Talk:Jews

Assimilation

Is there a source for this: "but assimilation has remained relatively low over much of the past millennium, as Jews were often not allowed to integrate with the wider communities in which they lived" It seems like a guess rather than a fact. (from 6.4 Population changes: Assimilation) Jd2718 07:59, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

from Template:Fact/doc: Regarding unsourced or poorly sourced information:

1. if it is likely true, but needs specificity, you may use {{specify}}
2. if it is not doubtful, you may use {{fact}} or {{citequote}} tag to ask for better citation in order to make the article complete.
3. if it is doubtful but not too harmful to the whole article, you may use {{verify source}} tag to ask for source verification.
   
4. If it is doubtful and (quite) highly harmful, you may move it to the talk page and ask for a source.
   
5. If it is very doubtful and very harmful, you may remove it directly without the need of moving it to the talk page first.

do as you see fit according to these guidelines. (I think that {{verify source}} is called for). Jon513 22:13, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

The article says : "descended from the ancient Israelites and from converts who joined their religion.". I know that today you are strongly discouraged from converting if you do not have Jewish blood and strongly encouraged if you do. So was it "Jews were often not allowed to integrate with the wider communities in which they lived" or did the Jews discourage assimilation as they do today?

and my next question, are the number of converts large enough to be worth mentioning? (If not then the definition of "Jewish" is essentially racial.) References please? Fourtildas 07:54, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I do not know anything about encouraging conversation for those "with Jewish blood". Non-Jews are never encouraged to convert even if they have a Jewish father. Only people of questionable status are encouraged to convert.

I do not see any contradiction between Jews discouraging assimilation and not being allowed to integrate in the wider communities in which they lived.

Converts are noteworthy even if there were never any convert to illustrate that Jewish not a racial definition (as you pointed out), but rather a mix between religion and race. The amount of converts is debatable, but there have alway been at least a few. See Khazars for a discussion about a mass conversion and the possibility that all Ashkenazim are of Khazar decent. Jon513 15:21, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

use of "Jew"

This is intended as an objective comment on the content of the page, not an opinion. Foot note number 1 Jew#_note-0 maintains that (albeit some) uses of the word "Jew" are considered derogatory. Yet all though out this article, the words "Jew" and "Jews" seem to be much more common than "Jewish" and "Jewish Citizen" or similar words. Any thoughts to this? A fix to this would be simple and, if the general opinion was positive, I would be more than happy to do so. Otherwise, I think something should be done about this comment, as it seems to contradict the rest of the article. Slithytove2 22:58, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I dont think this is an issue. Usage of the word mexican can be derogatory if used in a particular manner. This does not mean that it is wrong to use it. Jew is an accepted word, and many jews refer to themselves as jews. It is stupid to censor something that only a small percentage of wikipedians would find offensive. Also it is very self-destructive to remove information that describes some usages of the word, even if it contradicts wikipedias usage. Lets not fix things that dont need fixing. thuglas^talk|edits 01:09, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

your logic is quite flawed. If someone mowes lawns they are called a mexican. Your argument that "many jews [sic] refer to themselves as jews [sic]" is the same as saying that many black people refer to themselves, and other black people, as "nigger" or "negro". It doesnt mean that it is right. "Jew" and "Jewish" are not synonymous. The "politically correct" word is Jewish. Jew has always had a negative connotation. "...he's a Jew.." implies that all Jewish people are the same and can be lumped together. Most educated individuals, Jewish or Gentile, do not use the term "Jew." They understand the connotations, and understand that it is not "right" to use it. You also have to remember that while "only a small percentage of wikipedians" find it offencive, only a small percentage of wikipedians actually have been called "Jew" instead of "Jewish." My point being, until you have been called a "jew," you can't say that it is not offensive. If someone is gay they are called a fag.

Goalie1998 03:03, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I really knew someone would come at me telling me that black people have no right to use the word nigger, piece of worthless shit, needs a job, etc. and i had gaven wikipedia the benifit of the doubt, expecting that noone would bring in this stupid, childish, obvious analogy. I am aware that some words are not for wikipedia, but this does not mean that some words are not meant for wikipedia. First of all, i agree with you that my logic is flawed. That does not mean that my points are not valid, because all language can be argued to be incorrect in life for two reasons, one being that language is subjective, another being that language is relative to other language and has no fundamental base. If humans wish to communicate, we must show some tolerance for innacuracy in language. I could go into a three hour conversation about this, but that was for my english professor. Also, your arguement that someone being from mexico is mexican has no weight. I am aware of this, and i dont need to be reminded that Mexican people are Mexican. My arguement was that the term mexican, (or, in a synomous example, an Arab or Tutsie) can be used in a derogative manner to offend Mexicans. Also, in acclamation to your statement that the word Jewish is used to lump Jews together: OFCOURSE, this is how all types of grouping work. The word Canadian is used to lump or chunk people from Canada together. This in no manner implies they are all the same; neither does use of the word "Jew." Finally, as I am jewish and i have been called a Jew your last comment has no meaning to me. I am not a baby and i do not find this term to be offensive. My entire family feels the same way and i do not wish for people to tiptoe around our name purely because select individuals have used the term 'Jew' in a negative manner, that would be letting them win. If you are jewish, then grow some balls and stop whining about the usage of the term jew and be proud of what you are instead of trying to run from what people have done to you or your ancestors, the word jew cant be that bad if your ancestors put up with mass-killings. Nazi Power!!! If you aren't jewish, then stop caring; many Jews contribute to wikipedia and can fix things on their own if they find it offensive. Also, before you point out mistakes in my capitolisation or spelling, you should fix your own. This is a talk page and i do not care. thuglas^talk|edits 11:30, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I think Goalie1998 is winding you up. Just to provide some perspective on this, here are some Google searches: from the Jewish Chronicle..., from the Israeli government's .gov.il domain..., from Haaretz..., from the Jerusalem Post.... Finally, you might want to take a look at the official English wording of The Law of Return. I suggest at this point that we stop feeding the trolls. -- The Anome 11:49, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

You're probably right. I guess I enjoyed writing that anyway. Nice research, Anome. thuglas^talk|edits 19:22, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

"Even when used as a noun, the term "Jew" has been used to objectify and separate Jews from the remainder of the population, often by referring to the majority population by the name of the country ("Countrymen") but referring to Jewish citizens as "Jews." "

Shouldn't WP also say that it is offensive to refer to the dominant majority of the Jewish State as "Jews" and objectify and separate "Israeli Arabs" from the remainder of the population? Should I put that in this article or some other? Suggestions. Fourtildas 06:30, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it would be a good idea, Fourtildas thuglas^talk|edits 20:25, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

It's interesting to note that Googling for the word "jew" brings up a link at the top of the results page to this URL: http://www.google.com/explanation.html Obviously the people at Google think that there's an issue with the usage of the term "jew" compared to other synonyms such as jewish etc. Argenteum 20:42, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

That's because a few years ago Google was under a lot of pressure because word had gotten around that the top sites that came up if you searched for "Jew" were anti-semitic. Google refused to change their ranking algorithm, but finally compromised by putting up the "sponsored" link you're referring to. In my search today, I found that Wikipedia shows up on top of the Google search results for "Jew", so I guess it's now a historical curiosity.--Elipongo ^{(Talk|contribs)} 18:35, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

This is still a concern, there are sites with titles "Bay Watch" on the first page of google's search results. While it is sad that sites like that exist, I don't think Google should have changed the algorithm or hide this information. Actually, the way they have handled it was very helpful because I was at the time quite shocked that antisemitism is still so prevalent. Now, about the usage of the word "jew", if I understand the correctly, it would be fine to say "my best friend is a jew" when it is obvious I'm not saying that to separate him from my other friends or something like that :) I think I will move up the footnote to the lead paragraph, because I think this is important, and should be explained at the very first use of the word! --Merzul 02:25, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Hey, i just wanted to throw this out there. I am currently taking a Jewish history course at my school (Wheaton College in mass) and the Proffessor, who is also Jewish, usually referes to the people as Jews and things relating to them as the Jew's literature, or the Jew's jobs, etc. Im not saying its right or wrong, and of course im sure there is a proffessor elsewhere who never use the term, but anyway im just throwing it out there. lain18

It has surely been argued by someone that little green men from Mars control the White House, but... they are probobly just Niggers.

I see that I cannot edit this page, although I also don't seem to see any notice that it is locked. What's that all about? Anyhow, I ran across the following assertion:

(It has been argued that governmental policies of the United States, with a Jewish population of about 2% of its total population, are largely determined by an Israeli lobby [11], although this assertion has been challenged.)

I suppose that many things have been argued, but this comes awfully close to cracked pottery. I suggest replacing the word "largely" by "disproportionately". The way it stands now you have an uncommon conspiracy theory distracting from a decently written article. Replacing the world would transform the parenthetical remark into a statement of the much more widely held belief that the aforementioned Israeli lobby (perhaps more accurately called Jewish lobby, because it is usually alleged to represent mainly American Jews) holds at least epsilon more power than one would expect given its size alone. This does not imply that epsilon is particularly large, nor that such disproportionate influence is disagreeable in any way. Alternatively, one could replace "governmental policies" by "foreign policy with regards Israel", and obtain a different, more radical statement that can be heard fairly often, especially in Europe. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sjeng (talk • contribs) 19:27, 24 January 2007 (UTC).

Jews

I reverted user, Ivan Kricancic edits on this page. The infoxbox for ethnic groups, features the "popplace" tag for the region with the centre/largest/native population, which Israel has. See, Japanese people, Egyptians, Russian people for examples, or check out the template for it, Template:Ethnic_group. In addtion to being the orgin of the Jewish diaspora (or see diaspora), as of 2006, Israel contains the single largest Jewish population on Earth. Epson291 08:09, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Do Europeans have right to a state in Palestine?

No, they don't. They belong to Europe. The Balfour Declaration lacked the consent of the people of Palestine, so in fact it was illegal. Anything built on illegality is illegal. That is the international law. At the end of the British Mandate under which Palestine was placed by the now defunct League of Nations at dismemberment of the Ottoman State in 1922 by Treaty of Versailles, should have been constituted by the following UN in 1948 as Republic of Palestine in which all the endemic people of Palestine irrespective of religion & ethnicity should have equal right to live there. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ILAKNA (talk • contribs) 18:33, 25 January 2007 (UTC).

Are you stating this in order to debate the proposition (which you are better advised to do elsewhere) or to suggest a modification to the article? Sjeng 21:33, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Many studies that have been done about this subject find a systematic major difference between the genetic pools of Jews and non-Jewish hosting European populations, with only very little in common ,if at all .but this difference was much smaller when the Jewish genome was compared with that of middle eastern, or from middle eastern origin, populations such as thus of Syria, Lebanon and Tunis. Finding like this suggest a common origin for all of the Jewish communities ,with two exceptional: the Yamane Jewish community which have a lot in common with the gentile Yamane population (but still have genetic markers of Jewish people as well) ,which fits very well with the known history of this group, and the Ethiopian Jews which seems ,genetically , from a non Jewish origin only (and this fact is perfectly support the assumptions ,regarding the historical background of this group, claming that the Ethiopian Jewish community was established by local people which convert to Judaism ) . --Gilisa 20:29, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Conflicting Entries

This article ("Jew") claims that the number of jews living in the United States is between 5,300,000 and 5,671,000. The article, "American Jews", claims that the number of jews in the United States is 6.4 million. It sites this source: http://sev.prnewswire.com/publishing-information-services/20061222/UNTH01421122006-1.html. Furthermore, "Jewish population" claims the number to be 5,914,682. In the interest of consistency, at least two of these articles should be changed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 137.99.174.125 (talk) 22:49, 26 January 2007 (UTC).

Incorrect/POV to use the term "Diaspora" to describe Jews living outside Israel?

The article describes Jews outside Israel as a "Diaspora". As diaspora refers to people who have been forced to leave their homeland it doesn't seem like a NPOV way of describing Jews living in North America, Europe, or elsewhere in the world outside the state of Israel. Wikipedia describes diaspora as "is used (without capitalization) to refer to any people or ethnic population forced or induced to leave their traditional ethnic homelands". As, for example, Jews living in Europe haven't been forced to leave Israel (actually, it's more likely to be the other way around) it would seem a very ideological statement, not befitting Wikipedia, to classify them as a Diaspora. Better to just use the term "outside Israel". Regards Osli73 01:41, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

' I have reposted it here. Maybe you are unaware on the term diaspora, but it is a word originally used for Jews not living in Israel, and in the later half of the 20th century came to include other peoples not living in their ethnic homeland, forced or not. See Indian diaspora. If you review the history of Israel and Judah, you will see in 586 BC Jews for forced from Judea by the Babylonians, and Jerusalem in AD 136 by the Roman Empire. Epson291 06:25, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Collage image

What is the deal with the collage image? Was there a discussion anywhere on who gets to be included? Why is Natalie Portman one of the top 10 Jews? Seems odd to me.-Andrew c 06:46, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I didn't see a discussion either, but I think the collage is OK. As a matter of fact, I wouldn't mind to see 5 (or more) women there. And who says that these are "the top 10 Jews"? ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 06:53, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

The idea that we have an ethnic group info box filled with 10 fairly notable jews implies that it is a top ten list. Looking through other ethnic group infoboxes, such as the African American box, we have W.E.B DuBois, MLK, Malcom X, and Rosa Parks, looking at the Greek one, we have John Capodistria, Pericles, El Greco, and Alexander the Great. It just seems odd to have Natalie Portman (out of all possible actors), and now that I look again Shiraz Tal as well. I do not think the best solution would be to add more indivuals (besides, wouldn't that be undue weight? if there are more notable men than women, having an equal number of each is misleading). If anything, I would recommend less people (4 seems to be the average with other boxes).-Andrew c 18:22, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

The reason I got 10 (5 and 5) was off the Egyptians box. And they have included modern Egyptian singer, Ruby, there. The box is not meant to be top 10 Jews ever in any way. That would be rather silly (and POV), and there are far to many famous Jews. I rather regret not including Maimonides. Anyways, the list is meant to be famous and prominent Jews, both today and in the past.

I was also trying to equalize black and white photos with colour ones (6 to 4), and men to women (which I got to 6 to 4). The reason for this is too is there is lots of contributions by both Jewish men and women, there is not reason to not to include both promiment Jewish men and women, there are certianly enough (I agree with User:Humus sapiens).

There are other people to that can always be done, Anne Frank, Mordechai Anielewicz, etc... but I didn't want to represent the Shoah right at the top of the page.

Here is the list of people and roughly the reasons.

Albert Einstein - the most famous Jewish scientist (and in general for that matter)

David Ben Gurion - first Israeli prime minister

Shiraz Tal - top Israeli model

Theodore Herzl - founder of modern Zionism

Benjamin Disraeli - first (ethnically) Jewish head of state since the Kingdoms of Israel and Judah and the only one to this day outside of Israel (he was a praticing Christian Anglican however, so he might not be the best)

Natalie Portman - famous Israeli actress

Menasseh ben Israel - famous Rabbi and founder of the Hebrew printing press

Golda Meir - First Israeli women prime minister and third in the world

Menachem Mendel Schneerson - last Rebbe of Chabad (and the line of Schneerson Rebbes) [ Chassidic ]

Regina Jonas - first women Rabbi [Reform]

Those are the reasons, it is not a top 10 list. As for Natalie Portman and Shiraz Tal, they are famous Jewish women and they represent modernitiy, so it isn't just dead people up there. Other pages have modern people too, actors, singers etc, becuase they are prominent people of that ethnic (and ethnic-religious in the Jewish case) group (plus they are both women.Epson291 06:05, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not a Christian myself, but shouldn't the list include the most famous Jew? Fourtildas 05:58, 22 February 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fourtildas (talk • contribs) 05:57, 22 February 2007 (UTC).

section order

shouldn't the modern state of israel and related sections be moved below the history section, in conformity to other similar articles on culture and people? Chevrox 21:01, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Ashkenazi-centric portrait collage

TALK about an Ashkenazi-centric portrait collage...where are the pictures of the Mizrahi Jews, or Ethiopian Jews (Beta Israel), or Bnei Menashe, or Persian Jews, etc, etc.? As an person of Sephardic heritage, I am amazingly offended that the image box is so amazingly biased toward the Ashkenazim; there are only two Sephardic Jews in that portrait collage as well (and NO Mizrahi Jews), even though Sephardic and Mizrahi Jews make up a huge portion of the population of Israel (there are about 2 million Mizrahi alone in Israel). The box should also be split evenly between men and women (5 men + 5 women); it currently is not. --172.132.153.245 05:40, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi, the photo has since been changed. However, please assume good faith. This was not done on purpose by me. I am both of Sephardic (Iberian) and Ashkenazi heritage. I would like to point out, Ashkinizem presently make up 80% of the world Jewry (and it was over 90% in Albert Einstein's generation before the Holocaust), so 8-2 or 3 Ash to Sef, is normal. (women however, make up 50% of the population). [And if you read the post above, I had tried to make to make the women count 5-5, I was close at 6-4.] I hope it is resolved now with the new photo by user:Pharos. Shabbat Shalom! Epson291 06:24, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

It's true that the Ashkenazim are currently the dominant Jewish ethnicity in the world, but it wasn't always that way. In fact, non-Ashkenazi Jews were the majority for the vast bulk of Jewish history, up until the 1700s. Around this time the Ashkenazim started reproducing faster than ANY other ethnic or national group in Europe, and with this immense swelling in numbers they soon surpassed the Sephardim and others. However, keeping this in historical perspective, Sephardic and Mizrahi Jews were in fact the majority of the Jewish population for thousands of years, while the Ashkenazim have only been the majority of the world Jewish population for approx. 300 years since the massive increase in their numbers in the 18th and 19th Centuries. --172.132.31.106 04:55, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Still the amount of notable women verses notable men is certainly not equal. Jon513 08:16, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but there are still 50% men and 50% women. There is not 50% Sephardi and 50% Ashkenazi, regardless of notability. Anyways this issue was resolved a while ago, but I felt a need to respond to his accusations that I purposely tried to centre it on Ashkenazi Jews more then Sephardi and Mizrahi Jews, which I did not. Epson291 22:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

So many people act these days (especially certain groups of admins. that closely watch and exclusively manage/edit certain groups of articles while ignoring the vast majority of others not pertaining to the topic of Judaism) on Wikipedia that 'issues' have already been 'resolved' and are thus set in stone; but isn't Wikipeida a constantly evolving project? If one spots POV does one have the right to point it out? Take the name of the article American Jews (incorrect) vs. Jewish Americans (correct): one certain admin. claims that since it has been at American Jews for the past year and half that it is now set in stone and never to be moved again (when it was only recently wrongly moved in an extremely 'shady' page move). Typically, this admin. was never able to answer me when I asked him/her about the previous 4-5 years (or how ever long) when it was at the correct article name. --WassermannNYC 02:22, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Mention of "Jewish" in articles about Jewish athletes

Hi. I am involved in a discussion on my home page with 4 commentators on whether it is appropriate for me to mention the fact that Jewish athletes are Jewish in their Wikipedia entries. One commentator does not want me to mention it at all, generally. Even when the person has been elected to a Jewish Sports Hall of Fame. Two others are generally against mention being in the lead paragraph. (The issue here, in part, I think relates to whether one can view the Jews as a nation). Only 1 is generally supportive. I just set forth my thoughts on this in detail, but if any of you would like to contribute your thoughts, please take a look at the most recent discussion on my home page. Thanks.--Epeefleche 02:34, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Smaller collage

I suggest a smaller collage of four portraits: two men, two women, two Ashkenazim, two Sephardim, people who are predominately identified with Europe, the Middle East, Israel and the US, one scientific figure, one religious figure, one political figure and one cultural figure.

• Albert Einstein
• Maimonides
• Golda Meir
• Emma Lazarus

My algebra is perfect!--Pharos 22:39, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Works for me, mostly because this will put an end to useless disputes about it, I hope. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 11:29, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Is trying to equally represent both women and Jewish ethnic minorities a "useless dispute" to you Humus sapiens? Also, the names should be alphabetized in order to avoid undue preference and bias. Come on now people. --172.145.36.50 08:59, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I tried it that way originally, but changed it to the current order for aesthetic reasons. There just seems to me more visual balance with that arrangement (because of the concentrations of bright and dark in the portraits); alphabetizing in this case would I think be overkill.--Pharos 02:29, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

User 172.145.36.50 , why are you picking fights? User:Humus sapiens' reasons are logical, that it should be the most notable, regardless in this case, of either gender or what country the Jew is from..... And Pharos, I think the photo is perfect, you got everything balanced, so other's won't be upset from precieved bias. Epson291 22:49, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Epson, I am not "picking fights," so please don't make baseless assumptions when my motivations here are entirely noble -- I am simply recognizing POV (probably subconscious POV) and trying to have someone remedy it because I am semi-computer illiterate and don't know how to work with pics here on Wikipedia (though I may try to toy with them soon). I still believe that the names should be alphabetized, because in the current photo collage the women are 'behind' the men -- and besides...ALL of the lists on Wikipedia are alphabetized, so why not this one? Alphabetizing names is standard procedure for ALL lists of names on Wikipedia, correct? And equal representation of the sexes in the interests of a NPOV is standard procedure too, right? However, Pharos says that norms should be ignored in favor of "aesthetics" and "visual balance," and you seem to agree with him/her -- I'm sorry, but you are both wrong: the names should be alphabetized just like they are in all of the other lists on Wikipedia.

I know it seems tedious/pointless, but Wikipedia has to take these factors in to account if it is serious about NPOV. People are strongly influenced by images (even if they only glance at them), so if they see a collage with 7 men and only 3 women, and all of the women are located at the end or bottom of the collage, that clearly makes them seem 'lower' somehow (again, mostly subconscious perceptions). You all must admit though that the names should be alphabetized like all of the other lists of names on this site; thus the pictures also should be switched/shuffled around.

On another note, I also fear disputing something else since you all seem to think that I'm "picking fights" here, but I'd consider taking the little-known Emma Lazarus off of the collage in favor of a more prominent (Sephardic or Mizrahi or minority Jewish) woman. Pharos' algebra was indeed very good, nice and sound and balanced, but Emma Lazarus doesn't seem relevant or notable enough as either a Jew or a writer to be included at the top of such an important and high traffic page. --WassermannNYC 02:03, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

BTW Pharos: looking at your original photo collage that I'd prefer [1] since it keeps the names alphabetized per Wikipedia norms/procedure...it actually seems more visually balanced than the other one to me since you have the two black&white photos in the center which are flanked by the sepia-toned pics at the two ends. Just a thought... --WassermannNYC 02:11, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Jew and ethnicity?

The introduction says that jews "are members of the Jewish people, an ethnic group originating in the Israelites of the ancient Middle East.". I checked through a lot of sites and it does not seem to be quite so clear, for example the site http://www.jewfaq.org/whoisjew.htm does not say anything about an ethnic groups, only about traditional jewish views on who is a jew. The introduction is either badly worded or a POV. -Lapinmies 01:02, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

• I think it's pretty undisputed that Jews are an ethnic group. The jewfaq author uses the term "nation". Please have a look at the ethnic group article; the academic definition of the term may be broader than you think (it doesn't mean "race").--Pharos 01:22, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Negative, I was talking about there being many sites that define it differently. -Lapinmies 01:56, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

"Many websites" is hardly a WP:RS. By the academic definition, Jews clearly form an "ethnic group". For various reasons, some prefer "a people" or "a nation", but that's hardly relevant here.--Pharos 02:00, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

The Encarta source that is placed first does not agree completely with the introduction, confusing. -Lapinmies 02:14, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

• There is not jewish ethnicity. The comparison with other site isnt a proof, you have to be scientist and there is scientific proofs there is not jewish ethnicity.

"Jews" are defined in this article as "members of the Jewish people". If you look in WP for "Jewish people" you get redirected to "Jews". So this is a circular non-definition. The other definition given refers to the Israelites article, which is purely a description of religious beliefs, sourced to the Bible - it seems this is perfectly OK as a WP "source". "Jew" is used in other articles as if it has a meaning. Strangely, if I look in my Oxford, I find a perfectly good definition of "Jew", which you won't find in WP. Fourtildas 06:55, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Vandalsim?

Is it such a great idea to have a large swastika at the top of this page?!?! --Mike315 19:13, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Mike, can you point out what page you're referring to? Justin Eiler 19:20, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

It was a piece of vandalism from yesterday that's already been reverted.--Pharos 19:27, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks--the question had me confused. Welcome, Mike315. :) Justin Eiler 19:33, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the response and prompt action!!--Mike315 21:39, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Shalom Shalom Shalom

Ma schlomcha ? Kor'im li Kızıl. Hakol tov?

Hehehehehehe....

I know just a little Hebrew. Anyway... Albert Einstein was a Jew? I think he wasn't, 'cause he hadn't said to never he was a Jew.

Kızılsungur 15:04, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Greetings and shalom, Kızılsungur. Yes, Albert Einstein was ethnically Jewish, though he did not practice Judaism. Justin Eiler 15:06, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Ethnical?!

Its not ethnical to be jewish,there are two ways to be jewish: sociocultural, and religious. You do a mistake when you change the term "sociocultural" by "ethnical". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.116.86.107 (talk) 17:49, 16 February 2007 (UTC).

Again, please look at the ethnic group article (it does not mean "race").--Pharos 17:51, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Please also read some other encyclopedias, dictionaries and thesauri - they disagree with WP. Fourtildas 04:59, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

"Yo do a mistake." :D Muhahaha. Anyway... I can make mistakes. You're right dude. But I prefer to be sociocultural. Ethnical situation is not cool. It's like Fashisizm or Nazisizm.

Kızılsungur 12:34, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, it isn't :) Epson291 23:07, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Holocaust reference at end

Quote: "There is a debate among scholars over whether the Holocaust only refers to Jewish victims, or to all groups targeted by the Nazis, or to some subset of those groups."

Now, this is not hard science, and arguing about this definition is pointless. The only use for a consensus on the definition would be to make the term current in [academic and media] discourse. Current status of discourse would be to grant legitimacy to both. But once again, what is there to debate? elpincha 14:57, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, it doesn't seem right, I've updated the tag. It seems to be a left over source from an older edit, but I didn't delete it though. A lot of times, it seems Wikipedia users take NPOV to interesting lengeths. I have never heard any one claim that the Holocaust was the systamatic muder of ONLY Jews....(Though in context, people may be referring to only Jews (or another) when talking about the Holocaust, but that doesn't mean they are denying other victims). Epson291 23:06, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

New US Population Estimates

New US population estimates by a Brandeis University study places the number of American Jews between 6 - 6.4 million. The study is [here. I think this is significant enough to include in the article caz | speak 23:17, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Languages

Hi, I am opening this up for discussion. User:Epson291 and I disagree on whether English should be included as one of the languages of the Jews today. It appears that over half of Jews worldwide speak English. Here are parts of what I wrote on Epson291's talk page.

Jews today are unlike Russians, Germans, Pashtuns, Armenians etc. since most of them do not speak their ancestral languages, and the language shared most by each of those groups is Russian, German,.. If this were perhaps 60 or 70 years ago, Yiddish would probably be written first, since it was then the language shared by most Jews. The language shared by most Jews today is overwhelmingly English and it is the prime language of the community, whether or not it has to do with immigration is irrelevant. (Another factor to consider is the large portion of Israeli and European Jews who speak English.)

Any thoughts, suggestions...?

---

This is what was originally written

User:Shamir, I reverted you edits on the Enlgish majority already once and you readded it and I should have written why I did that. The reason for that is the box is for the langagues of that ethnic group, English, French, German, Russian, Ukranian, etc... are not..... Otherwise, the list would go on for ever. (And it will because user's will add it, i.e, one of the 500,000 France Jews will see it and think, why I am not on it.... etc....) Aramaic is for instance a Jewish langague, but it is no longer spoken, so it would go into the greater Jewish languages thats included. Only Jewish languages should be listed in the Jewish ethnic group box. It says in other places (and quite obvious) that Jews speak the langague of their home country.

Anyways, as for your asertion that English are the majority, the link you provided was from a unreliable source that stated English speakers were exactly 50.0%. And of course, the world's total Jewish population is difficult to measure and in many countries without ethnic or religious cencuses, it hard to accurately know the figure. (Had it been 85.0%, and not 50.0% there would be some leaway). Either way, English, Russian, Hindi, etc..may be langagues that Jews can speak, but has nothing to do with the Jewish ethnicity. (And Jews as a 50% figure, hasn't even been that long - lets say, since the end of the Shoah, when there were large population migrations. So English isn't even a historical non-Jewish langague that Jews spoke) Epson291 22:28, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

So I will revert it right now, just that, not your other edits, but if you still feel the diasporic lanaguague of English should be included in the box (I presume with Russian, French, German, etc... where there are a large number of speakers) then please talk about in the on the talk page of Jew, I would prefer the infox box short and precise. Epson291 22:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi! I don't think it would be necessary to write Russian, French, German etc. because that is only a minority of Jews worldwide. It does not say what ethnic language or the such. Jews today, who are more correctly a nation rather than an ethnic group, are unlike Russians, Germans, Pashtuns, Armenians etc. since most of them do not speak their ancestral languages. If this were perhaps 60 or 70 years ago, Yiddish would probably be written first, since it was then the language shared by most Jews. The language shared by most Jews today is overwhelmingly English and it is the prime language of the community, whether or not it has to do with immigration is irrelevant. (Another factor to consider is the large portion of Israeli and European Jews who speak English.) I will post a discussion on the talk page. --Shamir1 23:25, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

---

Here is my response

Hi again. I strongly disagree with you. The info box should be left for either lanagues of the ethnicity (such as Jewish lanagues). Otherwise, a box of worms will be open. It is quite obvious that any ethnicity, would speak the lanague of the country they live in. If you feel people won't realize British Jews lets say, speak English, then a message could state that Jews generally speak the lanague of the country they reside in. By wanting to put in English, you are opening for other user's to fill it in for the 700,000 French speaking Jews, 2.5 Russian speaking Jews, etc.... and this continues with German (Germany has the fastest growing Jewish population) etc... And we need to have a list a mile long for every country Jews live in (Brazil (Portuguse), Argentina (Spanish), Iran (Farsi), Ukraine (Ukranian), etc....) And remember this is out of 13 million Jews in the world. Just because you are a native speaker of Enlglish and that is the only languague you speak, this seems to have given you a narrow minded view of the world's Jewish speakers, 35% speak Hebrew as their lanague, the other 15% share among Russian, French, Spanish, Portuguse, Farsi, etc..... English is of no historic importance to the Jewish community. Now. again you've written "over half of Jews" speak English, though the link you provided said 50.0% (which is not over half or majoirty that you keep saying), and remember the Jewish population is hard to measure, some countries, do not take ethnic or religious counts of Jews. (Side note: you have some confusion between nation and ethnic group, but I do agree, Jews are certainly more then just an ethnicity]], Jews are certainly both, see the definitions) Now, Jewry does not start and finish with the American Jewish community. By saying that Israeli or European Jews speak English as second langague and that is why it should be there is laughable, honestly, since so can most Israeli and European gentiles. (Should they have English added to their ethnic boxes?). English is not in any way connected to the Jewish nation. I do understand it's importance to roughly half of the Jewish population, but you most be aware of the number of Russian, French, German, Spanish, etc... speaking Jews? You may claim it is a minority, but no more minority then English. If you step into a place like France, you will find hundreds of thousands of French and Arabic speaking Jews, you go into Montreal and Toronto you fill find thousands of French, English, Russian, and Hebrew speakers. I will once again state that only lanaguagues related to the ethnicity should be included. Epson291 02:51, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and I can imagine the response some people will have seeing German listed in the info box, as there are 200,000 German speaking Jews today and it is growing among the quickest. So I don't think listing lanagues of countries Jews lve in will work per sey. Epson291 02:53, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and not that I would, I speak German Epson291 02:54, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Today, English is the primary tongue of the Jewish nation. That may be because of immigration, but so is the revival of Hebrew. If this were 1850, we would not be listing Hebrew at all, despite its very strong connection. And it is not true that all of those other languages are "no more a minority than English", that is absolutely false. Again, the most shared language of Armenians worldwide is Armenian, and I can go on with that list. Armenians speak the language of their homecountry too, but 1) most of those outside of the country speak Armenian, and 2) it is overall the most shared language of all of them. You can also see the article on Ethiopian Jews: Traditionally, Kayla and Qwara, more recently Amharic; Ge'ez as a liturgical language and now (in Israel) Hebrew as a liturgical and common language. Had this been prior to 1984, Hebrew would not be mentioned. Had the Ethiopian Jews been airlifted to Norway, then Norwegian would probably be included as well. And no, German would not be listed since German is not even close to the prime tongue of Jews; perhaps growing relatively quickly, but not even close to to the over-half majority of English speakers. The World Jewish Congress is conducted in English, as well as any major event or convention for Jews worldwide. --Shamir1 03:12, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, but I will wait to here others opinion. You're justification for English but not for other histroically non Jewish langagues in absurd (such as Russian, French, etc..) to give special treatment for English. And again you say, "over-half majority of English speakers" when you're "proof" says very much otherwise. As for Hebrew, if not for it's revival and Yiddish and Ladino subsuquent demise it would probably be listed in the other order. There are many many more Jewish lanaguagues (say Aramaic), that either in this only in certain prayer, and others like that of Georgian Jews, Juedao-Arabic, Judaeo-Farsi, etc... is not important enough to list in there, rather in the all emcompassing, Jewish languages. 74.108.10.78 06:09, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

1) The source itself says 50% of Jews are in English-speaking countries, while a large portion in Israel and Europe speak English as well (very few speak actual Jewish languages [besides Hebrew in Israel]). There is no "special" treatment when over half speak English and only a minority actually speak a Jewish language. You talk about other "historically non Jewish languages"... At one point in time, Russia had the largest Jewish population. Should Russian have been mentioned? Probably not, because most Jews in Russia at that time spoke Yiddish, specifically Eastern Yiddish. Today, only a small minority of Jews speak Yiddish, even in Russia. The Jews have unfortunately lost touch or have been forced to lose touch with their cultural languages. In either case, by far the most shared language of Jews worldwide is English. --67.120.168.41 23:42, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Russian Jews still make up one the the largest perecentages of the Jewish people. Israel alone has absorbed 1 million Russian Jews since the fall of the Soviet Empire 15 years ago (1/6 the population). And almost none speak Yiddish. And I also argue by that one source and then calling it a majority, one could say however, "around half", speak English and the langauge of their home country. Epson291 17:54, 24 February 2007 (UTC)