noted on the episode page.--Tim Thomason 14:38, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, if there is one thing I've learned it is that no one speaks for everyone at this site. If you feel strongly about it, a statement similar to the one on the "Dagger of the Mind" page ("He incorporated several references to Jewish parables into the screenplay") should be okay (speaking solely for myself, of course!). I just don't want to go down the road of categorizing people by ethnicity or religion and then trying to divine how that influenced their creative choices on the show. Aholland 14:50, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I get what you're saying. Sorry if a came off sounding like a douche, by the way. It's late, I'm tired, and I really shouldn't be awake right now. ;) --From Andoria with Love 15:00, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
(re:Tim Thomason) I think is important to remember that Jewishhness is not just a religion, it is also an ethnicity, and Wincelberg, in citing the story of the sage standing on one foot (which, BTW, is from the Talmud, Pirkei Avot, and was said by Rabbi Hillel 2000 years ago) was using a specifically Jewish idiom. This same idiom get picked up in several novels and is used in fan fiction, etc. So I think it is very relevant to know where it originally came from, same as the Jewish origin of the Vulcan salute -- which Nimoy created using HIS Jewish background. Vulcan613 14:51, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

PersecutionEdit

I'm rather uncomfortable with the recent addition of "For thousands of years the Jews were persecuted on Earth" etc. It doesn't seem necessary to understand the sole reference to Jews in Trek: the joke in TNG: "The Outrageous Okona". It also is not mentioned in Trek, regardless of what has actually happened in the real world. The addition of Germany and trying to tie it into a lack of persecution in the Trek universe could justify similar statements in articles on any group who has - at one time or another in history - been persecuted by someone somewhere. So that doesn't seem appropriate either. Unless there is something I'm missing from context, and unless this information is specified somewhere in Trek itself, I propose the addition be deleted. Aholland 04:20, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm editing the following out for the above reasons: "For thousands of years the Jews were persecuted on Earth. This was epitimized during World War II when Nazi Germany murdered millions of Jews because the Nazi's believed them to be an inferior race. By the early 22nd century prejudice and racism no longer existed on Earth. (VOY: "The Killing Game"), (Star Trek: First Contact)". Aholland 02:26, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Voyager "The Killing Game" mentions the nazi persecution of the Jews in the second world war. Jaz talk | novels 04:15, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Although that is a citation missed by everyone else so far (good job!), the actual dialogue is: "The Commandant speaks of civilization. The ancient Romans were civilized. The Jews are civilized. But in all its moral decay, Rome fell to the spears of our ancestors . . . as the Jews are falling now. Look at our destiny. The field of red. The purity of German blood. The blazing white circle of the sun that sanctified that blood. No one can deny us, no power on Earth or beyond . . . not the Christian savior, not the God of the Jews." Unless I've missed something else, that text does not support a broad statement of "persecution". So we could reasonably add, I think: "In 2374 a holographic Nazi SS Officer in a holoprogram run by the Hirogen on the USS Voyager remarked that Jews would fall defeated before peoples of German ancestry." We could also add a note at the beginning that the Jews worshiped a god. But more than that is beyond what is in the episode. Let me know if I've missed something, though. Aholland 04:34, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
There is more to the episode than the script. If you listen to the malice in his tone you can understand why I felt the persecution note was prudent. Jaz talk | novels 04:41, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
The difficulty I have is not with historical facts of Nazi atrocities, but that Memory Alpha is not a full encyclopedia of history. It is just Trek. Making factual "in-universe" statements based on someone's tone of voice alone is not appropriate to the goal of making sure we do not engage in speculations of what "might" have been said or meant; we just report what was seen and heard, we don't embellish it. So, for instance, there is absolutlely nothing in Trek itself - even given a vitriolic tone of voice - to justify making these claims:
  • That Jews were persecuted on Earth over thousands of years. There is no claim made of persecution; there is no timeframe given.
  • That Nazi Germany murdered millions of Jews during World War II. The statement is simply not provided in Trek. (Keep in mind, it doesn't make it less true - it just means it never worked its way into a Trek script.)
  • That the Nazis believed that Jews were an inferior race. At most we can say that the character (who, remember, is complaining that his fellow officers don't "get it") believed that Jews were like Romans: civilized but capable of being conquered by the Germans.
Although I would support a background note for context to the effect that the SS Officer's comments were most likely intended to refer to the Nazi policy of extermination of Jews during WWII, stating it as part of the body of the article is simply not justified by what was seen and heard in the episode itself. Unless there is more than a tone of voice, I believe we need to modify the article accordingly. Aholland 14:55, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Joke TextEdit

Tim Thomason kindly transcribed the joke in "Okona" earlier under Human religion's discussion page as follows:

There's a Jewish guy, there was a Greek guy and there was an Irish guy. They die, they go to heaven, right. And they're up there at St. Peter's gate and they don't wanna die, they wanna hang out on Earth, so they go to St. Peter: "Pete, gimme one more chance on Earth over there, on Earth and if you just give me one more chance on Earth, we won't do anything bad." St. Peter says: "One nasty thing, if you guys do one nasty thing - poof, you're gone, poof you're gone, one nasty thought and you're gone." So St. Peter sends the Greek guy, the Jewish guy and the Irish guy down to Earth. As they are walking, they are walking down the street, there's a bar. The Irish guy plans to go into the bar - poof, he disappears just like that. Well, a twenty dollar bill goes rolling down the hill right, right in front of the guys...

This does not imply that the "Jewish guy" in the joke is cheap. Was there more to the joke in the episode? If not, the recently added comment needs to remove the speculation about the punch line, while keeping the bits about a joke being told. I see no reason to speculate about sterotypical insults that didn't actually take place. Aholland 11:33, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't know about you guys but I'm dying to find out how the joke ends. Oh yeah, have you heard the one about the Ferengi in the monkey suit? Federation 01:36, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

List of Jews seen/ref'd in TrekEdit

Do we really need this list? I can understand the biblical ones referenced, that's fine by me, but to have a list of "real world" Jews seen? So, let's go add that same kind of list everywhere else shall we? "List of real world gay/lesbians", "List of Negroes" (to use the article name we have on here), "List of females", etc. I don't see a need for this list. Jaz noted in his edit "actually, I ran through the list of 19th, 20th, and 21st century humans and these are the only ones that stood out (and I'm pretty good with contemporary Jewish history)". I ask... what makes them stand out? What about the ones we're slighting? This is the same as the "Klingon women" category again. -- Sulfur 11:15, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Really Sulfur, its not an article in it own right, its just a tiny background note that adds perspective to the article. You said what about the ones we leave out? I don't see the problem with giving examples. What's the problem here? --- Jaz 12:16, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Also, I think I've listed them all now. I don't 5 qualifies as "tons". --- Jaz 12:27, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm certain that you've not listed them all. There will be a ton more. And I wasn't suggesting having those others as articles in their own right. Merely as background information too. I think that we should make sure to list all of the notable Xtians too. Never mind the Chinese and Indians. Seriously. That'll make us very complete. Won't it? -- Sulfur 12:38, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

We can not justify doing this with only one article, we either add lists like this to all human categorizations or remove. The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.139.2.213 (talk).
If you feel you would like to list all Indian or Chinese characters, go right ahead. --- Jaz 18:06, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

No... my point was... that's a silly listing to have. -- Sulfur 18:09, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I stand by my edits, and I think they bring perspective and an interesting background note. However, if you really feel that inclusion on the page will be detrimental to the wiki, I will not engage in any kind of edit warring. --- Jaz 19:34, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
In universe articles should have in universe lists, not real world lists...this is mixing oil and water. Actors should be viewed in a single group "as actors", not as "Jewish actors", "African American actors", etc., unless it actually has something to do with Star Trek, like Nimoy creating the Vulcan salute or perhaps something with Uhura or Whoopy and how race influenced their roles/characters. --65.112.81.158 19:50, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Just FYI, the list wasn't of Jewish actors, it was of in-universe characters who are Jewish. --- Jaz 19:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the list of characters who are Jewish is not appropriate, first because their religion was not mentioned in Star Trek,(Einstein never talked about his religion on the show) and second because Humans in Star Trek do not point out their religious differences with regards to each other, so we shouldn't either.--31dot 21:07, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Gr... I had typed out quite a large response but I lost it when I had to authorise my web use at uni.
Anyway, I believe that a list of Jews mentioned in ST is not a good idea. I say this not because "Oh no we'd have to do more work", but more on principle. If we start breaking down humanity by religion, race and ethnicity, there is a very real possibility of offense being taken. This would be the case even if we were "fair" by doing the same on all pages.
Building on 31dots statement, I think that if a person was mentioned as Jewish, that should be mentioned in the main text of the article. But otherwise I'd advise caution in this area.– Cleanse 03:45, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
I think the "if we do X, we'll have to do Y" argument is a good point - but let's look at this from another angle. For every bit of data that is added to this encyclopedia (or any encyclopedia, for that matter), we might want to ask ourselves: "Does this information make the encyclopedia better?" and "If this information needs to be included, is this the best way to include it?"
Generally speaking, a bullet point list as part of a bigger article is, more often than not, not a good way to add information. This is not an absolute, of course, but an argument against such lists is that they just invite more list items and other lists - someone stumbling across this list might know another "real-life-person turned Star Trek character jew" and just add it to the bottom, eventually making the list the overwhelming (and most boring) part of the article. A second argument is the fact that lists, at least for me, always look as if they either are complete already, or at least are meant to be. If you're not going for a complete list but just want to give examples, then don't make it a list in the first place! Instead, make it a text paragraph that is interesting to read and eventually even gives some context.
Specifically speaking about this article and this list, there's also the question of whether this article even is the right place for it. Although the two concepts are strongly related, "being a follower of the religion Judaism" and "being a Jew" are not necessarily one and the same (see Wikipedia:Jew). This article (and, by extension, this whole Star Trek wiki) might not be the best places to try answering this real world question, at least in the guise of a definite list. -- Cid Highwind 10:14, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, rather than a list, I'm going to change it to an anecdotal example; I think we can agree that falls withing the realm of suitable background information. --- Jaz 16:18, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Suitable "background information" should be 'further information about the subject, originating from official but non-canon materials'. I don't see how compiling a list of "jewish people" describes or defines a single thing described as 'further information' about the religion. --Alan 17:10, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, if you want to talk canon, the reference in The Outrageous Okona and in The Killing Game, both refer to Jewish people, not Jewish religion. --- Jaz 18:16, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, that's a discussion for another time. --Alan 18:37, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, so let me add my two cents. Jewishness is BOTH a religion and an ethnicity, and it is often difficult to separate the two, same as it is difficult to separate Native American ethnicity from Native American spirituality. Thinking of "religion" as something separate from one's culture is a Western construct that does not always fit other cultures. Having said that, I see nothing wrong with citing in-universe references to historical Jews such as Isaac Asimov and Albert Einstein where it is well-known they were Jewish. Not only does this add interest, it also counters the common complaint that "there are no Jews on Star Trek." Vulcan613 15:08, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

This was kind of over a year ago, but that's okay... I'm all for moving the article from "Judaism" to "Jewish people" because basically all the references are to people, not belief. There's one sort-of half reference to belief in VOY: "The Killing Game", but it mostly refers to people, not religion, and the Data reference is pretty explicitly referring to Jewish people, not Jewish religion. Also, in Background info, where it (probably correctly) infers that Maury Ginsberg was meant to be Jewish, there's no evidence of any religious belief, but a pretty strong case for him being of Jewish decent. Obviously this is a hard call because the lines between religion, nationality, and ethnicity are really blurred, but I think moving the article to "Jews" or "Jewish people" is probably a more accurate representation of what was actually mentioned in canon. --- Jaz 17:54, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
re: "over a year ago," I just found it, better late than never LOL! You have put your finger on what bothers me about this page. (BTW, I myself am Jewish -- not that it matters in editing but it might in terms of my POV here in discussion.) If we define Jewishness as a religion only, then there is little if nothing explicit in Trek. But if we define it as an ethnicity, then there are, as noted, some historical Jews and also some fictional possibilities. So I would also be in favor of re-defining this page as "Jewish people" with a disambiguation to send "Judaism" searches there. This page currently has very little about Judaism per se but it does have a lot about ethnic Jews. Any refs to religious practices can be left as-is in the references cited. BTW, there is a rumor floating around that Hanukkah was referenced on TNG. Not so. "Data's Day" mentions the Hindu Festival of Lights (Divali) and this was apparently misheard as Hanukkah when the epp first aired ("Festival of Lights" is another name for Hanukkah) and became urban legend before the videos and DVDs came out. It was mentioned in a 1980s article in Hadassah magazine and still crops up occasionally. Vulcan613 15:21, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
In pre-emption of responses, let me just say, I'm not in favour of making this change to all earth religion pages. Christianity for example, aside from not having the same ethno-national group that Judaism has (on account of it being a proselytizing religion) has been explicitly referenced in a religious context - we have mentions of religious holidays like lent and chritsmas, religious infrastructure (chapels and monestaries), religious leaders (monks, ministers, priests) et cetera. The same could be said about Buddhism, Hinduism, Klingon religion, and Bajoran religion. --- Jaz 18:06, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
I agree here also. Judaism is somewhat unique among major world religions in having this ethno-genealogical aspect. Although one can convert to Judaism, it is more like being adopted into a tribe than "conversion" in the Christian sense. We should also note for the record that secular Jews are still considered Jewish by the Jewish community. "Atheist Jew" is not an oxymoron the way it would be for "atheist Christian." For example, only a small percentage of Israeli Jews identify as religious but they strongly identify as Jews in an ethnic-national sense. However, even atheist Jews sometimes observe holidays like Hanukkah, giving them a historical rather than religious meaning -- again illustrating the difficulty of separating "religion" from daily life in the culture. Vulcan613 15:21, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Name change Edit

Should we also be moving Christianity to Christian people? By referencing Jewish people, Trek by default referenced Judaism itself so I don't understand the need to move this to some awful title like "Jewish people." Or am I missing something here? --From Andoria with Love 00:40, November 16, 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. This was a slightly ridiculous name change. — DeFender1031*Talk 00:44, November 16, 2009 (UTC)
The rationale was listed as "re talk (from a long time ago) - also more in line w/ canon, as we've usually seens Jews in Star Trek in the context of a people, not a religion". I'm not clear on what the talk page reference is referring to.--31dot 01:03, November 16, 2009 (UTC)
It seems to refer to one post in the middle of the section right before this one that begins with "This was kind of over a year ago". One person advocating a page move doesn't srtike me as consensus, nor do I agree with the rationale stated there. — DeFender1031*Talk 01:10, November 16, 2009 (UTC)
Thank you, I see it now.....yes, I agree one person does not a consensus make. --31dot 01:13, November 16, 2009 (UTC)
No Shran, because Christianity is a religion, while Jews are an ethno-religious group. Take a look at the wikipedia page if you like... --- Jaz 08:00, November 17, 2009 (UTC)
To 31dot: "One person" did not make this a consensus -- if you read this whole page, there is considerable discussion over a period of time, by a number of people, about how to define Jews. As a Jew myself (and a rabbi at that!), I don't see anything "awful" about the title being "Jewish people." We refer to ourselves as "the Jewish people" all the time, much more so than "of the Jewish Faith" which is a gentile expression RARELY used by Jews themselves. Religion is only PART of our group identity. And canonical Trek does not "by default" reference JUDAISM as a religion per se. I do not know of one single epp that references ANYTHING about Jewish observances, rituals, beliefs, holidays, dietary laws, etc. Even the joke in the Okona episode is more ethnic than religious -- especially since Jews do not believe in St. Peter standing at the gates of heaven as in the joke -- that's CHRISTIAN theology. It's also a standard formula for ETHNIC jokes.
There are, however, some references to Biblical characters as people. Adam and Eve are postulated by Sargon to have been space explorers, for example. (Although one could argue that they were not really Jewish, since they are mythologically the ancestors of all Earth Humans.) And there are refs to a few modern people who are known to have Jewishness as an ethnic background, but who did not necessarily practice Judaism. Isaac Asimov for example, was an ATHEIST, he did not practice any of of the Jewish rituals or observe the holidays -- but he identified as Jewish, per this intro to Jack Dann's SF 1974 anthology of Jewish SF, Wandering Stars: "I attend no services and follow no ritual and have never undergone that curious puberty rite, the bar mitzvah. It doesn't matter. I am Jewish... (p. 1)." He then goes on to discuss his ethnic background. A perfect example of a Jewish PERSON who does not practice JUDAISM. Vulcan613 16:23, November 17, 2009 (UTC)
One more thought: How about calling this page "Jews and Judaism" and disambiguating both to here? Wikipedia uses "Jews and Judaism" for the name of their overall project -- probably for the same reasons we are discussing here. See for example the bottom sidebar to this page on Humanistic Judaism, showing where it fits into their project on Jews, both ethnic and religious. Vulcan613 17:15, November 17, 2009 (UTC)
I see two people discussing and agreeing to some things, which I did not see in a cursory reading, but I still wouldn't say it was a consensus(which is neither here nor there, we're talking about it now).
I would say if it doesn't bother Jewish people, we could leave it the way it is, or we could do what you just suggested. :) --31dot 19:09, November 17, 2009 (UTC)

Jaz: And Judaism is not a religion? I'm not following you. Both Christianity and Judaism are referenced in Star Trek, yet you moved the page about the religion to a page about the people. I was sarcastically suggesting why we don't do the same for Christianity. -- From College with Love

I think this article should be moved to Jewish people (or something similar) simply because this article doesn't talk about the religion but only the people of that religion. The only reference in the entire article to the religion is the two rabbi mentioned in the 2nd to last paragraph and even that doesn't qualify. — Morder (talk) 19:58, November 17, 2009 (UTC)
I would have to agree with the move. Since I don't know of any other religions that are also an ethnic group, I think this is more of the exception than the rule on this. - Archduk3:talk 20:07, November 17, 2009 (UTC)
Shran: Jaz and I are not saying that Judaism is not a religion -- that would be absurd. We are saying that JEWISHNESS encompasses ethnicity as well as religion and that, in the case of canonical Trek, the few refs to Jews that exist are ethnic, not religious. There are some religious refs in the apocrypha, as noted in the article. Which is why I now think the page should be called "Jews and Judaism" which would cover BOTH the religious AND the ethnic aspects of Jewishness (which, BTW, is a direct translation of the Yiddish word yiddishkeit, which is used to include everything from synagogue services to kelzmer music to chicken soup.) Vulcan613 21:42, November 17, 2009 (UTC)
Also, as an aside, I would not descrtibe the two Jews in the newspaper scene as "haredi" given that the term did not exist at the in-universe time the epp takes place. The Haredi movement is a post-WWII phenomenon. I would call then Orthodox Jews. But I'm not going to start aan edit war over it. Vulcan613 21:42, November 17, 2009 (UTC)
Given that the episode in question takes place after world war ii I would say that they could be - but I would have no clue since it's a description based on the physical appearance of someone rather than fact. Which is speculative to me. Since all the items you mention about religious references if apocrypha exist only in apocrypha that should have no bearing on the naming of the article as it's non-canon. — Morder (talk) 21:46, November 17, 2009 (UTC)
The term "Haredi" did not come into use until the 1970s, mostly from followers of the Chazon Ish, and was not widely used until the late 1980s or early 90s. It emerged as an alternative to the perjorative "ultra-Orthodox" being used by the secular media at that time. But I do agree that if we go only by canon, then these two nameless walk-on extras are the only CLEARLY religious ref to Jews. All the rest are ethnic. Vulcan613 22:03, November 17, 2009 (UTC)
Learn something new every day. Overall the move should be simple and "Jewish people" is the simplest. No we do not need a Christian people shran :) — Morder (talk) 22:07, November 17, 2009 (UTC)

Well, now that the reasoning behind the move has been fully and properly explained... ;) Still, not sure I like the title "Jewish people," it just sounds kind of... sophomoric, I guess. What's wrong with moving it to "Jew"? That's where the Wikipedia article is. --From Andoria with Love 23:11, November 17, 2009 (UTC)

Jew has always sounded like it had a negative connotation to it rather than a proper name but Jew is fine if nobody has any objections. — Morder (talk) 23:18, November 17, 2009 (UTC)
Linguistically there is nothing negative about the word "Jew" -- I am a Jew, I am proud to be a Jew, we call ourselves Jews, it is the proper noun that goes with the adjective "Jewish." It is true, however, that some people do use "Jew" as a perjorative as in "dirty Jew Commie" or "jew the price down" but that is not proper English and there are no such references in Trek. I would be OK with "Jew" as the title same as we would say "Klingon" or "Vulcan" or whatever. Vulcan613 02:26, November 18, 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, slightly late to the game... however, I seem to remember having some trouble with the title of this article before, must be years ago. IIRC, the problem back then was that of basically two or more different topics that were mixed in this article (references to "the religion", "followers of this religion", "people of a specific nation", "people of a specific ethnicity"; makes 4 topics), not all were ever really mentioned in Trek and thus "worth" an article. I think the separation of those several topics should be held up - and, if needs be, several articles be created, or "unmentioned" topics be removed from the remaining article. -- Cid Highwind 10:18, November 18, 2009 (UTC)
Judaism got changed to Human religion, way back when, but that was before enough obscured references were extracted to recreate it as it is now. Most of the old discussion(s) can be found here. --Alan 13:05, November 18, 2009 (UTC)
Highwind, I do recall that controversy, back around 2005-06, when I first started watching this page. There was a lot of speculative material about Nazis, persecution of Jews, etc. but very little actual refs in canon or Apocrypha (Ironically, I already had more solid refs than were here then. A lot of the refs in novels came from a list I made on Amazon.) This speculative stuff has long since been removed. When I first searched this site I searched "Jews" and "Judaism." Both landed me on this page. Googling "Jewish Star Trek" on various search engines also brought up this page. And I think those are the keywords most people are going to use: Jews, Jewish, Judaism. There are so few canonical refs to Jews that it does not seem justified to have a lot of separate pages separating them into religion, ethnicity, nation, etc. On the other hand, I think this page should be here, because there is a lot of animosity among certain segments of the Jewish community toward Trek for supposedly not including Jews. To counter this, Jewish Trekkers are very actively looking for refs to Jews (see the link launcher on TrekJews.com) So i think it is a very positive thing to have a page on Jews and Judaism. Vulcan613 13:50, November 18, 2009 (UTC)

Vote Edit

  • moveMorder (talk) 22:07, November 17, 2009 (UTC)
  • moveVulcan613 22:18, November 17, 2009 (UTC)
  • Move - Archduk3:talk 22:41, November 17, 2009 (UTC)
  • move --- Jaz 21:07, November 18, 2009 (UTC)

FollowupEdit

So, the agreement was to move it... but there was no definite consensus as to where. My impression from reading above was that "Jewish people" was not where it should go, and that it should go to simply "Jew". So, what went wrong here? -- sulfur 14:28, November 27, 2009 (UTC)

I think Jaz read the vote, but not the discussion. :-P Personally, I think "Jew" is a better place for it. That's also where Wikipedia has it. --From Andoria with Love 22:22, November 27, 2009 (UTC)
I'd say go with wikipedia. whenever i'm unfamiliar with terminology, they have many more people presenting valid intellectual viewpoints. -- Captain MKB 23:42, November 27, 2009 (UTC)
I'm fine with "Jew" as I indicated above. Vulcan613 16:28, November 29, 2009 (UTC)

The move was made to "Jew". Also, the redirects were fixed, something not done when Jaz moved the page originally. -- sulfur 16:32, November 29, 2009 (UTC)

Around Wikia's network

Random Wiki