Talk:Jews/Archive 23

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

→

Archive 30

Please have your say on this whole move to Jews

Check out here to state one way or the other whether this move should have taken mor time and care. A Sniper (talk) 14:32, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

• As the incident has been archived, it can now be found here. 84.92.117.93 (talk) 20:52, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Semi Protect?

How about semi-protection, seeing the amount of spamming. --216.99.53.138 (talk) 17:08, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

The article has been semi-protected for some time. You're not talking about semi-protecting the talk page, are you? If we do that, IPs can't even suggest edits, let alone make them. And where's the spamming you're talking about? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 10:24, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Picture

Theres picture of 5 people but only 4 names under them. Whos the 4th person and why is there no name associated with his picture. --Gwax23 (talk) 01:34, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I removed that picture but if you're curious it was Joe Slovo.Prezbo (talk) 02:20, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Jewish Population

I suggest that we use a range for the the Jewish population. Right now we have population ranges for the US and Israel. We should do this for many other nations on this list which have various different population numbers from different credible sources. The total population of Jews worldwide by some is estimated to be as high as 14-15 Million. Not all are religious many just ethnically jewish. Also Israels Central Bureau of Statistics puts Israels Jewish population as of the 2009 census at 5.6 Million. Which can be as High as 5.9 if counting many Russian Jews not recognized as jews by the Rabbinate. Other examples include the Jewish population of France which ranges from 490,000 - 600,000. Italy, 28,000 - 45,000. The number of jews in the United States can be anywhere from 4 Million to 7.4 Million. In any case since we already have ranges for Israel and The United states we should put a range for the total including the larger figures. --Gwax23 (talk) 22:55, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Sounds great. Do you have any suggestions concerning reliable sources? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:57, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

While I don't have sources to contribute, I agree with the general notion of using ranged figures rather than single values. Population numbers are always imprecise, and with something as debatable as defining who is a Jew, there are obviously going to be widely contrasting available statistics. 84.92.117.93 (talk) 23:22, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes I will get the sources posted here soon as I can. In the mean time while we have already 2 ranged figures we should post a range for the total just makes sense and is more consistent. I'm aware that the main sources of discrepancies in the numbers is due to defining who is a Jew and thats why I support using different sources which use different definitions of who can be considered jewish not strictly the Halakha definition (Only jewish if mother is jewish). Also according the jewish virtual library which got its numbers from the American Jewish Year book and the Jewish Agency the Jewish Population is 13,296,100 not the 13,155,000 we are using. Thats just a side note.--Gwax23 (talk) 00:44, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

One of the reasons I would never do this is because I know from first hand experience how many people are Jewish without any statistics showing that. Having said that, please go ahead. Debresser (talk) 09:06, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

One of the most reliable sources is this annual assessment. --Olevy (talk) 12:32, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

For some reason I cant open any of those downloads. ----Gwax23 (talk) 20:06, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I couldn't at first, use Adobe Reader. 84.92.117.93 (talk) 19:07, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Just for the record, the Halakha definition is NOT "only Jewish if mother is Jewish". Conversion is accepted by Halakha, and always has been. However, it is true that the child of a non-Jewish mother, regardless of the religion/ethnicity of the father, would have to go through the conversion process to be considered Jewish according to Halakha. Rosencomet (talk) 19:49, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

13 million worldwide .? At least 15 million in united states. be realstic . please.? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.106.108.158 (talk) 12:31, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

You mean 15 Million worldwide which is plausible. I'm trying to find reliable sources to prove this. Any help would be appreciated.--Gwax23 (talk) 03:42, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

According to this report the world jewish population stands at 13.3 Million. http://www.simpletoremember.com/vitals/world-jewish-population.htm--Gwax23 (talk) 18:04, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

No one told me the link was broken. Try this one. We should use its numbers for the population table. http://www.simpletoremember.com/vitals/world-jewish-population.htm --Gwax23 (talk) 01:33, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

This other source has different sources for the jewish population including the World Jewish Congress and American jewish year book. The populations range from 13.2 to 13.5 to 14.6 and even to 15 million jews. http://www.bechollashon.org/img/charts/World_Pop_01.pdf --Gwax23 (talk) 03:57, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Yiddish and Russian

Please remove these languages from the lede. While there are many Jews speaking both languages, there are comparable numbers speaking French, Spanish, Arabic, Ladino and many other Jewish languages. 84.92.117.93 (talk) 22:38, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

There are likely at least 3 million Jews who speak Russian and a comparable number who speak Yiddish. There were likely never more than 1,000,000 Jewish Arabic speakers (and considerably fewer today), and the number of Ladino speakers is probably around 100,000. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:20, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Jay -- both these languages have immense numbers of Jewish speakers; I think it's a reasonable addition to the lead. Antandrus (talk) 02:23, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

OK, maybe Yiddish, but Russian? There are about half a million Russian Jews in Russia today, two million in the USA, a small bit more than one million in Israel, smaller numbers elsewhere. Of the American population, I highly doubt that more than a few thousand still speak Russian today, Russian Israelis speak Russian more commonly but if we assumed half of the Russian Israeli population speak Russian that still leaves with a total not much much more than one million. Where do you get the three million figure from? By contrast, there are 500-600,000 French Jews, and three million Mizrahi Jews, mainly in Israel. At the very least, it seemds dispraportionate to include two Ashkenazi Jewish languages in the lead. 84.92.117.93 (talk) 17:54, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

1 million Russian speaking Jews in North America, 1 million in Israel, and 1 million in Russia and the rest of the world, in round numbers. Mizrahi Jews are far more likely to speak Hebrew than Russian Jews, and many of them (e.g. Moroccan Jews) never spoke Arabic at all, but rather Spanish or French. And since Ashkenazi Jews comprise 80% of all Jews, it hardly seems "disproportionate". Jayjg ^(talk) 02:29, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Where do you get these figures from? The History of the Jews in Russia states that the 2002 census recorded 265,000 Jews in Russia. Even if this figure is an undercount, as it may well be, it's still far from the 1,000,000 figure you are basing your arguments on. 84.92.117.93 (talk) 20:36, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Also the claim that 80% of Jews are Ashkenazi is incorrect. There are 4 million Mizrahi Jews, 1.5-2 million Sephardi Jews, 8-11.2 million Ashkenazi Jews, suggesting only about two thirds of Jews are Ashkenazi. 84.92.117.93 (talk) 20:42, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

You can't mix and match statistics from different sources.

• "The Ashkenazic high point came in 1931 when they constituted nearly 92 percent of world Jewry. As a result of rapid population growth in North Africa and West Asia the percentage of Sephardim began to grow even before the Holocaust. That tragedy, which witnessed the murder of Jews caught in it without reference to Ashkenazi and Sephardi, still affected the Ashkenazi world more than the Sephardi. The Sephardim have continued to gain in numbers and in percentage since 1939, and today constitute approximately twenty percent of world Jewry."[1]
• "Ashkenazi Jews, that is, those Jews of Eastern European origin, constitute more than 80 percent of all world Jewry."[2]
• "The Ashkenazim accounts for 80 percent of all Jews."[3]

--Jayjg ^(talk) 17:34, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Why there is no information about origins of Jews?

The history starts in medieval period. This is somewhat weird. And also little info about Jews in pre-Christian Europe.--79.111.95.183 (talk) 06:15, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Huh? The article discusses the history going back to Abraham. I've never seen anything about Jews in pre-Christian Europe other than in the Roman Empire; what have you read? --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 16:56, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Things to add to the DNA section

According to A. Nebel et al., over 70% of Jewish men and half of Arab men (head only Israel or the Palestinian territories) whose DNA was studied inherited their Y chromosomes from the same paternal ancestors who lived in the region it A few thousands of years.

This should be added!!

However in 2005 a review article by Ellen Levy-Coffman weighting these results by pointing out that these particular ancestors are also shared by much of the population of the Mediterranean in particular southern Europe.

During a scientific conference in 2003 in the United States, the Jewish American biologist Robert Pollack, Columbia University and several scientists have clearly rejected the fact that we can determine the biologically "Jewishness "an individual because there is simply no DNA sequence that is present among Jews and absent among non-Jews.[6]

Approximately 30% to 40% of Jews have the haplogroup J[Note 2] and its sub-haplogroups. This Haplogroup is particularly present in the Middle East and on the southern and eastern Mediterranean.[12] Furthermore, 15 to 30% own the haplogroup E1b1b[Note 3](or E-M35) and its sub-haplogroups.

According to M. Hammer et al. in 2000,[1] the overall European genetic contribution is estimated between 16 and 30% (assuming a 23% average).[Note 4] In addition, the authors show a strong similarity with the non-Jewish Greek and Turkish populations. Moreover, given that haplogroup R1b1 is particularly abundant in populations of Western Europe, studies of A. Nebel[14] and D. Behar[15] suggest a contribution of about 10% of Western European tradition among Ashkenazim. For G. Lucotte et al.,[16] the West-European contribution is about 11%.[Note 5] In 2004, the largest study made on Ashkenazi Jews, Doron Behar et al.[15] gives a percentage of European contribution of 5% (excluding Jews from Netherlands). But the results were challenged by E. Coffman-Levy.[11] She said that among other haplogroup J2 is not specifically Semitic, because it appears in high proportions in Greece and Crete. Two studies of A. Nebel et al. (2001[14] and 2005[17]) indicate a high frequency (12.7%) of haplogroup R1a1[Note 6] among Ashkenazim is very common in populations of eastern Europe (between 54 and 60%). The authors suggest that these chromosomes may account for a genetic contribution from Eastern European populations and in particular about 12% of the paternal gene pool of Ashkenazi Jews could come from Khazars. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.226.72.14 (talk) 22:30, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

This cannot be true

Quote:

" study published by the National Academy of Sciences found that "the paternal gene pools of Jewish communities from Europe, North Africa, and the Middle East descended from a common Middle Eastern ancestral population", and suggested that "most Jewish communities have remained relatively isolated from neighboring non-Jewish communities during and after the Diaspora"

The bold in part cannot be true. The "original" Israelites looked middle eastern, why are european jews white, and ethopian jews black and so on?

There must have been a lot of intermarriage, otherwise this is just not possible.

If jewish communities were so isolated, how do you explain the looks of people like, say, James Caan, Sarah Michelle Gellar, Natalie Portman, William Shatner, Debra Messing, David Beckham etc. ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.73.6.209 (talk • contribs) 23:39, 19 August 2009

The key word in that quote is "relative". that can mean anything from quite isolated to merely isolated enough for a difference to be detected. The evidence in the study is more consistent with the latter. Furthermore, it is not at all clear what the "common Middle Eastern ancestral pool" actually was - there is plenty of evidence of conversion even as early as Hellenistic times, and at that point the converts would also have been Middle Eastern or Mediterranean. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.77.137.57 (talk) 23:04, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not setting out to defend the source that you've quoted, but the way someone looks is not a perfect reflection of their genetic makeup. Additionally, the source describes a statistical study and statistical significance. A certain percentage of people will not have the same ancestry as the rest, and that does not invalidate the statement, it just reflects normal variation. Also note that the quote says "most Jewish communities", it does not say all. In fact the source material states there are exceptions. Also, please sign your posts (which can be done by typing 4 tildas (~) in a row. Lamber111 (talk) 17:49, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

It occurs to me to wonder what "Jewish communities" means in the original statement. If we mean relatively orthodox groupings then it's pretty plausible. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:51, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

• It's worth pointing out that Middle Eastern Jews like the Israelites didn't look like modern Arabs of the region, much like Ancient Egyptians being racially quite different to modern Egyptians, and modern Britons being very different to the Celts, Anglo-saxons, Normans, Vikings etc. that variously inhabited what is now the UK. If you go to a place like Israel, you'll see that the Sephardi and Ashkenazi Jews aren't racially that different, and what differences there are probably came from isolated rapes and intermarriages, rather than long periods of co-habitation (though that did occur in some places, such as medieval Spain). YeshuaDavid • Talk • 22:01, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

• Looks aren't actually indicative of ancestry. Also there are no pictures of Ancient Jews to compare to. Differences in appearance come from various forces. One being that over time populations will shift in appearance even if they have the same founding population. Second rape, converts, intermarriage (Although rare) has an effect as well. Each communities of Jews is largely closely related but each one I believe shows some signs of gaining host converts or somehow gaining host DNA. "White" and "Brown" are irrelevant. (72.4.182.241 (talk) 20:47, 24 September 2009 (UTC)).

• Looks are always indicative of ancestry, it's just that we don't always know the exact details of that ancestry. I don't know how YeshuaDavid can claim that modern Britons are different from their ancestors. We do have reconstructive techniques that show that, by and large, ethnic features are very long-lived. Abductive (reasoning) 21:27, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

• Features might be. But the persons primary contention was over skin tone. Which isn't even uniform in the current middle east. Features seem to be fairly common throughout Jewish peoples. But besides the point the original founding population could appear in any way. If we go by the bible then didn't King David have Red hair? I mean the appearance of an ancient Jew I don't think is entirely relevant. The genetic studies seem conclusive along with anthropology and other such cultural histories. (Nazrael (talk) 23:47, 24 September 2009 (UTC))

Modern Britons are different to the ancient inhabitants of Great Britain. Different waves of immigration of introduced different peoples to the UK, that have integrated at various times with the existing populations. I live in London, and literally everyone I know is not of pure English ancestry, but we're all English nevertheless. If you want a good example with the Egyprians, see Ancient Egyptian race controversy. YeshuaDavid • Talk • 17:39, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Picture a child born in London in 1961 (to native parents). Each generation of this child's ancestors doubles in size, and assuming 25 year generation times, in the year 1086, 34,359,738,368 of that child's ancestors should be alive. Given that the population of the Isles was a few million at the time, it means what? It means that there has been massive inbreeding. Everybody in Britain is highly related to everybody else. One can see this formation of ethnic groups operating in Brazil and Puerto Rico right now. Abductive (reasoning) 19:15, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

It means, at the very least, that there is some kind of erroneous assumption or logical paradox involved in this reasoning process, since there weren't 34 trillion alive back then. Very shaky grounds for proving anything. Hertz1888 (talk) 19:57, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

How many great-grandparents do you have? The answer is always 8. You can extrapolate this back with no loss of generality. The only way to resolve this "paradox" is if some of the entries in the child's family tree are the same person; that is what we call inbreeding. So in fact this is mathematically extremely solid ground for proving that there is inbreeding. Abductive (reasoning) 20:04, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

This is a easy question. The jewish male has been quite genetic isolated. There has been few European male converted to Judaism. But on the female side i'll quote the article: "The authors showed Ashkenazi Jewish communities (mtDNA female, my comment) belong to the same haplogroups as their host (non-Jewish) European communities, with only small deviations in frequency. "
You see the jewish male have married European women. And this is why you've got blond jews!

I've read all the DNA discussions in the Archives and I must say that in every discussion about DNA the "most Jewish communities have remained relatively isolated from neighboring non-Jewish communities" always consider the DNA debate from the Y-dna (male) point of view. Everyone is made up of 50% father and 50% mother. = Blond?!

I'll Quote this from the archives: "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. http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v15/n4/full/5201764a.html"
Jewish Male and European woman, a success story perhaps!

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.103.203.254 (talk) 08:33, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

The paper from J Feder et al. does not say that. She says "These findings, taken together with HVR1 sequences for some of the haplogroups, such as N1b, that contain motifs restricted and common to all Ashkenazi Jewish populations, may further support the interpretation of little or no gene flow of the local non-Jewish communities in Poland and Russia to the Jewish communities in these countries."However, I she does not say where does the founder come from.--Boutboul (talk) 20:58, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

but you can't take a haplogroup that represents 10% of A-Jews and then conclude that there is no gene flow from the hosting populations. Further more they dissect the Hgs K to subtypes and of course you will find differences. One girl is Jewish but her sister is of Non Jewish European origin. And by that conclude there are differences, hmm ok. I would say it´s racist!!

You've got a lot of data that you do not tell in the article, for instance: "We conclude that four founding mtDNAs, likely of Near Eastern ancestry, underwent major expansion(s) in Europe within the past millennium." So why does they not dissect the H haplogroup wich is present in 21% of the A-Jews? Beause it´s a major Hgs in European Non jews! Perhaps over 40%!

Actually blond hair or Red Hair wouldn't be alien to Ancient Jews. Biblically speaking King David allegedly was a red head along with Essu. Also MtDNA tests I had read did show significant mixes, while many Ashkenazim Jews had female ancestors from the Levant some also had some locals. If biblical accounts are to be looked into with any validity then one can safely say red headedness and possibly blond hair is not unheard of. Communities like the Ashkenazim have absorbed several groups such as remaining Khazar and Kimchacks (SP?) converts. All of which has little baring on being a Jew or not. (Nazrael (talk) 23:40, 7 November 2009 (UTC)).

"Actually blond hair or Red Hair wouldn't be alien to Ancient Jews"

"Features seem to be fairly common throughout Jewish peoples"

Yes, but if some one looks like Helen Hunt or Michael Douglas for example (who have "facial features" not unlike other white people by the way).. now way that there was no intermixing in those cases. Are you really saying that in ancient Israel tons of people moved around who looked like Michael Douglas, Cindy Margolis or David Duchovny? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.73.2.54 (talk • contribs) 10:00, 14 November 2009

"If jewish communities were so isolated, how do you explain the looks of people like, say, James Caan, Sarah Michelle Gellar, Natalie Portman, William Shatner, Debra Messing, David Beckham etc. ?"

Peroxide. Most Jews have dark features. It's a fact. Jim Steele (talk) 16:36, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

This person says: Read the 14th Edition Encyclopaedia Britannica article on "Jews", part 1, written by the Hebrew scholar Raphael Patai. This Britannica was sold from 1965 to 1972. The article begins: "Contrary to popular opinion, there is no Jewish race." Patai mentions blood type investigations and a lot of other things, and ends by saying that Jews are their 1) Religion, 2) Traditions, 3) History, and 4) Country; but not genes. No one is Jewish because they have or had a relative who was into Judaism. We could have some humor here by saying "Your genes are not religious." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kamitra1 (talk • contribs) 00:01, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I have talked with expert geneticists and they say there is no real evidence that present day Jews are descendants of biblical Jews. How come this entry seems so assertive of the opposite notion? Reallyskeptic (talk) 22:56, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Because this article cites the work of actual expert geneticists. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:31, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Mistaken conclusion from Hammer, Redd et als study is presented, as far as I can see. I realize further evidence may be presented in another article, but if claims presented here are supported elsewhere, the references should be here too. Please correct me if I am mistaken. Further, a single study does not science make. Further, afaik one can find that according to genetic science, most populations anywhere are not 'significantly different from one another'. Here are the results of my review of this articel: 1) The Hammer-study only looked at Middle-eastern populations and thus does not cover all the "various lineages found in modern Jewish populations", i.e. the claim of the first sentence in section Genetic studies is incorrect based on the reference text provided. Claims could be made about Middle-eastern populations. 2) The fact that there exists a single study that shows something doesn't prove the case, so the second sentence should be rephrased to something like "a study has brought forth the case that inter-marriage may have been substantially less than in other populations", until some other references or studies support these findings. Then again, the proposition in the second sentence seems pretty flawed, too. Intermarriage in, or between? Vague.

Third sentence makes it sound like there were many findings, instead of a single study. As for making science based on biblical accounts - I remain sceptical. As a side note, on quick glance the results of the study are based on setting constant definitions for vague things such as "lenght of generation" or genetic mutation rate, which in real life would vary by more than 100% - i.e. resutls are based on guesswork.

Assumptions in the final paragraph of the initial subsection of Genetic studies have no place in an encyclopedia ("Although individual and groups of converts to Judaism have historically been absorbed into contemporary Jewish populations..."), as Wikipedia is not the place for original research or proposing theories. Either there's some science behind this or not, in any case, it's not referred to here. The referred study mentions the influence of Khazars only as an "hypothesis". The mentions of European influence on the genetic pool mentioned in the study have been omitted! Why?

The whole Genetic studies section seems to be written by someone motivated to preach a certain message, while ignoring certain findings. It needs thorough renovation. Casimirpo (talk) 15:47, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I think it's strange to place so much emphasis on genetics in this article in the first place, it's almost half the entry. Percentages of Y chromosomes in blah blah blah; it's not appropriate for an encyclopedic entry. What about all the significant Jewish philosophers, artists, scientists etc? What about historical accounts of how Jewish populations considered themselves and their role in the world? That's much more relevant to a general history than trying to quantify that with DNA studies. It seems like this article has been hijacked by some weird nationalists or eugenics freaks or something, it's disturbing. 67.175.213.215 (talk) 20:10, 8 March 2010 (UTC)garcho

All of these discussions are racist, a serious Wikipedian should get here and check this talk page for good, there is so much anti-semitism and racism running through this sections about the Jewish DNA Tests, the teset showed the result that the Jews are originally from the Middle East, and there are a lot of racist anti-semites that spread their hate and racism a round Wikipedia like that, the Jews are the Israelites - the Jews are not descendants from any other population like the Khazers who were later converted to Islam while the ones who decided to stay Jewish in faith were absorbed by Jewish communities of near places to their kןngdom. DNA tests on Jewish ppoulations all over the world showed almost indentical results which confirms the Jews tradition of being a people who were exiled from Israel that is on the Middle East and scattered all over the world. The DNA Test Results of Jews being confirmed as a Middle Eastren Origin--DXRD (talk) 13:49, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Dispersal of Kingdom of Israel

For several years, the article has said:

• The Kingdom of Israel was sent into permanent exile and scattered all over the world (or at least to unknown locations) by Assyria.<ref>Johnson (1987), pp. 70–71.</ref>

Recently another editor changed this to:

• The Kingdom of Israel was sent into permanent exile and scattered to places that in the Bible were called "Halah" "Gozan", "Habor River" and the "cities of Medes" by Assyria. Halah was suggested as being identified with Nimrud along with Cilicia, while Gozan was identified with Tell Halaf of modern day Syria, which was once called "Guzana" (there are some archeological findings which confirm the presence of people of Israelite origin that have lived there, as supported by the names of such people); Chebar was identified with the Khabur River. Some have claimed that most of the exiles from the Kingdom of Israel had been absorbed into the local population of their places of exile, while others joined the exiled from the Kingdom of Judah, a claim that was later developed to the so-called mystery of the Ten Lost Tribes of Israel.<ref>ספר מלכים ב' פרק י"ז פסוק ו' </ref>

I feel (a) that the paragraph has too much detail, (b) that it's WP:OR, and (c) that a history book is a better source than the Bible. What do other editors think? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:50, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Agree. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:41, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Archeology findings that had been made on those places (Tell Half and Nimrud) confirmed the Biblical story that Israelities from the Northern Kingdom of Israel had lived there for some while (as clay boards had been found there telling the story of people with Israelite names), the king of Assyria stated himself to put 27,290 people out of Samaria to exile, and the archeolegical finds are confirming it so please don't delete my edits once again!. --DXRD (talk) 10:04, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Surely, you did not perform these archaeological digs yourself, so you must have read about them somewhere - and so should we. We cannot take your word for it, but need scholarly (or even popular - like news) sources to support these pieces of information. The bible cannot be used as a source except for itself (specifying where the bible says somethings). okedem (talk) 13:01, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the previous criticisms by three editors, and would prefer that DXRD had awaited a clear consensus before proceeding. Now that some of the excessive detail has been removed and sourcing provided, I would like to try integrating the previous text (ref. Johnson) with the new, while keeping the paragraph brief. The new text should supplant rather than substitute for the existing text, with which it is at odds, and not violate WP:UNDUE. Hertz1888 (talk) 22:07, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Done. Please let me know if this is a satisfactory resolution. I put the Segal reference second, as its relevance was not clear to me; it may no longer be needed. Hertz1888 (talk) 22:29, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I think it's okay now. Thanks. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 00:15, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks for making it even better by virtue of logical flow, removing the contradictoriness. Hertz1888 (talk) 03:24, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

No problem. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:31, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree with the source of Paul Johnson, he did not made any archeological research either, so how could his things could be putted or threated as a relaiable source, while an archeological digs links from Tell Halaf had been removed. --DXRD (talk) 13:42, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

We, as editors, don't get to choose sides. Johnson is a generally respected source, and the statement fulfills WP:V. These short paragraphs are cursory, with little room for detail. The Segal page's connection is unclear (it is highly specialized) and would require elaborate explanation. Let's not grow the paragraph here any longer than it is. Perhaps there is a separate, more specifically focused article with room for detailed discussions of the archaeological research. Hertz1888 (talk) 14:49, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

2004 census in Argentina

According to 2004 Census in Argentina there are 244000 jews in Buenos Aires and an overall estimated 280000-300000 in the whole country. Please visit at least this page: http://www.lanacion.com.ar/nota.asp?nota_id=710563 and correct wrong figures. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.82.55.36 (talk) 16:33, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

If Jew is an ethnicity?

What are black Jews? 97.118.33.205 (talk) 17:16, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Black and Jewish. —chaos5023 (talk) 17:20, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

97.118.33.205 — I would say this inquiry would best be placed on the Humanities reference desk. Bus stop (talk) 18:21, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Infobox

Why is Israel centered in the infobox, and all the other countries justified? Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 04:39, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

It seems to be for the same reason Nigeria is centered on Yoruba people. The centered country is either the state of the nation (nation here signifying a group of people sharing aspects of language, culture and/or ethnicity) or the state with the highest population. Please direct further questions concerning the Infobox to Template talk:Infobox Jews. Intelligentsium 22:20, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

There should be more pictures of Jews. The article for Russians has 12 pictures of ethnic Russians. There are more than enough important Jews in the world. Let's add some.

Origin of the name Jew, Judah, or Yehuda

I believe that there definitely should be a mention that the name Yehuda, the base word for the Jewish people and there respective religion is derived from the two Ancient Hebrew words Yah, a shortened form of the name of G-d, and the Hebrew word Hud which means to follow, worship, or praise. together the words mean "to worship/praise Yah" or "the worship/praising of Yah". This can be confirmed in the Wikipedia article Judah (Bible) where it correctly states that the name means "to praise G-d". Also the biblical name for Judaism, ha-Dër′ëkh (the way), may also be mentioned. [4] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.237.245.128 (talk • contribs) 27 April 2010

Jews in Israel

as of april 2010 there are 5,726,000 jews in israel.http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3878214,00.html -its towards the end of the article--Marbehtorah-marbehchaim (talk) 03:22, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

The number in the article (a) matches the number in the infobox and (b) comes from the same source as most of the other countries' Jewish populations. This makes cross-country comparisons meaningful. Ynet doesn't say where its estimate comes from. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:30, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

The number is from the ICBS www.cbs.gov.il. The Jewish population of Israel is growing by around 100,000 a year so the figure has to be updated to the last one. Benjil (talk) 15:43, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I have been pushing for somebody to update the figures. Ive provided plenty of credible more updated data on the jewish population yet nothing has been done. In this case I think there is no debate that the CBS is a very reliable source. --Gwax23 (talk) 00:10, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Images in the Infobox

The infobox has the images of some remarkable Jews, but not really a number that does them credit. I suggest including the all-time favourites: Freud (psychoanalysis), Marx (Communism) and Haber (the Haber process keeps 1 third of the world's population alive) - all Jews, all brilliant men --Earthprophet (talk) 19:07, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

The question has been discussed many times, both here and at Template talk:Infobox Jews. You can search the archives for the various discussions, but the short version is that the current montage achieves gender balance and balance between Ashkenazi and Sephardic Jews.

Having said that, consensus can change, and you are welcome to start a new discussion about changing the montage. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:18, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

MtDNA

I want to expand the mtDNA section! There are a lot of exciting research in that area! And because the Jewish mtDNA haplogroups coincides with the Europeans, it need to expand! —Preceding unsigned comment added by CantorFriedman (talk • contribs) 08:37, 10 May 2010 (UTC) CantorFriedman (talk) 12:35, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I've removed this material:

In Europe a high level of haplogroup K is found in the Morbihan (17.5%) and Périgord-Limousin (15.3%) regions of France, and in Norway and Bulgaria (13.3%). The level is 12.5% in Belgium, 11% in Georgia and 10% in Austria and Great Britain.

It suffers from two problems:

a) The studies quoted here don't actually mention Jews, as far as I can tell (please correct me if I'm wrong). In order to avoid WP:NOR, one must use sources that actually discuss the topic of this article which is Jews, not haplogroup K.

b) It's too much detail for this article, in any event. There's a whole sub-article on Genetic studies on Jews, where material this detailed might be appropriate, but this article is just a summary/overview article, so we can't have a disproportionate amount of text devoted to the genetics of a specific hapologroup in a specific sub-group of Jewish women.

--Jayjg ^(talk) 12:12, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

should be called "Jew"

Wikipedia article titles are singlar, so "Jews" should be moved to "Jew". — Reinyday, 18:24, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

This article is about the people, which comprises one entity, so "Jews" is correct. Compare this article with Germans or Russians for example. 84.92.117.93 (talk) 20:05, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

And what of the singular used for Christian or Muslim? This article should be named Jew, in my opinion. The present state is the result of a controversial move that did not make much sense in my opinion. The discussion for that move can be found here. Bus stop (talk) 20:21, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Christians and Muslims are members of religions. Jews are an ethnoreligious group, like Armenians etc. This has been explained many, many times. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:10, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Most sources refer to Jews as members of a religious group. Yes, a few sources assert that Jews comprise an "ethnoreligious" group. Bus stop (talk) 02:44, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Compare the title of this article (Jews) to all the other Wikipedia articles about Jews: American Jews, Ashkenazi Jews, etc. Note that they are all plurals. Until it was renamed, this article was the only one with a singular title. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 23:21, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd just like to register weak support for Reinyday's initial proposal. Simply based on the existence of Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Mormon (interestingly Buddhist is a redirect to Buddhism) it would seem as though it should be singular. I appreciate "Jews" can sometime be used in an "ethnoreligous" capacity, instead of just meaning "an adherent". I wonder whether perhaps there should be a Jew (adherent) page and a Jews (ethnicity) page.

P.S. Malik - Apologies for stalking. NickCT (talk) 13:46, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I will make it simpler: Jews are a people, I would not use the word ethnicity. A Nation would be more true. And this people has its own civilization, culture, and religion. Think of the Egyptians or the Greeks of Antiquity. Jews are more or less like them, being one of the few people of antique times to survive until now as it was. That's all the issue. So among the Jews many practice Judaism, many just a little, some not at all. But they are all equally Jews. Benjil (talk) 14:16, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Benjil - That seems to be an ethnic definition, and you have to admit, it can't be the only definition. I mean, if it was the only definition, then a Jew who converted to Christanity would still be a Jew? I don't think so. Jew can be used in both a religous sense and an ethnic sense, and I really think WP should make the distinction obvious. NickCT (talk) 14:30, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

A Jew converted to whatever he wants is still a Jew according to Jewish law. Jewish identity does not fit the usual categories. It is not religious and it is not ethnic. It's different. The reality is more complex than predetermined categories. It's not ethnic because if you mother is Jewish and your father is not - you are 100% Jewish ; but it the opposite case, you are not Jewish at all. I don't exactly understand neither why you want to change an article that works fine as it is now.Benjil (talk) 14:43, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

@Benjil -

1) Re "why you want to change " - I'm a big proponent of standardization. I think all religons should be treated equally by WP. It seems like that is not the case at the moment.

2) Re "according to Jewish law. Jewish identity does not fit the usual categories" - Jewish law is irrelevant on WP. NickCT (talk) 14:53, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

However, as Jews are also an ethnicity (unlike Christians and Muslims), then the article must be consistent with all other ethnicity articles. Secular Jews, atheist Jews, etc., are not practicing a religion, but they are still Jews. I recommend reviewing the articles in Category:Jewish atheists. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:38, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Jewish law is of course very relevant on the subject of Jews, on WP and everywhere else. Let's be serious please. Regarding standardization, Jews are not a religion as has been established so it should answer your problem. Benjil (talk) 15:32, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

What I mean to say, is that Jewish law isn't relevant in deciding who is or isn't a Jew. Is Mormon law important in deciding who is a Mormon? If Mormon law happened to claim you were a Mormon, would you be a Mormon. Clearly not.

If "jew" doesn't mean "an adherent of Judiasm", what is "an adherent of Judiasm" called? NickCT (talk) 15:37, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

A Judian of course :) PiCo (talk) 23:35, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

There are two means by which a person can be Jewish: birth and conversion. Bus stop (talk) 15:51, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Jewish law is for many Jews if not most including secular Jews the *only* relevant source to decide who is a Jew and who is not. The Israeli law follows the Jewish law also in that matter. So yes it is relevant. Jew means a member of the Jewish people. "Judaism" is, originally, a foreign concept. Anyway Judaism is not based on faith and does not work like other religions. I am sorry but this time no standardization i possible because there is nothing or almost nothing similar. Benjil (talk) 17:54, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

If a Christian a Muslim and a Jew are on a bus on the way to Jerusalem, they are pretty much the same, from a "Wikipedia" perspective. I am sorry to take such a simplistic approach, but Wikipedia should be correct on the most basic level first, then it can move on to articulate finer points and nuances. Those three people on the bus in my example represent religions. The finer distinctions do not matter from what I think is the basic and first-most Wikipedia perspective. Bus stop (talk) 18:29, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I recommend everyone here review the articles in Category:Jewish atheists. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:39, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

word and Wikipedia's Username Policy

How is the name "Jewboy19" considered offensive based on Wikipedia's Username Policy? 71.94.158.203 (talk) 20:30, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

"Jew" is not offensive, but "Jewboy" is a pejorative term. Anyway, your question doesn't belong here, please take it up with the blocking admin if you object to his action. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:34, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

New genetic study of jews

Ashkenazic and Sephardic Jews have roughly 30 percent European ancestry, with most of the rest from the Middle East, the two surveys find. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/10/science/10jews.html?hpw —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.229.148.118 (talk) 08:45, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Is this in the article? It's not clear if it is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.23.221.190 (talk) 18:40, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Khazars

6 million Khazars has adopted Judaism in ancient times and this was the main contriburing factor of increasing Jew population in the world. Theres no referance in the main article.--Finn Diesel (talk) 01:41, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Because this is not true. A few Khazars converted (the elites) and we don't know what happened to them after the destruction of the Khazar empire. Anyway Ashkenazi Jews do not descend from them as was again proved by the two recent genetic studies. Benjil (talk) 05:49, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Photo box

We need to add some more pictures to the collage. We should extremely famous individuals such as Jesus, Marx or Freud. Jesus in particular, given his relevance to the history of Judeo-Christian thought. Bob Dylan, Theodore Herzl, Benjamin Disraeli and Mendolssohn are also key choices that must be considered. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.255.241.127 (talk) 10:45, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Do you have a photograph of Jesus? Also, you seem to have a particular focus on Christians, or Jews who converted to Christianity (e.g. Dylan, Marx, Disraeli, Mendelssohn) - is there some reason for this? Jayjg ^(talk) 11:43, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Or if not a photo, how about a drawing done from life? Since none of the existing drawings depict a person who looks anything like a first century Galilean Jew they're pretty useless. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 03:35, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Photo box

Why is there a picture of Maimonides looking like Mohammed? 32.178.211.125 (talk) 18:43, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

You have a photograph of Muhammad? Jayjg ^(talk) 00:27, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Photo box

There is a part where it says that North African Mizrahim outnumbered Ashkenazim and Sephardim in France. But most North African Jews are Judeo-Spanish speakers (Sephardim). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.231.37.85 (talk) 15:07, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Do you have any sources for that? Jayjg ^(talk) 22:10, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Jewish Makeup

"Although individual and groups of converts to Judaism have historically been absorbed into contemporary Jewish populations, it is unlikely that they formed a large percentage of the ancestors of modern Jewish groups, and much less that they represented their genesis as Jewish communities."

Really? It is common knowledge that nearly 10% of the Roman empire was Jewish. Since the Roman empire encompassed most of what we would call Mediterranean Europe and North Africa, it could NOT have been due to prodigious Jewish breeding. Instead, a large percentage of the Jews of that time must have been converts. As a consequence, most Jews today must have a sizable percentage of Convert Blood within them. I think that the most supportable conclusion is that the modern Jewish population is most closely related to the Jews of the time of the Roman empire. This in turn means that they would also be most closely aligned with Italians which these studies also indicate. Therefore, I think the discussion on this matter should be more nuanced. Right now it expresses a biased opinion of the Jewish "race." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.35.225.222 (talk) 08:50, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:RS --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 12:38, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, other studies beyond the one I think you have in mind point to the hybrid Mediterranean/European ancestry that Ashkenazi Jews and Italians share as being the largest factor in their genetic similarity. 184.59.7.32 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:41, 17 August 2010 (UTC).

Also,if you look at this article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_diaspora, and other sources in libraries and on the web, you will notice that the vast majority of Jews in the Roman Empire were nowhere near Italy.184.59.7.32 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:23, 17 August 2010 (UTC).

Khazars

6 million Khazars has adopted Judaism in ancient times and this was the main contriburing factor of increasing Jew population in the world. Theres no referance in the main article.--Alpha Beta Gaga (talk) 12:17, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

That's because no one has found a reliable source to support it. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 12:31, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

This is a poor anti-semetic lie, modern DNA tsets had shown that almost all Jews (over 90% of the world's Jewry) are decsandants of an ancient Middle Eastern population, which share the same Genetic material (by the way, the last test was published in June 2010). Only anti-semites belive in the old "Khazar conspiracy" which had been proven by many genetic tests to be wrong!.--DXRD (talk) 10:46, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Jews page on Wikipedia

why cant you edit this page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.154.68.17 (talk) 21:46, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

To the original comment from 81.154.68.17. You can't edit this page because it is semi-protected. See Wikipedia:Protection policy for further details. To 188.23.78.104; those comments aren't helpful. Suggest you troll elsewhere. NickCT (talk) 18:26, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorted the infobox

I sorted the population at info box. United states has "up to" 1 million more jewish citizens than Israel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zpsmi (talk • contribs) 16:05, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I undid your edit. We've discussed this before, and the consensus view is that Israel is the Jewish homeland and therefore should be shown first and centered. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:33, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

New Jewish population as of 2010

The North American Jewish bank has posted the 2010 Jewish world population which is now 13,428,300.

I have posted the link to the PDF bellow,

In page 9, you can see the total number of 13,428,300 Jewish. (also Page 65 with more info)

In page 11, you can see all countries with Jewish population. (also Page 65 with more info)

Page 21, Number by continents.

Page 26, by metropolitan.

http://www.jewishdatabank.org/Reports/World_Jewish_Population_2010.pdf

Please someone edit and fix all population in this article (Jews) and Jewish population article.

- 217.132.165.111 (talk) 10:18, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing this information. "Jewish Population" was apparently fixed before I got to it, but I added this information to the lede of this article and the Judaism article. The non-lede sections of these 2 articles still need some updating. --La comadreja _{formerly AFriedman} RESEARCH (talk) 01:27, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Useful source

Science News coverage of the latest paper by Harry Ostrer's group (he's 11th in the author list, so in "et al."): Atzmon, G.; Hao, L.; Pe'Er, I.; Velez, C.; Pearlman, A.; Palamara, P. F.; Morrow, B.; Friedman, E.; Oddoux, C.; Burns, E.; Ostrer, H. (2010). "Abraham's Children in the Genome Era: Major Jewish Diaspora Populations Comprise Distinct Genetic Clusters with Shared Middle Eastern Ancestry". The American Journal of Human Genetics. 86 (6): 850–859. doi:10.1016/j.ajhg.2010.04.015. PMC 3032072. PMID 20560205. Tijfo098 (talk) 11:02, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Famous Jews

I propose that Lenin and Trotsky and several other of the famous Jewish Bolshevist movement are added to a list of famous Jewish People. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wis (talk • contribs) 03:51, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Why would you want a non-Jew like Lenin added to the list? Everard Proudfoot (talk) 03:52, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. And there are more significant Jews to be added, if we were thinking of doing so, which we're not. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:56, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

This edit [5] calling someone a raving spic Zionist probably explains it. Look at his edit history. Dougweller (talk) 05:14, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Where are Jesus and Franz Kafka ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.0.242.192 (talk) 12:57, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Kafka is apparently in the Jewish cemetery in Prague; you can find his grave here. According to the Gospel of Mark, 16:19, Jesus is in heaven, at the right-hand of God. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:59, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't that Kafka merits inclusion, but certainly Jesus does. I know that potentially steps on some toes, and believe me, I have no dog in any fight here...but just from academic perspective, I think you'd be hard pressed to find someone of jewish descent with more impact on the western world, be that for better or for worse. Jbower47 (talk) 00:33, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

We're having trouble finding photographs of Jesus; do you have any? Jayjg ^(talk) 00:59, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Jayjg. I am glad you mentioned that. Does anybody here have access to verifiable documents that attest to the existence of a Jesus of Nazareth during the Roman occupation of the Middle East? I heard that they were meticulous record keepers of all of their subjects. Thanks. ronhelton1@hotmail.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.40.40.69 (talk) 05:37, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Who decides which and how many famous members of an ethnic group get their pictures included in the top-right hand panel? The selection of only four (one of the lower numbers for such pages), and choosing Emma Lazarus over quite a large number of more famous and globally important people, seem to be a bit odd. Perhaps one from each of a range of periods or walks of life might be more suitable? Compared to other such pages, 12 to 16 might be in order, particularly for a group which has had such a wide variety of members across time and space, many of them historically very influential. If the purpose is to give an idea of 'typical' members of the group, four just cannot do the Jews justice: and given Maimonides has a painting here, at least a couple of Biblical characters might indeed be in order too - I note their own pages tend to include pictorial representations, even if they are obviously speculative. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.185.115.52 (talk) 14:52, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

For some odd reason it was extremely hard to get agreement on who the people in the infobox should be, so this was as many as could be agreed on. I think the intent was to mix men/women and Ashkenazi/Sephardi. Regarding Biblical figures, it's probably better to stick to individuals whose existence is undisputed. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:34, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Genetic claim not supported by the citation

The sentences that I have placed in bold are not supported by the citation. The article cited indeed states that Ashkenazim Jews have 12.5% admixture. The article cited does not go on to claim an admixture of 23% for Askenazim Jews contrary to what has been claimed in this Wiki entry. The cited article also states that the Ashkenazim Jews are closest to other Jewish populations and it does not say that they are closest to Greeks as is claimed in the Wiki entry.

Quote:

The proportion of male genetic admixture in Ashkenazi Jews amounts to less than 0.5% per generation over an estimated 80 generations, with "relatively minor contribution of European Y chromosomes to the Ashkenazim," and a total admixture estimate "very similar to Motulsky's average estimate of 12.5%." This supported the finding that "Diaspora Jews from Europe, Northwest Africa, and the Near East resemble each other more closely than they resemble their non-Jewish neighbors." However, when all haplotypes were included in the analysis, m (the admixture percentage) increased to 23% ± 7%. In addition, of the Jewish populations in this cluster, the Ashkenazim were closest to South European populations, specifically the Greeks.[44]

This is what the cited article actually says:

Jewish and Middle Eastern non-Jewish populations share a common pool of Y-chromosome biallelic haplotypes

Hammer et al. 2000

quote:

Evidence for Common Jewish Origins

Several lines of evidence support the hypothesis that Diaspora Jews from Europe, Northwest Africa, and the Near East resemble each other more closely than they resemble their non-Jewish neighbors. First, six of the seven Jewish populations analyzed here formed a relatively tight cluster in the MDS analysis (Fig. 2). The only exception was the Ethiopian Jews [...]

Second, despite their high degree of geographic dispersion, Jewish populations from Europe, North Africa, and the Near East were less diverged genetically from each other than any other group of populations in this study (Table 2). The statistically significant correlation between genetic and geographic distances in our non-Jewish populations from Europe, the Middle East, and North Africa is suggestive of spatial differentiation, whereas the lack of such a correlation for Jewish populations is more compatible with a model of recent dispersal and subsequent isolation during and after the Diaspora.

To address the degree to which paternal gene flow may have affected the Jewish gene pool, we estimated approximate admixture levels in our Jewish samples from Europe. This question remains unresolved in particular for the Ashkenazi community. Our results indicated a relatively minor contribution of European Y chromosomes to the Ashkenazim. If we assume 80 generations since the founding of the Ashkenazi population, then the rate of admixture would be <0.5% per generation (47). Interestingly, our total admixture estimate is very similar to Motulsky's (8) average estimate of 12.5% based on 18 classical genetic markers. However, the 18 markers in Motulsky's (8) study fell into two classes: a low admixture class and a high admixture class. Similarly, Cavalli-Sforza and Carmelli (48) found significant heterogeneity of admixture rates for different loci in the Ashkenazim. Because admixture should affect all loci to the same degree, there are two possible explanations for the heterogeneity: (i) admixture levels are actually low, and some loci are affected by convergent selection (e.g., in a common environment), or (ii) admixture levels are actually high, and some loci are experiencing stabilizing selection. Motulsky (8) interpreted the bimodal distribution of admixture values in terms of the former model. Because the NRY has few functional genes and is not likely to have been affected by recent selective sweeps (49, 50), our admixture results support the low admixture model.

http://www.pnas.org/content/97/12/6769.long — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edmund Scott Wiki (talk • contribs) 21:47, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

The fact that Judaism was once a great proselytizing religion should not be overlooked. The bulk of European Jews are descended from ancestors who converted to Judaism. The mass conversions of Khazars is one example. Another example would be the mass conversions of Polish and Lithuanian peasants, between the 12th and the 16th Centuries, as a result of policies and incentives by the Polish nobility intended to secure greater economic independence from and limit the influence over Polish financial matters by the Church of Rome. The Polish Nobles were able to extend their economic interests, by creating a class of citizens, protected and authorized by the Commonwealth, not bridled by religious regulations in commerce and lending, and not obliged to answer to Rome. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.232.233.38 (talk) 04:07, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Interesting but worthless without a reliable source to support it. Also, I don't see what this has to do with DNA studies. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 08:26, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Jews in Poland

¿100000 Jews in Poland? that's ridiculous the Jewish population almost disapear in Poland, in the movie Schindler's list say the Jewish population in Poland it's less than 5000 people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.77.251.239 (talk) 21:24, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Schindler's List wasn't a documentary. According to reliable sources, the Jewish population of Poland is between 20,000 and 25,000. I'll fix the article. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:23, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually it is estimated that there may be over a million people in Poland who are descended from Jewish ancestors. Credible statistics of the number of Polish Jews surviving WWII vary from 10% to 33&. Documents and references dated closest to the end of the war usually cite the higher survival figures. The Jewish Encyclopedia of 1953 states that 66% of Polish Jews perished in WWII. Later references more commonly cite survival estimates closer to the 10% figure. Many believe the correct survival figure to be closer to 25% which puts the number of Polish Jews surviving the Holocaust at 800,000-900,000. (Unfortunately "Schindler's List", while a well deserved tribute to Oscar Schindler, is largely historically inaccurate.) It is a common mistake to presume that the Jews of Poland who perished during WWII were exterminated exclusively by the Germans. Actually two-thirds were murdered by the Germans while the other third was murdered by the Communists as a result of the Soviet policy of "homogenizing" the Polish-Soviet frontier. Approximately 1,000,000 Poles of Jewish affiliation were murdered by the Soviets and 2,000,000 by the Germans while 2,000,000 non-Jewish Poles, mostly Catholics, were murdered by the Soviets and 1,000,000 by the Germans. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.232.233.38 (talk) 03:28, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Interesting, but valueless without a reliable source to support it. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 08:27, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

The comment about the million decedents of Polish Jews has nothing to do with the current number of Jews in Poland. This number does not consider how many surviving Polish Jews left Poland after WWII (these surviving Jews are the people who made up a large percentage of the Jews who moved to Israel and the United States after the war). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.81.61.217 (talk) 13:49, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

First paragraph

"their national homeland"... shouldn't that read notional homeland? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.177.112.32 (talk) 16:19, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

The concepts of "nation" and "homeland" are themselves "notional". Jayjg ^(talk) 17:23, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

RfC on Infobox Images for Ethnic Groups

An RfC has been opened on whether Infoboxes for articles on ethnic groups should include images of appropriate people belonging to the group; or whether this practice should be banned.

This would affect the infobox on this article, for example.

Follow-ups probably best there. Jheald (talk) 23:55, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

US Census does not calculate number of Jews

Though this article claims that the US census "calculated" the number of Jews, this in fact is incorrect. The US Census does not collect any data about religious sub-populations, but instead reports data collected by the religious bodies themselves. Considerable debate surrounds the number of Jews in the US. The most accurate study that wasn't based on numerous and uneven sources was conducted in 2001, and found the number of Jews in the US to be 5.2 million and projected to decrease. This study can be found here: http://www.jewishfederations.org/local_includes/downloads/3905.pdf

For information about the different studies on the US Jewish population and their respective strengths and weaknesses, as well as information about the total world Jewish population, see: http://www.jewishdatabank.org/Reports/World_Jewish_Population_2010.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.81.61.217 (talk) 13:43, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Genetic distinction at an individual level

User:Utopial has been inserting the following into the article:

However, on a purely technical level, there is no genetic screen that can sort Jews from non-Jews.[6]

There are a number of issues with the insertion.

1. It's argumentative: why has he even brought this up? No-one made any claim to the contrary in this article.
2. The sources aren't geneticists. In this case, the authors of the Jerusalem Post article are Diana Muir Appelbaum, a historian of New England, and Paul S. Appelbaum, a doctor who "writes about the ethics of genetic testing and research". This claim does not come from the authors of any of the studies on Jewish genetics, and neither author of the Jerusalem Post article is an expert on the topic.
3. It's factually incorrect. See, for example, this 2009 study.

Utopial, please get consensus on this material before trying to re-insert it. Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:09, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

It's a direct quote from an article. Debating the reliable source findings is original research. I brought it up because firstly it was noteworthy enough to be brought up in the article's conclusion itself, and secondly because it is a misconclusion that people are likely to make unless informed otherwise (in fact it was a misconclusion that i was making until I opened the source and read the article, hence the reason for me including it). I don't understand why it is so controversial to include it. That study you referred to only compares to European Americans, not to the rest of the world's population, e.g. arabs. It's like saying u can genetically distinguish asians who like carrot cake from africans, therefore asians who like carrot cake are distinct genetically at an individual level. i regret that u called me argumentative. id prefer to be referred to as free thinking. if u can find a better source that shows that at an individual level jews can be genetically distinguished from other humans, id naturally consider the above insertion trumpedUtopial (talk) 23:30, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Continue discussion in Talk:Genetic_studies_on_Jews

Utopial, you haven't responded to any of the points raised. Sources have varying levels of reliability, depending on context, and a local historian and an ethicist aren't nearly reliable enough to be making these kinds of sweeping claims about genetics - they have no "findings", they have merely voiced their opinions. Again, the author of that quote is not the author of the genetic studies. In addition, there was no "misconclusion" - rather, as pointed out, you seem to be arguing against a point our article doesn't even make. Third, I have actually provided a reliable source that "shows that at an individual level jews can be genetically distinguished from other humans". Please try again, this time actually responding to the points I have made. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:44, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Continue discussion in Talk:Genetic_studies_on_Jews Utopial (talk) 00:28, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Indigenous

Why is it biased to add Category:Indigenous peoples of Southwest Asia to this article but not biased to add that same category to the Palestinian people article, which is incorrect anyway? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jwcraig79 (talk • contribs) 22:35, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

It looks like what you're referring to is this edit and this revert. I have no particular opinion (yet) on whether this article belongs in that category, but you've come to the right place to discuss it. I am a little concerned, however, that your question on this talk page is your first edit to Wikipedia. Place that fact alongside the fact that Tgandz, the user who made the now-reverted edit that you are defending was blocked only two days ago and you have a reasonable suspicion that you are Tgandz's sockpuppet. If this is true, the correct procedure is not to create another account to pursue the same agenda, put to post an unblock notice on your original account's talk page explaining that you understand why you were blocked in the first place and making a commitment not to continue the same conduct. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 01:03, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Addendum - I have just looked at Tgandz's talk page where someone has posted the content of his now-redacted edit summary. Consequently, I am revising my advice to you. If you are the same person who called another editor "Arab vermin" in an edit summary, please don't post an unblock notice, just stay off Wikipedia entirely. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 01:06, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

So why isn't the category here again? The first sentence says "The Jews (Hebrew: יְהוּדִים‎‎ ISO 259-3 Yhudim Israeli pronunciation [jehu'dim]), also known as the Jewish people, are a nation and ethnoreligious group originating in the Israelites or Hebrews of the Ancient Near East. The Jewish ethnicity, nationality, and religion are strongly interrelated, as Judaism is the traditional faith of the Jewish nation.[6][7][8]" Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 22:02, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Jewish languages

" ...Hebrew is the liturgical language of Judaism (termed l'shon ha-kodesh, "the holy tongue")... "

l'shon ha-kodesh means "the holy language" !

lashon (לשון) means:
1.tongue
2.language —Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.116.108.24 (talk) 18:52, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

FYI, the word "language" traces to English, through Norman and French, from Latin, "lingua" - which means "tongue". Thus, the word "language" itself literally means "tongue" (or "tongue-age"). The difference is that the word "language" was imported to the English language, while the word "tongue" is native to the English language. Likewise, the words "veal" and "beef" (boeuf) were imported from Normandy; the native English equivalents are "calf" and "cow". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.198.146.98 (talk) 04:52, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Main Image of Jew is not representative - only shows European Jews

Would it not be more worldview to show an collage of images of Jewish people from different ethnic groups. Especially Ethiopian Jews, Ugandan Jews, Yemeni Jews ? Because right now everyone is European. Yes I know you want famous people but it would be better to show the ethnic diversity and not the stereotype. --Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 12:09, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, let's see, we have only four people there atm (very small compared to other articles). Two are Ashkenazi and two are Sephardim (Lazarus and Maimonides), so it is decidedly more European. You are right we need more Mizrahim and Beta Israel (Ethiopian Jews) as well as some of the other groups, but there are definitely famous people from those groups, it's not like none are accomplished. =p Ofra Haza would be one to be included imho, she was a very famous Yemeni/Mizrahi Jewish singer. You could find more possible additions in the articles for each ethnic group Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 15:26, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

You could put Ofra Haza and Sammy Davis, Jr., or Lenny Kravitz or Just Ofra and Abatte Barihun. Then the only thing to complain about would be they are all musicians. --Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 16:17, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Lenny Kravitz is only Russian (Ashkenazi) Jewish on his dad's side (hence the half of Lenny Kravitz jokes) and Sammy Davis Jr. was a convert to Judaism. Abatte's article, oddly enough, doesn't actually say he is Beta Israel, just gives a lot of hints at it without an explicit statement. Poorly written article as well imo. The additions shouldn't all be musicians. There are many incredibly good Mizrahi singers, but we need some writers and politicians too. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 16:25, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I will then definitely vote for Sammy, because Muhammad Ali is a convert to Islam so that doesn't diminish anything when it comes to Islam, why then if someone is a Jew? Also it would be good to have Mizrahi Jews, European, Converts. The more diverse the better. But considering the large Ethiopian Population at least one African Jew. 4 in total Einstein, Maimonides and Ethiopian (or Sammy) and Ofra. --Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 16:33, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

It is not as simple as that. Judaism is a religion, but we Jews are a nation/people/heritage or however you wish to describe it. You can be both a Jew and an atheist for instance or secular like many Israelis are. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 03:41, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

No, the infobox doesn't need entertainers etc., and the population of Ethiopian and African-American Jews (and even Yemeni Jews) was and is tiny compared to other groups. We've stuck with some of the most famous/influential Jews of all time in the box, and tried to have a gender balance. You'll need considerable consensus to add any images. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:21, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

What about mizrahim? They are a significant group, especially in Israel. Understand that I am going by the Israeli use of the term btw, which is sometimes akin to race-based (though they are all Jews from pretty much the same heritage). Why do we only have four here though? There are quite a few famous Jews in history. I can think of quite a few more influential than Ms. Lazarus who deserve a spot (like Theodor Herzl or Louis Brandeis for example, and there are more women for sure). =p Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 03:41, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I'd love to have more Mizrahim, Ethiopian Jews, Bukharim, or any other kind of Jew. However, the infobox shouldn't be an affirmative action project; we need Jews who made a significant difference to Jewish/world history, and should be picking images on that basis. Regarding Lazarus, I'd also prefer someone more famous/influential, but the older discussion basically agreed on an equal balance of men and women, and Ashkenazim/non-Ashkenazim. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:01, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, but only one of each? We have four people here only. =p Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 04:11, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I am not arguing for Sammy Davis Jr. being be placed in the composite image but Sammy Davis Jr.'s being a convert to Judaism would not present any obstacle as there is no distinction in Judaism between someone who is a convert to Judaism and someone who is born Jewish. Bus stop (talk) 04:17, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

So, propose the names of a couple of Jews who made a significant difference to Jewish/world history. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:31, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

@Bus: the distinction in Judaism is irrelevant. As I said, one way of thinking about it is along the lines of a racial designation really (How Israelis do it =p) or something like being Walloon or Flemish (heritages). Theodor Herzl, founder of Modern Zionism; Louis Brandeis, first Jewish Supreme Court Justice and many other things; David Ben-Gurion, Kissinger? Maybe Rabin as well. - non-serious suggestion: Jesus of Nazareth. =p Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 04:55, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I dont know if wiki set the criteria that the image must only have in super famous people. The article is called Jews not famous Jews. It has nothing to do with affirmative action. Mizrahi Jews and Ethiopian Jews are constantly complaining about being marginalized. Why should the criteria for insertion rotate around "powerful or influential Jews", is that the criteria for being a representative of Jewish people? Yes I agree Einstein is perfect but we can then try and satisfy other criteria like ethnic diversity. When they have a image of the Israeli people (which is different from Jewish people I know) the images always try to represents the ethnic diversity of the people. Ethnic diversity in this users opinion outweighs having 4 European Jewish people. We can even expand the image and make it 6. But i feel Sammy Davis is a good call. Its not like I suggested Lisa Bonet, or Troy Beyer. And actually Jesus is the most powerful Jewish man hands down (obviously and ironically it presents other problems )--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 10:31, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Atheism

I think that it should be added to religion as minority. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.140.67.158 (talk) 13:43, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Well there are definitely secular and atheistic Jews.... Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 18:33, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

There are Jews of every imaginable religion. Atheism, however, is not a religion. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:21, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

It's still a religious belief though. You even have what I like to call evangelical atheists (you'll know'em when you see'em). It's, of course, not an organised religion of any sort (except in Metalocalypse) though if that is what you mean. :p Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 06:06, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Whether or not atheism is a religious belief is beyond the scope of this discussion. In any event, we both agree it's not an organized religion of any sort. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:15, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

'Avraham' & 'Yakov'

Jews will often use the spelling and pronunciation of 'Avraham' in place of 'Abraham', and 'Yakov' in place of 'Jacob'. This article should reference these alternatives by adding these Jewish names as such: Abraham ('Avraham'), Jacob ('Yakov'). - Brad Watson, Miami 65.3.238.158 (talk) 23:13, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Which Jews are you referring to specifically? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 06:07, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

The Hebrew names of Abraham and Jacob are "Avraham" and "Ya'akov" respectively. However, this is English Wikipedia. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:16, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

why is there so less pictures of the jewish people on the top right?

There are so many personalities which are jews, there should be more pictures of jewish personalities than having only 4.--Karesu12340 (talk) 09:58, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Please see the multiple discussions at Template talk:Infobox Jews and the archives there. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:56, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Jewish population in Iran

i believe the number for Kalimi (Jewish) people in Iran to be much higher than 10,800 . I asked a few friends who emigrated to Israel(Holon & Haifa) from Iran in early 2000, and they mostly think 10,800 a a bit less than the actual population. One said in Shiraz there are at least 5,000 (but I can't verify that figure) people.

based on another thread and according to "Al.ShimoniLink title":

The 11,000 figure was based starting with a rough estimate of the population in the 1980s, they then assumed that as many Jews there were born as were killed by the regime (!) plus died of natural deaths (in other words, no population growth) and then subtracted from that the the number of Jews who have left Iran since the '80s. That method of estimating is, shall we say, a little biased.

The population is more accurately somewhere between 25,000 and 40,000. If you want citations, here are a few (all of these give the lower end figure of 25,000)

• [Iran's proud but discreet Jews BBC News - 2006 Sep]

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

• [Iran Jewish leader calls recent mass aliyah 'misinformation' bid HaAretz — 2007 Dec]
• [Iran Jewish MP criticizes 'anti-human' Israel acts Reuters via Ynet - 2008 May]

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3540651,00.html

• [Iranian Jews slam 'emigrant stunt' CNN - 2007 Dec]

http://edition.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/12/26/iran.israel.jews/

• [Iran's Unlikely TV Hit - Wall Street Journal - 2007 Sep]"

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118912609718220156.html

Also another issue that just popped out to me is that in the beginning of the article, the population is noted at 10,400, however half way through the page it changes to 10,800. did anyone else notice that?

Thankyou Bobby — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brashrafi (talk • contribs) 20:00, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

A few notes about population figures. The figures in the article don't agree with one another because of an oversight. The source was updated and somebody updated the "infobox" at the top of the article, but they neglected to update the body of the article.

If you look at the "infobox", you'll notice that every population comes from the same source. There are advantages to this. As you may know, the often-debated question of Who is a Jew? means that there are many different ways to count Jews. Do you count people who self-identify as Jews or only those who belong to synagogues? Etc. The advantage of using one source is that I believe the Jewish population figures are comparable from one country to another; that is, whatever criterion is used to count Jews in the study is applied in all countries. Another advantage is that these population figures come from an academic source, not the popular media.

There may be some advantages to using news media instead. Iranian media may have a better sense of the local population, although I question whether the Wall Street Journal, the BBC, or CNN knows very much about the number of Iranian Jews.

In my opinion, this about something more than just changing the number of Iranian Jews. I'd be interested in what other editors have to say. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:22, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I see that we do use a newspaper as a source for the Jewish population of Poland. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:19, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

HI, THAT SURE IS A GREAT AND INTERESTING TOPIC FOR RESEARCH, i NEVER really thought about it the way you explained it, we do not belong to a synagogue but are jewish, so you make total sense, and as one method may not be a 100% accurate, it may be better to use a universal standard for all. thank you for your comment. At the end of the day, what matters is that we are still here, Brashrafi (talk) 22:08, 3 August 2011 (UTC)Bobby

how come?

how come that there are more picture in the topic Ashkenazi Jews than the whole Jewish community topic? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.229.171.142 (talk) 12:02, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

It's hard to get agreement on which ones to use. Are more required? Jayjg ^(talk) 22:14, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, this is the article about Jews in general so it hardly matters. And well...why not a mixture of us? I could donate my picture. No wait, that's original research. *shot* --Τασουλα (Almira) (talk) 00:03, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

The Population

How come when I was in elementary school and I told the Jewish kids that there were fewer than 15 million Jews in the world, they said I was lying and accused me of being anti-Semitic? They argued that around our town there were plenty of Jewish people, so there is roughly that proportion in the rest of the world too. Why don't Jewish kids know the what the real Jewish population is? They just assume it's roughly proportional to the town they live in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.227.105.197 (talk) 21:09, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Is there a change you would like to make to the article? Jayjg ^(talk) 21:17, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Kohen

There are 2 haplogroups, J1 and J2, which are supposed to represent this Kohanim type. J1 and J2 diverged many thousands of years before 2000 B.C. Please, correct. --Periergeia (talk) 18:36, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Er...not being rude but, couldn't you do it yourself? WP:BOLD :) --Τασουλα (Almira) (talk) 01:20, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

S-protection

Please could someone remove the S-protection on this page. Afterall, I have some HIGHLY IMPORTANT edits to make... Truth about 911 (talk) 15:26, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

No. Antandrus (talk) 15:36, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

If you have some edits to make, I suggest that you discuss them here.--Toddy1 (talk) 18:10, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

This user left me a weird message here [7] and also here [8]. He'll probably try and add some silliness about how the "Jews did 9/11" or something. :s --Τασουλα (Almira) (talk) 18:36, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Jewish Autonomous Oblast

Should not JAO be mentioned in the paragraph about jewish autonomy? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_Autonomous_Oblast — Preceding unsigned comment added by Axbent (talk • contribs) 18:11, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Flinders Petrie revert

Ok, undoubtedly you are aware that Wikipedia good practice encourages making as few edits as possible where possible. Consequently I wrote revision of this section offline.

Now, rather than reverting, you could have started your own discussion, but that would of course be a non-conflict based approach to editing.

So, what are your objections to my editing of the section?Koakhtzvigad (talk) 01:48, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I have a talk page as well you know if you want to ask me directly. :p To answer your question, you rewrote large and very important section of section of a very high-traffic article [9]. You boldy put up a significant change, it is reverted, and discussion starts (the usual drill and not intended to cause conflict, but rather facilitate discussion). I figure there should be a concensus on how good a change to the article it is before it is read by several thousand people. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 02:24, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

The section of the article you added the material to, "Origins", is about the origins of the Jewish people. It's not the appropriate place for a summary of Jewish history, which is what you seemed to be adding.

Some of the material you added is already in the article (see "Name and etymology", for example), while other parts belong elsewhere in the article. Some of it I think is just bizarre ("Although since 1947 they are still referred to as Jews in the English-speaking diaspora...") or unnecessarily politicizes this article (all the nonsense about indigenous and non-indigenous people of Israel is funny, coming a few paragraphs after we say that Abraham came from Ur). — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:19, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

There is no section titled "Name and etymology".

'while other parts belong elsewhere in the article' - care to say which parts?

What do you find "bizarre" about "Although since 1947 they are still referred to as Jews in the English-speaking diaspora..."? Jews is not the actual indigenous name of the people, yet they are still referred to as such.

How do you define indigenous? Where Abraham came from is not significant since he was told by God to move to the land that would be inherited by his progeny.

If you care to look in the List of indigenous peoples, Palestinians are described as – The predominantly Muslim and Arabic-speaking people inhabiting Israel and the territories nominally controlled by the Palestinian Authority.[6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13]. Neither "Jews" nor Israelis seem to be indigenous to their own land any more. However, not one of the quoted sources actually uses the accepted definition of indigenous, and not one even considers the pre-7th century populations of the region which was the original Mandate Palestine.

And yet Wikipedia article says "Two of the most well known of these earlier movements of indigenous resistance include the popular "Zealot" uprisings in ancient Israel which brazenly refuted the self-appointed efficacy and cultural ostentation of Greco-Roman imperial presence and the audacious counter-culture of dissent thrown at imperial Rome by Christian exiles from their traditional territory in Israel, which was thrown into political turbulence in 70 AD."

How did I politicize the article? Are you saying that Jews are not indigenous to the Land of Israel, or are you saying that multiple foreign conquests were not producing waves of refugees from which the later diaspora was created?

It seemed to me that the original section failed to address the source of the name in English, its evolution and inevitable connection to the present. There is no coverage of this in the article. The section on diaspora starts in the 19th century USA. No one acknowledges that the Jewish diaspora is one of the oldest populations of refugees in the World history. Origins section in my edit addresses the origins of this diaspora and its nature as much as the origins of the Jews since Jews and their diaspora communities have become closely associated with the Jewish identity.Koakhtzvigad (talk) 10:20, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

What I find bizarre is that we call people by their English names, regardless of what they call themselves. It is no surprise that this didn't change in 1948—in fact, why should it have? The daily lives of most Jews were not affected one iota by the establishment of the State of Israel.

If you look at the same List of indigenous peoples, you'll see that there is no entry for Jews. Hmm. Maybe because our own Bible says we're not indigenous to the Land of Israel.

As I wrote, you're trying to politicize the article—continuing tonight with all this nonsense about "forced migrations" of "Jewish refugees". Give it a rest. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:25, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I think we need an RFC on this issue, or to at least take it to content dispute. I am currently replying to rather lovely long message that he left on my talk page (where he asked if I had any objections and said if I didn't he would re-add etc.) Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 24 Elul 5771 04:41, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry Flinders Petrie, but I'm just going to ignore you since you are not contributing anything to this article or its improvement other than having prevented me from doing so. Shalom

Malik, if you read the List of indigenous peoples, you will see that the vast majority are listed by the names they call themselves, and not their English names. In fact I could find only seven peoples that are listed by a name other than their own, one of them Karaites that also claim to be Jewish. Why do you think that Jews are exempted from the list?

Now perhaps you have also read the criteria by which indigeneosness is defined in a Wikipedia article.

I don't know what Bible you are reading, but my Humash doesn't have any word for indigenous in it. That was in the edit which was removed. The people Yisrael were given a land, that originally belonged to others, by God. This seems to be a unique experience in the World. Their forefathers paid for the land, took possession of it, then conquered it again, settled it, and no other people had claimed it again until 1922 despite multiple subsequent occupations.

In case you have a problem with this, I suggest you look at the Indigenous people of Europe. No English, no French and no Germans. Even the "Italians" and the Greeks are not listed. Why do you suppose that is?

Wars were fought over the unwillingness of states to renounce claims to land in Europe, and most modern definitions of states are closely linked to their defined borders. The Jews never renounced claims to their land. Not even while the vast majority were in exile and therefore by definition seeking refuge from persecution they would have been subjected to had they returned to their lands and tried to reclaim them. These persecutions were largely based on the reports from those few Jews that remained in Israel, largely its few habitable cities. All this is found in Wikipedia articles, and most are far better referenced than many articles about other peoples.

The daily lives of most Jews were not affected one iota by the establishment of the State of Israel?! You shouldn't say thing in public for which you may be embarrassed later. Are you saying that the Jews living in Mandate Palestine were not affected by the Declaration of Israel's independence? Or perhaps all the Jews that were still in the post-war refugee camps all over Europe? Or maybe you are talking about the daily lives of the Jews in the Islamic countries? What about the daily lives of millions of Jews in the Soviet Union slated for extermination when Stalin realised Israelis were not going to join the Communist camp? And yes, even the daily lives of secular American Jews changed, because many were now able to get newspapers in English about news in Israel along with their local American newspapers, albeit with a bit of delay. And, as the time went on, more lives were affected more often, though perhaps not your own.

If you call this restatement of the obvious "politicization" of the article, you are in part correct because the process by which the state of Israel was created, and the conditions under which descendants of the original refugees were able to return to their historic lands was a highly political one, and you know it. Me reflecting this in the article does not in any way shape or form promote my point of view since it is a common and widely recorded analysis.

All you are doing is showing the paucity of your ability to carry on an argument based on logic and fact rather than labeling and victimization of those who do not ascribe to your point of view, whatever that may be. Koakhtzvigad (talk) 07:26, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Reverts by Malik Shabazz

Please explain how any of the historical movements by Jews were migratory and not forced.

Please explain how my edits were a "campaign to politicize this article". Koakhtzvigad (talk) 05:44, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

New topics referring to someone in the second-person should go on their talk pages. New topics about someone in the third-person go here. I think this is a matter for content dispute (whose internal link I can never remember). Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 24 Elul 5771 05:49, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Whatever. If someone reverts my edits, I will ask here, and not go all over user talk pages

To have a content dispute, one first has to have content. Since you removed my editing, its not article content yet, is it? Koakhtzvigad (talk) 12:21, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, those talk page buttons are there for a reason, but if you want to use article talk pages that is just as well (so long as it relates to discussion of imporving the article).

It was article content and is potential future content you wish to discuss. The content doesn't need to currently be in the article for there to be a content dispute as far as I know. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 25 Elul 5771 14:43, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Malik, please define what you mean by this revert comment within 48 hours. This should include evidence of my advocacy of whatever it is you suggest I am campaigning for as long trend of editing.

Please note that to politicize an issue is not inherently "evil", but is in fact found at the core of the reason for compiling encyclopedias - to make knowledge more available to the general population.

However, I suspect you are trying to label by suggesting that I am editing for political gain. If so, please indicate how. Koakhtzvigad (talk) 22:15, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I've explained my reverts in the preceding section. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:38, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

No, actually you have not explained anything. Most explanations follow the form "My reverts were done because...". You on the other hand yet again accused me of "POV pushing", although all people are entitled to their point of view. You asked me to provide references for the obvious, and something already stated int he article, that Jews were forced from their lands, and became either internal or diasporic refugees. You are therefore wasting my time, and being a troll too boot by arguing what is common knowledge explicitly stated in the article, and which was not edited by myself. This seems to have been the much vaunted consensus that you didn't challenge until now, which suggests to me that you are targeting my editing although you were warned about this sort of approach previously. Koakhtzvigad (talk) 03:09, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

"Forced migrations"

Koakhtzvigad is pushing his POV that all Jews in the diaspora are refugees and therefore immigration of diaspora Jews is "forced migration". Can we have some sources please? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:18, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

It seems that before editing you need to familiarise yourself with terminology and their definitions, for example by reading Wikipedia articles.

It is VERY FAR from my POV that all Jews in the diaspora are refugees or descendants of refugees. It is in fact common knowledge. I would be happy if you showed me one diaspora community that originated from willing Judea emigration Koakhtzvigad (talk) 05:50, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

According to WP:BURDEN, you have to provide sources if challenged. You're being challenged. What reputable historians have written about two millennia of Jewish refugees and their forced migrations? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:56, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I suggest you first "burden" yourself to read this article Koakhtzvigad (talk) 12:19, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Malik, please confirm within 24 hours that you have read and understood this article's section on "migrations" Koakhtzvigad (talk) 21:57, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Koakhtzvigad, please stop playing games. I asked you for some sources. Put up or shut up. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:37, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

There is a section in the article that lists numerous expulsions of the Jews. All are referenced. Why do I need to yet again reference my general statement that Jews are refugees of these exiles, expulsions and persecutions?

Which specific part of my removed edit do you want a reference for? A list of reputable historians who have written about two millennia of Jewish refugees and their forced migrations would require a List article in its own right. Koakhtzvigad (talk) 03:02, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

You have yet to provide a single source that refers to 2000 years of "forced migrations" of "Jewish refugees". I submit that it is pure WP:OR on your part. Show me a single reputable historian who has written in those terms. Put up or shut up. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:46, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

The "migrations" section list includes many items not due to expulsion, some clearly voluntary (though possibly "fueled by" adversity). The existing introduction did not accurately describe the list, and was tendentious by being tied entirely to the preceding statement via that little word "such". I have reworded the introduction to better describe the contents of the list, and hope this helps. Hertz1888 (talk) 11:56, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Hertz1888. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:56, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Demographics section

This section is overly sectioned and confusing. Currently it has the following structure:

8 Demographics

8.1 Population centres

8.1.1 State of Israel

8.1.2 Diaspora (outside Israel)

8.2 Demographic changes

8.2.1 Assimilation

8.2.2 War and persecution

8.2.3 Migrations

8.2.4 Growth

However, demography is a study applied to any kind of dynamic human population, that is, one that changes over time or space. Demographics are presented as a) historical trends, and b) current data, and c) forecasting based on the Demographic analysis of a and b.

I would therefore suggest the section be reordered as follows:

8 Demography

8.1 Historical demographics (or trends)

8.1.1 Original population centre (Patriarchal settlement to Assyrian expulsion)

8.1.2 Internal displacement and refugee diaspora (From Babylonian exile to Hellenistic period)

8.1.3 War and persecution (From Hasmonean revolt to Jewish–Roman wars)

8.1.4 Forced migrations (From the Roman Empire to the Russian Empire)

8.1.5 Assimilation in the diaspora (From the Muslim Iberia to United States of America)

8.1.6 Return, and recreation of the state of Israel (From 19th century Zionism to current)

8.2 Current demographics

8.2.1 General (gender, age, birthrate, etc.)

8.2.2 Environmental (urbanization, ecological impact, etc.)

8.2.3 Societal (community sizes, denominational breakdown, etc.)

8.2.4 Political

8.2.5 Economic

8.2.6 Security

8.3 Demographic projections (for example)

8.3.1 Environmental sustainability of aliya

8.3.2 Prospects of social integration in Israel

8.3.3 Politics and Israeli society

8.3.4 Economic differentiation and religious observance

8.3.6 Economic burden of diaspora communal security

Koakhtzvigad (talk) 02:56, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Can this video be put in about kosher butchery?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ie2v5k-diq0 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.116.14.232 (talk) 16:25, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

No. Acroterion (talk) 16:27, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Name

Hello. I request to change the name of this page from "Jews" to "Jewish people". I, and other Jewish people, find the name "Jews" offending, because it reminds us things of the Holocaust, such as the Nazis calling us "dirty Jew", "Hairy Jew" etc. Also, I think the name "Jewish people" sounds more respective and will be accepted in every turn. Thank you --Moto53|Talk to me! 16:43, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

I think this has been discussed before. Most Jews prefer Jew to Jewish people. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 24 Tishrei 5772 16:52, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with the noun "Jew", it's not a "bad word" or offensive when used as a noun, and there's no need for wordy circumlocutions like "Jewish people". Jayjg ^(talk) 02:44, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree. "Jew" is fine (as long as it is upper case, of course). A couple years ago we moved the article to the plural on a slight consensus (I'm fine either way) but I don't think "Jewish people" is necessary. Antandrus (talk) 03:01, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Notable Jews

The line "The number of Jewish Nobel prize winners is far out of proportion to the percentage of Jews in the world's population" promotes an ethnic superiority which should not be a part of Wikipedia. To compare the ratios of Jews that have won the Nobel and other races that have won it does not add to the topic of "Notable Jews". I propose a simple rewording to "Many Nobel prize winners share a Jewish heritage." which avoids these racist overtones. --Stiner905 (talk) 07:45, 24 November 2011 (UTC)stiner905

This just an interesting, relevant, and notable fact about Jews, as described in that reliable source. In what way is noting that "promoting ethnic superiority"? And why are you proposing wording that is not supported by the source itself? Jayjg ^(talk) 15:12, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

1. The source I cite, which is Wikipedia's list of Jewish Nobel Prize laureates, very accurately supports my wording that "Many Nobel Prize winners share a Jewish heritage." In fact, there is no better support.
2. The comparison does not add to the topic of "Notable Jews." I would expect that such a headline would present names of Jews that have achieved great things, of which there are very many. Making this comparison in a section with just 2 sentences is a very specific statement that does not add significantly to the general picture of notable Jews.
3. The main source of the air of ethnic superiority is the comparison of Jews to other races, especially the "far out of proportion" phrasing. Important socioeconomic factors, such as family income, may influence high achievement (A similar analysis of such factors has been done previously). When considering these factors, the percentage of Nobel Prizes awarded might not be as "far out of proportion" as suggested in this Wikipedia article. In any case, this conjecture is a technical judgment that serious sociologists should decide, rather than a single line in Wikipedia.
4. If this line should continue to be included, more serious sources should be cited. Currently, the references are an op-ed page in the New York Times and a local San Francisco Jewish newspaper page that clearly espouses opinion. See the notes on editorials on the reliable source page ("Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces are reliable for attributed statements as to the opinion of the author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact.") These are not appropriate references for the line in question. --Stiner905 (talk) 18:55, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Proper sourcing is one thing—and WP runs on reliable sourcing—but to allege "racist overtones" is quite another. I fail to see any hint of those, nor is it clear that Jews are a race. Let's not do a long-winded discourse over a simple, neutral, and verifiable descriptive statement about disproportionality. Hertz1888 (talk) 20:01, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

It seems an agreeable consensus might be that the line in question is improperly sourced. A more neutral, well supported statement is found in the first paragraph of the List of Jewish Nobel laureates page. Akin to this, a better sentence would be "At least 20% of Nobel laureates have been Jews."--Stiner905 (talk) 21:04, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

First, nothing in the statement or the article has "racist overtones" or "an air of ethnic superiority", which are serious and false accusations - please don't make these kinds of allegations again. Second, Wikipedia articles are not reliable sources. Now, what source do you propose using, and what text from it do you propose citing. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:32, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Jayjg, it would be constructive if you read more carefully. If you look at the few lines (of markup language) above your post, you would see 4 (non-Wikipedia) citations. The goal here is to make the article as accurate and verifiable as possible. At the least, it is not encyclopedic to conjecture that something is "far out of proportion."--Stiner905 (talk) 00:36, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Stiner905, I have indeed read your post carefully; please read mine. What text(s) do you propose citing, and from which source(s)? Please quote them. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:47, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Proposed change (after some calculation): "As of 2011, 173 of all the 826 Nobel Prize winners have been Jewish." Citation of Jewish winners: http://www.science.co.il/Nobel.asp (Israel Science and Technology) and http://www.jewishbiography.com/biographies/list-of-jews/jewish-nobel-prize-winners/index.html. Citation of number of Nobel winners: http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/lists/all/ (Nobel Prize official website). A further addition might include the following data:

Nobel Prize Field	# Jewish laureates
Physics	47
Chemistry	30
Medicine	51
Literature	12
Peace	9
Economics	24
All Jewish laureates	173
All laureates	826
% of Jewish laureates	20.9%

--Stiner905 (talk) 04:36, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

That's an interesting table, but it's WP:OR/WP:SYNTH. You need to work with reliable secondary sources that give these kinds of figures, rather than calculating them yourself. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:42, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

For example, you could use 100 Years of Nobel Prizes, but Baruch A. Shalev, who writes on page 57:

A striking fact... is the high number of Laureates of the Jewish faith—over 20% of the total Nobel Prizes (138); including: 17% in Chemistry, 26% in Medicine and Physics, 40% in Economics and 11% in Peace and Literature each. These numbers are especially startling in light of the fact that only some 14 million people (0.2% of the world's population) are Jewish.

He also proposes a number of reasons as to why this might be so. The numbers are a bit outdated (the book was published in 2003), but the basic facts haven't changed since then. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:26, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what your argument is against the sources. On the table, I've cited the same sources as I posted above. I did not calculate any of these numbers on my own. I've merely compiled them from the cited sources. Do you not trust the sources I've cited? Which ones?--Stiner905 (talk) 20:08, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

The site http://www.science.co.il/Nobel.asp even counts them for you. This omits the Peace Prize though, so I had to count those for myself on the other link (which is the Jewish Biography link from a few posts prior to this one).--Stiner905 (talk) 20:10, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

None of the sources you provide list those exact numbers, or organize them in that way. Please review WP:NOR and WP:SYNTH. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:19, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

They do provide exact numbers. For example, if you go to http://www.science.co.il/Nobel.asp, click "Physics" and "Display", at the bottom of the page, it says "Total number of Jewish Laureates: 47". This is not synthesis, nor original research by the guidelines to which you link. According to the calculations guideline, it "...allows routine mathematical calculations, such as adding numbers..." The compilation in the table falls directly under the cited guideline. This table adds verifiable value to the article.--Stiner905 (talk) 02:30, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

You're right, I didn't see the totals at the bottom. Still, that's just one source's calculations (other sources give slightly different numbers), and I'm not sure what this gets us for an overview article. On the other hand, the general statements about "over 20%" and "0.2%" apply for all sources. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:49, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

As for the value of the table in the review article, I think you're right. It's probably best for a more specific article. Perhaps a percentage, as you suggest, is more appropriate. To finally come to a consensus, a new proposed sentence to replace the current final sentence in the section:

"Over 20% of Noble Prize laureates have been Jewish, with multiple winners in each field."

The references include those used previously, plus the one you cited by Shalev. --Stiner905 (talk) 17:49, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with keeping the existing statement about disproportionality. Supplementing it is a fine idea, replacing it should be a dead issue in light of the foregoing discussion. No consensus for that, as far as I'm concerned. Hertz1888 (talk) 18:48, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

At the least, the current statement should be modified. The sources it cites are opinion pieces and do not follow reliable source guidelines (details above). Is there a proposal for supplementation and modification? --Stiner905 (talk) 20:41, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Not only do the sources in question meet Wikipedia's WP:RS requirements, but the new source I brought does so as well, and substantiates them. In addition, despite your referring to them as "opinion pieces", you don't argue that they are incorrect or non-factual, so there doesn't seem to be any real reason to doubt or remove them. Clearly, then, the "disproportionality" is factual and notable and should be mentioned. So, should the article use the 0.2% number too? More than one source uses it. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:55, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind including the 0.2% figure. Below is a proposed change including that figure. Stating these numbers is more accurate and encyclopedic than making a judgment, as the current sentence does. WP:RS specifically states, "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces are reliable for attributed statements as to the opinion of the author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact." David Brooks of the New York Times is an op-ed columnist and the article cited was written in that capacity. While his piece supports the statistics in question, it is an opinion article. The second source (http://www.jweekly.com) is a poor source to cite as it gets some of the facts wrong: it says Jews "add up to 1/24th of 1 percent of the world's population" (we established it is 0.2%, which is 1/5th of 1 percent) and it states "about 18 percent of the total" prize winners were Jewish (as jayjg showed, others agree it is over 20%), and the source is 10 years out of date. The new sentence below includes much more verifiable information than the current sentence. It also captures the disproportionality that is felt to be important.

"Despite comprising only 0.2% of the world population, over 20% of Noble Prize laureates have been Jewish, with multiple winners in each field."

--Stiner905 (talk) 01:12, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

That sentence seems fine to me. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:04, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

It has a key word missing. Try "Despite Jews comprising only 0.2% of the world population..." Better yet, "Although Jews comprise only 0.2% of the world's population..." Hertz1888 (talk) 15:14, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Not strictly necessary, but fair enough for clarity. New version: "Although Jews comprise only 0.2% of the world's population, over 20% of Noble Prize laureates have been Jewish, with multiple winners in each field."--Stiner905 (talk) 17:16, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Since there doesn't seem to be any further argument, I assume all parties agree with this new sentence and I am implementing this change. --Stiner905 (talk) 05:22, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Origins

Hello all,

It seems several classical scholars, such as Aristotle, identified the Jews with Indians. Josephus quotes Aristotle:

This man then, [answered Aristotle], was by birth a Jew, and came from Celesyria; these Jews are derived from the Indian philosophers; they are named by the Indians Calami, and by the Syrians Judaei, and took their name from the country they inhabit, which is called Judea; but for the name of their city, it is a very awkward one, for they call it Jerusalem. Now this man, when he was hospitably treated by a great many, came down from the upper country to the places near the sea, and became a Grecian, not only in his language, but in his soul also; insomuch that when we ourselves happened to be in Asia about the same places whither he came, he conversed with us, and with other philosophical persons, and made a trial of our skill in philosophy; and as he had lived with many learned men, he communicated to us more information than he received from us." ("Against Apion," Book I.22)

Kraŭs (talk) 21:03, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

OK. Do you propose changing this article in any way? If so, in what way? Jayjg ^(talk) 01:55, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Law of Return

User:Mark K. Jensen has added this paragraph to the article, which I've moved here for discussion:

When the United Nations voted to establish a “Jewish state” in 1947, it did not define “Jewish.” In 1948, the Israeli Declaration of Independence was ambivalent, affirming “complete equality of social and political rights to all its inhabitants” but also “the right of the Jewish people to national rebirth in its own country.” In the first years of Israel’s existence, there was ambiguity about how one’s status as a Jew was determined. In 1962 Romuald Jakub Weksler-Waszkinel, a Jew who had converted to Catholicism and become a priest but who claimed he was a Jew by “nationality,” was denied citizenship by the High Court of Justice.

I've removed it for discussion here, because, as I point out in my edit summaries, the Law of Return doesn't define who is a Jew, and (as is obvious) is open to a much broader class of individuals than Jews. It is therefore tangential at best to the topic of this article. Furthermore, the entire insertion is based on a blog entry on The Forward website, a single article about documentary film about a single individual. It's obviously WP:UNDUE for this overview article. If it belonged anywhere (which is highly unlikely), it would be in Who is a Jew?#Law of Return, but it's WP:UNDUE even for there. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:48, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Jay kindly referred me here from his talk page, where I've made these remarks to him: How can material on "how one’s status as a Jew [is] determined" be irrelevant to a section entitled "Who Is a Jew?" Also, it's not the case, as you assert that the only source is an article about a documentary film. Their are links to other Wikipedia articles. The second paragraph of the article states that "The modern State of Israel defines itself as a Jewish state in its Basic Laws, and is the only country where Jews are a majority of the population," so the question of definition is pertinent. The same paragraph states that "Except in Israel, Jews are a minority in every country in which they live, and they have frequently experienced persecution throughout history, resulting in a population that fluctuated both in numbers and distribution over the centuries," so how can the Law of Return be irrelevant to this article? (I removed any reference to the Law of Return in response to your first objection, though frankly I still don't understand it.) Should I post the material to the second paragraph? As for your reference to "UNDUE," I can't see how this applies. "UNDUE" this refers to the "proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint" and the principle that "articles should not give minority views as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views." But my slight addition does not present any "viewpoint," it simply states a a few pertinent facts. Or am I obtusely missing something here. Mark K. Jensen (talk) 18:56, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Here's material about two more cases similar to the one I referred to and that is related to it, written up in 2009 in the Jerusalem Post: "Father Gregorcz Pawlowski believes he can be both a Roman Catholic priest and a Jew. The 78-year-old Holocaust survivor says Mass and tends to the other spiritual needs of the small Polish-speaking community in Jaffa. He also fasts on Yom Kippur and plans to be buried in a Jewish cemetery in his native Poland. He has asked the chief rabbi of Poland to say Kaddish at his funeral. His gravestone is already in the cemetery in Izbica where his mother and sisters were murdered. Pawlowski was born a Jew. He is not the only priest in Israel who continues to draw on his Jewish past to enrich his religious life. Jesuit David Neuhaus was born a Jew in South Africa and became interested in converting to Catholicism while studying in Jerusalem. He is the head of the Hebrew-speaking Catholic community here and attends a Reform synagogue in Jerusalem on a regular basis. His congregants observe many Jewish holidays. Father Romuald-Jakub Weksler-Waszkinel, born during the Holocaust, embraces his dual identity as a Jew and Catholic. He was not told he was born Jewish until 12 years after he became a priest. Now he wants to move to Israel. All three of these priests are proud of their Jewish origins and say that being Jewish anchors their Christianity. . . . The 1962 decision has embroiled the Jewish world in controversy over the question of 'Who is a Jew?' Subsequent court decisions have muddied the issue further. . . ." [10] Mark K. Jensen (talk) 19:08, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Mark, regarding the sources used, Wikipedia articles are not considered reliable sources, so they don't count. In addition I don't think you've really addressed the two main issues raised, so I will repeat them here in greater detail.

1. The Law of Return doesn't define "Who is a Jew", and those eligible under the Law of Return include many non-Jews. For example, a non-Jewish individual with a Jewish spouse, or even a Jewish ancestor, could be eligible to emigrate to Israel under the Law of Return, and become a citizen under that law, even though the State would not designate him/her as a Jew. As such, it is obvious that while the Law of Return is affected by the question of "Who is a Jew", it in no way attempts to define "Who is a Jew".
2. This article (Jews) is a broad overview of the topic. As such, it can only deal with the most important information about Jews, and even then, generally only at a superficial level. Sub-articles are where one would (and does) see more in-depth treatment of a subject. The minutia of a tiny number of cases where an individual had a Jewish parent or parents, yet was not eligible for citizenship under the Law of Return, may well belong in the Law of Return article, but certainly don't belong here, where they are tangential at best to the main topic, and undoubtedly WP:UNDUE weight. Your addition devoted as much space to the case of a Christian who wasn't able to immigrate to Israel as the article devotes to the entire topic of Judaism.

I hope this better explains my concerns. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:05, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Jayjg here. One question we often have with content regarding broad subjects, like this one, as well as others on countries, religions, specific sciences, and so on, is that some material presented for inclusion is obviously relevant to the topic, but so is any number of other possible additions. If all that material were added, the article would quickly become so huge as to be both unmanagable and unreadable. It seems to me that the material in question is obviously relevant to the subject, but including it to any particular degree in this specific article might wind up giving the material undue weight and thus violate WP:WEIGHT. Perhaps, in this case, finding another article, with perhaps a more clearly focused topic, and adding the material there might be the preferable option. John Carter (talk) 21:40, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Jay, you say that "The Law of Return doesn't define 'Who is a Jew.'" In fact, the Law of Return (Amendment No. 2) 5730-1970* states: "Definition. 4B. For the purposes of this Law, 'Jew' means a person who was born of a Jewish mother or has become converted to Judaism and who is not a member of another religion."[11] Mark K. Jensen (talk) 21:54, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I believe the most relevant material from that quote is the phrasing "for the purposes of this law," which is not necessarily supposed to be taken as a general, uniform definition. John Carter (talk) 21:57, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree it is not a 'general' definition. It is how the worlds only Jewish state qualifies what a Jew is for gaining citizenship in its nation. Because of this, it certainly carries a great deal of weight and authority. Gsonnenf (talk) 22:51, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

WP:STALK much, Gsonnenf? Your opinion carries no weight here, as it is merely a tit-for-tat opposition to me based on an unrelated dispute you have with me elsewhere. Don't try this at any other articles. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:54, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Mark, you are right that the Law of Return does provide a definition of who is considered a Jew - but, as pointed out by John Carter, that is only "for the purposes of this law". In any event, the other objections I've raised still hold. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:55, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Jayjg, this is a Wikipedia article where my opinion counts fully on the strength of my argument. This isn't a user page, where you've been stalking my personal conversations with people. Its silly that you would cry foul when I address your record in other articles, but you do personal attacks here. Gsonnenf (talk) 05:24, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Jews

In the first sentence, the word "nation" should be corrected to "national," since Jews are not a nation as such but a "national," "religious" and "ethnocultural" group. 12.26.37.208 (talk) 02:12, 27 January 2012 12.26.37.208 (talk) 02:17, 27 January 2012 (UTC)Beagle

P.S. I am a Jew.

Grammar fixed, "nation" left in (rather than "national group"), in accord with the terminology of the cited sources. Hertz1888 (talk) 03:29, 27 January 2012 (UTC)