Talk:Goy

Goy was nominated as a Social sciences and society good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (March 31, 2024, reviewed version). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.

Judaism Mid‑importance

	Judaism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Judaism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Judaism-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JudaismWikipedia:WikiProject JudaismTemplate:WikiProject JudaismJudaism
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Jewish history Low‑importance

	Judaism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Jewish history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Jewish history on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Jewish historyWikipedia:WikiProject Jewish historyTemplate:WikiProject Jewish historyJewish history-related
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This page is not a forum for general discussion about the term "Goy". Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about the term "Goy" at the Reference desk. Article talk pages are for improving article content based on references to reliable sources. If you have something to change in the article, please do so citing your sources.

Archives

Archive 1

Archive 2

This page has archives. Sections older than 365 days may be automatically archived by when more than 1 section is present.

Modern derogatory sense

Is the problem that some non-Jews think that the word "Goy" is a slur is because they use the word "Jew" as a slur? SunDog | Talk 19:28, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Since when does the person saying the supposed slur get to decide whether it is a slur or not? Many racists don't think their words are racist. They're still racist. 209.181.62.178 (talk) 16:19, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Goy article needs a good edit

I just wanted to point out that the last 2 paragraphs (beginning with "in modern usage in english" and "the word goy is sometimes used by") of the intro section of this article are highly inflammatory and intensely antisemetic, especially the part making claims about the "chosen people...lying". Super problematic. I considered signing in to make an edit myself, but reconsidered since I didnt want to play "white knight", and thought maybe i should leave the editing for more qualified people who are better acquinted with the subject matter. But I def felt the need to point it out and hopefully bring it to attention that this should be addressed. Thank you. 209.91.132.90 (talk) 17:13, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, by the time I'd made my topic comment it looks like someone else had already caught it. Thanks! :) 209.91.132.90 (talk) 17:16, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't worry about playing the white knight - nobody's more qualified when it comes to tackling horrible vandalism. There's a lot of rubbish being thrown at this article, and I'm sure many others, at the moment.Atrapalhado (talk) 19:27, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a regular wikipedia editor but I would like to point out that in the "In Antisemitism" section the article states that GDL founder Jon Minadeo II was imprisoned for "use of the slur" (goy) when source 38 clearly shows that he was imprisoned for littering. Maybe someone can fix that too. 2601:1C2:801:4B60:7DC1:3FF4:A83A:A272 (talk) 19:34, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch, IP! I've updated the passage to make it clear the jail term was for littering. Feel free to propose or just edit in better language if the way I phrased it is too clunky. EducatedRedneck (talk) 22:50, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BC or BCE

I made a change to make the article compliant with MOS:ERA. Specifically, these two points:

Use either the BC–AD or the BCE–CE notation consistently within the same article.
BCE and CE or BC and AD are written in upper case, unspaced, without a full stop (period), and separated from the numeric year by a space (5 BC, not 5BC). It is advisable to use a non-breaking space.

It was reverted, objecting to BC over BCE. I really don't care which, as long as it's used consistently. I can see the argument of using BCE, also per the MOS: An article's established era style should not be changed without reasons specific to its content; seek consensus on the talk page first (applying Wikipedia:Manual of Style § Retaining existing styles) by opening a discussion under a heading using the word era, or another similarly expressive heading, and briefly stating why the style should be changed. I've reverted again to maintain consistency, but have no objection if someone changes all AD/BC to CE/BCE. Just make sure it's consistent and has the appropriate spaces. EducatedRedneck (talk) 10:59, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree re consistency but as it clearly should CE/BCE it's not very helpful to revert it to AD/BC. Atrapalhado (talk) 16:38, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Atrapalhado You may notice I'm not a subject matter expert.

I was going purely off consistency. I acknowledge that you think AD/BC is preferable in these articles, and suspect you're right. I thank you for changing the style without reintroducing incorrect spacing or inconsistent era usage; the article is in a better state than before thanks to your efforts. EducatedRedneck (talk) 17:43, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion of instances of the use of the word goy in hebrew

Hi I'm troubled by the new content that has been added discussing one instance of the use of the word goy in Jewish Prayers (obviously, in Hebrew). Is this consistent with our focus in this article, which we describe as on the "adoption use and translation of the word goy into English"? (this being English Wikipedia).

Also there are 500 instances of the word goy in the Hebrew Bible and I'm sure many others in prayers and other texts. Shall we discuss all of them? Only discussing one or a few instances may unintentionally create bias/misrepresentation. I'm certainly worried that could be the case with the text focused on here.

I'm aware all of this critique could perhaps also apply to the long standing paragraph above the new content: this existing paragraph discusses the phrase "goy kadosh".

I await others' comments. If they don't come in a week or so I will assume agreement and delete text in the "Hebrew Bible" section from "In Exodus 19.." to "..do not know You." Atrapalhado (talk) 23:54, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it's WP:UNDUE, but moreover for the new content, none of the three sources provided are WP:RS. Ritualwell.org is user-generated, and so we reject per WP:USERGEN. I've been unable to find anything about the Dayton Jewish Observer, much less anything about its editorial practices, so I don't think it counts as an RS. Finally, the JTA source is again pointing to an editorial column. On this basis I've removed the new addition.

If we were to include it, I'd want a source, preferably academic, that discusses it from a secular perspective. For instance, if the article talked about the evolution of the term, or what it indicates sociologically, that could be worth including. A bald discussion of its use in Hebrew prayer is just not in the scope of this article. EducatedRedneck (talk) 00:24, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all. The JTA evidence is an agreed-upon WP:RS and the new link is not an editorial; and yes, it WP:DUE for this to be mentioned somewhere in the body of the article. It would break precedent to call this content WP:UNDUE to be mentioned anywhere solely because there are other mentions of "goy" and "goyim" in the Hebrew Bible. OrebroVi (talk) 00:59, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored the sourced section and removed the poor sources as mentioned earlier. OrebroVi (talk) 01:10, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Source doesn't say what it was cited for. Highly dubious. The word "goy" isn't in [1] and the only sentence related is: The Passover, which celebrates God’s redemption of the Jews from Egyptian slavery, is generally free of anti-Egyptian or anti-Gentile sentiment. Andre🚐 01:23, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How is JTA an agreed-upon WP:RS? I don't see it mentioned anywhere in the perennial sources page. Even if it were, as I mentioned, editorials generally aren't reliable. And the linked page is a "monthly column" in the "lifestyle" section, which doesn't present any sources. That's an editorial.

I'm also unconvinced by your argument that it's due because WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. You'd have to explain how the contemporary use of the word in a prayer in Hebrew is relevant to an article about a now-English loan-word from Yiddish. EducatedRedneck (talk) 04:18, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

JTA is generally reliable, but I agree this particular one is an WP:RSOPINION. Andre🚐 04:24, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Goyim is mentioned in the JTA source in the form of 'nations' in the prayer, which I have changed to reflect 'nations' as the primary term. The JTA source is a WP:RS, not a theological source, and many of its writers are secular Jews. OrebroVi (talk) 02:31, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's not sufficient, it's WP:SYNTH Andre🚐 02:33, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@AndreJustAndre it is well-established that nations in Biblical Hebrew; however, if I re-include it with a different WP:RS citation that makes the direct connection without WP:SYNTH, would you object? OrebroVi (talk) 02:35, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do not reinsert anything as you're already edit warring and I will report you for 3RR next time you do it. Discuss the change here first. Andre🚐 02:36, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. Anything re: my content-related part of the question? OrebroVi (talk) 02:49, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with EducatedRedneck: an academic-style source that discusses the phenomenon's sociological impact could be worth including, but you haven't provided such a source yet. Andre🚐 02:51, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fair. Thanks for the answer. OrebroVi (talk) 03:04, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]