Talk:Jews

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. ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.73.6.209 (talk • contribs) 23:39, 19 August 2009

The key word in that quote is "relative". that can mean anything from quite isolated to merely isolated enough for a difference to be detected. The evidence in the study is more consistent with the latter. Furthermore, it is not at all clear what the "common Middle Eastern ancestral pool" actually was - there is plenty of evidence of conversion even as early as Hellenistic times, and at that point the converts would also have been Middle Eastern or Mediterranean. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.77.137.57 (talk) 23:04, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

• 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)

• 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)).

• Looks are always indicative of ancestry, it's just that we don't always know the exact details of that ancestry. I don't know how YeshuaDavid can claim that modern Britons are different from their ancestors. We do have reconstructive techniques that show that, by and large, ethnic features are very long-lived. Abductive (reasoning) 21:27, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

• 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))

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

but you can't take a haplogroup that represents 10% of A-Jews and then conclude that there is no gene flow from the hosting populations. Further more they dissect the Hgs K to subtypes and of course you will find differences. One girl is Jewish but her sister is of Non Jewish European origin. And by that conclude there are differences, hmm ok. I would say it´s racist!!

You've got a lot of data that you do not tell in the article, for instance: "We conclude that four founding mtDNAs, likely of Near Eastern ancestry, underwent major expansion(s) in Europe within the past millennium." So why does they not dissect the H haplogroup wich is present in 21% of the A-Jews? Beause it´s a major Hgs in European Non jews! Perhaps over 40%!

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)).

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

"Features seem to be fairly common throughout Jewish peoples"

Yes, but if some one looks like Helen Hunt or Michael Douglas for example (who have "facial features" not unlike other white people by the way).. 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? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.73.2.54 (talk • contribs) 10:00, 14 November 2009

"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. ?"

Peroxide. Most Jews have dark features. It's a fact. Jim Steele (talk) 16:36, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

This person says: Read the 14th Edition Encyclopaedia Britannica article on "Jews", part 1, written by the Hebrew scholar Raphael Patai. This Britannica was sold from 1965 to 1972. The article begins: "Contrary to popular opinion, there is no Jewish race." Patai mentions blood type investigations and a lot of other things, and ends by saying that Jews are their 1) Religion, 2) Traditions, 3) History, and 4) Country; but not genes. No one is Jewish because they have or had a relative who was into Judaism. We could have some humor here by saying "Your genes are not religious." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kamitra1 (talk • contribs) 00:01, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I have talked with expert geneticists and they say there is no real evidence that present day Jews are descendants of biblical Jews. How come this entry seems so assertive of the opposite notion? Reallyskeptic (talk) 22:56, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Because this article cites the work of actual expert geneticists. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:31, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Mistaken conclusion from Hammer, Redd et als study is presented, as far as I can see. I realize further evidence may be presented in another article, but if claims presented here are supported elsewhere, the references should be here too. Please correct me if I am mistaken. Further, a single study does not science make. Further, afaik one can find that according to genetic science, most populations anywhere are not 'significantly different from one another'. Here are the results of my review of this articel: 1) The Hammer-study only looked at Middle-eastern populations and thus does not cover all the "various lineages found in modern Jewish populations", i.e. the claim of the first sentence in section Genetic studies is incorrect based on the reference text provided. Claims could be made about Middle-eastern populations. 2) The fact that there exists a single study that shows something doesn't prove the case, so the second sentence should be rephrased to something like "a study has brought forth the case that inter-marriage may have been substantially less than in other populations", until some other references or studies support these findings. Then again, the proposition in the second sentence seems pretty flawed, too. Intermarriage in, or between? Vague.

Third sentence makes it sound like there were many findings, instead of a single study. As for making science based on biblical accounts - I remain sceptical. As a side note, on quick glance the results of the study are based on setting constant definitions for vague things such as "lenght of generation" or genetic mutation rate, which in real life would vary by more than 100% - i.e. resutls are based on guesswork.

Assumptions in the final paragraph of the initial subsection of Genetic studies have no place in an encyclopedia ("Although individual and groups of converts to Judaism have historically been absorbed into contemporary Jewish populations..."), as Wikipedia is not the place for original research or proposing theories. Either there's some science behind this or not, in any case, it's not referred to here. The referred study mentions the influence of Khazars only as an "hypothesis". The mentions of European influence on the genetic pool mentioned in the study have been omitted! Why?

The whole Genetic studies section seems to be written by someone motivated to preach a certain message, while ignoring certain findings. It needs thorough renovation. Casimirpo (talk) 15:47, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I think it's strange to place so much emphasis on genetics in this article in the first place, it's almost half the entry. Percentages of Y chromosomes in blah blah blah; it's not appropriate for an encyclopedic entry. What about all the significant Jewish philosophers, artists, scientists etc? What about historical accounts of how Jewish populations considered themselves and their role in the world? That's much more relevant to a general history than trying to quantify that with DNA studies. It seems like this article has been hijacked by some weird nationalists or eugenics freaks or something, it's disturbing. 67.175.213.215 (talk) 20:10, 8 March 2010 (UTC)garcho

Hatnote

Are there any sources to back up the statement that Judaism encompasses "the Jewish way of life" to this degree? The article Judaism itself has a hatnote saying "This article is about the Jewish religion", and I feel that assertion is more accurate than what we have here. All religions encompass to some degree "law, culture, and philosophy": see the articles Islamic culture, Sharia, Islamic philosophy, Biblical law in Christianity, Christian values, Christian philosophy and much more. 84.92.117.93 (talk) 22:55, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Census

When dealing with census, stats, polls, and the like, are Jews classified as White people? I was wondering because I do not know what ethnic group they tend to identify as. 75.4.247.171 (talk) 06:19, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Assuming we mean U.S. (and sticking for the moment to the census), each person self-identifies. There are some Jews who are clearly not white (e.g. Ethiopian Jews), but I think most of us end up checking that particular box based on phenotype. I personally check it reluctantly. I don't particularly identify as a "white person", but it is more accurate than any other ethnic/racial identity they offer me. - Jmabel | Talk 06:35, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

I find this: "Public Law 94-521 prohibits us from asking a question on religious affiliation on a mandatory basis; therefore, the Bureau of the Census is not the source for information on religion." Bus stop (talk) 12:42, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Despite the POV lie that some folks push that Jews are an ethnic group, there are literally 100s of ethnic groups that Jews may belong to. Personally, I am of mixed European ancestry. My religion is Jewish. My ethnic group is Brooklyn. :-) Sposer (talk) 13:32, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Page moved. Jmabel notes that there is little consistency among page titles of ethnicity articles. Thus, the argument of this requested move boils down to whether the plural or singular is preferable in this particular case. The consensus here seems to be that that is the plural: to match the article's lead sentence (Prezbo), for consistency with other articles (Yoninah; 84...), or as a matter of preference (Nick Graves). Bus stop and Debresser have the most substantive arguments against, but they are not significantly more persuasive or policy-based than those on the opposing side. The consensus appears to be in favor of the move. Ucucha 03:57, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

---

Jew → Jews — On the basis that Jews are not merely adherents of a religion, but make up an ethnoreligious group. For members of a religion with no ethnic element, Wikipedia tends to use the singular (e.g. Christian, Muslim, Hindu), while for national groups the plural seems to be used (e.g. Germans, Russians, Celts). While obviously the Jewish people transcend to some extent this division, I feel as a national group the latter is more appropriate. —84.92.117.93 (talk) 18:57, 17 January 2010 (UTC) Update To better articulate the reasons for moving, I would like to add the folowing three points:

1. That the Jewish people are a people, and not merely a religous community. There is a secular Jewish culture, there are Jews that profess atheism, there are those are predujiced to Jews because of their race, not their religion. The Jews as a people are distinct from, if strongly connected to, the Jewish religion. To my knowledge, this is not true of any other religion or people: I would struggle to identify anything that could be classified as "secular Christian culture", and I know most Muslims (from experience) consider the concept of an "atheist Muslim" to be a contradiction in terms.

2. That this article is about the people. There are very good articles on Who is a Jew? and the notion of a Jewish identity, but this article clearly covers the Jewish people and their collective history, culture and so on. It had sections talking about the diaspora, about the establishment of the State of Israel, about persecution of the Jews through their history. If you have a look at the much shorter Christian and Muslim articles you will find they are very different – the Christian articles uses the singular "Christian" in the lead, and is limited to talking about the eptymology of the word, who can be considered a Christian, and what "Christian behavior" is; the Muslim article is very similar, again using the singular in the lead, again covering eptymology, who is a Muslim, and the distinction between Muslim and mu'min.

3. That other articles on Wikipedia use the plural Jews. See American Jews, British Jews, Ashkenazi Jews, Sephardi Jews, Mizrahi Jews, Iraqi Jews and many more similar articles. Why should this page be any different?

These points, especially the first two, form the backbone of my arguments and are the main reason I am requesting this move. 84.92.117.93 (talk) 19:14, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

It seems very odd and inappropriate that such a serious move to upturn a fairly big apple cart (this article has not changed since its inception more than SEVEN years ago with multipl editors never objecting) can be initiated by an anonymous user who refuses to do the basic thing of getting an identifiable User ID. This is not right. IZAK (talk) 11:19, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

What's the big deal about making this move? Pluralisation of an article title should hardly be controversial, even if it is a major article like this one. Please remember that consensus can change, that there have been many other (unsuccesful) move requests in the mean time, and that anonymous users as are perfectly entitled to request a page move as long term registerd users. While I have provided a detailed rationale of why I feel this move should take place, which has gained significant support from other users, I don't know what your reason for opposing this move actually is. 84.92.117.93 (talk) 11:41, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Please review the archives. This issue has been discussed many times before. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:34, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
  • I realise that, but I thought it was time for a fresh evaluation. Though it's been discussed since, the last actual request I can find was back in June 2007, when the nominator was suggesting that "Jew" was offensive. I don't think there is anything wrong with "Jew" as a term, I don't find it derogative, but I do think it isn't the right title for this article. This article isn't (mainly) about who is a Jew, Jewish identity, and what being a Jew entails; its about the Jews as a people, and their collective history, culture, society and so on. 84.92.117.93 (talk) 21:48, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
    • With respect to the move request, I don't have a preference one way or the other. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 00:26, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
• Comment I find it completely irrelevant whether this article is named "Jew" or "Jews." Bus stop (talk) 22:37, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough, I know it doesn't make a massive difference either way, but I do think there is a strong case for moving. 84.92.117.93 (talk) 19:02, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

84.92.117.93 — Can you refer me to a good quality, online source, that supports your assertion that Jews are an ethnoreligious group? I would be interested to see how closely your assertion would adhere to your source. Thank you. Bus stop (talk) 02:27, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

This study, The Transformation of Community Integration among American Jewry: Religion or Ethnoreligion? A National Replication, by J. Alan Winter (1992) talks about American Jews as forming an ethnic rather than religous community. "The study supports Winter's (1991) contention that the basis of community integration among Jews in the United States is "ethnoreligious" rather than Levine's (1986:329) earlier suggestion that "Judaism as a religion is... separate from Jewish ethnic communities." 84.92.117.93 (talk) 15:35, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to add to the above, rather than discussing whether or not there is a Jewish ethnicity (to be honest, I'm not sure about the science of that), my point is that the Jews are a people in the way many many other religous adherants are not, due to socio-historical events. The whole race thing is a bit controversial, and I don't particuarly want to discuss that here. 84.92.117.93 (talk) 23:15, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: I had not before noticed the (de facto?) standard of entitling articles about members of a religious group in the singular, and articles about members of an ethnic/national group in the plural. As this article is about an ethnoreligious group, it is not clear which form "should" be used for the title according to the standard anon identifies above. I'd lean in favor of the title "Jews," just as a personal preference, but I am unable to articulate exactly why this sounds better to me, nor justify it as any more encyclopedic than the alternative. Whatever advantage there might be to the title in plural form is marginal at best, and certainly not worth the long debate that must surely precede such a move, nor the potential further debate and edit warring that would likely follow such a move. I therefore oppose this proposal, and respectfully suggest its retraction. Nick Graves (talk) 00:19, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, I assumed it was some kind of policy, but maybe its just emerged naturally. All of the articles about particular nationalities I can find either have "people" attached (British people, French people, Dungan people) or have a normal plural (Kazakhs, Danes, Croats), this article is the only one to use the singular. Obviously, I agree with you that it doesn't make a huge difference either way, but it does seem more consistant.

As for why the plural is more enyclopedic, I would suggest that the title I'm proposing better fits the subject material of this article, as the subject is the people, not what it is to be Jewish. "Jews" is also what is currently used in the lead section. I don't think the proposed title would lead to any edit warring or conflict. I think the fact that this move has been suggested multiple times before is suggestive that the current title is not the best one for this article, something which is better to fix now and resolve permenantly. Like you, I don't want to engage in long disputes over this page move, and would prefer the discussions to remain civil. 84.92.117.93 (talk) 19:02, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I changed my mind. As I stated before, I personally prefer the plural form of the title. I opposed the request only insofar as I thought the process of debating the move might become a big ordeal, and that the move might be a prelude to a reversion back to this namespace, edit warring, etc. I don't think anyone's expressed strong opposition to the move, and am convinced by another contributor that, if this article were moved, it would probably stay put. If someone wants to move this page, I have no objection. Nick Graves (talk) 03:14, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Oppose how about a name without needing to mess with plural/singular? say Jewry 76.66.197.17 (talk) 04:40, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

"Jewry" isn't a very commonly used word for the Jewish people, it sounds a bit archaic. 84.92.117.93 (talk) 19:02, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

• Weak keep. It is more religious than ethno. Debresser (talk) 07:09, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

If not ethinicity, (and I think I get myself in a bit of a tangle with that), then please accept that the Jews at least form a people and for that reason should be moved. Much like Americans, Jews today are ethinically diverse, even if they share a common origin, but have a shared national identity that exceeds mere relgous belief. See the article Secular Jewish culture. There isn't an Islamic or Christian people in the same way that transcends national boundaries. 84.92.117.93 (talk) 17:21, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

• This is interesting. I'm essentially in the same place as Nick Graves on this subject, in that I've never before consciously noticed the distinction between religious and ethnic names in English before. At the very least I'm happy to have seen this due to that singular point. On the other hand, I don't really support his conclusion. I'm generally a non-confrontational person myself, largely because confrontations cause me real discomfort, but I've become convinced over time that ignoring these issues only makes things worse for all of us over time. The fact that someone has utilized process to begin a discussion about the issue almost automatically merits attention from me any more, when I can afford to spend the time in giving it. As for this specific proposal, I'm leaning towards Support, but am somewhat awaiting a good reason to oppose.
  — V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 07:50, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Over the history of this article, there have been quite a few requests and discussions about whether this article should be moved away from the current title. I'm fairly sure that if this article were moved, nobody would suggest that it be moved back. 84.92.117.93 (talk) 19:30, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

• On the contrary, the contoversy suggests that there is more to the issue than a simple singular/plural debate on wiki style. The burden of proof is on the one who suggests the change. Mere passage of time is not reason enough to consider making a change. Rebele | Talk ^{The only way to win the game is to not play the game.} 22:16, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

"Mere passage of time" is not the rationale I am suggesting for making the move. And I don't think there's any "contoversy", it's just that a lot of people, over time, have probably felt the article should be moved for the reasons I've laid out above. What "burden of proof" do you require from me? 84.92.117.93 (talk) 23:04, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

What "burden of proof"? An editor recommended a move and has laid out the reasons why. Since consensus can change, it's not inappropriate to ask us to reconsider the title. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 23:13, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Oddly enough, when it comes to American groups, the terms are usually not pluralized: African American, Arab American, Armenian American, Austrian American, Chinese American etc. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:05, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

True, but considering that is a recent convention (within the last 20 years or so), I'd think that would be more of an anachronism then something decisive. But, like I said above, I'm hardly an expert on the subject of religious/ethnic name etymologies. It's a somewhat fascinating topic though!
— V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 03:25, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I think with the hyphenated Americans (and similar groups, i.e. Polish British, Afro-Brazilian) the thinking behind that is that they are subsets of the main American (or British or Brazilian) population, a people within a people if you like. These articles are a bit inconsistant though, see for example Jewish related articles like British Jews, German Jews, American Jews. 84.92.117.93 (talk) 15:08, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

• Support. As I read through this thread, I was shaking my head in disagreement over the ethnicity/religiosity argument. Ethnically, Jews could not be more different, from the Sephardi Iranian to the Ashkenazi German to the Reform American to the Chinese convert. The only thing that ties them together is the Torah, meaning religion. However, this last comment by 84.92.117.93 convinced me on the basis of policy alone. If we have British Jews, German Jews, and American Jews—and we also have Sephardi Jews and Ashkenazi Jews—then we might as well have Jews. Yoninah (talk) 21:50, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
  • How about secular Jews; are they "tied together with the Torah" too? Also, is a Jew who converts to another religion still a Jew? Jayjg ^(talk) 23:40, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
    • Is that particularly important somehow? I'm not really disparaging that mention at all, but it seems obvious to me that we're not going to see total consistency in something like this. I'd also note that you (subconsciously?) used the plural form yourself, there. All I'm saying is that it may be best to keep the request within the confines of the reasoning given here, since in a subject area like this we could muddy the waters by widening the scope of the discussion based on a change in either direction. We should probably stick close to things which directly help in resolving the question.
      — V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 06:27, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Um, did I open up a can of worms? To answer Jayjg: Secular Jews are Jews, they just don't follow the religion that they identify with. I agree with V = I * R that we should limit this to policy, and the distinction between Jew and Jews is pretty dak (fine), if you ask me. Yoninah (talk) 09:44, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

They don't follow the religion they "identify" with? They don't "identify" with any religion, including Judaism! If a Jew converts to Hinduism (as many have), is he still a Jew? Please answer that question, and if the answer is "yes", then please explain how the Torah that he doesn't believe in or follow "ties him" to other Jews. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:21, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Jayjg — the Torah does not posit that a Jew "believe in" anything. Judaism can be thought of as recommending belief in a variety of things, but Judaism does not require that anyone "believe in" anything. This is distinct from Christianity, for instance, which assumes "belief" to be a sort of prerequisite to membership. Bus stop (talk) 11:57, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

While I find this discussion interesting, can we please limit this discussion to the actual move request. I'm happy to accept that there are varying definitions out there about who is a Jew, and how important belief in the Torah and Judaism is to Jewish identity. 84.92.117.93 (talk) 17:13, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually there wasn't any discussion concerning "who is a Jew." Nor did anybody attribute importance in "belief in the Torah." Bus stop (talk) 17:30, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, discussing Judaism itself then. In any case, its not related to this move. 84.92.117.93 (talk) 18:47, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

But nothing thus far presented has anything to do with whether this article should be titled in the singular or the plural. I don't think the precedence of other articles or naming conventions concerning other articles presents compelling reason to name this article one way or the other. Bus stop (talk) 18:51, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes it does. My request isn't based on the precedence of other articles or naming conventions, although these should be taken into account. My main rationale is that because this article is about a people (as opposed to the individual), the plural is much more appropriate. 84.92.117.93 (talk) 19:19, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

What is the difference between a people and an individual other than number? Obviously there is more than one Jew in the world. Is your reasoning that the article title should shed light on the fact that there is more than one Jewish person in the world? Bus stop (talk) 19:46, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

No, you're misreading what I'm saying. My argument is that this article isn't about one Jew or many Jews; it's about one people, the Jewish people. Having this article at "Jew" is like having the article about English people at "English person". A nation as a concept is more than just the sum of the people within it. 84.92.117.93 (talk) 20:58, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

• Support. I just skimmed this discussion so ignore this comment if you want, but personally I always thought the singular title looked weird. It seems like the title should match the first sentence, which introduces the article subject. If the first sentence talks about "Jews" rather than saying "A Jew is...," then that implies that the plural is the most natural way to introduce the topic, and the title should reflect that.Prezbo (talk) 22:21, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Please do see Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups#Article naming. There is simply no consistency on this at all. Whatever we do, moving any one article won't create consistency. - Jmabel | Talk 02:19, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

The project appears to be quite vague on this, and doesn't really explain on what grounds the divisions are being made. To quote: "there is no strong consensus on naming of articles about ethnic groups". In the absence of any strong policy or consistancy in this matter, it seems logical to apply an article-by-article approach and see if any consensus emerges. In this case, I feel there is a strong incentive to move. 84.92.117.93 (talk) 16:47, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

(unindent) I oppose the proposed move. What source asserts that the other named religious groups DO NOT contain ethnic elements? It seems unlikely to me that "ethnicity" would apply to Jews but not to members of other religious groups.

84.92.117.93 asserts here that "For members of a religion with no ethnic element, Wikipedia tends to use the singular (e.g. Christian, Muslim, Hindu)…" How does 84.92.117.93 reach the conclusion that these other religious groups — in distinction from Jews — do not contain an "ethnic" element?

How do we know that Christians, Muslims, and Hindus, do not contain an "ethnic element?" No source is provided for that assertion. I think a source is needed to make the distinction that 84.92.117.93 is trying to make between Jews and other religious groups. The assertion seems unlikely and it is completely lacking a source.

I think Wikipedia policy would call for the assertion in a reliable source that Jews contain ethnic elements and the members of other religions such as Christians, Muslims, and Hindus, DO NOT contain such ethnic elements. Wikipedia policy of the most basic and fundamental nature should be brought to bear in guiding this decision-making process. That in a nutshell means that sources should be provided for the sometimes unlikely assertions upon which the proposed move is based.

Wiki policy especially WP:RS and WP:VER should be brought to bear in guiding this process before people begin reaching the conclusion that Judaism is a religion that needs to be distinguished from other religions in the way that the reasons given for this proposed move seem to suggest. Bus stop (talk) 23:41, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

If you read the above, you would see I already made perfectly clear that ethnicity (which is contentious, even among academics and scholars) forms only part of my point. If the Jews are not an ethnoreligious group (and the lead of this article still says they are), then they are still a people or national group in a way other religous communities are not. Whereas the Jews trace their common origin from the Israelites, a people who occupied the land of Israel, Christianity, Islam and Hinduism have well documented histories of expansion through the conversion of numerous peoples. There is no Jewish equivalent.

If you want sources to prove that there is no Christian people, no Muslim people, and no Hindu people with desires for self-determination please read History of Christianity, History of Islam and History of Hinduism, as well as the articles on Christendom and the Muslim world. You will hopefully find there are Christians that are European, African and East Asian; Muslims that are Arab, Malay and Punjabi; Hindus that are Bengali, Telegu and Sinhalese. Of course, there are Jewish ethnic divisions, and certain numbers of converts to Judaism - but they are all accepted into the Jewish people as equals. If you want me to prove there is a Jewish people and Jewish national identity, please see Homeland for the Jewish people, Zionism and Jewish identity. You will find many referenced reliable sources that support what I am saying. 84.92.117.93 (talk) 00:33, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

• 'Keep because this has not been a problem from the time of the creation of this article. Nothing will be gained. It will make matters worse. How many types of "Jews" are there? It will confuse the Who is a Jew? question. Will that also then be changed to Who are Jews??? Jew is an accepted root word for Jewish and Jewish People. This is a futile and pointless discussion that can only result in more problems. IZAK (talk) 11:14, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I am only suggesting this article be moved. This move will not affect Who is a Jew? and other articles where the singular "Jew" is used. The move will not, as you suggest, "make matters worse" or "result in more problems" – I fail to see how moving this article will have any adverse consequence on any other article on Wikipedia. 84.92.117.93 (talk) 20:41, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

• Support this move. It's been suggested before, but change happens only when the fantatics seems to take a wikibreak around these parts. Moreover, can we agree most Jews don't think saying "there's a Jew over there, and another Jew over there too" is acceptable over "There's are Jews living there?" Then why should "Jew" be O.K.? Hopefully this move will initiate some change over at Who is a Jew?. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimsteele9999 (talk • contribs) 23:26, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Comments added after discussion closed

(These two comments were originally added after my closing rationale. Ucucha 12:40, 25 January 2010 (UTC))

And you quickly closed discussion in such a slipshod manner? You allowed for exactly what - six days for discussion? This is utterly ridiculous and I hope your changes are rolled back and that the usual editors of this page step up. Best, A Sniper (talk) 05:08, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Stay cool. The request was made a week ago, and seven days is the typical discussion period. Frankly, I don't see what all the hoopla is about; we have American Jews, Ashkenazi Jews, etc., and only one article whose name is singular: Jew. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:37, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I have re-closed the requested move, as it was to the best of my knowledge closed in accordance with procedure. Keeping it open while my close rationale is still at the top is only confusing. I have not moved the page back to Jews yet, where it belongs according to this RM, but I will do so in a few days at last if you (A Sniper) do not give a compelling reason why the requested move was improper. Ucucha 12:40, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I have now moved the page back to Jews. The move was closed and conducted properly. As V = I * R says, people have had the chance to comment and if they did not do so, we don't need to consider their possible opinions. Another requested move should be made before moving the page back to Jew, but it is better to wait a little with that. Ucucha 00:13, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Further discussion of the merits of the move

• Oppose Change. This user appears to have unilaterally made the change regardless. From the 18th of this month to today all of this happened? And many usual editors made no comment...I find it so hard to swallow. Best, A Sniper (talk) 05:05, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Even if the move was premature (and I don't think it was), you haven't provided any actual rationale as to why you oppose the move. 84.92.117.93 (talk) 11:31, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

84.92.117.93 — no reason was given for the move. I know you believe that reasons were given for the move. But none were presented. The move needed to be supported by reference to the distinction between the word in the plural and the word in the singular, and instead you and other supporters of this move looked upon the occasion as an opportunity to wax eloquent on your own particular points of view concerning the "religious" and the "ethnic" components of Judaism. This is a common occurrence especially in the high profile Jewish-related articles. Bus stop (talk) 16:26, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

• Bus stop, I did present a reason for this move. I apologise though if my reasons for suggesting the move weren't clear enough, I accept that the genetic racial thing is quite controversial. Briefly, my reasons are thus:

1. That the Jewish people are a people, and not merely a religous community. There is a secular Jewish culture, there are Jews that profess atheism, there are those are predujiced to Jews because of their race, not their religion. The Jews as a people are distinct from, if strongly connected to, the Jewish religion. To my knowledge, this is not true of any other religion or people: I would struggle to identify anything that could be classified as "secular Christian culture", and I know most Muslims (from experience) consider the concept of an "atheist Muslim" to be a contradiction in terms.

2. That this article is about the people. There are very good articles on Who is a Jew? and the notion of a Jewish identity, but this article clearly covers the Jewish people and their collective history, culture and so on. It had sections talking about the diaspora, about the establishment of the State of Israel, about persecution of the Jews through their history. If you have a look at the much shorter Christian and Muslim articles you will find they are very different – the Christian articles uses the singular "Christian" in the lead, and is limited to talking about the eptymology of the word, who can be considered a Christian, and what "Christian behavior" is; the Muslim article is very similar, again using the singular in the lead, again covering eptymology, who is a Muslim, and the distinction between Muslim and mu'min.

3. That other articles on Wikipedia use the plural Jews. See American Jews, British Jews, Ashkenazi Jews, Sephardi Jews, Mizrahi Jews, Iraqi Jews and many more similar articles. Why should this page be any different?

These points, especially the first two, form the backbone of my arguments and are the main reason I am requesting this move. 84.92.117.93 (talk) 19:14, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

@A Sniper: If "many usual editors made no comment", whose fault is that? This page is watched by 800 editors, and on January 17 I posted a notice to WT:JUDAISM. There were dozens of edits to this section, all of which showed up in those 800 editors' watchlists. Nobody can say they didn't know about this proposed move. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:38, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

84.92.117.93 — Judaism is not the same religion as Christianity. One should accept the religion of Judaism for what it is. All of your above argument constitutes a differentiation between between one religion and another, and that is not called for.

A religion is not defined by any of the points that you highlight above. Religion has to do with the addressing of life, death, existence, meanings in life, significant life events such as birth, coming of age, marriage, death. Religion sometimes addresses questions concerning the origin of life and the origin of the world we live in. Religion often takes up the question of what might remain of consciousness after death. Some of these questions, you might note, can be contemplated with equal interest by atheists and believers alike. A saying that "there are no atheists in a foxhole," referrs to the considerable interest in death — one's own death — that believers and nonbelievers seem to share.

Judaism of course addresses these issues differently than another religion might. But the differences between Judaism and other religions doesn't end there. Judaism posits that "belief" is not a prerequisite for membership. That is part of the identity of Judaism. That fact does not make Judaism not a religion. Rather, that fact makes Judaism the particular religion that it is.

A person need not maintain a kosher diet to be Jewish. There is not even a hint of that. Judaism posits that there is only one correct dietary guideline. But if you don't follow it, you are still a Jew. You've got to understand the unique identity of Judaism. It is a religion which posits that members need not be religious. There is not even a hint within all the writings of Judaism that a nonreligious person is not a Jew.

One is supposed to observe the Sabbath in Judaism. What happens if one ignores the Sabbath? Does a Jew become no longer a Jew because they do the opposite of everything that the religion says is the correct way to conduct oneself on the Sabbath? Not at all. There is not even a hint of any such thing. Does this make Judaism not a religion? No, it makes Judaism a religion with an identity distinct from Christianity. (And Islam, and other religions.)

I'm sorry but your argument is based on a refusal to recognize the religion of Judaism for what it is. The Christian article is named in the singular. The Muslim article is named in the singular. The Hindu article is named in the singular. In my opinion it wouldn't matter an iota if this article or the other religion articles were titled in the singular or the plural. But your reasons are all wrong. I have to oppose your move because you've presented not one valid reason for wanting this move.

And some of the reasons you've given just entirely baffle me. For instance you assert that there is no cultural component to Christianity. How could that possibly be the case? Culture is a fundamental feature of humankind. Culture always expresses itself. The nature of culture varies from group to group. But you say that, "I would struggle to identify anything that could be classified as "secular Christian culture." I don't think you are thinking far and wide enough about all that culture entails. Bus stop (talk) 00:18, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I fail to understand how you manage to see my requested move as being "based on a refusal to recognize the religion of Judaism for what it is". Of course Judaism is different to Christianity and Islam, and other religions like Sikhism, Buddhism, Hinduism and the rest. No two religions are the same, and you could plausibly argue that Judaism is more different to Christiniaty than Islam and Christianity are, for example, to each other, although that is contentious. But your point that a Jew is still a Jew if he doesn't celebrate the sabbath really goes to the heart of this request - that's not because Judaism accepts lapsed religous Jews as being Jewish, it doesn't, but they are still Jews for socio-historical and cultural reasons.

Also, I never argued there is no cultural component to Christianity. I argued that there isn't a Christian people and Christian culture entirely seperate from Christianity. I have never heard anyone self-identify as a Christian atheist, or as a Muslim atheist. 84.92.117.93 (talk) 19:41, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Where do you find that Judaism doesn't accept "lapsed religous Jews" except for "socio-historical and cultural reasons"? Your link is to the Jewish principles of faith article. Do you find that sort of notion expressed at that article? Or do you find that "information" elsewhere? Where do you find that sort of notion expressed? Bus stop (talk) 21:19, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm talking particuarly about ultra-orthodox Judaism, I'm aware of course that progressive Judaism has a much more liberal stance. I linked to Jewish principles of faith because I was reading about how believing in multiple deities was considered heretical in Judaism. I accept that wasn't exactly the point I was making however, so my bad. I know from experience though that many highly religous Jews can be very intolerant of those that don't meet their criterion of Jewish belief: see all the controversies surrounding the Chief Rabbinate of Israel, and its turbulent relationship with secular Israeli Jews. 84.92.117.93 (talk) 22:05, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing at the Chief Rabbinate of Israel article saying that a nonobservant Jew is not a Jew. And it is not that you're "bad." But your reasoning behind wanting to move this article doesn't hold water. Judaism is its own religion. Just like Christianity is its own religion. And Islam is its own religion. And Hinduism is its own religion.

Once one has accepted a religion for what it is, there is no longer a reason to single it out for special treatment, and once one has accepted that a religion has a particular and even perhaps peculiar identity, then one can move on to seeing it for what it is in its own particular defining characteristics.

Your argument, let me remind you, has been that "Jews" should be titled in the plural, but that "Christian" should be titled in the singular, "Muslim" should be titled in the singular, and "Hindu" should be titled in the singular.

My conclusion: either all the religious groups — Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus — should be titled in the plural, or all of these religious groups should be titled in the singular. Bus stop (talk) 23:18, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

My point is that Christian,Muslim, and Hindu are all in the singular - and so should it be with Jew. Anything else is dumb. Best, A Sniper (talk) 23:28, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

That is fine with me, A Sniper. I didn't initiate this change. Bus stop (talk) 23:30, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

No, it's not dumb. Just read the respective content on this article, Muslim and Hindu and you will see how different they are. 84.92.117.93 (talk) 18:42, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

84.92.117.93 — What is it that you would like us to see at the Muslim article and the Hindu article that you link to? Bus stop (talk) 02:22, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Procedure

Full amount of days for comment on the request or not, it does not appear as if the editors of the article were ever alerted of the request until too late. I was aware that when such requests were made, a notice is posted on the article talk page without a timestamp. What happened?— Dædαlus ^Contribs 05:55, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

As is required, I deleted it when closing the discussion. A Sniper subsequently deleted the notice that the discussion was closed. Ucucha 05:59, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

What should be the next step? The move was already carried out before other users intervened without any precise rationale for opposing this move. Should I renominate or relist this request? 84.92.117.93 (talk) 11:44, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I think it is funny that an IP user and another user who I have never seen edit this page are using Wiki lawyering to press through something most regular contributors know nothing about. Lame. Why not wait for an admin to look over this issue (from the Admin Noticeboard/Incidents? This way, we can rally up interest (not partisanship) over at the project page, which is something i believe only Malik did previously. Best A Sniper (talk) 14:32, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not "Wiki lawyering", I used to be a registered user on this website until some time ago, which is why I am familiar with many of the site's rules and procedures and so on. My move is based on the rationale that an article about a collective cohesive group of people should be titled in the plural. If this article was about what being a Jew was, I would fully accept that the singular was more effective, but it's not. Rather than attacking users including myself, I would be interested in knowing what your reasons for opposing actuallly are. I don't see what's so controversial about making this move. 84.92.117.93 (talk) 18:47, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

• Please also see WP:SILENCE. This sort of "I'm right, you guys are wrong!" behavior is just bad, if for no other reason then it's not at all collegial. There's nothing wrong with editing as an IP user, there's no big conspiracy behind this RM and the way it's been handled, and there's no reason at all for all of the drama-mongering. Personally, I never thought that this move request was that big of a deal, since the request makes complete sense. Now I'm starting to care about this quite a bit though, if only to fight yet another incident of a small group of editors attempting to force their own POV on everyone (and over a really inconsequential issue, as well). As I said on ANI, start another RM in a month or two. Maybe we'll all look back at this then and think "humm, I wonder what I was thinking then?". Just, please stop with this.
  — V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 07:31, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

  The point is that there was no consensus, and the editor claimed at the Admin Noticeboard/Incidents that he/she would wait for a consensus of admins...but then just changed it back to Jews anyway. Now is that collegial? We'll just have to start the RM all over again soon. And everyone who has never paid attention to this article previously can go back to their lives. I for one consider this matter closed. A Sniper (talk) 03:08, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

  It's certainly more collegial then ignoring everyone else and reverting the move (messily, requiring two other people to fix the result), and then calling everyone else "dumb" as you just did above.
  — V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 11:43, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Whatever you say there, Ohms. A Sniper (talk) 14:41, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Please have your say on this whole move to Jews

Check out here to state one way or the other whether this move should have taken mor time and care. A Sniper (talk) 14:32, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

• As the incident has been archived, it can now be found here. 84.92.117.93 (talk) 20:52, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Jewish Population

I suggest that we use a range for the the Jewish population. Right now we have population ranges for the US and Israel. We should do this for many other nations on this list which have various different population numbers from different credible sources. The total population of Jews worldwide by some is estimated to be as high as 14-15 Million. Not all are religious many just ethnically jewish. Also Israels Central Bureau of Statistics puts Israels Jewish population as of the 2009 census at 5.6 Million. Which can be as High as 5.9 if counting many Russian Jews not recognized as jews by the Rabbinate. Other examples include the Jewish population of France which ranges from 490,000 - 600,000. Italy, 28,000 - 45,000. The number of jews in the United States can be anywhere from 4 Million to 7.4 Million. In any case since we already have ranges for Israel and The United states we should put a range for the total including the larger figures. --Gwax23 (talk) 22:55, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Sounds great. Do you have any suggestions concerning reliable sources? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:57, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

While I don't have sources to contribute, I agree with the general notion of using ranged figures rather than single values. Population numbers are always imprecise, and with something as debatable as defining who is a Jew, there are obviously going to be widely contrasting available statistics. 84.92.117.93 (talk) 23:22, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes I will get the sources posted here soon as I can. In the mean time while we have already 2 ranged figures we should post a range for the total just makes sense and is more consistent. I'm aware that the main sources of discrepancies in the numbers is due to defining who is a Jew and thats why I support using different sources which use different definitions of who can be considered jewish not strictly the Halakha definition (Only jewish if mother is jewish). Also according the jewish virtual library which got its numbers from the American Jewish Year book and the Jewish Agency the Jewish Population is 13,296,100 not the 13,155,000 we are using. Thats just a side note.--Gwax23 (talk) 00:44, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

One of the reasons I would never do this is because I know from first hand experience how many people are Jewish without any statistics showing that. Having said that, please go ahead. Debresser (talk) 09:06, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

One of the most reliable sources is this annual assessment. --Olevy (talk) 12:32, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

For some reason I cant open any of those downloads. ----Gwax23 (talk) 20:06, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I couldn't at first, use Adobe Reader. 84.92.117.93 (talk) 19:07, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Just for the record, the Halakha definition is NOT "only Jewish if mother is Jewish". Conversion is accepted by Halakha, and always has been. However, it is true that the child of a non-Jewish mother, regardless of the religion/ethnicity of the father, would have to go through the conversion process to be considered Jewish according to Halakha. Rosencomet (talk) 19:49, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

13 million worldwide .? At least 15 million in united states. be realstic . please.? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.106.108.158 (talk) 12:31, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

You mean 15 Million worldwide which is plausible. I'm trying to find reliable sources to prove this. Any help would be appreciated.--Gwax23 (talk) 03:42, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

According to this report the world jewish population stands at 13.3 Million. http://www.simpletoremember.com/vitals/world-jewish-population.htm--Gwax23 (talk) 18:04, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

No one told me the link was broken. Try this one. We should use its numbers for the population table. http://www.simpletoremember.com/vitals/world-jewish-population.htm --Gwax23 (talk) 01:33, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

This other source has different sources for the jewish population including the World Jewish Congress and American jewish year book. The populations range from 13.2 to 13.5 to 14.6 and even to 15 million jews. http://www.bechollashon.org/img/charts/World_Pop_01.pdf --Gwax23 (talk) 03:57, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Semi Protect?

How about semi-protection, seeing the amount of spamming. --216.99.53.138 (talk) 17:08, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

The article has been semi-protected for some time. You're not talking about semi-protecting the talk page, are you? If we do that, IPs can't even suggest edits, let alone make them. And where's the spamming you're talking about? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 10:24, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Yiddish and Russian

Please remove these languages from the lede. While there are many Jews speaking both languages, there are comparable numbers speaking French, Spanish, Arabic, Ladino and many other Jewish languages. 84.92.117.93 (talk) 22:38, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

There are likely at least 3 million Jews who speak Russian and a comparable number who speak Yiddish. There were likely never more than 1,000,000 Jewish Arabic speakers (and considerably fewer today), and the number of Ladino speakers is probably around 100,000. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:20, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Jay -- both these languages have immense numbers of Jewish speakers; I think it's a reasonable addition to the lead. Antandrus (talk) 02:23, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

OK, maybe Yiddish, but Russian? There are about half a million Russian Jews in Russia today, two million in the USA, a small bit more than one million in Israel, smaller numbers elsewhere. Of the American population, I highly doubt that more than a few thousand still speak Russian today, Russian Israelis speak Russian more commonly but if we assumed half of the Russian Israeli population speak Russian that still leaves with a total not much much more than one million. Where do you get the three million figure from? By contrast, there are 500-600,000 French Jews, and three million Mizrahi Jews, mainly in Israel. At the very least, it seemds dispraportionate to include two Ashkenazi Jewish languages in the lead. 84.92.117.93 (talk) 17:54, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

1 million Russian speaking Jews in North America, 1 million in Israel, and 1 million in Russia and the rest of the world, in round numbers. Mizrahi Jews are far more likely to speak Hebrew than Russian Jews, and many of them (e.g. Moroccan Jews) never spoke Arabic at all, but rather Spanish or French. And since Ashkenazi Jews comprise 80% of all Jews, it hardly seems "disproportionate". Jayjg ^(talk) 02:29, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Where do you get these figures from? The History of the Jews in Russia states that the 2002 census recorded 265,000 Jews in Russia. Even if this figure is an undercount, as it may well be, it's still far from the 1,000,000 figure you are basing your arguments on. 84.92.117.93 (talk) 20:36, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Also the claim that 80% of Jews are Ashkenazi is incorrect. There are 4 million Mizrahi Jews, 1.5-2 million Sephardi Jews, 8-11.2 million Ashkenazi Jews, suggesting only about two thirds of Jews are Ashkenazi. 84.92.117.93 (talk) 20:42, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

You can't mix and match statistics from different sources.

• "The Ashkenazic high point came in 1931 when they constituted nearly 92 percent of world Jewry. As a result of rapid population growth in North Africa and West Asia the percentage of Sephardim began to grow even before the Holocaust. That tragedy, which witnessed the murder of Jews caught in it without reference to Ashkenazi and Sephardi, still affected the Ashkenazi world more than the Sephardi. The Sephardim have continued to gain in numbers and in percentage since 1939, and today constitute approximately twenty percent of world Jewry."[1]
• "Ashkenazi Jews, that is, those Jews of Eastern European origin, constitute more than 80 percent of all world Jewry."[2]
• "The Ashkenazim accounts for 80 percent of all Jews."[3]

--Jayjg ^(talk) 17:34, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Picture

Theres picture of 5 people but only 4 names under them. Whos the 4th person and why is there no name associated with his picture. --Gwax23 (talk) 01:34, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I removed that picture but if you're curious it was Joe Slovo.Prezbo (talk) 02:20, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Why there is no information about origins of Jews?

The history starts in medieval period. This is somewhat weird. And also little info about Jews in pre-Christian Europe.--79.111.95.183 (talk) 06:15, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Huh? The article discusses the history going back to Abraham. I've never seen anything about Jews in pre-Christian Europe other than in the Roman Empire; what have you read? --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 16:56, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Things to add to the DNA section

According to A. Nebel et al., over 70% of Jewish men and half of Arab men (head only Israel or the Palestinian territories) whose DNA was studied inherited their Y chromosomes from the same paternal ancestors who lived in the region it A few thousands of years.

This should be added!!

However in 2005 a review article by Ellen Levy-Coffman weighting these results by pointing out that these particular ancestors are also shared by much of the population of the Mediterranean in particular southern Europe.