Talk:Jews

To discuss the infobox in the top right corner of the article, please visit Template talk:Infobox Jews.

Judaism is a religion not an ethinic group

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

A person can convert to Judaism even if they would not be considered Jewish by race. The definition is far too ambiguous in that case Also I see no proof that Jewish is an Ethnicity anymore than saying that a person of pure Spanish decent could not be considered white. This page should treat Judaism as a religion not an ethnic group Pug6666 01:22, 8 May 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pug6666 (talk • contribs)

Please see the "Ethnoreligious group" article. Hertz1888 (talk) 02:18, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Pug, you have just unwittingly stumbled across one of the origins of the Israeli-Palestinians conflict. There is no right answer to this question - people can believe what they like. This question was debated extensively amongst the Jewish community worldwide in the 19th and early 20th century. See for example Timeline of Anti-Zionism. Oncenawhile (talk) 07:50, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Jews are an ethnicity and a religion, to be one you don't have to be the other. That's how you get many people who say they are Jewish and Atheistic at the same time! It means they see themselves as Jews by ethnicity but as non-Jews by religion. Jews meet all the requirements to qualify as an ethnic group, which include common identity and history. Saying that Jews are "just a religion" is a common lie among modern anti-Semites! This page talks about Jews as an ethnic group, if you want the history of the religion you can go to Judaism. 90.196.60.197 (talk) 08:06, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

90.196.60.197—I doubt if there are many examples of people who "see themselves as…non-Jews by religion."[1] I think it would be rare for any person who is otherwise Jewish to articulate that he/she is not Jewish by religion. That is simply not language that is used. More likely the sort of person that I think you may have in mind would say that they were "nonobservant" or "secular" or "not religious". They would probably not be saying that they were "non-Jews by religion". I don't think that is language in actual use. Bus stop (talk) 11:50, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

It's a tough argument: that by adopting a particular philosophy one's DNA magically changes. I expect that in an encyclopedia an editor should go to extreme lengths to ensure such claims are very well documented, otherwise this is merely reposting of religious nonsense which has no place here or, if included, it should be very clear this is fable and not fact. Lexlex (白痴美國) (talk) 12:36, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Denying that Jews are an ethnicity is a common anti-Semitic tactic meant to de-legitimize Israel. I'm an atheist Jew. But if Jews cannot be an ethnicity, then what am I? A nothing? Ashkenazis are not related to Germans or Slavs. Why do you think we look different? Why do we have Semitic features? Curly hair? Big noses? Red hair? King David had red hair. Why do we get Tay–Sachs disease but Europeans don't? Why have DNA tests confirmed that we are from the Middle East? How come when I had my DNA checked, the conclusion was that my ancestors were part of the second great migration out of Africa and passed through Middle East and settled in Italy, even though I have no family history from Italy? This confirms the story that Jews were expelled from Israel by the Romans and brought to Rome as slaves. Jews are descended from the ancient Israelites who founded the Kingdom of Judah and thus we are an ethnic group. There have been only minimal conversions into Judaism. But even that should make a difference because no ethnic group is "racially pure," especially those of Europe and Asia. There are constantly outsiders marrying into different ethnicities. Even though you're Chinese, I bet you have some Mongolian, Korean, or Japanese blood in you from hundreds of years ago. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lauriacts (talk • contribs) 23:13, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

My great-grandparents came from Russia to the United States. But they were not Russian. They didn't even speak Russian; they spoke Yiddish. My family doesn't look Russian; they look Jewish. So if you tell me we're ethnically Russian instead of Jewish, then that's just bullshit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lauriacts (talk • contribs) 23:24, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Lauriacts please read WP:NPA before you post again. Please remember this is not a forum and not a place for WP:PROPAGANDA. Please re-read the previous posts and try to answer the concern of the original poster: "This page should treat Judaism as a religion not an ethnic group." And remember: It's just this page we're talking about. Lexlex (白痴美國) (talk) 11:07, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Lexlex—Lauriacts seems to be following the precedent set by you in discussing "DNA". The original poster doesn't inquire about "DNA" specifically. Bus stop (talk) 15:40, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Good point. I think I assumed "ethnic group" was being used in a strict scientific sense, but it wasn't made clear by the OP and, per Ethnoreligious group, that term can be interpreted in many different ways. Lexlex (白痴美國) (talk) 16:36, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I think it is fair to say that when describing Jews as both a religious and ethnical group, the latter definition is a combination of cultural and genetic heritage, rather than one or the other. See Ethnic group. Singularity42 (talk) 02:29, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Excellent point. Now can we leave it at that? This discussion has had little, if any, relation to editing the article, and has served far too long as a general forum and a magnet for sniping back and forth. Hertz1888 (talk) 03:37, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Bible

Since when is Bible any trusworthy source for the Wikipedia? Please consider revising the article to quote trusted historical sources only. --Normis99 (talk) 08:27, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree about the fact the bible is not a trustworthy source! After all, how can you believe a source saying the world was made 5000 years ago? I do think that bible can be used, though only with a scientific source near it confirming or contrasting it. For example "bible said X, but archeological sources said Y". 90.196.60.197 (talk) 10:31, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

One of the main issues is that the Bible is not used in the article, I do not know why you did not check before making the accusation. This is an obvious red light for suspect alterior motives, again because the Bible is not used. It is therefor a suspect accusation.

The Bible in terms of Archeology goes back to the era of the Dead Sea Scrolls, Philo and Josephus, make mention of it, it is used as a source on Brittanica and all of the Christian era founders of Western Civilization, and in millions of contemporary scholarly books,it is not a Wikipeia editor's job to soapbox against a book so widely used. Many, many, have used the Bible as an historical reference. Quite a few people who religiously believe "in" the Bible do not believe in your soapboxing that the world is 5000 years old, you are reducing your opponent without giving them a chance, to absurdity, among the few dozen which I have seen, "The Challenge of Creation: Judaism's Encounter with Science, Cosmology, and Evolution" written from a religious Jewish perspective does not believe the world is 5000 years old, yet uses the Bible as a history, even to prove just that. Again not Wikipedia's job to judge. The religion of the Bible can not be viewed neutrally as being some how "magically" inferior to the magic spoken of by Herodotus, both are provably the same age, the Bible may even be older.Yan Eggerland (talk) 19:22, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

If the Bible is to be put on trial, as many hardcore anti-Semites, and anti-the existing State of Israel have taken to doing on Wokipedia tt their hate, who be "athiest" in an conspiracy of hate against the Jews. The obvious only non-bigotted approach would be to put the Bible on trial for the big boys as well, the New and Old Testament, and even the Koran which obviously is very similar, and the Book of Mormon, why obsess on your anti-Semitic bias, please be fair. Put your anti-Jewish box on all religions or Peoples which quote the Koran, Bible, Shinto or any other religious text connected to their founding, or else you are in the wrong, hate crime level wrong, or put the whole thing on trial.Yan Eggerland (talk) 19:37, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

I didn't see any bible references in the footnotes. I'll AGF for now. 128.103.7.152 (talk) 04:43, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Khazar descent

I added this to the section on genetic data, and it was deleted:

However, more recent genetic research confirms the "Khazar Hypothesis," according to which Eastern European Jews are descendants to a large degree of Khazar people of the Caucasus and the Volga valley, who had converted to Judaism and later migrated westward. Agence France-Presse, 16 Jan. 2013, "Gene study settles debate over origin of European Jews," ttp://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5iJN90t2gN6hxGiFQuBv-gYQE060w?docId=CNG.52483183e4e0f60d963361c17572c848.81

The objection was that: 1. The source does not support that Jews are descendants "to a large degree" from the Khazar people.

Note that the article states that "mong European Jews, Elhaik found ancestral signatures that pointed clearly to the Caucasus and also, but to a smaller degree, the Middle East." Thus the Khazar genetic contribution appears to be more significant than the "original" Middle Eastern one. That seems to support fully "to a large degree."

2. I am giving a fringe theory undue weight.

Note the editor who removed it provides NO RS for the proposition that this is fringe. The investigator is a geneticist at Johns Hopkins School of Public Health. Hardly fringe. In any event, one sentence in a genetic section of this size is undue weight?

I would also note that deleting a contribution, including the footnote, is heavy handed and insulting, or worse. Thank you for your consideration. --NYCJosh (talk) 03:39, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree. It is not WP:UNDUE, since the article has no other mention of this hypothesis that is not only supported by that recent study you quote, but also by others. I re-added the paragraph, with the original source. --bender235 (talk) 20:58, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Bender235. It's nice when someone restores one's contribution for one so one doesn't feel like a thief in the night. --NYCJosh (talk) 03:12, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Okay, User:Evildoer187 reverted it again. Let's wait for his detailed explanation now. --bender235 (talk) 13:32, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Geneticists here... was asked to validate the source provided. But will let the book that follows sum up the controversy of the statement being added/removed ......this MAY be contentious to many. -- See note 63 at the page linked in the following book Eric Maroney (2010). The Other Zions: The Lost Histories of Jewish Nations. Cornell University. p. 178. ISBN 978-1-4422-0045-6. -- Thank you for your time.Moxy (talk) 21:40, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

The controversy surrounding this "Khazar hypothesis" is well known. Still it is unclear to me why it is not mentioned in this article at all, not in a single word. --bender235 (talk) 22:32, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

The passage in question...

"However, more recent genetic research confirms the "Khazar hypothesis," according to which Eastern European Jews are descendants of Khazar people of the Caucasus and the Volga valley, who had converted to Judaism and later migrated westward.[62][63]"

The sources provided consist of one study by Elhaik whose conclusions have been criticized by other noted geneticists and scholars, and what appears to be a French news site which discusses Elhaik's work. This is far from sufficient enough to justify these additions, hence WP:UNDUE, especially given the controversial nature of said edits.Evildoer187 (talk) 12:00, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Before I comment on the rest: please name those "other noted geneticists and scholars" that have critized this particular study. The only "critique" I could find so far was this Jerusalem Post op-ed column that has no scientific substance at all, but only critizises the fact that Elhaik, "whose previous articles have dealt with such subjects as the genome sequence of the Leafcutter ant" (read: how dare he writing on something else then?), examined a theory by "the womanizing communist" Arthur Koestler (read: how can a "womanizing communist" come up with something credible, ever?). Other than that, nothing. --bender235 (talk) 13:09, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Bender235 on all these points. AFP is a major RS. The source presents the work of a scientist at a major research university. No contradicting source has been provided. (And no, an editor's views are not notable.)

Even without this, Koestler's theory is notable and should be included in the article, as Bender 235 suggests. Anyone care to present some footnotes in support of that? There is also a recent book by University of Tel Aviv historian Shlomo Sand entitled "The Invention of the Jewish People," which also includes much fascinating evidence for the Khazar hypothesis. --NYCJosh (talk) 02:03, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

There are 23 genetic studies refuting Khazar theory and time and again this theory is tried to be POV forced into numerous articles without explaining what mainstream historians like Bernard Levis, Moshe Gil, Golden or others said about this-namely that this is rubbish. The same goes to genetics, dozens of genetic studies, academic books from population genetic and still one home made study which used samples from another study whch again btw came to opposite conclusion is taken out from all the rest of this studies due to clear POV and WP:UNDUE. Elhaik study is mentioned in Genetic studies on Jews article, no reason to be repeated here, as all the rest of studies.--Tritomex (talk) 06:02, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Regardless of Elhaik's study, how do you justify that the so-called "Khazar hypothesis" is not mentioned in a single word in this article? Regardless of what one thinks of this theory, as a matter of fact it has been very prominent for at least the past 30 years. So, if anything, not mentioning it is WP:UNDUE. Doesn't have to be with reference to Elhaik's study, but with a general note. --bender235 (talk) 09:35, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

1) This is an article about entire Jewish people, not Ashkenazi Jews 2)This is not an article about genetic studies on Jews where Khazarian hypothesis is mentioned many times 3)The Khazarian hypothesis is considered a fringe theory by most (to be precise all academic historians beyond one) and all geneticist beyond one and is being described by the biggest authority on this subject Bernard Lewis as "This theory… is supported by no evidence whatsoever. It has long since been abandoned by all serious scholars in the field, including those in Arab countries, where the Khazar theory is little used except in occasional political polemics" To mention this single genetic studies without 23 other studies teeing the opposite is giving UNDUE weight to this claim, while all genetic studies including this one can be found in related Wikipedia article. The Khazarian hypothesis is already extensively debated in Genetic studies on Jews which is linked to this article, Shlomo Sand, The Invention of Jewish people, Ashkenazi Jews etc--Tritomex (talk) 12:27, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

I guess only in your imagination is a historian the "biggest authority" on genetics (by the way, Lewis' book you quoted is out-dated, genetics moved on). Also, your claim that "no geneticist but one" considers this theory is pretty laughable since Ashkenazi Jews alone cites three studies in support of this theory. I suppose this topic is too delicate for serious discussion. Too many ideologists involved, and too many people like you for whom something "just can't be". I'll let go, I won't put my foot in my mouth in this issue. --bender235 (talk) 12:37, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

The "3 studies cited by Elhaik" are an amateur genetic article made by a lawyer Levy Coffman, a 2009 study by Kopelman et al wich concluded "Concerning the theory of Khazar ancestry in Ashkenazi Jews we found no evidence at all" and probably a study made by Zoosman Disskin which concluded that the origin of Ashkenazi Jews is South European, namely Italian without supporting Khazar theory.

Please familiarize yourself with genetic studies of Hammer, Koopelman, Nebla, Behar, Shen, Molutsky, Thomas, Atzmon, Semino, Moorijani, Bray, Need, Haber, Feder etc and with academic historians from population genetics like those of T. Frudakis, H. Ostrrer, historians like Dunlop, Lewis, Moshe Gil, Golden etc. You have extensive debate on this question in all articles I have stated above. Concerning Lewis he is widely considered the most cited and most objective historian of 20th century in questions related to Middle East. --Tritomex (talk) 05:55, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

The study in question is a marginal attempt to twist academic study results to fit a fringe theory in order to publish a "sensational publication"; it is not different in academic response from the famously discredited study by Arnaiz Villena claiming Greeks come from sub-Saharan Africa. Jews in general also showed high affinity with non-Arab or indigenous Arabized populations of Fertile Crescent like Kurds and Druze and to a lesser degree genetic affinity with Arabs proper (still Jews were shown to be more related to Arabs than to north Europeans or Asians of course). Elhaik compared Ashkenazi Jews to Palestinians, Cypriots, Turks, Druze and Armenians and resulted (similar to previous studies) that Ashkenazi Jews relate closer to Cypriots, Turks, Druze and Armenians than to Palestinian Arabs; Finally Elhaik theorized that Armenians represent "Khazar descendants" and Cypriots and Druze are migrant populations into Eastern Mediterranean (which is quiet ridiculous), while Palestinians are pure descendants of ancient Israelites; then he summarized that if Armenians descent from Khazars then Ashkenazi Jews also descent from Khazars (???). Of course Elhaik also disregarded the previous studies that Ashkenazi Jews perfectly match with Sephardic Jews, Syrian Jews and Samaritans - which completely undermines his conclusion. As tritimex said - Elhaik is quiet a joke today in the academic society for his amateur conclusion.Greyshark09 (talk) 05:45, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

I didn't run out of arguments, Bender. I don't live on Wikipedia, and I do have other priorities in life that don't entail arguing with Wikipedia editors who, in all likelihood, won't even listen to me anyway.Evildoer187 (talk) 21:55, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Evildoer187, you were editing all over Wikipedia while ignoring this talk page. I assumed you hadn't anything left to say. Have you not?

To everyone else: I guess the basic misunderstanding in this case was how we document this theory within this article. I never meant to document it as if it was true, but only the fact that it existed. For some reason you guys fail to recognize that encyclopedias (which includes Wikipedia) also include unproven or even definitively wrong theories, like Le Sage's theory of gravitation or the element Aether. Even though they are wrong, they need to be documented. The citation of Koestler, Elhaik, etc. was not meant to prove that the theory was correct, but only that it existed. I hope at least some of you know the difference and will include the Khazar hypothesis accordingly.

I myself won't touch this article anymore. It's a fucking mine field. Some knucklehead already called me "Nazi" for wanting to mention Louis Brandeis and Mayer Amschel Rothschild on Ashkenazi Jews. This is friggin ridiculous. I'm out of here. --bender235 (talk) 08:08, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree with you that the Khazar theory should be mentioned in line with Rhineland theory and Slavic conversion theory (emphasizing Rhineland theory is the mainstream), but perhaps not in the genetic section. Moreover, it might be most relevant to Ashkenazi Jews, rather than Jews in general. I will put it there.Greyshark09 (talk) 21:13, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

section on Israel

Mentioning the number of Israel's Knesset members or Supreme Court judges who are Arab is highly relevant to an article on Israel, but fairly irrelevant in an article on the Jewish people. I'd edit that right out but would probably get auto-reverted as vandalism. Would anyone else like to weigh in on that? IN the meantime, the usage of "Arab citizens of Israel" describing the Knesset members and "Palestinian Arab" for the Supreme Court justice is inconsistent and can be confusing (is he from the West Bank? no) so I will make that edit for consistency now. Drmikeh49 (talk) 05:22, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

What it amounts to is that currently 12 members or 10 % of the Knesseth are not Jews as well as one out of 15 juges of the Supreme Court, while the Jewish population of Israel is only 75.4 %, according to the article. I suggest to mention it in this way, if at all. "Arab citizens of Israel" is IMO not acceptable, unless we start calling the Jewish Israelis "Jewish citizens of Israel". And by the way, why did you not choose "Palestinian Arab" "for consistency" Drmikeh49? Cheers, Ajnem (talk) 09:47, 6 August 2013 (UTC)