Talk:Jews/Archive 21

Populations
According to American Jews, there are 7 million in the US, which hypothetically means there are more in the US than Israel. I'm not asking whether this is true, but if there are, would the US be placed above Israel rather than under "other significant populations"? More of a policy question than one of whose population is greater since it's the official religion of Israel and under 3% of the US population. Thompsontough (talk) 21:58, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I think 7 million is too many, but until last year, the US had more Jews than Israel. The US is as significant a Jewish population center as Israel is, and I think they should both be in the center of the template. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 03:36, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I would only agree with that statement if the United States declared itself as another Jewish state. Epson291 (talk) 06:18, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * That was my rationale for posting the question here. I'm fine with things the way they are for exactly that reason - was just curious about where the line on "significant" is. :) Cheers. Thompsontough (talk) 19:29, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Something else to keep in mind that I would also suggest as a rational reason for listing Israel above the US in Jewish population is the percentages. Bear in mind that Jews make up less than 3 percent of the overall US population. Ryecatcher773 (talk) 06:13, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Few complaints
1. Why is this article called 'Jew' and not 'Jews' or 'Jewish people'? A 'Jew' is not an object, any article on any ethnic group in Wikipedia isn't like that, for example: 'German people', 'Irish people', 'Russians', 'Romanians' etc etc so why just 'Jew'?

2. If just 4 Jews for the infobox, Golda Meir is not a good example because if you'll ask most Israelis they will tell you she was not a very good prime minister. Maimonides and Einstein are good examples, but I don't think Lazarus and especially Meir were very important Jewish women, maybe there are better choices to put on the infobox. Yuvn86 (talk) 02:54, 9 February 2008 (UTC)


 * 1. Some articles about groups of people are titled in the singular, such as African American, and others in the plural, such as Russians. I'm not sure that there's a rule about how such articles are titled.


 * 2. There has been some discussion about the four people in the infobox. See here and here. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 04:28, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

"suffered"
I find the use of the term "suffered" in the lead sentence "The Jews have suffered a long history of persecution in many different lands..." to be inherently POV. Hertz1888 suggests that the term "suffered" is historical and not opinion, but I counter this by pointing out that our view of history is tainted by our perspective and even if a significant majority of people are of the opinion that Jews have suffered through history, it is more in keeping with Wikipedian tenets to simply state facts without using any questionably-POV terms. Furthermore, it cannot be demonstrated that all Jews throughout history have suffered, and it can be also be argued that Jews as a group have prospered over time. I think it is important that we carefully follow the fundamental Wikipedia principal of WP:NPOV and remove the term "suffered" from the sentence.

I initially altered the sentence to read "The Jews have survived through a long history of persecution in many different lands...". I like this phrasing better than "The Jews have been persecuted in many different lands", however Hertz1888 also suggests that the former is awkward language. I'd like to get other opinions. &mdash;  X   S   G   06:45, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Personally, I don't see anything POV at all about the word suffered. Would be POV to say that a person suffered from cancer? Or that the American economy suffered during the depression in the 1930s? Seems pretty straightforward to me. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 06:24, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I think you make the case I've presented very well: If you read "So-and-so suffered from cancer," what conclusions do you immediately come to? If you hear that "So-and-so survived cancer," what conclusions do you come to?  Suffering is inherently negative.  If someone suffered from cancer, my conclusion is that death is imminent or has occurred.  If I hear that someone has survived cancer, I assume that the person is still alive. &mdash;   X   S   G   07:34, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Rhetorically speaking, I see what you're saying. I actually prefer 'survive' to 'suffer' because one denotes pain and persecution, while the other implies pain, but also denotes perseverance. A people do not necessarily suffer -- and in this case, the suffering meaning victims of persecution -- as a whole, even if large groups of individuals included amongst said people do. There are Jews today who are still persecuted. But there are others still who may never have had to endure it. As a people, the Jews have survived. Not all have suffered though. I know I haven't. Therefore, in that respect, I understand how suffer might be construed as POV.      Ryecatcher773 (talk) 00:05, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * (a) 'suffer a history' is slightly stilted in contemporary idiomatic English. It has complex nuances and uses in earlier prose, one of which equivocates between 'tolerating' and 'passively accepting', neither of which connotation would be welcome here. I would suggest 'Historically, the Jewish people suffered from frequent persecution in many countries'.


 * (b) 'have suffered' /'suffered'. There is quite a distinction in these two forms of the Englisdh past tense. 'Have suffered' carries the connotation also that the Jews (not some Jews) are still suffering persecution.Nishidani (talk) 21:57, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't know about POV, but I agree that "survive" is the appropriate word. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 22:39, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

If I properly gauge the original intent of the statement, it was to specify that the history of persecution had taken its toll on population (or affected it). "Survived" (in the current version) doesn't fit, as it fails to make the necessary connection with "resulting in..."; at least, the cause and effect nexus is far less than clear. It is not essential to go back to "suffered" (in any form). Its use is pov to some, stilted to some, ambiguous to others. We could instead, for example, say: "The Jews [or "The Jewish people"] have experienced [or "undergone"] a long history of persecution, resulting in..." This would re-establish the original connection. Hertz1888 (talk) 22:45, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Re-reading the sentence, I see your point. I think "experienced" is the best suggestion. I prefer "The Jewish people" to "The Jews", but I don't feel strongly about that. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 22:56, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I completely concur. Another vote for "experienced"!  Pending further discussion, I'll make this change soon unless someone else beats me to it. &mdash;   X   S   G   06:50, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I find the whole persecution entry a little biased. It is covered in the history section. Does every race/religion need a persecution entry? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.235.169.189 (talk) 17:32, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Request edit
I politely requested the following section to be added. Why was it that it was deleted from the main *discussion* page?

The way I read it, Jewish people are successful in lots of fields, to deny their impact on pornography is short-sighted.

Jewish people in Pornography.

Jewish people have been prominent in pornography. According to Jay A. Gertzman (ref: "Bookleggers and Smuthounds: The Trade in Erotica, 1920 - 1940" (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1999): ‘Jews were prominent in the distribution of gallantiana [fiction on erotic themes and books of dirty jokes and ballads], avant-garde sexually explicit novels, sex pulps, sexology, and flagitious materials’.

Reuben Steurman was referred to as "The Walt Disney of Porn" during the post-war era. According to the US Department of Justice, throughout the 1970s Sturman controlled most of the pornography circulating in the country.

Steven Hirsch runs the Vivid Entertainment Group, the top producer of adult films in the US. Vivid parallels the Hollywood studio system of the 1930s and 1940s, particularly in its exclusive contracts to porn stars who are hired and moulded by Hirsch.

Ron Jeremy, known in the trade as ‘the Hedgehog’ is one of America’s biggest porn stars. The 51-year-old Jeremy was raised in an upper-middle-class Jewish family in Flushing, Queens, and has since appeared in more than 1,600 adult movies, as well as directing over 100. A documentary has been made on his life: "Porn Star: The Legend of Ron Jeremy."

Seymore Butts, aka Adam Glasser, is a 39-year-old New York native. He opened a gym in 1991 in Los Angeles, and when no one joined, he borrowed a video camera for 24 hours, went to a nearby strip club, recruited a woman, then headed back to his gym and started shooting. Within a few years, ‘Seymore Butts’ – his nom de porn which is simultaneously his sales pitch – became one of the largest franchises in the adult-film business. As the king of the gonzo genre (marked by hand held cameras, the illusion of spontaneity and a low-tech aesthetic meant to suggest reality), he is today probably the most famous Jewish porn mogul. Seymore Inc., his production company, releases about 36 films annually, most of them shot for less than $15,000, each of them grossing more than 10 times that sum. Glasser employs 12 people, including his mother.

Like their mainstream counterparts, Jews who enter porn do not usually do so as representatives of their religious group. Most of the performers and pornographers are Jewish culturally but not religiously. Many are entirely secular, Jewish in name only. Sturman, however, identified as a Jew - he was a generous donator to Jewish charities - and performer Richard Pacheco once interviewed to be a rabbinical student.

Very few, if any, porn films have overtly Jewish themes, although Jeremy once tried to get several Jewish porn stars together to make a kosher porn film. The exception is Debbie Duz Dishes, in which Nina Hartley plays a sexually insatiable Jewish housewife who enjoys sex with anyone who rings the doorbell. It has sold very well, spawned a couple of sequels and is currently very hard to buy - perhaps indicating a new niche to exploit. Indeed, according to an editorial on the World Union of Jewish Students website,

"there are thousands of people searching for Jewish porn. After things like Jewish calendar, Jewish singles, Jewish dating, and Jewish festivals comes ‘Jewish porn’ in the list of top search keywords that GoTo.com provide". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.146.93.128 (talk) 14:25, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Tell you what. First, add a section on porn to the Christian article. Given that there are vastly more Christians than Jews, it's obvious there will be far more Christians than Jews in the porn industry -- probably even the majority. Get it to stick there, and then we can talk about adding one here too. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 16:56, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Sounds reasonable to me. I personally think that such a section in either article would clearly be a violation of WP:Undue weight, considering that pornography probably isn't something either group is particularly known for as a group, but, hey, what do I know? John Carter (talk) 17:01, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I find it strange that you automatically assume the OP is a Christian. Anyway, I visited the "Christian" article, and found 4 bullet points. "Jew" includes so much information, I suppose this could be added. As you well said, Jews make up 2% of the population, yet their numbers in the porn industry are HUGE. Just saying. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.38.163.132 (talk) 03:52, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Where did anyone say that the OP (IP-is that what you meant?) was Christian? All Jpgordon did was call for balance. I assume the original post got deleted because the deleting editor thought it was disruptive trolling, which is what it looks like to me. Oh, and the numbers of Jews in the porn industry are "HUGE"? Do you have a secondary source for that, or is that your own original research? Yeah, that's what I thought. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 10:17, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Steven, it's not nice to call people names. Especially when you are wrong. Here are some facts (mostly by Jewish people) pointing out why Jews are successful in pornography. As I said before - it has nothing to do with antisemitism. Read the content in these links - you may learn a thing or two: http://www.nextbook.org/cultural/feature.html?id=491 (Why do Jews dominate the industry? It is not, as antisemites are so fond of positing, because the Jewish character is inherently debased. It has more to do with cultural savvy and economic ambition), Nathan Abrams, The Jewish Quarterly (Winter 2004 edition): "Al Goldstein, the publisher of Screw, said “The only reason that Jews are in pornography is that we think that Christ sucks. Catholicism sucks. We don’t believe in authoritarianism.” Pornography thus becomes a way of defiling Christian culture and, as it penetrates to the very heart of the American mainstream", "In light of the relatively tolerant Jewish view of sex, why are we ashamed of the Jewish role in the porn industry? We might not like it, but the Jewish role in this field has been significant and it is about time it was written about seriously", page 27-30. Both of those articles were written by proud Jewish men.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.146.93.128 (talk) 00:50, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Seriously, this whole section is idiotic and does not relate to this particular article at all. The article Jew is about the religion -- not the exploits of some of its members. If you want to write an article about porn, and Jews in porn, go on and do it... but don't do it here. This discussion has taken up too much space already. Ryecatcher773 (talk) 06:03, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I have to disagree with Ryecatcher on two points. First, this article is not about a religion. There's an article called Judaism for that. It's about a people, the Jews. Second, before the anonymous editor writes this up in any Wikipedia article, he needs something he hasn't shown us yet, a reliable source. The blog he linked to doesn't cut it and I don't think Al Goldstein does either, except as it relates to one man's opinion. The IP's personal musings on the subject are not an appropriate subject for a Wikipedia article. Furthermore, I don't think I called anyone names. If the anon can point out where you think I did, please do so. Also, it would be helpful for the IP to register a user name so that other editors can know if they're conversing with the same person from one post to the next. Oh, and when did I say anything about antisemitism? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 08:21, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * It's not. It mentions many other things rather than religion. It mentions the fields where Jews excel. One of them is entertainment. And, from the citations I posted above, even Jewish people admit their influence in the pornography field, which is disproportionate to their percentage of the population. Perhaps a new article is in order? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.146.97.62 (talk) 15:48, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, it's not going to be added, so forget about it already. Ryecatcher773 (talk) 04:59, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I wasn't aware you owned Wikipedia. Your pedantic attitude isn't helping your point much. If there's enough material to create a "Jews in porn" article, then it can be created. Whether you agree with it or not. 189.146.98.49 (talk) 13:41, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


 * My two pint rebuttal: First, there are those of us who do not separate the two (I count myself among those). Wiki-Semantics and academic studies aside, one who is culturally Jewish must have some tie to Judaism directly... it's one thing to say that a Jew who isn't observant or otherwise converts can remain culturally Jewish. But for the sake of the article, I understand what you're saying. Secondly, our 'friend' is perfectly free to start his own article on whatever he likes... and it will be speedily deleted or mercilessly edited if it's not reliably cited. The point is, I don't care what he/she does with the info he/she claims to have, so long as it isn't on any legitimate articles (particularly this one). You and I are on the same team Mr.Anderson, no need to open up a second front. ;-) Ryecatcher773 (talk) 08:53, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Understood, Ryecatcher. To be clear, I don't see myself as having a dispute with you. I just felt that I ought to make my position clear on a minor point of interpretation. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 08:32, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Western Wall not part of the Temple
The article notes: "The Romans all but destroyed Jerusalem; only a single "Western Wall" of the Second Temple remained." This is not correct. The "Western" or "Wailing" Wall is part of a structure, a supporting wall, built by Herod, the builder of the temple that was destroyed by the Romans, around the relatively small mountain plateau that had contained the original Second Temple. This "box", filled with earth and dirt, and flattened into the large area which is today known as "Temple Mount" (although the original plateau was somewhat lower than today's). The large area allowed King Herod, to construct a very large temple, and, in addition, a palace at the side of the plateau. The reason the "Western Wall" is holy to Jews today, is because during all the centuries it was (a) believed to be an actual remnant of the Temple (as is indicated in the article), and/or (b) considered the place with greatest proximity to where the "Holiest of Holies" of the Temple was located. The section of the supporting wall called the Western Wall is practically no different than the entire supporting wall surrounding Temple Mount, but tradition has turned it into the central site of Jewish prayer and lamentation. Mtszorf (talk) 19:11, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * So it was part of the Temple compound. Big deal - that still makes it part of the Temple in my book, because the compound isn't just the central sanctuary. It's the whole thing. And since the plateau as built by Herod remained, that essentially means that the Dome of the Rock was something built on top of Temple ruins, rather than replacing Temple ruins. 204.52.215.107 (talk) 06:43, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Related groups

 * I've changed "Semitic groups" to "Middle Eastern groups", as the relation isn't based on linguistics but on genetics. Jews (and other Levantines) are closerly related to non-Semitic Middle Easterners like Armenians, Iranians and Anatolian Turks than to South Arabians for example. This is a genetic fact, but last time I put in a reference, someone removed it. Funkynusayri (talk) 08:03, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Can you tell us what the reference was? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 08:22, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The guy who reverted wrote:

"20:20, 15 February 2008 White Cat (Talk | contribs) (94,225 bytes) (The validity of the genetic study is disputed therefoee I do not believe it is OK to put that into the infobox. See Origins of the Kurds#Validity and reliability of such genetic studies) (undo)"

So it seems he questioned the validity of DNA studies in general, not this particular one, because that's what the article he referred to did. But I assume Wikipedia should be based on science, so I've put it in again.

Anyhow, here are some sources. There are many different studies that confirm the same, it's just a matter of picking and choosing. Funkynusayri (talk) 08:34, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Even if it's true, what about the hundreds, or maybe thousands who convert each year to Judaism and become Jews? their genes don't change after all. Yuvn86 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 11:51, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, those people would not be part of the ethnic group called Jews which this article is about. Is Madonna an ethnic Jew? Funkynusayri (talk) 12:40, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if Madonna converted, but converts also become ethnically Jewish/members of the Jewish people, as the article states and all Jewish sects agree on that. There's no difference between Jews by birth and by conversion. Yuvn86 (talk) 13:28, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, genetically. Descendants of the original Jews would have Middle Eastern ancestry. Which would be the majority of the world's Jews. Jews are an ethno-religious group due to the common descent of the far majority of them. Non-Middle East descended Jews are a small and insignificant minority. Funkynusayri (talk) 15:14, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to see your sources for your claim. Besides that the 'original Jews' being an odd way of putting it. I'd say that your claim, while interesting, is a stretch and is at best questionable. The Second Temple fell nearly 2000 years ago and Jews have lived in a diaspora ever since. Factoring in various pogroms and migrations, not to mention the Holocaust, isolation and a general mingling of blood with non-Jews over the past half century, one cannot practically account for such things. There is no way to prove that 'the majority' of any population of Ashkenazi Jews (minus perhaps those living in Israel today) have definite Middle Eastern blood (whatever that means... geography isn't the same thing as an ethnicity). Ryecatcher773 (talk) 06:28, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Ehm, yes, it can be proved genetically. Check the sources. "Original Jews" is hardly odd, it simply refers to the first people who became Jews, who happened to be Middle Easterners. Funkynusayri (talk) 09:37, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It can't be proved genetically. This sounds like the same tired arguments that the Nazis tried to prove way back when. There is no way to prove such an absurd statement, and it is an absurd statement. Ryecatcher773 (talk) 06:43, 15 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I repeat, check the sources. Funkynusayri (talk) 19:08, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * And I repeat, it can't be proved through any sources listed here. Your claim is not relevant to any available sources. Having a source doesn't mean something is necessarily true -- it just means someone has taken time to give a source. Ryecatcher773 (talk) 06:03, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Ryecatcher, you are incorrect, and this has nothing to do with eugenics. Studies have shown that ethnic Jews, wheather they're Ashkenazi, Indian Jews, Mizrahim, Sephardi Jews, etc... (excluding Ethiopian Jews) all share common genetic markers unqiue to only Jews in addition to DNA unique to only Semitic/Middle Eastern groups. (See Talk:Jew for another comment on it).  With that being said, nothing is wrong with the term Semitic, Semites include Arabs, Aramaeans, Assyrians, Babylonians, Chaldeans, Sabaeans, and Hebrews, etc..., which is more percise then the term 'Middle Eastern,' many of these Semite groups who Jews are related (culturally or genetically), no longer exist and would not be included in the term Middle Eastern. Epson291 (talk) 10:03, 16 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Nope, the problem is exactly that "Semitic" is not more precise than the term "Middle Eastern in this context. The genetic studies show (which should be common sense actually) that Jews are related to Middle Eastern groups who lived in close proximity to their ancestors, people like Levantine/Mesopotamian Arabs (Semitic speakers), but also to peoples who speak Indo-European languages (Kurds and Armenians) or Turkic (Anatolian Turks), and many times even closer. On the other hand, Jews have little relation to peninsular Arabs like Saudis, Omanis, or Amharic speaking Ethiopians, and so on, in spite of them speaking a Semitic language. Funkynusayri (talk) 12:38, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * And my point -- being that neither of you have apparently read closely -- isn't that there is no connection whatever, but that the connections have been so far removed from two millenia of diaspora and migration that it is an absurd statement to say (today) that the majority of the world's Jews are descended from Middle Eastern Jews by blood, any more so than connecting the Irish to Central Asian Celts or Mexicans with a large amount of Spanish blood to Middle Eastern     ancestry. We are all aware that the majority of Western peoples came from somewhere between Africa and the Far East -- but what's the point? The infobox heading for Related Ethnic Groups reads Arabs and Other Middle Eastern groups. Related by what? A link that is (for most) so far removed that the majority of Jews -- ethnically speaking --- are as connected to Middle East peoples as present day Cubans are connected to Romans? What is the point, and moreover, how can you say the majority today and keep a straight face? Whenever people start bandying about these genetic studies it raises, particularly in an era when ethnic cleansing, genocide and nationalism are so prevalent in news reports from certain parts of the world -- it raises red flags. What exactly is the aim of the statement related ethnic groups? I, as an example of a reader familiar with the subject matter, for one fail on the one hand to see the prominent link (ethnically speaking) making it noteworthy enough for that inclusion, meanwhile excluding more closely obviously connected cultures and people. Ryecatcher773 (talk) 10:21, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


 * They're not related simply because their ancestry can be traced back to the Middle East, but because they share more of their genes with current day Middle Easterners than with anyone else, and cluster with them genetically as result. Just like African Americans share more of their genes with current day Africans than other populations, in spite of living in diaspora and mixing with surrounding populations. It's pretty simple.

By the way, Central Asian Celts? Where the heck did you get that from? Funkynusayri (talk) 12:21, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


 * PerhapsGalatia? Tourskin (talk) 05:20, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The reality is that the vast majority of what we call Jews today are from the Khazar's in Europe. The true Jews of today are from Palestine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.40.234.146 (talk) 09:38, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Infobox
The infobox in the article used to be a separate template, Template:Infobox Jews. It was merged into the article in January.

If anybody is interested, there's a discussion going on about the infobox at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 00:27, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Jews in Iran
For the required citations about the estimated number of Jews in Iran, I have two links that say the number is at least 25000

http://www.iranjewish.com/Essay_E/Essay_e1.htm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5367892.stm

The Sphinx (talk) 00:26, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes the estimated number is much more than 10,200. If you even wiki Iranian jews you will see that the number is much more. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Foolers123 (talk • contribs) 23:47, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Criticism
There is no "Criticism" section in this article, when criticism of the jewish people and their traditions plays a major part in jewish history. The creation of an unbiased, non anti-semitic "Criticism" section would do well to balance-out and further enhance the credibility of the article as a whole.

Felipe G.M. de Oliveira (talk) 00:38, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * No it certainly would not balance-out or further enhance anything in the article. Wikipedia is not a platform for critical analysis, it is an encyclopedia. In my opinion, there is too much here already, but I'm not in the majority on that. The article's credibility is already enhanced with citations, which are all that is necessary for a credible article as far as factual information is concerned. If you want to write a 'criticism' section, do it on your blog because it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Ryecatcher773 (talk) 06:05, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Damn, someone beat me to this. I guess wikipedia is one of the few places on the internet with people as racist as me frequenting it.70.109.152.29 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 23:46, 24 March 2008 (UTC)


 * What the hell, a crticism section? How can anyone criticize a nation? Nations do not do bad things, individual people do. Tourskin (talk) 03:44, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The article is about a race of people, not a nation 70.109.152.29 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 03:21, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Not true entirely, many Jews have geanological links, but thats besides the point. How dare anyone criticize any race. Tourskin (talk) 03:41, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


 * To nitpick, it is not about "a race of people" (e.g. black or aborigine) but about an ethnicity (e.g. semitic). It is correct to say that you cannot criticize a race nor an ethnicity. -- Alexf42 09:18, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


 * To nitpick even more, Semitic does not refer to an ethnicity, but to a language family. This article is about an ethno-religious group. Funkynusayri (talk) 17:25, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * In all seriousness I'm not sure that the article needs balancing out as other articles on religious gruops or ethnic groups do not have similar sections. What exactly do you want to balance out? Generally it's not appropriate to critiscise a race or ethnic group as it's a short step to (in this instance) people saying "They killed our lord!" or something equally as stupid. Exactly the same stuff (obviously appropriate to each group and various peoples' prejudices) would happen on any other article about a racial or religious grouping. It's simply an invitation for vandals which says "Look here's a bit of an article you can edit then claim it was valid critiscism". I'd also like to endorse Tourskin's first comment about nations. BigHairRef | Talk 05:08, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Would it be fair to say Jewish people are only a race due to pairing typicaly with only other jews? That is atleast the stereotype, and as anyone can become a jew, unlike any other race, shouldnt it be better called a relegion as opposed to a nation or race? Not trying to inflame so please dont be agressive, just wondering. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.106.104.77 (talk) 12:16, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I think you have all misinterpreted what he was suggesting. It sounds to me like he wanted a section to evaluate the historical criticism/objection/racism towards jewish people as this is a core part of their history and therefor relavent information. He did specify the creation of an "unbiased, non anti-semetic "criticism" section". So to call him a racist very unfair and offensive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.106.104.77 (talk) 12:36, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * To User 58.106.104.77, no not anyone can be a Jew. Being a Jew is a lot more complicated than simply converting. See Who is a Jew for more details. As for User 58.106.104.77, no there is no historical value in looking at the criticism of Jews, since 1) criticism of Jews has been anti-semmitism and therefore has its own article 2) We should not entertain such non-academic stuff, since you cannot criticize a race or a group of people; you can only criticize an ideology or a religion such as Judaism, but you cannot criticize Jews, because not all Jews are accountable for each other's actions, and neither is any other race for that matter!!Tourskin (talk) 00:13, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


 * To mr. anon, again, check out ethno religious. Funkynusayri (talk) 05:00, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

New image uploaded
I created a new image. There are two reasons: 1. The image included Golda Meir. We should keep politics out. Many dont like her in Israel after the Yom Kippur War. 2. The previous image havent showed enough the Jewish contribution to many aspects of human life. Shpakovich (talk) 20:38, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

A vote
There are two proposed images. Choose.

A:

B:

Shpakovich (talk) 20:56, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * B. Because it shows the Jewish contribution in many directions, and because it doesnt have Golda Meir (we should keep politics out!!! And dont forget that after the Yom Kippur war she is hated by many in Israel). Shpakovich (talk) 21:03, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Please note: if you would like to participate in the discussion, please comment at Template talk:Infobox Jews. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 21:10, 4 April 2008

Can some images of living Jews be included. Even though the people presently included are important Hebrews, some modern faces can show that the Jewish people are still presently thriving. (UTC)

Sadly missing: Leopoldstadt and Vienna and Austria
I don't intend to expect something that may turn out as imbalance - I know there's also a lot of details to tell about Poland, Russia, Sweden, the Neatherlands, Great Britain, Italy, Hungary ... but the history and meaning of today's 2nd district of Vienna, named after the - if I'm not mistaken - quite anti-semitic emperor Leopold I, having been one of the European jewish major settlement territories, as well as ghetto districts, main areas of persecution, "arianization" and deportation (of, I think, roughly 50.000 jews), deserves coverage.

I also am not sure if the number for Vienna's current jewish population is correct (8,000something or around 9,000), as the Jewish community of Vienna estimates some 15.000. Besides, the article's Significant geographic populations section, unlike the related main article, even elides Austria entirely.

Vienna's jewish history of the (late 19th and) 20th century alone would already deserve a separate article, linked to at least one summarizing paragraph on the Jew article page - moreover, I presume there are a lot of jews who lived in today's other eight federal provinces of the country, wrongly being forgotten. And if this may go beyond the scope of the matter as long as there are no comparable contributions related to other places and regions, there should at least be a passage shortly sketching the historic context of Leopoldstadt, Vienna and Austria, also pointing to the truly impressive list of Austrian Jews.

Also, the 2007 established partnership of Leopoldstadt and Brooklyn should be mentioned (see Leopoldstadt, end of 1st paragraph), as well as the eventually completed revival of the once internationally famous and successful multi-branch sports club Hakoah Vienna.

As I experienced my contributions in the past mostly being rejected as "non-encyclopedial", and as I, with no jews among my close friends and no sufficiently history-versed jews in my extended circle of friends, have no first-hand access to relevant sources, plus myself being an atheist (with Christian ancestors only), I feel not entitled to bother you with an inappropriate proposal draft. But I'd be very glad to see the mentioned matters being dealt with enlighteningly.

Regards, Viennese IP-# 80.109.76.27 (talk) 05:00, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


 * By all means edit, and if anyone gives you any shit you tell me. Present your references if you can and your information on the discussion page. If you're gonna add information, so long as its cited, you can pretty much do that right away and be bold. Tourskin (talk) 05:18, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


 * You would be very welcome to improve our currently-meager article on History of the Jews in Austria, or to start a new article on Jewish history of Vienna. Thanks.--Pharos (talk) 17:52, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

general links
I add good article about last research about genetic among Jews.I add it to general link as it is not fit the best to that category.Also there is no law against article from newspaper.Oren.tal (talk) 10:20, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Persecution
Hi, In the paragraph "Wars against Jews", it is mentioned that "Throughout history, many rulers, empires and nations have oppressed their Jewish populations or sought to eliminate them entirely.", without making any allusions to the causes for such inhuman persecutions. Probably a couple of lines citing the reasons for the erroneous perceptions which had led to the cruelties might make the article more comprehensive. Request the savants here to comment on this.

Thanks, J.W.H. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.167.92.69 (talk) 17:54, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Erroneous reasoning huh? Very smart way to put in anti-semmitism. No, we shall not list what foolish erroneous views persecuters of Jews had. Who cares? Its not academic information of any use to the article regarding Jews, though it might be of some limited value in Anti-Semmitism. Who knows what reasons existed for persecution of Jews. Tourskin (talk) 06:37, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Were all minorities persecuted in the old Europe? If it were jews, then why only jews? After all, Christ too was plausibly a jew! It definitely is worth to mention the causes. Between, I am a Hindu from remote India and I am least interested in semitism or anti-semitism... I just wanted to know more about the jewish history. No intentions whatsoever to hurt the feelings of anyone! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spinozaaa (talk • contribs) 17:42, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The reason has already been stated above by Tourskin. A Sniper (talk) 17:50, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I feel people are being excessively censorial in Wiki. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.167.87.7 (talk) 05:08, 25 May 2008 (UTC)


 * If you have contributions to make, do so but ready yourself to defend them. Anything logically indefensible will be thrown out. What is it that is being censored? Hmm? Tourskin (talk) 05:18, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Could be included in "Who is a Jew"
The German journalist Kurt Caro (*1905) who emigrated to Paris in 1933 and served in the British army since 1943 , published a book under the pseudonym Manuel Humbert unmasking Hitler's "Mein Kampf" in which he stated the following racial composition of the Jewish population of Central Europe: 23,8% Lapponid race, 21,5% Nordic race, 20,3% Armenoid race, 18,4% Mediterranean race, 16,0% Oriental race.

hebreo in spanish
the most common word in spanish for jew is judío not hebreo, as described in "ethymology". Hebreo is used mostly as a literary substitute. 84.91.78.42 (talk) 21:32, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

GA Sweeps Review: On Hold
As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria. I'm specifically going over all of the "Culture and Society" articles. I believe the article currently meets the majority of the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. However, in reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that need to be addressed. I have made minor corrections and have included several points below that need to be addressed for the article to remain a GA. Please address them within seven days and the article will maintain its GA status. If progress is being made and issues are addressed, the article will remain listed as a Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted. If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAN. If you disagree with any of the issues, leave a comment after the specific issue and I'll be happy to discuss/agree with you. To keep tabs on your progress so far, either strike through the completed tasks or put checks next to them.

Needs inline citations:
 * 1) "The Hebrew noun "Yehudi" (plural Yehudim) originally referred to the tribe of Judah."
 * 2) What kind of citation would satisfy this? Yehuda is "Judah" in Hebrew, Yehudi is "Judahite". Requesting a citation for this is like saying we need a citation for the assertion that "American" is the adjective describing someone or something from America.  We relegate such things to wiktionary.  Is en.wikipedia to become a repository for he.wiktionary? Tomertalk  05:02, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) "Despite this diversity, Ashkenazi Jews represent the bulk of modern Jewry, with at least 70% of Jews worldwide (and up to 90% prior to World War II and the Holocaust)."
 * 4) "Contradicting the "mongrel" theory, DNA demonstrated substantially less inter-marriage among Jews over the last 3000 years than found in other populations."
 * 5) "Morever, "The analysis provides genetic witness that these communities have, to a remarkable extent, retained their biological identity separate from their host populations, evidence of relatively little intermarriage or conversion into Judaism over the centuries." Id." All quotes need inline citations directly afterwards. Also, what is Id.?
 * 6) Id. is similar to ibid. It means that the quote is from the same place as the preceding quote. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 05:55, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 7) ""To date the original high priest, the research team used a formula based on a commonly accepted mutation rate. This formula yieded some 106 generations for both Ashkenazi and Sephardi Jews, or between 2,650 and 3,180 years, depending on whether a generation is counted as 25 or 30 years.""
 * 8) "Israel, the Jewish nation-state, is the only country in which Jews make up a majority of the citizens."
 * 9) "The fastest-growing Jewish community in the world, outside Israel, is the one in Germany, especially in Berlin, its capital. "
 * 10) "In the Diaspora, in almost every country the Jewish population in general is either declining or steady, but Orthodox and Haredi Jewish communities, whose members often shun birth control for religious reasons, have experienced rapid population growth, with rates near 4% per year for Haredi Jews in Israel, and similar rates in other countries." This has been tagged since March 2007.
 * 11) "The three most commonly spoken languages among Jews today are English, modern Hebrew, and Russian. Some Romance languages, such as French and Spanish, are also widely used."
 * 12) "Most found refuge in the US (particularly Los Angeles, CA) and Israel. Smaller communities of Persian Jews exist in Canada and Western Europe." This has been tagged since February 2007.
 * 13) "It is customary for Jews to walk around, rather than through, this arch."
 * 14) "Hadrian responded with overwhelming force, putting down the revolt and killing as many as half a million Jews."
 * 15) "After the Roman Legions prevailed in 135, Jews were not allowed to enter the city of Jerusalem and most Jewish worship was forbidden by Rome."
 * 16) "No new books were added to the Jewish Bible after the Roman period, instead major efforts went into interpreting and developing the Halakhah, or oral law, and writing down these traditions in the Talmud, the key work on the interpretation of Jewish law, written during the first to fifth centuries CE."
 * 17) "Some secular historians speculate that a majority of the Jews in Antiquity were most likely descendants of converts in the cities of the Græco-Roman world, especially in Alexandria and Asia Minor."
 * 18) "DNA evidence of this theory has been spotty, however, some historians believe based on some historical records that at the dawn of Christianity as many as 10% of the population of the Roman Empire were Jewish, a figure that could only be explained by local conversion."
 * 19) "When the city fell, the Crusaders gathered the Jews in a synagogue and burned them."
 * 20) "The Crusades routinely attacked Jewish communities, and increasingly harsh laws restricted them from most economic activity and land ownership, leaving open only money-lending and a few other trades."
 * 21) "France was the first country to emancipate its Jewish population in 1796, granting them equal rights under the law."
 * 22) "Although its origins are earlier, the movement was formally established by the Austrian journalist Theodor Herzl in the late nineteenth century."

Other issues:
 * 1) To better summarize the article, the lead needs to be expanded to three or four paragraphs. See WP:LEAD for guidelines.
 * 2) I added a paragraph to the lede. I hope that helps.
 * 3) "The origin of the Jews is traditionally dated to around the second millennium BCE to the patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob." Single sentences shouldn't stand alone, either expand on the information present or incorporate it into another paragraph. Fix the several other occurrences throughout the article.
 * 4) "Then as now, immigrants were treated with suspicion." Do you think this sentence is necessary?
 * 5) "Since then, Jews have lived in almost every country of the world, primarily in Europe and the greater Middle East, surviving discrimination, oppression, poverty, and even genocide (see: anti-Semitism, The Holocaust), with occasional periods of cultural, economic, and individual prosperity in various locations (such as Islamic Spain and Portugal, Emancipating Germany and Poland, or the contemporary Liberal Democracies of the United States, Australia or United Kingdom)." Consider splitting this sentence into two so that it reads better.
 * 6) "The Mizrahim, or "Easterners" (Mizrach being "East" in Hebrew), that is, the diverse collection of Middle Eastern and North African Jews, could constitute a third major group." Using "could" appears to sound like original research. If this is a quote, add an inline citation, if not, reword accordingly.
 * 7) "Additionally, there is a differentiation made between the pre-existing Middle Eastern and North African Jewish communities as distinct from the descendants of those Sephardi migrants who established themselves in the Middle East and North Africa after the expulsion of the Jews from Spain by the Catholic Monarchs in 1492, and a few years later from the expulsion decreed in Portugal." I'd recommend splitting this sentence as well.
 * 8) Convert the external links in the "DNA evidence" section to inline citations.
 * 9) There is an extra empty column in the table in the "Significant geographic populations" section that should be removed.
 * Image:Jewish Refugees in Shanghai.jpg This image needs a more detailed fair use rationale on the image's page specifying why it should be used on this article. There must also be a heading stating: "Fair use rationale for Jew".
 * 1) "When the Greeks under Antiochus IV Epiphanes, supported by Hellenized Jews (those who had adopted Greek culture), attempted to convert the Jewish Temple to a temple of Zeus, the Jews revolted under the leadership of the Maccabees and rededicated the Temple to the Jewish God (hence the origins of Hanukkah) and created an independent Jewish kingdom known as the Hasmonaean Kingdom which lasted from 165 BCE to 63 BCE, when the kingdom came under influence of the Roman Empire." Split this sentence into two sentences as it can be difficult to follow.
 * 2) "The Jews were among the most vigorous defenders of Jerusalem against the Crusaders." Unless this can be sourced, it should be removed.
 * 3) "The most degrading one was the requirement of distinctive clothing" Degrading should be specifically sourced or reworded as it can appear to be POV.
 * 4) If possible, flesh out the "Jewish leadership" and "Notable Jews" section.
 * 5) The tag in the external links section needs to be addressed, it has been there since October 2006!

This article covers the topic well and if the above issues are addressed, I believe the article can remain a GA. I will leave the article on hold for seven days, but if progress is being made and an extension is needed (due to the large number of issues), I will be happy to extend the deadline. I will leave messages on the talk pages of the main contributors to the article along with the related WikiProject so that the workload can be shared. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 07:04, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I see that one of the issues was addressed, and am willing to leave this article on hold for a longer period of time if editors plan on addressing the issues in the near future. Will there be more progress in addressing the above issues? --Nehrams2020 (talk) 05:40, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

GA Sweeps Review: Pass
I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. Good job to Malik Shabazz on addressing the issues. Continue to improve the article making sure all new information is properly sourced and neutral. I would recommend further expanding the "Jewish leadership" and "Notable Jews" sections. It would also be beneficial to go through the article and update all of the access dates of the online inline citations and fix any dead links. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. I have updated the article history to reflect this review. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 00:55, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Well done. I did all the hard work of course. Tourskin (talk) 01:40, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Title of article
This article's title should be changed to Jews. The word "Jew" by itself often has negative connotations (see, for example, this).--Yolgnu (talk) 07:43, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * there has already been substantial discussion about this in the archives and there is was no consensus to rename. I think that the title "Jew" is fine. Interestingly others have used the fact that a search for the word "jew" is mostly antisemitic as a reason to keep the current name as it so that the search is not completely antisemitic.  Neither argument makes senses to me; we should not be influences by how the correct title is perceived. Jon513 (talk) 09:08, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * To be honest, your entire argument makes no sense to me...--Yolgnu (talk) 09:39, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I didn't make an argument. All I said was that this has been discussed before.  My argument is Naming conventions (plurals).  Jon513 (talk) 09:51, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, that article supports my case. It says: "Some nouns are always in the plural. These are fine as titles... the name of a people may correspond to the plural word for members of that people, for example Ukrainians, or French people". Practically every other ethnic group article has the name in the plural (either ?s or ? people, but I think "Jewish people" sounds a bit lumpy).--Yolgnu (talk) 12:09, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * "Practically every other ethnic group article": just not true. For example, most Native American and African ethnicities are in the singular. - Jmabel | Talk 17:23, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Support per Naming conventions %28plurals%29. --Clubjuggle T / C 12:35, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Please browse through the archives. This discussion has already been done to death. The consensus was to keep the singular. Best, A Sniper (talk) 17:27, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I have, and the most recent conversation on the topic I can find is from September 2006. The one before that was mainly in December 2005 and April 2006. The 2006 discussion did have sizable support for a move, though apparently that support was decided, for whatever reason, to be short of consensus. Neither discussion raised the limited support for plurals provided by Naming conventions %28plurals%29. In any case, nearly 2 years has passed since the last discussion of a potential move. Perhaps it's time to reopen the topic and at least discuss the suggestion on its merits? --Clubjuggle T / C 18:13, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, does anyone have any argument against changing it, besides the fallacy of tradition?--Yolgnu (talk) 07:09, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Are there any arguments for changing it? The whole issue seems pretty trivial to me. Jon513 (talk) 09:23, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The vulgar status of "Jew" and Naming conventions %28plurals%29, and the fact that every other ethnic group article is in the plural, are sufficient reasons in my opinion. And, as the title of the page, I don't think it's trivial.--Yolgnu (talk) 09:37, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps if you'd stop using "Jew" as a vulgarity, you'd realize that the problem you're protecting us all from is all in your head... Tomertalk 05:11, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * "Jew" is not a "vulgar" word, and it is rather vulgar to suggest it is. As for your claim that "every other ethnic group article is in the plural", I'm not sure why you would repeat it, when it has already been pointed out that most Native American and African ethnicities are in the singular. Jayjg (talk) 02:33, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * My reasoning pretty much lines up with User:Yolgnu. I also suspect that such a rename would reduce (but certainly not eliminate) certain types of vandalism, especially vandalism of the type "so-and-so"is a Jew." --Clubjuggle T / C 10:49, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think that there is any chance that moving the article will reduce vandalism. Jon513 (talk) 14:18, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I think that changing the word "Jew" to "jewish", "jews" or what have you will increase the number of characters displayed, require more memory and more bites and eventually lead to a disastrous pattern throughout wikipedia with the obvious result that the internet will be clogged up with wikipedia unable to load pages due to such memory-occupying titles. And so let me conclude by stating how pointless it is to change the title - I don't see how Jews, Jew or Jewish are any more racist or not, considering that they are not different in meaning!! If you really want the anti-semmitism to stop, then don't feed it by saying that one word is more anti-semmitic or whatever than another because then it becomes a focus point of anti-semmitism. Instead, let it be...Tourskin (talk) 17:59, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Current name is fine, per consensus, and per discussion above. Jayjg (talk) 02:33, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Strongly support leaving it as is. There is no consistency in singular vs. plural naming of ethnicity, as others point out above.  Vulgar?  Really?  Sure, the word can be said in a vulgar way, and in certain grammatical contexts it is, but not as an article title.  Thanks, Antandrus  (talk) 02:44, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Another supporter of the status quo. Despite a long history of Jews changing their names for invisibility, anti-Semitism continues.  Changing the article's name won't end it on WP either. Hertz1888 (talk) 04:03, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm neutral on the title, but I wonder why this article is named in the singular when Ashkenazi Jews, Mizrahi Jews, Sephardi Jews, and almost every other article about a Jewish sub-group is named in the plural. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 04:45, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose To be in line with Muslim and Christian. YahelGuhan  ( talk ) 04:53, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * By oppose you mean you want to keep it as Jew right?Tourskin (talk) 05:01, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep the status quo please. We've been through this discussion already. Best, A Sniper (talk) 05:19, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd just like to point out that the "African and Native American" argument is incorrect; you can talk about "The Bantu" and "The Choctaw", but not "The Jew"; and you can talk about "Jews" but not "Bantus" and "Choctaws". These words are actually in the plural, but the plural is the same as the singular (see English plural). To respond to YahelGuhan, the difference between Muslim and Christian is that they are religions, while Jew(s) is an ethnic group.--Yolgnu (talk) 12:14, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * And "Muslim" and "Christian" are not religions, the religions are "Islam" and "Christianity". The adherents of those religions are Muslims and Christians, respectively.  The assertion that Jews are an ethnic group independent of religion is certainly a viable topic for discussion, but that's not the issue you've raised here.  That said, by your logic, if it makes sense that a follower of Islam should be described in the Muslim article, a follower of Judaism should be described in the Jew article, not "Jews".  As for the idea that Jews are exclusively an ethnic group while Muslims are exclusively a religious group, I wonder how you'd handle people calling Wafa Sultan an "apostate Muslim". Tomertalk  17:50, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * This Google search puts the lie to the odd assertion that one cannot talk about "Bantus", and this one does the same for the equally erroneous assertion applied to "Choctaws"... Tomertalk 05:10, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure, if you're reffering to Bantus Capoeira or the Choctaws baseball team.--Yolgnu (talk) 14:22, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Not so. Although I'm beginning to wonder if perhaps your resistance to the idea of using the words "Bantus" and "Choctaws" isn't a result of your speaking Commonwealth English rather than AmE, where Bantus and Choctaws are perfectly acceptable constructions, and where "Jew" is not a derogatory word.  Tomertalk  17:44, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

What I find amusing is the huge chorus of support for the singular despite the fact that "the whole issue is pretty trivial".--Yolgnu (talk) 12:16, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * For me those two issue are interrelated. I do think it is trivial and am opposed to change.  As I see it, this issue has been talked about to death, and more than anything else I want the issue to be settled.  The last time this discussion took place I thought that it had been settled and we could focus on the article.  Now that this conversation is being repeated I fear that no matter what is decided  it will be talked about again in six month, and then again six months after that.  Jon513 (talk) 21:56, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Yolgnu, we're making a big deal about this trivial matter in order to stop people such as yourself from making this into a big deal. So and so is a Jew. So and so is Jewish. Both sound pretty similar to me, what is the point of changing it, it will replace one form of vandalism with another, using a different term. Tourskin (talk) 21:37, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Iranian Jews
If the article states that 25,000 Jews live in Iran (in the diaspora section) then why source 5 used in the infobox? It dates back to 2006 and is an inaccurate portrayel of Iranian Jews still in Iran. Furthermore a more realiable source indicates that there are 25,000 Jews still in Iran, such as the BBC. Lord of Moria  Talk   Contribs  19:53, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The 25,000 figure is from a book by Littman written in 1979, shortly after the Shah was overthrown. It's sensible to suppose that the Jewish population of Iran has gradually dwindled since then, making the 2006 figure quite plausible. The figure from 2006 is, if nothing else, more recent. You have better sources? Cite them. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 03:20, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Problematic sentence, leads to problematic paragraph...
The following clunkily-worded sentence is strongly reflective of an Ashkenazi perspective (read "bias") of Jewish history:
 * Historically, Jews have been distinguished into two major groups: the Ashkenazim, or "Germans" (Ashkenaz meaning "Germany" in Medieval Hebrew, denoting their Central European base), and the Sephardim, or "Spaniards" (Sefarad meaning "Spain" or "Iberia" in Hebrew, denoting their Spanish and Portuguese base).

I don't know precisely what to do about it, other than raise a stink here. Tomertalk 23:41, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Perhaps it's my Ashkenazi heritage, but I don't see the bias (unless you mean that "historically" takes a relatively recent view of history). Whatever your concern is, I'd like to address it. Can you please be a little more specific? Thank you. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 23:55, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Historically, Ashkenazi Jews have distinguished two major groups: Ashkenazim, and "everyone else", of whom the Sephardim were regarded as the most prominent... Even that is inaccurate tho, since the "Ashkenazim|Sephardim" lumping together is far more of an outcome of the early Zionists' ignorance of "everybody who's not Ashkenazi". They were aware of the Sephardim, and aware that we were somehow different from all the other non-Ashkenazim, so they invented the new catchall term "Mizrachim".  Then, since they couldn't tell the difference, called them all "Sephardim".  It's not historical, at least not more than a century old, and it's an Ashkenazi dichotomy not recognized as valid by anyone but Ashkenazim.  Tomertalk  02:49, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It's more subtle than that. The reason they were all called "Sephardim" is because they all followed the Sephardi nusach and Sephardi poskim. Also, the term is used widely by Sephardim and Mizrachim themselves, and has nothing to do with Zionists, since it's used by anti-Zionist Haredim too. Jayjg (talk) 03:07, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I know a number of Persian and Yemenite Jews who do not live in Israel, and none of them call themselves Sephardi. As for the anti-Zionists using "the term" (which one?), anti-Zionists, if they speak MIH even today, had very little to do with its development. Tomer<sup style="font-variant: small-caps; color: #129dbc!important;">talk  03:27, 4 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Tomer, I agree with your point (here) that Ashkenazim frequently lump together all non-Ashkenazim as Sephardim, which is why I deleted the phrase "in Israel", but you said I was wrong. I'll take a stab at re-writing the paragraph, taking into account your comments here. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 03:32, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I take your point about the possible development of the term and Zionists, but I've known a few Persian and Yemeni Jews outside of Israel too, and they referred to themselves (at least sometimes) as Sephardi. Now, perhaps they were just "dumbing it down" for others, or didn't want to get into all the details, but they did use the term. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 04:16, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

The whole section needs to be rewritten (it currently sounds a bit amateurish, overall... don't get me wrong, it's got potential, but it really does need work). The related articles on the various communities are also a shambles, generally speaking, but I suppose that's a topic for the WProject rather than for this talkpage. I'd work on it tomorrow, but I got rearended at a stoplight just over 3 weeks ago, and I still don't have a car. Before I work on cooking for שבת, I'm prolly gonna be working on finding myself a car, rather than relaxing on the 4th like I'd like to be. (Yes, I consider editing WP to be relaxing. (-:)) Tomer<sup style="font-variant: small-caps; color: #129dbc!important;">talk  04:33, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Irish republic doesnt exist anymore?
For population should be link to Republic of Ireland not Irish Republic two different states, Irish republic ended in 1922 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.70.105.51 (talk) 20:36, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the correction. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 20:59, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Religion
Shouldn't "atheist" be under the category of "Religion"? There are plenty of Jews who don't believe in God, yet still identify as Jews (i.e., Einstein, Marx). --MosheA (talk) 01:29, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Atheism is not a religion, and every single ethnic group has members that are atheists, so in any event it adds no information. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 01:31, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree. Atheism is a theology, like monotheism or polytheism. It is not a religion. (Although I remember talk a few decades back about a Church of Madeline Murray, created primarily to avoid taxes...)Rosencomet (talk) 16:37, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * In that case an Atheist Jew is not a cotradiction but more of a description of the person's Jewsih ethnicity and religion (or lack of, atheism)Tourskin (talk) 16:13, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * In my opinion, this is correct. Spinoza was a Jewish pantheist, and often called an atheist. Sigmund Freud was a Jewish atheist. There's actually a category Jewish atheists, though I'm not sure everyone in it should be there; I believe Isaac Asimov was an agnostic. Rosencomet (talk) 18:40, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Traditionally
The word "Traditionally" is used extensively in this and related articles. It seems to refer to Zionist myths and legends. Perhaps someone can make this more precise. Otherwise I will act on the "be bold" advice of Wikipedia and delete anything based on "Traditionally". (If I don't have any comments in a few weeks). Fourtildas (talk) 04:57, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The word "traditionally" occurs exactly three times in this article. It never comes up in any context that could possibly be construed as "Zionist myths and legends"; twice it refers to ancient Jewish tradition and once to Islamic tradition.
 * I recommend that you discuss changes to "related articles" on those articles' Talk pages. That's the way things are traditionally done around here. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 05:25, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Non-observant Jews
I have moved the following paragraph here:

Until the late 18th century, the terms Jews and adherents of Judaism were practically synonymous, and Judaism was the prime binding factor of the Jewish people, regardless of the degree of adherence. Following the Age of Enlightenment and its Jewish counterpart Haskalah, a gradual transformation occurred during which many Jews came to view being a member of the Jewish nation as separate from adhering to the Jewish faith.

Frankly, it is not only unsupported, but makes no sense. It seems to say that there was no such thing as non-observant Jews before the 18th century. However, the Talmud discusses them and the laws relevant to their behavior, and also conversion and the phenomenum of non-Jews wishing (for some reason, such as keeping peace in an inter-religious family) to live according to Jewish law. Jewish law that well predates the 18th century defines a Jew as the child of a Jewish mother or a gentile who undergoes conversion. Nowhere in the Bible, the Talmud, or Jewish law (Halakha) is a Jew defined as "one who adheres to Jewish religious law". The very fact that there is a Jewish court and an ENORMOUS body of law to deal with Jews who do NOT adhere to the law belies this paragraph. If anything, the common perception, or misconception, of a Jew as a member of a religion rather than a tribal nation has developed SINCE the Middle Ages, when the Inquisition identified descendants of Jews as Jews regardless of their assimilation into gentile society unless they publically converted to Christianity. Even the Bible is filled with accounts of Jews straying from their faith and worshiping Pagan gods like Baal-Zevuv and Asheroth. As in recorded history, these were accounts of members of the tribal people known as the Children of Israel (I.E. the Children of Jacob, who was renamed Israel) who were not adherents of Judaism. I'm sure better scholars than I can supply many more examples showing that the terms Jews and adherents of Judaism were NEVER "practically synonymous", and that whether one was a Jew was even MORE a matter of membership in a people rather than observance of a religious faith before the Age of Enlightenment. In fact, the Reform Judaism movement was probably the most major attempt to redefine what makes one a Jew, and even there the change was more often the acceptance of either the mother or father being Jewish {rather than keeping membership solely matrilineal), not redefining a Jew as one who adheres to the faith, or assuming a Jew DOES adhere to it. I refer to the article Who is a Jew for some more discussion of this topic, both current and historical. Rosencomet (talk) 03:18, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

nobel prizes.
maybe simple statistics would fit well in that section.

14 million population is roughly 1/500 of the world population of 6,600 million in the same time ~1/5 of nobel prizes

so it makes it ~100 times more frequent than would be expected based on population...

216.80.119.92 (talk) 19:34, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Jewish Disambiguation
Just wondered if there should not be a distinct separation between a Jew (by ethnicity) and a Jew (by religious distinction)? Considering that someone can be ethnically Jewish without being religiously Jewish and vice-versa.

If this has been tabled before can someone please point me in the right direction as I am intrigued by the conjoined term of "ethnoreligious". My Isreali Jewish Atheist friend also finds it an oddity.121.44.245.190 (talk) 06:27, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Maybe the article should link to Who is a Jew? and Jewish identity. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 16:16, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Jews are bedouins
There is nothing in the article mentions that Jews were nomadic tribes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.203.74.162 (talk • contribs) 22:55, 11 September 2008


 * Jews are not bedouins, since the definition of bedouin includes "Arabic". Some Jews have been nomadic during some periods of history, but there is no reason to consider them Nomadic in nature. In fact, they had a stationary land for most of their history, were forced out of it, and have re-established one. Even during this period, Jews generally lived as a stationary population within someone else's country or as an assimilated group to one extent or another. Jews are a tribal people who generally live either as an agrarian society or as city-dwellers, rarely as nomads by choice. Rosencomet (talk) 20:25, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

- I suggest to include bibliography —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.58.205.101 (talk) 17:09, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

DNA section may be unbalanced
I read the section about interrelationship, and I was surprised by the one-sided presentation of the debate in favor of the view that Jews are mostly related and brought families with them. My non-Wikipedia reading (and investigation of some of the references) has led me to believe that the question is not at all resolved. For example, consider the trail of Jewish DNA-related New York Times articles by Nicholas Wade: The current article is rather dismissive of Goldstein's view, but I stress that as Goldstein's lack of concession suggests, the new studies do not wipe out previous studies, but rather the topic remains a subject of lively debate and study. While I understand that this can be a sensitive topic, I nevertheless believe that the article can be improved by more accurately presenting the status of the DNA issue.
 * 2000: Y Chromosome Bears Witness to Story of the Jewish Diaspora (Hammer's study suggests powerful interrelationship & Middle Eastern origin for Jewish men)
 * 2002: In DNA, New Clues to Jewish Roots (Goldstein's study suggests that Jewish men [possibly merchants] married local women and Wade details the controversy attached to such a conclusion; curiously this is not used as a source in this article)
 * 2006: New Light on Origins of Ashkenazi in Europe (Behar's study challenges Goldstein's notion, claiming the women to also be quite Middle Eastern; Goldstein, however, does not concede, citing genetic drift and arguing that the "linkage with Middle Eastern populations is not statistically significant.")

Would there be any objections to a few tweaks to balance out the section? I think that we should frame the debate by citing the scientists by name in the article and noting their disagreement, perhaps with direct quotes as the New York Times articles have done, without trying to take sides but instead acknowledge that neither side has been defeated at this point. Chedorlaomer (talk) 02:38, 13 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Be bold. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 02:45, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not Kosher -- policy statement please?
At the Israelites article, we are having difficulties with one religious editor attempting to "kosherize" Wikipedia by removing all non-Jewish opinions. The same thing happened a while ago at the Land of Israel page. Could we have an official statement from some rabbi that Wikipedia is not Kosher? Could we create a WP:NOTKOSHER policy page? Emmanuelm (talk) 14:16, 19 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism might be a better forum in which to discuss this issue. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 18:49, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Race?
I have noticed from seeing Jewish people on TV that many of them have similar physical characteristics. If this is the case, could someone please write a physical description of Jewish people in the article?

I don’t really know much about Jews myself, but I am certain there is a common physical appearance (including hair colour and skin colour). How can an article as detailed as this make no mention of this basic issue? Shouldn’t this be in the article’s introduction?

Can Jews call themselves “asian” in race? Or “caucasian”? Are Jews a distinct race?

Also, is there any word to specifically to refer to someone as being of Jewish descent, regardless of their religious faith? Does “Jew” mean ancestry and “Jewish” mean faith?

I believe that two of my grandparents were of Jewish origin. Can I call myself Jew?

I don’t claim to understand any of these issues myself, so excuse my ignorance. I’m asking these quesitons as I think they are why a lot of people will be reading this article. Grand Dizzy (talk) 00:21, 11 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Who is a Jew?. <font color="#c00000">siℓℓy rabbit ( <font color="#c00000">talk ) 00:56, 11 October 2008 (UTC)


 * You may have Semitic features, which are shared by several peoples of Middle Eastern ancestry, but are neither exclusive to Jews, nor do all Jews look Semitic. Thousands of years of conversions into the Jewish people or nation, intermarriage, and occupancy by large numbers of Jews in every climate and environment on Earth has introduced so many different genes into the Jewish gene pool that such distinctions are irrelevant. There are Jews with both northern and southern European features, Asian Jews, African Jews, etc, etc. Yemenite Jews probably look a good deal closer to Biblical Jews than either Danish Jews or Ethiopian Jews, who do not resemble each other at all, and neither resemble the Jews of Hong Kong. Jews are not a distinct race, since you cannot become a member of a race by conversion, and it is unlikely they ever were. However, they are certainly more racially diverse today than ever before, and will only become more so in the future.


 * If your mother was Jewish at the time of your birth, you are a Jew or Jewish, which is to say that you are a member of the tribal people who identify themselves as Jews and consider the Biblical history of the Children of Israel to be their own. If your mother was not Jewish, you would have to go through the conversion process to be recognized by the Jewish people as a member, regardless of who your other relatives are or were, or what religious beliefs you hold. I know of no word for someone who is not a Jew but has taken it upon him/herself to live as one, though such people do exist. According to Jewish Law, such people's children would not be Jewish without conversion, and Israeli law does not grant them the Right of Return. (There has been some discussion in recent years about extending the definition to those having EITHER a Jewish mother or father, but no such change is recognized by mainstream Jews at this time.) There are also many Jews who no longer ascribe to the Jewish religion, or in some cases any religion at all.


 * As to what you call yourself, that's up to you. Abraham Lincoln once asked, "If you call a tail a leg, how many legs does a dog have? Five? No, four. Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg."


 * And do review the article Who is a Jew, as User: Silly rabbit suggests. Rosencomet (talk) 02:22, 11 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Uh, Reform Judaism recognizes the children of either a Jewish mother or father as being Jewish if the child is raised as a Jew...and Reform is obviously mainstream (in North America). Best, A Sniper (talk) 19:15, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Reform isn't mainstream in Israel, which probably has more influence over Judaism than North America. Guy0307 (talk) 12:20, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Silly Rabbit, thank you very much for your very detailed answer. I had wondered if Jews had a common racial appearance but from your explanation I can see that that is impossible. But perhaps there are others like me who mistakenly came to such a conclusion. I wonder if perhaps it might be worth writing something about this in the article for the benefit of such people? To clarify that there is no racial connection, and that racial diversity is increasing amonst Jewish.

Grand Dizzy (talk) 22:05, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Origin of modern Jews
A book is coming out which seems to contradict popular belief, which is relfected in this Wikipedia article:

http://www.thenational.ae/article/20081006/FOREIGN/279853798

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/966952.html

FunkMonk (talk) 01:09, 26 October 2008 (UTC)


 * It sounds like a WP:FRINGE theory. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 01:18, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Might be, but it seems to be going to have a significant impact judged on the current sales, and when it comes out in English, it will probably affect this article. But note that the claims in the book aren't being refuted by Israeli historians, according to those articles. FunkMonk (talk) 01:28, 26 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The whole Shlomo Sand thing is old news. It has already been reflected in debates within the talk pages of Wikipedia. Contrary to whatever you think, Sand has been criticized for, among other things, being out of his depth academically. His quite silly ideas won't impact this article in the least. Best, A Sniper (talk) 01:33, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The first article is only 20 days old, so how is it "old news"? An English edition of the book hasn't come out yet, so we would have no clue of what the impact will be once it does, but judging on the Israeli and French sales mentioned in those articles, I doubt it'll be ignored. FunkMonk (talk) 01:38, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Shlomo Sand and his theories are old news. They have been in & out of the press for some time (just Google him), hence debate and discussion at Wikipedia. No matter how much curiosity Sand has created, resulting in interest (and sales), it still remains fringe from an academic perspective - of course considering Sand isn't an expert on this subject (his area of expertise is 20th Century history). Best, A Sniper (talk) 23:13, 28 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not supporting including Sand without other reliable sources supporting him but in a related vein, while I have no problem with scriptural history being mentioned, why is there no mention of the archaeological evidence of Jewish history? The Biblical account is currently treated as factual despite the large amount of evidence contradicting parts. At the very least both versions of history should be presented. Wayne (talk) 23:01, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The claims in Dr. Sand's book aren't being refuted by Israeli historians because they are laughing too hard. To justify Dr. Sand's theory, one would have to believe that the Arch of Titus was a forgery and that the conquest of Masada never occured. The article mentions archeological evidence from the Merneptah Stele, lots of genetic evidence, and the evidence supporting many thousands of years of history. Does it need more? Phil Burnstein (talk) 04:49, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * While Sand goes too far as he makes claims merely suggested but not supported by evidence he does make some valid points supported by the majority of historians. The Merneptah Stele mentions the existance of Israel but doesn't say where it is or how big. The evidence available supports a city state adjacent to but not including Judea (recent work suggests Judea was controlled by Egypt in the 10th C). There is no evidence outside the Bible that David and Solomon (or their kingdoms) existed although to be fair there is also no conclusive evidence that they didn't as they may have had smaller kingdoms than the Bible implies. The genetic evidence does not support more than that Jews originated in the Middle East and again does not indicate how widespread or where they were. The conquest of Masadaand the Arch of Titus has no relevance to Sands work as their history is not disputed by Sand. Wayne (talk) 08:39, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

(outdent)
 * Do you really believe that the majority (or even a substantal minority) of historians believe that there is any credence to Sands central hypothesis that the Jewish nation did not exist before the advent of modern Zionism?
 * If you look up some of the other stelae mentioned in the Merneptah article, you will find that the authors brag about their conquests of Israel. IMO I don't think they would brag about conquering a totally insignificant enemy.
 * As to your assertion that there is no evidence outside the Bible that David and Solomon (or their kingdoms) existed see the article on Archaeology of Israel.
 * The significance of the genetic evidence is that there is not only a religious continuity between ancient Israel and the state of Israel, but there is a racial continuity as well.
 * The arch of Titus and the ruins of Masada are physical evidence that the Romans fought against the the state of Judaea in Israel, not the religion of Israel. See The Wars of the Jews by Josephus for details.
 * The bottom line is that Malik Shabazz is correct when he opines that Dr. Sands book is only WP:FRINGE theory. Phil Burnstein (talk) 22:06, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Take a break and read what I said. I don't support Sands inclusion or even everything he claims. I support the inclusion of the archaeological history of Israel and giving it at least equal weight to the current Biblical account. Did you read Archaeology of Israel? It backs up everything I said in my previous reply. I will address your questions. 1: I never said Israel did not exist, I said some of Sands other points are valid. 2: I did not say Israel was insignificant. I said it was a city state. The Middle East of the time consisted of city states rather than countries with borders as we have today. Even the Bible acknowledges this. 3: There is currently no evidence. Kingdoms may have existed but not as described in the bible. 4: I never disputed this. 5: I did not claim the arch and Masada were wrong. I said they were not relevant as everyone accepts the Roman occupation as real. Wayne (talk) 01:24, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Sand is an expert in the intellectual history of 20th century France. Please review WP:FRINGE. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 01:32, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not convinced by what seems to be the claims of the book, but what I think doesn't matter. As for genetic evidence, Jews were shown to be closest to Kurds (Iranians from Mesopotamia) of all people, not Levantines. FunkMonk (talk) 07:18, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * There was real evidence about the Kurd thing? I remember hearing speculation about lost tribes and relationship to Jews, but I figured that it was just a thing to support Kurdish insurgence against Saddam. Chedorlaomer (talk) 16:17, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Not just Kurds, but people further North than the Levant in general. Take a look at this: FunkMonk (talk) 18:31, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Yahood
Should the arabic for "Jew" be in the list of translations? If we have the Judeo-Spanish word, then I don't understand omitting the Arabic - or did Arabic-speaking Jews refer to themselves by some other word than "Yahood?" &lt;eleland/talkedits&gt; 02:56, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Jewish Americans
Why does population figures conflict? On the American Jews page, the population is stated as 7 million. On here it says 5 million in the united States. Thats a big difference. Which one is correct? Akaloc (talk) 07:30, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * They are probably both correct. If you change your definition of what a Jew is, and you change the method of counting, you can make your results be almost anything you want. Phil_burnstein (talk) 10:54, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Jesus in the photo of the jews?
after all, he was a jew. ארז הלבנון (talk) 21:23, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Do you have a photograph of him? Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 21:25, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

i have an illustration, like many other here in "jews".

maybe youll post a better one. ארז הלבנון (talk) 21:27, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't see "many" illustrations on this page. Jesus was a significant figure in Christianity, not in Judaism. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 21:31, 13 October 2008 (UTC)


 * He's significant enough for the professor Emeritus of Jewish Studies at the University of Oxford, Geza Vermes. Read his trilogy. Jesus was a Jew to the day he died. Unlike Paul, who was the real founder of Christianity Nishidani (talk) 21:40, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, Vermes, a former Catholic priest, found Jesus to be significant. That is, after all, what he did for a living, wrote about Jesus. However, that doesn't make Jesus a significant figure in Judaism. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 21:55, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

for the user Jayjg, well i'm sorry but you are worng.. jesus is the main figure in christainity whom started as a sect in judaism of second temple period, and anyway he was a jew, born a jew, lived as a jewish religius teacher and, died as jew, and is one of the most effecting people on the worlds history.

if in the article "jews" there is a photo of significent jewish men, he sould be in it!. about the photo we can use-from the article jesus - the main one there. ארז הלבנון (talk) 21:45, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Jesus is indeed important in Christianity, which worships him. However, Christianity broke away from Judaism 2000 years ago, and is a completely different faith. His significance in Christianity doesn't mean he is significant to Jews or Judaism. Actually, Lazarus shouldn't be in that image either, she's hardly one of the four most significant Jews of history. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 21:55, 13 October 2008 (UTC)


 * No, but the point was does he figure as a Jewish person of world importance. Most modern scholarship recognizes he was thoroughly Jewish, and died a Jew. What was made of Jesus after his death, i.e. Christianity, is one thing. But his carnal brother, James, who carried on his teachings, died as a pious Jew, famed for his rigor, by the Temple, and certainly wasn't a Christian. It took Paul, who never knew Jesus, to fashion the religion that later persecuted Jews.


 * Einstein is not necessarily significant for a Jew or Judaism. Lazarus shouldn't be there, I agree. Nishidani (talk) 22:10, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * No, but the point was does he figure as a Jewish person of world importance. Most modern scholarship recognizes he was thoroughly Jewish, and died a Jew. What was made of Jesus after his death, i.e. Christianity, is one thing. But his carnal brother, James, who carried on his teachings, died as a pious Jew, famed for his rigor, by the Temple, and certainly wasn't a Christian. It took Paul, who never knew Jesus, to fashion the religion that later persecuted Jews.'''

''' what we sould learn from this: what peopele maid from yeshua me natzeret is one thing, the other is that he was a jewish man and a significent man that was a jew, from his born til death. we sould put him there. by the way jyayng, read about the Ebionites —Preceding unsigned comment added by ארז הלבנון (talk • contribs) 22:28, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * A bunch of people will end up flustered if Jesus is put there and the article will likely be assaulted, while the addition is hardly necessary to the quality of the article. It would be pointless provocation. Maybe we can sacrifice Maimonides and resort to a policy of using representative images (either photos or portraits based upon actually looking at the person)? There are many other options; how about Arminius Vambery? I don't know how Wikipedia decides the ethnic pictures, so I apologize if my idea does not agree with established guidelines. Chedorlaomer (talk) 22:50, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

people can be "upset" until tomorrow man.. the man was jew and changed history when he was a jew, also born and died as one, he's photo needs to be there, + more 3. ארז הלבנון (talk) 00:46, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I fixed your link. <b style="color:#BA55D3;">ناهد/(Nåhed)</b> <i style="color:#BA55D3;">speak!</i> 05:35, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

thanks for somone to fixit, so can you put it with the otherones?. Duduyat (talk) 06:45, 14 October 2008 (UTC)


 * This whole section is ridiculous. Please pay attention to Jayjg because Jesus in this article just wouldn't fly. Jeesh... ;) A Sniper (talk) 06:54, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

and how are you to decide what is rediculas and what not?! discrase!!. Duduyat (talk) 07:36, 14 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I could use your spelling as a gauge, for starters. Best, A Sniper (talk) 07:44, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

whatever man.. 79.183.13.173 (talk) 14:05, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * בסדר, גנדרן ;) A Sniper (talk) 19:09, 14 October 2008 (UTC)


 * If it's not completely obvious, User:Duduyat and User:ארז הלבנון are the same person, and should not be using multiple account names in the same discussion. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 14:12, 14 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Perhaps this discussion has now come to a natural conclusion: there will not be a picture of Jesus in the article. I can then stop playing around with that nice painting from the Middle Ages which was just crying out for a catchy caption. Best, A Sniper (talk) 15:55, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

A note concerning the photo montage
It has been discussed many times. See Template talk:Infobox Jews and this Talk page. See Talk:Jew/Archive_17 for the original discussion. The images were chosen to include two Ashkenazim and two Sephardim, two men and two women, and four individuals from different fields of endeavor (science, religion, politics, the arts). — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 02:25, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Why were Mizrahim excluded? And does the previous decision settle the case permanently, or should Lebanon Cedar bring his case up elsewhere? Chedorlaomer (talk) 02:59, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * See WP:Consensus can change: Past decisions are open to challenge and are not binding. I wasn't involved in the initial decision-making, so I don't know why there are no Mizrahim. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 03:12, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Mizrahim, Temanim... <b style="color:#BA55D3;">ناهد/(Nåhed)</b> <i style="color:#BA55D3;">speak!</i> 05:35, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Consensus can change, but it can also stay the same. The current version is stable, serviceable, uncluttered and informative. I favor leaving it alone. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 08:44, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes - please let's leave it alone. Best, A Sniper (talk) 09:42, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I favor leaving the image as it is, but I wouldn't be opposed to adding a second row so the montage could be more inclusive. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 19:26, 14 October 2008 (UTC)


 * It's a beautiful choice. Antisemitism is a Christian pathology: that Christ was a Jew is a useful reminder to that tradition that 'Christian antisemitism' is an oxymoron, despite its historical power. In any case the Lazarus should go. If you want a poetess, why not Gertrud Kolmar, or a woman writer Irène Némirovsky ? They fit the feminist bill, and were far more accomplished in their literary fields than EL.Nishidani (talk) 10:07, 14 October 2008 (UTC)


 * For starters, Irène Némirovsky was a convert to Catholicism and Wikipedia doesn't have a picture of Gertrud Kolmar. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 19:26, 14 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Malik, twice the 'conversion' to Catholicism has been raised, (Geza Vermes) and now Irène Némirovsky. Einstein, and I could name 100 Jews with magnificent contributions to the world of science, arts, music etc.,in the same state, were not religious Jews. Spinoza was Jewish, though a probable atheist. Einstein is here because he is of Jewish descent, not because of an ostensible Judaism. The same would go for Freud. In Vermes' case, as in Ze'ev Sternhell's case and so many others, conversion occurred to protect the child from the Holocaust, the same strategy used by marranos. After a decade or two, that assumed faith, however much absorbed, was dropped. As the article says, Jewish identity has several dimensions, none of which is exclusively decisive, except in a very narrow religious reading. So, I fail to perceive the point, as I do that of Jesus. I only know Némirovsky's novels, but will check to see what motivated her conversion, perhaps worry for her children. Karl Kraus converted, and deconverted at will, as did Heinrich Heine. Only in wiki have I encountered this as an objection to being considered for evaluation as Jewish. It is unheard of in scholarship.


 * I have no card in this game, being incapable of religious feelings: what interests me is the way things are categorized. The objections so far are not logical. As for Gertrud Kolmar, one would have to scour round for a photo. Fair enough. I've only begun that page, but she is considered by some the greatest poetess in the German language, which makes Emma Lazarus look distinctly provincial. I was shocked to discover the English wiki had no page on her. This will be shortly remedied. I hope those out there who learned to love her on reading such masterpieces as "Trauerspiel" a stunning variation on a noted poem by Rilke, help in giving her the due hommage of an article.Nishidani (talk) 20:33, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * There's a difference between "not religious" and converted to Catholicism, and in any event, Vermes's conversion to Catholicism was brought up only by you. My point was different from the straw man you present on my behalf, and far more relevant. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 03:50, 17 October 2008 (UTC)


 * "'Yes, Vermes, a former Catholic priest, found Jesus to be significant.'Jayjg"
 * "'the 'conversion' to Catholicism has been raised' Nishidani"
 * I really don't understand why you persist in hairsplitting. I mentioned Vermes as as Jewish person. You objected he was a 'former Catholic priest', as if his position on Jesus was suspect because he was a turncoat to an alien faith. I replied noting the circumstances of his conversion (and return to Judaism). Niggling on the fringes is all very well in a court of law, where concepts don't count, but minor technicalities, formal as opposed to substantial, arguments do. It is not germane to conceptual analysis. That Jesus was born and died a Jew is widely accepted, and Vermes's dual competence as someone with a deep knowledge of Jewish history, and Christianity, made a powerful case for this kind of reading that hitherto partisans on both sides were not particularly good at making. Use strawman links on someone else. It is a mode of lazy reply that foregoes intelligent comment in favour of specious distractions.Nishidani (talk) 08:59, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * What I really don't understand is why you persist in presenting straw man arguments and points on my behalf. You claimed that Jesus was an important figure to Jews and Judaism because he was important to Vermes. In turn I pointed out that Vermes was quite naturally interested in Jesus, since he was a former Catholic priest who wrote about Jesus for a living. Of course Jesus was important to Vermes, but, as I made clear, Vermes' interests were singular. Why you persist in turning that quite straightforward point into some bizarre theory about Vermes being a convert and "turncoat to an alien faith" is beyond me. As an analogy, Gian-Carlo Rota was a mathematician who specialized in combinatorics; I'm sure incidence algebras, Sheffer sequences and polynomial sequences were extremely important topics to him, and perhaps to other mathematicians, but generally not of that much interest to others. If you stop twisting straightforward points into bizarre straw men, then I won't have to use straw man links on you. It is these straw men twists that are "a mode of lazy reply that foregoes intelligent comment in favour of specious distractions." Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 16:11, 19 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Take a check at the optometrists, or degree course work in semantic analysis. I did not claim that 'Jesus was an important figure to Jews and Judaism because he was important to Vermes'. That kind of misconstrual must take the cake for WP:OR on a talk page. The page highlights Jews, of which he was one. When challenged I cited Vermes' work, which you replied:


 * Yes, Vermes, a former Catholic priest, found Jesus to be significant. That is, after all, what he did for a living, wrote about Jesus.


 * This is quite comical. You introduced the fact that a Jew who analysed Jesus' Jewishness happened to have been a Catholic priest. In any man with a half-literate background, the implication or innuendo is self-evident, and hardly needs to be teased out. (You also reveal your lack of knowledge. He didn't write about Jesus's significance for his living (a trade). He is 'one of the most distinguished living scholars of Judaism' (E.P.Sanders), a Jew, and a man whose living consists in teaching, and writing, among other things, on the Qumran documents, on which he is a world authority).


 * I.e. Since you don't seem to realize what your riposte implies. It was that Vermes' Catholic background explains his trilogy depicting the Jewishness of Christ - rubbish. His family converted, and when older, he converted back to the faith of his fathers (see his autobiography Providential Accidents 1998). His position is now widely accepted academically, by non-Jewish scholars. It's surely more economical of your time to ignore things you don't understand, and forego the temptation to make careless replies. Jesus was a Jew to the day of his death, (providing we accept the premise he was a real historical figure). He may not be important to Judaism, but neither are Einstein and Freud. You don't have to be interested in Judaism to be a Jew.  Is that too hard to understand? Nishidani (talk) 20:17, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * What, Nishidani, are you still filling pages with lengthy personal attacks and straw men arguments? Enough already. My statements neither said nor implied what you imagined was in them. Don't misrepresent me again, and please don't respond with yet another defense of the indefensible. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 00:36, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, I believe that there is already consensus that a painting of Jesus will not be included in the article. It therefore doesn't matter whether or not Jesus was Jewish, Catholic, an historical figure or the figment of someone's imagination. Best, A Sniper (talk) 20:35, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Anyway, getting back to topic, there are some beautiful engravings by Gustav Dore of Biblical charactors such as Judith and Bathsheba that could replace Ms. Lazarus. Phil Burnstein (talk) 03:25, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, of course. For the moment that is the consensus. I just dislike spurious arguments, and have noted one or two, for the record, in case, in the future, this silly pretext comes up again when someone or other (not myself assuredly) may propose him for inclusion. Remember Wikipedia is NPOV. Which in concrete terms means that Jesus, a Jew, is always up for candidacy, independently of sectarian opposition. I myself would prefer any one of Ludwig Wittgenstein, Theodor Adorno, Karl Kraus, Edmund Husserl, Karl or Harpo Marx, Paul Celan, Heinrich Heine, Lise Meitner or Claude-Lévi Strauss there. Nishidani (talk) 20:53, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * That Jesus was born and died a Jew may be obvious to Christian scholars, but many Jewish scholars over the centuries would disagree. Of course, if you believe in patrilineal descent, then Jesus was not Jewish - he was a god.
 * I know he will not be included. I insist simply that one get the facts right. It is not a Christian preference or choice or an obvious matter for Christians to see Christ as a Jew. Neither in rabbinical traditions nor in traditional Christian thought was this accepted. It is a modern post-ideological stating of the obvious, around for a century, thoroughly argued by a practicing Jewish person, of Jewish origins, in a trilogy that has been widely accepted now by leading Christian scholars. Patrilineal or matrilineal descent has nothing to do with it, since both documents are mythical elaborations that contradict each other.Nishidani (talk) 10:43, 31 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Just for the record, ALL Jews are "Jews until the day of their death". If here's an article about famous Jews, I'd be for including Jesus, with the caveat that his historical existence is a matter of debate. But I wouldn't include a picture of him here. Rosencomet (talk) 18:40, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I think that the user Sniper is an anti-jesus indvidual that all he seeks is to shut our mouths. jesus (Yeshua ben yosef) was a jewish rabbi (The rabbi from nazareth), he born, lived and died as a jew. not only a jew but a one of the most affecting figurs on recorded history. combine the face that he was a jewish man (rabbi) and a jewish indevidual who was an affecting figure and you get a man that SHOULD be in this picture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.179.58.103 (talk) 18:21, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:NPA --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 20:35, 14 December 2008 (UTC)


 * First of all, you owe Sniper an apology and should strike down your accusation. Just because he doesn't think a picture of Jesus is appropriate in this article doesn't give you the right to call him "an anti-jesus indvidual" or say "all he seeks is to shut our mouths" when he has done nothing to shut anyone's mouth.


 * Second, a picture of Jesus is certainly inappropriate as an example of an average Jew, or of what a Jew looks like, especially a picture of a mosaic of an artist's conception of Jesus. Jesus was not indicative of a Jew, nor was his life a depiction of how Jews of his period lived; he was an exception who chose NOT to live, speak or behave like Jews normally do (even if he never renounced his religion). Now, I might have some sympathy for his picture being in the infobox along with the other handful of famous Jews; he is certainly more notable than either Emma Lazarus or Joe Slovo. I think the problem, however, is that Jesus is not known for his place in the Jewish community, but for being the central figure of the greatest DEPARTURE from the Jewish community in history, despite the fact that legend has it that he lived as a Jew all his life. It would be rather confusing to depict him relative to this article as an example of a Jew, though he'd certainly be included in an article about "famous Jews" IMO, even if mainstream Judaism regarded him as a heretic or false messiah. It's also kind of redundant to use a central Biblical figure as an example of a Jew; you note there are no "pictures" of Abraham (the founder of Judaism, and the first person one thinks about IMO when you mention the archtypical Jew), Isaac, Jacob, Moses, etc in the article. Rosencomet (talk) 19:53, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

well, jesus is one of the most famous jews i have ever heard of. נסים11 (talk) 14:01, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Herzl's nationality
It says "the movement was formally established by the Austrian journalist Theodor Herzl" -- he was actually Austro-Hungarian. Can someone please correct this? Thanks. 68.174.102.95 (talk) 10:45, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The article on Theodore Herzl says he was Hungarian. I'm not sure what the best characterization is. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 17:22, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Neither am I. The article on Zionism calls him Austro-Hungarian, but he was born in Budapest, then at age 18 moved to Vienna. He was an Austrian journalist, but not necessarily as a matter of nationality.  It would be nice to see the various articles made consistent (& correct), but it looks like more information is needed - perhaps as to how he regarded himself identity-wise. Hertz1888 (talk) 17:49, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Use of the word "Jew"
I noticed that throughout this article are wordings such as "is a Jew," "a Jew," etc. This immediately did not sound right to me, and seemed even offensive. After some research to be sure that this notion on the topic was indeed prevailing, I have found that referring to the Jewish people or a Jewish person as Jews or a Jew are considered traditionally and colloquially pejorative. It is especially offensive to say that someone "is a Jew" as opposed to "is Jewish." My initial instinct that something was very wrong with the tone of this article was correct, and it seems to stem from this usage. I suggest also that the article title be changed from the word "Jew," which has a definite demeaning connotation to something less controversial and more accepted such as "Jewish People." In other words, the adjective form is vastly preferred to the noun form when describing a people or person, not only due to its historical connotation but also as this describing is the grammatical function of an adjective. Thank you for taking the time to read this and address this issue. Here are several references and discussions on the topic for your use: http://shakti.trincoll.edu/~mendele/vol01/vol01.174 http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/jonah081500.asp http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/943953.html I would like to hear your opinions. Thank you. 76.236.78.59 (talk) 05:10, 27 December 2008 (UTC)


 * This "issue" has been discussed at length here more than once. The latest such discussion is found in the archives at this location.  Go and study.  The consensus was to retain the current title.  There is nothing demeaning, pejorative or offensive about the word "Jew".  Those who use it to express hostility won't be appeased by a name change. Hertz1888 (talk) 05:55, 27 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your speedy reply and the link to the archives. It seems you have missed the major point I was trying to make here; perhaps I should not have mentioned the title change -- it was an ancillary issue. My major suggestion was one not debated as far as I could find here or in the archives, that in sentence structure, instances of "- is a Jew" be changed to "- is Jewish." The word Jew on its own has been found here to be acceptable, but the preference of "Jewish" to describe a person as opposed to "a Jew" is a valid one, and has not been discussed here. Thank you for your time, and I hope you will not trivialize my "suggestion" by putting it in quotation marks or telling me to "go and study." I am sure rudeness was not your intent. Thank you also for having the common sense to understand that all anti-semitism cannot be brought to an end by changing an article name, but unless you see otherwise, my point about the adjective form being preferred to describe someone is valid and people reading this article could by way of reading it pick up the less common, less preferred syntax that is indeed considered improper -- unlike the word "Jew" alone. Thanks for reading all this! 76.236.78.59 (talk) 22:48, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Like most things, wikipedia prefers neither form over the other so there is no need to change them article.--<font face="verdana"; font size="2"; font color="green">Patton <font face="verdana"; font size="2"; font color="green">123 00:28, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Here's what the American Heritage Dictionary has to say:
 * "It is widely recognized that the attributive use of the noun Jew, in phrases such as Jew lawyer or Jew ethics, is both vulgar and highly offensive. In such contexts Jewish is the only acceptable possibility. Some people, however, have become so wary of this construction that they have extended the stigma to any use of Jew as a noun, a practice that carries risks of its own. In a sentence such as There are now several Jews on the council, which is unobjectionable, the substitution of a circumlocution like Jewish people or persons of Jewish background may in itself cause offense for seeming to imply that Jew has a negative connotation when used as a noun."
 * That seems pretty clear; using Jew as an adjective is offensive, using Jew as a noun is not offensive, and suggesting it is may itself be offensive. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 02:41, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * That makes sense but doesn't address "is a Jew" vs. "is Jewish." I would think and have found that "Jewish" here is preferred, since in essence the word here is used to describe a person, the work of an adjective. 76.236.78.59 (talk) 16:24, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Is there something specific in the article that you think should be altered, 76? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 18:43, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * My only grievance at this point are the instances of the question "who is a Jew?" which I believe ought to read "who is Jewish?" However, given the already agreed upon main title for the article and the prevalence of this question in serious, philosophical and intelligently objective publications, I think it all best to be left alone. Thank you all for taking the time to look this over with me. 76.236.78.59 (talk) 03:30, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

A rabbi once corrected me when I mentioned the word 'Jewish' and told be to use the word 'Jew'. His reasoning was as follows: 'Warmish' is like not really warm, so 'Jewish' would be like not really a Jew. I liked that. Debresser (talk) 14:32, 7 January 2009 (UTC)