Jump to content

Talk:Jews

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 88.73.2.54 (talk) at 08:29, 14 November 2009 (→This cannot be true). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Good articleJews has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 23, 2006Good article nomineeListed
July 6, 2008Good article reassessmentKept
October 6, 2008Peer reviewReviewed
February 26, 2009Good article reassessmentKept
Current status: Good article
 To discuss the infobox in the top right corner of the article, please visit Template talk:Infobox Jews.

This cannot be true

Quote:

" study published by the National Academy of Sciences found that "the paternal gene pools of Jewish communities from Europe, North Africa, and the Middle East descended from a common Middle Eastern ancestral population", and suggested that "most Jewish communities have remained relatively isolated from neighboring non-Jewish communities during and after the Diaspora"

The bold in part cannot be true. The "original" Israelites looked middle eastern, why are european jews white, and ethopian jews black and so on?

There must have been a lot of intermarriage, otherwise this is just not possible.

If jewish communities were so isolated, how do you explain the looks of people like, say, James Caan, Sarah Michelle Gellar, Natalie Portman, William Shatner, Debra Messing, David Beckham etc. ?

I'm not setting out to defend the source that you've quoted, but the way someone looks is not a perfect reflection of their genetic makeup. Additionally, the source describes a statistical study and statistical significance. A certain percentage of people will not have the same ancestry as the rest, and that does not invalidate the statement, it just reflects normal variation. Also note that the quote says "most Jewish communities", it does not say all. In fact the source material states there are exceptions. Also, please sign your posts (which can be done by typing 4 tildas (~) in a row. Lamber111 (talk) 17:49, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It occurs to me to wonder what "Jewish communities" means in the original statement. If we mean relatively orthodox groupings then it's pretty plausible. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:51, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's worth pointing out that Middle Eastern Jews like the Israelites didn't look like modern Arabs of the region, much like Ancient Egyptians being racially quite different to modern Egyptians, and modern Britons being very different to the Celts, Anglo-saxons, Normans, Vikings etc. that variously inhabited what is now the UK. If you go to a place like Israel, you'll see that the Sephardi and Ashkenazi Jews aren't racially that different, and what differences there are probably came from isolated rapes and intermarriages, rather than long periods of co-habitation (though that did occur in some places, such as medieval Spain). YeshuaDavid • Talk • 22:01, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks aren't actually indicative of ancestry. Also there are no pictures of Ancient Jews to compare to. Differences in appearance come from various forces. One being that over time populations will shift in appearance even if they have the same founding population. Second rape, converts, intermarriage (Although rare) has an effect as well. Each communities of Jews is largely closely related but each one I believe shows some signs of gaining host converts or somehow gaining host DNA. "White" and "Brown" are irrelevant. (72.4.182.241 (talk) 20:47, 24 September 2009 (UTC)).[reply]
  • Features might be. But the persons primary contention was over skin tone. Which isn't even uniform in the current middle east. Features seem to be fairly common throughout Jewish peoples. But besides the point the original founding population could appear in any way. If we go by the bible then didn't King David have Red hair? I mean the appearance of an ancient Jew I don't think is entirely relevant. The genetic studies seem conclusive along with anthropology and other such cultural histories. (Nazrael (talk) 23:47, 24 September 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Modern Britons are different to the ancient inhabitants of Great Britain. Different waves of immigration of introduced different peoples to the UK, that have integrated at various times with the existing populations. I live in London, and literally everyone I know is not of pure English ancestry, but we're all English nevertheless. If you want a good example with the Egyprians, see Ancient Egyptian race controversy. YeshuaDavid • Talk • 17:39, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Picture a child born in London in 1961 (to native parents). Each generation of this child's ancestors doubles in size, and assuming 25 year generation times, in the year 1086, 34,359,738,368 of that child's ancestors should be alive. Given that the population of the Isles was a few million at the time, it means what? It means that there has been massive inbreeding. Everybody in Britain is highly related to everybody else. One can see this formation of ethnic groups operating in Brazil and Puerto Rico right now. Abductive (reasoning) 19:15, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It means, at the very least, that there is some kind of erroneous assumption or logical paradox involved in this reasoning process, since there weren't 34 trillion alive back then. Very shaky grounds for proving anything. Hertz1888 (talk) 19:57, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How many great-grandparents do you have? The answer is always 8. You can extrapolate this back with no loss of generality. The only way to resolve this "paradox" is if some of the entries in the child's family tree are the same person; that is what we call inbreeding. So in fact this is mathematically extremely solid ground for proving that there is inbreeding. Abductive (reasoning) 20:04, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a easy question. The jewish male has been quite genetic isolated. There has been few European male converted to Judaism. But on the female side i'll quote the article: "The authors showed Ashkenazi Jewish communities (mtDNA female, my comment) belong to the same haplogroups as their host (non-Jewish) European communities, with only small deviations in frequency. "
You see the jewish male have married European women. And this is why you've got blond jews!

I've read all the DNA discussions in the Archives and I must say that in every discussion about DNA the "most Jewish communities have remained relatively isolated from neighboring non-Jewish communities" always consider the DNA debate from the Y-dna (male) point of view. Everyone is made up of 50% father and 50% mother. = Blond?!

I'll Quote this from the archives: "The mtdna haplogroups of Ashkenazi jews are: K (32%), H (21%), N1b (10%), and J1 (7%) Haplogroup K: is in Europe particularly common around the Alps in non jewish people. About 12% of the non jewish population in Germany belongs to the mtdna haplogroup K. 60% of the non jewish population in Ireland belongs to the haplogroup H and it's also the largest haplogroupe in Europe. http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v15/n4/full/5201764a.html"
Jewish Male and European woman, a success story perhaps!

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.103.203.254 (talk) 08:33, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The paper from J Feder et al. does not say that. She says "These findings, taken together with HVR1 sequences for some of the haplogroups, such as N1b, that contain motifs restricted and common to all Ashkenazi Jewish populations, may further support the interpretation of little or no gene flow of the local non-Jewish communities in Poland and Russia to the Jewish communities in these countries."However, I she does not say where does the founder come from.--Boutboul (talk) 20:58, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually blond hair or Red Hair wouldn't be alien to Ancient Jews. Biblically speaking King David allegedly was a red head along with Essu. Also MtDNA tests I had read did show significant mixes, while many Ashkenazim Jews had female ancestors from the Levant some also had some locals. If biblical accounts are to be looked into with any validity then one can safely say red headedness and possibly blond hair is not unheard of. Communities like the Ashkenazim have absorbed several groups such as remaining Khazar and Kimchacks (SP?) converts. All of which has little baring on being a Jew or not. (Nazrael (talk) 23:40, 7 November 2009 (UTC)).[reply]


"Actually blond hair or Red Hair wouldn't be alien to Ancient Jews"


Yes, but if some one looks like Helen Hunt or Michael Douglas for example.. now way that there was no intermixing in those cases. Are you really saying that in ancient Israel tons of people moved around who looked like Michael Douglas, Cindy Margolis or David Duchovny?

Population statistics

The article uses two sources for all its population statistics, and those sources both derive from the American Jewish Year Book. In that manner, (a) the population estimates in the infobox match those in the article and (b) the population estimates for country X are comparable to those for countries Y and Z.

There are complicated issues involved in determining who is Jewish, and I assume that the American Jewish Year Book has settled on a single definition for its international surveys. When somebody tries to replace the Fooian Jewish population with the number from the Fooian national census, we have no idea how that census counted Jews. Is it comparable to the American Jewish Year Book figures? Are the number of Fooian Jews now inflated relative to other Jewish communities around the world because the Fooian census counts as a Jew anybody with Jewish ancestry whereas the American Jewish Year Book might count only those with some synagogue affiliation? (just a guess)

To avoid such questions, I think it is best to continue to use only the two sources that are based on the American Jewish Year Book. Thank you. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] (talk · contribs) 18:46, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the following wikipedia article for updated statistics (2009):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_population#Total_population

Someone please update this immediately as the statistics currently appearing on the wiki are egregiously incorrect. Cheers! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.12.88.6 (talk) 03:24, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I agree we have plenty of new updated reliable figures for the Jewish population. We should use them instead of these older underestimated numbers. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_population#Total_population
--Gwax23 (talk) 03:13, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The figures given in Jewish population#Total population come from the same source—the Jewish People Policy Planning Institute—as most of the population numbers in this article, and are as of 2007. This article shows 13.155 million; that article shows 13.2 million. In other words, they're the same number.
The national population figures in Jewish population#Largest Jewish populations by country are as of 2002, unsourced, and disputed. The national population figures in this article are as of 2007, cited to a reliable source, and consistent with the global Jewish population of 13.155 million.
Can you explain why you think the numbers in Jewish population are superior to the numbers in this article? — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] (talk · contribs) 03:34, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All im saying is we should use the 6.4 - 6.5 million figure for the number of Jews in the United States. Which the US census, Jewish Virtual Library and many others agree with. Its also used in Wikipedia's American Jew Article. Also the figure for Israel is outdated we have new reliable sources for the jewish population in Israel which stands at 5.6 Million coming from the Central Bureau Of Statistics the most reliable source of Jewish population figures out there and that number is not including the 300,000 jews not considered jews by the Rabbinate. If it did the number would stand at 5.9 Million like the Israeli jew article states. I understand alot of numbers on the Jewish population page is disputed and not sourced but for the American jews and Israeli jews we have new reliable numbers we should use. Also can somebody tell me why there are all these diffrent article on Wikipedia relating to various Jewish communities around the world who cite the number as much Higher then it is listed here its very confusing. --Gwax23 (talk) 00:35, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A better thing to do would be to give the range of numbers, so long as they are all based on reliable sources. Jayjg (talk) 00:29, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree anything is better then using these outdated numbers. We used to have it say something like 13-14 Million which would make more sense. Is anyone willing to fix this? --Gwax23 (talk) 21:55, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a reliable source? — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 22:02, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I said that Before. Israel's CBS (Central Bureau Of Statistics) said there are 5.6 Million Jews in israel as Of 2008. Its on other articles such as Israel Demographics. The US Census and the Jewish Virtual Library puts the number of jews in the United States at 6.4 Million. Is that reliable enough? CBS's numbers are the most accurate out there in regards to the Jewish Population. --Gwax23 (talk) 01:34, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote earlier that all the national statistics are wrong and "outdated". Did you mean only the United States and Israel, or do you have sources for other countries as well? — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 01:40, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I was referring only to he United States and Israel. --Gwax23 (talk) 22:45, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I'll revise those countries, as Jay suggested, to show ranges. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 04:26, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay great. You should also put a range for the total. --Gwax23 (talk) 21:30, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Farrakhan, expert on Jews

I find this troubling and hope others will comment: [1] Slrubenstein | Talk 22:19, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Missing Steriotypes

i think some steriotypes should be listed--Caputo32 (talk) 02:51, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Stereotypes of Jews. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 04:14, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Genetic Studies

There is a misunderstanding about the reference Richards 2003. It does not say that 25% of the Yemen Y-DNA is sub-saharian but that the yemenite jewish mtDNA coming from Sub-Saharian lineage is 4 time less than other Yenemite population ! I removed this part. --Boutboul (talk) 22:02, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You removed a whole paragraph, which referenced many different sources, not just Richards 2003. Which sentence do you think is wrong, and what do you think it should say? Jayjg (talk) 22:19, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The sentence "For example, Teimanim differ from other Mizrahim, as well as from Ashkenazim, in the proportion of sub-Saharan African gene types which have entered their gene pools.[1] Among Yemenites, the average stands at 35% lineages within the past 3,000 years.[1] Yemenite Jews, as a traditionally Arabic-speaking community of local Yemenite and Israelite ancestries,[2] are included within the findings, though they average a quarter of the frequency of the non-Jewish Yemenite sample.[1]" should be removed because the paper (Richards 2003) does not talk about Yemenite Jews Y-DNA but about Yemenite Jews mtDNA. May I remind that this paragraph talk about Y-DNA (male lineage). The sentence may be added in the next paragraph that talk about mtDNA (female lineage). Other papers about Yemenite jews suggest that the Yemenite Jewish male lineage is similar to other Jewish populations.--Boutboul (talk) 18:19, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

About Ashkenazim mtDNA. It is written In addition, Behar 2006 suggested that the rest of Ashkenazi mtDNA is originated from about 150 women, most of those were probably of Middle Eastern origin.[3]. In Behar 2006 [3] the control (hypervariable) region of Ashkenazi mitochondrial DNA, mtDNA, from a previous study was expanded. The samples fell into thirty-seven major haplogroups. The authors showed Ashkenazi Jewish communities belong to the same haplogroups as their host (non-Jewish) European communities, with only small deviations in frequency.

I think that both sentence are not consistent because the article talk about the four founder and not about the rest of the ashkenazim female lineage. Is it possible to remove them ?--Boutboul (talk) 20:49, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've cleaned up and expanded the mtDNA section, per your suggestions. Jayjg (talk) 03:00, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jewish languages in lede

I see the Yiddish for "Jew" has been added to the lede, alongside the Hebrew. While I don't object, it should be remembered that there are hundreds of Jewish languages, and it might be worth adding Judaeo-Spanish (Ladino) alongside Yiddish, as that's spoken by large numbers of Sephardi Jews. 84.92.117.93 (talk) 18:30, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You raise a good point. The Ladino name is mentioned in the "Name and etymology" section (as is the Yiddish name). I'm not sure whether Yiddish needs to be given such prominence. I'll take it out and see if anybody objects. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 20:07, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ethnic disease

Hello, where would material about disease factors affecting Jewish ethnicity in particular (or a link to such material) go ?

For example, mention/linking of Tay-Sachs disease (which is much more prevalent among some Jewish ethnicities - see Tay-Sachs disease#Impact on Jewish communities)

Currently the section about ethnicity issues is called 'ethnic divisions', which is too specific for this. Can that be renamed to 'ethnicity issues' (or other suitable term), so that Jewish ethnicity-related illness/statistics can be placed as a subsection/mentioned?

Newman Luke (talk) 18:14, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still interested in an answer, but after looking into this a bit further, there are non-genetic diseases and illnesses that have a statistically significant difference in prevalence between Jews and non-Jews. Some of these are thought to be caused by behavioural factors (eg. Jewish diets).

Is there an appropriate place to put this? Perhaps a new section?

(for an idea of what I mean, see "Morbidity" at the Jewish Encyclopedia) Newman Luke (talk) 20:18, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ a b c Cite error: The named reference Richards was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ Cite error: The named reference Oppenheim&Hammer was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  3. ^ a b Behar, Dm; Metspalu, E; Kivisild, T; Achilli, A; Hadid, Y; Tzur, S; Pereira, L; Amorim, A; Quintana-Murci, L; Majamaa, K; Herrnstadt, C; Howell, N; Balanovsky, O; Kutuev, I; Pshenichnov, A; Gurwitz, D; Bonne-Tamir, B; Torroni, A; Villems, R; Skorecki, K (2006). "The matrilineal ancestry of Ashkenazi Jewry: portrait of a recent founder event". American journal of human genetics. 78 (3): 487–97. doi:10.1086/500307. ISSN 0002-9297. PMC 1380291. PMID 16404693. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jews&oldid=325766123"