Talk:Jews

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

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 Many, many, have used the Bible as an historical reference.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)

I think the entire section is irrelevant to this article. It properly belongs in the article about Israel (and one about the Knesset, etc). By the logic of including this, the entire article on Israel could be subsumed into this article. Also, Palestinian Arabs are not all citizens of Israel--many live elsewhere. You could just leave it as simply "Jews" and "Arabs" which would also be fine. But better to strike the entire paragraph, or include far more about Israel. The latter would be quite unwieldy. Do others have opinions? Drmikeh49 (talk) 03:00, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Okay. I'm getting sick and tired of these stupid pictures of Jews. What the hell are these sad , dull pictures? LOL Is this it!? Is this how we Jews are gonna honor our achievements? I'm a Jew from an Ashkenazi mother and Scots-Irish backround from my father. And I gotta say that I'm not proud of the current Wikipedia pictures. So I've already layed down the foundation from some acceptable Jewish figures. I want the Jewish ethnicity to AMAZE. When I'm gonna go on Wikipedia and see the people we represent -- everybody should be like WOWWW. How can such a small nation REPRESENT SO MUCH GOOD, COLOR, SO MUCH LIGHT, SO MUCH BLESSINGS . I want our achievements to be A SLAP IN THE FACE to all the ignorant people out there. You know what the Talmud says my dear Jews Success is the greatest revenge but I can't do this by myself. Because I don't know how to get the damn authorization for the pictures . I'M PRETTY SURE THAT AT LEAST ONE OF YOU IN HERE HAS THE ABILITY TO DO IT. TAKE YOUR TIME MY FELLOWS. BUT ONE THING FOR SURE , TWO THINGS FOR CERTAIN -- THE CURRENT JEW PICTURES ARE UNACCEPTABLE IN RELEVANCE TO THE AMOUNT OF CONTRIBUTIONS WE REPRESENT TO THE WORLD

SO HERE IS MY LIST. = )

File:Jewish Pictures Of Ethnicity.jpg

Jewish Pictures Of Ethnicity

| image

File:Jewish Pictures Of Ethnicity.jpg

Jewish Pictures Of Ethnicity

1st row: King David • King Solomon• Daniel• Moses• Abraham
2nd row: Jacob • Samson • Jesus • Isaiah • Isaac
3rd row: Sigmund Freud • Yitzhak Rabin • Richard Feynman • J. Robert Oppenheimer• Rita Levi-Montalcini
4th row:Baruch Spinoza • Maimonides • Bob Kahn • Albert Einstein• Ralph Lauren
5th row:Rachel Weisz • Bar Rafaeli • Steven Spielberg • Sandy Koufax• Lee Strasberg
6th row:Gustav Mahler • Larry Page • Joel S. Engel • Ralph Baer• Gertrude Elion

I'm not coming back here. So do what you want. If you don't wanna help me-- to hell with you people . But live knowing you haven't given 100 percent and you haven't open up your minds to how awesome JEWS truly are.

Goodbye — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.169.110.202 (talk) 00:22, 23 August 2013 (UTC)