Talk:Jews

For prior discussions of the infobox in the top right corner of the article, please visit Talk:Jews/infobox.

Pictures of notable Jews on the top of the menu

Nothing against Natalie Portman, but I really do not think her picture should be on the pictures of notable Jews area. She's right under Ben-Gurion... I'm a secular Jew, but I have to imagine there are some better modern representatives out there, Daniel Ellsberg? Noam Chomsky (yes I know he was atheist, so was Ben-Gurion), Howard Zinn? 129.2.232.235 (talk) 01:23, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

First establish consensus, then add the editprotected template. Debresser (talk) 08:50, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

This article is about Jews as an ethnic group, so there is no problem for an atheist to be in the selection. The reasons Porman is in are that she is an Oscar winning actress which is obviously a good representative of Jews in cinema, and she is also a woman which is a category under-represented in the collage. I think she is a great idea for the collage.2.222.87.118 (talk) 18:06, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. Portman is the most successful female Jewish actress of her generation. As Debresser pointed, including Portman in the collage also makes it less of a kosher sausage fest. Gilad55 (talk) 07:22, 18 February 2014 (UTC)Gilad55

Introduction

"According to Jewish tradition, Jewish ancestry is traced back to the Biblical patriarchs Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, who lived in Canaan around the 18th century BCE. Historically, Jews had evolved mostly from the Tribe of Judah and Simeon, and partially from the Israelite tribes of Binyamin and Levi, who had all together formed the ancient Kingdom of Judah. A closely related group is the Samaritans, who claim descent from the Israelite tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh, while according to the Bible their origin is in the people brought to Israel by the Neo-Assyrian Empire and some Cohanim (Jewish priests) who taught them how to worship the "native God".[13] The Jewish ethnicity, nationality and religion are strongly interrelated, as Judaism is the traditional faith of the Jewish nation.[14][15][16] Converts to Judaism have a status within the Jewish ethnos equal to those born into it.[17] Conversion is not encouraged by mainstream Judaism, and is considered a tough task, mainly applicable for cases of mixed marriages.[18]"

This is very concise, as well as somewhat dubious: the kingdom of Judah is mentioned, but the kingdom of Israel (under kings Solomon, David and Saul) is entirely omitted. This suggest that the author is not so much concerned with Judaism, as with the name Jew (which indeed derived from Judah). But the author, by omitting Israel altogether, suggests that the inhabitants of Israel were not Jews. Clearly there is a confusion here between the two terms.

Dubiousness already starts with the first line, where Judaism is implicitly defined ethnically only. What is clear is that early Jews consisted of various tribes without cities (Jerusalem, now the mainstay of Judaism, was captured by king David); Egyptian sources first mention such tribes in a victory stele, but this postdates the 18 century BCE significantly.

"Conversion is not encouraged by mainstream Judaism": that may be the current communis opinio, but historically conversion explains a great deal of the expansion of Judaism. One need only to think of the Khazar Jews, the Jews of Uganda, Ethiopia, and the whole expanse of Judaism throughout the Roman empire. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.170.58.37 (talk) 20:06, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

The Khazar myth has been busted. Science confirms the common Levantine ancestry of Mizrahim, Sephardim and Ashkenazim. 67.182.154.25 (talk) 07:15, 18 February 2014 (UTC)Gilad55 (talk) 07:23, 18 February 2014 (UTC)Gilad55

I would suggest a rewrite of the entire first paragraph to clarify various things such as mentioned above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.170.58.37 (talk) 19:39, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

The kingdom of Israel under Saul, David and Solomon later split into the northern Kingdom of Israel and the southern Kingdom of Judah. Modern Jews are descendants of the latter. That is what the article means to say.

The first line mentions patriarchs, and this indeed implies ethnicity. But even in those days, Judaism was already a religion, and the Patriarchs already made proselytes.

Conversion was not encouraged ever. It may have been widespread over the centuries, but it was not encouraged. The expanse of Jews over the Roman empire, may be due in part by the expulsion of Jews from Iudaea after the Bar Kokhba revolt. Debresser (talk) 23:51, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

The name Jews comes from the word Judea, which means, from the Kingdom of Judea. The tribes which remained in the Kingdom of Israel got lost (the lost tribes), and the Jews are not descendent from them. According to studies, 40%-60% of the Ashkenazi genes are from Israel/Judea, while the rest are European genes. Even though some of the European genes are from conversion, we don't know how much of them were, and it's more likely that more of them came from rapes as a result of crusades and pogroms. Don't forget, Jews never tried to convert people into their religion, and in a reality where Jews were living in ghettos and were seen as non-Christian heretics, not many would convert. I do agree the paragraph should be re-written because the Bible is not a reliable source, just like the Roman Mythology is not a reliable source to the history of Romans.2.222.87.118 (talk) 18:10, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

I would like to clarify a little of what was written above: First, the European DNA carried by Ashkenazim is mitochondrial and can be traced to four female contributors of Southern European origin. This fits with the theory that the forefathers of Ashkenazi Jews first migrated to the Mediterranean from the Levant. Those who left the Holy Lands without wives would have met eligible women after emigrating and converted them according to Jewish custom. Second, there is no evidence that rape made a significant impact upon the genome of the Jewish people. I'm unsure why the commenter believes pogroms would have contributed to rapes and thus births as the the purpose of the pogroms was the extermination of Jewish communities, not a terrorizing of them. Gilad55 (talk) 07:41, 18 February 2014 (UTC)Gilad55

Benedictus de Spinoza

Benedictus de Spinoza converted to christianity. He is not a jew. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.229.115.164 (talk) 17:19, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

This article is about Jews as an ethnic group. Him being Christian doesn't stop him from being a Jew. Best, --Spivorg (talk) 19:27, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

That statement is controversial. Nevertheless, he is know as a Jew who converted, so could technically be in this template regardless of that issue. Debresser (talk) 21:25, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Spivorg. Being Jewish is a tribal identity, not a statement of beliefs like, say, being a Christian. If one is born, or accepted, into the tribe(s), one is a Jew, even if you subsequently adopt another religion's belief system, or become an atheist for that matter. Also, there is no evidence that Spinoza ever converted to Christianity, was baptized, or participated in a Christian mass. He is regarded as a heretic, but a Jewish one. Today he would probably be regarded as a reformed Jew.Rosencomet (talk) 13:12, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Arabic in lead

The Arabic name for Jews is already in the "Name and etymology" section. There's no reason for it to be in the lead. Also, why Arabic and not, say, Greek? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 16:24, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

• User:Hullaballoo_Wolfowitz since you reverted my edit, why don't you discuss the issue. About Arabic in lead. I shall undo your version and reinstate my version again: this is because Arabic and Hebrew are related cultures and languages. Both languages can be displayed in the lead. The question is why not? Greek is not related to Jews, but Arabic has always been. This is a positive constructive edit that shouldn't be removed. Please refrain from Edit warring.
• Also since User:Hullaballoo_Wolfowitz seems prejudiced against the Arabic language. Please remember Wikipedia is equal for everyone.

Rahibsaleem (talk) 19:07, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

If you read the "Name and etymology" section, you would see that the word "Jew" derives from the Greek. Arabic has nothing to do with anything and doesn't belong in the lead. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:16, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Wrong: "The Greek term was originally a loan from Aramaic Y'hūdāi, corresponding to Hebrew: יְהוּדִי, Yehudi (sg.); יְהוּדִים, Yehudim (pl.), in origin the term for a member of the tribe of Judah or the people of the kingdom of Judah. The name of both the tribe and kingdom derive from Judah, the fourth son of Jacob.[28]": 'Jews' from Hebrew. And Arabic is a sister language of Hebrew. Rahibsaleem (talk) 19:43, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

See Jewish exodus from Arab and Muslim countries.

Not so long ago, Arabic was the mother tongue of a large portion of Jews. Their descendants make up about half of Israel's population today.

Oncenawhile (talk) 19:53, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Please share your opinion

Hi, on Category talk:People of Jewish descent there is an ongoing discussion about whether or not sub-categories of people of Middle Eastern (and Southwest Asian) decent should be included in categories of people who reliable sources say are of Jewish descent. It has been discussed before here and on various other occasions, but apparently this debate never reached an official consensus. Since this topic is directly relevant to this article, you're welcome to participate in it. Thanks, Yambaram (talk) 05:53, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Not all Jews are Semites, some are converts, and Askenazi Jews for example aren't only of Semitic descent, they're also of various European descent, and there seems to be some Caucasian ancestry in there as well. 84.111.196.56 (talk) 17:44, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Not a good idea. There is a dispute resolution post in the make, so let's keep our powder dry for that one. Debresser (talk) 20:15, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Jesus

The consensus of historians is that Jesus was a real person and that he was a Jew. The only thing of any real debate is of a purely religious nature, that is was he divine or not? Nevertheless, he is worshiped by over two billion people as the "son of God," making him one of the most important people in history. So I believe it would be appropriate to have him included in the infobox, since other articles about people groups include important ancient people as well. He certainly is more worthy of being included than an actress who will be all but forgotten in two hundred years, let alone two thousand.