Talk:Jews/Archive 22

"genetic studies of DNA"
should be changed to simply "genetic studies". As far as I am aware there is no other kind of genetic study (unless it is referring to Genetic (linguistics), but this is an obscure meaning that is clearly not what is meant in the context). --86.135.176.230 (talk) 01:32, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree the title should be changed. Perhaps "DNA Studies" would be even clearer. McKorn (talk) 13:07, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

This would be nice to have in the text! Another finding, paradoxical but unsurprising, is that by the yardstick of the Y chromosome, the world's Jewish communities closely resemble not only each other but also Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese, suggesting that all are descended from a common ancestral population that inhabited the Middle East some four thousand years ago. LINK:http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D02E0D71338F93AA35756C0A9669C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=1 This would also be intrssting to have in to the text: Advanced genetic testing, including Y-DNA and mtDNA haplotyping, of modern Jewish communities around the world, has helped to determine which of the communities are likely to descend from the Israelites and which are not, as well as to establish the degrees of separation between the groups. Important studies archived here include the University College London study of 2002, Ariella Oppenheim's study of 2001, Ariella Oppenheim's study of 2000, Michael Hammer's study of 2000, Doron Behar's study of 2008, and others.

Key findings:
 * 1) The main ethnic element of Ashkenazim (German and Eastern European Jews), Sephardim (Spanish and Portuguese Jews), Mizrakhim (Middle Eastern Jews), Juhurim (Mountain Jews of the Caucasus), Italqim (Italian Jews), and most other modern Jewish populations of the world is Israelite. The Israelite haplotypes fall into Y-DNA haplogroups J and E.
 * 2) Ashkenazim also descend, in a smaller way, from European peoples such as Slavs and Khazars. The non-Israelite Y-DNA haplogroups include Q (typically Central Asian) and R1a1 (typically Eastern European).
 * 3) Dutch Jews from the Netherlands also descend from northwestern Europeans.
 * 4) Sephardim also descend, in a smaller way, from various non-Israelite peoples.
 * 5) Georgian Jews (Gruzinim) are a mix of Georgians and Israelites.
 * 6) Yemenite Jews (Temanim) are a mix of Yemenite Arabs and Israelites.
 * 7) Moroccan Jews, Algerian Jews, and Tunisian Jews are mainly Israelites.
 * 8) Libyan Jews are mainly Israelites who may have mixed somewhat with Berbers.
 * 9) Ethiopian Jews are almost exclusively Ethiopian, with little or no Israelite ancestry.
 * 10) Bene Israel Jews and Cochin Jews of India have much Indian ancestry in their mtDNA.
 * 11) Palestinian Arabs are probably partly Israelite.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.53.74.49 (talk) 21:12, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Stereotypes of Jews
There should be a page about what the stereotypes of Jews have been, especially considering how often stereotyped they are. I would do it, but it may come across as offensive. If not a seperate page, at least have a section on this page. Some things to mention would be:
 * Big nose
 * Christ killer
 * Blood libel
 * Greedy
 * Scheming

And I'm sure there are others. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.173.220.96 (talk) 05:42, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Now there's soemthin we need to cover. I doubt it deserves it's own article but it could be mentioned in antisemetism maybe. I don't know where I'd go about finding sources for this so sure, go ahead, add to the antisemetism article.--Patton 123 12:11, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure either way. It's a controversial subject. ;-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.3.18.150 (talk) 18:57, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 82.3.18.150, huh? Reliable   Forever talk 20:41, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed; it should go in Antisemitism, NOT this page.  Aaron  ►  07:07, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the OP was trolling BUT we do talk about antisemitism under the "Persecution" section. This section, however, does not describe the "justifications" (which were often based on stereotypes), and so does not summarize the phenomenon very well. The closest we get to describing the stereotypes is in the coverage of "good" versus "bad" antisemitism, but this is quite cursory, and (unfortunately) seems to assume that the reader is already aware of these stereotypes. Chedorlaomer (talk) 08:36, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * There are no justifications, whether often based on stereotypes or not. Phil_burnstein (talk) 20:38, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I hoped that it would be clear from the scare quotes that I don't consider the "justifications" valid... Chedorlaomer (talk) 22:45, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I understand that you don't consider them valid. My problem is with the word 'often'. Often implies "usually but not always". I don't think you wanted to say that some of the "justifications" are based on reality, and not on stereotypes. Phil_burnstein (talk) 06:42, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Picture
Emma Lazarus? Golda Meir? Maimonides? OK, I can forget about Maimonides, but Lazarus and Meir, seriously?

You've got Freud, Spinoza, Mendelssohn, Chagall, Asimov, Gershwin, Rand, Bohr, Born, Chomsky, Goldman, Allen, Cohen, Kubrick, etc. etc. etc., so why them? It seems the editors have chosen to go the PC way (2 men, 2 women; 2 Aszkenazim, 2 Sefardim; Israeli Jew in addition to diaspora Jews; Religious leaders and Atheist Jews), and it's a shame really. A gifted nation with gifted people, and Meir/Lazarus are chosen to represent them. I have nothing against these two great women, but their place here is not justified, and I'm sure I'm not alone on this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.178.57.55 (talk) 20:27, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Population
There seems to be numerous promblems with the population figures. For example if you look at the top, of the page it states that there are 184,000 Jews in Argentina, and that Argentina has the 6th greatest population of Jews in the world. Later on somewhere in the middle of the page it says there are 250,000 Jews in Argentina. If you look in the Argentina page it states that Argentina has the 5th largest Jewish community in the world. These figures are very contradicting, maybe someone should take a look at this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.1.207.30 (talk • contribs) 12:57, 3 February 2009


 * For this article I used the latest Jewish population figures available from the Jewish People Policy Planning Institute (2007) or the Jewish Virtual Library (2006). I also tried to make sure the population numbers were consistent throughout the article because at one time they weren't. Other article may be based on other census figures. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 18:11, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * In Argentina are very "marranos" nom-son of jewish mother; jews are only the descends of jewsih mother(explication for the excessive number of haplogroups of the Y cromosome)!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.71.5.238 (talk) 21:42, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Beginning of the Diaspora
There is a reference to a policy of conversion which continued after the destruction of the Jewish state. This is ambiguous. Conversions ended effectively with the rise of Rabbinic Judaism following the destruction of the Second Temple. Further, it is likely that many or most of the Greek Speaking Diaspora Jews effectively assimilated through conversion to Christianity in the first two centuries CE. There is no remnant of Hellenistic Diaspora Culture in Rabbinic Jews. Rabbinic Judaism rejected the Greek translation of the Torah (Septuagint). In all likelihood, contemporary Ashkenazi and Sephardic Jews probably descend from a core population from the Land of Israel and Babylonia (this is supported by common Aramaic and Hebrew texts including the Babylonian and Yerushalmi Talmuds as well as extensive DNA evidence). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.1.207.30 (talk • contribs) 12:57, 3 February 2009

Could someone please edit the list - Switzerland is missing
Switzerland has between 18'000 and 20'000 Jews. I think that is a significant number. Please edit the list, someone forgot "us".

This source says there are 17'900 http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/jewpop.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.162.249.172 (talk) 11:22, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Omitting Switzerland was an oversight. Thank you for bringing it to my attention. I've added it. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 03:41, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks --217.162.249.172 (talk) 18:38, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Could someone please edit the list - Slovenia is missing too
Slovenia has between up to 1000 Jews. Please edit the list, someone forgot "us". This source says there are up to 1000. http://www.jewishcommunity.si/jss/ENG-zgodovina.asp —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.153.35.139 (talk • contribs) 11:18, 18 February 2009


 * Unfortunately the template only has room for 31 countries. The cut-off point is a Jewish population of 5,000 or more. Sorry. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 18:31, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Achteljude

 * Die Nuernberger Gesetze stellen den Deutschen Adelismus in Frage
 * Deutsche Adelshaeuser:(Jeder Mensch hat 1 Mutter 1 Vater 2 Grossmuetter 2 Grossvater, 4 Urgrossmuetter 4 Urgrossvater u.s.w.)

195.194.75.209 (talk) 16:50, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * http://books.google.de/books?id=Qjduq9UpP5YC&pg=PA44&lpg=PA44&dq=achteljude&source=web&ots=gT2LHVunP6&sig=n8IxnVYsk_bgOPsFQFQfU32MnsU&hl=de&ei=fIqdSYCLEIzIjAf_zYzGBQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=2&ct=result#PPA44,M1
 * http://news.google.de/news?hl=de&tab=wn&ncl=1288317500&scoring=d
 * http://www.google.de/search?hl=de&q=achteljude&start=300&sa=N&filter=0


 * Im not 100% sure what this says, but I think I'm close.
 * "The Nurenberg Laws are the German [Adelismus] in question. German noble houses: (Everyone has one mother 1 father 2 grandmothers 2 grandfathers, 4 great-grandmothers 4 great-grandfathers, etc.)" Goalie1998 (talk) 05:34, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Hasmonean
The Hasmonean era ended in 135 CE, when Herod Agrippa was removed from power. The Agrippas were descended from both Herod and Maccabee lines after numerous civil wars and changes of power from 20 BC to 65 CE. The date listed as the end of the Hasmonean era is in fact the end of autonomy - after that point they became a Roman principate. However, it is not technically the end of the "Hasmon" era, which refers to Matthias Hasmon, father of the Maccabees whose bloodline and lineage was intermarried into the Herodian line when Herod married one of Hasmon's grand-daughters ...

Oemb1905 (talk) 18:11, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

ETHIOPIAN JEWS
this shiould be added to the top right hand side of the page

http://www.babaganewz.com/archive/article.cfm?ID=51 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.207.115.161 (talk) 19:39, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Why? And how do you add anything to the top right hand side of a page? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 08:16, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I suspect there might have been a change in the status of Ethiopian Jews over the past seven years. Do you have more recent info? Phil_burnstein (talk) 20:24, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

First Monotheism?
The first monotheist in history seems to be the penultimate Hyksos King of Avaris, named Apophis, who took Sutheck (Set) to be his sole deity, and enforced this god on the population by means of banning worship of all other gods, and allowing the sacred animals of the Egyptians to be killed.[citation needed] Following the second intermediate period, Akhnaton replicated the monotheism of Apothis but with the Aten disk as the one-god of monotheism.

Or Zoroastrainism which John R Hinnels in Penguin Dictionary of Religions has it (c.1200) contemporaneous with Jewish Monotheism at least, and most scholars I have read would accept some degree of cross-fertilization or syncretain as occurring during the Babylonian Exile. Ninian Smart writes 'Zoroastrianism ...can be held to exist in six phases its early period lasted until the 6th century.', he goes on to say that 'there is rough consensus that he was probably of 10th century.' pp.214-215 The Worlds Religions Cambridge.ISBN 0 521 34005 5

That the 'chosen people' status associated with the Abrahamic lineages is unique amongst the ancient religions I doubt anyone would argue. However the one God idea, be it a form of monism or monotheism is surely equally claimed by several traditions of antiquity. Brahman, Dao, and the precursors to Persian theology all seem to bare this out.

The issue comes of course when one questions the nature of subordinate deities as separate autonomous entities and the way in which a beleiver relates to and conceptualizes the Deity, which in all monotheistic religions developes and evolves over time. Since any theology will ultimately conclude that all subordinate gods come the source High Deity, be it Zeus or YHWH or Ahura Mazda. Even extreme forms of Gnosticism acknowledge there must ultimately be one source for existing beings. In its beginings Judaism is clearly a Henotheism existing along side other deities such Baal in the OT. Thus, to claim Abrahmic traditions and the first monotheism be they Jewish seems to me uncertain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Burach42 (talk • contribs) 19:16, March 22, 2009


 * According to the article's source, Judaism was the first monotheistic religion. It says the Zoroastrians were "henotheists: they seemed to have believed in many gods but with one supreme god who was more powerful than the others". — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 19:59, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Judaism Modern Judaism is unequivocally monotheistic, but there are traces of henotheism in biblical accounts of Israelite culture. It is generally uncontroversial that many of the Iron Age religions found in the land of Israel were henotheistic in practice. For example, the Moabites worshipped the god Chemosh, the Edomites, Qaus, both of whom were part of the greater Canaanite pantheon, headed by the chief god, El. The Canaanite pantheon consisted of El and Asherat as the chief deities, with 70 sons who were said to rule over each of the nations of the earth. These sons were each worshiped within a specific region. K. L. Noll states that "the Bible preserves a tradition that Yahweh used to 'live' in the south, in the land of Edom" and that the original god of Israel was El Shaddai.[11] The article goes on to agree my studies in that it was not until the Babylonian Exile that the Jews become 'unequivocally monotheistic', 'The destruction of the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem and the exile to Babylon was considered a divine reprimand and punishment for the mistaken worship of other deities. By the end of the Babylonian captivity of Judah in the Tanakh, Judaism is strictly monotheistic.' Hence Jewish monotheism is at least contemorary with Zoroastrian monotheism. Abraham after all came from Persia, and it is likely that he represents this henotheistic tradition which permeates both traditions, and no doubt had some antecedents in Egypt as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Burach42 (talk • contribs) 20:23, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Who is a Jew?
In the article is says "Interpretations of sections of the Tanakh, such as Deuteronomy 7:1-5, by learned Jewish sages, are used as a warning against intermarriage between Jews and non-Jews because "[the non-Jewish male spouse] will cause your child to turn away from Me and they will worship the gods of others." Leviticus 24:10 says that the son in a marriage between a Hebrew woman and an Egyptian man is "of the community of Israel." This contrasts with Ezra 10:2-3, where Israelites returning from Babylon vow to put aside their gentile wives and their children."

Why does it say "This contrasts with Ezra....", it is in complete agreement with the source from Ezra. In the quote from Deuteronomy, it's discussing how a non-Jewish father would cause the Jewish child to turn away from G-d, because the child is Jewish due to having a Jewish mother. In Ezra, it's discussing how the non-Jewish children, due to having non-Jewish mothers, where put aside by the Jewish fathers. Both sources complement each other in saying that a child is Jewish if the mother is Jewish, and aren't Jewish if only the father is Jewish.

Whoever has the power to do so, kindly change "This contrasts with Ezra..." to "This complements Ezra..." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.47.151.139 (talk) 04:57, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

wrong statistics
the Italian Hebrew are 45.000 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.23.99.136 (talk) 18:39, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Not according to our source. — Malik Shabazz 19:00, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Why 'Arabs'?
Jews in general partly (or mostly) descend from Middle Eastern people, no doubt about that. But why does it specifically list Arabs as related ethnic group?

What about this? "Jews were found to be more closely related to groups in the north of the Fertile Crescent (Kurds, Turks, and Armenians) than to their Arab neighbors." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11573163?dopt=Abstract

And even if Jews are genetically very similar to "Arabs" it's true only with Levantine Arabs, surely not Arabs from Somalia, Libya, Oman etc.

Besides, this article is not really about ethnicity! Or is it? I don't know. The population figures include Ethiopian Jews (Black converts), while excluding ethnic Jews from US, Russia, Germany etc., who are not Jewish by religion/religious law (for example - there are about 6-8 (not 5.2) million ethnic Jews in the states. The same is true for other countries, especially in the FSU.79.183.235.101 (talk) 17:50, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Because relation is not just based on genetics. They're both Semitic peoples, and Middle Eastern peoples. Saimdusan Talk|Contribs 07:11, 4 March 2009 (UTC)


 * If so, then why aren't they related to other Germanic peoples? Prior to the establishment of Israel, the vast majority of the world's Jews spoke Yiddish, a Germanic language, as a first language.

Language is not related to ethnicity. Jamaicans speak English but they're not ethnically related to the English Vauxhall1964 (talk) 19:21, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Jewish Culture
Does the conversion of the Khazars to Judaism matter from a cultural point of view? It should be expressed that Judaism is not a racial identification (except in the eyes of anti-semites) and that further contemporary Jewry are certainly the cultural descendants of ancient Middle Eastern Jewry, and as DNA evidence points out, most likely the biological descendants of these Jews as well. Further, there is no trace of Khazar culture or custom among Ashkenazi, Sephardic, Kavkazi, or Mizrachi Jewry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.1.207.30 (talk • contribs) 12:57, 3 February 2009


 * The idea of a Jewish race is not exclusive to anti-Jewish bigots. Many Jews themselves identify their "race" or ethnicity as Jewish. Saimdusan Talk|Contribs 07:09, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Dato falsato
Gli ebrei italiani sono 45.000, secondo i dati statistici del CENSIS; quindi, i 28.600 è un dato errato. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.81.19.36 (talk) 18:52, 26 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Our source says 28,600. Do you have a link to the source that says 45,000? Thank you. — Malik Shabazz 19:03, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Red Army
Regarding User:Tallicfan20 edit - first off, please assume good faith. No one is trying to say bad things about the Jews. This has nothing to do with Communism. While some Jews were communists, the Red Army was not a volunteer institution. Jews were drafted in the same way other Soviet citizens were, regardless of their belief in the party-line. Further more, many Jews wanted to fight, not for Communism, but against Hitler. The largest number of Jews in the fighting forces was in the Red Army, with smaller numbers in others allied forces, such as the US and Britain, which is why it is mentioned. okedem (talk) 11:58, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with okedem - if this is a cited fact, then as long as it is presented with NPOV language, there is nothing antisemitic about it. Best, A Sniper (talk) 20:16, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The problem is the idea of "Jewish Communism," is one which never ceases to die with anti-Semites. For obvious reasons, the Red Army is associated with Communism, and without a picture of how many Jews fought in other allied armies, to many, this will give an image that the Jews are "largely" communist, a canard provided by Nazi propaganda, and Protocols of the Elders of Zion. I propose someone find out the percentage of Jewish allied troops which fought in other armies, like the US, British, French, Canadian, Australian, etc.Tallicfan20 (talk) 22:54, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Hebrew language
The transliteration can be improved to "Lashon" (sounds like spanish 'la') instead of "Leshon". Maybe a linguist admin can make the correct change. I can't edit this article. :( 99.185.60.226 (talk) 16:42, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Thanks for catching it.  Looks like that was a typo.  It's spelled "lashon" in the main article. Hertz1888 (talk) 17:27, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Total Jewish Nobel Prize winners
the correct number is:180 and not 160,so it must be changed.--Cde567plm (talk) 09:46, 7 June 2009 (UTC) see the link: http://www.jinfo.org/Nobel_Prizes.html --Cde567plm (talk) 09:53, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * What makes you think that http://www.jinfo.org/ is a reliable source for an encyclopedia article? — Malik Shabazz 17:37, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Done Thanks! That's one of the problems with inserting statistics: they eventually become out-of-date. Perhaps removing the parenthetical or using a value that changes more slowly by being less precise (e.g. 1/5th of all awards) would help avoid this. Thanks again and welcome. Celestra (talk) 17:43, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * @MS: I take the 178 number from the jinfo.org to be uncontroversial. Do you feel that number is incorrect? Celestra (talk) 17:50, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I question the reliability of a site whose sole purpose seems to be a nationalistic count of "the Jewish contribution to the cultural, scientific, and technological evolution of civilization". I would have prefered a less partial site such as a news article. — Malik Shabazz 17:56, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I can't disagree. There is a little bit of a catch-22, though, since a less partial site would be unlikely to have subtotals of Nobel Laureates by ethnicity. How would you feel about just dropping the parenthetical as I suggested above? (Thanks for fixing my formatting, BTW) Celestra (talk) 19:41, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah, let's take the parenthetical phrase out. — Malik Shabazz 20:54, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Note that different sources might disagree due to the issue of religion and ethnicity. What about a person who was born Jewish, but later converted to Christianity? He's ethnically Jewish, his culture and education are based in Judaism, but he's now a Christian. What about a case where the parents converted before the child (later the laureate) was even born? Still ethnically Jewish, a lot of culture based in Judaism (a culture of learning). And what about people with mixed origins? Different sources might take different routes in resolving these issues. okedem (talk) 20:29, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * That's always an issue in lists of Jews. All we can do is report what the sources say. — Malik Shabazz 20:54, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

The DNA Debate
The genetic origin of Ashkenazi and Sephardic Jewry is frequently misunderstood. Haplogroups J and E are among the best candidates for Middle Eastern Origin. However haplogroups G2a and T are also likely indicative of a Middle Eastern origin and are shared between Sephardic and Ashkenazi Jews. Haplogroups Q, R1b, and R1a are also found both within Ashkenazi and Sephardic Jewish populations despite ultimately originating outside the Middle East. One must remember that ancient Israel and later Judea were a tremendous crossroads for populations from the Middle East, Asia, Europe, and North Africa and therefore the sources of original "Jewish" DNA were likely varied. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.1.207.30 (talk • contribs) 12:57, 3 February 2009


 * The original jewish people was a very small group and homogeneous; the excessive diversity of haplogroups only indicate the racial impurity of excessive convertions of goyims(fact)!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.71.5.238 (talk) 21:36, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

The mtdna haplogroups of Ashkenazi jews are: K (32%), H (21%), N1b (10%), and J1 (7%) Haplogroup K: is in Europe particularly common around the alps in non jewish people. About 12% of the non jewish population in germany belongs to the mtdna haplogroup K. 60% of the non jewish population in Ireland belongs to the haplogroup H and it's also the largest haplogroupe in Europe. So how can the article state that the jewish mtdna is almost absent in European population? http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v15/n4/full/5201764a.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.103.203.254 (talk) 13:54, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The data you give is not supported by your source. In fact, your source shows that Jews are genetically distinct from non-Jews. Goalie1998 (talk) 21:32, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Not at all! It shows that they are a mixture of European DNA! Even if the haplogroups procentage is lower in non jewish population doesent mean it doesent exist. Haplogroup H in Jews=21% Haplogroup H in European=40% Haplogroup K in jews=32%, haplogroup k in Germany=12%. 12% of 80 000 000 people = 9 600 000. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.103.203.254 (talk) 08:52, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I attended a lecture by geneticist Prof. Rafael Falk, the authority on Jewish related genetic research, and he emphasized there is no credible research proving modern Jews are the descendants of ancient Jews. He said it's perfectly possible that most modern Jews are descendants of converted gentiles and the descendants of ancient Jews are in fact the Palestinians. Note that this question has enormous political implications and politically oriented groups financed research in this area. Regretfully the genetics part in the Wikipedia entry reads like a political brochure not as a scientific review. [An Israeli] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.139.226.37 (talk) 12:02, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Prof Falk is not *the authority* on the subject, and regarding the recent DNA studies he said, I quote: "When I saw the results of studies from recent years that found that Jews share some common elements at the DNA level, it threw me at first, and then I came up with what philosophers of science like to call an auxiliary hypothesis, which says that what underlies this phenomenon isn't a common origin, but a common culture, and this auxiliary hypothesis is just as plausible as the opposite hypothesis." I don't know, but this does sound very much like : "I don't like these results so I decided they are not relevant". Anybody reading the studies will find that there is no way a common culture could give these results. And reading the interview in Haaretz, it is also very clear he has a very strong political agenda. Another Israeli Benjil (talk) 13:32, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Benjil, thanks for your response. The lecture I attended was a few months ago so probably Falk already saw these studies. Hopefully I'll have some time to read Falk's review book on Jewish genetics research and maybe talk with other researchers. Don't you think the entry is written in a very assertive language while research on relatively small samples can't probably yield very certain results? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.139.226.36 (talk) 16:18, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I am not a biologist and cannot argue with assurance on this issue but: these studies are not new, they started in 1998 and I think the language is assertive because the basic facts are now well established. Benjil (talk) 16:43, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Benjil, I'm sorry for being so slow. Please take a look at the Kohen entry of the Hebrew Wikipdedia:

http://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%9B%D7%94%D7%9F

Avshalom Zoossmann-Diskin from the department of Haematology and Genetic Pathology, Flinders U. School of Medicine (Australia), have at least two papers that seem relevant:

Are today's Jewish priests descended from the old ones?, HOMO - Journal of Comparative Human Biology Volume 51, Issue 2-3, December 2000, Pages 156-162.

Ashkenazi levites' Y modal haplotype (LMH) - an   artificially created phenomenon? HOMO - Journal of Comparative Human Biology Volume 57, Issue 1, 24 February 2006, Pages 87-100.

The second one seems to imply that Behar et al. were omitting data they don't like. I didn't see yet the first one but the title seems challenging.

The Hebrew Wikipedia also cites researchers from the Weizmann Inst. who say sample sizes must be on the order of thousands for a similar research. Other researchers doubt the usage of "genetic distance" in primates.

It seems there is some controversy about "Jewish genetics". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.139.226.36 (talk) 18:37, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The "Cohen gene" issue is a separate issue. And there is always controversy on everything. But we got now many studies giving similar results - that most Jews are more closely related to each other than to the population in which they lived. So I think until we have some proof of the contrary, this is a well established fact.Benjil (talk) 09:36, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Benjil, I think there are two different issues here: whether Jews are now ethnically coherent and whether such coherence was maintained over historical periods. It seems there is valid criticism against both claims:


 * There are methodological problems with the said studies. The work of Zoossmann-Diskin indicates that relevant data which was omitted by Behar et al. would have changed the results in a significant way. There may be methodological problems with other studies. Sample sizes on the orders of tens just can't produce significant results of this type.


 * The fact that Jews are genetically closely related may be a SECONDARY effect of their cultural relatedness: Jews mate predominately intra-community as well as inter-Jewish communities (even between far away Jewish community there has been a steady flow of genes: Rabbis in Morocco of German origin, etc.). Indeed, this relatedness MIGHT also be the result of common origins (common ancestors) but it is NOT a proof of common origins. Some other, independent evidence is needed to support one model or the other.

I think the readers of the English Wikipedia have a right to know about this criticism and it shouldn't be restricted to readers of the Hebrew edition.

Allow me a more personal note. I'm probably much older than you, I worked as an editor in a respected popular science magazine when Nature, one of the flagships of scientific literature, published a study that seemed to confirm the basic assumption of Homeopathy, i.e. that dilution may increase the biological activity of some substances. Later the Journal did an extraordinary thing, it sent a special task force (including a practicing magician) to the said laboratory to check their research. It was concluded there was no intentional fraud but data that didn't support the final result was omitted on methodologically insufficient grounds. It didn't help that the research was financially supported by a big Homeopathic pharmacological company. I later was witness to other scientific adventures where too much good intentions led to erroneous results and a short term fame. We are all human so we should take discoveries with far reaching implications like in our president's advice, enjoy the smell but don't drink them unless sure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.139.226.37 (talk) 12:16, 8 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Once again, people with a better background than mine should answer. But if I understood it correctly, the study you speak about is about the Cohen Gene thing, this is a different issue from the DNA studies about the general population. I did not see criticism about this but if you found it from a serious source, put it on the article. But before saying that a dozen studies with the same results are wrong and all the searchers don't know what they are speaking about, be sure you are sure of what you are writing. Benjil (talk) 13:02, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Article name
I'm just wondering why this aryicle is located here, and not at "Jewish people", given that this article talks mostly about the Jewish nation. For myself, and maybe other editors, "Jew" still retains a kind of antisemetic overtone, which talked about Jews in racialist terms - the "Eternal Jew" and all that. At trhe very least, I think a move to the plural "Jews" would be better than the singular. I can't say I like wikilinking Jewish, and, as with many [people in the diaspora, I would identify as "Jewish" as a feature of myself, but would be less likely to use "Jew". [User:YeshuaDavid|YeshuaD avid  ]] • Talk • 19:59, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I've added a search talk archives option at the top of the page on the basis that this issue may have come up before....if anyone wants to have a look.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 04:31, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Mus be a joke!
> Number of jews per country: > Hungary 49,000 10,053,000 0.5%

This figure is plain ridiculous for Hungary! In the capital city Budapest every 10th person is a jew, which means 170,000 people. They are really proud of this high figure and often refer to the city as "Judapest" to express their prominance and great influence among the residents.

However, there are few jews living in the countryside since the shoah decimated them in 1944-45 (Budapest jews were largely spared due to actions of governor Miklos Horthy). The grand total of self-recognizing jews in entire Hungary is about 195,000-200,000 today, but they consistently refuse to classify themselves as an ethnic minority, unlike the slovaks, rumanians, svabian-germans or tzigane groups.

Anyhow it is well-known that Hungary has the most jews in the whole Central- and Eastern-European today and our shameful tax-evader off-shore prime minister Gordon Bajnai proudly proclaimed this fact when he went to visit his creditors in Tel-Aviv last week. 87.97.102.182 (talk) 12:21, 4 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, mistakes can always happen. The 49,000 figure is based on a good source, the "Jewish People Policy Planning Institute" report from 2007. You can actually download the 2008 edition now, from here. Can you find us a good source for your number? Something from the Hungarian Jewish community, perhaps? okedem (talk) 13:54, 4 July 2009 (UTC)


 * From my knowledge and past figures, the number of Jews in Hungaria was around 100,000.Benjil (talk) 23:08, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Jewish surnames category deleted again; see discussion
Please see Deletion_review/Log/2009_July_6. Badagnani (talk) 01:18, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

EU Jewish population
What size is the Jewish population in the EU ? And where is the EU entry for it in the list ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.225.76.207 (talk) 13:00, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The EU is not a country so I guess this is the main reason. To have the figure, add up the numbers from the countries in question and that should give something around 1.1-1.2 million Jews in the EU. Benjil (talk) 14:22, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Wording in introduction
I actually think my wording was better. The other wording insinuates that converts to Judaism actually change their ethnicity to Jewish, when there is no such thing as a non-exclusive ethnic group. Marcus2 (talk) 13:26, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * When you become Jewish you become part of the Jewish people/nation whatever. I don't want to enter the subject of Jewish ethnicity but we are here speaking about the Jewish people, so the previous wording was fine. Benjil (talk) 14:04, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think your sentence has any point: Of course converts to Judaism are included as Jews. The point is that converts become members of the Jewish people. With respect to your edit summary, has anybody advanced the concept of a "Roman Catholic people"? There certainly is a "Jewish people". In fact, you added several sentences about how the Jews are a nation. — Malik Shabazz 05:29, 11 July 2009 (UTC)


 * As far as I know, to become a member of a people would have to mean to change your ethnicity or nationality. For instance, on the nationality part, if an American gentile converts to Judaism, his nationality's still American and not Jewish. To me, Jews are no longer a people but a religion. White Christians can never become black, but can become Jewish (don't get confused with the ethnic sense of the word). And where and when have I written sentences about Jews being a nation? Please show me examples. And even if I did, I would have done it out of respect for others' opinions or viewpoints. Marcus2 (talk) 14:02, 11 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Jews are a nation, not just a bunch of people with the same religion. The Jewish people has a clear shared history, a language, a shared culture (influenced by religion, but not just religious). An American Christian who becomes Jewish joins the Jewish nation, the ethnicity. Ethnicities are not mutually exclusive, and many people belong to more than one. okedem (talk) 15:02, 11 July 2009 (UTC)


 * First, my apologies, Marcus2. I confused you with another editor who added material to the article about the Jewish nation.
 * Second, I continue to disagree with you. Take a look at Living Judaism by Rabbi Wayne Dosick. In the section on conversion (pages 68 and 69), he says:
 * Since Judaism is not only a set of religious beliefs and practices, but a peoplehood as well, a person converting to Judaism must "join" the Jewish People by feeling a connection to Jewish people and places, concerns and issues, passions and causes. ...
 * A prospective convert who truly wants to be a Jew must feel and be part of the Jewish People. ...
 * A person converting to Judaism must be ready to accept membership in the Jewish People—with all its responsibilities and burdens, with all its gratification and glory.
 * It's not just a couple of Wikipedia editors saying so. If necessary, I can find more sources. — Malik Shabazz 04:50, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Malik, this is some very interesting stuff. We can still continue to agree to disagree, and I can revert my changes if you'd like. By the way, I wonder what kind of rabbi (Orthodox, Conservative, Reform) is Wayne Dosick. Marcus2 (talk) 12:41, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * To be a Jew is to be a member of a tribe. That is neither nationality nor religion nor ethnicity. A member of the Jewish people remains one regardless of whether he/she believes in the official religion of the tribe; he/she is merely a Jew who is not doing what he/she is "supposed" to do according to tribal laws, and can be punished if he breaks a religious law (such as the Sabbath laws) BECAUSE he is a member - he/she does not cease to be one. For instance, Freud was an atheistic Jew.
 * A convert to Judaism agrees to do many things, including observe Jewish religious law. If he/she later ceases to believe in that religion and follows another or none at all, Jewish law still regards him/her as a Jew. I don't think you can join an ethnicity, I know you can both assume a nationality or renounce one, and membership in a religion is a matter of faith and belief, or it is meaningless. But to be a Jew is to be a member of a tribe, just as being a Lakota or Souix. You can be accepted into the tribe no matter what your background was if the tribe's laws permit. Although they won't let you in without declaring belief in the religion and such, once you ARE in, like a born Jew, your belief is irrelevant - you are a Jew, though perhaps a non-observant one, or even a heretical one, but a Jew nonetheless. Rosencomet (talk) 15:11, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Introductory sentence
I would just like to point out that the introductory sentence is almost a parody of Wikipedia conventions gone wrong. It reads:
 * A Jew (long and unreadable string of alternative names in both Hebrew script and transliteration in all possible and impossible languages) is a member of the Jewish people ...

I hope it is apparent that this is clumsy to the point of comedy.

My suggestion would be to move the article to the plural title, Jews, as with all other ethnic and ethno-religious groups, and then let the introduction read "The Jews (also Jewish people) are an ethno-religious group ..." with the linguistic stuff relegated to a separate paragraph. But that's just a suggestion. --dab (𒁳) 09:46, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I illustrate my suggestion here. I also did some cleanup with the lang tags while I was at it, plus I moved the large footnote discussing "offensive vs. non-offensive" into the "Name" section: This shouldn't be in a footnote. It should either be in the article body, or if it is judged too detailed to be WP:DUE, it should be exported to the main article, i.e. Jew (word).
 * I would lean towards the latter, as Jew (word) would appear to be the natural place for discussing in detail whether or when the term is offensive. --dab (𒁳) 14:56, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

The DNA Debate (again)
It seems that on 04:06, 2 August 2009 MiszaBot I has deleted (without archiving) a discussion between Benjil and myself. We discussed the critic expressed inside the scientific community concerning the validity of the genetic studies that are cited in the "Jew" entry. These studies are described in a very assertive way lacking any doubts or qualifications whatsoever. It was clear this is not the real situation, as for example the Hebrew Wikipedia carries critic that seems very serious.

Well, it took me some time but I found a real expert on the subject who agreed to write a short summary of the critic. If you don't mind I intend to open a Wikipedia account and add this summary, also modify two words in the current text to make it more "humble".

[An Israeli] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.64.4.139 (talk) 15:56, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I do not believe that MiszaMiszaBotBot is malfunctioning. The debate you referred is archived at Talk:Jew/Archive 22.  Jon513 (talk) 19:38, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

You are right MiszaBot did archive it. Thanks! The revision history said it was in page 22 and gave a link. I looked at the top of the page, since it was there in the talk page, and didn't see it. To make sure I looked in all the archived pages and didn't find it. I'm not used to Wikipedia internals so it didn't occur to me that the relative place in the page might change. I apologize to the bot creators!


 * Well, here is a draft of the proposed critic summary. I would appreciate your comments and a little help with managing the references. Should I try to find online links no matter on which websites?

---begin---

There are two kinds of reservations from the above mentioned studies and the conclusions derived from them:

a. Methodological. Various researchers of demography and statistics have challenged the assumptions at the base of the studies.

Susan Martha Kahn draws ``specific attention to the ways new biomedical possibilities challenge the pervasive cultural premise of a Jewish identity that is somehow embodied rather than enacted'' [Kahn, S. M. (2005). The multiple meaning of Jewishness. Culture, Medicine and Psychiatry, 29(2), 179-192].

Avshalom Zoossmann-Diskin challenges the comparison of data sampled by different procedures in the communities that were compared [Zoossmann-Diskin, A. (2006). Ashkenazi levites' "Y modal haplotype" (LMH) - an artificially created phenomenon? HOMO - Journal of Comparative Human Biology, 57(1), 87-100].

Liat Ein-Dor and her colleagues challenge the relevance of the relatively small samples applied in these studies [Ein-Dor, L., Zuk, O., & Domany, E. (2006). Thousands of samples are needed to generate a robust gene list for predicting outcome in cancer. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, Washington, 103(15), 5923-5928].

b. Theoretical: No alternative hypotheses to the common ancestors assumption were examined. The analyses were performed explicitly to uphold the traditional preconception that the Jewish communities differ from the non-Jews among whom they lived and have common frequencies of genetic markers because they are direct descendents of the ancient Biblical nation of Israel. On this assumption computer programs were applied to construct pedigree trees that identify the genetic composition of the ancestors at the root of this tree and the time the lived.

Considerable historical and anecdotic evidence indicates that intermarriage occurred not only between Jews and non-Jews in the communities in which they lived but also between different Jewish communities, even those quite far apart, both geographically and traditionally: Brides from Poland were married to Iraqi bridegrooms; Rabbis from Germany took up positions in Spain and their progeny were later expelled to North Africa; Rabbits from Morocco were hired to serve in Russia; Travelers from Europe spent long periods among Eastern communities, etc [see, e.g., Sand, S. (2008). When and How the Jewish People was Invented? (in Hebrew). Tel Aviv: Resling].

Thus, a model of a trellis [Templeton, A. R. (1998). Human races: A genetic and evolutionary perspective. American Anthropologist, 100, 632-650] may explain the genetic variability among Jewish communities better than that of the branching tree rooted in the ancestors who lived as a compact community in the land of Israel two millennia ago.

If this trellis model holds, it may be claimed that much of the genetic relations between Jewish communities are essentially secondary consequences of their common cultural connections: Having common religion and tradition caused the maintenance of a constant trickle of gene-exchange between communities; this explains the shared genetic composition of Jewish communities, some of these introduced alleles may have spread to reasonable frequencies.

Such a trellis model of the distribution of gene frequencies among Jewish communities does not exclude that at least some of the common alleles stem from the populations that inhabited the Near East in ancient times [Falk, R. (2006). Zionism and the Biology of the Jews (in Hebrew). Tel-Aviv: Resling].

---end---

Reallyskeptic (talk) 17:01, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree that this is highly problmatic material. The bottom line is: at bst it can tell a groupof people tha they have one commonancesto; it doesn't disucs the hundreds pr thousandts of relatives one dos not share with all the other, Slrubenstein  |  Talk 20:52, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

FYI
People who watch this page may wish to weigh in here Slrubenstein  |  Talk 15:54, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Infobox and picturebox order
Is it ok to have the infobox AFTER the picturebox instead of before? It seems that boxes more relevant to the specific article in hand would be on top. I think it's that way in other articles, like in Judaism where an image is placed above an infobox. I don't know why the article on Judaism doesn't have the same infobox here. Is there some kind of rule I don't know? - Cyborg Ninja 05:33, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Jewish Y Chromosome
Hi, I was reading this article and in the section on Genetic Studies most there is talk of Jewish people relating to a common ancestor. Two of the articles sourced confirm this, another one requires a password to access.

Anyway, one of the interesting quotes from the NYtimes article stated as follows, "Another finding, paradoxical but unsurprising, is that by the yardstick of the Y chromosome, the world's Jewish communities closely resemble not only each other but also Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese, suggesting that all are descended from a common ancestral population that inhabited the Middle East some four thousand years ago."

Most of the statements in the wikipedia article leave this out, and focus on the statements about the variations of the Y chromosomes are similar to an ancient Jewish ancestor with little variation, but the quote above is clearly relevant and completely ignored. Why quote part of an article and ignore the rest, even when it is self admittedly contradictory.

Anyway I wanted some feedback, and I plan on editing in a sentence summarizing the passage I quoted.

--SunshineOdyssey (talk) 03:04, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Use of Controversial Term "Moslem" - Request Change to Semi-protected Doc
I noticed that this article uses the term "Moslem" instead of "Muslim". I'm a bit new to wiki editing, so I don't have permission to fix this, could someone apply the change (or grant me privileges)?

As supported and sourced in the Muslim article, some find the term "Moslem" to be offensive. Additionally, major news outlets have ceased to use the term "Moslem" in favor of the standard English spelling "Muslim".

Lamber111 (talk) 12:34, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Why would Moslem be offensive ? This is almost exactly the same word as Muslim. Because some politically correct report from the crazy UK government says it ? No reason is given or explanation. "Some people" may be offended. If we go this way, this is the end of free speech - exactly what is already happening in UK. Benjil (talk) 12:59, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * American Heritage 4th edition simply identifies one as a varient of the other. If a Moslem actually comes to this page and says that she and her coreligionists would prefer Muslim, I wouldn't argue over making the change.  But so far, no one acually has said "I am offended."  By the way, unless a page is protected for some reason, you have permission to make any change you want as long as it is consistent with NOV, V, and NOR - but it is a good idea to check on the talk page with people who may have put a considerable amount of work into the article. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 15:38, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Using "Moslem" makes this sound like some kind of historical article from the 1800's, back when Europe was obsesssed with the Orient. Why don't we start using the word "colored?" - Cyborg Ninja 16:41, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I count 10 instances of "Muslim" in the article and one instance of "Moslem" in the article. I am not trying to make a point. I'm just trying to report the facts. Bus stop (talk) 18:19, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * My previous comment was meant to be facetious, and not particularly a reply to anyone. That's why I didn't indent it. If the majority of the article uses Muslim, we may as well change the few instances that use "Moslem," unless it's a quotation. I see no problem with changing it. - Cyborg Ninja 22:01, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Someone change it then - the article should be internally consistent. Is "Moslem" ina quote? That is the one exception, we cannot alter quoted material. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 08:40, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not in a quote, it appears in the second paragraph of the paternal lineage section. I'd make the change, but my account needs 10 posts before I'm allowed...Lamber111 (talk) 14:39, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * There's also an extra set of double quotes higher up in the same paragraph, around the prior citation. Lamber111 (talk) 14:40, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, I think I fixed it and I also deleted a couple of unsourced NOR violations. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 17:19, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you Slrubenstein Lamber111 (talk) 19:56, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

spell-check
"Additional testing using full mtDNA genome sequencing has revieled additional relationships between samples and clearified structure between populations." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.233.83.136 (talk) 04:26, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you. — Malik Shabazz 04:41, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

offensiveness and inoffensiveness of word "jew"
Apparently "Jew" used to be an offensive word, "Jewish person" being preferred. Interestingly, "Jew" has reemerged as an inoffensive label. Recall the Jew Google bomb. This should be mentioned briefly, no?--Loodog (talk) 22:44, 26 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't see the value of mentioning it. The word "Jew" was never offensive, it just tended to be the the way anti-semitic literature referred to Jews; whereas, non discriminatory literature tended to refer to Jews as "Jewish".  The word itself was never an issue, the issue was around the tendency of the word to be favored by people with offensive ideas, specifically gross misrepresentation of facts (like stating that the Holocaust never happened).  Lamber111 (talk) 15:41, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

spell-check
"Additional testing using full mtDNA genome sequencing has revieled additional relationships between samples and clearified structure between populations." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.233.83.136 (talk) 04:26, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you. — Malik Shabazz 04:41, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Since when do Jews eat pork?
Those commandments for which Jews had sacrificed their lives, such as defying idolatry, eating pork, observing circumcision, were the ones most strictly adhered to.

That came from bullet point 5 of the Persian, Greek & Roman rule sub-section. Somebody care to edit it before Wikipedia gets accused of libeling an entire religion?

--86.147.1.97 (talk) 19:56, 2 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for pointing out the error. It's been fixed. — Malik Shabazz 20:23, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

The Khazars
Frequently references to Khazars are framed so as to imply that the entire Khazar population was comprised of converts. This is historically inaccurate. Hebrew, Arabic, and other sources maintain that large numbers of Persian, Babylonian, Byzantine, Crimean, and Armenian Jews moved into Khazaria and were the impetus for the conversion of the ruling classes to Judaism. Thus the Khazars should be regarded as a fusion of Middle Eastern Jewry and converted Turkic peoples.

On the contribution of the Khazars to Ashkenazic Jewry, DNA evidence suggests that this did not occur to a significant degree as Haplogroups E, T, J, are not found in large amounts within the lands that comprised Khazaria. Though the proximity of the Caucasus to the Middle East makes it more difficult to draw significant conclusions about certain haplogroups.

Finally, there is no discernible trace of Turkic vocabulary, grammer, syntax, or any other linguistic clue, in Yiddish. Yiddish itself is based upon a fusion of Medieval High German, Hebrew, Aramaic, and Slavic dialects. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.1.207.30 (talk • contribs) 12:57, 3 February 2009

The language factor is crucial. Yiddish is Medieval high German/Hebrew Hybrid language. I would assume that the Khazars spoke some form of local Turkic language. Which would have been both without Semitic or Indo-European elements. Switching from that to Yiddish without leaving a trace would be akin to Irish people suddenly speaking Japaneses in a sense. (Nazrael (talk) 03:05, 8 September 2009 (UTC))

Population and Related Ethnic Groups
The Number of Jews it says there are seems to be based on outdated and low estimate numbers. The number of jews would probably be more in the range of 14-15 million ethnic and religious Jews. I Mean the number of jews it says from each of he countries are very different then what there articles say. For example the American Jew article says there are 6.4 Million jews in the United States and that comes from the US Census. The Number of Jews In Israel Is around 5.9 Million now. Other countries Like France for example which according to the French jews Article says there is about 600,000 jews there while this article says only 400,000. The Numbers seem to be very contradictory, also in the jewish population article there are tables that show the total number of jews in the 14-15 million range as I said, those tables should be used in this article. Also in the Infobox wouldnt it be useful to be a related Ethnic groups such as Arab or other semetic peoples as the Jews and Arabs are very closely related. Also excuse my bad english.

--Gwax23 (talk) 18:30, 3 September 2009 (UTC)


 * It is a question of definition. The US Census counts Jews according to its own criteria that are not how the Jewish people defines itself. Regarding Israel, there are 5.6 million Jews in Israel, not 5.9 and indeed less than 500,000 in France according to the only study on the subject (the 600,000 number is more or less based on nothing) and emigration trends in the following years. So there are some 13-13.5 million Jews and an unknown number (up to 7 millions according to some) of "related" people to the Jews. Benjil (talk) 18:37, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Well how do the jewish people identify themselves? I mean this is where you get into the question Who Is A Jew. If you go by the very extreme orthodox only those born to a Jewish Mother are Jewish or if both parents are Jewish. But reform liberal and re constructionist jews believe if either parent was jewish the child is a jew. Karaite jews believe that the father must be jewish in order for the child to be. The law of return grants immediate citizenship to anyone with a jewish father or even grand fathers and grand mothers whether it be on the maternal or paternal side. So its safe to say the state of israel would count those born to a jewish father as a jew. They go by who is a jew by the Nuremberg Laws Definition. So its hard to say who we consider Jewish. Going by the very orthodox standard is not fair to many people who are proud jews but simply not by Halakhic standards. Also im sure when where we got the 13 million figure the number does not represent many people who didnt want to come out with there identity for many reasons maybe because of anti antisemitism in certain areas. On top of that for the American jews im sure most of the people saying they are jewish in the US census are really Jewish in some way or another. I mean 6.4 to 5.4 its a million person difference. And the 5.9 number for israel is including the 300,000 russian jews not considered jewish by the orthodox but have jewish ancestry and have made attempts to convert and have been living in israel for some time speak hebrew etc. The Israeli Jew article counts them as jewish too as well as Demographics of Israel article. Also looking at many countries "history of jews" page they usually dont have just one number for the number of jews usually a range between the lowest estimate to the highest one why dont we just out that here too. For example for Brazil jews the number goes from 95,000 to like 230,000 jews. I remember this article used to have something similar with 13-14 Million. Also there have be many discrepancies over different countries populations and total number of jews in the world between The World Jewish Congress and The American Jewish Yearbook http://www.bechollashon.org/population/today.php. Also in the jewish Population article there ae a few tables which show the jewish population also much higher in my range of 14-15 Million.So in any case I still think its safe to assume the number of jews is much higher most likely 14-15 Million person range instead of 13 million. --Gwax23 (talk) 14:59, 5 September 2009 (UTC)


 * It's not the "very extreme orthodox" who consider that only those born of a Jewish mother (or converted) or Jews, it's most Jews in Israel and the State of Israel itself and a great part of Jews in diaspora. The Law of Return grants citizenship to people with just one Jewish grand father but do not recognize them as Jews as the Law "Who is a Jew" states precisely. The discrepancies in numbers come from the fact we do not always know how much Jews they are in a country because there are no stats for example. Benjil (talk) 17:06, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Is there any proof to that? Like i said the Reform Liberal and Re constructionist Jews and many others across the diaspora and in israel itself recognize people born to a jewish father and a non jewish mother as a jew. The state of israel does not say nor does it say it in the law of return that to be a jew you must be born to a jewish mother. They use the Nuremberg laws to decide who is and who is not a jew. They also recognize jews of any affiliation including Reform Liberal Re constructionist Humanist karaite etc who recognize that a person born to a jewish father can be jewish. the same goes with Birthright israel my friends where born to jewish fathers not mothers had jewish last names and practiced judaism like other jews with jewish mothers and they are considered jews and allowed the free trip to israel. Also the majority of the state of israel is secular and im sure they do not believe strictly to Halakhic standards of who is and who is not a jew. I understand the discrepencies in numbers due to many factors like not having proper statistics information and people who are jewish not calling them self jewish for certain reasons and of course defining who is a jew. All im saying is because of this we should assume there are more Jews in the world then 13 Million. The numbers are on the low end and a few years outdated I believe from 2000. Also correct me if Im wrong isnt the population of jews in Israel now according to the recent CBS report 5.6 Million 76% thats what it says In Demographics and the number of jews In Israel are the most reliable we have if not 99% reliable thus the list should be changed to reflect this. --Gwax23 (talk) 18:59, 5 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Once again you confuse in the Law of Return the right to make Aliyah and the definition of who is a Jew. If you are not Jew according to Halakha you can't get married in Israel. Non-orthodox conversions done in Israel are not recognized by the Ministry of Interior and the State Rabbinate. Israel considers only as Jews people whose mother is Jewish or converted. I have no idea how the participants to Birthright are chosen but this has nothing to do with the Laws of the State of Israel. By the way, as the article Religion in Israel points out, the majority of Israeli Jews are not seculars but religious or traditional and even many seculars adheres to the traditional definition. And as you yourself points out, the ICBS counts 5.6 millions Jews in Israel, not 5.9 as you said earlier.Benjil (talk) 19:51, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

The 5.9 was including the Russian Jews who are not considered jews under Halakha. I got that from the Israeli jew Article. In any case it is 5.6 we can both agree to that thus the numbers in this article are wrong. You are right though about the marriage and all that Im letting my opinions get the best of me. Anyhow since we can both agree the number of jews is 5.6 in Israel and thats quite accurate since its coming from the CBS the article should be revised and the total number of jews increased. As for the other countries such as the USA i will look for report done maybe by the Jewish American Congress Or The jewish Agency to see if there are some new revised numbers.--Gwax23 (talk) 21:03, 5 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Counting the Jewish population is difficult because of the contentious issue of who is considered Jewish. The information in the article is from only two sources (see footnotes 1 and 2), which should mean there is some basis for comparison between one country and another.
 * In other words, if the JPPPI survey says there are 5.393 million Jews in Israel and 5.275 million in the US, I assume they used the same definition of who is a Jew for both counts.
 * I strongly oppose any effort to start replacing each country's Jewish population with its own census or some other source. — Malik Shabazz 21:25, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

The CBS numbers are very accurate if not the most accurate of any nation regarding its jewish population. As far as other nations and there censuses I will agree with you, but the CBS has placed the number at 5.6 Million so this article needs updating no sense in having numbers from a few years ago when we have credible sources to show the numbers are higher. --Gwax23 (talk) 23:58, 5 September 2009 (UTC)


 * There is no discrepancy between the 5.4 and the 5.6 millions figure - it is just not the same year. The Jewish population of Israel increases by 80-90,000 people a year. In the US, we can't know exactly the number of Jews, only estimations. Everybody agrees that the 5.2 millions is to low and most agrees that the 6.4 millions (from a study that counted many people twice) was too high so the real number is in the 5.5-6 millions range. At the end there are around 13-14 millions Jews in the world and another unknown number (some says 7 millions, mostly in the US) with Jewish origins - when most of them don't know or don't care about it. Benjil (talk) 07:01, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

History of the word Yehudi
I found an interesting blip in the history section of this article. While it claims that the Merneptah Stele is one of the earliest references to Jews in Israel, this Stele includes a reference to a People of Ysrir in Hieroglyphs (Israel).

I have long been interested, but never have been able to find reliable information, on the origin of the actual word for Jew; as compared with, for instance, People of Israel, People of Judah etc. I was wondering if anyone has any interest in exploring this further, as it seems somewhat erroneous to equate either tribes or Semitic peoples with Jews. Tribal identity is not exactly the same thing, and there is abundant evidence that numerous biblical characters worhsipped other gods and held different customs.

I hope this doesn't come across as offensive, my interest is only in tracing the usage of the term as a religious aggregation, rather than the aggregations of communities, tribes, states, and peoples that are commonly associated with Jews but in fact are not necessarily references to Jews themseleves (without additional corroborrating evidence). Thank you in advance for your understanding. Msheflin (talk) 16:48, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Also as a minor comment/question... Why is Iran not listed in the Table of Significant Jewish Populations? It has a community of at least several dozen thousand, perhaps to 50,000 Jews. It seems odd that this does not appear to be present. Msheflin (talk) 16:50, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persian_Jews#Islamic_republic_.28after_1979.29 Sincerely. Msheflin (talk) 16:52, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not quite sure what your asking here. You seem to want to separate the religion from the tribal peoples, but I'm not sure that's really possible. The descendants of Judah and Israel practiced the Jewish religion, so the word used for the people was also used for the religion. I don't recall any of the biblical Israelites worshiping a different god. Perhaps you can be a little bit more specific? Tad Lincoln (talk) 17:15, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I figured this point would come out quickly, and it is well taken. Biblical Israelites did worship other gods in the Bible.  There is a passage I believe in Jeremiah describing him chastising Israelites in Upper Egypt for worshiping Anat and/or Ishtar and/or Ashtarte.  Some Judean kings also had other gods.  But my interest is not in debunking Judaism, but solely in seeking proof of the use of the word distinctly.  If other words are used in conjunction with strong evidence of religious rituals (i.e. if Judah and Israel are inscribed next to clearly Jewish (an interpolation from monotheistic prayers and words for God) rituals), then that would signify that these terms may have referred to communities of believers, rather than simply tribes or peoples.  Do you see what I mean?  Either way, I'm more interested in the history of the usage of the word (not the word itself) than anything else.  Msheflin (talk) 18:21, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I believe that the two have always been considered as one, to the point that the Hebrew for "Judah" is the same as the Hebrew for "Jew". It was assumed that Jews and the people of Judah were one and the same. And, since every language has a different word for Jew, many of which are, I believe, the same as their version of the name Judah, I don't think it's possible to pinpoint exactly when the word began to be used in terms of religion. I do know, however, that the idea of the "Jewish religion" became more pronounced with the beginning of the Jewish Diaspora, after the destruction of the Temple of Solomon, and the beginning of Rabbinic Judaism. Tad Lincoln (talk) 19:04, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Right, but the issue is that they empirically appear to differ. The Merneptah Stele refers to Israelites but neither Jews nor Judeans.  You may be right about the time period for the rise of the usage of the word Jew, i.e. with the diaspora and the destruction of the Temple.  However, what I am looking for is evidence that the actual usage of a term for the religion or the religion's people existed prior to that period.  Maybe it did not?  I don't know.  The people of Judah, also, were one tribe of Israelites - and thus at least most were at some point Jews, yes.  But they're only one in the same in that Judah was a tribe of Israel; they are not one in the same in that Judah referred to all Jews, or Jews referred to Judeans solely.  I am looking for empirical evidence and academic scholarship.  Thank you for your thoughts.  Msheflin (talk) 19:14, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Have you seen the article on Jew (word)? Abductive  (reasoning) 19:17, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

AH! Once again bested by abductive reasoning. So:

"In the Book of Esther we find the earliest reference of the word "Jew" being used. The name appears in the Bible in a verb form, in Esther 8:17 [2] which states, Many of the people of the land "mityahadim - became Yehudim/Judeans/Jews" because the fear of the Yehudim fell on them. Also in Esther we find that the name "Jew" is given to a man from the tribe of Benjamin, in Esther 2:5-6, [3] There was a man a Yehudi (Judean/Jewish man) in Shushan the capital, whose name was Mordecai the son of Jair the son of Shimei the son of Kish, a Benjamite; who had been exiled from Jerusalem with the exile that was exiled with Jeconiah, king of Judah, which Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, had exiled."

Shouldn't this have some relevance to this article, and does it not imply that Jewish and Hebrew/Israelite history are interlinked but not inextricable? Msheflin (talk) 19:30, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Umm... where do you see that implication in the text? Tad Lincoln (talk) 19:33, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

What implication? Look at the discussion page for the other article, towards the bottom. The implication that Jew does not refer to all tribes of Israel? And vice versa? The implication is, ironically, in the Bible, although it is not the best academic source. Here are two quotes from the Book of Jeremiah:

"Seest thou not what they do in the cities of Judah and in the streets of Jerusalem? The children gather wood, and the fathers kindle the fire, and the women knead their dough, to make cakes to the queen of heaven (Asherah?), and to pour out drink offerings unto other gods, that they may provoke me to anger."—Jeremiah 7:17–18

"... to burn incense unto the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto her, as we have done, we, and our fathers, our kings, and our princes, in the cities of Judah, and in the streets of Jerusalem ..."—Jeremiah 44:17

So that's pretty blatant, it suggests that Judeans worshiped Asherah, or possibly another Mesopotamian god, but were still Judean. So, are they Jews who aren't monotheists, or is my point about flexibility slightly more evidenced? Msheflin (talk) 19:38, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * When you find a reliable source that distinguishes between the Jewish people and the people of Israel identified on the Merneptah Stele, feel free to add it to the article. Until then, it's synthesis, a form of original research, and it's not allowed. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz 03:54, 26 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Also, the number of Jews in Iran is based on the same reliable source as many of the other Jewish populations in the infobox. Please see a preceding section for a discussion of why I think using as few sources as possible is preferable when dealing with Jewish population. — Malik Shabazz 03:54, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Ethnic Group project tag help
I tried to add the Ethnic Group project tag to Talk:History of the Jews in the United States but was told I needed a reliable source, even though the Jew article is listed as part of the project. What was the source used to justify including this page as part of the project? I'd like to use it for the other page. Thanks. Aristophanes68 (talk) 04:30, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Farrakhan, expert on Jews
I find this troubling and hope others will comment: Slrubenstein   |  Talk 22:19, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Missing Steriotypes
i think some steriotypes should be listed--Caputo32 (talk) 02:51, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * See Stereotypes of Jews. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 04:14, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Population statistics
The article uses two sources for all its population statistics, and those sources both derive from the American Jewish Year Book. In that manner, (a) the population estimates in the infobox match those in the article and (b) the population estimates for country X are comparable to those for countries Y and Z.

There are complicated issues involved in determining who is Jewish, and I assume that the American Jewish Year Book has settled on a single definition for its international surveys. When somebody tries to replace the Fooian Jewish population with the number from the Fooian national census, we have no idea how that census counted Jews. Is it comparable to the American Jewish Year Book figures? Are the number of Fooian Jews now inflated relative to other Jewish communities around the world because the Fooian census counts as a Jew anybody with Jewish ancestry whereas the American Jewish Year Book might count only those with some synagogue affiliation? (just a guess)

To avoid such questions, I think it is best to continue to use only the two sources that are based on the American Jewish Year Book. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz 18:46, 3 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Please see the following wikipedia article for updated statistics (2009):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_population#Total_population


 * Someone please update this immediately as the statistics currently appearing on the wiki are egregiously incorrect. Cheers! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.12.88.6 (talk) 03:24, 27 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes I agree we have plenty of new updated reliable figures for the Jewish population. We should use them instead of these older underestimated numbers. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_population#Total_population
 * --Gwax23 (talk) 03:13, 28 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The figures given in Jewish population come from the same source—the Jewish People Policy Planning Institute—as most of the population numbers in this article, and are as of 2007. This article shows 13.155 million; that article shows 13.2 million. In other words, they're the same number.
 * The national population figures in Jewish population are as of 2002, unsourced, and disputed. The national population figures in this article are as of 2007, cited to a reliable source, and consistent with the global Jewish population of 13.155 million.
 * Can you explain why you think the numbers in Jewish population are superior to the numbers in this article? — Malik Shabazz 03:34, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

All im saying is we should use the 6.4 - 6.5 million figure for the number of Jews in the United States. Which the US census, Jewish Virtual Library and many others agree with. Its also used in Wikipedia's American Jew Article. Also the figure for Israel is outdated we have new reliable sources for the jewish population in Israel which stands at 5.6 Million coming from the Central Bureau Of Statistics the most reliable source of Jewish population figures out there and that number is not including the 300,000 jews not considered jews by the Rabbinate. If it did the number would stand at 5.9 Million like the Israeli jew article states. I understand alot of numbers on the Jewish population page is disputed and not sourced but for the American jews and Israeli jews we have new reliable numbers we should use. Also can somebody tell me why there are all these diffrent article on Wikipedia relating to various Jewish communities around the world who cite the number as much Higher then it is listed here its very confusing. --Gwax23 (talk) 00:35, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * A better thing to do would be to give the range of numbers, so long as they are all based on reliable sources. Jayjg (talk) 00:29, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree anything is better then using these outdated numbers. We used to have it say something like 13-14 Million which would make more sense. Is anyone willing to fix this? --Gwax23 (talk) 21:55, 2 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Do you have a reliable source? — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 22:02, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah I said that Before. Israel's CBS (Central Bureau Of Statistics) said there are 5.6 Million Jews in israel as Of 2008. Its on other articles such as Israel Demographics. The US Census and the Jewish Virtual Library puts the number of jews in the United States at 6.4 Million. Is that reliable enough? CBS's numbers are the most accurate out there in regards to the Jewish Population. --Gwax23 (talk) 01:34, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * You wrote earlier that all the national statistics are wrong and "outdated". Did you mean only the United States and Israel, or do you have sources for other countries as well? — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 01:40, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I was referring only to he United States and Israel. --Gwax23 (talk) 22:45, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


 * No problem. I'll revise those countries, as Jay suggested, to show ranges. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 04:26, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay great. You should also put a range for the total. --Gwax23 (talk) 21:30, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Jewish languages in lede
I see the Yiddish for "Jew" has been added to the lede, alongside the Hebrew. While I don't object, it should be remembered that there are hundreds of Jewish languages, and it might be worth adding Judaeo-Spanish (Ladino) alongside Yiddish, as that's spoken by large numbers of Sephardi Jews. 84.92.117.93 (talk) 18:30, 11 November 2009 (UTC)


 * If anyone wants to add it, the Ladino word for "Jew" is "Djudio". 84.92.117.93 (talk) 18:30, 11 November 2009 (UTC)


 * You raise a good point. The Ladino name is mentioned in the "Name and etymology" section (as is the Yiddish name). I'm not sure whether Yiddish needs to be given such prominence. I'll take it out and see if anybody objects. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 20:07, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Genetic Studies
There is a misunderstanding about the reference Richards 2003. It does not say that 25% of the Yemen Y-DNA is sub-saharian but that the yemenite jewish mtDNA coming from Sub-Saharian lineage is 4 time less than other Yenemite population ! I removed this part. --Boutboul (talk) 22:02, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You removed a whole paragraph, which referenced many different sources, not just Richards 2003. Which sentence do you think is wrong, and what do you think it should say? Jayjg (talk) 22:19, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The sentence "For example, Teimanim differ from other Mizrahim, as well as from Ashkenazim, in the proportion of sub-Saharan African gene types which have entered their gene pools. Among Yemenites, the average stands at 35% lineages within the past 3,000 years. Yemenite Jews, as a traditionally Arabic-speaking community of local Yemenite and Israelite ancestries, are included within the findings, though they average a quarter of the frequency of the non-Jewish Yemenite sample. "  should be removed because the paper (Richards 2003) does not talk about Yemenite Jews Y-DNA but about Yemenite Jews mtDNA. May I remind that this paragraph talk about Y-DNA (male lineage). The sentence may be added in the next paragraph that talk about mtDNA (female lineage). Other papers about Yemenite jews suggest that the Yemenite Jewish male lineage is similar to other Jewish populations.--Boutboul (talk) 18:19, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

About Ashkenazim mtDNA. It is written ''In addition, Behar 2006 suggested that the rest of Ashkenazi mtDNA is originated from about 150 women, most of those were probably of Middle Eastern origin. . In Behar 2006 the control (hypervariable) region of Ashkenazi mitochondrial DNA, mtDNA, from a previous study was expanded. The samples fell into thirty-seven major haplogroups. The authors showed Ashkenazi Jewish communities belong to the same haplogroups as their host (non-Jewish) European communities, with only small deviations in frequency.'' I think that both sentence are not consistent because the article talk about the four founder and not about the rest of the ashkenazim female lineage. Is it possible to remove them ?--Boutboul (talk) 20:49, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I've cleaned up and expanded the mtDNA section, per your suggestions. Jayjg (talk) 03:00, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Ethnic disease
Hello, where would material about disease factors affecting Jewish ethnicity in particular (or a link to such material) go ?

For example, mention/linking of Tay-Sachs disease (which is much more prevalent among some Jewish ethnicities - see Tay-Sachs disease)

Currently the section about ethnicity issues is called 'ethnic divisions', which is too specific for this. Can that be renamed to 'ethnicity issues' (or other suitable term), so that Jewish ethnicity-related illness/statistics can be placed as a subsection/mentioned? Newman Luke (talk) 18:14, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm still interested in an answer, but after looking into this a bit further, there are non-genetic diseases and illnesses that have a statistically significant difference in prevalence between Jews and non-Jews. Some of these are thought to be caused by behavioural factors (eg. Jewish diets).

Is there an appropriate place to put this? Perhaps a new section?

(for an idea of what I mean, see "Morbidity" at the Jewish Encyclopedia) Newman Luke (talk) 20:18, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Indian Jews
ndian Jews are a religious minority of India. Judaism was one of the first non-Dharmic religions to arrive in India in recorded history. The better-established ancient communities have assimilated a large number of local traditions  through cultural diffusion. The Jewish population in India is hard to estimate since each Jewish community is distinct with different origins;  some arrived during the time of the Kingdom of Judah, others are seen  by some as descendants of Israel's Ten Lost Tribes. Of the total Jewish population in India, about half live in Manipur and Mizoram and a  quarter live in the city of Mumbai. Unlike many parts of the world, Jews have historically lived in India without anti-Semitism from Hindus (though they were victims of anti-Semitism by the  Portuguese[1] and their Inquisition during their colonial rule in Goa). The Jews settled in Kodungallur (Cranganore) on the Malabar Coast, where they traded peacefully, until 1524 when their quarter was razed by  invading Muslims. Jews have held important positions under Indian (Hindu) princes in the past and even after independence from British  Rule, have risen to very high positions in government, military and  industry.

In addition to Jewish expatriates and recent immigrants, there are five native Jewish communities in India:

The Cochin Jews arrived in India 2,500 years ago and settled down in  Cochin, Kerala as traders. The Bene Israel arrived in the state of Maharashtra 2,100 years ago. The Baghdadi Jews arrived in the city Mumbai from Iraq, Iran, and Afghanistan, and Arab countries about 250  years ago. The Bnei Menashe are Mizo and Kuki tribesmen in Manipur and Mizoram who claim descent from the tribe of Menasseh. The Bene Ephraim (also called "Telugu Jews") are a small group who speak Telugu;  their observance of Judaism dates to 1981. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.69.195.30 (talk) 12:49, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

ethnicity versus population
Rightnow this article has a lot of important contents, but it is not well-organized. The problem in organization has to do with the way ethnicity and population are mixed up. Population is a term used by demographers and genetecists. ethnic groups are social groups that are idetified by social boundaries. Wikipedia has articles on ethnic groups, demography and population genetics; this article uses these terms in ways that are just wrong, based on those articles. This is a simple problem to fix, it just requires some reorganizng, no change to content at all. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 13:45, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Jewish culture and Judaism
I did make one change, it was to a header so I hope this is alright but it might call for some discussion. The (very) short section on "Jewish culture" has as its "main" article Judaism. The section then explains that Judaism is not just religion but what some people call a "way of life." Well, if this article identifies "Jewish culture" as "Judaism" then we should change the disambiguation tag at the top of the article and say "See Judaism for Jewish culture."

What I have done for now is I changed the title "Jewish culture" to "Judaism." But since we say Judaism is not just a religion but a way of life, I still think we should change the disambiguation tag to reflect what we actually say, e.g. "For information on the jewish way of life, see Judaism." That would be fine with me, but we could be more specific and say "For information on the Jewish way of life, including religion, law, culture, and philosophy, see Judaism" or something like that. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 15:02, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

This article is too long
Or so it says when I edit it - 123 kb. I have a simple sollution: Wikipedia already has an article on Jewish history. I propose removing all stuff on Jewish history and marging it with the main article. This article could then focus on Jewish demographics and ethnic groups. Look, all this stuff is intertwined I know, but this article is too long and Jewish history is as much a history of Judaism as it is a history of Jews, I think it deserves not only to be its own article, but one on equal standing (I mean, considered to be as substantive) as this article and the one on Judaism. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 14:04, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I just tried reorganizing the section on Jewish history. Frankly, it read like two and a half different versions of Jewish history in tandem. I did not cut a word But I defy anyone to read it and make sense of it. It really is as if people just randomly cut and pasted things together with no attempt to edit.

I beg someone to edit this into a coherent history, it would require a LOT of cutting. Frankly, given that this article is too long and we already have a separate article on jewish history, I propose simply deleting the entire section. It is not very illuminating and does not rely on many major recent scholarship. If no one can fix this into a coherent narrative I will just cut it but let's see if anyone has a better idea. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 15:01, 21 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Seeing that you have taken the initiative to carry out radical surgery, please finish the job. Shouldn't there be a prominent reference to the article(s) that (supposedly) cover the same material?  Also, there are now missing citations (redlined in Notes section) that need to be restored. Hertz1888 (talk) 12:43, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The latter problem has been taken care of by a bot. Hertz1888 (talk) 12:53, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Hatnote
Are there any sources to back up the statement that Judaism encompasses "the Jewish way of life" to this degree? The article Judaism itself has a hatnote saying "This article is about the Jewish religion", and I feel that assertion is more accurate than what we have here. All religions encompass to some degree "law, culture, and philosophy": see the articles Islamic culture, Sharia, Islamic philosophy, Biblical law in Christianity, Christian values, Christian philosophy and much more. 84.92.117.93 (talk) 22:55, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Census
When dealing with census, stats, polls, and the like, are Jews classified as White people? I was wondering because I do not know what ethnic group they tend to identify as. 75.4.247.171 (talk) 06:19, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Assuming we mean U.S. (and sticking for the moment to the census), each person self-identifies. There are some Jews who are clearly not white (e.g. Ethiopian Jews), but I think most of us end up checking that particular box based on phenotype. I personally check it reluctantly. I don't particularly identify as a "white person", but it is more accurate than any other ethnic/racial identity they offer me. - Jmabel | Talk 06:35, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I find this: "Public Law 94-521 prohibits us from asking a question on religious affiliation on a mandatory basis; therefore, the Bureau of the Census is not the source for information on religion." Bus stop (talk) 12:42, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Despite the POV lie that some folks push that Jews are an ethnic group, there are literally 100s of ethnic groups that Jews may belong to. Personally, I am of mixed European ancestry. My religion is Jewish. My ethnic group is Brooklyn. :-) Sposer (talk) 13:32, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Page moved. Jmabel notes that there is little consistency among page titles of ethnicity articles. Thus, the argument of this requested move boils down to whether the plural or singular is preferable in this particular case. The consensus here seems to be that that is the plural: to match the article's lead sentence (Prezbo), for consistency with other articles (Yoninah; 84...), or as a matter of preference (Nick Graves). Bus stop and Debresser have the most substantive arguments against, but they are not significantly more persuasive or policy-based than those on the opposing side. The consensus appears to be in favor of the move. Ucucha 03:57, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Jew → Jews — On the basis that Jews are not merely adherents of a religion, but make up an ethnoreligious group. For members of a religion with no ethnic element, Wikipedia tends to use the singular (e.g. Christian, Muslim, Hindu), while for national groups the plural seems to be used (e.g. Germans, Russians, Celts). While obviously the Jewish people transcend to some extent this division, I feel as a national group the latter is more appropriate. —84.92.117.93 (talk) 18:57, 17 January 2010 (UTC) Update To better articulate the reasons for moving, I would like to add the folowing three points:

1. That the Jewish people are a people, and not merely a religous community. There is a secular Jewish culture, there are Jews that profess atheism, there are those are predujiced to Jews because of their race, not their religion. The Jews as a people are distinct from, if strongly connected to, the Jewish religion. To my knowledge, this is not true of any other religion or people: I would struggle to identify anything that could be classified as "secular Christian culture", and I know most Muslims (from experience) consider the concept of an "atheist Muslim" to be a contradiction in terms.

2. That this article is about the people. There are very good articles on Who is a Jew? and the notion of a Jewish identity, but this article clearly covers the Jewish people and their collective history, culture and so on. It had sections talking about the diaspora, about the establishment of the State of Israel, about persecution of the Jews through their history. If you have a look at the much shorter Christian and Muslim articles you will find they are very different – the Christian articles uses the singular "Christian" in the lead, and is limited to talking about the eptymology of the word, who can be considered a Christian, and what "Christian behavior" is; the Muslim article is very similar, again using the singular in the lead, again covering eptymology, who is a Muslim, and the distinction between Muslim and mu'min.

3. That other articles on Wikipedia use the plural Jews. See American Jews, British Jews, Ashkenazi Jews, Sephardi Jews, Mizrahi Jews, Iraqi Jews and many more similar articles. Why should this page be any different?

These points, especially the first two, form the backbone of my arguments and are the main reason I am requesting this move. 84.92.117.93 (talk) 19:14, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It seems very odd and inappropriate that such a serious move to upturn a fairly big apple cart (this article has not changed since its inception more than SEVEN years ago with multipl editors never objecting) can be initiated by an anonymous user who refuses to do the basic thing of getting an identifiable User ID. This is not right. IZAK (talk) 11:19, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * What's the big deal about making this move? Pluralisation of an article title should hardly be controversial, even if it is a major article like this one. Please remember that consensus can change, that there have been many other (unsuccesful) move requests in the mean time, and that anonymous users as are perfectly entitled to request a page move as long term registerd users. While I have provided a detailed rationale of why I feel this move should take place, which has gained significant support from other users, I don't know what your reason for opposing this move actually is. 84.92.117.93 (talk) 11:41, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment Please review the archives. This issue has been discussed many times before. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 19:34, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I realise that, but I thought it was time for a fresh evaluation. Though it's been discussed since, the last actual request I can find was back in June 2007, when the nominator was suggesting that "Jew" was offensive. I don't think there is anything wrong with "Jew" as a term, I don't find it derogative, but I do think it isn't the right title for this article. This article isn't (mainly) about who is a Jew, Jewish identity, and what being a Jew entails; its about the Jews as a people, and their collective history, culture, society and so on. 84.92.117.93 (talk) 21:48, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * With respect to the move request, I don't have a preference one way or the other. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 00:26, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I find it completely irrelevant whether this article is named "Jew" or "Jews." Bus stop (talk) 22:37, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, I know it doesn't make a massive difference either way, but I do think there is a strong case for moving. 84.92.117.93 (talk) 19:02, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 84.92.117.93 — Can you refer me to a good quality, online source, that supports your assertion that Jews are an ethnoreligious group? I would be interested to see how closely your assertion would adhere to your source. Thank you. Bus stop (talk) 02:27, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * This study, The Transformation of Community Integration among American Jewry: Religion or Ethnoreligion? A National Replication, by J. Alan Winter (1992) talks about American Jews as forming an ethnic rather than religous community. "The study supports Winter's (1991) contention that the basis of community integration among Jews in the United States is "ethnoreligious" rather than Levine's (1986:329) earlier suggestion that "Judaism as a religion is... separate from Jewish ethnic communities." 84.92.117.93 (talk) 15:35, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd like to add to the above, rather than discussing whether or not there is a Jewish ethnicity (to be honest, I'm not sure about the science of that), my point is that the Jews are a people in the way many many other religous adherants are not, due to socio-historical events. The whole race thing is a bit controversial, and I don't particuarly want to discuss that here. 84.92.117.93 (talk) 23:15, 19 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment: I had not before noticed the (de facto?) standard of entitling articles about members of a religious group in the singular, and articles about members of an ethnic/national group in the plural. As this article is about an ethnoreligious group, it is not clear which form "should" be used for the title according to the standard anon identifies above. I'd lean in favor of the title "Jews," just as a personal preference, but I am unable to articulate exactly why this sounds better to me, nor justify it as any more encyclopedic than the alternative. Whatever advantage there might be to the title in plural form is marginal at best, and certainly not worth the long debate that must surely precede such a move, nor the potential further debate and edit warring that would likely follow such a move. I therefore oppose this proposal, and respectfully suggest its retraction. Nick Graves (talk) 00:19, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I assumed it was some kind of policy, but maybe its just emerged naturally. All of the articles about particular nationalities I can find either have "people" attached (British people, French people, Dungan people) or have a normal plural (Kazakhs, Danes, Croats), this article is the only one to use the singular. Obviously, I agree with you that it doesn't make a huge difference either way, but it does seem more consistant.


 * As for why the plural is more enyclopedic, I would suggest that the title I'm proposing better fits the subject material of this article, as the subject is the people, not what it is to be Jewish. "Jews" is also what is currently used in the lead section. I don't think the proposed title would lead to any edit warring or conflict. I think the fact that this move has been suggested multiple times before is suggestive that the current title is not the best one for this article, something which is better to fix now and resolve permenantly. Like you, I don't want to engage in long disputes over this page move, and would prefer the discussions to remain civil. 84.92.117.93 (talk) 19:02, 18 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I changed my mind. As I stated before, I personally prefer the plural form of the title. I opposed the request only insofar as I thought the process of debating the move might become a big ordeal, and that the move might be a prelude to a reversion back to this namespace, edit warring, etc. I don't think anyone's expressed strong opposition to the move, and am convinced by another contributor that, if this article were moved, it would probably stay put. If someone wants to move this page, I have no objection. Nick Graves (talk) 03:14, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Oppose how about a name without needing to mess with plural/singular? say Jewry 76.66.197.17 (talk) 04:40, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * "Jewry" isn't a very commonly used word for the Jewish people, it sounds a bit archaic. 84.92.117.93 (talk) 19:02, 18 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Weak keep. It is more religious than ethno. Debresser (talk) 07:09, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * If not ethinicity, (and I think I get myself in a bit of a tangle with that), then please accept that the Jews at least form a people and for that reason should be moved. Much like Americans, Jews today are ethinically diverse, even if they share a common origin, but have a shared national identity that exceeds mere relgous belief. See the article Secular Jewish culture. There isn't an Islamic or Christian people in the same way that transcends national boundaries. 84.92.117.93 (talk) 17:21, 21 January 2010 (UTC)


 * This is interesting. I'm essentially in the same place as Nick Graves on this subject, in that I've never before consciously noticed the distinction between religious and ethnic names in English before. At the very least I'm happy to have seen this due to that singular point. On the other hand, I don't really support his conclusion. I'm generally a non-confrontational person myself, largely because confrontations cause me real discomfort, but I've become convinced over time that ignoring these issues only makes things worse for all of us over time. The fact that someone has utilized process to begin a discussion about the issue almost automatically merits attention from me any more, when I can afford to spend the time in giving it. As for this specific proposal, I'm leaning towards Support, but am somewhat awaiting a good reason to oppose. — V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 07:50, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Over the history of this article, there have been quite a few requests and discussions about whether this article should be moved away from the current title. I'm fairly sure that if this article were moved, nobody would suggest that it be moved back. 84.92.117.93 (talk) 19:30, 18 January 2010 (UTC)


 * On the contrary, the contoversy suggests that there is more to the issue than a simple singular/plural debate on wiki style. The burden of proof is on the one who suggests the change. Mere passage of time is not reason enough to consider making a change.  Rebele  | Talk The only way to win the game is to not play the game. 22:16, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * "Mere passage of time" is not the rationale I am suggesting for making the move. And I don't think there's any "contoversy", it's just that a lot of people, over time, have probably felt the article should be moved for the reasons I've laid out above. What "burden of proof" do you require from me? 84.92.117.93 (talk) 23:04, 18 January 2010 (UTC)


 * What "burden of proof"? An editor recommended a move and has laid out the reasons why. Since consensus can change, it's not inappropriate to ask us to reconsider the title. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 23:13, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Oddly enough, when it comes to American groups, the terms are usually not pluralized: African American, Arab American, Armenian American, Austrian American, Chinese American etc. Jayjg (talk) 01:05, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * True, but considering that is a recent convention (within the last 20 years or so), I'd think that would be more of an anachronism then something decisive. But, like I said above, I'm hardly an expert on the subject of religious/ethnic name etymologies. It's a somewhat fascinating topic though! — V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 03:25, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I think with the hyphenated Americans (and similar groups, i.e. Polish British, Afro-Brazilian) the thinking behind that is that they are subsets of the main American (or British or Brazilian) population, a people within a people if you like. These articles are a bit inconsistant though, see for example Jewish related articles like British Jews, German Jews, American Jews. 84.92.117.93 (talk) 15:08, 19 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Support. As I read through this thread, I was shaking my head in disagreement over the ethnicity/religiosity argument. Ethnically, Jews could not be more different, from the Sephardi Iranian to the Ashkenazi German to the Reform American to the Chinese convert. The only thing that ties them together is the Torah, meaning religion. However, this last comment by 84.92.117.93 convinced me on the basis of policy alone. If we have British Jews, German Jews, and American Jews&mdash;and we also have Sephardi Jews and Ashkenazi Jews&mdash;then we might as well have Jews. Yoninah (talk) 21:50, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * How about secular Jews; are they "tied together with the Torah" too? Also, is a Jew who converts to another religion still a Jew? Jayjg (talk) 23:40, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Is that particularly important somehow? I'm not really disparaging that mention at all, but it seems obvious to me that we're not going to see total consistency in something like this. I'd also note that you (subconsciously?) used the plural form yourself, there. All I'm saying is that it may be best to keep the request within the confines of the reasoning given here, since in a subject area like this we could muddy the waters by widening the scope of the discussion based on a change in either direction. We should probably stick close to things which directly help in resolving the question. — V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 06:27, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Um, did I open up a can of worms? To answer Jayjg: Secular Jews are Jews, they just don't follow the religion that they identify with. I agree with V = I * R that we should limit this to policy, and the distinction between Jew and Jews is pretty dak (fine), if you ask me. Yoninah (talk) 09:44, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * They don't follow the religion they "identify" with? They don't "identify" with any religion, including Judaism! If a Jew converts to Hinduism (as many have), is he still a Jew? Please answer that question, and if the answer is "yes", then please explain how the Torah that he doesn't believe in or follow "ties him" to other Jews. Jayjg (talk) 01:21, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Jayjg — the Torah does not posit that a Jew "believe in" anything. Judaism can be thought of as recommending belief in a variety of things, but Judaism does not require that anyone "believe in" anything. This is distinct from Christianity, for instance, which assumes "belief" to be a sort of prerequisite to membership. Bus stop (talk) 11:57, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * While I find this discussion interesting, can we please limit this discussion to the actual move request. I'm happy to accept that there are varying definitions out there about who is a Jew, and how important belief in the Torah and Judaism is to Jewish identity. 84.92.117.93 (talk) 17:13, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually there wasn't any discussion concerning "who is a Jew." Nor did anybody attribute importance in "belief in the Torah." Bus stop (talk) 17:30, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, discussing Judaism itself then. In any case, its not related to this move. 84.92.117.93 (talk) 18:47, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * But nothing thus far presented has anything to do with whether this article should be titled in the singular or the plural. I don't think the precedence of other articles or naming conventions concerning other articles presents compelling reason to name this article one way or the other. Bus stop (talk) 18:51, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes it does. My request isn't based on the precedence of other articles or naming conventions, although these should be taken into account. My main rationale is that because this article is about a people (as opposed to the individual), the plural is much more appropriate. 84.92.117.93 (talk) 19:19, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * What is the difference between a people and an individual other than number? Obviously there is more than one Jew in the world. Is your reasoning that the article title should shed light on the fact that there is more than one Jewish person in the world? Bus stop (talk) 19:46, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * No, you're misreading what I'm saying. My argument is that this article isn't about one Jew or many Jews; it's about one people, the Jewish people. Having this article at "Jew" is like having the article about English people at "English person". A nation as a concept is more than just the sum of the people within it. 84.92.117.93 (talk) 20:58, 21 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Support. I just skimmed this discussion so ignore this comment if you want, but personally I always thought the singular title looked weird.  It seems like the title should match the first sentence, which introduces the article subject.  If the first sentence talks about "Jews" rather than saying "A Jew is...," then that implies that the plural is the most natural way to introduce the topic, and the title should reflect that.Prezbo (talk) 22:21, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Please do see WikiProject Ethnic groups. There is simply no consistency on this at all. Whatever we do, moving any one article won't create consistency. - Jmabel | Talk 02:19, 23 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The project appears to be quite vague on this, and doesn't really explain on what grounds the divisions are being made. To quote: "there is no strong consensus on naming of articles about ethnic groups". In the absence of any strong policy or consistancy in this matter, it seems logical to apply an article-by-article approach and see if any consensus emerges. In this case, I feel there is a strong incentive to move. 84.92.117.93 (talk) 16:47, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

(unindent) I oppose the proposed move. What source asserts that the other named religious groups DO NOT contain ethnic elements? It seems unlikely to me that "ethnicity" would apply to Jews but not to members of other religious groups.

84.92.117.93 asserts here that "For members of a religion with no ethnic element, Wikipedia tends to use the singular (e.g. Christian, Muslim, Hindu)…" How does 84.92.117.93 reach the conclusion that these other religious groups — in distinction from Jews — do not contain an "ethnic" element?

How do we know that Christians, Muslims, and Hindus, do not contain an "ethnic element?" No source is provided for that assertion. I think a source is needed to make the distinction that 84.92.117.93 is trying to make between Jews and other religious groups. The assertion seems unlikely and it is completely lacking a source.

I think Wikipedia policy would call for the assertion in a reliable source that Jews contain ethnic elements and the members of other religions such as Christians, Muslims, and Hindus, DO NOT contain such ethnic elements. Wikipedia policy of the most basic and fundamental nature should be brought to bear in guiding this decision-making process. That in a nutshell means that sources should be provided for the sometimes unlikely assertions upon which the proposed move is based.

Wiki policy especially WP:RS and WP:VER should be brought to bear in guiding this process before people begin reaching the conclusion that Judaism is a religion that needs to be distinguished from other religions in the way that the reasons given for this proposed move seem to suggest. Bus stop (talk) 23:41, 23 January 2010 (UTC)


 * If you read the above, you would see I already made perfectly clear that ethnicity (which is contentious, even among academics and scholars) forms only part of my point. If the Jews are not an ethnoreligious group (and the lead of this article still says they are), then they are still a people or national group in a way other religous communities are not. Whereas the Jews trace their common origin from the Israelites, a people who occupied the land of Israel, Christianity, Islam and Hinduism have well documented histories of expansion through the conversion of numerous peoples. There is no Jewish equivalent.


 * If you want sources to prove that there is no Christian people, no Muslim people, and no Hindu people with desires for self-determination please read History of Christianity, History of Islam and History of Hinduism, as well as the articles on Christendom and the Muslim world. You will hopefully find there are Christians that are European, African and East Asian; Muslims that are Arab, Malay and Punjabi; Hindus that are Bengali, Telegu and Sinhalese. Of course, there are Jewish ethnic divisions, and certain numbers of converts to Judaism - but they are all accepted into the Jewish people as equals. If you want me to prove there is a Jewish people and Jewish national identity, please see Homeland for the Jewish people, Zionism and Jewish identity. You will find many referenced reliable sources that support what I am saying. 84.92.117.93 (talk) 00:33, 24 January 2010 (UTC)


 * 'Keep because this has not been a problem from the time of the creation of this article. Nothing will be gained. It will make matters worse. How many types of "Jews" are there? It will confuse the Who is a Jew? question. Will that also then be changed to Who are Jews??? Jew is an accepted root word for Jewish and Jewish People. This is a futile and pointless discussion that can only result in more problems. IZAK (talk) 11:14, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I am only suggesting this article be moved. This move will not affect Who is a Jew? and other articles where the singular "Jew" is used. The move will not, as you suggest, "make matters worse" or "result in more problems" – I fail to see how moving this article will have any adverse consequence on any other article on Wikipedia. 84.92.117.93 (talk) 20:41, 24 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Support this move. It's been suggested before, but change happens only when the fantatics seems to take a wikibreak around these parts. Moreover, can we agree most Jews don't think saying "there's a Jew over there, and another Jew over there too" is acceptable over "There's are Jews living there?" Then why should "Jew" be O.K.? Hopefully this move will initiate some change over at Who is a Jew?. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimsteele9999 (talk • contribs) 23:26, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Comments added after discussion closed
(These two comments were originally added after my closing rationale. Ucucha 12:40, 25 January 2010 (UTC))


 * And you quickly closed discussion in such a slipshod manner? You allowed for exactly what - six days for discussion?  This is utterly ridiculous and I hope your changes are rolled back and that the usual editors of this page step up.  Best, A Sniper (talk) 05:08, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Stay cool. The request was made a week ago, and seven days is the typical discussion period. Frankly, I don't see what all the hoopla is about; we have American Jews, Ashkenazi Jews, etc., and only one article whose name is singular: Jew. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 05:37, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I have re-closed the requested move, as it was to the best of my knowledge closed in accordance with procedure. Keeping it open while my close rationale is still at the top is only confusing. I have not moved the page back to Jews yet, where it belongs according to this RM, but I will do so in a few days at last if you (A Sniper) do not give a compelling reason why the requested move was improper. Ucucha 12:40, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I have now moved the page back to Jews. The move was closed and conducted properly. As V = I * R says, people have had the chance to comment and if they did not do so, we don't need to consider their possible opinions. Another requested move should be made before moving the page back to Jew, but it is better to wait a little with that. Ucucha 00:13, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Further discussion of the merits of the move

 * Oppose Change. This user appears to have unilaterally made the change regardless. From the 18th of this month to today all of this happened?  And many usual editors made no comment...I find it so hard to swallow. Best, A Sniper (talk) 05:05, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Even if the move was premature (and I don't think it was), you haven't provided any actual rationale as to why you oppose the move. 84.92.117.93 (talk) 11:31, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * 84.92.117.93 — no reason was given for the move. I know you believe that reasons were given for the move. But none were presented. The move needed to be supported by reference to the distinction between the word in the plural and the word in the singular, and instead you and other supporters of this move looked upon the occasion as an opportunity to wax eloquent on your own particular points of view concerning the "religious" and the "ethnic" components of Judaism. This is a common occurrence especially in the high profile Jewish-related articles. Bus stop (talk) 16:26, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Bus stop, I did present a reason for this move. I apologise though if my reasons for suggesting the move weren't clear enough, I accept that the genetic racial thing is quite controversial. Briefly, my reasons are thus:

1. That the Jewish people are a people, and not merely a religous community. There is a secular Jewish culture, there are Jews that profess atheism, there are those are predujiced to Jews because of their race, not their religion. The Jews as a people are distinct from, if strongly connected to, the Jewish religion. To my knowledge, this is not true of any other religion or people: I would struggle to identify anything that could be classified as "secular Christian culture", and I know most Muslims (from experience) consider the concept of an "atheist Muslim" to be a contradiction in terms.

2. That this article is about the people. There are very good articles on Who is a Jew? and the notion of a Jewish identity, but this article clearly covers the Jewish people and their collective history, culture and so on. It had sections talking about the diaspora, about the establishment of the State of Israel, about persecution of the Jews through their history. If you have a look at the much shorter Christian and Muslim articles you will find they are very different – the Christian articles uses the singular "Christian" in the lead, and is limited to talking about the eptymology of the word, who can be considered a Christian, and what "Christian behavior" is; the Muslim article is very similar, again using the singular in the lead, again covering eptymology, who is a Muslim, and the distinction between Muslim and mu'min.

3. That other articles on Wikipedia use the plural Jews. See American Jews, British Jews, Ashkenazi Jews, Sephardi Jews, Mizrahi Jews, Iraqi Jews and many more similar articles. Why should this page be any different?

These points, especially the first two, form the backbone of my arguments and are the main reason I am requesting this move. 84.92.117.93 (talk) 19:14, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * @A Sniper: If "many usual editors made no comment", whose fault is that? This page is watched by 800 editors, and on January 17 I posted a notice to WT:JUDAISM. There were dozens of edits to this section, all of which showed up in those 800 editors' watchlists. Nobody can say they didn't know about this proposed move. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 19:38, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * 84.92.117.93 — Judaism is not the same religion as Christianity. One should accept the religion of Judaism for what it is. All of your above argument constitutes a differentiation between between one religion and another, and that is not called for.


 * A religion is not defined by any of the points that you highlight above. Religion has to do with the addressing of life, death, existence, meanings in life, significant life events such as birth, coming of age, marriage, death. Religion sometimes addresses questions concerning the origin of life and the origin of the world we live in. Religion often takes up the question of what might remain of consciousness after death. Some of these questions, you might note, can be contemplated with equal interest by atheists and believers alike. A saying that "there are no atheists in a foxhole," referrs to the considerable interest in death — one's own death — that believers and nonbelievers seem to share.


 * Judaism of course addresses these issues differently than another religion might. But the differences between Judaism and other religions doesn't end there. Judaism posits that "belief" is not a prerequisite for membership. That is part of the identity of Judaism. That fact does not make Judaism not a religion. Rather, that fact makes Judaism the particular religion that it is.


 * A person need not maintain a kosher diet to be Jewish. There is not even a hint of that. Judaism posits that there is only one correct dietary guideline. But if you don't follow it, you are still a Jew. You've got to understand the unique identity of Judaism. It is a religion which posits that members need not be religious. There is not even a hint within all the writings of Judaism that a nonreligious person is not a Jew.


 * One is supposed to observe the Sabbath in Judaism. What happens if one ignores the Sabbath? Does a Jew become no longer a Jew because they do the opposite of everything that the religion says is the correct way to conduct oneself on the Sabbath? Not at all. There is not even a hint of any such thing. Does this make Judaism not a religion? No, it makes Judaism a religion with an identity distinct from Christianity. (And Islam, and other religions.)


 * I'm sorry but your argument is based on a refusal to recognize the religion of Judaism for what it is. The Christian article is named in the singular. The Muslim article is named in the singular. The Hindu article is named in the singular. In my opinion it wouldn't matter an iota if this article or the other religion articles were titled in the singular or the plural. But your reasons are all wrong. I have to oppose your move because you've presented not one valid reason for wanting this move.


 * And some of the reasons you've given just entirely baffle me. For instance you assert that there is no cultural component to Christianity. How could that possibly be the case? Culture is a fundamental feature of humankind. Culture always expresses itself. The nature of culture varies from group to group. But you say that, "I would struggle to identify anything that could be classified as "secular Christian culture." I don't think you are thinking far and wide enough about all that culture entails. Bus stop (talk) 00:18, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, I fail to understand how you manage to see my requested move as being "based on a refusal to recognize the religion of Judaism for what it is". Of course Judaism is different to Christianity and Islam, and other religions like Sikhism, Buddhism, Hinduism and the rest. No two religions are the same, and you could plausibly argue that Judaism is more different to Christiniaty than Islam and Christianity are, for example, to each other, although that is contentious. But your point that a Jew is still a Jew if he doesn't celebrate the sabbath really goes to the heart of this request - that's not because Judaism accepts lapsed religous Jews as being Jewish, it doesn't, but they are still Jews for socio-historical and cultural reasons.


 * Also, I never argued there is no cultural component to Christianity. I argued that there isn't a Christian people and Christian culture entirely seperate from Christianity. I have never heard anyone self-identify as a Christian atheist, or as a Muslim atheist. 84.92.117.93 (talk) 19:41, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Where do you find that Judaism doesn't accept "lapsed religous Jews" except for "socio-historical and cultural reasons"? Your link is to the Jewish principles of faith article. Do you find that sort of notion expressed at that article? Or do you find that "information" elsewhere? Where do you find that sort of notion expressed? Bus stop (talk) 21:19, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm talking particuarly about ultra-orthodox Judaism, I'm aware of course that progressive Judaism has a much more liberal stance. I linked to Jewish principles of faith because I was reading about how believing in multiple deities was considered heretical in Judaism. I accept that wasn't exactly the point I was making however, so my bad. I know from experience though that many highly religous Jews can be very intolerant of those that don't meet their criterion of Jewish belief: see all the controversies surrounding the Chief Rabbinate of Israel, and its turbulent relationship with secular Israeli Jews. 84.92.117.93 (talk) 22:05, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * There is nothing at the Chief Rabbinate of Israel article saying that a nonobservant Jew is not a Jew. And it is not that you're "bad." But your reasoning behind wanting to move this article doesn't hold water. Judaism is its own religion. Just like Christianity is its own religion. And Islam is its own religion. And Hinduism is its own religion.


 * Once one has accepted a religion for what it is, there is no longer a reason to single it out for special treatment, and once one has accepted that a religion has a particular and even perhaps peculiar identity, then one can move on to seeing it for what it is in its own particular defining characteristics.


 * Your argument, let me remind you, has been that "Jews" should be titled in the plural, but that "Christian" should be titled in the singular, "Muslim" should be titled in the singular, and "Hindu" should be titled in the singular.


 * My conclusion: either all the religious groups — Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus — should be titled in the plural, or all of these religious groups should be titled in the singular. Bus stop (talk) 23:18, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * My point is that Christian,Muslim, and Hindu are all in the singular - and so should it be with Jew. Anything else is dumb. Best, A Sniper (talk) 23:28, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * That is fine with me, A Sniper. I didn't initiate this change. Bus stop (talk) 23:30, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * No, it's not dumb. Just read the respective content on this article, Muslim and Hindu and you will see how different they are. 84.92.117.93 (talk) 18:42, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * 84.92.117.93 — What is it that you would like us to see at the Muslim article and the Hindu article that you link to? Bus stop (talk) 02:22, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Procedure
Full amount of days for comment on the request or not, it does not appear as if the editors of the article were ever alerted of the request until too late. I was aware that when such requests were made, a notice is posted on the article talk page without a timestamp. What happened?— Dæ <font color="Blue">dαlus <font color="Green">Contribs 05:55, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * As is required, I deleted it when closing the discussion. A Sniper subsequently deleted the notice that the discussion was closed. Ucucha 05:59, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * What should be the next step? The move was already carried out before other users intervened without any precise rationale for opposing this move. Should I renominate or relist this request? 84.92.117.93 (talk) 11:44, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I think it is funny that an IP user and another user who I have never seen edit this page are using Wiki lawyering to press through something most regular contributors know nothing about. Lame. Why not wait for an admin to look over this issue (from the Admin Noticeboard/Incidents? This way, we can rally up interest (not partisanship) over at the project page, which is something i believe only Malik did previously. Best A Sniper (talk) 14:32, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not "Wiki lawyering", I used to be a registered user on this website until some time ago, which is why I am familiar with many of the site's rules and procedures and so on. My move is based on the rationale that an article about a collective cohesive group of people should be titled in the plural. If this article was about what being a Jew was, I would fully accept that the singular was more effective, but it's not. Rather than attacking users including myself, I would be interested in knowing what your reasons for opposing actuallly are. I don't see what's so controversial about making this move. 84.92.117.93 (talk) 18:47, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Please also see WP:SILENCE. This sort of "I'm right, you guys are wrong!" behavior is just bad, if for no other reason then it's not at all collegial. There's nothing wrong with editing as an IP user, there's no big conspiracy behind this RM and the way it's been handled, and there's no reason at all for all of the drama-mongering. Personally, I never thought that this move request was that big of a deal, since the request makes complete sense. Now I'm starting to care about this quite a bit though, if only to fight yet another incident of a small group of editors attempting to force their own POV on everyone (and over a really inconsequential issue, as well). As I said on ANI, start another RM in a month or two. Maybe we'll all look back at this then and think "humm, I wonder what I was thinking then?". Just, please stop with this. — V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 07:31, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The point is that there was no consensus, and the editor claimed at the Admin Noticeboard/Incidents that he/she would wait for a consensus of admins...but then just changed it back to Jews anyway. Now is that collegial? We'll just have to start the RM all over again soon.  And everyone who has never paid attention to this article previously can go back to their lives. I for one consider this matter closed. A Sniper (talk) 03:08, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It's certainly more collegial then ignoring everyone else and reverting the move (messily, requiring two other people to fix the result), and then calling everyone else "dumb" as you just did above. — V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 11:43, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Whatever you say there, Ohms. A Sniper (talk) 14:41, 27 January 2010 (UTC)