Talk:Jews/Archive 25

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 24 Archive 25 Archive 26

Jews of Jamaica

Hello Hertz 1888, you seemed to have raised some question about the number of Jews in Jamaica and the formatting.

1) I originally formatted it so Canada did appear under Jamaica in the box. I am not sure why it disappeared from the list, I don;t know if someone else removed it or why it is gone but it should be showing. I'd imagine the entire list would have to be reformatted (the numbers would have to be replaced.

2) As for the number of jews in jamaica, this is no secret. The majority of Jamaican jews are non-practicing jews according to the statistic there are only about 1000 practicing jews in Jamaica. But the majority of Israeli jews are non practicing as well. But wiki recognizes that jewish is religion but also ethnicity/nationality. Hence one is not immediately struck or overwhelmed by Jamaica's Jewish numbers because most aren't practicing.

"1750, Jamaica was home to about 1,000 jews, almost as many as the number of Jews in all of British North America, according to the noted American Jewish Historian Jacob R. Marcus, author of The Colonial American Jew, 1492-1776"

First settlement of north american jews in jamaica


Shalom Life's mission is to share, discuss and inspire our readers with stories about Jewish culture and life. Shalom Life launched in 2009 and has become Canada's largest independent Jewish news source dedicated to covering culture, arts, society, technology, business, and general news, both locally and internationally. Shalom Life's content has also been syndicated on some of the world's top publications including Macleans, National Post, ABC News, Ynet, Forbes, USA Today and many more, helping expand it's reach to millions of other readers. Shalom Life's head office is in Toronto, Canada. Shalom Life has recently expanded into Los Angeles, with plans of opening offices across the United States.

http://www.shalomlife.com/printArticle/19879/

"In present day Jamaica, there are approximately 200 practicing Jews. However, there are an estimated 424,000 Jamaicans who possess Sephardi Jewish ancestry. Shaare Shalom Synagogue (also known as the United Congregation of Israelites) located in the capital of Kingston, is the only remaining synagogue on the island. It can accommodate 600 people, offers a Liberal-Conservative service conducted in English, and has been led by Rabbi Dana Evan Kaplan since September 2011. There is also a museum dedicated to the history of Jews in Jamaica, located next door. The congregation also maintains the Hillel Academy, which is non-denominational. Within the community, there are organizations such as B’nai B’rith and WIZO. In 1997, the Neveh Shalom Institute was formed to preserve the sites of Jewish synagogues and cemeteries that dot the island."


"The island’s population is ethnically divers. According to the University of the West Indies, Jamaica’s ethnic make-up consists of 76.3 per cent of people of African descent, 15.1 per cent Afro-European, 3.4 per cent East Indian and Afro-East-Indian, 3.2 per cent caucasian, 1.2 per cent Chinese. There are some 424,000 Jamaicans of Jewish ancestry, and Jews were among the first immigrants from Europe to Jamaica, arriving with Christopher Columbus from Portugal and Spain, as they fled the Spanish Inquisition in the 1400s." http://www.thestar.com/life/travel/jamaica50/2012/06/12/jamaica_punches_above_its_weight.html


"By 1831, Jews could hold office in Jamaica, a right not granted in England until 1858. In fact, so many Jews won elective posts in this Caribbean nation that in 1849, the Jamaican Assembly adjourned for Yom Kippur. That year, too, eight of the 47 members of the Legislative Assembly were Jewish and in 1886, thirteen of its members were Jews. Not too long ago one half of the shops in Kingston were closed on Yom Kippur." A Travel Guide to the Jewish Caribbean and Latin America

By Frank, Ben G. pg 247.

"Some could even argue, as does author and Historian Harry Ezratty, that "Judaism is the oldest organized religion" practiced on the island. Even today citizen here will tell you that many Jamaicans are descendants of Jews, although they do not officially practice Judaism. " Page 250" IBID

""Once there were five synagogues in Kingston, once Jews were concentrated in Port Royal, Spanish Town and Kingston. Once the Jews lived in as many as twenty-one seperate communities and flourished throughout the island since 1655 when the British took the island from the Spanish" ibid 250

"Once a Jew mayor of Kingston, even though the Spanish held it. Walking around the last and only synagogue on the island in Kingston, talking to the last remaining Jews in Montego Bay, it does not take long to figure out that Jamaican Jewish history is one of the most important in the carribean...The island played a leading role in the founding of the Jewish community of New York." Ibid The Jamaican Jews founded the New York Jew communities and is the oldest Jew community in North America, there should be no surprise that it is large.


"A recent poll from the University of the West Indies notes Jamaica’s total ethnic make-up, with 76.3 percent of African descent, 15.1 percent Afro-European, 3.4 percent East Indian and Afro-East-Indian, 3.2 percent Caucasian, 1.2 percent Chinese and 424,000 of Jewish ancestry" https://www.ideals.illinois.edu/bitstream/handle/2142/45227/davisanne_melissa_jamaicancomp.pdf?sequence=2


"There are some 424,000 Jamaicans of Jewish ancestry, and Jews were among the first immigrants from Europe to Jamaica, arriving with Christopher Columbus from Portugal and Spain, as they fled the Spanish Inquisition in the 1400s." http://www.theunia-acl.com/aug2012.pdf

""'The Tainos were the original inhabitants of Jamaica. Next came the Jews," according to long-time resident and writer, Ed Kritzler.' The Jews of Jamaica are honored as the island's first permanent settlers," he adds. Jews have served as mayors of Kingston and other cities, as members of the legislature, me,bers of Jamaica's Privy Council and as ambassadors and ministers of this independent country." 250-252 A Travel Guide to the Jewish Caribbean and Latin America

By Frank, Ben G.

"Jews arrived in Jamaica soon after Columbus discovered the island....Jamaica's Jewish community was first established in secret by Marranos fleeing the Inquisition during the Spanish Rule (1494-1655). Officially the Jewish community dates its founding to 1655 when the British took the island. But actually, Professor Seymour B. Liebman says that there were Jews in Jamaica "before any other Carribean island-some say as early as 1530."" 252 ibid

"Because of this exclusion, Jamaica was never placed under the jurisdiction of the Bishopric of Cuba who had the power to hunt down "secret Jews" ibid

"By 1924, there were 24,000 Jews living in Cuba." jewishcuba.org

Logically speaking, what sense does it make that a country who hunted "secret jews" neighbouring an open to jewish settlement would have more jews than the open one"? Both were Spanish possessions.

"In 1906, 11 American Jews founded Cuba's first synagogue, the United Hebrew Congregation, a Reform synagogue that conducted services in English. This is considered the official beginning of the Cuban Jewish community." https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/vjw/Cuba.html

"The first synagogue, a Sephardic Synagogue, was built in Port Royal in approximately 1646, but was destroyed during the earthquake of 1692. Another Synagogue, Neveh Shalom Synagogue, was established on Spanish Town's Monk Street in 1704, but today lies largely in ruins. The only synagogue still in current use, Shaare Shamayim in Kingston, was built in 1912 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oldest_synagogues_in_the_world#Jamaica

1646 Jamaica first synagogue vs 1906 Cuba's first. In fact

"With the influx of Jews to Jamaica in the 17th century, several synagogues were constructed in Montego Bay, Spanish Town and Kingston. It’s believed that in 1692, Port Royal housed the first of seven Jamaican synagogues. All but one, were destroyed by earthquakes and hurricanes." - See more at: http://www.cjnews.com/news/jamaican-jews-fight-save-historic-shul#sthash.5rovqCGV.dpuf

Jamaica had 7 synagogues before Cuba or Argentina or many of the countries on that list had one, in fact before even America had one.

"Sinagoga de la Congregación Israelita Argentina in Buenos Aires, Argentina: the oldest Synagogue in Argentina, standing since 1897 to this day."

"The Hobart Synagogue (1845) is the oldest surviving synagogue building in Australia"

"The 1863 building of Congregation Emanu-El (Victoria, British Columbia) is the oldest surviving synagogue building.[in canada]"

Lets look at Canada's policy towards Jews for why they have less Jews. "Prior to the British Conquest of New France there were officially no Jews in Canada because when King Louis XIV made Canada officially a province of the Kingdom of France in 1663, he decreed that only Roman Catholics could enter the colony. One exception was Esther Brandeau, a Jewish girl who arrived in 1738 disguised as a boy and remained for a year before being sent back to France after refusing to convert"

"Canada’s first ever census, recorded that in 1871 there were 1,115 Jews in Canada; 409 in Montreal, 157 in Toronto, 131 in Hamilton and the rest were dispersed in small communities along the St. Lawrence River."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_in_Canada

"In 1660, the population of Jamaica was about 4,500 white and 1,500 black,[24] but by as early as the 1670s, black people formed a majority of the population.[25]

In 1394, France prohibited Jews as residents of their country. By 1660, Jamaica had become a refuge for Jews in the New World, also attracting those who had been expelled from Spain and Portugal." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jamaica

"When the British took the island in 1655 they discovered a number of what they called Portugals (secret Jews) already residing there. The noted Jewish Historian Malcom Stern maintains that the English reported that about half the white population were "Portugals." pg 253 The closest census I can find to that date shows 4500 white people "In 1660, the population of Jamaica was about 4,500 white and 1,500 black,[24] but by as early as the 1670s, black people formed a majority of the population.[25]"

So by the 1660 you are looking at at least 2200 Jews. It took Canada until 1871 to reach just 1,115 Jews. 200 years of immigration and Canada still had less jews than Jamaica.

"Unlike their brothers and sisters in Trinidad, Cuba or Puerto Rico, the Marranos of Jamaica now could come out into the open and return to Judaism, points out Arbell in his book, The Jewish Nation of the Carribbean. These very same Portugals welcomed the English. Jamaica, therefore became the largest Caribbean island open to Jewish settlement until the Spanish American War in 1898, when the U.S. liberated Cuba and Puerto Rico.| A Travel Guide to the Jewish Caribbean and Latin America

By Frank, Ben G. p253

Citing the figure of 200 Jews on the island, Dr. Rebecca Tortello wrote, "that number would be much larger if it were a measure simply of religious bloodlines, as many Jamaicans are descendants of Jews although they do not offcially practice Judaism." ibid p 248

I should take the time to address a reasonable possible counter argument. That there are only 200 practicing jews are a few hundred. One might perceivable argue that well only the practicing jews should count as jews. It is clear the majority of people who are listed as Jews under this entry are non-practicing. In fact it list something like 4-5 million secular jews.

Rates of intermarriage amongst jews is high as the article correctly points out 50% of us jews are not marrying jews. If we take the position that people who are of mixed jewish ancestry aren't jews then in 2 generations I don't think anyone is going to count as jews. And I am not sure which of us can prove we are of 100% jewish blood likely less than a few thousand.

"But Ariela Keysar, a survey co-researcher, said the findings showed a “huge” disconnect between Jews and other sectors of American society. For example, only 6 percent of all Americans identify themselves as secular - that is, they disbelieve in God and do not follow any religion. But one-third of all Jews fit into that secular category, she said. As a result, the number of people adhering to any sort of Judaism as a religion is actually just 3.3 million to 3.4 million, the survey found. Eighteen years ago, it was 23 percent higher, at 4.3 million."


Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/aug/05/study-finds-jews-in-us-drifting-away-from-faith/?feat=home_headlines#ixzz30CkyhwQg Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

If we are going to exclude 400,000 Jamaican jews for not practicing then the whole article will need to be changed to remove out all the other non-practicing jews, as the article makes it clear one third don't even believe in god in America or are secular and only 3.3 adhere to any form of judaism. Yet the article clearly list 5-6 million american jews.

If we do remove all non-practicing jews it will basically make the entry worthless. why?

"Around 80% of Israeli Jews identify as secular, and of the 20% who identity as religious, 6% are Haredi.[3] A study in late 2006 claimed that just over a third of Israelis considered Haredim the most hated group in Israel" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haredim_and_Zionism the original source from Eliezer Ben-Rafael, “The Face of Religiosity in Israel: Cleavages or Continuum?” Israel Studies 13, no. 3 (Fall 2008): 89-113, http://www.jstor.org/stable/30245833: pg. 89.

By that logic we would be forced to take Israel number from 6 million down to 1.2 million and remove the 80% of secular jews. In my humble opinion this would not be a good practice. Part of the article already makes it clear many jews are mixed.


"Generally, in modern secular usage Jews include three groups: people who were born to a Jewish family regardless of whether or not they follow the religion, those who have some Jewish ancestral background or lineage (sometimes including those who do not have strictly matrilineal descent), and people without any Jewish ancestral background or lineage who have formally converted to Judaism and therefore are followers of the religion." jews| wiki article

I think that the 400k plus Jew Jamaicans would fit the profile of having a Jew ancestral background or lineage. Jews are one of the most hated groups in the world, what person in their right mind would lie about being Jewish?

"When panama became attached to Colombia, several Sephardic Jews told the author, Jews came from Jamaica and other Carribean islands. Ashkenazic Jews emigrated from Central Europe and settled in the provinces, where they proceed to intermarry and assimilate." p 487 ibid

So the Jamaica jew number is probably an under-estimate at 400k because many of the latin American jews themselves came from Jamaica and are Jamaican Jew diaspora jews.

Then when one looks and sees Panama having 20,000 jews and then other latin American Jews like Costa Rican jews coming from Panama and Jamaica. And then you look at Colombia and those jews are from Jamaica too and 11% of them are sephardic. I have no exact numbers of the amount of Jamaica descent but one can see that there is an underestimation of Jamaican jews. "By 1720, Jews were 18 percent of the population, according to historian Arbell." p 269 A Travel Guide to the Jewish Caribbean and Latin America

By Frank, Ben G


From a practical perspective, the reason for Jamaicas large Jewish population compared to countries like UK and Canada (since you raised the objection) appears to be the widespread mixing of jews as well and the large jewish immigrant population from spain and portugal. Whereas Jews seemed to not mix much in places like Canada or UK, widespread racial mixing has probably led to alot of jews. The other thing of mention is that most of the Jamaicans are of Akan and Igbo descent and these are two west african groups that are heavily tied into Judaism. With the Igbo being the largest group of African jews numbering over 35 million (practicing and non practicing today) and the Akan's own history that they are jews from Israel who moved into Africa as part of their identity. When one examines all of these factors, 424,000 is probably an underestimate of people with actual jewish lineage/heritage on the islands.

However we do have some insight from several authors on the subject

"Little has been said of Black jews of the west Indies who have been there ever since Cristopher Colombus, living and marrying with the jews of the "Middle East" of Sephardic Heritage. if one was to travel to Jamaica, St. Astasia and St. Thomas you would see the descendants of these early JEWS living as their forebearers" We the Black Jews, Volumes 1-2 Dr. Yosef Ben-Jochannan

John Bigelow of "The jews expelled from portugal by king john II settled in the west indies, specifically jamaica in 1850, children were negroid" New York Evening Post (August 1850)

And

Description of guinea, new york, london, 1746, p.9 A colonialist appraisal of Africa Reports the same thing as above.

Another point is that there exist some evidence that the Maroons and the Marannos are distantly related Jewish groups. There do exist histories that Maroon is a corruption of the word Marannos.

"A story worth citing, and one that could be more believable, was also recounted by Long. When a maroon leader was awaiting trial in Savanna-la-Mar, he was guarded by a Jewish militaman. The maroon said, "We and the Jews are from the same origin. Your are different from the whites and they hate you. Let's join forces."

Long P.129 and

The Jewish Nation of the Caribbean: The Spanish-Portuguese Jewish ...

By Mordehay Arbel p 254

"In her research on Jamaican society Holzman cites her conversations with Rastafarians, a sect of black Jamaicans who revere the late Emperor of Ethiopia Haile Selassie and dress like Ethiopians, have special rites and see themselves as Jewish." ibid

"The Rastas believe that Africans are of the lost tribes of Israel, with a special identification with the King David and the tribe of Judah. The Emperor Haile Selassie of Ethiopia, whom they worship as the long-promised biblical messiah, is everywhere called "the conquering lion of Judah." Many Rastas wear the Jewish star of David with a lion in the middle around their necks. Their diet is essentially kosher, bereft as it is of any animal or dairy products."

http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Op-Ed-Contributors/Roaming-with-the-Rastas

Would this make Rastas Jews, I'm not sure, but if we are going by blood lines it would seem so. That being said these groups like Rasta are not even included in the number 424,000 is a very conservative figure when dealing with blood lines.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0d2u9iSXMU8

As for mordehay arbell reliability as a source "Mordechai Arbell Mordechai Arbell, was born in Bulgaria and moved to Israel with his family during the Second World War. After studies at Hebrew University and University of Paris (France), he joined the Foreign Ministry of the State of Israel, and served in posts as Consul in Bogota, Colombia, and Ambassador to Panama and Haiti. He was a non-resident ambassador to Haiti from 1972 to 1975 and visited Haiti on several occasions for community projects. He has devoted much of his life to documenting the story of Jews in the southern part of the New World. Arbell is currently a Research Fellow at the Ben-Zvi Institute He is the chairman of Sefarad, an organization for the preservation of the Spanish-Portuguese Jewish heritage, Arbell has published books and research papers on Sephardic history in the Americas, Austria, Albania, Croatia, Philippines and India, among them The Jewish Nation of the Caribbean and The Portuguese Jews of Jamaica and is an advisor to the World Jewish Congress.

Mordechai Arbell was awarded the Nahum Goldmann medal in 2008. The Medal is awarded by the WJC to distinguished persons for their contribution to universal humanitarian causes and actions benefiting the Jewish people." http://www.worldjewishcongress.org/en/biography/64


So long story short about 424,000 Jamaicans have jewish ancestry through Sephardi "Portugals" and Spanish jews because it was one of the few countries open to jews during the inquisition and colonial period unlike its neighbours. The number is likely higher if you account for African jews (igbo and akan) who are the some of the main groups of jamaican along with the Hausa, Yoruba, Orisha Twi and Fula (gentilles) and then you have the Rastas who view themselves as Jewish(although I understand Israeli jews do not accept them hallalikali as far as I know). The entry here isn't about about halachal jews it is about jews whether they practice or not, who have any known ancestry or identify as jews, and most the ones included are secular jews anyways. While the Jamaican jews are mixed, so are the jews of other countries included. There are few 100% pure blooded jews and the converts counted as jews and their secular children are being counted despite neither practicing judaism nor believing in god nor coming from a jewish family.

Finally Shavei Israel seems to agree enough to feature the same claim on their website: "An article in Wikipedia claims that an estimated 420,000 Jamaicans have Sephardi Jewish ancestry, due to the Spanish Inquisition" "Shavei Israel opens the door to all who have decided that Judaism and a return to the Jewish people are central to their fate and their identity. We reach out to “lost” and “hidden” Jews around the world. From Poland to Peru, and Barcelona to Brazil, Shavei Israel aims to help descendants of Jews reconnect with the people and State of Israel.


Shavei Israel was founded ten years ago by Michael Freund. While serving as the Deputy Communications Director under Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in 1997, Freund opened an envelope that arrived in the mail one day."

"Shavei Israel is comprised of a team of academics, educators and rabbinical figures and has the support of different rabbinical authorities in Israel and the United States of America. Our work is in complete accordance with Jewish Law and under the ongoing supervision of the Chief Rabbinate of the State of Israel.

Shavei Israel is active in over nine different countries and works to reconnect a variety of communities with their Jewish heritage including:"

And it seems to be made up of some prominent jewish rabbis and educators. They certainly don't find it absurd that there are 420,000 Jamaican Jews or Jamaicans with jewish ancestry, I don't see why it should be any more of a big deal than 300k+ jews in Canada or 6 million jews in America.

Do you have any other further comments or questions? Hernanday (talk) 19:42, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

You have obviously gone to a lot of trouble to provide so much information. Frankly, it is overwhelming. Sorry, but I do not intend to read it all or reply in detail. I am not an expert in demographics, and hope those who are more familiar with the counting methodologies will speak up. I suspect that there is simply a fundamental flaw involved here, probably due to counting per ancestry. If that is not the usual basis, then we have an invalid "apples and oranges" comparison situation. Your 424,000 figure is 15% of the population of Jamaica, a percentage absurdly higher than for any other country except Israel. That alone raises suspicions. The source primarily relied upon for population figures in the box, DellaPergola, counts the Jamaican Jewish population as 200-300. Big difference!
Thank you for using this page for discussion; it is the proper thing to do per WP:BRD. Please don't make your edit again unless you can obtain a consensus for it with other participating editors. Hertz1888 (talk) 21:16, 28 April 2014 (UTC)


Could you elaborate on what type of "fundamental flaw" you are speaking of specifically. You mention counting per ancestry how could one miscount per ancestry? Further please describe your appleas to oranges comparison.

Yes the 424,000 is about 15% of the population of Jamaica. If Jamaica's 15% of population of jews is absurdly high then what is Israel 80% of jewish population? And when you consider 85% of Jamaica is gentile is 15% really that high of a number on a tiny island of 2.5 million people that absorbed almost all of the jewish immigration of latin america and canada for hundreds of years? Prior to the Holocaust, many countries in Europe had 15-20% jews or more some major cities between Germany and Austria and Czech had even 30% jews. Warsaw had a 40% jewish population and but for Hitler would probably still have that. I laid out the historical context with quotes quiet clearly. Jamaica's large jew population exist for simple historic reasons that it was one of the few places that never persecuted Jews or forbid them from moving in.

I don't know what "suspicion" can there be about being a jew, I find that to be a puzzling statement which I am not really sure it is meant to even mean.

There is no figure of Jamaican Jew in the box, you removed it, that is why we are talking.

The DellaPergola source is not the most accurate for what we are discussing here for 3 reasons.

1)While Della is widely regard as somewhat of an authority in Israel on Judaic practicers, a Jew (going by ancestry and bloodlines and not religion) is a completely different ballpark. 2) The sources I use cite that the previous number of 200 are inaccurate because they count only PRACTICING jews. Della citation here is problematic because he counts all Israeli jews as jews even though 80% do not practice. In otherwords he isn't comparing apples and oranges. 3) Della admits his numbers on Jamaican jews are inaccurate http://www.jewishdatabank.org/studies/downloadFile.cfm?FileID=2941 Della rates Jamaica's Jewish accuracy rating of a C, the second lowest grading possible (compared to Israel rated an A) What does Della define as a C? "'Base estimate derived from less recent sources and/or unsatisfactory or partial coverage of a country’s Jewish population; updated on the basis of demographic information illustrative of regional demographic trends. " 4) Della claims that Nigerian jews number about 100 and rates this a d, but it is demonstrably false from numerous sources that the number ranges from tens of thousands practicing jews to tens of millions bloodline jews.

Further one must ask, what would qualify Della to give an informed opinion on Jamaican Jews. While judaism (the religion) is much easier to measure theoretically through synagogues- which is what it appear he has done) He has never been to Jamaica and relies on admited unreliable sources. He doesn't measure jamaican jews, but rather Jamaican judaism (jews practicing in a synagogue) There is no reason why his number of 200-300 should be seen as accurate measure of all JEWS. One does not need to attend a Synagogue to be a jew.

Hence Della could be right there are 200-300 jews (in the sense of people practicing judaism) but the jews entry in wiki is broader than that and looks at people with Jew blood lines. Bare in mind, in times of persecution, you had millions of jews who were de facto forbidden from worshipping in synagogues. That would not make them any less of a jew. Hernanday (talk) 00:27, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

I'll try saying this a different way and hope you will comprehend. Your population figure is based on ancestry. It is fairly clear that the existing figures in the infobox have a different basis. If that is so, then your 424,000 figure does not belong there; it would make comparisons meaningless. I suspect there is a basic incompatibility and that that has been the fundamental problem from the start. It's that simple. Don't reply for my sake other than briefly. And please, the adjective is Jewish, and both Jew and Jewish are capitalized words. Hertz1888 (talk) 03:40, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Who changed the infobox?

From what I know, to add/remove people from the infobox you need to have a discussion first. Someone obviously decided that they don't.

Can someone revert it? In my opinion the new selection looks over-big and messy, and it can't be done without a discussion first.

The old selection looked so neat and brilliant with such a nice selection, why add anything? Sure, you can always add more notable Jews, but really, how does it make it look? When someone tells a story (talk) 23:24, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

What a coincidence, we were just talking about the infobox above this.. Anyway, someone reverted there, but keep in mind that you could have simply reverted that as well, at your discretion of course. Looking at the collage from that version, I think some of these people shouldn't be there, nevertheless I insist that we should have 16 people. Yambaram (talk) 00:18, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
I had noticed the additions to the infobox, and also didn't like the fact that the editor didn't even think to discuss this first. On the other hand, his changes weren't all that bad imho, so I decided to wait and see if anybody else would revert, which somebody now did. So let's discuss the pros and cons of his edit now. Debresser (talk) 10:52, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
I see. Glad you do not oppose the harmless idea of a slightly bigger collage. The reason I think we should have 16 people is because 9 is way too little and cannot give a decent representation of notable Jews from different ethnic groups and times in history. The infoboxes in the articles of Ashkenazi, Mizrahi, Sephardi, Ethiopian, and other Jews from different countries and ethnic groups have pictures of Jews from their group only. So on this main article, it would be nice and would make the most sense if notable representatives from as many Jewish ethnic groups/countries were included. Also, 16 is a neat number considering there are about 16 million Jews in the world - one Jew for every million alive. Yambaram (talk) 13:54, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
That was already discussed here, do what I did and take a look at the archive pages, the most fascinating thing I read since the Mishnah. Long long time ago, in a galaxy far far away, people were throwing sentences like "we need a Romanian Jew", "we need a Serb Jew", "we need an Indian Jew", "we need a picture of a bagel". Then someone wise came, like Moses speaking to the sons of Israel, and he suggested something that everyone agreed to. There are as many Jewish communities as there are countries, and you can't represent them all. Let's stick to the major ones: Ashkenazi Jews as one Jewish ethnicity, and Mizrahi/Sephardi Jews as another ethnicity. Ethiopian Jews, Indian Jews... they are too small communities to be represented, again, all those stuff were said and discussed years ago, and I agree with what I read. When people here tried to do what you are suggesting now, it resulted in huge revert wars, conflicts, and if I remember right for a long time there was no pictures here at all because it was just too sensitive issue.
Another thing, it's not ethnic groups. Communities, maybe, but not ethnic group. Jews are one ethnic group few sub-groups. When someone tells a story (talk) 14:25, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
I don't think his changes were bad, the fact is, the people who he added were notable aright. The needle in the tukhus is that almost every Jew could offer another 9 notable people, and each will have a different selection. There is no doubt the 8 people we have now are not the only notable Jews, but it looks classy and it is diverse in occupations. When someone tells a story (talk) 14:25, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
I oppose having 16 people, I think 9 is perfect. don't overload it, let's keep it classy and whatever. I actually think the current selection is perfect, I would not change a thing. We have politics represented (Ben Gurion), arts (Chagal, the best Jewish artist), cinema (Portman, and Academy-award winner, and a woman), Maimonides (probably the most famous Sephardi), literature (Sholem Aleichem, the greatest Yiddish writer), Spinoza (one of the best philosophers, and a Sephardi), anyway, the selection is awesome. When someone tells a story (talk) 14:07, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
Nice humor, thanks for taking the time to read the relevant archive talks. The Category:Jewish ethnic groups considers all of them as ethnic groups, by the way. Of course every one would have different opinions about which additional 7 Jews should be added, and that's why we should discuss it instead of refraining from talking about it just because it's a little complex. I disagree that the current collage is "perfect" or "awesome" as you say. It's nice and was definitely well thought, and I think we should keep all of them, but add 7 more. We could possibly switch these 7 and pick different ones every month. Diversity is a Jewish beauty and uniqueness. Yambaram (talk) 19:46, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
Here is the deal, I oppose adding anyone. If you want to add people, sure, but you need to do few things:
1. Go up to the Mount Sinai for the answer, of as the Rabbi would interpret it, start a discussion to see if people agree with it.
2. While you're on Mount Sinai, make sure you get the 10 Commandments written by stone to get you the authority. In other words, agree with the people what are the criteria's are for the people added, what are the rules. For example, how many women? How many Sephardi (hint: proportion to the world Jewry, that was the original one at least).
3. Derech eretz kadma l'torah. In other words, I agree that we should give respect and keep the original selection, after all, they are very solid and strong arguments were bought in each favor. My favorite ones are Sholem Aleichem, Mark Chagal and Natalie Portman, because I really feel they show the Jewish contribution to world contemporary culture.
4. Picking different Jews every month? Too complicated, the info box is usually a topic people want to close as fast as possible, not something they want to get back to. At the end of the day, Jewish people always wanted one state and to stay in it, not a new state every month.
Where do you want the discussion to happen? Here? When someone tells a story (talk) 20:46, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
I could not have said it better. I would want to keep the present size and stable, well thought-out content. Much as I agree that diversity is a beautiful thing, I think we have achieved a reasonable level of it. As for picking different Jews every month, that would entail interminable discussion among the few of us who care to participate. Let's not. It's not just "a little complex"; it's hugely complex and also gets a bit tedious. As for "insisting" on expanding from 9 to 16, a word of advice: nobody here on WP gets to insist on getting his way; it's against house rules. Collaboration is essential. Hertz1888 (talk) 21:41, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
Very true, especially about the picking different people every month. I looked at other info boxes to see what the Goyim are doing. The only thing I can bring from there, besides to fact I was happy to see they don't blame their issues on the Jews anymore like in the past (except with the Germans. Yes, again. This time some of them really want Karl Marx and Albert Einstein IN the collage), is that they all try to achieve one stable collage that could stay there and represent them. When someone tells a story (talk) 00:12, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks again for nice the explanation. Oh, and next time there's no need for you to say "Derech eretz kadma l'torah" in Hebrew, because coincidentally a few months ago I created the English article for it: Proper behavior precedes the Torah!
Forget about the "switching 7 new people every month" idea. Guys, don't you think that some of the most influential and powerful people in the world, such as the epic Jews Benjamin Netanyahu and Mark Zuckerberg, are missing? You mentioned the Germans's infobox, right? Well, their collage is a lot better. And not necessarily because they have so many people there - this isn't (only) a matter of personal taste here - but because there's only one person alive in "our" current collage, and that's absurd. Yambaram (talk) 03:08, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
Great article by the way, I liked it.
I think Netanyahu will not add anything to the selection. First of all we already have a Prime Minister of Israel in the collage, the first one, and you can't beat that. Second, according to all polls in Israel, the majority of Israel population (including those who vote for him), Netanyahyu is a schmuck.
Zuckerberg is a great suggestion, but there are at least 100 other Jews like him. I mean, Gustav Makhler, Theodor Herzl, Lev Landau, Isaac Asimov, Osip Mandelstam, Golda Meir, Anton Rubinstein, Isaac Levitan, Waldemar Haffkine ("A savior of humanity")... I can go on for ages, but we can't add them all. I don't think he will add anything new to the collage, because what does he represent? Probably Jews in technology and all, but I think Einstein already represents that.
You liked the Germans collage?? Not surprising, for a weird reason, it's very Jewis to like German stuff lately. One of the most popular destinations for Israelis outside of Israel is apparently Berlin (personally, wouldn't set a foot there, but whatever).
I actually think their collage is overloaded, but I was talking about something else. Have you read the Germans talk page? They have two Jews in the collage, Marx and Einstein, and when a bunch of Jews on the talk page asked to remove them (because the article obviously talks about Germans as an ethnic group, so putting two Jews in the selection basically implies that Jews are not an ethnic group but rather only a religion), funny enough, the Germans started blaming the Jews who complained in "anti-Semitism", and apparently, "that's how the holocaust started, saying that Jews are not Germans".
No, the holocaust didn't start because someone said Jews are not Germans, the holocaust started when some crazy freak implied that those who are not German are less human. The paradox is, those German guys are being racist without even meaning to. I mean, by making Jews German in order to "protect them", they basically imply that the only way for Jews to be treated fairly and equally is if they become Germans. When someone tells a story (talk) 09:23, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
Okay, I'll respond in order.
There are no "100 other Jews" like Mark Zuckerberg. Zuckerberg is consistently selected as the most influential Jew in the world, and is annually ranked among the highest in lists of the most powerful people in the world. This is what he represents. Einstein represents science from over 50 years ago, while Zuckerberg would represent technology, and much more (I mean more than just technology, not more than Einstein;)
Hey, and don't over-interpret my words. I said I like the German's collage simply because I randomly found it and liked the way it looks. I'm Israeli, and apparently like you European countries (excluding the UK) are probably my last destination. As hard economic times hit Israel, it's hard to judge young IDF 'graduates' who want to make it in the world and leave for Berlin... (shouldn't we be discussing this on our own talk pages?) The "not surprising" part you wrote was a bit offensive, especially to an Ashkenazi like me, whose family relative's past with the Germans is... You know.
I find what happened with Karl Marx and Albert Einstein on the Germans' collage and talk page quite interesting. I personally wouldn't be opposed to having these two in that collage, as Jews are defined both by religion and ethnicity, though it's a very uncertain subject. But kindly just be careful not to go too far with your input ["those German guys are being racist without even meaning to"]... Anyway, let me be more clear: I personally like any collage that features a large number of people. It should be done here is well - having nine people almost seems to imply that there aren't enough notable Jews to populate this collage, when in fact the opposite is the truth. Yambaram (talk) 23:05, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
I agree about what you said about Zuckerberg, but I still don't see who to put him instead in the collage. My main thing is, will Facebook survive or be a trend ? I think time will tell exactly how much Zuckerberg is influential.
I'm sorry my words came across differently, I understand what you meant, and started talking about the topic as a "by the way". Sorry it came out the wrong way. The reason I find it racist Germans have two Jews in the collage is because they are trying to make Jews look like only a religious group and not an ethnic group. The fact is, they didn't agree to change the article focus to Germans as German citizens, and decided to keep the article very ethnical, which means they imply German Jews are German by blood and only Jewish by faith.
I understand young Israelis who go abroad, but Berlin (or Germany in general) is not a destination I understand.
It was a joke and I'm sorry it came out offensive, when I re-read what I wrote to you I understand how he came out, I am by no way implying to have any masochistic affection for Germany (some Jews do my love).
I don't agree that nine people almost seems to imply that there aren't enough notable Jews to populate this collage, in fact, I think everyone knows that. That is exactly my point! The fact we have such a modest yet logical collage is what makes it such a winner. — Preceding unsigned comment added by When someone tells a story (talkcontribs) 18:34, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
I agree that 9 is the perfect number. Debresser (talk) 21:43, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
I like the idea of 16, including more living figures and more women. Why are 7 of the 9 current figures men? Beebop211 (talk) 04:38, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
Apparently, because there are more well-know Jewish men than women. Debresser (talk) 17:27, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
I would expect it to be 8 out of 9 per the survey of recent deaths. That study "examined 7756 biographical Wikipedia articles about people who had died between 2009 and 2011" and found that 84% of the articles were about men. so, the gender bias persists. Frietjes (talk) 15:03, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
{Sigh}. Beebop211 (talk) 02:02, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

The Word "Jew" Simply Means from the Tribe of Judah

The word Jew simply means from the tribe of Judah. The word Jew is directly derived from the word Judah. There were actually 12 tribes of Israel so technically if a person is descendant of one of these other tribes and not Judah they are not a Jew. Although they are all Israelites. The word Jewish means "Like a Jew". Someone can be called Jewish but not even be a blood Jew simply because they practice the ways of a Jew. The "ish" on the end of Jew turns it into an adjective that describes what someone is like but not actually what they are like. For instance a person can be called "devilish" because they are like a devil but not actually be the devil. I believe these facts should be added to the lead of the article. 2602:306:C518:6C40:DDC7:CB30:942:8FFE (talk) 15:20, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

I think we have the origin of the word "Jew" from "tribe of Yehudah" in the article. Debresser (talk) 17:29, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
Terms such as Jew and Jewish and others are often used in various ways, which is confusing for many. I shall start a new section related to this topic. And I do agree that some discussion about the confusion of terms is highly relevant to the article, and needs to be incorporated into it if it is not already. (I didn't check.) See my new section, to be added in a moment. Thanks for bringing this up. Misty MH (talk) 20:45, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Terms such as Jews, Jew, Jewish, and others

Terms such as Jews, Jew, Jewish, and others have been and are still used in ways that may be confusing for hearers and readers. This is significant to the topic and to the article. In common practice, these terms are used to mean many of the meanings listed below, depending on context of usage. This has been confusing to people for a long time, and sometimes still is. Some clear mention of this should be included in the article, if it has not been done already.

  • I am writing most of this in reference to how I have perceived these terms to be used in the USA, as that is what I am most familiar with, and particularly near the NW coast.
  • Because of confusion and uncertainty, a reader and listener may need to be thinking about which an author means: Race, Religion, Culture, Tribe (of Judah), or Other.

"Jew" vs. "Jewish" – As to usage in the USA today (NW coast):

  • The term "Jew" often refers to a person's race, and seems to not be used as often in reference to the religion. In much of contemporary literature/writing, it may occasionally refer to a Tribe distinction – meaning, being from the Tribe of Judah and not another of the 12 Tribes – but that is more likely to occur when the topic of Tribes itself is being discussed. It is also used in reference to the Nation of Israel (more below).
  • The term "Jews" is often used the same way as the term "Jew", but it depends on the user and the context.
  • The term "Jewish" seems to regularly refer to either religion or race, depending on context. It is also used in reference to the Nation of Israel.

Other terms – As to usage in the USA today (NW coast):

  • The term "Israel" is often used in the Bible in reference to the whole Nation, but sometimes as a distinction between the Kingdoms when they split into the Kingdom of Israel and the Kingdom of Judah. It may be at times used interchangeably with other terms here. It is also used in reference to the Nation of Israel.
  • The term "Israelite" is common but hasn't taken over the word "Jew" entirely in usage, especially in speech. It usually if not always refers to the Nation Israel or to Race. I have not seen it used in reference to religion. It may sound funny, but it may at times be also used in reference to the Nation of Israel, or to the people of the Nation of Israel.
  • The Bible itself seems to use multiple terms; though, "Israelite" isn't one that I recall seeing in the English versions that I am most familiar with. I do not recall seeing it used much in reference to the Nation of Israel, but it may be.
  • The term "Hebrew" seems to hardly ever be used in colloquial speech to refer to race or ethnicity. It is, however, sometimes used in this way in literature related to the topic, and in reference to the Bible.
  • The terms "Jew" and "Jewish" are regularly used – in speech and in writing – to refer to many of the above. Even a single author or speaker may use the terms in multiple ways. This is not uncommon, and may help lead to confusion at times. Unless religion is specifically being discussed, these two terms may more often refer to race/ethnicity, or to the Nation of Israel, or to Culture (food, etc.); they seem to be seldom used to refer to someone as from the Tribe of Judah. In the Bible "New Testament", my recollection is that they are often used in reference to the people as a whole, or to a single person, or to the Nation of Israel, and on occasion used in reference to religion, depending on the English version being used.
  • Usage of these various terms, of course, almost certainly depends on the region, the people using it, on various contexts, and on various purposes of use.
  • Some of the terms here are used interchangeably; some might sound odd in certain contexts where usage is less common.
  • Often a term that is being used can be understood by its context of usage. And I think that in this case, this may be one of the best ways to determine its intended meaning (other than by asking).

Other thoughts:

  • I think that confusion over the usage of these terms added considerably to the ability of those promoting antisemitism etc. to succeed in their efforts. I see more consciousness of these issues being brought to the fore, but I don't see clear resolutions becoming prominent. Therefore, it seems a worthy topic to discuss and resolve in international affairs, and for the sake of all involved.
  • I did not consult any usage references for this discussion here, or any experts for their opinions. If there are any mistakes herein, my apologies, as this was in large part based on my own observations – and on previous discussions – and was off the top of my head.
  • How Jews themselves (of all types) wish to use these terms is worthy of research, and possibly worthy of a separate article on that topic (if one does not already exist).
  • "Honor all" people!

Misty MH (talk) 21:12, 8 May 2014 (UTC) Misty MH (talk) 21:10, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

If you wish to add comments, please do so below, not above. Thanks! Misty MH (talk) 21:13, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

The word Jew

Plenty of trolling
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Looking for rebuttals to learn:

The word j e uu did not exist in english language until 300-400 years ago. Where did it come from and who created it? The word j e uu in the hebrew bible in the OT has been corrupted from Judahite or Judean it depends on the verse. In the NT the word j e uu is corrupted from Judean (maybe Judahite too).

The word j e uu (again which should be Judean or Judahite) does not appear until 10 books into the hebrew bible long after Abraham Isaac Jacob and the head of all the 12 tribes and several generations after them are all dead. So why is this in the opening statement?

בני ישראל, Standard: Bnai Yisraʾel; Tiberian: Bnai Yiśrāʾēl; ISO 259-3: Bnai Yiśraʾel, translated as: "Children of Israel" or "Sons of Israel"

Get rid of that hebrew word and replace it with tribe of Judah (assuming you want to claim descent from him) because Israel was Jacob and he had 11 other sons other than Judah (because Judah is one of the words which has been corrupted to j e uu in the OT).

Please show me the unbroken genealogy going back 4000 years to Judah to back up your claim or it is pure ipse dixit with no citation.

And what is with this claim

Aristotle believed that the Jews came from India, where he said that they were known as the Kalani.[37]

Which then links to Josephus?

Themainman69 (talk) 05:18, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Ashkenazi, Sephardi and Mizrahi Jews (excluding Yemenite Jews) all have a common genetic tie back to the pre Islamic east Mediterranean/west Asian world roughly 2,500 years ago (that's when AJs and SJs diverged from MJs). The word Jew is indeed not very old, but neither is gay for homosexuals, words change. P.S just because Aristotle said that doesn't mean it's true. Guy355 (talk) 08:02, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for that info where can i see the study? Yeh i know the link about Aristotle goes to Josephus page. For any 'jews' reading this do you claim descent only from Judah? Obv you would need Judahs DNA to confirm this or an unbroken genealogical record going back 4000 years both of which dont exist so maybe it should be emphasized it is part of judaism religions tradition (or religious myth if you will) to claim descent from such figure in the bible and is in no way 'provable'?

Themainman69 (talk) 09:14, 25 July 2014 (UTC)


The only people who actually claim descent from the 12 tribes tend to be religious people, and they tend to believe things that have no proof to back it up. All I said is that Ashkenazi, Sephardi and Mizrahi Jews share a common ancestry in the middle east, and that these share genetic similarities with other pre Islamic east Mediterraneans/west Asians such as Druze, Samaritans, Armenians and Cypriots. Ashkenazi Jews also share genetic similarities with Maltese and Sicilians, European population with recent ties to the near east. Here are the links:

[1]

[2] Guy355 (talk) 09:22, 25 July 2014 (UTC)


Ok so you are ashkenazi ( i can show by logic where you came from in the bible but its not for this page i guess) do you claim descent from Jacob (Israel) or no? If no please change the hebrew word that says 'sons of Israel' as millions of people are misled by this claim. Themainman69 (talk) 10:28, 25 July 2014 (UTC)


Yeah I'm ethnically Ashkenazi, doesn't mean that I'm an ultra religious Zionist who believes that all Jews descend from just 12 tribes, on the contrary, I'm an irreligious person, neutral to Zionism, who claims that the Israelites were in fact Canaanites who worshiped local Canaanite gods until the Babylonian captivity. I do know that Ashkenaz is believed to be the area of the Rhineland/Alsace region, although twas once thought to be Scythia and the northern coast of the black sea. Just because the bible says something however, it doesn't make it so. Rashi who was a Jewish rabbi in northern France during the 11th century, he was the first to call the Jews of the Rhineland/Alsace region Jews of Ashkenaz. Regardless, he never called them "natives", Jews of that region we're considered foreign by the state and heretics by the church, and by the time of the crusades were persecuted and forced to live in a Jewish quarter. Genetic studies show that Ashkenazi Jews share closest genetic similarities with Sephardi and north African Jews, and that they seem to share a common Middle eastern heritage, when it comes to non Jewish populations Ashkenazi Jews share closest genetic similarities with other pre Islamic east Mediterraneans/west Asians such as Cypriots, Druze, Armenians etc, with the only European populations close to them being Maltese and Sicilians who themselves have recent ties to the eastern Mediterranean. I showed you the sources, I hope you read them or will read them, for they just show the facts, if the facts would have shown that Ashkenazi Jews are genetically closest to Central Europeans such as Germans and Poles, it would have been obvious that Ashkenazi Jews don't have a recent connection to the Levant. Good examples for Jewish populations made up mainly of converts are Ethiopian Jews, Yemenite Jews, Indian Jews (from India) and Chinese Jews, all of them share closest genetic similarities with their host populations, although they do seem to have some ancient Levantine ancestry.

P.S Do I claim descent from Jacob? No, considering the fact that the patriarchs were mythical characters most likely, their historicity is highly unlikely, like the historicity of Hercules, the patriarchs are part of Jewish mythology, however many Jews relate to this mythology (unfortunately some don't admit it's not true) and see themselves as the "children of Israel", so what if they see themselves this way? It's part of their tradition, just like the Romans believed themselves to be descended from Hercules, so did the Spartans. Guy355 (talk) 10:39, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Ok i am changing the lede statement from " originating from the Israelites" to something like " it is a part of judaic tradition to claim descent from the israelites'. You say your are irreligious and then you cite a rabbi, so your religion is judaism (phariseeism). How is it that jews know history so well? The talmud? You have kept the christians in the dark of pre BC history i guess because you dont want them to realise how real the bible really is and the whole Jesus was an imposter stuff. Themainman69 (talk) 11:12, 25 July 2014 (UTC)


It's not just a claim, genetically speaking it seems highly likely. I am irreligious, it doesn't mean I can't cite people from the middle ages, back then almost everyone was religious. No I have no religion. It's not that Jews know history so well, it's that some Jews recorded things that were going on. We have kept the Christians in the dark? LOL, no... We don't want people to realise the bible is true history? Mate, the Jews wrote the old testament, most religious Jews still take it seriously, it were archaeologists and historians that realised there's no cutting evidence for many of the bible story. I'm not saying Jesus was a fraud, there's just no cutting evidence he rose from the dead, and the only records about him come from after his death. Guy355 (talk) 11:18, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

The torah which your race is oh so fond of was written by Moses the levite and does not contain the word Judahite or Judean once (which has been corrupted to jew in english bibles) you need to get your definitions of israelites and judeans/Judahites correct. Im not doubting the middle eastern origin of 'jews' just the ipse dixit claim of descending from the bible israelites (which you claim are a myth and yet still want to claim descent from them based on your re edit of my edit LOL). Themainman69 (talk) 11:22, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

You can't change sourced information, the Middle eastern heritage of most Jews is backed up by evidence, genetic, archaeological, historical etc. In fact, the lack of records from external biblical sources for many stories in the bible i.e the Exodus, the patriarchs etc makes these stories unlikely to be true. And no, I'll repeat, just because I source a Jewish rabbi doesn't mean I'm religiously Jewish, most people back then were religious, and that rabbi didn't claim anything, he just called those Jews the Jews of Ashkenaz. ... The Torah is made up of the first 5 books of the bible or the first 5 books of the old Testament, without that you have no Judaism or Christianity. Jews aren't a race, we're a nation, an ethnoreligious group, a religion and an ethnicity, but not a race, some are made up of converts, some from the ancient Israelites. The Torah wasn't written by Moses, there's no evidence Moses ever existed, it was put together during the Babylonian captivity in order to establish Monotheism and the worship of Yahweh alone. Listen, the bible doesn't have to be true, people who wrote it had an agenda, it's archaeology , genetics etc that makes the Middle eastern origin of most Jews plausible. Some things that are written in the bible are true, some aren't, the Israelites did exist, they were a Canaanite Polytheistic people until the Babylonian exile when they became Monotheistic, when they became Jews. the fact that most Jews share a common ancestry in the Middle east around 2,500 years ago makes the Israelite origin plausible, however the stories of the Exodus are unlikely, instead of coming from Egypt, the Israelites were a native Canaanite people. Guy355 (talk) 11:28, 25 July 2014 (UTC)


Just because the Romans claimed descent from a mythical character, doesn't mean the Romans didn't exist. The same case for Jews, Greeks, Japanese etc. Guy355 (talk) 11:34, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

It's like asking the Greeks to claim they have the same DNA of Hercules, Jacob was a mythical character, part of Israelite mythology, stop mixing biblical Israelites with historical Israelites. Guy355 (talk) 11:39, 25 July 2014 (UTC)


Are you going to ask the Greeks to prove their descent of the ancient Greeks? What about asking the Chinese to prove their link to the ancient Chinese? In all these cases genetic studies show these populations came from the region of their ancient ancestors. Guy355 (talk) 11:42, 25 July 2014 (UTC)


And there is a link between modern Jews and the Israelites, Hebrew is a Canaanite language, Judaism still has some remains from the Israelite Mosaic religion. Guy355 (talk) 11:44, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

I see you have no regard for truth nor wikipedias verifiability standard. I will report you next re edit. I have a duty as a wiki editor to keep religious nuts like you from claiming your religious myths/traditions as historical facts when there is 0 verifiable proof for them. Themainman69 (talk) 11:45, 25 July 2014 (UTC)


I'M NOT BLOODY RELIGIOUS!!!!!!! Please separate the biblical Israelites from the historical ones! I'll add sources. Guy355 (talk) 11:48, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Sir/Ma'am it seems like you don't have any regards for archaeology and genetics. Guy355 (talk) 11:48, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

FYI I already reported you for POV pushing and removal of sourced information. Guy355 (talk) 11:49, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

There is no mention of the israelites in the 2 literatures you cited and the other wiki page with the section on israelites has a link for a citation which is back to the same wiki page. There is no citations for your ipse dixit fallacy claim of descent from Jacob. Editors we have a judaism religious nut here claiming his religions myths as facts and violating wikis verifiability and citation rules. Why is this so important to your religion? I am changing it back. Themainman69 (talk) 11:57, 25 July 2014 (UTC)


But descending from Jacob has nothing to do with the Israelites, Jacob was a mythical character. I'm not religious, I'm looking at the facts. Guy355 (talk) 11:59, 25 July 2014 (UTC)


I placed sources for genetic studies showing the common Middle eastern ancestry of Jews, and the Wikipedia link is related to the HISTORICAL Israelites. Guy355 (talk) 12:00, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

I told you, I'm not religious, however genetic, archaeological and linguistic evidence suggests a descent from the Israelites, and NOT FROM THE PATRIARCHS, who are mythical characters created by the Israelites. Guy355 (talk) 12:02, 25 July 2014 (UTC)


The fact that most Jews share genetic ties, that most Jewish Cohens as well as some Palestinians have genetic ties, suggests a pre Islamic east Mediterranean/west Asian origin, which is probably Israelite considering the historical, linguistic and cultural connection to them. Guy355 (talk) 12:04, 25 July 2014 (UTC)


The 3 literature studies make no mention of the israelites (no one cares about the middle east descent its your ipse dixit religious myth about Jacob that violates wikis rules) and the wiki link citation goes back to the wiki page (original research verifiability citation you are violating all 3).

LOL you cant have ISRAEL-ites (defined by descending from Jacob renamed Israel) with out JACOB.Themainman69 (talk) 12:06, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

YES YOU CAN, because the mention of Israel existed BEFORE Jacob was ever mentioned as a mythical character. Guy355 (talk) 12:07, 25 July 2014 (UTC)


The name Israel first appears c. 1209 BCE, in an inscription of the Egyptian pharaoh Merneptah. The inscription is very brief and says simply: "Israel is laid waste and his seed is not". Jacob was probably created around the Iron age, long afterwards. Guy355 (talk) 12:08, 25 July 2014 (UTC)


The Israelites CAME from the Middle east, they came from there, the studies aren't about bloody literature they're about genetics, and they talk about the common ties most Jews share and they're orientation to the near east, and WHO DID THEY SHARE TIES WITH FROM THAT REGION? The Israelites. Just because some things written about the Israelites are mythical, doesn't bloody well mean it's all mythical. Guy355 (talk) 12:09, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

How many times am I supposed to tell you I'm not religious? These studies talk about connections to the Middle east, and the population that most Jews claim descent from are the Israelites, who came from the near east, this isn't about religion. Guy355 (talk) 12:14, 25 July 2014 (UTC) So from that one inscription you draw the religious interpretation that a group of people whom your religion calls the 'historical israelites' existed and you descended from them? Seperate your religious myth from VERIFIABILITY. There is not ONE mention of the israelites in those 3 literatures you cited. This isnt hard FIND A PRIMARY SOURCE AND CITE IT. Themainman69 (talk) 12:14, 25 July 2014 (UTC)


Are you blind and deaf? Can't you see I say I'm irreligious? I took the sources that unfortunately aren't available on the internet, they're in books, AND they're on the page of historical Israelites, that's why I cited that. Guy355 (talk) 12:17, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Oh, what luck, I found the link. Guy355 (talk) 12:18, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Here, you wanted a source? Here it is. [3] Guy355 (talk) 12:20, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

No one cares about studies about the middle east, the other link is to the historical israelite page and one link is back to the same wiki page. Its obvious you go to lot of effort for your religious myth. Cite the study showing descent from the historical israelites then oh wait you would need their DNA which doesnt exist. Get over your religion before you fly a plane into a building for it. What page of that book? Themainman69 (talk) 12:23, 25 July 2014 (UTC)


That's the source, Jesus Christ... Are you a troll? I told you I'm not religious! And that's the source! Unfortunately Israelite DNA hasn't been sampled as of yet. Guy355 (talk) 12:25, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Why don't you go to the page of Greeks and delete their claim to the ancient Greeks because ancient Greeks haven't been sampled? The only reason you bother this page is because of the bloody bible. Guy355 (talk) 12:26, 25 July 2014 (UTC)


The Israelites themselves weren't a myth, some of the stories in the bible aren't true. I gave you a source, but it's still not enough for you. Guy355 (talk) 12:27, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Listen, I have an idea, how about I change it to "who claim descent from the Israelites"? Good enough? Guy355 (talk) 12:28, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

LOL SOUNDS GOOD TO ME !!! Themainman69 (talk) 12:29, 25 July 2014 (UTC)


There, I changed it. Now, I think there's been a misunderstanding, I'M NOT AND I REPEAT, AM NOT A RELIGIOUS FANATIC, I'm not religious at all, the fact that I'm ethnically Jewish doesn't mean I'm religious, Jews are an ethnoreligious group, they're a religion but also an ethnicity. Much of what's written in the bible has no proof to back it up. Most Jews genetically have ties to the middle east, thus it makes it likely that there's a connection to the Israelites, but I suppose that that still doesn't make it certain. Just like the claim of the Greeks to descend from the ancient Greeks huh? Anyways I just want to make it clear that there's non biblical evidence, archaeological and historical to the historicity of the Israelites (although not entirely to what the bible claims). But I suppose you had an issue that there's no genetic evidence for that? Well until the remains of an Israelite are sampled we won't know for certain. Anyways, are you a Christian? an Atheist? Or what? I for example am an Atheist and NOT A RELIGIOUS FANATIC. Guy355 (talk) 12:32, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

The expression of a pov regarding "trolling" in a title to close a tread is, in my pov, trolling. Please either substantiate defamatory claims, such as in that summary, or withdraw them Gregkaye (talk) 08:32, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Jews from a different view.

More trolling
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

http://postimg.org/image/9ft4643sn/ - Taken from The History of Czech Lands. http://postimg.org/image/iiik3pvzx/ - The most famous Jew in all history had a surname Jesus of Nazarath. http://postimg.org/image/dnkd8or8p/ Jews are from Palestine and Isreal did'nt exist before 1948. http://postimg.org/image/dwf52watd/ At least one Jew had 3 surnames in the 16th century. (Note not German). http://postimg.org/image/kskoyx3oz/ Just proof of the years and who was King/ Emperor at these times. http://postimg.org/image/4w0inanjh/ - Taken from Military Technology MILTECH 1/1988. Poof of Us military and financial aid going back a long way. (1) http://postimg.org/image/9hjrt6i7t/ -Taken from Military Technology MILTECH 1/1988. Poof of Us military and financial aid going back a long way (2) http://postimg.org/image/5yjxx4111/ -Taken from Military Technology MILTECH 1/1988. Poof of Us military and financial aid going back a long way (3) http://postimg.org/image/gn6gyi5kd/ -Taken from Military Technology MILTECH 1/1988. Poof of Us military and financial aid going back a long way (4) http://postimg.org/image/nde7zzfhr/ - Taken from Military Technology MILTECH 1/1988. Poof of Us military and financial aid going back a long way (5) I am no expert but would it not be fair to say that the fair Jews are from Europe and the the forgive me the darker ones from Palestine. If you went on a website like Ancestory.com and checked why so many Jews have German or German like names. Also many Jews did change there names in Prussian times too. But this is my opinion and you have a right to see many views from everyone. Name withheld sorry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.33.12.215 (talk) 05:21, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

The expression of a pov regarding "trolling" in a title to close a tread is, in my pov, trolling. Please either substantiate defamatory claims, such as in that summary, or withdraw them Gregkaye (talk) 08:32, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

For their religion, law and culture, see Judaism.

This article is about the Jewish people. For their religion, law and culture, see Judaism.

This seems vaguely to imply that modern-day Jews are, definitionally, adherents of Judaism, which is not neutral or correct. Shouldn't the word "historical" be in there, or am I missing something? TiC (talk) 00:15, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

You got a point. I'm ethnically Ashkenazi Jewish but I never adhered to Judaism, I eat pork while eating chocolate, I celebrate Christmas and don't keep the Sabbath, the last time I went to a Synagogue was when I was 13, I was raised Irreligious and Irreligious I am, and I'm certainly not the only one. Guy355 (talk) 05:05, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Although there is indeed such implication, I would argue that most Jews do agree that Judaism is both their religious and cultural heritage. So I see nothing wrong with that implication. It makes eminent sense to connect Judaism - in the broad sense of religion and culture both, with Jews. Guy355, may I assume that even while being irreligious, you would culturally/ethnically call yourself a Jew? If so, than my point is made. Debresser (talk) 09:59, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I do see myself as ethnically Jewish, it's not something one can change, if Judaism was only a religion, like Christianity or Islam, then I wouldn't see myself as Jewish, but since Jews are also an ethnicity, then ethnically speaking I'm Jewish, whether I like it or not. Guy355 (talk) 10:48, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

A hat note of some type may be appropriate as the above exchange illustrates general confusion on the issue. For example: If a Christian woman converts to Judasim are her children ethnically/culturally Jewish by birth? Her grandchildren? What if her children then decide to become Muslim, are their children still Jewish? Their grandchildren? When does it stop/start? The answers could only come from clergy and have nothing to do with genetic science. In an encyclopaedia it should be clear what an article is about: a religious cultural history or genetics. The topics are indeed wildly different. Also, on above exchange, please note WP:Forum Lexlex (talk) 06:11, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
Well, since Jews are an ethnicity and a religion, a person can be only religiously Jewish, or only ethnically Jewish, or both. If a person converts to Judaism, and is only religiously Jewish, then his children convert to Islam, then I suppose the children aren't Jewish, because they aren't Jewish ethnically (they don't belong to any of the Jewish ethnic divisions) or religiously speaking. Guy355 (talk) 09:26, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
You have described a term which has two distinct meanings which seems to support a disambiguation page and two separate articles: one for the religious aspects and one for genetic aspects. Perhaps we can some some consensus or feedback from others? Lexlex (talk) 10:21, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Maybe, but let's not forget that genetically speaking Jews aren't exactly a tight knit group, there are plenty of ethnic divisions, but the ethnic divisions (especially Ashkenazi Jews) tend to plot together. And Ashkenazi and Sephardi (especially Turkish and Greek Sephardi) Jews share a high percentage of IBD (identity by descent), and Ashkenazi, Sephardi and Mizrahi Jews seem to share a common ancestry going back to the middle east 2,500 years ago, twas around that time when the Ashkenazis/Sephardis diverged from the Mizrahis. Of course, there are the smaller ethnic divisions that descend largely from converts, Beta Israel (Ethiopian Jews), Yemenite Jews, Bene Israel (Indian Jews from India) and the Kaifeng Jews (Chinese Jews), these share greater similarities with and plot next to their former host populations. Guy355 (talk) 10:25, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

This article[1] may lend some useful perspective, along with Ethnoreligious group. Hertz1888 (talk) 10:27, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
If consensus were to agree, what should the two articles be called: Judaism (Religion) and Judaism (Ethnicity)? These names seem pretty straightforward and would allow editors the freedom to expand on both aspects. Lexlex (talk) 12:02, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

I have no problem with that, but Judaism isn't an ethnicity, Jews are, so I'd say Jews (religion) and Jews (ethnicity). Guy355 (talk) 13:30, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

The traditional view (and it's a social view, made by rabbis many centuries ago), is that someone is either born to Jewish parent/s or converts and becomes Jewish. Just like the article says, nothing too complicated. And Peoplehood concept by the way doesn't have to be about genetics and probably usually isn't. Is there a specific chromosome that makes someone Hungarian (for example}? of course not. Some Wiki users really need to stop with their "genetic nationalism". Yuvn86 (talk) 16:05, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Did I see a rename proposal? Specifics, please. A priori I am against changing any of the related article names. Debresser (talk) 21:58, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

I really don't think it's appropriate to split the article; the concept of Jewishness inherently conflates religion, nationality, and ethnicity, you have to take these things as you find them rather than imposing your own standards.
I actually was just suggesting to add one word, "historical," to the dab note; I don't know why it prompted all the above... something. TiC (talk) 07:21, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough, but that means that Irreligion has to be added, it's without a doubt that many if not most Jews worldwide are Irreligious, well, maybe not most, but many, and to just say "Judaism" is beyond dishonest, it's downright inaccurate. Guy355 (talk) 07:25, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree it's currently very unclear. If the article isn't split, how should it be classified or noted when someone is speaking about: a) cultural aspects; b) genetic aspects; c) religious aspects? Mixing it all together in one article without any clear delineation of which aspect is being discussed does a disservice to the reader. Religion is not science and vice versa. If a reader wanted to learn more about a genetic claim he currently has to guess which one of many similarly named articles has the information and dig through intermixed cultural and religious claims attempting to define peoplehood. All of it is important, but the reader should know if it's scientific fact or a religious claim. Lexlex (talk) 07:54, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

I fail to see the point for splitting this article. Jews are one nation, religious or not. Debresser (talk) 16:45, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't see the point either. The article is about the Jews, with all their hetrogeneity. If there are ambiguities in the article, we can simply say so – with proper sourcing as necessary. Let's move on. Hertz1888 (talk) 17:25, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
So let me repeat: how should it be classified or noted when someone is speaking about: a) cultural aspects; b) genetic aspects; c) religious aspects? Mixing it all together in one article without any clear delineation of which aspect is being discussed does a disservice to the reader. It's really unclear. How can this be made simpler? Lexlex (talk) 13:21, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
I think that is important to note that Ethnicity encompasses far more than ancestry and genetics. It also includes religion, language, cultural practices, diet, education, and social circles. Personally, I consider myself ethnically Jewish though my ancestry isn't. I grew up in a heavily Jewish neighborhood, had Jewish childhood friends, dated Jewish women, later married a genetically Jewish woman, fathered Jewish sons, and was formally converted to Judaism nearly 20 years ago by a Conservative bet din. There are many Hebrew and Yiddish words in my vocabulary, I have been president of my synagogue, I eat only kosher meat, I have visited Israel twice, and I collect Judaica. Though half Scandinavian by ancestry, I have no special interest in Scandinavian ethnicity. I accept Guy355 as ethnically Jewish as well, despite that pork thing. Jewish ethnicity is complex but real and much more than ancestry. I oppose splitting this article, and the questions Lexlex raises should be addressed by more specific wording and phrasing. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:46, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Cullen328 That's fine, I reckon you're more Jewish than me, despite genetic studies suggesting I'm 95.1% Ashkenazi, I personally only see myself as Ashkenazi Jewish by ethnicity because of ancestry and genetics, if I had to describe myself culturally I'd describe myself as Western/Anglo Saxon/Aussie, linguistically I'd describe myself as an English speaking Aussie because English is my native language and I come from an English speaking country. To be frank (I do hope I don't offend anybody) if I didn't belong to the Ashkenazi Jewish ethnic division or indeed, any Jewish ethnic division by ancestry and genetics, I wouldn't be Jewish at all, nothing really ties me to it. Guy355 (talk) 06:36, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't compare degrees of Jewishness, Guy355. We are just different kinds of Jews. That's completely OK with me. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 18:10, 10 August 2014 (UTC)


Alright. Guy355 (talk) 05:49, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Infobox pictures

I want to make a change to the top right box with pictures of famous Jews, and would like to note it here for all to see, and anyone to make suggestions.

I am using a list of 100 people from adherents.com, which itself cites "The Jewish 100: A Ranking of the Most Influential Jews of all Time" (Citadel Press Book, 1994), written by Michael Shapiro, a composer from New York.

I will also make sure to check the wikipedia page of the linked person to make sure there are no mistakes.

I will use 4 columns and 5 rows, resulting in 20 choices, focusing on the most famous names.

As I am unable to make these changes, I was hoping someone who was able to could help.

The list I wish to use (suggestions welcome): 1) Jesus of Nazareth 2) Albert Einstein 3) Sigmund Freud 4) Karl Marx 5) Baruch de Spinoza 6) Maimonides 7) Niels Bohr 8) Benjamin Disraeli 9) Franz Kafka 10) David Ben-Gurion 11) Lenny Bruce 12) Michael Dell 13) Noam Chomsky 14) Scarlett Johansson 15) Jonas Salk 16) Henry Kissinger 17) Emma Goldman 18) Harry Houdini 19) Bob Dylan 20) Steven Spielberg

Haimson (talk) 00:47, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Update. I made the edit. Haimson (talk) 00:58, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Good-faith edit reverted. Layout and content of the infobox montage have been established by consensus. (Previous discussions on this page have been archived.) A new consensus would be required to adopt any of your proposed changes. Hertz1888 (talk) 02:26, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Hi Hertz1888. I'm new here. How can we get a new consensus established? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haimson (talkcontribs) 15:39, 23 July 2014 (UTC) Haimson (talk) 16:28, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
It involves waiting patiently for responses and discussion to develop. I would not be optimistic about the outcome. Many of your choices were previously rejected, and the increased number of images as well. Hertz1888 (talk) 15:56, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

The list is OK mate i support it but you should add Natalie Portman and Bar Refaeli as well they are more famous than some of these people on your list.. elmasmelih 13:33, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

I think the current infobox is brilliant! It's not overcrowded, and the fact that it's 3 lines of 3 allows to save space on width yet use larger images. The selection is also brilliant. I love the fact Sholem Aleichem was used, the most important Yiddish writer, and Marc Chagall, the greatest Jewish painter. I also love the balance between Ashkenazi and Sephardi & Mizrahi Jews. 2 Sephardic Jews out of 9, which is very fair if you look at the percentage of Sephardi Jews out of world Jewry in general (which is around 20%). My opinion is don't change anything. One of the best collages I've seen on Wikipedia, and I don't exaggerate. I also love the fact the names are written right under the picture!

The list you suggested is to American-centered, doesn't consider the balance between Ashkenazis and Mizrahis, and using Jesus...? We don't have an authentic image of him, and to be honest, we don't even know if he existed. And how can you suggest a Jews list without Sholem Aleichem, Marc Chagall? And why do you need to cause controversy by suggesting Noam Chomsky and Emma Goldman? Why not suggest Trotsky as well? we are trying to avoid controversy, why light a bonfire? It's good to keep it "small" and simple, something everyone agrees on.

I understand you meant good, but people really need to try and change infoboxes just for the sake of it or so they could pet themselves on the back "that's mine infobox!". This is a really great infobox with a good selection, right balance and good style. Unless you have a really good idea that can really help it or improve it, what is the point suggesting something just for the sake of it? Each and everyone of us can create their own Jews infobox, but what is the point? 90.198.246.7 (talk) 22:06, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Number of Jews in Hungary

The World Jewish Congress estimates there are 35,000–120,000 Jews in Hungary. The demographer Sergio DellaPergola ("widely acknowledged as the leading authority in demography and statistics related to the Jewish population all over the world") estimates 48,600. I believe DellaPergola is more accurate. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 19:26, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Alright. That is the core population, presumably. However, I think it would be appropriate to list a full estimation in all of its range not just pick the median value and go with it, and speaking of ranges here the numbers may vary: DellaPergola 48,600–85,000 versus WJC 35,000–120,000, ADL/news figure always c.100,000. That was my only issue with it. ItsAlwaysLupus (talk) 00:48, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Proposal: Change David Ben Gurion with Golda Meir

Hi,

First of all, I must say the current collage is brilliant. It's not overcrowded, and the fact that it's 3 lines of 3 allows to save space on width yet use larger images. The selection is also brilliant. I love the fact Sholem Aleichem was used, the most important Yiddish writer, and Marc Chagall, the greatest Jewish painter. I also love the balance between Ashkenazi and Sephardi & Mizrahi Jews. 2 Sephardic Jews out of 9, which is very fair if you look at the percentage of Sephardi Jews out of world Jewry in general (which is around 20%). My opinion is don't change anything. One of the best collages I've seen on Wikipedia.

I have one suggestion which is: Insert Golda Meir instead of David Ben Gurion. Reason: Both are Prime Ministers of Israel and represent the same thing. However, Golda Meir is a woman, which will help the male/female balance.

If the consensus will approve it, then we can do what was done on the Russian Jews and Ukrainian Jews pages, which is put a woman in the center of every line and make it look better in terms of esthetics. That is, there will be 3 lines of 3, and a woman in the middle of every line.

If you approve it, it will look like that:

{{Infobox ethnic group |group = Jews |native_name = Hebrew: יהודים‎ (Yehudim)

|image =

Maimonides
Emmy Noether
Baruch Spinoza
Sholem Aleichem
Golda Meir
Franz Kafka
Albert Einstein
Natalie Portman
Marc Chagall

I know what a strong consensus this collage received when it was made, and I am fully aware I can't do any changes without getting this change approved here by a consensus. 90.198.246.7 (talk) 22:29, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

I for one agree. Debresser (talk) 21:27, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
As do I. The substitution and rearrangement looks like a desirable enhancement. Hertz1888 (talk) 09:10, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

No. of Jews in Iran

I want to make a change to the number of Jewish people in Iran. According to the Tehran Jewish Community(Iran) There are about 25000 to 35000 Jews in Tehran and other cities of Iran. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikimkh (talkcontribs) 22:51, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

If you have a reliable source i don't see a problem to combine it with the current source (i.e 8,756-35,000). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Infantom (talkcontribs) 18:41, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Correction

The current article, in the sub-section "Ethnic Divisions," wrongly states twice in that section, "The Teimanim from Yemen and Oman, etc." To the best of my knowledge, Jews as a group have never lived in Oman, although individual Jewish travelers may have passed through there. The word "Oman" should be deleted from the section, since Teimanim (or Yemenite Jews) is a generic term implying only those communities who lived in Yemen and in the Aden-Hadramawt region, but NOT in Oman.Davidbena (talk) 00:10, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Culture section

What do you think about adding a section on Jewish culture that contains sub sections with short summaries and links to main articles about Jewish cultural characteristic as literature, philosophy, mythology etc... ? Infantom (talk) 17:00, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Tradition versus history

Aspects of the article appear to present tradition as historical fact: eg, in the introduction

The first of these periods lasted from 1350[35] to 586 BCE, and encompassed the periods of the Judges, the United Monarchy, and the Divided Monarchy of the Kingdoms of Israel and Judah, ending with the destruction of the First Temple.

I think it would be well to clearly indicate when the information presented is supported only by religious tradition, rather than by secular history. Ordinary Person (talk) 08:44, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

You would first have to determine whether this article covered the religion or something else. Efforts to date have not been successful—with various editors attempting to cast dogma as fact. From a scientific perspective this article needs significant work. Lexlex (talk) 12:27, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Whether it is about religion or something else, the article should be clear on where the information comes from. Zerotalk 12:42, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
I agree, currently it's very, very unclear. Just because something is sourced doesn't make it true, especially if the source is a religious text or if the cited source uses a religious text as its underlying source. It's not fair to the reader to have to dig to separate truth from fiction. Perhaps clearly indicate this is an article based on mythology and start another that is purely researched fact? It would be quite difficult to do such a thing, but that is one potential way to solve this problem. Lexlex (talk) 16:15, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
I agree that in some cases clarification might be in place. This should of course be done in a NPOV way, which should also not step on any religious toes. What we can not have is an article that will use disqualifiers every second sentence. It is one thing to make clear in a general way that certain statements in the article are based upon religious tradition, it is another to repeat that ad nauseum. For this purpose it is understood that articles about religious subjects are written from an inside perspective, often with a section discussion outside perspectives.
Perhaps it would be possible to see some specific proposals how some statements should be improved. Debresser (talk) 19:34, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Historically vs the Bible

User:Debresser, re this revert [2], can you explain why you insist on the word "historically"? The ref at the end of the sentence points to the bible. Oncenawhile (talk) 06:57, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for taking this to the talk page. Well, first of all I'd prefer to use the word Tanakh here, since this is an article about Judaism. But the main problem I have with this formula is that it is synthesis, as in WP:SYNTH. The verses in the reference only speak about the Jews who returned after the Babylonian exile, while the statement in the article regards the Jewish people even up to and including modern times. Another source that would directly address that question would be appropriate. Debresser (talk) 20:38, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Infobox portraits

Sorry for my English. I suggest adding Ovadia Yosef. As of now, there's two European Sephardim and seven Ashkenazim in Infobox, without any Middle Eastern Mizrahi. Iraqi Jews were very important Jewish community, and Yosef may represent it.

Secondly, he was a rabbi. In current collage only Maimonides was particularly engaged with Judaism, and he lived in the Middle Ages. Spinoza was critical of Judaism, and the rest are completely secular. Yosef was a prominent modern Jewish scholar.

Thirdly, he could fill the chronological gap. Now it's two medieval Jews, followed by 6 people born in second half of the 19th century, and then immediately Natalie Portman.

And finally, only two Israelis at the moment: Ben-Gurion and Portman, with the latter lived in the US for the most of her life, as far as I know.--Triggerhippie4 (talk) 15:58, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

I suggest replace Sholem Aleichem, since he's a writer and we already have Kafka.--Triggerhippie4 (talk) 16:10, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

No problem here. Debresser (talk) 18:53, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
I agree with the basic idea of increasing the diversity, and propose to replace one of the writers by a musician like Leonard Bernstein, Gustav Mahler, or Felix Mendelssohn. However, not sure whom, Kafka or Sholem Aleichem. Sholem Aleichem wrote in Yiddish and focused on genuine Jewish topics. On the other hand he is already in included in three other collages, Ashkenazy Jews, Russian Jews, and Ukrainian Jews, while Kafka is so far only in Czech Jews. Sholem Aleichem is of course not the only one: The same is true for Einstein and Chagall. So what is better? Always choose the one who fits best, or spread different persons over different collages? --Off-shell (talk) 21:55, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
When I suggested to replace Sholem Aleichem I meant with Ovadia Yosef. see above why.--Triggerhippie4 (talk) 22:07, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
If Spinoza was critical of Judaism, so why not replace him with Yosef, a Sephardi rite rabbi? As 90.198.246.7 pointed above, the current ratio of Sephardi to Ashkenazi in the collage roughly corresponds to the percentage of each community in the world Jewry. And if we choose Bernstein instead of one of the writers, this will also be someone born in 20th century. --Off-shell (talk) 22:14, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, I was too fast with my remarks. I looked through the page of Yosef which I was not aware of before. If it's all true what is written there I think he is a too controversial figure to be included in the collage. --Off-shell (talk) 22:30, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
He was controversial, but I don't think that anybody disagrees he was the most important Sephardic leader of the last few decades. Whatever else they may think of his viewpoints. Debresser (talk) 23:01, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
When living in Israel I got the impression Kadoori is much more accepted then him, they accepted Ovadia as the spiritual leader of the fundamentalist Shas party, but that's because we started it. But does it make sense to include a controversial, even ridiculous figure from Israeli politics in a collage representing world Jewry? And besides, both are completely unnecessary in the collage. Mizrahi-Sephardic Jews are represented correctly in proportion to their population among world Jewry. Kadurie and Yosef are unknown internationally.Mr. Sort It Out (talk) 15:17, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
I completely oppose replacing Sholem Aleichem with Ovadia Yosef! Sholem Aleichem represents Ashkenazi culture, he represents Yiddish which for centuries serves as the language of the Ashkenazi Jews. I oppose to include Ovadia Yosef as he is unknown outside Israel and even in Israel his remarks gave him a reputation of a clown (even among many Sephardi circles). Mr. Sort It Out (talk) 15:17, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
I think adding more people and replacing stuff will just make it more complicated. I personally think - always pick the best one, if one person is in few collages it's fine. It's not big, it's very clean, it has the correct balance between Ashkenazi and Sephardi-Mizrahi Jews... and I think the selection is actually very good.
One thing is sure, even if changes ever will be made it has to be Jews with international recognition, and definitely not clowns like Ovadia Yosef (who gained fame in Israel as a character in comedy sketches by those mocking him for his weird comments). Mr. Sort It Out (talk) 07:45, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
Jews/Archive 25
Maimonides
Baruch Spinoza
Albert Einstein
Emmy Noether
Franz Kafka
David Ben-Gurion
Marc Chagall
Ovadia Yosef
Natalie Portman

Ok, here's my final proposal. Ovadia Yosef instead of Sholem Aleichem, entries sorted by birth date, and better pictures. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 07:37, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Triggerhippie4, you neither responded to my objections, nor implemented any of the changes proposed by others. So I repeat my proposal here in a more clear way:
1. Whoever is chosen to represent the Mizrahim, this person should replace Spinoza, and not Sholem Alechem, to maintain a ratio approximately corresponding to the proportion of Ashkenazi and Sephardi in the world. This was noted by 90.198.246.7 above, and I support this argument.
2. I do not support the inclusion of Ovadia Yosef, but I'm not qualified to propose an alternative. Since he was a controversial figure, this choice needs a broad consensus.
3. If you want to remove Sholem Alechem and keep Kafka, I accept it, but propose Leonard Bernstein as a substitute.
4. It was also proposed by 90.198.246.7 to replace Ben Gurion by Golda Meir to improve the female/male ratio. I also support this proposal.
--Off-shell (talk) 18:27, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
1. Firstly, as I said at the very beginning, Maimonides and Spinoza were Sephardi, Yosef was Mizrahi. There's three major Jewish divisions: Ashkenazi, Sephardi (Southern Europe/Maghreb) and Mizrahi (Middle East), with the latter is unrepresented in the Infobox, which is not right considering how important Jews of Iraq were in history. Secondly, Ashkenazi not always constituted majority of Jewry, but for around last 3 centuries. In Infobox, broadly speaking, Maimonides and Spinoza portraying the Middle Ages, when Sephardi accounted for the majority. Next goes Ashkenazim since their population outnumbered the rest. But since the second half of the 20th century non-Ashkenazi population has grown. So you got to keep historical perspective in mind. Current collage gives impression that all Jews since the times of Spinoza were Ashkenazi.
2. I wouldn't say he was that controversial, given he was a religious leader.
3. I don't want to remove Sholem Aleichem per se. I just want to add Yosef. That means someone should be removed. I think that should be Aleichem. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 02:35, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Triggerhippie4 Mizrahi are considered by all but themselves, perhaps, to be simply part of Sepharadim, so that argument I disagree with. As to the crux of the matter. Having Yosef seems like good idea to me as well. I have no problem with replacing Sholem Aleichem, but am open to suggestions for other people to replace. Debresser (talk) 18:33, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Mizrahis and Sephardis today are classified as one community, I have to say. Mr. Sort It Out (talk) 15:17, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi there mates, i believe there are lot of important/famous jews that needs to be in the infobox. If you take a look at another ethnic group like British people, you will see that there are more than 9 inviduals. Why dont we expand the infobox. kazekagetr 10:15, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

The reason is that the Jewish ethnic group has too many sub-groups, so that collage was always kept to minimum, while the "big numbers" were left to the more "specific" collages (like Ashkenazi Jews, Mizrahis, etc). Mr. Sort It Out (talk) 21:21, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Why not one of the Sassoon or Kadourie families, like Horace Kadoorie, who are more famous, and did more for their communities than the highly dubious Yosf Ovadia. If you want a Mizrachi rabbi the tradition abounds with great figures, Elijah Mizrachi etc. As to politicians why not Benjamin Disraeli, who covers (a)England (b) achieved against prejudice its highest political office (3) in literature he was no mean novelist, his Sybil, Or The Two Nations in particular was a landmark work. Nishidani (talk) 14:46, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Kadoorie and Mizrachi no more notable than Yosef and have no images to use. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 21:30, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
I don't think Kadorie or Yosef should be in! The Rambam is in the image, he represents the Mizrahis and Sephardis. The fact is those two communities are united today! Also, Yosef and Kadorie are not known anywhere but Israel! Mizrahis go to Sephardi synagogues, use the Sephardi Nosach, and see themselves as Sephardi, there is a reason they are seen as one and even listed as one in Israel. I mean all the big Mizrahi communities came from Spain anyway! Mr. Sort It Out (talk) 21:15, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
I completely oppose to removing Sholem Aleichem. The guy is the only representative of Yiddish culture in the collage, the language which a big part of the Jews used for centuries as their main language.
I also oppose including Ovadia Yosef, a figure famous only in Israel, and even there he is seen as a clown by most for his comments.
I personally think the current collage is fine. Specific changes can be discussed, but we should remember that the trick is to represent as many areas as possible.
Also, the balance right now between Ashkenazi and Sephardi Jews is correct. There is no need to have more Sephardia as it will be more than their percentage share in the population. Mizrahis go to Sephardi synagogues, use the Sephardi Nosach, and see themselves as Sephardi, there is a reason they are seen as one and even listed as one in Israel. I mean all the big Mizrahi communities came from Spain anyway! Mr. Sort It Out (talk) 15:13, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

I actually think the current collage is perfect. I mean, we have a perfect balance between Ashkenazi Jews (over 80% of the world Jewry) and Sephardi-Mizrahi Jews have 2 slots, which is a higher percentage of their numbers in world Jewry. Mr. Sort It Out (talk) 07:39, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

I completely oppose adding Ovadia Yosef, it will make a mockery out of the collage, there is a reason he was removed. That is the guy who said Ashkenazi Jews are not real Jews, Arabs should be killed and that you can't pick your nose on a Saturday. The guy is considered a joke in Israel. Kadoorie, unlike him, is respected and seen as a genius in the Kharedi community (and respected by secular Jews). Also, he is famous only in Israel, abroad no one even heard oh him. Ask a Jew from New York or Moscow, there obviously are more notable figures.

The point of the collage is to represent as many areas as possible. In such a small collage there is no need for more than one rabbi, that is all you need to represent rabbis.

About the comment only two Israelis are in the collage... I think two is enough. Through history most Jews did not live in Israel, and even today most of them live abroad, so it is completely find to have only two Israelis in the collage. Mr. Sort It Out (talk) 15:08, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't think Kadorie or Yosef should be in! The Rambam is in the image, he represents the Mizrahis and Sephardis. The fact is those two communities are united today! Also, Yosef and Kadorie are not known anywhere but Israel! Mr. Sort It Out (talk) 21:15, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Technically, Portman is both American and Israeli, so there is a third Israeli in the collage. I agree with the argument made by Mr. Sort It Out that Sholom Aleichem should be kept. Debresser (talk) 21:31, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Very good point! To be honest, I actually love the collage the way it is now. I think it is very "clean" and rational, I don't think it makes much sese to change it. Mr. Sort It Out (talk) 07:39, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

The English Ovadia Yosef page doesn't show even half of it. And a bit more on Ovadia Yosef. He is the guy who said:

  • Ashkenzi Jews are not real Jews but Khazars.
  • It's allowed to kill a secular person for calling Yeshiva students "parasites".
  • IDF soldiers who don't keep Shabbas "it's no wonder they get killed".
  • In 2000 he actually said that the Holocaust was God's way of revenging on Ashkenazi Jews for becoming Secular.
  • He said that women are good only for sewing.
  • He is the guy who said Arabs should be annihilated.

Needless to say, the guy managed to alienate himself from the vast majority of the Israeli population. Not only the Secular and Ashkenazi, but even most Mizrahi Jews. Most of his "fame" later came from comedy sketches making fun of his character.

Now here is my question, why would anyone would want to add a character who is completely anonymous outside of Israel, and is considered a laughing stock by most, for a collage about Jews? Mr. Sort It Out (talk) 19:27, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

I also opposed the inclusion of Ovadia Yosef, but I also think, there is no need for two writers / prosaists in the collage. Therefore I proposed (s. above) to replace one of them, either Kafka or Sholem Aleichem, with someone from a different field, e.g. Leonard Bernstein. Alternatively, I would also propose Janusz Korczak to have someone related to the Holocaust. --Off-shell (talk) 22:01, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
I am fine with Bernstein. Shalom Aleichem should be kept, as argued above. Debresser (talk) 23:23, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
I agree with replacing Kafka, but what composer should we use? Does it have to be Bernstein? Maybe someone more mainstream like Bob Dylan? Mr. Sort It Out (talk) 22:27, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
Would you care to explain what you mean by "mainstream" in this context? Unless your intentions elude me, I strongly object your choice of words, and in fact your suggestion. Especially in view of the fact that Bob Dylan sang Christian songs, if memory from my childhood doesn't deceive me. Debresser (talk) 04:15, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
When I said mainstream it was a bad word to use, I meant popular culture. Yeah but the article is about Jews an an ethnicity, it doesn't matter if he sang Christmas song. I come from a Jewish secular home, we always defined ourselves as Jews by ethnicity and secular religiously... and we also sang Christmas songs, and Chanukah songs.
Bob Dylan was born a Jew, made aliyah, converted to Christianity, and went back to Judaism (he attends a Chabad synagogue on the big festivals).
Bob Dylan is an icon for The Beatles, Pink Floyd, Jimmy Hendrix and the whole world of rock music.
I don't care if we don't use Bob Dylan but use someone else. I just feel like Leonard Bernstein is not really known outside the Anglophone world, so I tried to suggest someone who is a cult figure all over the world. But I am just trying to make a point singing Christmas songs doesn't exclude someone from the collage, plenty of Jewish ethnic collages had Jews in them who converted to Christianity (and he actually returned to Judaism). Mr. Sort It Out (talk) 18:07, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
His Christian past makes him controversial, which - as you yourself agreed - is a reason not to have him. I am from Holland and live in Israel, and definitely have heard of Bernstein. He is famous enough, IMHO. Debresser (talk) 20:54, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
I agree that Bernstein is well known and would be more appropriate than Dylan. George Gershwin, whose compositions spanned the popular and classical music worlds, is perhaps even better known than Bernstein. Hertz1888 (talk) 00:16, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
Gershwin is also fine with me. They are more or less equally known and both covered the popular and classical music (e.g. West Side Story by Bernstein). In one aspect Gershwin is even better than Bernstein: Bernstein is already included in the American Jews collage, while I prefer when different people are included in different collages. --Off-shell (talk) 23:24, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
Here is my problem with Gershwin and Bernstein, they are not that known outside the English-speaking word. As weird as it sounds, but in France or Russia I wouldn't say people are that excited about them. Can we use a classical composer with a more international following? Like Mendelhson or Mahler? Mr. Sort It Out (talk) 07:46, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
I don't think his conversion makes him controversial, many Jews who were used in collages converted to Christianity. It doesn't change his ethnicity, and the fact is he returned to Judaism. I don't mind not using him, though. I think Bernstein is pretty anonymous outside the English speaking world, we should try to use a classical composer that had a larger following? Mr. Sort It Out (talk) 07:46, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
I've never lived in the english-speaking world, but I knew quite early in my life about Gershwin and Bernstein. For people interested in classical music they are known everywhere in the world. For those not interested, the only piece of Mendelssohn that, say, average people in Russia know is his wedding march which indeed makes him better known. And I would say they know Bob Dylan even worse than Gershwin. There are already Einstein and Noether from Germany, and proposing Bernstein I also wanted to add someone from another country (US). One may equally well consider Gustav Mahler or Imre Kálmán. Both came from Austria-Hungary, but while Mahler was German-speaking, Kálmán was Hungarian. --Off-shell (talk) 09:42, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
In that case... Gershvin, I think he is a bit better known. So Gershvin instead of Kafka it is? Mr. Sort It Out (talk) 18:16, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
Jews/Archive 25
Maimonides
Baruch Spinoza
Albert Einstein
Emmy Noether
Franz Kafka
David Ben-Gurion
Marc Chagall
Menachem Mendel Schneerson
Natalie Portman

I disagree with adding Gershvin. There's four people of arts (Aleichem, Kafka, Chagall, Portman), and only one rabbi – a millennium-old Maimonides. I suggest adding Schneerson instead of Aleichem. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 00:12, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I oppose to adding another rabbi. The collage has only 9 spaces, and I think 1 selection to represent rabbis is perfectly fair and balanced. The trick is to represent Jews in as many areas as possible, what will another rabbi contribute to the collage except you making a point?
And suggesting anyone instead of Sholem Aleichem is just sad and shows complete lack of knowledge of Jewish history. The most important Yiddish writer, a symbol of Ashkenazi culture, "the Jewish Mark Twain", and not to be in the collage...?
And saying "there's four arts people", in my opinion, is manipulation. You can't take all arts as one category. We have one writer, one musician, one painter and one actress, each representing a different area. If you want to play that game, I can say we 5 thinkers in the collage, and a rabbi is qualified as a thinker (Maimonidez, Spinoza, Einstein, Noether, Ben Gurion). Mr. Sort It Out (talk) 21:09, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
"Except you making a point," "lack of knowledge," "manipulation," "play that game." Easy.
Only one rabbi of nine people is too secular for a collage of Jews. And Schneerson is very notable and represent modern Judaism so there's historical diversity: one medieval rabbi, one modern rabbi.
No you can't honestly combine those people as thinkers as you did. Actually, now there's 1 person of religion (Maimonides), 3 scientists/scholars (Spinoza, Einstein, Noether), 4 people of arts (Aleichem, Kafka, Chagall, Portman) and 1 politician (Ben-Gurion). --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 00:33, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
"Only one rabbi of nine people is too secular for a collage of Jews" - No, it's not "too secular", like it or not but the vast majority of Jews are secular, a huge percentage of Jews in the CIS or USA are intermarried or come from mixed ethnicity, so one rabbi out of 9 people is definitely a fair representation of Charedi Jews. And it's not even about "how many are secular how many religious", it's about representing as many areas as possible. In Ashkenazi Jews we added another rabbi because the collage is bigger, here the collage was intentionally kept smaller and basic, so there is simply no space (and not need) for two rabbis.
"One medieval rabbi, one modern rabbi"? So why not have one medieval writer and one modern? One classical musician and one pop musician? You can take it like that in many directions, but point is in that collage it was kept one person per area for a reason.
"No you can't honestly combine those people as thinkers as you did" - Yes I can, for me they are all thinkers. If someone can drop "arts" as one category, so can thinkers.
In fact, if there is anyone the collage would benefit for is not another rabbi, but Moses Mendelssohn, or a conservative rabbi, or a reform rabbi... but it was no discussed due to no space in the collage. Don't you think that would make much more sense than another Orthodox rabbi (which adds nothing new to the collage)? There are many possible additions to the collage, areas we missed out, and they would be on a much higher priority than adding something that we already have. Mr. Sort It Out (talk) 07:58, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Should Flavius Josephus be added?

I suggest that Flavius Josephus be added, he was a Jewish rebel who defected, was granted Roman citizenship and became the emperor's historian, but I don't think there's a record which says he renounced Judaism, being Roman wasn't about ethnicity (the Romans from Gaul, Britain, Germania superior etc were most likely not Italians), but about being a citizen of Rome, and living a Roman life. Any objections? Guy355 (talk) 07:25, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Only one. That we already have 9 people in the infobox, and an awful lot of consensus building went into that collage. Debresser (talk) 17:31, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
I would support it but just like with other historical characters like Judah Maccabee we don't have on original image/painting of the person. We can't add a person without having a picture which is definitely them. Mr. Sort It Out (talk) 21:00, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Well there is a bust that some claim to be him, but it's not certain, so I suppose that's off. Alright. Guy355 (talk) 10:32, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

The Soviet Jew

In the Soviet Union, people were identified by residence/citizenship plus nationality. Thus a person could be Russian+Jew or Polish+German. The "Jewish" part of the identification wasn't cultural or religious, it was just another ID fact based on family roots. People are still identified by their nationality throughout the former Soviet Union, even though the official nationality ID ceased after Perestroika. Is it reasonable to add a section on Soviet Jews (not Judaism) since the article is about Jews? Santamoly (talk) 06:29, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

We already have History of the Jews in the Soviet Union (target of Soviet Jews). Debresser (talk) 19:49, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Lead clutter

The lead, particularly the first paragraph, needs to be "cleaned up", so to speak, per WP:LEADCLUTTER. The parenthetical details are evidently overdone.

I'd propose something like this

Current: The Jews (Hebrew: יְהוּדִים ISO 259-3 Yehudim, Israeli pronunciation [jehuˈdim]; בני ישראל, Standard: Bnai Yisraʾel; Tiberian: Bnai Yiśrāʾēl; ISO 259-3: Bnai Yiśraʾel, translated as: "Children of Israel" or "Sons of Israel"), also known as the Jewish people, are an ethnoreligious group originating from the Historical Israelites (Hebrews) of the Ancient Near East

Proposed: The Jews (Hebrew: יְהוּדִים Yehudim, Israeli pronunciation [jehuˈdim]), also known as the Jewish people, are an ethnoreligious group originating from the Historical Israelites of the Ancient Near East

I don't think the ISO number thing should remain either; if you consider another article with Hebrew characters, say Benjamin Netanyahu, it is not used. JDiala (talk) 06:04, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree. I see no reason we should have the name "Bnai Yisrael" here. Debresser (talk) 17:06, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
It's been several days. No objections. I'll alter it. JDiala (talk) 01:58, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation

Debresser, why you removed link to Jew (disambiguation) from the hatnote? --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 08:00, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

You restored it. I think it was removed justly, since that disambiguation page is about "Jew", not "Jews". Debresser (talk) 23:12, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
I noticed that too – that the disambig. page concerns the word, not the people. I think it is at best a distraction & diversion to include it in the hatnote. Hertz1888 (talk) 23:24, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Canaan

As for the lead section, wouldn't be more accurate to mention Canaan instead of the Ancient Near East? (as the latter is too general). or at least mention them both? Infantom (talk) 19:53, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree, I think either Canaan alone should be mentioned, or both Canaan and the ANE (ancient near east). Guy355 (talk) 19:54, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, no objection... i'll add it. Infantom (talk) 21:59, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for not paying attention. I do object to this change (and have reverted it for the time being). The Jewish people also originated in the tribe that came with Abraham from Akkadia, from Egypt in the Exodus and from Babylon after the exile. So Near Middle East is the only term that encompasses all of this. Debresser (talk) 23:17, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Hello Debresser, that's a problem, Akkadian and Egyptian(of the Exodus) origins represent the biblical narrative and not the historical evidences. At the return to Zion, Jews originated from Judea to begin with. What about "Canaan and the Ancient Near East"? Infantom (talk) 13:33, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
There's no evidence for the historicity of Abraham or of the Exodus, the Israelites who later gave birth to the Jews were a Canaanite subgroup, Hebrew is a Canaanite language like Phoenician. Guy355 (talk) 14:57, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Agree w/above. Attempting to interweave religious narrative with fact is an exercise in frustration for all involved, does a disservice to the reader and is ultimately a waste of time. At the very least, we should be really clear when data is from a religious text if/when its inclusion is merited. Lexlex (talk) 15:40, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Still, please see Israelites, which opens with the sentence "The Israelites were a Semitic people of the Ancient Near East", not with 'The Israelites were a Canaanite people of Canaan.' Debresser (talk) 16:23, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
The first sentence should refer to Jewish tradition,as the second one does. E.g. The Jews (Hebrew: יְהוּדִים ISO 259-3 Yehudim, Israeli pronunciation [jehuˈdim]), also known as the Jewish people, are an ethnoreligious group[17] who by tradition originated from the Historical Israelites, and Cannnanites, both Semitic peoples of the Ancient Near East. I agree with Guy355 in the main. The overwhelming modern non religous opinion, backed by archaeology is that there was no Exodus, and no patriarchs. The Israelites were a group of Cannanites. Those who came from Babylon were Judeans. It is wrong to use the wikipedia neutral voice to make it sound as if anything else is agreed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theredheifer (talkcontribs) 20:04, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
I am not sure I'd like to go the way of Lexlex and Theredheifer and make this about religious or not religious. In any case, I think this would be redundant for the lede. It is already mentioned in the Origins section. Note there, that Canaanite origins of the Jews are not universally agreed upon, so we can not simplify this and add "Canaan" to the lede. Also, please note that the resulting sentence, the one that was undone, was rather awkward: "originating from the Historical Israelites of Canaan at the Ancient Near East". Debresser (talk) 20:30, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Whatever form is chosen it should be made clear that Jewish claims to be descended from Israelites/Hebrews are just that. They are not agreed on. In many articles you can see a statement along the lines that The Jewish people, are an ethnoreligious group originating from the Historical Israelites of the Ancient Near East followed by the statement that the Samaritans claim to be descended from the Historical Israelites etc. Both should be expressed as claims, not one as a statement of fact, and the other as disputed. This is POV to treat the two groups differently, when the history as to which group, if either has the better claim is so complex and disputed.Theredheifer (talk) 17:08, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Nation

Hello Antandrus, The source states that the best way to define Jews is by the term "civilization", but also points out that a nation, ethnic group and religion are part of the "historical experience" and since ethnicity and religion are already mentioned as "ethno-religious" group i just added "nation". But it doesn't matter, there are other sources, what's wrong with mentioning nation in the first sentence if it's also part of the definition of Jews? Infantom (talk) 13:29, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

This was also discussed before. Please search the archives. As for my personal opinion, I think the word "nation" is not clear enough. Debresser (talk) 17:18, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
You are welcome to try to get consensus for the change -- but is not 'ethnoreligious group' a better overall descriptor, for the very first line of this article, than 'nation'? Israel is a nation, but the concept 'Jews' is quite a bit broader; 'ethnoreligious' captures it well for the first line of the lede. I think it's best not to confuse a reader, since 'nation' has a precise modern meaning. (For example you can't get a passport from nation "Jews", or a seat on the United Nations.) Antandrus (talk) 18:34, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

The issue of whether there is such a thing as the "Jewish race"

I seem to recall that there was at one time an article on Wikipedia that discusses the issue of whether Jews could be considered a race or not. Now I have not been able to find anything on the issue in Wikipedia, including this article. Now it seems to me that the issue is significant enough that it should be at least mentioned briefly. I understand that the general consensus currently is that a Jew in the non-religious sense refers to an ethnicity rather then a true race. I do think though that this article and any other relevant articles needs to at least briefly address how Jews have at times been classified as a race, how the Nazis used this in relation to their persecution and extermination, why "Are Jews race?" is a controversial question, and the general consensus currently is that Jews are not a "race" but an ethnicity. The following articles provide, I think, justification for inclusion of this controversy into this article and I believe the justify the issue being at least mentioned on Wikipedia.

http://forward.com/articles/155742/jews-are-a-race-genes-reveal/?p=all http://www.jewfaq.org/judaism.htm http://newobserveronline.com/race-or-religion-jewish-genes-identified/ http://www.jpost.com/Enviro-Tech/Jews-A-religious-group-people-or-race http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonentine/2013/05/16/israeli-researcher-challenges-jewish-dna-links-to-israel-calls-those-who-disagree-nazi-sympathizers/

I would write up something to include in the article myself but I get the sense that the issue is very controversial and that is why most references to it seem to it have been deleted from Wikipedia (The Who is a Jew article somewhat touches on the issue but not directly enough IMO). As such I wish to avoid an edit war/revert war and discuss this issue first. --50.0.166.40 (talk) 18:53, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

There are already articles such as Genetic studies on Jews and racial antisemitism which mention such matters. Yuvn86 (talk) 23:52, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Edit

Debresser, why you reverted my edit? --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 11:27, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for asking. The hatnote has a precise wording, which was worked out through consensus on this talkpage. You changed that, obviously oblivious of that hard-gained consensus, so I restored the consensus version. The rest of your edit was minor and 1. made the infobox less clear to understand and 2. changed the order of the pictures. Both those things were also unnecessary at best. Debresser (talk) 11:38, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
What consensus? I now looked through archive and didn't saw any discussions on the hatnote. I explained the edits in summaries. I've combined two hatnotes into one so they wouldn't took much space. I've sorted portraits by birth date. It's a no-brainer. Before that they where chaotic. I've also replaced pictures of some people with better ones showing full face directing at camera. You can't revert without giving a summary. >"made the Infobox less clear to understand" what does it mean? Also see this: WP:ROWN. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 13:05, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
I now noticed that the discussion about the hatnote took place here, so that was on the Judaism talkpage. Sorry for the confusion. I do see a problem: the hatnote of Jews says "For their religion, law and culture, see Judaism." while the hatnote of Judaism says "or consideration of ethnic, historic and cultural aspects of the Jewish identity, see Jews." In other words, both article claim that Jewish culture is discussed in the other article. I think we should change the hatnote here and remove "law and culture" from it. Would you agree?
I don't mind the other changes you made to the pictures, changing the order and a few pictures, in fact, I think it is an improvement, now that I think of it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Debresser (talkcontribs) 15:37, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
As long as this keeps coming up, perhaps we can come to a consensus on which article deals with religious aspects and which deals with cultural aspects. The hat note conflict mentioned above is a typical case-in-point of the confusion facing any reader. in which talk page could this be discussed in a way where all interested parties could be included? Lexlex (talk) 15:45, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
>"Would you agree?" Yes, that was in my edit. Thanks. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 16:49, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
How about Judaism as a religion, and Judaism as a people, or Judaism as a culture, or just Religious forms of Judaism and Non religious aspects of Judaism, or Judaism - Religion; Judaism - people (or culture). It would be good to differentiate them. The word is too often used on wikipedia to refer only to religion, and religion is a minority aspect of modern Judaism, though obviously still important to many.Theredheifer (talk) 17:27, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Lexlex I apologize that I didn't pay attention to your question above. I think it is obvious that the culture is discussed foremost in Jews. I think the hatnotes as they are now reflect that and that the issue has been resolved. Debresser (talk) 18:08, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Theredheifer I don't understand your suggestion. Could you be more specific? Debresser (talk) 18:08, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
It is far from clear that one article deals with religious aspects and one with other (i.e. the majority) aspects of Judaism. The title Jews is not helpful in this respect. One article should have the words Judaism+ religion in the title, (plus anything else required) and one article should have the words Judaism+culture or people, (plus anything else required). It is POV to describe Judaism (without qualification) as its religious aspects only.Theredheifer (talk) 20:27, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
I do agree with your general statement that it is not correct to see Judaism as only a religion. On the other hand, I don't think that a change to the title of either the Judaism or the Jews article is likely to find agreement, nor do I think it is necessary, because Judaism is indeed first and foremost the religion of the Jews. All other aspects are secondary or derivatives. The hatnotes on both articles make clear where to look for which subjects. We should concentrate on perfecting them. My own opinion is that the hatnotes are already pretty accurate and clear. Debresser (talk) 22:03, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
The hat note indication that Judaism is the "religion of the Jews" is not true: all jews don't follow the same religion. Some are also specifically not religious and could even be offended by such a classification. More to point: A hat note is not the place to make such statements, true or false—it's for nothing more that article disambiguation (indicating what the article is about). in this case it should indicate if the article covers the ethnoreligious group or the religion. Currently it does not serve its intended purpose. Lexlex (talk) 22:49, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
I do not agree that Judaism is first and foremost the religion of the Jewish people, and that other aspects are secondary. That view is completely POV, and wikipedia should reflect all aspects of Judaism, including culture and history equally. We should use terms to differentiate between Religious Judaism and non religious Judaism.17:22, 5 November 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theredheifer (talkcontribs)
Theredheifer You are true to your opinion. Unfortunately for you, reliable sources disagree with you and Judaism is the religion of the Jewish people first and foremost. I hope you will stop pushing your point of view. Please read WP:TE in this regard. Debresser (talk) 17:51, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Nationality?

Third paragraph of lead:The Jewish ethnicity, nationality and religion are strongly interrelated— What does Jewish "nationality" mean? Nationality refers to citizenship; a legal relationship between an individual and a state. What does it mean in this context? I have never seen the word used like this. Moreover, the second part of the sentence says Judaism is the traditional faith of the Jewish nation. However, Jews have been defined in the lead sentence as an ethnoreligious group, not a "nation". This is clear inconsistency with regard to defining what the "Jews" constitute. JDiala (talk) 03:43, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, just Google the word "nationality". You will find two definitions, the second being "an ethnic group forming a part of one or more political nations". Debresser (talk) 22:50, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
also known as Jews. also known as the Jewish people — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikisea777 (talkcontribs) 20:37, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
In the Soviet Union, one's passport listed (1) Citizen: e.g. Soviet Union, and (2) Nationality: e.g Jewish, Tatar, Kazak, Uzbek, etc. Within Russia today, there is a Jewish Autonomous Oblast because, without territory, there was no "nationality". Hence, a Jewish territory to support a Jewish nationality. FWIW, this also explains why there was no Christian nationality in the USSR. Santamoly (talk) 22:34, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

New Infobox proposal

Jews/Archive 25
Maimonides
Baruch Spinoza
Sholem Aleichem
Albert Einstein
Franz Kafka
David Ben-Gurion
Marc Chagall
Barbra Streisand
Natalie Portman

I suggest replacing Noether and Gershwin with Barbra Streisand since she's both musician and female. Then we can add Kafka. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 22:36, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Works for me. Antandrus (talk) 21:41, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
@Hertz1888: what is your objection? --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 23:18, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
My objection is to your haste in carrying out the proposed change. One editor agrees with you and you take that as general consensus, without allowing time for others to comment? As to the merits of the proposed change, I see no advantage to it, and suggest we leave well enough alone. The existing selection and layout are nicely thought out and well balanced. As the saying goes, if it's not broken, let's not fix it. Hertz1888 (talk) 01:27, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Hertz1888 is right about Wikipedia:IFITAINTBROKE, but I actually like the proposal, so I'll support it as well. Debresser (talk) 20:42, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
(Not that it matters, but I actually put in my comment after TH added the new photo list, to indicate support.) The new infobox seems slightly more inclusive to me -- Kafka's a pretty important name, and I think TH makes a good point on Streisand. Arts, sciences, literature, music, historical periods, genders well represented. Antandrus (talk) 21:41, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
How is two women out of nine figures "well represented", when we had three women before? — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:38, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
In quality. :) Debresser (talk) 11:41, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
When did we had three women? Who were they? --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 13:28, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
Previous version also had two women. Am I missing something? Was there an earlier version yet? Antandrus (talk) 14:13, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
My mistake. Sorry. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 16:38, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
No worries. I probably should have said 'represented' not 'well represented' anyway, i.e. only two out of nine. Antandrus (talk) 17:45, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
Oppose. First, as we just recently discussed, it makes no sense to have two writers in the collage. If Kafka is included, then Sholem Alechem should be replaced by someone representing another field and possibly another time, while also having a fair representation of the different cultural areas (i.e. Central Europe, Eastern Europe, USA, Israel ) etc. The consensus at that time was to keep Sholem Alechem. Second, Streisand is not only musician, she is also a Hollywood actress. If she is included in the collage, then instead of Portman. Otherwise, it would make an impression that the only famous women are actresses / Hollywood stars. If one agrees to put Streisand as representing all performing arts, then one can use the free cell to put someone like Mayer Amschel Rothschild (business, 18th century), Mikhail Botvinnik (sport, chess grandmaster), Emile Berliner (inventor), Sigmund Freud (social sciences), Hannah Szenes (WWII hero) etc. --Off-shell (talk) 22:36, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
Without Portman there will be just one Israeli. I'm ok with Freud instead of Kafka. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 05:50, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
For that reason I strongly oppose removing Portman, and because she is famous. Debresser (talk) 21:21, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
I object to removing Noether Frietjes (talk) 21:01, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
I have no problem removing this woman I never heard of. Debresser (talk) 21:21, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
top five. Frietjes (talk) 21:36, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
On the positive side, I think it is very desirable to have a female scientist or mathematician. Noether is a good choice. Lise Meitner might have been another. There is no need for a second woman who is an entertainer. Can we conclude this discussion? The infobox montage has had a more than reasonable amount of attention. I believe the current array is at the point of "good enough", and leaving the discussion open interminably only seems to encourage endless tinkering. Hertz1888 (talk) 15:09, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

No no no, Streisand, with all respect, should not be in. Her notability is less than both of those you mentioned, and we already have too many Americans in the collage anyway (Einstein, Aleichem, Portman and Gershvin). Such a change will simply take a perfectly good collage and make it look cheap.

Kafka is certainly notable, but what is the point in having two writers in the collage? That is why he was not included in the first place! Sholem Aleichem brings in more value as he represents Yiddish culture. Mr. Sort It Out (talk) 00:36, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Lenin was the most influential Jew of all time. Why is he not included? History revisionism? Nobody has shaped Our world more than him, not even Einstein. Include him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.62.214.233 (talk) 02:16, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Lenin was not a Jew, that's why he's not included. His maternal grandfather was born a Jew but that man married a Christian, and Lenin's mother was also a Christian, though unenthusiastic about religion. Lenin's father was a devout Russian Orthodox aristocrat. Lenin was not Jewish - not culturally, not religiously, not linguistically, and not halachically. Lenin had NO real connection to Judaism, other than the fact of his grandfather's origin. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:17, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Speaking of influential Jews, shouldn't Jesus be added in that case? Infantom (talk) 21:37, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

ethno-cultural group in lead

Ethno-cultural group is also a definition for Jews, as pointed out by these sources: [3], [4], [5], [6], ([7] and [8]), and is not covered by the term "ethnoreligious". Any comments about adding it to the lead? Infantom (talk) 14:59, 7 March 2015 (UTC)