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)

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)

Picture box vote

As of August 5th, the picture box has become excessive and cluttered. It can easily be trimmed down. Apparently we need a basic idea of what should be included and no more, and come to a consensus. I suggest a 3x3 box with standard-sized images (meaning they must be equal in dimensions), with names below the box, each line reflecting the images up top. I suggest at least three academics (scientists, philosophers, etc.) be included, and also accomplished people of the arts. Please give suggestions and we will vote on it in a week perhaps. - Cyborg Ninja 20:48, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Three days will be allotted for the introductory suggestions. The images should have the same dimensions - or aspect ratio since you can change the size through Wikipedia. If you can't find an image, make one yourself and upload it to Wikimedia Commons. I know that some articles have a single image that consists of several pictures, but I personally prefer separate images. It's easier for other editors to change it and readers can see a higher resolution image if they click on it. Also, readers can see where the picture comes from if they click on the image and read its description. I suggest that persons included in the picture box be famous to all cultures, as opposed to some Jews who are mostly only known to other Jews, like Maimonides. - Cyborg Ninja 21:34, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

How do you feel about including Jewish atheists or Jews of other religions, including Christianity? I noticed some friction on Felix Mendelssohn. - Cyborg Ninja 01:35, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Concerning the picture-box in general

Why are the images in the picture box all of famous people? Aren't there available any images of Ashkenazi Jews who are not famous? Bus stop (talk) 22:56, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps I misunderstand you, but why would we put up a picture of someone NOT famous? Should we put up a picture of some random person? - Cyborg Ninja 01:22, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

The article is about Ashkenazi Jews. It doesn't say anything about only those Ashkenazi Jews who are notable. I certainly do think any image of a person ascertained to be Ashkenazi should be considered on equal standing with someone noteworthy. I am just suggesting that the pool for potential images should not be limited to the famous. I think editors should as well be considering images of common, everyday people, as long as they can be ascertained to be Ashkenazi. Permission for use of such images might have to be part of the requirement for such inclusion. But that hurdle is probably not insurmountable. Bus stop (talk) 01:40, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

It seems no one else has agreed with that viewpoint while I've been on Wikipedia. You can see other articles about different peoples which include people who are notable. Considering we've been arguing about this issue for months, if not years, the picture box is prime real estate. It may in fact be a wiki standard to have only notable people for these types of articles. Please type in any nation + people in Wikipedia, and see for yourself. - Cyborg Ninja 03:04, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I have brought back the photoboxes to the state they were in before all of the arbitrary additions. I believe we had reached some sort of middle ground consensus and the additions cluttered up the section to outrageous proportions. The notion of adding unknown or non-notable folks might be with good faith, but it simply is not consistent with other similar pages. Best, A Sniper (talk) 06:33, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) I believe it is an error in thinking that assumes only people of renown warrant inclusion in the photo-box of the Ashkenazi Jews article. Whether that thinking constitutes an error on "similar" pages is not really known to me, and so I am at a loss to address that particular counter-argument. In this article there is discussion of and at least partial definition of Ashkenazi Jews based on genetic type, which has known expression in various physical and photographable characteristics in real human subjects, and that is not limited to those of celebrity status or those noteworthy in any other way. I am not saying that "famous" Ashkenazi Jews should be excluded from our photo-box. The depiction here should be for the purpose of illustrating the subject of the article and it seems to me that is accomplished by depiction of those of known inclusion in the group of people that the article is about, including those lacking in fame. Nowhere in the article is fame, accomplishment, or other out-of-the-ordinary achievement indicated as a defining trait, yet the photo-box as presently construed implies otherwise. This is an inconsistency that can be reconciled by the inclusion of non-notable people of the Ashkenazi identity. Bus stop (talk) 12:21, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I fear you're certainly in the minority with your view. What exactly are you implying: that we require genetic models to illustrate an Ashkenazic type? The fact is that this is an encyclopedia, and every article about ethnic/cultural/religious groups have photoboxes of well-known folks from that particular group. If this was an article about a disease, perhaps we'd have stock photos of unknown people with the physical characteristics of that disease...is that what you're stating should be the case here? How on earth would we reach a consensus on whose photos should be used if it was determined that unknown subjects of "genetic type" (your words) would be used? It sort of boggles the mind. In any event, that's not what is done at Wikipedia with these type of articles. A Sniper (talk) 16:48, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Let's assume that we do include those who are not notable in the picture box. If we include them with people who are notable, it would cause confusion. The reader would see pictures of Einstein next to an anonymous person. Most certainly the reader will think, "Who is this person?" If we have two sections for notability, then it would defeat the very issue we're trying to fix, which is clutter. Here at Wikipedia, we have standards that we try to adhere to. If other articles do it a certain way, we don't claim they're in "error." To be fair, I've seen other encyclopedias and books that have shown generic images in articles about people, whether it's an ethnicity, gender, or humanity as a whole. However they are always short articles and only for articles about a group who don't have well-known people, like the Bedouin. I've noticed that this was used in older encyclopedias but not often today. We should see if anyone else agrees with you, but perhaps you can bring it up with a Wiki standards forum here at Wikipedia until then. - Cyborg Ninja 01:35, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

The article isn't titled "Famous Ashkenazi Jews." It's titled "Ashkenazi Jews." As such its scope is wider than just notable Ashkenazi Jews. I'm doubtful there is a strong need for a photo-box. If there is to be a photo-box it should not be filled solely by those with articles on Wikipedia. To do so would be to skew the meaning of the term Ashkenazi. Are all Ashkenazi Jews "notable?" Obviously not. Then why would only notable people be depicted? I think a paragraph should be set aside for exploration of well-known Ashkenazi Jews if that is seen as being important by some editors, but I think that fame is of low importance to the article. By the way, some of the famous people presently in the picture box are not even mentioned to be Ashkenazi in their Wikipedia articles. Others have only category affiliation indicating this at the bottom of their bio page and/or a note in a photo-box on their bio page. I hope other editors can weigh in with an opinion or two besides just the three of us. Bus stop (talk) 23:43, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

New picture box

This is the image that I created: [4]. It contains eight famous Ashkenazi Jews (all confirmed, btw) in a 4x2 box. Wikimedia Commons has been incredibly unhelpful with uploading the image, so I have not been able to do so. Is there any other way I can upload the image to Wikipedia, within protocol, without using Commons? If you wish to see different people in the picture box, let me know here. - Cyborg Ninja 18:30, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

It's sad that I haven't received any help so two hours of work has gone down the drain. But I suppose only the article suffers. - Cyborg Ninja 21:46, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi Cyborg Ninja. What help do you need in uploading to the Commons? Also, who is in the picture? Jayjg ^(talk) 23:31, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I also value your work, Cyborg Ninja. Thanks. A Sniper (talk) 02:52, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I just thought, "Oh goody, a trivia competition on name that photo" but I see that they are in the rather large composite photo currently in the infobox. Cyborg's one is better, more refined and simpler. The one currently in the infobox makes the 'box look overloaded. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:54, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Towards GA?

There is alot of information here which is laid out okay. I have little knowledge of the subject matter, but maybe folks trying to push to a GA version (or even FA) which is at least a step towards working towards a stable revision is worthwhile. The article is big enough to bring some kudos to GA/FA and gainsay the idea that FA is full of esoterica, and I think well-cricumscribed wnough that it wouldn't end up as a train wreck (like some broad or controversial articles do). The controversies that could be associated are also fairly well circumscribed I'd a thought.

Anyway, I was musing on the Usage of the name section going to the top under the lead and getting renamed Etymology (which is what it is) and buffed with some more linguistic information. My only reference would be the OED but I am sure some folks have some more relevant secondary (rather than tertiary) sources.

I am happy to help with copyediting when the time comes. Good luck....Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:12, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

The mosaic picture

Bar Refaeli is not an important character in the history of Ashkenzik Jews, take her out of the mosaic please.Also, I can tell that all Rabbanic figures were taken out, it's certainly a work of an Israeli with POV--217.132.37.77 (talk) 06:14, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, 24 year old models aren't appropriate for the box. For that matter, there's no reliable source indicating she's an Ashkenazi Jew. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:37, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

It make no sense that Bar Refaeli, which is not an historical figure by no doubt and not well familiar to Ashkenazi population around the world (Even in Israel she's considered to be a very unpopular figure by many Ashkenazi people, and Israeli newspaper articles can prove it) is in the Mosaic, but the Maharal for instance is not as well as Rashi and Ralbag who had hugh influence on the formation of the Ashkenazi people in Europe as well as on their entire history are not included. Well, no one have the exact portrait of them but it make no difference as it shouldn't be a restriction. The present mosaic is only weakly representing Ashkenazi Jewry and history. Also, too many of the people who are in the mosaic are from the same time and place (germany-austria, the early 20CE/late 19CE). It should include more Jewish people from Russia, Poland and etc and to make as equal as possible cross time and community representation.--Gilisa (talk) 17:31, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Picture box again

Which of the people in the picture box are reliably sourced as being Ashkenazi Jews? From a Wikipedia perspective, that is undoubtedly where we need to start, rather than simply voting on who we think is an Ashkenazi Jew. I've removed all the living people from the box, per WP:BLP. If reliable sourcing is found for any of them being Ashkenazi Jews, then we can consider restoring. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:30, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion the entire premise of a "picture box" for this article is problematic. What is its purpose? Is its purpose to give a visual representation of what Ashkenazi Jews look like? If so, then anonymous but verifiable examples qualify equally well, as examples derived from those who are well-known, or famous. If its purpose is to highlight the famous of the Ashkenazi Jews then the article is probably misnamed, or its premise is incorrectly stated within the article. My hunch is that many of us do not really know what purpose the "picture box" is serving, or should be serving. My own primary feeling is that it should be eliminated. My reason for that is that this article should concentrate on being scholarly, and on the flip-side, this article should be avoiding boosterism, which is what I think most of the choices concerning visual representation of Ashkenazi Jews in the picture box is about. Bus stop (talk) 23:44, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Picture boxes about ethnic groups generally show famous members of the group; it is of interest to the reader to discover that people who they have heard of are members of this group. I realize that, above, you were arguing for adding "non-famous" pictures to be added. Aside from the fact that all other editors disagreed with you, it would likely be impossible to find reliably sourced pictures of "non-famous" Ashkenazi Jews. Anyway, there will undoubtedly be pictures in the infobox, as with all other ethnic group articles, and they will undoubtedly be famous people, as with all other ethnic group articles. Please focus on reliable sourcing for the pictures. Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:52, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

My primary feeling is that the picture box should not be there. Only secondarily would I argue that anonymous people should fill the picture box. "Ashkenazi" is a loosely defined term. People migrate, intermarry, reproduce. We are not talking about an objective designation. Depicting "examples" of something undefined undermines scholarliness. (Or at least disclaimers should be placed both in the article and accompanying the picture box that a lot of information on individuals being Ashkenazi is merely anecdotal.) If you wish to enumerate some famous people "said to be" Ashkenazi that is more properly done in one paragraph in the article. I think the implication of visual representation is an enhanced sense of certainty. I highly doubt that any biographical information identifies, with a high degree of certainty, that any of the people considered for the picture box are reliably known to be Ashkenazim. I think this is merely hearsay, that unfortunately we are passing along. Bus stop (talk) 01:11, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I think for the first time in my years of editing I am disagreeing with user Jayjg, in this case over the issue of the five women pictured. I believe that there is no dispute that the five women whose photos are used in the article are in fact Ashkenazim, including Lauren Bacall, Rachel Weisz, Bar Refeali, Judit Polgar and Maya Plisetskaya. The latter two are Eastern European Ashkenazic Jews, Lauren Bacall's parents Ashkenazic European immigrants, Rachel Weisz's folks Ashkenazim from Austria and Hungary, and model Bar Rafaeli known throughout Israel and the modelling world as part of the Israeli Ashkenazim community. Many users debated about the photo boxes for some time until we painstakingly reached some sort of consensus, balancing living with dead, men with women. Without bringing up the issue of using unknown people, which did not have any supporters other than the individual proposing it, that we reached a rather broad, interesting group of Ashkenazim to feature is something I hope we don`t mess with. Best, A Sniper (talk) 00:03, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Please explain, based on Wikipedia's Bar Refaeli article, how we know she is an "Ashkenazi Jew". Then, given that it's unclear if Weisz's mother is even Jewish, please explain how we know, based on Wikipedia's Rachel Weisz article, that she is also an "Ashkenazi Jew". Jayjg ^(talk) 00:27, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Rachel Weisz apparently identifies as being Jewish and I've found references that both her parents are: [5]. Best, A Sniper (talk) 02:56, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

That's great. And here's a reliable sources saying that her mother is "Catholic Viennese". Did you find any reliable sources saying she's an Ashkenazi Jew? Jayjg ^(talk) 22:17, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

The reality is that nobody in the picturebox - whether living or dead - has been directly sourced on this website as Ashkenazi (excepting Rachel Weisz incidentally and ironically), although all the people pictured are Ashkenazi. Removing all the women from the page on the basis of WP:BLP seems slightly tenuous: you should really remove all the men, not to mention the content of the article discussing, for example, Marx or Anton Rubinstein (as they haven't been sourced as Ashkenazi either). Please counter this point before reverting what was a pretty painstaking and widely surveyed consensus.

It should be added that Ashkenazi was never a clearly defined category, so much as a description of a set of groups of Jews who lived in a certain geographic area. By way of comparison, how many people in the African American photobox have been reliably sourced on this website as being of African descent? Avaya1 (talk) 17:25, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I didn't "remove all the women" from the infobox, I removed all the living people. Understand? Living people. That's what WP:BLP is about living people. Whether or not they were women is irrelevant. And if Wikipedia editors continue to add unsourced material about living people to the article, WP:BLP says I can protect the article or block them. Rather than violating policy, and risking sanction, please comply with WP:BLP. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:14, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Most African Americans (if not all) in the African American photobox, refer to themselves as such and it definitely make a reliable source for this matter. As for Ashkenazi Jews-there are many accredited and varied sources that refer to Freud and Einstein as Ashkenazi Jews. The same is true for Maharal or Baal Shem Tov or to Israel Aumann for example, There are no references what so ever that cite Refaeli or her family identified themselves as Ashkenazi, and there are no other reliable sources to do it for them.--Gilisa (talk) 17:57, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

It make no sense that Bar Refaeli, which is not an historical figure by no doubt and not well familiar to Ashkenazi population around the world (Even in Israel she's considered to be a very unpopular figure by many Ashkenazi people, and Israeli newspaper articles can prove it) is in the Mosaic, but the Maharal for instance is not as well as Rashi and Ralbag who had hugh influence on the formation of the Ashkenazi people in Europe as well as on their entire history are not included. Well, no one have the exact portrait of them but it make no difference as it shouldn't be a restriction. The present mosaic is only weakly representing Ashkenazi Jewry and history. Also, too many of the people who are in the mosaic are from the same time and place (germany-austria, the early 20CE/late 19CE). It should include more Jewish people from Russia, Poland and etc and to make as equal as possible cross time and community representation.--Gilisa (talk) 17:31, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok, but that is an entirely separate point to the one of present contention.Avaya1 (talk) 17:33, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I've a question now: I can tell that the number of women and man is fairly equal in the PB. If I'm not mistaken I once read in the discussion page that it was made intently -and if so than it represent a POV and not a wroth and decent representation. Still, I've no problem with this issue. If you want to include a similar number of Jewish women you could find better candidates then Bar Refaeli or celebs that lived back in the begining of the 20 CE and no one remember any more. Judit Polgar is indeed deserve to be included, but what about the greatest women matmatician ever Emmy Noether?? Please, make a big favor to the common-sense and change this sloppy and undeserviable PB a.s.a.p. --Gilisa (talk) 18:13, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Bar Refaeli and the Picture Box

Jayjg has made the point that there is no reliable source to indicate that she's from an Ashkenazi origin. If a reliable source that directly indicates Ms Refaeli is Ashkenazi will not be given, as well as for all other people in the PB for which a source wasn't been given yet, than they we will have no other option but to remove them from the PB with a big and honest heartache. However, just to make it clear, even if such sources will be provided by other users it still make no difference for me (and I guess that for other as well) in objecting to the present mosaic and to the inclusion of this young model in it.--Gilisa (talk) 17:47, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Photo Boxes now look silly

Since user Jayjg insists on his interpretation of the rules related to living people, the picture boxes now look ridiculous. Beyond this, though the deceased are held to a different (lesser) standard than the living, I am concerned that no more or no less evidence exists that can support that some of the others are actually 100% Ashkenazic (if that is the supposed standard). Please let us either fully scrutinize all the folks featured in the boxes for proof of fully Ashkenazic origin (and start replacing) or we need to discuss this further and bring this debate to a higher level so as to challenge to admin. In either case, what is there now looks lame. Let's perhaps turn our attention to finding only photos of people where the word Ashkenazic is used in bona fide refs for ALL photos. Best, A Sniper (talk) 23:06, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

That's exactly what I recommended above, when I first removed the living people. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:11, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

A Sniper, If you are not pleased with what you have refered to as "Jayjg interpretation" (I believe it's also Wikis' one) you are invited to suggest new candidates for inclusion in the photo box. As there are two empty slots you may suggest two. I here to suggest Rashi and Ralbag. These two had influenced the history and development of Ashkenazi Jews more than any other in the present photo box. In fact, at least hundreds of thousends of present days Ashkenazim are also directly descendent from them but that's another issue. Not only that, but it will also give as a photo box that reflect more than the last 150 years, at best, of Ashkenazims' history.--Gilisa (talk) 07:33, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

The interpretation I refer to is as to contention - I differ in that I do not believe it is contentious to have the photos of living folks who are obviously Ashkenazic Jews, whether or not (like the deceased folks) there is actually a reference that specifically uses the word Ashkenazic. At present I believe we have one woman, which is not acceptable - this goes against consensus, and I think the consensus formed for the previous set of boxes (that included Weisz, et al) was long-coming & strong...and that it out-trumps Jayjg's contention issue (despite his threats of locking the article)...but that's just my opinion ;) Best, A Sniper (talk) 18:38, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

A sniper, consensus never trumps policy, and WP:BLP is one of our strongest policies. If you're looking for famous women who may be Ashkenazi, and who have pictures on Wikipedia, they're easy enough to find: Rosalind Franklin, Gertrude Stein, Betty Friedan, Anne Frank, Hannah Arendt, Estée Lauder (person), Sarah Bernhardt, Judy Holliday, Stella Adler, Rosa Luxemburg, Golda Meir, Ayn Rand - there's a dozen, and that didn't take long. I'm sure there are lots more. Now, of course, none of them have sources confirming they are Ashkenazi, but at least they don't fall under the very strict rules of WP:BLP. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:28, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi, A Sniper I agree that one women is not enough and I believe that it will be changed soon, but lets wait for other users to comment and suggest more logical ideas than Bar Refaeli. I'm in favor of returning Judith Polgar, it would also be fair to add one women Nobel winner, an important artist/leader and/or philosopher (I'm in favor of Golda Meir, which represent Isreali Ashkenazi women) and one celeb women (but she should be better known and successful than Bar Refaeli).--Gilisa (talk) 19:02, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

The editing decision seemed a bit contentious just because it's inconsistent. Jayjg's main point is fair enough: that nobody in the photobox (or for that matter, in the whole article) has a source directly mentioning the word "ashkenazi", whether they're living or dead. Yet the only person in photobox who does have such a source - Rachel Weisz - was removed? The living person criteria is secondary to the problem of being directly sourced. Either we insist on a reliable source directly mentioning the relevant person in connection with the word "ashkenazi", or we don't. If we insist on it, then, until we find such sources, we should remove everyone. Surely the most plausible solution here is to remove the photobox (as well as the references to Marx, Anton Rubinstein and Pasternak in the article, who also lack sources directly mentioning the word "Ashkenazi").

(I would also suggest that an admin enforce the same rules on the photoboxes in other similar articles, for example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_British http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mizrahi http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sephardic) Avaya1 (talk) 10:08, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

You are quite wrong, reliable source don't have to include the exact word "Ashkenazi", only to tell that the person or his ancestors came from countries in the time where Ashkenazim were the Jewish people who lived there. For instance, there is no problem with Marx as we know that he was born in Germany in times where all Jewish people in Germany were considerd Ashkenazim and that his family as well, at least 2 generations back, were born there. The same is correct for Einstein, or Shmuel Yosef Agnon and etc. On the contaray, there is no single one source that indicate that Refaeli ancestors were Ashkenazim or indicate from which community in Europe they came from (if any at all, she may be Sepharadic as well). Asking for specific citation that indicate one is an Ashkenazi leave as with no candidates at all as for Jews, especially Jews who lived outside Israel, being Ashkenazi is nothing more than being Jewish, as large majority of Jewish are Ashkenazim, and especially outside Israel, and they identify themselves as Jewish and not as "Ashkenazi"(however, references are easy to be found for great Rabbanical figures for whom there always sources as they stated the special Ashkenazi Jewish religious laws in entire Europe. But somehow you didn't find it worthwhile to include them in the photobox, aside for the Vilna Gaon, serving more as a cover)-however, if we know that someone was born in Hungary and he/she is Jewish (e.g., Judith Polgar)than it make no original research to count him/her as Ashkenazi. But in the case of Ms Refaeli there is no indication that she or her ansectors were born in Russia/Poland/other countery in which Askenazi Jews lived. --Gilisa (talk) 11:50, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Coming from Eastern Europe is no guarantee that an individual is an Ashkenazi Jew, since Sephardim lived there too (albeit in small numbers. As examples: Sephardi Jews immigrated to Hungary in the 1620s, Romania was famous for its Sephardic community, Sephardi community of Vienna, Austria, Sephardi Jews in Poland. Even in Germany. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:03, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Where is the reliable source indicating that Rachel Weisz is an Ashkenazi Jew? Please quote it. As far as I know, the only sources we have indicate simply that she is Jewish. Regarding various other articles, on this article you've seen the rather stubborn and persistent insistence of various editors that they are allowed to violate WP:BLP with impunity. I only have so much time and energy available to expend on Wikipedia, so I'm taking things one article at a time. Jayjg ^(talk) 12:21, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, the photobox on Sephardi Jews looks well laid out, and is a good comparison style-wise. No idea about the sourcing however. Was also puzzled by Rachel Weisz removal too (ec) aah, I get it. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:24, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

One problem is that you only discuss the references and paying no attention to more essential issue: how to make photoboxes to be more representative ones. I didn't check it out yet but it seems like there are no clear guidelines for inclusion of people in ethnic groups photoboxes. The Sephardi Jews photobox is actually another prove that by poll or through a process that yield similar outcomes you can get even the winner of August 2009 "American Idol" (if there is any) into a photo box. This photobox include many unknown ex-celebs that already passed away but missing the portraits of many great scholars and rabbanical figures of Sephardic Judaism as Abraham Zacuto; Chaim Joseph David Azulai or Solomon ibn Gabirol and Nobel laureates as Claude Cohen-Tannoudji , Baruj Benacerraf or Rita Levi-Montalcini and etc. I also had criticized the Sephardi photobox before once. A good photobox should include a vertical time section of people who represent their ethnic group in different fields. It also should give priority to those who influenced humanity and/or their community espcially and to keep on upper limit of available slots for living celebs(and celebs at all)/sportsman. Also, if it have celebs in it so those who better represent/ better known should have priority in inclusion. This way, Bar Refaeli wouldn't get to the photobox from the first place. Of course, these are only recommendations, but if Wikipedia adopt them than it would save a lot of time that is spent on polemicses and will help to keep on stable photoboxes.--Gilisa (talk) 14:10, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

We-ell, you could have a poll - the prerequisite for entry would be a Reliable Source confirming the appropriate ancestry. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:46, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

The all point is that I'm not interested in a poll under the present conditions. I think that we should apply to Wikipedia board and ask them to make a clear rules of inclusion in photoboxes. After that polls will have a meaning. I'm only a passerby in Wikipedia and it would be technically difficult for me to do it on my own.--Gilisa (talk) 15:36, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I slept on this overnight and wondered how widespread this practice was (i.e a bunch of famous people in an infobox as representative of a particular group - we don't do it for Scientologists or Mormons I mean. Who do you choose? eg same numbers of men and women? Old and young? Or does this not reflect famous ones or what? Maybe a better image would be something from tradition, and old 19th or early 20th century of a traditional ashkenazi family or scene from appropriate locale appropriately vetted or something. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:26, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I think we are on far more solid ground as far as the certitude of someone being Ashkenazic if we choose from among people from centuries ago. That a photograph or other visual representation of such people may not be available should be seen as of minor importance. The scholarliness of the article is not compromised by merely referring to such a person or such people in a paragraph or two in the article. In fact such article construction is in keeping with the imprecision of the term itself: Ashkenazi is not clearly enough definable to be applied to twentieth century people in many instances. The above suggestion (by Casliber) of a photographic representation of an approximately nineteenth century family that can be ascertained to be Ashkenazi is a very good idea in my opinion. Such a depiction strays little from the simple illustration of a group of people loosely representative of the subject of the article. In point of fact most Ashkenazi Jews are not distinguished on the worldly stage. Bus stop (talk) 22:29, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Gilisa your argument about the notability of the people in the photobox is fine, but it is a separate issue to Jayjg's. Can we deal with Jayjg's points in this section, and then we can make a different section to talk about who you think we should include (if they are directly sourced). (On that issue, we should also include Felix Mendelssohn)

Ok, but who decide that we should include Felix Mendelson? My priority follows common sense: we shopuld include more Rabbanical figures who shaped and formed the Askenazim-such as Rashi and Ralbag. It's also estimated that large part of Ashkenazi Jews are Rashi's descendant and by no means does Mendlson had even closer cultural or genetical effect on Ashkenazi Jews. There are enough 19 and 20 CE German born Jewish intellectuals and artists in this photobox, we don't need one more and I will insist on this.--Gilisa (talk) 08:50, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Jayjg: (i) Correct about weisz, as the assertion in the article doesn't seem to match the sources; (ii) the issue of WP:BLP is clearly secondary to the question of direct sources mentioning the word "Ashkenazi", the lack of which apparently constitutes its violation. Given that fact, I can't see how we can include the dead either. Either we insist on direct sourcing or we don't. If we insist on it, then the dead also have rights not to be misrepresented (even if these are less likely to be legally enforced). The reason wikipedia has a section stressing WP:BLP is because rights to do with misrepresentation are more likely to be acted upon by the living than they are by the estates of the dead; not because the dead have less rights. It seems to make far more sense to remove the photobox in this case. Avaya1 (talk) 21:47, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:BLP is mostly about affecting living people. Dead people aren't really affected this way. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:03, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

There is no problem to source many of the death people being Ashkenazi. There are more than enough to do it for Einstein as well as for many other notable figures.--Gilisa (talk) 09:56, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Options for female pictures

As I mentioned above, if people are very keen on women to add to the picture box, there are plenty of non-living likely Ashkenazi women who would not fall under the strict WP:BLP rules, and for whom we have pictures. These include Rosalind Franklin, Gertrude Stein, Betty Friedan, Anne Frank, Hannah Arendt, Estée Lauder (person), Sarah Bernhardt, Judy Holliday, Stella Adler, Rosa Luxemburg, Golda Meir, Ayn Rand. I'm sure there are lots more. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:32, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly with Jayjg that the quickest solution is to snatch some well known, deceased females from the list. Golda Meir was once on the list, so please let us return her photo...and then someone choose another... Best, A Sniper (talk) 23:04, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Good choices - several are pretty high profile - I'd go with Meir, Gertrude Stein and Estée Lauder, for a diverse and interesting representation. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:41, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest to take out of the candidates list women who are highly controversial figures by large part of Jewish people (obviously they can't represent Jewish people). I can't find why you didn't count Emmy Noether as well. There is also a need for more figures that lived earlier to 19-20 CE and also after 1960's and outside Europe (USA and Israel communities which make the by far largest concentrations of Ashkenazim today). I storngly recommend on Meir, Rosalind Franklin/Emmy Noether and Anne Frank --Gilisa (talk) 18:14, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Anne Frank is definitely a bad idea, given that she was just a kid: she didn't have time to achieve anything except getting killed for the wrong reason while happening to have a diary (and considering how much publicity she already gets, why should we add to it?). Being killed really isn't that much of an achievement when you're apparently excluding a great genius like Felix Mendelssohn on the trivial (questionably chauvinistic) grounds that we have too many Germans. Again, as was the case with Trotsky, including a crazy and divisive ideologist like Rosa Luxemburg does not put people who have Jewish descent in a good light. Although Hannah Arendt is popular in hipster lit-crit circles, she doesn't have a decent reputation amongst professional philosophers, and Ayn Rand is even worse. I am no expert on Israeli politics, but my understanding is that Golda Meir was wholly incompetent as a national leader (again why on earth choose her over mendelssohn?). I don't think gender balancing the dead people in the our box should take such a high priority. If we want a ballerina, then there's ida rubinstein http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ida_Rubinstein_Face.jpg . But overall now it seems that removing the photobox altogether is starting to make far more sense. Avaya1 (talk) 23:04, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Don't get things out of context. I do not exclude no one because he was born in Germany, and any way we are talking about Ashkenazi Jews. I'm excluding him because we have to get a good representation in time, gender, field of activity and place of origin. You claimed yourself that there are not many woman here. So like you I claim that there are under representation of rabbanical figures-it seems you don't/ can't/ don't have the tools to appreciate their activity more than you appreciate Mendelson's one, but weithout no doubt they influenced much more on Ashkenazim and there is absolutly no reason that can explain why they are not here-actually they are the ancestors of most Ashkenazim...so who could make a "better" Ashkenazi?. Mendlson also converted to christianity, and that's make him less ideal and too divisive for the list (and his personal views on women are not relevant for his inclusion/exclusion from the photobox; I also agree with you about Loxemburg). There are many geniuses among Ashkenazi Jews and therefor it can't be the only criteria for inclusion. Meir indeed was incompetent but she is not controversial among Jewish people (Arendt is highly controversial and even had love affair with Nazi philosopher and considered to be self hated Jew by many). It would seem better if we have to choose 3 women, 3 rabbanical figures, make sure that there is time representation to at least 5-6 centuries and that the Jews in the photo box are not only German born (therefor Rosalind Franklin is better than Emmy Noether) and must include at least one Israeli and American Jew. Otherwise this photobox only make sense for an article on German-Austrian born Jews (known in Yiddish and Hebrew as Yeka) and only for the 19-20 CE. As for Anne frank-she is a Jewish symbol, and it realy doesn't matter that she wasn't an academic or that she was a child-it mean nothing, I can't understand where you get it from-she represent Ashkenazi history better than many others already in the photobox (e.g., Max Born). Don't forget that this photobox should represent the history and spirit of Ashkenazi Jewery history and not only outstanding intellectuals (so there is also a place for sportsman and famous figures). --Gilisa (talk) 05:32, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Anne Frank is a good choice precisely because she was destined to live an ordinary life, had she not gotten caught up in the Holocaust and written a diary that survived the war. Bus stop (talk) 13:08, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Options for Israelis pictures

I think that we should include at least one Israeli (it can be women of course) in the photobox. Here are the options:

Distinguished academics: Aaron Ciechanover/Avram Hershko/Robert Aumann/Daniel Kahneman/Ada Yonath (woman)/Ephraim Katzir/Yuval Ne'eman/Adi Shamir/Michael O. Rabin/Yakir Aharonov for all I can get free license picture.

Diplomats: Abba Eban/Shimon Peres/Ora Namir(a woman and great diplomat).

Industrialists: Stef Wertheimer/Zohar Zisapel/Eli Hurvitz.

Religious leaders: Yisrael Meir Lau/Aryeh Levin/Zvi Yehuda Kook(there are free pictures in Israeli wikipedia).

Film directors: Joseph Cedar/Ari Folman.

Novelists: Yehuda Amichai/Shmuel Yosef Agnon/Ephraim Kishon.

Artists:Nahum Gutman/Menashe Kadishman/Anna Ticho (woman)/Reuven Rubin/Itzhak Perlman/ So there are enough options to choose at least one Israeli for the photobox

Gilisa, I've crossed out all the living people on the list. Please recall, what brought us here was the fact that the list contained living people. Please be more careful in the future to avoid suggesting living people, unless you have highly reliable sources indicating that they are Ashkenazi Jews. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:38, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Jayjg, you are overdoing it. There is no doubt that Yisrael Meir Lau is an Ashkenazi, your demand to source it sounds a bit odd to me. After all he was the Ashkenazi Chief Rabbi of Israel. As for the others, it will take time to find sources (realy not impossible, you can almost always find in the Israeli media an article which indicate whether one is an Ashkenazi or Sephardic, it's in Hebrew-so it will take time to approve it). Also, if it's written in any given source that one is from "Jewish Polish family" there is realy no need to look for the exact word "Ashkenazi" (while if he/she come from Greece, Spain, Istanbul (European part of Turky) or Bulgaria he/she is most probably Sephardic and if he/she come from Romania/Italy/Slovakia/Netherlands/French you will have to carefully check. So, I returning to the beginning, plaese tell me if you agree to remove the strike from Yisrael Meir Lau name.--Gilisa (talk) 07:03, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the strikeouts from Lau, since he was, as you point out, the Ashkenazi Chief Rabbi. Regarding other origins, I think you're generally correct, though, as I pointed out above, there were even Sephardic Jews in Poland. Regardless, we need to rely on reliable sources, not our own intuition. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:06, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!--Gilisa (talk) 16:21, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

BTW, you may want to look on the German People photobox to get better sense of how Ashkenazi photobox should look like..I'm against inclusion of models (I rather prefer sportsman), but besides it seems preety balanced.--Gilisa (talk) 07:58, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

What about Nathan Rosen?--Gilisa (talk) 10:02, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Bernstein

A user just deleted the inclusion of Bernstein's photo/link and stuck in Bruno Walter - this wasn't discussed here so I reverted. Best, A Sniper (talk) 17:46, 5 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)

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)