Talk:Kaifeng Jews

Irrelevant links

Two users have recently been adding links to the "see also" section, which seem completely irrelevant to this article. The latest in this series is Jews and Judaism in Japan, added by User:Ghostexorcist. Please explain what possible relevance 19th-century-and-later Jewish communities in Japan could have to an article about a pre-18th-century Jewish community in China. Zsero 19:35, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Because they are all Asian Jews. --Ghostexorcist 10:29, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

So should we have "see also" to all Jewish articles on WP, because they are all about Jews, somewhere in the world? What's significant about the fact that both communities, from utterly different origins and at different periods, happened to be situated in "Asia", which is after all the continent where Jews come from, and where the majority of Jews have always lived (except for those 210 years in Egypt)? -- Zsero 15:19, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Law of return

This article contradicts the Law of Return article which says anyone under Nuremberg Law standards are considered Jewish. Can someone verify? --Gary123 (talk) 17:44, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

• Jews are only with mitocondrial dna of the jewish mother and not only y cromossome of the father

father jew + mother goy(im)/nom-jew(ish) = nom-jew(ish) = goy(im)

only mother jew = jewish forever(not goyim/gentile/nom-jew) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.13.252.107 (talk • contribs)

The Kaifeng Jews do not meet the requirements for the Law of return since their mothers were Chinese (i.e. not Jewish). --Ghostexorcist (talk) 23:23, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Kaifeng Jews today

The last paragraph in the "Kaifeng Jews today" section could use some cleaning up. I'm not just talking about the link to another wiki page (I'd do that myself) but rather the contradiction regarding Kaifeng Muslims' relations towards the Kaifeng Jews: an earlier paragraph in that same section claims the opposite. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.161.152.25 (talk • contribs)

That's because that last paragraph is nothing but a fictional story that some person keeps on adding to the page. I've removed it for a second time. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 07:45, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Please let's try to keep that bit about "rumours of pogroms" off the page. I just came from Kaifeng, I'm a Jew, and my girlfriend is Muslim. We had a lovely time and none of the local Muslims seemed keen to start a pogrom against me. They seemed even less keen to start a pogrom against the two Jews in their immediate vicinity, who they happily showed us to. The lady there runs kind of a touristy (for Jews) shop/museum out of her house. She certainly didn't fear pogroms, and indeed, they'd be quite impossible, as she confirms that most of the Kaifeng Jews today live outside of Kaifeng, and it's just her tiny family which does. She complained a lot more about the state of Israel and the PRC not recognising her Jewishness than anything. That entire paragraph is fairly laughable. The Muslims here would be called infidels by the Malays or Arabs or any other group keen to pogrom anybody.

How about you try rephrasing that so it doesn't sound like I was the person who added it. Anyway, I think the person who originally added that perceived a historical conflict between the Chinese Jews and Muslims to be modern. During the 19th century, two Chinese church delegates were sent to the Kaifeng Jewish community in order to procure some of their holy scriptures. Both of them noted tensions between the two groups in their travel journals. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 04:56, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure in the 19th Century a visitor to London or New York might have noticed tension between Jews and Christians, but that hardly has any bearing to how relations between the communities stand at present.

current status as of Year x

(2018) is not addressed - I hope someone will have time to provide a few links to Western and Eastern perspectives. I don't have enough knowledge to know whether this headline has evidence to back it up: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/25/world/asia/china-kaifeng-jews.html Chinese Jews of Ancient Lineage Huddle Under Pressure By CHRIS BUCKLEYSEPT. 24, 2016 MichelleInSanMarcos (talk) 20:19, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Chinese name of Jews and Shi Kefa

Chinese words are of single syllables, how can 猶,太 be translated into three syllables? it would be seen as vandalism if correctness is constantly reverted.

And Shi Kefa is a revered person in China, I am not any sort of zealous patriot, but shouldn't we be more cautious, before hastily giving him some new nationality, regarding the respect of fact and feelings of some viewers?

In this case, "Stone" in Chinese is Shi, 石 However the Shi of Shi Kefa is another Shi, 史, which literally means "History". judging from the source given in the previous sentence, he is very likely to be irrelevant to Kaifeng Jews. Siderumhk (talk) 07:28, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I can't find any mention of him in my genealogy books on the Kaifeng Jews. So, I doubt he was a Jew. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 08:08, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

"the community was known by their Han Chinese neighbors as adherents of Tiaojinjiao (挑筋教), meaning, loosely, the religion which removes the sinew (a reference to kashrut)"

As a person growing up fully immersed in a Mandarin speaking environment (Taiwan) for the first 23 years of my life, and continuing on in the next 30 years to interact in Chinese speaking communities as well as reading extensively Chinese language books and watching Chinese news media from both China and Taiwan, I have never encountered the term Tiaojinjiao (挑筋教) more than one or two times, and only in the most obscure and arcane references such as this Wiki entry. Judaism has always been simply referred to as 犹太教 (Judaism derived from the sound of the word). If the above quoted sentence was meant to pertain to how Judaism was called in the 11th or 15th Century, I would have no opinion. But its context, the entire paragraph, clearly talks about the modern reference to Judaism and the Jewish community in Chinese, and this reference to the absurd Tiaojinjiao (挑筋教) is preposterous. Ask any modern day Chinese speaker if he knows what Tiaojinjiao is! If your intention was to refer to the name of Judaism used in 11th Century China, please make it explicit and less confusing.

Ycchao (talk) 02:26, 11 June 2010 (UTC) June 10, 2010

actually your rant is irrelavant- this article is specifically talking about the jews who arrived in China hundreds of years ago, not modern European jews not from China. Judaism was referred to as Zhuhu in medieval times in China, not as "youtai jiao" 犹太教. the kaifeng community was always called Tiaojinjiao (挑筋教), never as 犹太教. "Youtai jiao", is a relatively recent term, used to describe foreign jews as contact increased during recent centuries.DÜNGÁNÈ (talk) 21:36, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

DNA testing

I have removed this section because neither of the quoted sources give reference to where they got the information from. This page states that as far back as the 1980s Kaifeng Jews took DNA tests that confirmed their Semitic origins. But, again, it doesn't provide any source either. Another reason why I removed it is because some of the information was incorrect. It was stated that the Jews believe that their ancestors originally arrived during the 8th century. This is not so. The Jews actually have more than one origin myth that they follow. The 1489 inscription says they arrived in the Song Dynasty (960-1279). The 1512 inscription says the Han (206 BCE-220CE). The Jew Ai Tian told Matteo Ricci in 1605 an anachronistic story of how they had arrived with Tamerlane "800 years ago." However, Tamerlane died before he could attack China in 1405, only 200 years prior. The 1663 inscription says the Zhou Dynasty (1046–256 BC). During the early 1990s, the descendants of the Jews claimed they had fled the Crusaders to China in 1099. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 22:07, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I have removed the newly added genetics testing section (again) because the source is unreliable. As you can see from above, there have been several articles to mention the Jews' supposed genetic connection to the Jews of Armenia, Iraq, and Iran. The problem, however, is that there is no ultimate source for this study--i.e. a peer-reviewed science paper reporting the findings. For instance, this article states:

A recent article that appeared in Hong Kong’s Chinese language paper, Ta Kung Po, makes reference to the municipal authority’s investigation into the legitimacy of the claims. A report compiled in the 1980’s, by authorities in Kaifeng, references the use of DNA testing on ten families, including that of Zhao Pingyu. The results indicated that while these Jews intermarried, “the Jews who were in Kaifeng mainly came from the areas around the two rivers in Iraq. They were also quite close to those Jews in Armenia and the Arab world. A rough estimate was conducted by the authority in Kaifeng...there were 618 such people.” The significance of these tests is that there is now apparently scientific proof to connect these people with their Jewish lineage.

It mentions the name of a newspaper, but neglects to name the "report compiled in the 1980s." Prof. Xu Xin of Nanjing university, an expert on the Kaifeng Jews, has told me that no one takes that newspaper report seriously. In addition, these DNA tests are not mentioned in any of the numerous books I have on the the Jews of China. One of them is as recent as this year (2012). --Ghostexorcist (talk) 15:08, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Interesting. It seemed a little far fetched, seeing as they have been assimilated for quite some time and were only a small community to begin with. I just searched around the Web and could find no reference to the research. And there is no "contact us" link on the webpage for that article! Dubious mass media propaganda...--Ubikwit (talk) 16:26, 27 November 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

There was a geneticist from Israel who was supposed to do genetic testing in 2009, but the Chinese government was giving him problems. To my knowledge, none of the tests have ever been performed. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 17:16, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Yue Fei Tatoo

Please add the source for the tattoo on Yue Fei's back. It was first reported in the book by Tiberiu Weisz, "The Kaifeng Stone Inscription"

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kaifeng Jews. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100528025020/http://www.huc.edu/libraries/exhibits/rbr/kaifeng.htm to http://huc.edu/libraries/exhibits/rbr/kaifeng.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:46, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

NPOV

"Little of the written works of the Kaifeng Jews have survived." I would like to delete this statement. It is not neutral to characterize the number of words qualitatively. Four or five works is a little or a lot, depending on whether you compare to the number of extant works in Moabite. MichelleInSanMarcos (talk) 02:45, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

MichelleInSanMarcos, thanks for your contributions. The information about the haggadah is an interesting addition to the article. I've made a couple of small changes, I hope that's ok.

The WP:NPOV policy is sometimes thought to mean that Wikipedia should employ only neutral language and statements. But the core concept is that we accurately and transparently convey what reliable sources say about the subject, without bias from our own opinions. If two very reliable sources contradict each other, we explain both sides, rather than try to pick the most "correct" or "neutral" one. In this case, the source you cited literally says "Today little remains" of the community and their written works. It's fairly obvious that the quantitative comparison is in relation to the estimated number of previously-existing works of the community that have now been lost, not to other bodies of work. I'm not saying that the statement must remain in the article, but removing it because you personally disagree would actually be an example of not following WP:NPOV.

I changed the "Kaifeng manuscripts" back from a list format to paragraph format. In general I think it's preferable to use prose when possible. Also, the list had mixed sentence fragments with full sentences, which should be avoided. I also changed the capitalization of "haggadah", and switched the external link you added to point directly to the existing web page, because the archive.org link, at least on my computer, didn't actually display the PDF preview.

--IamNotU (talk) 14:36, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

IamNotU (talk) Thank you so much for letting me learn from my own error by pointing out how I inadvertently violated NPOV when I decided that the reviewer's published choice of word was pejorative. You are correct that the published reports all characterize the number similarly (few!). Thank you for finding the link that would best display on more operating systems. MichelleInSanMarcos (talk) 23:39, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Manuscripts - assumption that these are the same: "Judeo-Perisan" and "Jewish Persian hand"

I ended up having to piece together information from the review, the article, and the HUC web page to determine that the HUC library in Cincinnati was the Klau; I also had to hunt down that Judeo-Persian means lettering, not a transcription of a Judaeo-Persian spoken dialect (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judeo-Iranian_languages), so is almost certainly what reviewer David Stern reviewer means when he writes "Jewish-Persian hand." MichelleInSanMarcos (talk) 23:44, 27 November 2019 (UTC)