Talk:Jews/Archive 18

use of "Jew"
This is intended as an objective comment on the content of the page, not an opinion. Foot note number 1 Jew maintains that (albeit some) uses of the word "Jew" are considered derogatory. Yet all though out this article, the words "Jew" and "Jews" seem to be much more common than "Jewish" and "Jewish Citizen" or similar words. Any thoughts to this? A fix to this would be simple and, if the general opinion was positive, I would be more than happy to do so. Otherwise, I think something should be done about this comment, as it seems to contradict the rest of the article. Slithytove2 22:58, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I dont think this is an issue. Usage of the word mexican can be derogatory if used in a particular manner. This does not mean that it is wrong to use it. Jew is an accepted word, and many jews refer to themselves as jews. It is stupid to censor something that only a small percentage of wikipedians would find offensive. Also it is very self-destructive to remove information that describes some usages of the word, even if it contradicts wikipedias usage. Lets not fix things that dont need fixing. thuglastalk 01:09, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * your logic is quite flawed. If someone is from mexico they are called a mexican. Your argument that "many jews [sic] refer to themselves as jews [sic]" is the same as saying that many black people refer to themselves, and other black people, as "nigger" or "negro". It doesnt mean that it is right. "Jew" and "Jewish" are not synonymous. The "politically correct" word is Jewish. Jew has always had a negative connotation. "...he's a Jew.." implies that all Jewish people are the same and can be lumped together. Most educated individuals, Jewish or Gentile, do not use the term "Jew." They understand the connotations, and understand that it is not "right" to use it. You also have to remember that while "only a small percentage of wikipedians" find it offencive, only a small percentage of wikipedians actually have been called "Jew" instead of "Jewish." My point being, until you have been called a "jew," you can't say that it is not offensive.
 * Goalie1998 03:03, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I really knew someone would come at me telling me that black people have no right to use the word nigger, etc. and i had gaven wikipedia the benifit of the doubt, expecting that noone would bring in this stupid, childish, obvious analogy. I am aware that some words are not for wikipedia, but this does not mean that some words are not meant for wikipedia. First of all, i agree with you that my logic is flawed. That does not mean that my points are not valid, because all language can be argued to be incorrect in life for two reasons, one being that language is subjective, another being that language is relative to other language and has no fundamental base. If humans wish to communicate, we must show some tolerance for innacuracy in language. I could go into a three hour conversation about this, but that was for my english professor. Also, your arguement that someone being from mexico is mexican has no weight. I am aware of this, and i dont need to be reminded that Mexican people are Mexican. My arguement was that the term mexican, (or, in a synomous example, an Arab or Tutsie) can be used in a derogative manner to offend Mexicans. Also, in acclamation to your statement that the word Jewish is used to lump Jews together: OFCOURSE, this is how all types of grouping work. The word Canadian is used to lump or chunk people from Canada together. This in no manner implies they are all the same; neither does use of the word "Jew." Finally, as I am jewish and i have been called a Jew your last comment has no meaning to me. I am not a baby and i do not find this term to be offensive. My entire family feels the same way and i do not wish for people to tiptoe around our name purely because select individuals have used the term 'Jew' in a negative manner, that would be letting them win. If you are jewish, then grow some balls and stop whining about the usage of the term jew and be proud of what you are instead of trying to run from what people have done to you or your ancestors, the word jew cant be that bad if your ancestors put up with mass-killings. If you aren't jewish, then stop caring; many Jews contribute to wikipedia and can fix things on their own if they find it offensive. Also, before you point out mistakes in my capitolisation or spelling, you should fix your own. This is a talk page and i do not care. thuglastalk 11:30, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I think Goalie1998 is winding you up. Just to provide some perspective on this, here are some Google searches: from the Jewish Chronicle..., from the Israeli government's .gov.il domain..., from Haaretz..., from the Jerusalem Post.... Finally, you might want to take a look at the official English wording of The Law of Return. I suggest at this point that we stop feeding the trolls. -- The Anome 11:49, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * You're probably right. I guess I enjoyed writing that anyway. Nice research, Anome. thuglastalk 19:22, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * "Even when used as a noun, the term "Jew" has been used to objectify and separate Jews from the remainder of the population, often by referring to the majority population by the name of the country ("Countrymen") but referring to Jewish citizens as "Jews." "
 * Shouldn't WP also say that it is offensive to refer to the dominant majority of the Jewish State as "Jews" and objectify and separate "Israeli Arabs" from the remainder of the population? Should I put that in this article or some other? Suggestions. Fourtildas 06:30, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it would be a good idea, Fourtildas thuglastalk 20:25, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I notice it is now "Arab-Israeli" instead of "Israeli-Arab" - how did that happen? So should we refer to "Jew-Israelis" ? 24.64.165.176 04:02, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

It's interesting to note that Googling for the word "jew" brings up a link at the top of the results page to this URL: http://www.google.com/explanation.html Obviously the people at Google think that there's an issue with the usage of the term "jew" compared to other synonyms such as jewish etc. Argenteum 20:42, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * That's because a few years ago Google was under a lot of pressure because word had gotten around that the top sites that came up if you searched for "Jew" were anti-semitic. Google refused to change their ranking algorithm, but finally compromised by putting up the "sponsored" link you're referring to. In my search today, I found that Wikipedia shows up on top of the Google search results for "Jew", so I guess it's now a historical curiosity.--Elipongo (Talk 18:35, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * This is still a concern, there are sites with titles "Jew Watch" on the first page of google's search results. While it is sad that sites like that exist, I don't think Google should have changed the algorithm or hide this information. Actually, the way they have handled it was very helpful because I was at the time quite shocked that antisemitism is still so prevalent. Now, about the usage of the word "jew", if I understand the correctly, it would be fine to say "my best friend is a jew" when it is obvious I'm not saying that to separate him from my other friends or something like that :) I think I will move up the footnote to the lead paragraph, because I think this is important, and should be explained at the very first use of the word! --Merzul 02:25, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Googling for the word "jew", I find Jewschool, Tattoo Jew,  Rock and Roll Jew Show, Jew Central in the first few pages. And I get 4440 hits on "just Jew it", starting with Just Jew It. And 19,900 for "Jew Crew". Fourtildas 20:33, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Hey, i just wanted to throw this out there. I am currently taking a Jewish history course at my school (Wheaton College in mass) and the Proffessor, who is also Jewish, usually referes to the people as Jews and things relating to them as the Jew's literature, or the Jew's jobs, etc. Im not saying its right or wrong, and of course im sure there is a proffessor elsewhere who never use the term, but anyway im just throwing it out there. lain18


 * "Jew" is singular. We are not referring to "a Jew."  But to the whole body of Jewish people, therefore, at the very least, PLEASE change the title of the page to "Jews," which is plural.  Oemb1905 18:35, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Jewish people would be another option for the title. Personally I think it's a better description of the topic. Jewish peoples would be another option but I'm not sure it's particularly preferable. Looking through Category:Ethnic groups, there are examples of ethnic group titles for comparison, but as a whole they don't appear to set a clear precedent. If this article's name were changed to Jewish people, Jew could always have an article focusing on the history and usage of the term "jew". I think there's definitely enough material out there on the term itself to put together a decent article on it. Jewish people would still obviously contain information on the term's history of use but it could be covered in a lot more detail at the main article.--Eloil 09:16, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I am a jewish person and i believe that we should not be called that. Did you t=know that they use this crude word in my social studies bool. I felt like crying :(

Jews are Jews, simple as that. Just like Catholics are Catholics and Protestants are Protestants. What other term is there? I can't think of any that would be appropriate. I don't know why the above person would feel like crying. Possibly a selfhater? --Hayden5650 03:47, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Jews
I reverted user, Ivan Kricancic edits on this page. The infoxbox for ethnic groups, features the "popplace" tag for the region with the centre/largest/native population, which Israel has. See, Japanese people, Egyptians, Russian people for examples, or check out the template for it, Template:Ethnic_group. In addtion to being the orgin of the Jewish diaspora (or see diaspora), as of 2006, Israel contains the single largest Jewish population on Earth. Epson291 08:09, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Do Europeans have right to a state in Palestine?
No, they don't. They belong to Europe. The Balfour Declaration lacked the consent of the people of Palestine, so in fact it was illegal. Anything built on illegality is illegal. That is the international law. At the end of the British Mandate under which Palestine was placed by the now defunct League of Nations at dismemberment of the Ottoman State in 1922 by Treaty of Versailles, should have been constituted by the following UN in 1948 as Republic of Palestine in which all the endemic people of Palestine irrespective of religion & ethnicity should have equal right to live there. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ILAKNA (talk • contribs) 18:33, 25 January 2007 (UTC).


 * Are you stating this in order to debate the proposition (which you are better advised to do elsewhere) or to suggest a modification to the article? Sjeng 21:33, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Many studies that have been done about this subject find a systematic major difference between the genetic pools of Jews and non-Jewish hosting European populations, with only very little in common ,if at all .but this difference was much smaller when the Jewish genome was compared with that of middle eastern, or from middle eastern origin, populations such as thus of  Syria, Lebanon and Tunis. Finding like this suggest a common origin for all of the Jewish communities ,with two exceptional: the Yamane  Jewish community which  have a lot in common with the gentile Yamane population (but still have genetic markers of Jewish people as well) ,which fits very well with the known history of this group, and the Ethiopian Jews which seems ,genetically, from a non Jewish  origin only (and this fact is perfectly support the assumptions ,regarding the historical background of this group, claming that the Ethiopian Jewish community was established by local people which convert to Judaism ). --Gilisa 20:29, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I personally agree, Europeans don't have a right to "Palestine." However, Jews, or people from the land Palestine once was, do have a right to return to their brethren in Palestine.  Not only did Jewish communities remain in Israel until the Aliyahs, there was more than one.  There were Samaritans and there were Sephardic Jews and so-called "European Jews" (really, Jewish refugees, or diaspora Jews) definitely have a right to return home.  Can't see any way around this fact.  Just like Palestinians have a right to return to Gaza, or Arafat to Palestine, or Sudanes to their war-torn and home territories.  Refugees, or in this case diaspora Jews, always have a right to return to their homeland.  Oemb1905 16:03, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I find this comment quite interesting. The Balfour Declaration was on its face, illegal under any and every treaty ever signed.  The Government of Israel continues to this day to violate just about every international treaty/law with regards to settlements in disputed teritories.  Yet in your logic, only Jews have a right to return to the "land Palestine once was".  Using that logic I suppose you support the notion that when the state of Isreal was illegaly declared, the very real state of Palestine ceased to exist. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.223.68.215 (talk) 07:47, 11 March 2007 (UTC).

A. You are all ignoring the fact that the UN overwhelmingly agreed in favor of the creation of the state and b. You're obviously anti semites trying to start a fight because this has nothing to do with making changes to the article, the intended purpose of talk pages. Go to the Klan sight if you want to do that.


 * Just ignore those trolls. It's obvious propaganda, which should not be dignified with an answer. Statements like "...the very real state of Palestine ceased to exist." make it clear this is a liar, trying to spread disinformation, like the existence of some imaginary state before Israel. okedem 22:26, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Excuse me, but all of my comments have to do with editing the page. This dispute is in regards to the language that we use to describe modern day Israel and the Jewish people.  Secondly, although the anonymous user lost his or her cool in regards to my comments, he or she made a good point which I will adress later.  I find it amazing that I have been referred to as an anti-semite by my fellow Jews more than once on this page.  Sickening in fact.  I am Jewish, and my comments assist in the writing of this article, since I, in fact, have edited it at times, and will continue to do so.  So please remain composed and I will deal with the person who wrote rudely about Jewish refugees when I return home.  This is oemb1905, I forgot to sign in 71.165.200.253 18:18, 6 April 2007 (UTC)


 * If you were answering to me - I was talking about the comment by 65.223.68.215, and that it's not worth spending any time answering him. okedem 22:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

How many Arab nations are there, or how many muslim nations, count them, now count the Jewish nations those that beloning to the opressed people who ALONE have the wright to the land of Israel, anyone who can count can see that a single tiny country to serve the Jewish people while protecting them at the same time is FAIR. This article is to be write without you Anti- Semite, numerically challenged bigots interferning, even people like myself should not add their opions to the Wikipedia.Facts only.I support Israel, and I am not even Jewish. Call the state by its name and change the name of the article to Jewish People, like all of the other articles on ethnicity.

Jew and ethnicity?
The introduction says that jews "are members of the Jewish people, an ethnic group originating in the Israelites of the ancient Middle East.". I checked through a lot of sites and it does not seem to be quite so clear, for example the site http://www.jewfaq.org/whoisjew.htm does not say anything about an ethnic groups, only about traditional jewish views on who is a jew. The introduction is either badly worded or a POV. - Lapinmies 01:02, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I think it's pretty undisputed that Jews are an ethnic group. The jewfaq author uses the term "nation".  Please have a look at the ethnic group article; the academic definition of the term may be broader than you think (it doesn't mean "race").--Pharos 01:22, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Negative, I was talking about there being many sites that define it differently. - Lapinmies 01:56, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * "Many websites" is hardly a WP:RS. By the academic definition, Jews clearly form an "ethnic group".  For various reasons, some prefer "a people" or "a nation", but that's hardly relevant here.--Pharos 02:00, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The Encarta source that is placed first does not agree completely with the introduction, confusing. - Lapinmies 02:14, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


 * There is not jewish ethnicity. The comparison with other site isnt a proof, you have to be scientist and there is scientific proofs there is not jewish ethnicity.

"Jews" are defined in this article as "members of the Jewish people". If you look in WP for "Jewish people" you get redirected to "Jews". So this is a circular non-definition. The other definition given refers to the Israelites article, which is purely a description of religious beliefs, sourced to the Bible - it seems this is perfectly OK as a WP "source". "Jew" is used in other articles as if it has a meaning. Strangely, if I look in my Oxford, I find a perfectly good definition of "Jew", which you won't find in WP. Fourtildas 06:55, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Jews are most commonly descendants of the tribe, or ethnic body, of the people from the land of Judah. A kingdom which split off from Israel on or around 900 BC and survived independently (or perhaps with Benjamin) until on or around 585 BC.  I agree that it is undisputable that the word Jew primarily refers to the ethnic body.  Of course, since the people and the practices have evolved, it can and should also cover non-ethnic Jews who converted to the predominant religion of the Jews, namely, rabbinical Judaism - which started in its current form about the time of the Great Assembly, which was shortly after Judah was destroyed and then allowed return by the Persians.  Oemb1905 18:31, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

The Jews are -not- an ethnic group. They're not even an homogenous group. This is a completely fallacious page. Geneticists and historians alike have shown that the Jews are not an ethnic group.I am not an anti-Semite, but I have studied Jewish history. The cultural and indeed ethnic differences between the different cliques are -vast-. To suggest that they constitute a unitary minority is Zionist nonsense.


 * Not sure what the above contributor means about 'Zionist nonsense', but there is some evidence to suggest the notion of a Jewish ethnicity, but not in the way most people think. First: it is true that one cannot 'look' Jewish, as Jews of Poland, for example, wouldn't necessarily look anything like Jews of Yemen. However, probably because of the prohibitons against intermarriage and the constant migration of the populations, most Jewish populations were distinct from surrounding non-Jewish populations. Second: Surprisingly (in my view) there are studies indicating some genetic commonalities between widely disparate Jewish populations (I pulled the first relevant google search result: Science Daily, though there are many others). Certainly one cannot claim that all followers of the Jewish faith belong to the same ethnic group, but the distinction between religion and ethnicity is perhaps blurrier in Jews and Judaism than it is in other faiths. Oh, and this also puts aside the very vague notions of ethnicity and race to begin with. Felgerkarb 23:34, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

This kind of claims, that Jewish people arent realy from the same origin-i.e, not realy an ethnic group-are usually coming from an anti-semic minds, this is my view. Why? because many studies that been done through the past 15-20 years have shown time after time that the vast majority of the Jewish people are from the very same genetic pool: it was checked by the m.DNA which passed only from mother to her child -and guess what? Jewish people with European background (Ashkenazim) are actually more related, and by far, to the native nations of the middle east and to sepharadic Jews than to Europeans (actually they have allmost nothing in common with them, geneticly speaking), when it was checked, again, several times, from the Y chromosom point of view (which passes only from father to son) -the Ashkenazi Jewish people have allmost nothing, or nothing, in common with gentile Europeans, and have alot with Sephardic Jews and Syrians&Lebanonic Arabs as well as with the Arabs of tunis- this is because the Jewish people are actually from the same origin as the phenocians which their offsprings are the Arabs of syria,Lebanon and Tunise. off course, there are some expetionals: the Yaman Jews which are geneticlly mixed with local Yamans-but it is well known historical fact, while nobody knows about any kind of assimilation and absobtion of gentiles into the Jewish commuinties of Europe, another exaptionals are the ethiopieans which are, again, known to be not from a Jewish origin. More, Ashkenzi Jews are, mostly, not similar physiclly to the gentiles in which they share common living -even if some how, some times -can look as asord of alike.

Shalom Shalom Shalom
Ma schlomcha ? Kor'im li Kızıl. Hakol tov?

Hehehehehehe....

I know just a little Hebrew. Anyway... Albert Einstein was a Jew? I think he wasn't, 'cause he hadn't said to never he was a Jew.

Kızılsungur 15:04, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Greetings and shalom, Kızılsungur. Yes, Albert Einstein was ethnically Jewish, though he did not practice Judaism. Justin Eiler 15:06, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


 * According to some, that statement would make no sense. All Jews, Disraeli, Einstein, Marx, and Freud would all be considered goyim if those who believe that Jews are not an ethnicity prevailed.  But as we can see, even in just the simplest corrolaries and contexts such as this, it seems to be obvious and common knowledge that Jews are primarily, though not exclusively, an ethnicity. Oemb1905 18:36, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Again...the Jews do -not- constitute an ethnic group.

Ethnical?!
Its not ethnical to be jewish,there are two ways to be jewish: sociocultural, and religious. You do a mistake when you change the term "sociocultural" by "ethnical". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.116.86.107 (talk) 17:49, 16 February 2007 (UTC).
 * Again, please look at the ethnic group article (it does not mean "race").--Pharos 17:51, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Please also read some other encyclopedias, dictionaries and thesauri - they disagree with WP. Fourtildas 04:59, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

"Yo do a mistake." :D Muhahaha. Anyway... I can make mistakes. You're right dude. But I prefer to be sociocultural. Ethnical situation is not cool. It's like Fashisizm or Nazisizm.

Kızılsungur 12:34, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, it isn't :) Epson291 23:07, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Is ethnical even a word, dude? Ethnic is a noun and adjective ... Oemb1905 00:52, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


 * It's as much a word as 'Fashisizm' or 'Nazisizm'. I'm guessing not a native English speaker, but we all know what he meant. On the actual topic, an encyclopaedia should remain self-consistent. If multiple sources disagree with Wiki's ethnic group article, that article should change, and this article should remain consistent with it. And what does it mean to be a 'sociocultural' Jew anyway?137.138.46.155 10:12, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Languages
Hi, I am opening this up for discussion. User:Epson291 and I disagree on whether English should be included as one of the languages of the Jews today. It appears that over half of Jews worldwide speak English. Here are parts of what I wrote on Epson291's talk page. "Jews today are unlike Russians, Germans, Pashtuns, Armenians etc. since most of them do not speak their ancestral languages, and the language shared most by each of those groups is Russian, German,.. If this were perhaps 60 or 70 years ago, Yiddish would probably be written first, since it was then the language shared by most Jews. The language shared by most Jews today is overwhelmingly English and it is the prime language of the community, whether or not it has to do with immigration is irrelevant. (Another factor to consider is the large portion of Israeli and European Jews who speak English.)" Any thoughts, suggestions...?

English is the language of business, so probably yes :)

This is what was originally written

User:Shamir, I reverted you edits on the Enlgish majority already once and you readded it and I should have written why I did that. The reason for that is the box is for the langagues of that ethnic group, English, French, German, Russian, Ukranian, etc... are not..... Otherwise, the list would go on for ever. (And it will because user's will add it, i.e, one of the 500,000 France Jews will see it and think, why I am not on it.... etc....) Aramaic is for instance a Jewish langague, but it is no longer spoken, so it would go into the greater Jewish languages thats included. Only Jewish languages should be listed in the Jewish ethnic group box. It says in other places (and quite obvious) that Jews speak the langague of their home country.

Anyways, as for your asertion that English are the majority, the link you provided was from a unreliable source that stated English speakers were exactly 50.0%. And of course, the world's total Jewish population is difficult to measure and in many countries without ethnic or religious cencuses, it hard to accurately know the figure. (Had it been 85.0%, and not 50.0% there would be some leaway). Either way, English, Russian, Hindi, etc..may be langagues that Jews can speak, but has nothing to do with the Jewish ethnicity. (And Jews as a 50% figure, hasn't even been that long - lets say, since the end of the Shoah, when there were large population migrations. So English isn't even a historical non-Jewish langague that Jews spoke) Epson291 22:28, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


 * So I will revert it right now, just that, not your other edits, but if you still feel the diasporic lanaguague of English should be included in the box (I presume with Russian, French, German, etc... where there are a large number of speakers) then please talk about in the on the talk page of Jew, I would prefer the infox box short and precise. Epson291 22:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi! I don't think it would be necessary to write Russian, French, German etc. because that is only a minority of Jews worldwide. It does not say what ethnic language or the such. Jews today, who are more correctly a nation rather than an ethnic group, are unlike Russians, Germans, Pashtuns, Armenians etc. since most of them do not speak their ancestral languages. If this were perhaps 60 or 70 years ago, Yiddish would probably be written first, since it was then the language shared by most Jews. The language shared by most Jews today is overwhelmingly English and it is the prime language of the community, whether or not it has to do with immigration is irrelevant. (Another factor to consider is the large portion of Israeli and European Jews who speak English.) I will post a discussion on the talk page. --Shamir1 23:25, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Here is my response


 * Hi again. I strongly disagree with you.  The info box should be left for either lanagues of the ethnicity (such as Jewish lanagues).  Otherwise, a box of worms will be open.  It is quite obvious that any ethnicity, would speak the lanague of the country they live in.  If you feel people won't realize British Jews lets say, speak English, then a message could state that Jews generally speak the lanague of the country they reside in.   By wanting to put in English, you are opening for other user's to fill it in for the 700,000 French speaking Jews, 2.5 Russian speaking Jews, etc.... and this continues with German (Germany has the fastest growing Jewish population) etc... And we need to have a list a mile long for every country Jews live in (Brazil (Portuguse), Argentina (Spanish), Iran (Farsi), Ukraine (Ukranian), etc....)  And remember this is out of 13 million Jews in the world. Just because you are a native speaker of Enlglish and that is the only languague you speak, this seems to have given you a narrow minded view of the world's Jewish speakers, 35% speak Hebrew as their lanague, the other 15% share among Russian, French, Spanish, Portuguse, Farsi, etc..... English is of no historic importance to the Jewish community.  Now. again you've written "over half of Jews" speak English, though the link you provided said 50.0% (which is not over half or majoirty that you keep saying), and remember the Jewish population is hard to measure, some countries, do not take ethnic or religious counts of Jews. (Side note: you have some confusion between nation and ethnic group, but I do agree, Jews are certainly more then just an ethnicity]], Jews are certainly both, see the definitions) Now, Jewry does not start and finish with the American Jewish community.   By saying that Israeli or European Jews speak English as second langague and that is why it should be there is laughable, honestly, since so can most Israeli and European gentiles.  (Should they have English added to their ethnic boxes?).  English is not in any way connected to the Jewish nation.  I do understand it's importance to roughly half of the Jewish population, but you most be aware of the number of Russian, French, German, Spanish, etc... speaking Jews?  You may claim it is a minority, but no more minority then English.  If you step into a place like France, you will find hundreds of thousands of French and Arabic speaking Jews, you go into Montreal and Toronto you fill find thousands of French, English, Russian, and Hebrew speakers.  I will once again state that only lanaguagues related to the ethnicity should be included. Epson291 02:51, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh, and I can imagine the response some people will have seeing German listed in the info box, as there are 200,000 German speaking Jews today and it is growing among the quickest. So I don't think listing lanagues of countries Jews lve in will work per sey. Epson291 02:53, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh, and not that I would, I speak German Epson291 02:54, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Today, English is the primary tongue of the Jewish nation. That may be because of immigration, but so is the revival of Hebrew. If this were 1850, we would not be listing Hebrew at all, despite its very strong connection. And it is not true that all of those other languages are "no more a minority than English", that is absolutely false. Again, the most shared language of Armenians worldwide is Armenian, and I can go on with that list. Armenians speak the language of their homecountry too, but 1) most of those outside of the country speak Armenian, and 2) it is overall the most shared language of all of them. You can also see the article on Ethiopian Jews: Traditionally, Kayla and Qwara, more recently Amharic; Ge'ez as a liturgical language and now (in Israel) Hebrew as a liturgical and common language. Had this been prior to 1984, Hebrew would not be mentioned. Had the Ethiopian Jews been airlifted to Norway, then Norwegian would probably be included as well. And no, German would not be listed since German is not even close to the prime tongue of Jews; perhaps growing relatively quickly, but not even close to to the over-half majority of English speakers. The World Jewish Congress is conducted in English, as well as any major event or convention for Jews worldwide. --Shamir1 03:12, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I disagree, but I will wait to here others opinion. You're justification for English but not for other histroically non Jewish langagues in absurd (such as Russian, French, etc..) to give special treatment for English. And again you say, "over-half majority of English speakers" when you're "proof" says very much otherwise.  As for Hebrew, if not for it's revival and Yiddish and Ladino subsuquent demise it would probably be listed in the other order.  There are many many more Jewish lanaguagues (say Aramaic), that either in this only in certain prayer, and others like that of Georgian Jews, Juedao-Arabic, Judaeo-Farsi, etc... is not important enough to list in there, rather in the all emcompassing, Jewish languages. 74.108.10.78 06:09, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


 * 1) The source itself says 50% of Jews are in English-speaking countries, while a large portion in Israel and Europe speak English as well (very few speak actual Jewish languages [besides Hebrew in Israel]). There is no "special" treatment when over half speak English and only a minority actually speak a Jewish language. You talk about other "historically non Jewish languages"... At one point in time, Russia had the largest Jewish population. Should Russian have been mentioned? Probably not, because most Jews in Russia at that time spoke Yiddish, specifically Eastern Yiddish. Today, only a small minority of Jews speak Yiddish, even in Russia. The Jews have unfortunately lost touch or have been forced to lose touch with their cultural languages. In either case, by far the most shared language of Jews worldwide is English. --67.120.168.41 23:42, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Russian Jews still make up one the the largest perecentages of the Jewish people. Israel alone has absorbed 1 million Russian Jews since the fall of the Soviet Empire 15 years ago (1/6 the population). And almost none speak Yiddish. And I also argue by that one source and then calling it a majority, one could say however, "around half", speak English and the langauge of their home country. Epson291 17:54, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The fact that Jewish people speak English is incidental to their being Jewish or being from a Jewish state. It is, in logical terms, an accident, and thereby does not deserve to be referred to as a Jewish, qua Jewish, language.  The only case I can see that could be made would be the case I list elsewhere which is this:  insofar as Israel exists once again in the form of the third kingdom, and insofar as English is a language spoken by many of its Jewish inhabitants, it could be an official language of some of the Jewish people from Israel.  Other Jewish people speaking English are merely people from a different ethnic background, namely the Yehudim background, speaking a foreign tongue, because of a historical accident - namely, the diaspora.  And I am using accident as a technical term here, for clearly when Titian (could be wrong here) kicked the Jewish people our of Jerusalem in 135 CE it was no accident, in the vernacular sense.  71.32.102.49 04:16, 4 March 2007 (UTC) Oemb1905 15:57, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Changes - I put in English as par the discussions into something more in depth, and to something I hope is agreeable, I put Yiddish because there are apparently 3 million speakers according to Yiddish which is 23%, which surprised me, though I am sure most of them double up with English and/or Hebrew, etc... Epson291 22:25, 26 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The only criteria I see fit for deciding whether a group of people speak a language is if that language is spoken by the people because of who the people are (ie., qua the people). In short, English is accidentally spoken by the Jewish people as a convenience, not because of their Jewishness.  Hebrew, Ladino, Yiddish, and English spoken in Israel should be recognized as official languages of the Jews only if they are official languages of Israel.  Languages belong to people, and people belong to nations.  Such has always been the criteria for deciding what a language of a people is.  To speak of the Jewish nation (and mean across the whole world) smacks of rabbinically Jewish POV.  In other words, it is as if you are arguing that there is a nation across the whole world.  In actuality, there are refugees across the world, not miniature nations.  Typically, historical persona have referred to these refugees as diaspora Jews.  Naturally, most of us on this page understand that rabbinical Jews believe in the nationhood of Israeli people (Eretz Israel), but this bias and POV is not one held by academy thinkers such as those who participate in Wikipedia.  Nor is it held by me, in my particular understanding of my Jewish roots and culture.  Therefore, I request that we look to Israel's current official languages as the deciding factor in this matter.  Oemb1905 18:06, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I think we should only list current and ancient languages of Israel or Jewish Kingdoms. Currently, Israel has two official languages, Arabic and Hebrew.  As for ancient Israel, there was Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, and Arabic which were all spoken in Israeli or other Jewish Kingdoms.  Lastly, how the Jewish people effected the dialects of their new home countries after the diaspora should also be mentioned.  In this way, we can include Ladino (and all its variants), Judaeo-Arabic, and all the others that Jewish people effected.  Oemb1905 16:15, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * It is not referred to as a Jewish language or a language of the Jewish state. It is, however, the most shared language of Jews today. At one time in history it was Hebrew, for a long while the most shared language was Yiddish, but today, by far it is English. Jewish families rarely use their traditional languages anymore, while beforehand it was largely used in home and with the community. Today, almost never. I have heard of French, Russian, and Persian-speaking synagogues (not for prayer, but addressing the congregation), but unfortunately, not a Yiddish or Ladino one which once populated all throughout Europe and North Africa. --Shamir1 20:54, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


 * You have not heard of a Yiddish or Ladino speaking shul or temple? Are you serious?  Oemb1905 71.165.200.253 18:21, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Populations
I have been reading more about the population distribution of Jews per country. There are some conflicts. New reports have come out, but are nonetheless controversial since many Jews do not say they are Jews (for whatever reason), and others dont know it. In most cases, the Jewish population has dropped. That does not mean that the number of actual Jews (as per Jewish tradition) has dropped, but that less people are identifying as Jewish. Also, we may need to add more "to's" between the numbers, since many number totals are conflicting. A range may be more correct. Any thoughts? --Shamir1 05:20, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Jewish population is hard to measure, so as long as it's cited, then yeah, ranges are ok, there is already some. (But if this is a single fairly reliable figure, that should be the only one cited). Epson291 14:24, 1 March 2007 (UTC)


 * A mathematical range is a good way to assess data, but not to list an actual figure. We need to make decisions in cases like this, and stand by them.  As far as varying reports, studies, and figures are concerned, I would imagine we already have some kind of disclaimer in the tomes of Wiki rules that states that these figures are subject to change or something like that.  That should be enough for discrepant details. Oemb1905 14:29, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Musings
Jewish people are not merely a social group and religous group, they are also an ethnicity. Arguing against this fact, is like arguing against the whole cadre of Zionists (a type of Jewish person), for whom ethnicity, race, and national origin is of primary importance (at least, for some Zionists!).

The language of the Jews was Hebrew at first, Aramaic second, and Greek at the last. If you count the Yemeni Kingdom and the Kingdom in Northern Egypt, then you might also add Arabic as a language. (See Paul Johnson for a good basic intro to these kingdoms.) European languages, including English, are languages that Jewish people spoke after being banned from Jerusalem in 135 CE (the Second Temple destruction). Until the third kingdom of Israel was established in 1948 (Biblical Israel Maccabean Israel being the first two), these languages would be considered languages that diaspora Jews spoke, as they were the languages of their so-called "home countries." At this point, however, with the establishment of the third kingdom, it could be argued that English, Yiddish, Hebrew, Ladino, and other languages spoken in Israel, are either once again or are newly established native tongues. This is because large portions of Jews speak these languages in their own home country. The deciding fact here, is whether there are other official languages besides Hebrew in Israel, since Israel, is indeed, a Jewish state (the flag, and the "rock of Israel" comment in the Constitution).

Regarding Jewish people who do not claim that they are Jewish. Some of this stems from ignorance over the word, Jew or Jewish, itself. Most ethnic Jewish people are Semitic in origin, which is an ancient race of people. This race split into two major groups that are with us today, Arabs and Jewish people. We know this from linguistics and archaeology. The Jewish people eventually developed their own dialect, Hebrew, which differed from Aramaic, Idumean, Canaanite, Arabic, etc. At the same time, the word Jew began to refer to rabbinical Judaism, or synagogue Jews, which developed no earlier than in the period of the Great Assembly and reached a climax in the 18th Century Pale of Settlement. Thus, the word itself changed to some extent, since many of the Jewish people began to focus on their evolving type of worship (not in Israel, etc.) as more of a non-national religous concept rather than an ethnic religous concept. The two meanings, and indeed many others, still remain part of the definition. Difficulty arises, mainly, when one group of Jewish people tries to vie for their definition at the expense of another group. I see a lot of that in the arguments on this page. Also, for this reason, we have Jewish people, who under one definition are not Jewish, and under another, are Jewish. According to one group of Jewish people they are Jewish, and according to another group of Jewish people they are not. The question is:  Can we really continue to use the word Jewish or the term Jewish people to refer to the entire community of people who identify with it, such as Zionists, Chasidim, Mishnagdim, Sephardim, Falashas, Maskalim, Reform, Conservative, and Orthodox. Perhaps it would help if we used precise terms that referred to such sub-groups instead of thuggishly throwing around the word Jew and Jewish every time we want to make our particular brand heard.

It is hard to avoid POV in this article because many Jewish groups do not believe in the Judaism or Jewish characteristics of the other groups. For instance, as a Zionist I believe it is innacurate to cite Hebrew as dying in the 4th Century, since there was an Italian community that continued to speak it, a religous body that wrote letters to and from Europe to Caesura and Babylon that spoke it, and communities in Egypt and Yemen that spoke it much longer. Moreover, the Maskalim in Europe actually wrote in it in the 17th and 18th Centuries. However, a traditional rabbincial Jew, or perhaps a sociological Jew, might disagree. The point is this: we need to be careful in trying to put all groups that identify with Jewish tradition under one term and under one word. It might be more helpful to refer to sub-groups specifically by their sub-group names, instead of by the name Jewish.

Anyways, I am sorry that this is so hasty and so rushed and sloppy, but this page kind of infuriates me because people on it continually fight over the same things. It seems to me that few people on the page have ever read any Jewish history (oh no, that needs defining!), or perhaps they are just unknowingly effected by their own bias and POV. Anyways, not sure if this will help, but I think the page is horrible, incomplete, innacurate, and generally sloppy. I recommend closing it, and I recommend, frankly, that people consult with me before they make any hasty generalizations or sloppy changes to the page. Thanks.

Yonatan ben Yisrael AKA Jonathan Matthew Haack AKA Oemb1905 22:56, 3 March 2007 (UTC)


 * You wrote quite a lot and didn't say very much! Well for all intents and purposes Hebrew did cease to exist as a spoken lanaguge, but not really since many studied, and were quiet fluent in it, but anyways, once again Hebrew has become the primary traditional Jewish lanaguague, both in prayer as it always has, and as you put it, the ethnicity. So I don't think the (until 4 CE should be there either), like there is too much information on it for just one little thing in brackets.  Epson291 07:46, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


 * That is because there is no easy answers to these questions. Accordingly, I put my comments in the discussion page.  Regarding the Hebrew bracket thingy, I can see both sides.  I am just trying to add fruitful ideas and thoughts for those in charge of the "Jew" page to use for their editing.  And another suggested edit of mine, is to change the rude and slang name of the page, namely Jew, to Jewish people, or at the very least to the plural form, Jews.


 * As far as the points in the article are concerned and how they relate to the debates that occur over and over again on this page, here is a numbered list of my so-called hot issues: 1.  We need to specifically refer to sub-groups of Jewish people by names so as to avoid ambiguation (ie., maskils, mishnagdim, etc.)  2.  We need to affirm the ethnicity and regional heritage of Jewish people, except in the case of rabbinically Jewish converts, as having been derived from Judah.  3.  We should look to the Constitution and laws of Israel to decide what the language of the Jews is now, and refer to all other languages as ancient languages spoken by Jewish people and nations of old.  3.  I request that peolpe email me when they make an edit so I can add my input since I take this page seriously and believe I have helpful insights.  4.  Keep questioning and debating without getting overly rude and silly, try to remain scholarly, without waxing philosophic or being jarringly POV!


 * Hope that clarifies my "musings." Oemb1905 18:47, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

"" Jew "" cannot be edited, no explanation
Perhaps only the Chosen People can edit? Following Chosen People, I find articles with the non-words "chosenness" and "peoplehood", but no reference to the definition of "chosen people" I find in my dictionary. And you wonder why Wikipedia is considered a big joke? 24.64.165.176 03:59, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


 * the page is semi-protected meaning that only users who are logged in on an account that they had for a few day can edit that page. Temporarily protecting pages like this greatly limits the amount of vandalism on   commonly vandalized pages and helps Wikipedia appear less like a joke.  Jon513 13:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, there was a well-known study in which Wikipedia was shown to rival Encyclopedia Brittanica. Furthermore, chosen people is right out of the Bible.  Look there for a definition, bubbe.  Additionally, chosen people is a term, not a word.  So it is a bit curious that you were looking in a dictionary.  Try Wikipedia or Brittanica as an alternative and you might have different results. Oemb1905 18:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The bible is a work of fiction. Any time a Jew uses the bible as justification for referring to themselves as "chosen", for stealing Palestinian land, for fleecing and ripping off gentiles, etc, they instantly lose the argument.24.183.178.138 06:20, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Jews and adherents of Judaism are not and have never been Synonymous
I quote a passage, "Until the late 18th century, the terms Jews and adherents of Judaism were practically synonymous, and Judaism was the prime binding factor among the Jews, although it was not strictly required to be followed in order to belong to the Jewish people. Following the Age of Enlightenment and its Jewish counterpart Haskalah, a gradual transformation occurred where many Jews came to view being a member of the Jewish nation as separate from adhering to the Jewish faith." This is not true. This shift has been present in the Jewish people since antiquity. This shift was part of the reason the kingdoms' split. This distincition is why we have Karaites. This distinction relates to the Khazari issue. This distinction relates to the old feuds between the scribes and the ruling classes in Ancient Israel. This distinction relates to the feuds between Essenes, Pharisees, and Sadducees. This distinction is why Judah Maccabee became outraged at the sympathizer or Hellenistic Jews and led a revolt. This distinction is made clear in Philo of Alexanria's writings, and in Josephus' writings. It is not merely a bi-product of the Haskalah. Although it appears it was intended to be polite and professional, I believe it is wholly wrong, and it sure seems to smack of rabbinically Jewish POV. This seems serious to me and I believe it needs immediate fixing. I request input on this issue from other members of the WikiProject. Oemb1905 18:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Levant
Returned to the Levant? They were returned to Jerusalem. What is the basis of saying they were returned to the Levant? Oemb1905 22:01, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

NPOV ?
Hello,

Could someone please explain to me what exactly is the disputed section of the NPOV ?

Thanks--Inyan 10:33, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Looks like nothing. Beit Or 14:25, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


 * it should be that it lacks sources. and it has to be clearly stated that it is only based on the New Testament. Jon513 16:35, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


 * This thread makes no sense. Can someone clarify what you guys are asking and talking about? Oemb1905 17:09, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Herod did not annihilate all Maccabees
Herod only annihilated a certain line of Maccabees. The Maccabees were fighting amongst themselves and against Herod as the Judaeans were in the midst of a civil War at this time. I believe Herod wed a Maccabean princess and then after she bore him a child, he killed her. The ensuing line, which Herod probably felt would be more legitimate among the Judaeans, was the Agrippa line which lasted in vassal form all the way until 135 CE. I believe Alyn Brodsky researched this in "The Kings Depart." Please fix this, it is an error. Oemb1905 17:06, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

WikiProjectBanners
Hey, I may be a bit late on the news, but I just noticed an umbrella banner into which all other banners can be be neatly folded...see Talk:Taiwanese aborigines for example.. --Ling.Nut 09:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

It is written that Jews population in poland is 12,000-100,000. Can someone sure that? Qczor 19:16, 23 March 2007 (UTC)~

now it's (if you consider an ethnical group, non-polish nationality) 1000, the polish jews (assimilated) is couple of thousands - check out the goverments datas

Merger
Shouldn't this be merged with judaism? I havn't checked, but is there a seperate "muslim" article from "islam," and christian, from chrstianity, hindu from hinduism, excetera? Or if your going buy the theory that its a race ina ddition to religion, then what is the precedent for articles concerning race?
 * Not race, but a people, with their own history. Judaism isn't the same as being Jewish. Many people are born to a Jewish family, but are Atheists. They feel themselves as a part of the Jewish people, sharing the heritage and customs with other Jews, though not sharing the religion. It may seem confusing, but there's a real difference here.
 * It's very different from Islam or Christianity - those are religions, and nothing more. That's why Judaism isn't a missionary religion, and when someone convert to Judaism (which isn't easy), they are said to have chosen to intertwine their fate with that of the Jewish People - they become a part of nation, not just a religion. okedem 19:58, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Isn't it true that those who convert to Judaism aren't actually considered true Jews? An Israeli friend of mine (from an ethnically Jewish family) told me that, from religious aspects, a converts soul cannot achieve the same level as a soul that is born Jewish.
 * Well, I'm afraid that my knowledge of Judaism isn't that deep. I don't think there's a difference in the texts, the Talmud, etc, but some Rabbis might have different rulings on that. I know that, in practice, many converts aren't as well accepted in religious circles as they should. okedem 12:34, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Converts are considered 100% true Jews. There are however slight difference in is some law for them, just as there are for kohenim Levites.  Jon513 17:33, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Jewish Culture Section
"Judaism guides its adherents in both practice and belief, and has been called not only a religion, but also a "way of life..."

This doesn't cite any sources and can be applied to any religion viewing itself subjectively. Exchange the word Catholicism for Judaism and the trite aspect of this sentence is exposed.tactik 11:45, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

New pictures
Pictures should also include: Jonas Salk, Sigmund Freud, Karl Marx, Jesus (may seem funny at first, but he is perhaps the most famous Jew in history). The Wall Street Journal has named three men-Einstein, Marx, and Freud-the greatest thinkers of modern times. All are Jews. Also Theodor Herzl, Nostradamus, and many important scientists can be found on JINFO. Steven Spielberg, Ann Landers and Dear Abby, Barbra Streisand, Sandy Koufax... I'll think of more. --Shamir1 22:45, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Ann Landers???? Are you talking about the info box?  I think after the last debate, it should remain as it is.  Dominating it with Ashkenazi Jews did no go over well.  And there are better Jews to put in then that (though Jonas Salk and Herzl are good) (and why all American pop icons?) The info box oringally also had, David Ben Gurion, Benjamin Disraeli, Menasseh ben Israel, Menachem Mendel Schneerson, and Regina Jonas, but they were removed) And as for Jesus, yes he was a famous Jew, born and died, but he does not belong on this page. Epson291 02:51, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I did not intend for any to be pop icons, rather I looked at the cover of Great Jewish Women and saw Barbra Streisand. I then read her article and found it to be a good choice. Same with Ann Landers. I chose who made a contribution to the world, rather than just the Jewish population. Yes most are Ashkenazi, except for perhaps Nostradamus, however there are three factors that explain that: the large majority of Jews are Ashkenazi, the large majority of Jews have been Ashkenazi even more so, and the world is eurocentric. Of course, that does not mean I do not wish to include other ethnic groups. --Shamir1 07:26, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, not this again. ←Humus sapiens ну? 09:52, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Hebrew Jew/Jewish
Hello everyone... I have a question that I hope someone can clarify for me. Is it appropriate to speak of a Hebrew culture and Jewish religion in the Middle Ages? In other words, can there be a Hebrew Jew, a Hebrew Christian, ect? I know there is a Hebrew language, but outside of modern Isreal (which the correct adjative would be Isreali). Or, conversly, what would the correct national/cultural designation be for a Jewish family living in Jerusalem in the 12th century? Does this make sense? Drachenfyre 08:07, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The designation would be Jewish. Hebrew was mostly used as a language of prayer for Jews, and little else. There was no "Hebrew culture", just Jewish culture, and aside from some scholars, I very much doubt any Christian knew Hebrew. okedem 08:47, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks Okedem. But following up on this... Using Jewish as the correct designation, you would then say Isreali Jewish, English Jewish, French Jewish... yes? In a historical context, speaking about a Jewish family in Judea in the mid 12th cenury (when it was under the Crusader State Kingdom of Jerusalem, would it be Judean Jewish? Drachenfyre 10:17, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Yea, I think that would be the correct designation, although since Judea wasn't a country then, it would be only a geographical designation (like saying "a Parisian family"). Today we do say "American Jewish families", etc. okedem 11:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Information on genetics of Levite men
I have read that male Y chromosome of more then 50 percent of Levite men is R1a. This is a indo-european (Aryan) and not semetic marker. How did it enter the male priestly cast of the Levites. Was there a presence of Iranians large enough to impact the genetics of some Jews. I am aware that the The Sassanid, Achaemenid, Seleucid Persian Empires controlled Israel for centuries at a time. I am a realist and I believe as a partial levite jew, jews are not pure semites and surely mixed with a great many people which is why you find so many different phenotypes in sephardi, ashkenazi and mizrahim jewish populations, so can anyone answer my original question about R1a in Levite males. Manic Hispanic 03:49, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Jews in Iran
Quote from wikipedia-article History of the Jews in Iran "In mid- and late 1980s, the Jewish population of Iran was estimated at 20,000–30,000. The reports put the figure at around 35,000 in mid-1990s[24] and at less than 40,000 nowadays, with around 25,000 residing in Tehran. However, Iran's Jewish community still remains the largest in the Middle East outside of Israel. [13]"

This is contradictory to your estimate of a minimum of just 11.000 Jews in modern Iran in the table on the right side of the page. You might want to straighten that out (I have no idea who is right, just stumbled over this). --Weltweltwelt 19:34, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

World population statistics and the Percentage of Jews in the US
The article seems to read that the percentage of Jews in the US is 40 per cent. that is 40 per cent of the population of the USA is Jewish! I know that this is meant to read that 40 per cent of the world population of Jews live in the USA. I believe that it is important that this possible misconception is dealt with GGeoff 20:31, 27 April 2007 (UTC)ggeoff

Come one now! How are those pictures fair?
I know the pictures issue has already been raised ad nauseum, but come on now. Albert Einstein, Lev Landau, Karl Marx, Sholom Aleichem, Simon Wiesenthal, Anton Rubinstein, Felix Mendelssohn, Steven Spielberg, Grigory Perelman, Leon Trotsky? The current edition is simply an unjustified eurocentric Ashkenazi smorgasbord, not to mention misogynist.

I know, I know, we must assume good faith, but fair is fair already. It's simply not representative to the rich diversity of world Jewry, and is an assult on the heritage of all non-Ashkenazim as well as an insult. By how many dozens of users must the issue be repeatedly raised for people to get fair dinkum about this? Al-Andalus 20:31, 28 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I have reverted it. it was unilaterally changed by User:M.V.E.i.. Jon513 20:46, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Lack of reference to Kosher
I noticed there's no reference to keeping Kosher in the article; it is such a large part of being Jewish that it really ought to be shoehorned in somewhere, perhaps under Ethnicity?
 * This article deals with the Jews as an ethnic group or nation (people). Kashrut is discussed substantially at in the Judaism article (see Judaism). Neutralitytalk 05:05, 30 April 2007 (UTC)