Talk:Ashkenazi Jews

This article has been referenced by a media organization. The reference is in: Jennifer Senior (October 24, 2005). ""Are Jews Smarter?" (cover story). New York Magazine.

Ethnic group?

American users should be aware that in the UK and most other European states (apart from Russia) Jews are not considered as an ethnic group, but as adherents of a particular religion. 82.36.94.228 (talk) 10:16, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Uh, with all due respect, that is absurd. Best, A Sniper (talk) 06:33, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

But this is true. Ask some one from the EU. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.73.32.44 (talk) 01:56, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

A. Sniper, if you would please explain how saying that Jews not being considered an ethnic group is absurd? Do you rather believe the well thought out, objective popular opinion that Ashkenazi Jews, Sephardic Jews, Syrian Jews, and many other Jewish groups who look, talk, and act differently from each other, not to mention have been separated from each other geographically for the most part for thousands of years (if they even originated from the same source in the first place) are one ethnic group? Would you say this is plausible and not absurd?

And to the individual who started this discussion, what do you think about that? Also, what do Europeans say when someone tells them that Jews are indeed an ethnic group?

Please review WP:NOTAFORUM. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:36, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Jayjg , does Polish are ethnic group? If so, why Jews aren't? Because they forced to leave their homeland about 1600 years ago? They have make a unique genetic cluster and having their own culture, religion, languages and history. Making them absolutly an ethnic group. Claming otherwise is absurd, totaly. Many other Jews will also considered such a claim as highly offensive--Gilisa (talk) 21:31, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Few if any sources support the terminology "ethnic group" in relation to Jews. Bus stop (talk) 20:55, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

It's very odd you should make that claim, Bus stop. Over two years ago I directed you to some resources on Jews as an ethnic group. Have you not had a chance to review them yet? Or any of the other incredibly voluminous literature on Jewish ethnicity? Jayjg ^(talk) 21:24, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

You better go and make some homework before writing down such a baseless and weak argument. In genetical study papers Jews are always refered as ethnic group and so by many historians. There are who argue that Jews are not an ethnic group, but usually they hold a POV.--Gilisa (talk) 21:27, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Neither of you have provided a source for the pairing of two terms in the realm of what we're discussing. The titles of the two books suggested necessitates the use of of the term ethnic because of the nature of the comparisons — namely between groups of people distinguishable from one another. But if the "Irish," the "Italian," or the "Black" were Jewish, would they all be distinguishable from one another? No, they would not. By your reasoning (and lack of sources) the Irish person would be "ethnically Jewish," the Italian person would be "ethnically Jewish," and the Black person would be "ethnically Jewish." I haven't read the books. If a source to support the pairing of these terms with one another is found in those books, please point it out to me. Bus stop (talk) 01:49, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Huh? I pointed you to books discussing Jewish ethnicity. Are you deciding what their contents are based on your assessment of their titles? And there are hundreds more sources. "The first full length sociological treatment of Jews as an ethnic group was The Jew within American Society (1965) by C. Bezalel Sherman." [1] "Indeed, in The Ghetto, one of the first studies of Jewish ethnicity within American society..."[2] Rather than continuing to make obviously false statements on article Talk pages, it would be better to do some reading. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:14, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

By your assessment the books discuss "Jewish ethnicity." It is true that I have not read the books you refer to. Do you have a source from within those books that asserts that Jews are in fact an ethnic group, and not a religious group? The page that you are referring me to in the case of the first book asserts that Jews are a religious group. Bus stop (talk) 07:53, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

The source, in fact, says that Jews are "not only an ethnic group", but also a religious group - as you are well aware. I certainly can't force you to read the hundreds and hundreds of sources on Jewish ethnicity, but I can request that you refrain from further inaccurate or false statements on Talk: pages. You are entitled to maintain your personal views, even in light of the voluminous evidence contradicting them, but you don't really have the right to subject Wikipedia readers to them. Please review WP:TALK and WP:NOTAFORUM. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:27, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

The sentences I am referring to, from the book that you linked to, to say, "But American Jews are not only an ethnic group; in fact have only recently come to be perceived as such. They are also a religious group and have been so perceived for a much longer period of time. We should, therefore, look to the sociology of religion for an explanation of those trends and patterns."

This is not a discussion begun by me, and you have been a participant in it. Others in this thread see a problem with the terminology that you apparently support. I believe the preponderance of published sources would relegate Judaism to the category of religion, and Jews to the category of people with a religion in common. Bus stop (talk) 01:42, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

"Others"? A series of one-off IP editors? Anyway, the fact that Jews are an ethnic group is amply supported by the relevant literature, and indeed, even by the tiny fraction of that relevant literature that has been provided to you. Regarding your opinions, do you have any changes, based on reliable sources, that you wish to make to the article? Jayjg ^(talk) 03:33, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Bus stop, Jews are considerd as an ethnic group from the genetic aspect as well as from the religious and linguistic ones. They also share fundamental cultural similarities even in cases when they lived in remote communities and between differemt populations. There is no doubt that the Ahskenazi Jews do make an ethnic group with striking similarities. If you are addressing their appearance so you will find it very hard, if not impossible, to distinguish between Polish, Italian (Ashkenazi), Romanian, German or Swedish Jew. While I can many times tell if one European is not an Ashkenazi Jew and whether he is Nordic, Dinaric or Slavic(but that's a slippery slope to an original research). As Ashkenazim constitute ~80% of world Jewery and as immense number of varied and high profile genetical and morphological studies have shown repeatedly that they are all originated from the Middle East (with only ~10% of their genome of non Middle Eastren origin) and have no significant genetic differences, if any at all, between different communities, and as Yiddish (which include large part of Hebrew vocabulary and written in Hebrew letters) was their spoken language for generations and almost all over Europe -you have no other choice but to acknowledge them as an ethnic group, and to accept that this ethnic group is Jewish.

You may argue that if they are an ethnic group which comprise ~80% of Jewish people today they still can't make it just to consider the entire Jewish people as an ethnic group as ~20% of the people in this group are different from the rest 80%. And it's true in away. Ashkenazi Jews do look in average lighter than Sephardic (but realy not always) and especially than Mizrahi Jews. However, still-not only that Sephardic Jews as a whole and many of Mizrahi Jews communities share striking genetical and historical similarities (and also lingual and cultural to different, but significant extent) with Ashkenazi Jews, but also many,if not most, Ashkenazi Jews are descendent from Sephardic Jews many times. So, all in all, there is no other ethnic group in the world, which is not Jewish, and is more similar to Ashkenazim. In special cases, such as those of Yeman Jews who are also largely descendent from Arabs who covert to Judaism as well as in the case of Georgian and Indian Jews who like Yemans are mixed the issue is more complex-but still, it make much more sense to categorize tham all in the same ethnic group (and anyway they make well defined groupd). But it still don't exclude the Jews from being an ethnic group. There is only one case of Jewish group which is not ethnically Jewish and this is the case of Ethiopians who converted to Judaism in unkown way about 600 years ago.

Unlike for Jews, there is not genetic basis for the ethnic divisions in Cerntral Asia for example. There, each ethnic group is unique in terms of language and culture but many times the members in each ethnic group are from very different origins. On the contrary, there is no single reason, beside for the political one, to count Austrians and Germans as two different ethnic groups-they are different in nothing.--Gilisa (talk) 20:28, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Gilisa, are Swedes an ethnic group? What about Japanese? Yes! They have a common culture, history, and look more or less the same. Jews on the other hand are fragmented among many different groups that don't have a common culture, history, and don't look more or less the same.

It's questionable if the Jews around the world have a common origin (in reference to your claim that they left their homeland about 1600 years ago). But even if that's the case, Jews around the world are now very different from each other. An Ashkenazi Jew has nothing in common ethnically with a Sephardic Jew who has nothing in common ethnically with a Syrian Jew. Each of these individuals and the groups they belong to just share religion in common.

This is why rational people say that Jews are not an ethnic group. Clear enough for you? What else do you need?

Heres something I think you should read - http://eaazi.blogspot.com/2007/10/origins-of-modern-jewry.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.185.59.139 (talk) 03:15, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I guess that you should find better source than a website declaring itself "This website and the associated organization of the same name have the mission of providing Jews and non-Jews with the intellectual tools to stand up to Zionist intimidation and manipulation." Unfortunately for you, serioues studies showed that the essential formation of Ashkenazi Jewery started only after the 12CE. Before, there were only 20,000 Ashkenazim in Europe, concentrated at the very same places and probably originated from the Roman Jewish community and in part from Jewish scholars who flee Iraq (but that's a different story and you can ignore it as even that I can easily source it, I don't have the time). Their numbers increased rapidly in the 14 CE when persecutions of Sephardic Jews drived many of them to leave Spain much before their final expulsion. These are the conclusions of serioues scholars and not of a racist website like the one you provide here.

Next time make me a favor and sign. I know Wiki don't force you to do it, but when you present such a racist arguments you better stand behind them. As for the visual appearance of Jews around the world-how did you conclude it? Or that you made your own original racist research? Dozens, at least, of genetical studies have shown time after time that Ashkenazi Jews genetic cluster is tightly coupled with the Sephardic one, distinguished from those of the gentiles among they lived and that in no case the European contribution to Ashkenazi genome exceeding the 12.5% barrier. Actually, up to date studies and meta-analysis have further put that limit as low as 5%. And anyway, Ashkenazim make a unique well defined cluster. What you wrote represent lack of knowledge, at best, and wistful thinking. What more that Ashkenazi Jew do share the same appearance and there is also morphological study about it, in fact they share the same mandible morphology with Sephardic Jews (and it's 100% scientific). No common history? Your denying of Jewish history is outraged, baltant and vulgar.

In fact, you need to read more serious scientfic literature 9I don't know where you take this from). Many Ashkenazi Jews are actually descendent from Sephradic Jews who wander from Spain to other European countries after 1492. If that's not enough so by no doubt Ashkenazim have used the same limited number of dialects all over Europe for centuries (Yiddish is the strongest example, and was spoken for ages over entire Ashkenazim communities in Europe) as the dialects that used Sephardic Jews (Ladino) the Ashkenazi ones included large part of Hebrew vocabulary and were even written in Hebrew letters. By no doubt Ashkenzi Jews a sub ethnic group within the Jewish people. Also, they had the same history of persecutions and predestinations against, very similar traditions (to Sephardic Jews as well many times) and even the same food (all Jewish communities have the Chamin and Ashkenazi food all across Europe is basically the same).

So, what exactlt exclude them from being an ethnic group? that they also share the same religion? that's only make my arguments stronger. Gypsies don't have a country, they don't live in one place, they also have higher rates of genetic contributions from local non Gypsi sources and they still by no doubt an ethnic group. It's true that as for Ethiopian Jews -they share no, or only very limited, genetic similarities with other Jewish groups and that their traditions and history is very different, but that's because they didn't start from the same starting point as other Jewsih communities but rather are an African converts who convterted to Judaism only 600 yr ago. Yemanite Jews are mix of local Arab converts and Jewish people and so is true for Georgian and Indian Jews. Libyan Jews present moderate levels of genetical contributions from non Jewish local barbaric population, and it's well know that these locals were converted to Judaism before the time of Islam. But that's it, and it don't disqualify the Jewish people from being an ethnic group, with no doubt at all.Finally, different appearance do not indicate different ethnical origin in most cases, but I will not get into genetics and comparisons with other ethnic groups now.

For further reading about the dentofacial patterns of Askenazim and Mizrahim and other Middle Eastren populations you can read: Dentofacial pattern of two Jewish ethnic groups compared with accepted norms by Ben Baasat et al 1996. There are also more up to date studies with even more striking results that compare Ashkenazi and Sephardic morphology with other Middle Eastren and European populations, and if you insist I will refer you to them later --Gilisa (talk) 07:37, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Gilisa, Based on the page Jayjg linked to - WP:NOTAFORUM I have continued this on your discussion page. If you don't want me to write anything over there, tell me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.43.201.132 (talk) 14:32, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

There is no violation of WP:NOTAFORUM, and I would expect someone who know wikipedia rules so well to know that fringe sites are not allowed in wikipedia. I would also expect you to show us who you are and stop hiding behind wikipedia protection.--Gilisa (talk) 17:25, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I hate to butt in here, but I would say that Jewish people are neither primarily an Ethnic nor Religious group, they are a Cultural group. --Alchemist Jack (talk) 20:45, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

If you imply that ethnicity must be based on similar genetics than Jews are an ethnic group. Also, they are clearly a religious group, even if the reform and conservative new movements do make things to be less clear about it.--Gilisa (talk) 21:02, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I imply nothing. Jewish people are an ethnic group because of matrilineal transmission, but there are black, irish, west indian, etc jews, so that doesn't cover it. Not all jewish people are religious, but even non-religious or athiests define themselves, and can be defined, as Jewish. A cultural group covers religious underpinnings and ethnicity. --Alchemist Jack (talk) 21:17, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree that this is not a dry and cut issue, rather, for the last centuries Jewishness is very complicated to give a well definition as an ethnic group, but never the less it still is. There are black Jewish people because Jewishness is also about religion. Ethiopian Jews are not Jewish by their genetics (even they may be descendet to a small extant from Yemanite Jews) but they converted to Judaism about 600 years ago. Their culture is very different from those of perheps all Jewish people-so they are the exceptionals but it doesn't exclude Jewish people from being ethnically Jewish. Indian Jews are mostly the offsprings of Jews who converted local women. So it to samller extent to few other Jewish groups. Not all Jewish people are religious but it doesn't mean that Jewishness is not also about religion. If it was so than Jewish people wouldn't have Ethipians among them. As for Irish, Germans and other people who converted to Judiasm-they are Jewish, maybe not ethnically but their offsprings being born Jewish.--Gilisa (talk) 21:36, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

So, essentially it is a Cultural category. Ethiopian jews are still jewish, Atheist jews are jewish, and many other combinations remain jewish. Cultural as a definition covers ethnic, religious/non-religious, etc. --Alchemist Jack (talk) 21:43, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

If it makes it simplier for you than you may consider Jewishness as an ethnic group which contain few sub groups that are not, or not fully, ethnically Jewish.--Gilisa (talk) 21:57, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

No, an ethnic group, as we have already established, does not cover Jewishness, only a Cultural group covers all the bases. --Alchemist Jack (talk) 22:22, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I do not agree, for most Jews their Jewishness is ethnic as well. This article is about Ashkenazi Jews and they are certainly ethnical Jews.--Gilisa (talk) 06:07, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I suppose you are correct; An Ethnic group because of Culture (religious, matrilineal transmission, historical experience, etc.)--Alchemist Jack (talk) 12:08, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Writer bias

A forum I read was trolled recently by a poster advocating the inherent superiority of Ashkenazi jews, and told us to "read the wiki" when rebuffed. I noticed a sentence in here claiming that 40% of Nobel prizes in science had been won by Ashkenazi jews, which represented less than 2% of the US population at the time. Reading the source material from the citation, they had the following statement, verbatim: "During the 20th century, they made up about 3% of the US population but won 27% of the US Nobel science prizes and 25% of the ACM Turing awards." Evidently some ill-intentioned editing is taking place here, and despite the delicious irony of Jews advocating theories of racial supremacy, it's pretty annoying. Just a heads up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.131.62.161 (talk) 12:05, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

"Delicious irony?" I assume you're new to Wikipedia since you don't have an account. I don't know who you're referring to in your post, but I disagree with any racial superiority comments on Wikipedia, and apologize that you came across that. It's common for a user to edit an article without including a reference. It's just as likely that someone will add a citation later without properly reading the entire document. The 40% figure likely comes from this, referring to Jews: "In the scientific research fields of Chemistry, Economics, Medicine, and Physics, the corresponding world and US percentages are 27% and 40%, respectively." [3] I may investigate to see what the correct percentage is. Until then, remember to sign your posts with four tildas. - Cyborg Ninja 21:00, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

The original poster does not include a link to the "forum" in which he encountered the "...poster advocating the inherent superiority of Ashkenazi jews..." Therefore it is hard to evaluate that reference.

Also, I wish the original poster would show us where the alleged advocacy for "racial supremacy" is found in the Wikipedia article on Ashkenazi Jews.

I'd also be curious to know why the original poster assumes the Wikipedia article was written by Jews. I believe people of all religions write Wikipedia articles. Bus stop (talk) 19:52, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

For the racial supremacy on wiki see Ashkenazi intelligence. An article which should probably be merged with this one since it really is about just one review article. Aprock (talk) 17:41, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Female inclusion

Hello folks. For the last few weeks I have taken a big step back from the discussion over the photoboxes. I have included two well-known, deceased female Ashkenazic Jews. Besides there being enough religion-oriented figures, having one woman went against previous consensus. I hope that this edit improves the photoboxes. However, it is not intended to be in concrete - it is merely my attempt to move the inclusion of women. We can continue the debate on the appropriate women. I read the positive/negative comments above re: who should be represented, including the issues related to Meir and Arendt, but we have to start somewhere. These two women are without doubt internationally-known, whether or not we care for them. Arendt is on a national stamp, for example. Best, A Sniper (talk) 18:04, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I think it's quite good now, although we should try to find someone better than golda meir. And, also, if you find someone better, Eliezer Ben-Yehuda could also be replaced, since he's not such an important or famous figure (he could be replaced with e.g Alfred Tarski, Richard von Mises, Andre Weil). Avaya1 (talk) 18:46, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

He is very important in Israel, he revivied Hebrew language which is now spoken by at least 7 million people around the world and almosy by half of the Jewish people after many centuries it was only spoken in religious rituals or partly embedded into Yiddish and other Jewish dialects. You think it's not important but at best it's your own POV. As I told: the criteria for inclusion is not one's being famous (or enough important according to your criterions, even though I agree that importancy is matters to an extent that has already been achieved). The photobox should logicaly and naturaly aspire to represent the entire history of Ashkenazi Jews in terms of time and place.--Gilisa (talk) 08:15, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Gilisa. The funniest thing being that the people Avaya suggested - Tarksi and so on - I never even heard of them at all. Benjil (talk) 09:13, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

If you haven't heard of Tarski, then that's your loss. He's the most important person in logic after godel. Probably more people have heard of britney spears than newton, but that doesn't mean anything Avaya1 (talk) 02:57, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

New whole genome study shows Ashkenazi have more European origins

I decided to post this since Jewish genetics seems popular in this article, and considering that unreliability of solely studying haplotypes. This link cites a scientific study showing Jews have more in common with Italians than near-easterners. In addition, they seem to be more homogeneous as well, having [i] even [/i] more in common with each other than Euros or Near-easterners, showing genetic variation that can't be explained simply by the mix of the two. Since posting genetics doesn't seem risque even for Wikipedia, then perhaps this should be cited as well.

http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2009/08/refinement-of-ancestry-informative.html

While the hyperlink is a blog (from an anthropologist), there is a direct link to a scientific, peer-reviewed article on there if anyone wants to dig it out.

"[i] Jewish populations form a cluster clearly distinct from all major continental populations. The results also reveal a finer population substructure in which each of 7 Jewish populations studied here form distinctive clusters - in each instance within group Fst was smaller than between group, although some groups (Iranian, Iraqi) demonstrated greater within group diversity and even sub-clusters, based on village of origin. By pairwise Fst analysis, the Jewish groups are closest to Southern Europeans (i.e. Tuscan Italians) and to Druze, Bedouins, Palestinians. STRUCTURE results show that the Jewish Diaspora groups all demonstrated Middle Eastern ancestry, but varied significantly in the extent of European admixture. There is almost no European ancestry in Iranian and Iraqi Jews, whereas Syrian, Sephardic, and Ashkenazi Jews have European admixture ranging from 30%~60%. [/i]" --Jtd00123 (talk) 02:50, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Here is a direct link to the study if anyone is interested. http://www.plosgenetics.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pgen.0040004

I will probably update the article myself later if the article hasn't been updated. Just wanted to give a fair warning. --Jtd00123 (talk) 13:08, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

You want to update what exactly. I don't really see any contradiction with what is written now. Benjil (talk) 13:17, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Studies on Ashkenazi genetics are obviously conflicting. The studies cited here on wikipedia state that they are closer to Middle-easterners when looking at the Y-Dna, (and makes a rather capricious conclusion that what is on the mitochondrial side is near-eastern as well) while the study I posted here on the discussion board clearly states that, when looking on a broader scale, they have they have more admixture with Europeans than Middle Easterners , and what is not admixed with Europeans and Near-easterners is independent from both the former and the latter, meaning they have genetic variation that can't be explained by simply mixing of the two ethnic groups. This is stated ostensibly, and directly conflicts what is on the wiki article. --Jtd00123 (talk) 14:35, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

EDIT: I apologize, I posted the wrong article above. http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pubmed&pubmedid=19707526 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jtd00123 (talk • contribs) 14:45, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Even that I've bad English, I'm very well familiar with genetic research methods and with population studies. Studies on Ashkenazi genome are everything but contradicting and this study is not different. It naturaly and unsurprisingly puts mediteranian populations in different cluster than non mediterranean populations (and also showed that Southern European populations are closer to Arabic clusters than Northen)-that's it. It tell nothing about the Ashkenazim being Europeans it just tell where they are placed when one variable is added or excluded from the sample and this way it conclude that Ashkenazim and Southern Europeans are more likely to share similarities in their genome, but it don't tells whether these similarities came from Jewish contribution to Southern European populations (as it's the case for ~20% of Iberians)or the vice versa or that Southern Europeans have Middle Eastern heredity (which is the case in Sicily and etc) or how close are Southern Europeans and Ashkenazim relatively to the similarities between Askenazim and Sephardim and etc. Nor does this article have such pretensions. You probably don't know how to read the results or didn't understand the experimental manipulations used in this study. Please aviod such unneutral statments and personal inaccurate commentaries. If you do change what is now on the article I'll revert it.--Gilisa (talk) 07:00, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

My commentary wasn't on "personal" or "unneutral" statements, but rather based on interpretations and assessments of the study on an anthropologist and a geneticist, from two reputable blogs. In fact, your rather whimsical conclusion in the end reflects to me that you are taking this more personally than I am, nor have you shown me any proof that you are any authority on the matter either. That being said, I wasn't aware that these interpretations were not in the study itself (which I will take blame for), so I will not edit since blogs are not allowed on wikipedia. Good day. --Jtd00123 (talk) 00:03, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

EDIT: Also, I would like to add that I have read the study myself 2 days ago and came to a similar conclusion that the interpretations were not from the source itself, which is why I did not edit. I'm still perplexed about your 2nd to last sentence. I am Ashkenazi too so I fail to see what I have to gain or lose from this. --Jtd00123 (talk) 00:28, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Felix Mendelson and Hannah Arendt in the photobox

I wasn't here when you entered them into the photobox but it wouldn't overdo it if I tell that these two persons-espcially Arendt are at the least controversial. Arendt is regarded as self hated Jew till today by many Jews. Also, we talked about Anne Frank. Let's change Arendt to Frank and Mendlson to Nathan Rosen. There is only one Israeli in the photo box now.--Gilisa (talk) 07:05, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

A sniper: The above were added to the infobox without consensus. Including Arendt in the photobox is at the least provocative, if you don't know why-read her article. Anne Frnak and Nathan Rosen were discussed on this talk page. Also, we discuss this issue many times: too much people from one place (Germany-and not that I've something against them but it is not an article on German Jews only), all from the same epoch and etc. This is not representative. So, I'm going to be bold and to revert. --Gilisa (talk) 07:34, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I think we should keep mendelssohn as before. I simply don't understand how he doesn't belong? His father converted to christianity, but, explicitly against his father's wishes, felix kept his ashkenazi name, and his life was an extremely important part in the history of jewish assimilation, and the german jewish community. "Ashkenazi" is not just religious concept, but also an ethnic and cultural one. Avaya1 (talk) 01:41, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Achievements section

I want to delete this section. It's rasict and unneeded. --Gilisa (talk) 12:07, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I reverted your delete. Your English is indeed bad because you obviously did not understand what you were deleting. Ashkenazi Jews are a minority among *Israelis* not *Israeli Jews*, Sefaradim from Europe, not North African Jews, are indeed seen as Ashkenazim in Israel (and even sometimes North African Jews from France), and there is nothing racist in what you erased. Benjil (talk) 12:21, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Can't you see that the all section is racist? Sefaradim refer to all Jewish people who decended from Jews who live in Spain by the 15CE and they are not considerd as Ashkenazim in Israel. Those who came from Spain itself are mostly also considerd Sephardic. If people in Israel don't consider Jews from North Africa as Sephradim than it's would be out of internal racism but this is not the case-can you source your argument? It's written that although Ashkenazim comprise the majority of Jewish people they are minority in Israel, definitely suggesting that they are minority among Jewish people in Israel which is, of course, baseless. I'm going to revert you again and I ask you to be a bit more civil.--Gilisa (talk) 13:21, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

As I told you, the article states that in Israel a sefaradi from Europe can be taken as an Ashkenazi. Sefaradim are not people descending from Jews expelled from Spain but Jews who adopted the Sefaradi minhag even if their ancestors never went to Spain (as is the case of the majority of North African Jews by the way). Anyway, the article does not deal with North African Jews. It speaks about European Sefaradi Jews from Holland, Greece, Romania and other places in Europe that are seen as Ashkenazim in Israel even if they are not from a minhag point of view.

Regarding the majority/minority : the article is very clear, Ashkenazim are a majority among Israel Jews and a minority among all Israelis. What is so hard to understand exactly ? SO I will revert your baseless reverts. Benjil (talk) 13:47, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Benjil, you realy need to read the article again. I have no powers left to explain you. Anyway, go to the article on Sephradim-I don't understand where from you take the idea that this is more about the minhag (this is the cultural aspect and not the ethnical) and not their origin. Source your argument if you think it to be valid.

I have no idea what you want to explain, but I will try my side: Sefaradi/Ashkenazi are halakhic religious distinctions regarding minhagim. Nothing to do with ethnicity. Most of what we call Sefaradi Jews are not from Spain but from communities that adopted minhag sefarad. In Israel, Ashkenazi/Sefaradi is a cultural and social concept, hence Jews from Europe who are "real" Sefaradim (Sefaradi Tahor) or even just by minhag are seen as Ashkenazim. Is it clear now ? Benjil (talk) 14:15, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Second, before you blame me for having "baseless" arguments or problems in reading comprehension read the section again: It is written that altough Ashkenazim are a majority among Jews they are not majority in Isreal. The simplest interpretation for this is that Ashkenazi Jews are not a majority among Jewish people in Isreal. It's that simple but you seem to miss it. Also, even if it's written in other places in the article that they are Majority among Jewish people in Israel, this section is contradicting. There are also many duplicates in the article.--Gilisa (talk) 13:56, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

OK, you are realy starting to annoy me now : it is specificaly written in the article after you revert "..Today, Ashkenazi Jews constitute the largest group among Jews, but comprise a minority of Israeli Jews ..."

As for the Sephardim: "..Jews of any non-Ashkenazi background, including Mizrahi, Yemenite, Kurdish, and others having no connection at all with the Iberian Peninsula, have similarly come to be lumped together as Sephardic..." Jews from North Africa are considerd by virtually all literature exist as Sephardic both ethnically and both by minhag.

First, no, Jews from North Africa are not considered to be mostly from Spain. Second, Yemenite, Kurdish etc are not from North Africa, you should check a map. And they are not, mostly, from Spain. Benjil (talk) 14:15, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

You should learn Jewish history before editing here. You determine -against all known history and scientific literature that North African Jews are not descend from Jews who were expelled from Spain. Can you source this ridiculous statement or that your POV is enough?--Gilisa (talk) 17:42, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Another unneeded part: Jews of mixed background are increasingly common, partly because of intermarriage between Ashkenazi and non-Ashkenazi, and partly because some do not see such historic markers as relevant to their life experiences as Jews. -actually most youngsetrs don't find it relevant but ok..

So why do you decide this is not needed ? Benjil (talk) 14:15, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Becuase it is original research as long as it's not well sourced and explained.--Gilisa (talk) 17:42, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

or "Since the middle of the 20th century, many Ashkenazi Jews have intermarried, both with members of other Jewish communities and with people of other nations and faiths, while some Jews have also adopted children from other ethnic groups or parts of the world and raised them as Jews. Conversion to Judaism, rare for nearly 2,000 years, has become more common. Jewish women and families who choose artificial insemination often choose a biological father who is not Jewish, to avoid common autosomal recessive genetic diseases. Orthodox religious authorities actually encourage this, because of the danger that a Jewish donor could be a mamzer. Thus, the concept of Ashkenazi Jews as a distinct ethnic people, especially in ways that can be defined ancestrally and therefore traced genetically, has also blurred considerably.."-

How intermarrige and etc are relevant here? And as for artificial insemination it's realy comprise very low precent...can you source all of it? I'll revert.--Gilisa (talk) 14:07, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I did not write the article. And you do not revert as you like it. First you ask for sources from the people who wrote it, THEN you can maybe revert if not answered. Benjil (talk) 14:15, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I tried to be as polite as I could with you but you are repeatedly being uncivil. You are in the English wikipedia for several month already and you should know that writing other user "Your English is indeed bad " or using caps to get your message through is uncivil. That's not all but for now I ignore it. The all issue is that English wikipedia does not work like the Hebrew one: You first have to cite and then to write and not vice versa. Like in science: when you are claming something the burden of evidence is on you. So, I think that I made my point clear here. I'm going to revert, if you change it, it would violate WP:VAND.--Gilisa (talk) 14:34, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

You are bold. You are the one who comes here and make changes without asking anybody. The minimum is to first discuss the changes and reach consensus. That's the only reason I reverted your changes, because you decided to change out of nothing and in many cases, for wrong reasons not understanding what you were changing. I did not write this article I have nothing to prove or find sources for. The usual wikipedia procedure is to explain first what and why you want to change, then we discuss, then changes are made. Can you do that ? Benjil (talk) 07:05, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Start be civil. I don't need nobody premition to change factual mistakes. And if you insist to keep them here you must provide appropriate objective evidence, it realy doesn't matter whether you are the one who wrote it in the fisrt place or not.If you can't source something or that you source it wrongly than I can change without consensus and I have wikipedia rules to backup me.--Gilisa (talk) 07:30, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Current photobox

While Arendt was suggested by Jayjg as one of few options-I spoke out against her inclusion as she is considered as highly contreversial among Jewish people and her inclusion here would be no less than bad taste if not provocative. Mendelson was suggested mainly by Avaya1.

Anne Frank was suggested by Jayjg and supported by me and by Bus Stop. While Golda Meir was supported by at least 4 users with only Avaya1 against. Only Avaya 1 objected to the inclusion of Anne Frank. I suggested Nathan Rosen as another option and no objections were written against. Then Avaya1 suggested few other options (all mathmaticians) with whom I have no problem but one user objected to their inclusion and support the inclusion of Rosen.

Anyway, when I updated the photobox and replaced Arendt with Frank and Mendelson with Rosen- A Sniper reverted my edits twice, claiming that I got no consensus-however, there is no consensus about Arendt and Mendlos as well, at the least. A sniper actions seems unjust.

More and aside for this matter, notice that both Arendt and Mendlson are German Jews and thats make the entire photobox unbalanced -before a four line was added the all photobox was more compatible to this of the German Jews article (now it's more balanced). There is not even one Isreali or American in the photobox, that's very unrepresentative. Not to mention that current status represent only very limited epoch of Ashkenazi history.--Gilisa (talk) 18:04, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

This is an article about Ashkenazic Jews. The issue with the photoboxes, by tradition, is that the subjects offer a well-balanced array of subjects of notoriety. It makes no difference whether or not Hannah Arendt is controversial to some folks - she is a) an Ashkenazic Jew and b) she is famous enough to warrant a stamp by a major world power. Your argument re: whether or not the subjects are German is rather baseless. Regardless, there needs to be more discussion. Removing Mendelsohn had no justification whatsoever. I'll leave Anne Frank for now, but there needs to be more discussion. A Sniper (talk) 18:36, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

A Sniper, your statments are realy arbitrary and you took everything I wrote out of context. I didn't tell that they are "German", don't put words in my mouth and please assume good faith. What more that this is realy not the reason for my objection, you can't be farest from it.as I wrote photobox should represent as much parts of Ashkenazi Jewery as possible and certianly that you can't include so many people from the same place and time on the expense of notable Ashkenazi Jews from Israel , USA or Romania for example. It's called common sense. You didn't realy refer to any of my arguments just made statments. First, where have you seen agreement about Mendelson that you feel so safe to leave him here-what is the criteria you made? He was also converted to Christianity, how exactly you consider him to be Ashkenazi representor. Second, why if so not to include Otto Weininger? He was Ashkenazi, the photobox should represent Ashkenazi Jewery (it was different if the article was on Jews who convert to other religion) for the possible largest extent of agreement-and Anne Frank for instance (and so Nathan Rosen) are very much uncontroversial. Arendt had a romance with Nazi professor and by many considerd as one who provided moral deafence to Nazis actions after the war. And to sum: What do you mean by "more discussion"?we discuss the all issue for weeks, descions have to be made. Another option is to call for the arbirtrators committee--Gilisa (talk) 18:47, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

We actually have been discussing this for well over a year until we did reach consensus, and the photoboxes stayed static for a period of time. Then a couple of editors showed up and now everything has been chaotic. You appear to be having a lot of arguments with a lot of editors. A Sniper (talk) 18:53, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Please refer to the arguments I have with you and answer them all. You seem to drive the all issue to larger disagreement. --Gilisa (talk) 19:01, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

(i) I'm not a fan of arendt, but my understanding is that she had her affair with heidegger long before he joined the nazi party. And that she and karl jaspers were both horrified about heidegger's behaviour. She is famous for writing against evils of the nazis. (ii) I don't understand your argument about over-representing the german-jewish community. I don't think we have any consensus about proportionally representing each european community. (iii) And see what I wrote about mendelssohn in the talk section above. He didn't convert to christianity, but his father did. And he famously went against his father's wishes in keeping his ashkenazi name. Aside from being a giant in music history, he's an extremely important part of german-jewish history, which includes the story of their unsuccessful assimilation. Ashkenazi is not just a religious, but also an ethnic and cultural concept. The story of secular or assimilated ashkenazi culture also deserves to be represented (they made an amazing contribution to german high-culture). Best Avaya1 (talk) 02:14, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

The contribution of Jews to German culture is strongly represented here. They made huge, probably greater in most fields, contributions to American culture as well, to Israel and in many other countries and it's not represented here what so ever-without one good reason. The only "answer" you gave me so far was to imply that I have something against them because they are Germans (which is less than ridiculous). If it is the reason (i.e. extent of contribution) you support virtually only Jews from Germany to be included in the photobox than you have weak argument. Otto Weininger also made huge contribution to German culture but was oto-Anti Semitic and Arendt is suspected for the same attitudes after spoke out against Jews during the early 1960s. If you want someone who represent contribution to the German culture there are almost endless options and your persistence to include Mendlson and Arendt against which there is at least objections-is unconstructive.--Gilisa (talk) 06:19, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Nobody else agrees with your idea that there are too many Germans, or thinks that we should proportionally represent the difference communities - I'm afraid you have no consensus on this. Mendelssohn and Weininger are not comparable. Mendelssohn has always been understood as one of the most important events in secular jewish culture, and he's entirely uncontroversial. You've failed to answer my point (ii). Moreover, the simple reality is that we've had a consensus to include Mendelssohn - only you have objected to this. Therefore the onus is on you to build a consensus before removing him. You might disagree with his inclusion, but you have to have some kind of consensus before removing him, as we had on including him. Avaya1 (talk) 17:11, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Avaya, all of my ancestors are Jews who came from Grmany or "Germans" as you insist to call them, obviously to imply that I've something against them as a group (which is poor indictment at best) and to disregard my claims by this allusive allegation that my actions were not made in good faith, while you impudently ignoring a point that I made clear several times very well before. But that's not important, what is important is that there is no agreement on mendlson and at the least there is no consensus. Your claims for "1 year consensus" are not valid and as you might noticed, the photobox was changed (WP:CCC)several times during the last few weeks, with many different people getting in and out of it frequently-that's not a consensus. For the last weeks it's your presistence that prevent the photo to have consensus. My reasons for removing Mendlson are at least as good as your reasons to include him, and clearly you are not the one to judge what is adequate reson and what isn't, so for now you have no consensus on him. However there is an agreement on Golda Meir (who once was well in this photobox you know) with you as the only opponent and yet I didn't include her because unlike you I'm waiting for 100% consensus, and even you was the only opponent (vs. at least 3 users supported her) and if I recall right for Anne Frank as well, when I entered Anne Frank to the photobox it was reverted per talk page. You may suggest other notable figure instead of Mendlson if you want things to go faster and the photobox to well represent the quality of this article. Don't drag me into edit wars with you and cease with your personall baseless allegations toward me. If you revert it again you will be considerd as engaging into edit war.--Gilisa (talk) 20:35, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

We're all volunteers trying to improve the website. I have no desire to make allegations against you. How about Mendelssohn for Max Born? This way we keep the representation of the German-Jewish community exactly the same. Avaya1 (talk) 15:09, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Avaya, we may start from the begining following the advise of Casliber. For now please avoid adding Mendlson, I know that you admire him and you think that he would be great for the photobox, but he's just not a good choice as I see it (and following the guidelines that Casliber suggested as well). Please do not insert him without agreement here.

As you may know consensus in wikipedia is not all or nothing, and to build a consensus we are guided by wikipedia to move forward to where we share the same view. I feel that German Jewery and the 19-early 20 CE are well represented in the photobox. Infact, I was the one who entered/suggested few German born Jews into the photobox. As we are probably not going to have an agreement on Mendlson and for sure not on Arendt I here by to suggest you to offer new notable candidates that will reflect proportionally the history and notability of Ashkenazi Jewery. I promise to consider positively any constructive candidacy you will make. Remember that wikipedia ask as to seek compromise where we can't get to an agreement and that both Golda Meir and Anne Frank candidacies were accepted by most editors on the talk page, with you as the only opponent to Golda Meir. We want to finish this issue and as you know the article quality should not suffer from long lasting disagreements, so I'm seriously ask you to find the point where consensus would be achieved.--Gilisa (talk) 14:41, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I feel that the recent revision that took Harry Schwarz out of the photobox should be be reverted to include Schwarz. I feel it is import to include him due to the fact that there is currently no South African/African representation at all in the box, especially as Schwarz was one of the leading political figures in the second half of the 20th century in South Africa. Schwarz should be included to make the box a true representation of Ashkenazi Jews.

What are the criteria for inclusion in the "photo-box?"

Have we determined that yet? Shouldn't the criteria be arrived at first, before trying to find human beings to fit those criteria? Shouldn't the criteria be simply stated, in the briefest possible terms? As there are likely to be more than one criteria for inclusion in the photo-box, shouldn't the separate criteria be ordered by importance? Can a simple list of criteria be assembled first, in the absence of the mention of people's names? A discussion in the abstract would be a little bit more intellectually refreshing and enjoyable than what is transpiring here. Bus stop (talk) 18:22, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Although in principle I agree that criteria should be stated, I think that practically it will only prolong and increase the disagreement over the photobox. I also think that anything that include rates is highly problematic. For instance: who is more notable Richard Finman or Max Born? Chagall or Mark Spitz? there is no good way to answer it and the talk page will soon reflect it. I suggest a reasonable criteria that I think to be easy to accept: We should include mostly (let's say 90%) humans who are notable for their occupation and etc, but we should have clear quotas: a quota for each epoch in the history of Ashkenazim (let's say that there are roughly 3 epoches: Middle ages, 17-eraly 20 CE, Modern days), place of birth (let's say that 1/3 would be from the Austria/Germany, 1/3 from eastern Europe and 1/3 from other countries) and to have diversity in occupation (let's say that at least two great rabbanical figures as it's now, 1-2 statesmans, 3-4 scientists, 1 sportman, 1 artist and 1 philosopher-or something lije that). Jews who willingly converted to other religion or expressed otoantisemitism should not be included for their being too controversial. Of course, this is initial guidelines, but I think that it may help to make order.--Gilisa (talk) 18:34, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

How much longer could it be prolonged? It seems like it's been going on interminably already. Increase the disagreement? The disagreement has already reached a crescendo pitch. I'm trying to bring the discussion to a more rational basis. I think names should be left out at the beginning stage. The arguments should be about principles, not people. Later we can see what human beings fit those principles. A major complicating problem is that there seems to be some doubt in most instances as to whether a person is even an Ashkenazi Jew, especially if the example is from modern times. Bus stop (talk) 20:30, 14 September 2009 (UTC) Bus stop (talk) 20:30, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

May be you are right. I'm in favor of solution, it just can't continue like that. However, I want a reasonable solution: we have two more slots available in the photobox. At least one must be a women, as for the other-it can be a men. I will not support the inclusion of anyone with extreme opinions against Judaism in the photobox and also as this article is about Ashkenazi Jewery I think it wouldn't be too much to ask that it will not be a Jew who convert to other religion. At least on of the two must come from USA or from Israel which are not represented in the photobox. If you can agree with this than all we have to do is to join as more users and get the vast majority. I believe it would be too hard to achieve it. Also, I suggested more principles in my first reply to you. As for the disability to conclude who is Ashkenazi-it's not realy a problem. As long as he was born in a European country before WWII he is Ashkenazi, aside for Greek, Italy, Netherlands, Iberia and Bulgary-this countries communities are considered Sephardic. Indeed, even in Poland and Germany many Jew decended from Sephardim but it mean nothing as they adopted the Ashkenazi Halacha, dialects and cultures within one generation and enough time has passed. They intermarried with Ashkenazim immediately and forgot about their Sephardic ansectry in a matter of very few generations--Gilisa (talk) 20:55, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I guess you're making more progress than I was aware of. I didn't realize there were only two slots not yet filled. So far the only person I'm enthusiastic about is Anne Frank. That is because my heart goes out to her. Assuming she is Ashkenazi, I think she could represent Ashkenazi Jewery alone. Bus stop (talk) 22:29, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

You have my support on Frank. She is a Jewish symbole even if didn't compose no aria or sonata and was only a teenager. I think that beside Avaya1 no one here have any objection to her inclusion. Do you agree that the photobox should include at least one American/Israeli as well? I would suggest in this case Milton Fridman or Nathan Rosen (but I'm open minded for other options as well). --Gilisa (talk) 05:56, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I have to repeat that I am basically opposed to including people on the basis of noteworthiness. Ashkenazi Jews are not noted for being noteworthy. Noteworthiness is not part of the definition of Ashkenazi Jews, so why should we want to convey that misimpression? But then again I'm opposed to the presence of the photo-box altogether at this and similar articles. I'm in favor or scholarliness in this type of article. I think the fanfare associated with these luminaries detracts from an accurate portrayal of the subject of the article, which is a large group of people, most of whom lead very ordinary lives. Bus stop (talk) 11:44, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I realy don't have problem with this and I wrote it many times. However, this kind of photoboxes can't include anonymous persons -so naturally it will include people who didn't lived ordinary lifes (including Frank btw). More, it represent Jewery history and again every epoch have its own symboles. Eli Wiesel and Anne Frank may represent the holocaust which affected tremendously on Ashkenazi Jewery. The estblishment of Israel is very important event in Ashkenazim history. Again, I'm with you about that not only superstars should be included here but to ask that only oridinary will is unrealistic and disrespectful as it is not accepted in any other photobox. So, again, we agree on Anne Frank-please suggest an Israeli to the photobox as well-I think that it would be embarrassing if no Isreali include in the photobox. It don't have to be extraordinary person, but one who represent something.--Gilisa (talk) 12:00, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think most people are listed as Ashkenazi Jews. Check out Gil Student and Berel Wein. I just figured I'd check out their articles to see if it said they were Ashkenazic Jews. The articles don't mention this. It might or might not be the case that they are Ashkenazi Jews. The point that I really want to make is that it is virtually unknowable, except anecdotally, that anyone in the modern age really is an Ashkenazi Jew. By the way, they are both interesting people. I happen to have heard them both speak. Berel Wein does reside in Israel, but I think he is from Chicago. I think photo-boxes on this article and articles similar to this article constitute more of a decoration than something that imparts good quality information to the reader. Bus stop (talk) 13:16, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Seem like good choices, both, but we should establish there being Ashkenazi as they are living persons. Actually, we have to source Gil student being Ashkenazi or to provide a free picture of Berel Wein (whose being Ashkenazi is sourced). Here is a picture from the Hebrew wikipedia [4], we have to contact Rabbi Wein's website to get an approval to use his photo. However, we can wait wit it until we have reasonable consensus here--Gilisa (talk) 13:27, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

We've already been through this; the article will have pictures of famous people because a) that's what all ethnicity articles (like this one) have, and b) because those are the kinds of pictures that Wikipedia has reliable sources indicating they are part of the ethnicity. Rather than wasting time on trying to find pictures for inappropriate choices, it would make more sense to come to a consensus on famous (non-living) people to be added. I don't have particularly strong opinions on who specifically they should be. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:06, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes notability is the criteria for photoboxes for every other ethnic group in the rest of wikipedia. Why should our article be different? Avaya1 (talk) 01:34, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Notability is the key. A Sniper (talk) 01:50, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Notability is contraindicative if you are trying to indicate the typical Ashkenazi Jew. This immoderate fanfare is merely for entertainment purposes and is not what good article-writing is about in this instance. The best choice, in my humble opinion, is to eliminate the photo-box in this article altogether. Bus stop (talk) 03:25, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I realy don't care they would be notable or not. However, even there is majority for Frank here she is still not included. You argue that the photobox should follow other similar photoboxes but only here the photobox include dead people (part of it is because for notable people it's harder to find source for their being Ashkenazi as they are fewer and because you choose a very severe definition for who is Ashkenazi (according which one whose family is 5 generation in Poland but came from Sephardic origins is not Ashkenazi-it's realy un original definition because it realy don't work like that even among ultra orthodox people who consider too much the all issue of what community one came from)and there is no good representation of occupations that made them famous.--Gilisa (talk) 06:11, 16 September

2009 (UTC)

You may want to include only notable people and it's find, but it's not the key to build a consensus: there are many notable Ashkenazi Jew. The criteria should focus on time, place and the part in history they played.--Gilisa (talk) 13:05, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

(<-) R' Moshe Isserles (the RaMa) is one of the most important figures defining Ashkenazi Jewry, as he is considered the authoritative codifier of centuries of Ashkenazi traditions that differed from the Sephardi traditions that R' Yosef Karo used in writing the Bais Yosef and Shulkhan Aruch. An argument can reasonably be made that without the Rama, there would be no Ashkenazi Jewry as all Jews would have followed the Sephardi traditions of the Bais Yosef over time, without his glosses. This predates the Secular movements (Reform etc.) by centuries, and even irreligious Jews would not have had the Ashkenazi/Sephardi differentiation without it being codified into daily law. -- Avi (talk) 15:41, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

RaMa is one of the most important figures of Ashkenazi rabbinical religious authorities in history and of course played important role in the history of Ashkenazi Jews -I have no objection for him in the photobox.--Gilisa (talk) 16:34, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I am no expert in the area at all, and have not heard of RaMa, but the criteria outlined above by Avi make him a good person to include. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:42, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Isn't it a bit bizarre that four of the people in the photo box were actually Christian, at least nominally? (One of them was actually a Christian by faith and upbringing who was by all accounts rather serious and sincere about his religion - namely, Felix Mendelssohn.) And aren't several of the other members "Jewish" only by fate (like Emmy Noether) or on a very nominal basis?

It is probably the case than in many "ethnicity" pages there is a tendency to grab at whoever is famous and has been claimed by somebody or the other before. Still, that doesn't make such a practice terribly encyclopaedic. Feketekave (talk) 13:01, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Feketekave, stop following my edits and spreading your POV anywhere you can. Emmy Noether was Jewish, even if it's hard for you to accept that she was not German as much as you like her to be. BTW, Noether's brother who live in Germany after the Nazis raised to power, flee germany because he wasn't an ethnical German.--Gilisa (talk) 17:15, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I may be forced to report this nonsense. Feketekave (talk) 19:06, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Go ahead and report this "nonesense".--Gilisa (talk) 19:50, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

See [5]. Feketekave (talk) 14:07, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Strange, I had the feeling that you knew already that I saw it...well, nevermind.--Gilisa (talk) 18:05, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

My idea - playing safe

A big problem is that there are elements in all this which transcend religion and are cultural and ethnic as well, and trying to define them with a simplistic or reductionistic label of only religion or culture or ethnicity will run into problems sooner rather than later. Best thing is to restrict photobox people to the most unambiguous possible. Anyone who has any query will be complianed about sooner or later, so keeping it really safe is prudent (ye gods, all this over a photobox!) Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:16, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

You are right. But the photobox is the first thing that readers see. Anyway, we could get to an agreement already, there is unrelevant presistence of some users.--Gilisa (talk) 06:13, 27 September 2009 (UTC)