Talk:Jews/Archive 19

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15 ← Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 21 → Archive 25

References check

Source [2] "page not found" and "article moved". But most references need update. --195.56.28.249 16:33, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't know how to edit these references, so I thought I'd just put the info here.
The link to Tovah Lazaroff's article "Jewish people near zero growth" is broken. It's actually moved into a subscriber only space, but an abstract is available here. --Justin 01:01, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Anti-Semitism

Why is the word "anti-semitism" thrown around so easily? Why aren't there more words to describe the hatred of other ethnicities? I am not supporting hatred, obviously, and I do think anti-semitism is a problem. However, it seems to be used too eas —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.143.238.220 (talk) 05:05, 16 May 2007 (UTC).

Mainly because there are few organized ideologies of hating a particular ethnic group. Keep in mind, the first widespread use of the noun "anti-semitism" (actually Antisemitsmus) was from one of its proponents, Wilhelm Marr, who founded a "League of Anti-semites" (although the adjectival form predates that and was used by a Jewish scholar). - Jmabel | Talk 06:16, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


Wars Against Jews

Just thought I'd say that I edited the piece of that section which briefly describes the Holocaust, speicifically the Final Solution, which stated:

... The persecution reached a peak in Adolf Hitler's Final Solution, which led to the Holocaust and the slaughter of approximately 6 million Jews from 1939 to 1945.

I changed this from 1939-1945 to 1942-1945, due to the fact that while 1 million Jews were, in fact, murdered preceeding 1942, the "OFFICIAL" decision to eradicate that Jews--the Final Solution--was decided in 1942, not 1939. This date change might not be sufficient, but the sentence is rather confusing. --Wassamatta 01:19, 20 May 2007 (UTC)Wassamatta

Can't find edit tab

Where is the EDIT on the Jewish page? Every other page has this ability.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.98.243.217 (talk) 3:13, 28 May 2007

You can't edit this article because the page is semi-protected against editing by anonymous and newer editors to prevent vandalism. I reccomend that you register for an account. —Elipongo (Talk|contribs) 03:27, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

genetics and achievement

"Discussion about the source or cause of high Jewish achievement, and the issue of whether it can be attributed to cultural, social, or genetic factors, is ongoing."

This sentence is a very subtle form of racism. By putting the sentence in the context of a comment on ongoing research it implies that there may be some sort of scientific basis for the genetic superiority. This could be reworded in several different fashions that many people would rightfully find offensive.

"Discussion about the source or cause of low black achievement, and the issue of whether it can be attributed to cultural, social, or genetic factors, is ongoing."

To imply some culture has a genetic preference towards achievement, implies all other cultures lack said genetic propensity. To even imply that some culture has a genetic superiority, with absolutely no grounding is dangerous.

This sentence should be removed, or the reference to genetic factors edited out.

Whether or not such research offends your sensibilities (I don't see why any research should be taboo) is irrelevant. The only question is whether such research indeed takes place, and, more importantly, if there is a source for it. Jon513 17:02, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Jon513- There's alot of "research" to suggest that the Nordic peoples are inherently superior to others... I don't think we should open up this can of worms on this page. A more appropriate place to discuss these theories would be Eugenics. Pygmypony 05:56, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

That poor research was done at some point in time and used to advance an agenda that was fundamentally immoral does not mean that all research on related subjects should be discounted (or worse, banned.) And frankly, there is an enormous body of evidence* that suggests that there is something about Jewish culture or genetics (or some other as of yet unconsidered variable) that causes high academic achievement. To ignore this and to make no comment about it in an article about Jews is actually intellectually dishonest. Furthermore, there is no racist implication in suggesting that genetics may play a part in Jewish success. Racism is judging an individual on the basis of their assumed group identity. Seeing a correlation and trying to determine what is the cause for that correlation is simply good science. And the honest thing to do, should there be extant research, is to report it as accurately as is possible being careful to neither exaggerate nor downplay its importance. *(If you doubt that this is the case, I would point you at the number of Nobel Prize winners, Fields Medal winners, the disproportionate representation of Jews at top tier Universities, the performance of Jews on IQ tests (whether or not you believe IQ is a useful way of judging "intelligence", it certainly correlates with a variety of desirable outcomes.) The evidence is blinding. Jews achieve academically. Why? It's probably a variety of factors and in as much as IQ (which correlates at least moderately well with academic achievement) is substantially heritable and Jews, as a group, seem to score between 1/2-1 STD above the mean, it is likely that, yes, Jews have a genetic predisposition for high academic achievement. And yes, this does imply that, in this particular domain, Jews have _on_average_ a genetic advantage. Get over your taboos and report the evidence. 69.37.255.177 23:01, 14 June 2007 (UTC)GMM
So what your saying is that white people are genetically predisposed to dominate the planet? Because your reasoning for causality is equally flawed. Black people are genetically predisposed to be subservient, Jews are predisposed to being oppressed, etc, etc, etc. The evidence you are trying cite would lead to the same conclusions. Thank God science does not make such leaps to conclusions. It is interesting that you say "Jews have _on_average_ a genetic advantage. Get over your taboos and report the evidence." when that is actually what we are asking for, evidence. Anyone responding to this has YET to provide some sort of scientific evidence. You make it seem as if the nature versus nurture discussion has been completely solved, which is absolutely false, as if the paradigm of the human mind has been mapped out already. I would argue anyone growing up in a household being told "in comparison to the rest of the planet, our people are chosen people," would have an exaggerated concept of self worth, leading to feelings of superiority and less fear of failure. Of course I have as much evidence for this as the genetic argument, but I am not adding it to wikipedia. Now any allusion to gentic factors should be removed, because there is absolutely NO GENETIC EVIDENCE. The only thing worse than supporting such arguments is actually believing them. 69.37.255.177 23:34, 14 June 2007 (UTC)NotGMM
While there is some evidence, the strength of which I have not looked at critically, that one's preconcieved notions of one's capacity does have an effect on performance, this doesn't invalidate the extant evidence that

1) IQ is substantially heritable (between 40-80% depending on what studies you look at). 2) Jews score between 1/2 - 1 standard deviation above the mean. In any case, I'm not arguing that genetics are the _only_ factor. I'm arguing that there is evidence to support this position. If you don't believe that data exists to support this position, I invite you to read the articles cited in wikipedia's own articles on IQ, IQ and race and etc. While, the notion that there could be genetically determined(and in as much as ethnic groups cluster genetically to some degree, ethnically determined) differences in IQ is still taboo, there is a good deal of evidence in favor of this position. And to editorialize a bit, it is also my guess that strength of the evidence in favor of the idea that there is some correlation between genetic factors and various measures of intelligence will grow over time and within a generation or so it will not only be uncontroversial to suggest that this is the case, but it will actually mark one as a Luddite if one does not believe this to be true. 69.37.255.177 23:01, 14 June 2007 (UTC)GMM

This demonstrates to me that you have no concept of what is going on here, and that your understanding of genetics within an "ethnic group" and a familial group seem to be synonymous, which is completely false. Genetic variation in a populace cannot be summed up with the idea that "the father passes it to the son." The entire argument that has been provided sits solely on patchwork science, meaning a collection of scientific one liners taken out of context to substantiate a ridiculous argument. Using this same logic, we could argue: "Jews have a possible heritable trait that leads them to a natural propensity for conflict that results in their oppression. A long history of conflict with any culture that they exist with leads some to believe this may be a genetic trait, but research is ongoing." My statement is COMPLETELY false, but it is based on the same evidence you provide, and can be substantiated in the same manner. Should I add it too Wikipedia? 69.37.255.177 23:34, 14 June 2007 (UTC)NOTGMM
Actually, no your statement is not equivalent to the statement I made about IQ. My argument rests on three ideas.

1) Jews, as a group, have been measured to have an IQ between 1/2-1 STD above the mean of the general population. I can give you citations supporting this. 2) There is strong evidence (Genetic Diseases, haplotype testing, etc. etc.) that there are genetic correlations within Jews as a group.I can give you citations supporting this. 3) IQ is substantially heritable. I can give you citations supporting this. These three ideas taken together _suggest_ that some part of Jewish success has a genetic componenent. In comparison, you never actually provide any support for the idea that Jews have a natural propensity for conflict. You don't offer any support showing that a propensity for conflict is correlated with oppression. And finally, you don't offer any support for the idea that a propensity for conflict is heritable. So, I think your (facetious) analogy is a rather poor one. 69.37.255.177 23:01, 14 June 2007 (UTC)GMM

If you were to cite examples of IQs I would have to request you cite all racial/social/economic/cultural groups not just Jews vs everyone else into the "mean" because that would prove relevant to the discussion (starts to get complicated doesn't it). I would also need you to cite some sort of tie between genetics to IQ and sections of people not father/mother to child correlations which are the only ones you have cited, this is what "heritable" is all about, which you apparently have no concept of. I have never argued that there was not some genetic correlation between Jews as a group, because that discussion would be splitting hairs, which detracts from the main point. Especially when the main argument you are presenting is direct genetic transference from father to son as if this is some how indicative of cultural groups. Which by the way is completely antithetical to all theories about genetics in regards to mutations, aberrations, drift, migration, .... I also recommend you look into the "IQ section" about race. I would suggest you educate yourself on the complexities of genetics in large cultural groups, then educate yourself on the serious flaws on the actual handle we have on the development of the brain/IQ/personality, etc. Your points, by the way, do not lead to the conclusion. Finally I would need you to cite "the gene" that causes a Jewish organ to develop differently from a gentile organ, because that would be nothing short of amazing.

Oh yeah and to prove my statement made before: "1) Jews, as a group, have an extensive history of not being able to cohabitate with other cultures. 2) There is strong evidence (Genetic Diseases, haplotype testing, etc. etc.) that there are genetic correlations within Jews as a group.I can give you citations supporting this. 3)There is now substantial evidence that heritable biological factors play a role in the genesis of repetitive antisocial behavior. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=8891325&dopt=Citation right out of pubmed. I don't believe any of that, but this argument has just as much weight as yours. I would also suggest you start your reading here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bell_Curve#American_Psychological_Association_task_force_report One more thing, every article that Wikipedia has on race and IQ, explicitly states that there is no proven genetic racial link, not just with Jews but with any race. So unless Wikipedia wishes to be completely self contradicting the allusion to some genetic racial link needs to be removed. This entire discussion is absolutely frightening. The arguments being advocated here are as baseless hackneyed and dangerous as any perpetrated by the KKK, skinheads, or Nazi's. The argument being clouded in pseudoscience makes it that much more dangerous, and the fact that it is STILL in Wikipedia demonstrates to me that the rank and file are complicit. 69.37.255.177 23:34, 14 June 2007 (UTC)NOTGMM

Your example _still_ doesn't match the same criteria. The characteristic measured in statement (1) isn't the same characteristic measured in statement (3).

Look, first of all, yes, I agree that heritability studies (right now) must look at familial groups; its the only inexpensive way to guarantee genetic overlap that will be strong enough to study with relatively small numbers. If you want to fund a study like this one http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v447/n7145/abs/nature05911.html for IQ instead of common diseases, be my guest. In the mean time, I'll make due making best guesses from the extant data. It has never been my position in this discussion that wikipedia should report "Jews are smart because their genes are better than everyone else's" my position is that there is something going on there (higher Jewish IQ, achievement etc.) and that should be reported. Also, there is evidence that self-identified Jews are genetically similiar as a group. The evidence for that should also be reported. Go reread my initial posting from "That poor research... ...report the evidence" if you believe this isn't the case. As to the degree, to which the three statements that my hypothesis rests on are true. I think your main complaint, correct me if I'm wrong, is that I infer from the fact that IQ is heritable as determined by methods defined here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability which is based on groups for which there is a strong guarantee of genetic similiarity that differences between groups for which there is a much weaker guarantee will likely still include a genetic component. I think this is reasonable. You don't. Fine. As I said before, it _suggests_ that Jewish achievement includes a genetic component. You will note that I didn't say, "guarantee is true". Nor did I say, we should report on wikipedia that "Jews are the smartest thing since slice bread and it's all because of their superior Semitic genes". I said, "And the honest thing to do, should there be extant research, is to report it as accurately as is possible being careful to neither exaggerate nor downplay its importance." Re: "Finally I would need you to cite "the gene" that causes a Jewish organ to develop differently from a gentile organ", because that would be nothing short of amazing." Here, you are wrong. I do not have to show "the gene" that makes a "Jewish" organ develop differently from a "gentile" organ. All I have to show is that there is a correlation between self-identifying as a Jew and scoring highly on IQ tests that is independent of all environmental factors. It is not nessecary for me to define what is happening inside that genetic black box to prove that something important is going on there. I do agree, however, that the strongest evidence would be to show that there was a gene or suite of genes which showed up in the Jewish population at a greater rate than the general population which correlated with higher IQ. And in the ideal case, I would also offer the mechanism by which this gene or suite of genes increased IQ. I agree, evidence of this strength does not yet exist. However, we should report the evidence we do have. Re: Race and genetic link. Look, Race or ethnicity isn't a thing like an apple or tree. It's a useful abstraction, a genetic cluster, at best. Just because I say, for instance, Jews are genetically similiar doesn't mean I believe that if you pick two self-identified Jews that they will be any more genetically similiar then if you grab two random people off the street. What it means is that the probability that they will be more similiar then two random people off the street is high. The fact that wikipedia won't state there is a link between race and genetics is a reflection of the current social climate, not the scientific reality. Remember link does not equal guaranteed genetic similiarity. It means that the conditional probability for similiarity is higher. I could rattle off diseases until I'm blue in the face that have links to a variety of racial and ethnic groups And you want to tell me that race is a myth??? Gaaaah!!! Go read. 69.37.255.177 23:01, 14 June 2007 (UTC)GMM

You have a serious leap of faith in causality, when there a myriad of other factors you wish to omit. And the suite of genes still isn't indicative of anything, this same suite of genes may just impact the speed at which your hair grows, we haven't even gotten that far in our understanding genetics, much less the way the brain works. Science takes MANY leaps of faith but no one has ever been this bold with their leap to conclusions. Secondly your argument goes that Jews have a track history of scoring high on IQ tests and they have some genetic commonalities among them, so this could be evidence of a genetic propensity for scoring high on IQ tests. I argued that Jews have a history of not cohabiting peacefully with the cultures around them and they have genetic commonalities among them, so this could be evidence of a genetic propensity for not cohabiting peacefully with other cultures, possibly antisocial behavior. And as always I must put the disclaimer in that I don't believe in that statement, it is just for illustration purposes. High IQ scores do not occur in a void, on the contrary they occur in the very mysterious world of the mind that is constantly bombarded and shaped by the world around it. This we do know. Let me give my argument for Jews scoring high on IQ tests. If we sew the same seeds of wheat in two different fields, but your method for harvesting that wheat was superior to mine, some may come to the conclusion that your wheat was better, but in actuality your harvesting methods produced a higher yield. 69.37.255.177 23:34, 14 June 2007 (UTC)NOTGMM
"All I have to show is that there is a correlation between self-identifying as a Jew and scoring highly on IQ tests that is independent of all environmental factors" Well, yes and no. On the one hand that would certainly work. On the other hand, you can't demonstrate that something is independent of all environmental factors. (Somewhat OT: Of course, that's the problem with all analyses of genetics vs environment. No matter what, the two must always interact; it's just a matter of given a certain combination, how much of the variation is attributable to which) Anyway, that kind of problem is why this type of research has been relevated to fringe science for a couple of decades now that real DNA technology has arrived. If you look at current research journals in genetics, it's all DNA sequences. Until somebody demonstrates a DNA sequence that correlates with self-identifying as a Jew and with scoring highly on IQ tests, this hypothesis is no more scientifically valid these days than phlogiston or the ether. 69.37.255.177 23:01, 14 June 2007 (UTC)GMM
"The fact that wikipedia won't state there is a link between race and genetics is a reflection of the current social climate, not the scientific reality." "Race" was invalidated as a scientific concept long long ago. The idea that Strom Thurmond's daughter by a black woman is of the same 'race' as Desmond Tutu, and a different 'race' from Strom himself kind of flies in the face of genetics, as does the concept that Hindus are racially more similar to Africans than Europeans. You can talk about genetic similarities and ethnicities and whatever, but the word "race" lost all scientific validity long before "politically correct" was ever coined. Gzuckier 18:52, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Are you actually reading my arguments? I don't wish to omit a myriad of factors. I have never said that I presume that Jewish achievement can be purely explained by genetic means. I've said that I believe, and there is some evidence to suggest, that it is a factor.I think that a myriad of factors are involved in Jewish achievement. I think one of those factors is genetic and future investigation will prove this more and more concretely. (Note, again, just to be clear, I am not suggesting that wikipedia report my speculations. I am suggesting wikipedia report the things that are pretty well substantiated. Those being: IQ differences, records of high achievement, haplotype clustering, and genetic diseases.)

Second of all, it's just nonsense that race has lost all scientific validity. Race is a useful abstraction, and, in medicine, it has been and continues to be used to guide diagnosis and treatment. At the end of the day, we will probably be able to pin people's genetic profiles down so exactly that, for medical purposes, it will no longer be as useful to use that abstraction because we will have more precise methods. That said, people who self-identify as a particular racial or ethnic group often cluster genetically. This isn't always the case and I'm sure if one digs deeply enough we can find instances of racial or ethnic groupings that are pretty poor abstractions (i.e. they don't have much predictive power.), but that doesn't mean that the concept of race as a whole is bunk. Note, race does not equal species. There is interbreeding between those who self-identify as one race or another. And in as much as no one actually knows their precise pedigree, there is going to be some disconnect between race and actual genetics. This does not mean, however that race has no predictive power. It's an imperfect proxy for genetic information, not the information itself. But, for many purposes, it is still a useful proxy. For instance, are you going to take a Japanese couple who are expecting a child and waste their monetary resources running an Ashkenazi Jewish Panel on them? No, of course not, the conditional probability of them both being carriers for Tay-Sachs, Gaucher's, Bloom's, Nieman-Pick's, etc. etc. etc. isn't high enough for it to be worthwhile. But, it would be if they were Jewish. My relatives certainly made sure they were tested. I will too if I am lucky enough to have children one day. So you can say that you don't believe in race, but for reasonable definitions of race or ethnicity, you're just wrong. Period. 69.37.255.177 23:01, 14 June 2007 (UTC)GMM

By diverting the discussion to the use of the word "race" derails the discussion of genetics and intelligence, but to address it I would coin the old colloquialism "there is more genetic diversity with the individuals of a social group than between two separate social groups." 69.37.255.177 23:34, 14 June 2007 (UTC)NOTGMM
I wasn't diverting the discussion. I was responding to your point that begins with "One more thing..." and ends with "...complicit". Furthermore, demonstrating that race/ethnicity is a useful construct is certainly relevant to our discussion if a) it isn't a point you are willing to concede out of hand. and b) part of my thesis includes the idea that there may be genetically based group differences. And to respond to your point that variation within groups is greater than variation between groups. Yeah, so? So what you're saying is we've got two sample sets that overlap substantially but have different means. Can I still make inferences about those two groups? Is the null hypothesis likely to be false if I compare them? Yup, probably will be. Does this mean that I might be able to base _some_ decisions on this information. Yes, to that too. Witness my example above about the Japanese couple deciding whether or not to get tested for Tay-Sachs and etc. Now, why are they likely to choose not to do the tests? Because, their _ethnicity_ doesn't correspond to one that is _likely_ to have the disease. This isn't a guarantee. This is a reduced conditional probability. But, in this instance, that is enough information to make a decision on. And, for me, if you have a construct or abstraction from which you can make useful inferences, you have an idea that is worthy of its own noun; that is "real", if you will. For the sake of simplicity, why don't we just stick to calling it ethnicity or perhaps race. 69.37.255.177 23:01, 14 June 2007 (UTC)GMM

Please sign your posts using ~~~~, which will be converted into a sig. It's very hard to keep track of who is saying what here. Thanks. - Jmabel | Talk 22:42, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. I'll go back through and sign my posts. I suppose this means I need to think of a handle... 69.37.255.177 23:01, 14 June 2007 (UTC)GMM

I went through and gave the handle NOTGMM to the entries in the discussion above that weren't posted by me (GMM). I did this just because I think it makes it (slightly) easier to parse the argument. It may or may not actually all be posted by the same person so I encourage the other particpant(s) in this discussion to lay claim to their own statements. (I tried to format the argument so it would be clearer, but I'm not particularly savy when it comes to the wiki markup language. I'll try to "get clue" so that my thoughts are better formatted in the future.) 69.37.255.177 23:34, 14 June 2007 (UTC)GMM

There has been no sources citing genetics and achievement. Can that bit be removed? --Jason 07:42, 25 July 2007 (UTC) I reduced the sentence to a discussion taking place for over Jewish achievement. I also removed the request for citation. I hope I have not overstepped my bounds. There are other problems with the section but, I am happy with where things stand. --Jason 14:10, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I have not been following this discussion, but even as it stands, the section has an unsavory feel. One could make the argument much more strongly (if one was so inclined), by linking to a list of Jewish Nobel prize winners, ect., rather than a blank "Jews are disproportionately higher achievers." It does not particularly add anything to the article, and from my point of view, indeed detracts from any such argument. I don't know the wiki policies well enough, but it seems like the whole debate can be abstracted away from genetics, ethnicity, and all that, and become simply a question of whether a note about a 'debate' belongs on such an encyclopedia page. Perhaps something a little blander--many Jews are doctors, lawyers, scientists, ect, if a source can be found--but referencing the debate seems spurious and out of place here. Just some thoughts. --Sammermpc 19:46, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


I agree. I don't believe the sections belongs anywhere in wikipedia. To reference Jewish achievement as some abstract unsubstantiated blurb, is really to miss the achievement of many other people. One also must contextualize any groups activity in complex and delicate cultural analysis, which have methods that are highly diverse and in dispute. I don't think we need to reference every form of study or unexplained phenomena that occurs in society, in wikipedia. No one would stick a comparable example in the Christian section. It still smacks of racism.--Jason 05:27, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Here's a source of Jewish/pseudo-Jewish Nobel prize winners. http://www.jinfo.org The list seems to be disproportionately long relative to the number of Jews, nu?

Re:Jason "To reference Jewish achievement as some abstract unsubstantiated blurb" would simply be bad science. To reference Jewish achievement in relation to the extant body of evidence (the above link being but one portion of that evidence), on the other hand, would be to make a reasonable inference. 70.5.13.102 05:57, 2 September 2007 (UTC)GMM


Auschwitz photo

Is it really necessary to show a graphic image of murdered Auschwitz Jews on this page? Can't that image be moved to the Holocaust page? I dont want to diminish the importance of the Shoah or offend anyone but i think that it is wrong to have such a graphic image on a page which isnt about the Holocaust and will therefore cause shock and distress to visitors to the page who want to learn about other aspects of Jewish life (ie school children).

Also, on a more political note, It is like saying "As Jews, this is how we identify ourselves and this is how we wish to be seen by others". Despite its effect upon my family, the holocaust doesnt define me as a Jew - I dont mind the textual paragraphs but the image is going too far IMO. - Can we have it removed please? Breed3011 13:35, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it's too graphic, but we do need a photo for that section, just less horrible. How about one of these?
Childwarsawghetto.jpg / A child dying in the streets of the crowded Warsaw Ghetto, where hunger and disease killed 43,000 in 1941 alone.

Einsatzgruppen Killing.jpg / A member of Einsatzgruppe D is about to shoot a man sitting by a mass grave in Vinnitsa, Ukraine, in 1942. Present in the background are members of the German Army, the German Labor Service, and the Hitler Youth. The back of the photograph is inscribed "The last Jew in Vinnitsa".

Selection Birkenau ramp.jpg / "Selection" on the Judenrampe, Auschwitz, May/June 1944. To be sent to the right meant slave labor; to the left, the gas chambers. This image shows the arrival of Hungarian Jews from Carpatho-Ruthenia, many of them from the Berehov ghetto. It was taken by Ernst Hofmann or Bernhard Walter of the SS. Courtesy of Yad Vashem.

I prefer the "Einsatzgruppe D" picture, but the others are okay with me. okedem 13:47, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your choice - Einsatzgruppe D - Although harrowing, it is educational and is less graphic than the current image. Breed3011 22:17, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree. ←Humus sapiens ну? 23:19, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Done. ←Humus sapiens ну? 23:27, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
The one photo has in its caption "The last Jew in Vinnitsa" is it Vinnitsa or Vinnista? --RWBronco 06:01, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
It looks like it's Vinnytsia, though Vinnitsa looks like it's an OK transliteration too. It's a Ukrainian city spelled with a ц (ts), so Vinnista would be wrong. Rickterp 15:01, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


Chai archives!

We're up to Chai archives! Woo-hoo! —Elipongo (Talk|contribs) 16:31, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


Morrocco

Should it be mentioned that Morrocco also has a sizeable Jewish population of about 20,000; and a right of return for Jews who left Morrocco since 1948? Shia1 13:45, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Notice difference in figures

Reference: "Today, most authorities place the number of known Jewish people between 12 and 14 million,[2] the largest number of whom live in the United States (40.5% in 2002) and Israel (34.4% in 2002)" The figures to the right show the majority in Israel. Why not recalculate the figures to match the most current estimate?

ethnicity and religion

I think when describing the ethnic group, Hebrew should be the more correct word and Jew would be better to describe the religion.After Hebrew were a race and and Judaism is a religion.-Vmrgrsergr 20:05, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

"Hebrew were a race" - says who? ←Humus sapiens ну? 22:13, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
The term Hebrew is, at minimum, archaic and possibly inaccurate. It's unfortunate that there aren't commonly recognizable English words that differentiate between the terms "ethnic Jew" and "religious" Jew", but we communicate with the language we've got, not the one we'd like to have for the sake of clarity. Oh and re:, Humus Sapiens: C'mon man, don't assume bad faith. In as much as the term "Jews" can refer to both an ethnic and religious group, Vmrgrsergr has a point. There is some inherent ambiguity to the term, "Jew". I'm not quite sure how large the population is that might actually be confused by that ambiguity, but it does exist. 69.37.101.120 04:17, 29 June 2007 (UTC)GMM
Well, the ambiguity between nationality and religion is real and does play a role, probably more often than not inadvertent, in arguments, discussions, etc. But I think if you stopped a few dozen people on the street, they'd all describe Woody Allen as a Jew, and none would describe him as a Hebrew. That oughta be the standard for Wikipeida, no? Gzuckier 16:55, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

There are clades of people some might terms "ethnic divisions" within Judaism, but the identity of being Jewish usually trumps those clades (such as Ashkenazi, Sephardi, Mizrahi, Ethiopian, Indian, Russian [Subbotniki] etc etc). These divisions are problematic too in the Israel-Arab conflict discussion. Thewebthsp 19:24, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


Tanakh/Old Testament/Hebrew Bible categories

Some people may have noticed that most categories previously using "Old Testament" have been converted to "Tanakh" by a user, without I think much discussion. There is a discussion here which proposes converting them to use "Hebrew Bible" Johnbod 22:07, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

"Old Testament" is a Christian name, it relates to a group of books that are not exactly the same as the Jewish Bible, not in the same order and, most important, not in Hebrew. So no doubt we should not use here "Old Testament" in an article about Jews. Regarding the debate between "Tanakh" and "Hebrew Bible", I understand the point that most people do not know what Tanakh means, but on the other hand, "Hebrew Bible" is not a Jewish term. Both can be used in my eyes. Benjil 23:18, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Include Jesus in pictures of famous Jews

Albert Einstein • Maimonides • Golda Meir • Emma Lazarus - Jesus is far more famous than these people.



Jesus may be more famous but perhaps a link would be more appropriate then a picture or a segment beacuse the whole jew-jesus subject is a but complicated and beyond the scope of the article. -SoH

-- Would be technically correct but would have connotations with the Jews for Jesus movement-- probably not appropriate for a main article on the Jewish people thewebthsp


technically correct, the best kind of correct. however if a picture is to be used make it as human as possible: no crucifiction no halo, just plain jesus

72.189.79.72 10:10, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

  • No not the best kind of correct. Almost all Jews don't believe Jesus was the Messiah. And, Christians have used Jesus as a basis to persecute Jews (e.g. older Catholic rulings that the Jews killed Jesus etc). Inappropriate.128.91.24.53 19:21, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Bob Dylan might be a good candidate for a picture. He is after all a fairly well known Jew. Bus stop 19:44, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

No Jesus. It is a religious beleif (or at the very least an uncomfirmable fact) that the picture "Jesus" is what Jesus really looked it. A link is alright. Smaug 00:21, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be a problem with posting pre-photographic images of other famous people on articles highlighting older cultural groups (for instance, the articles on Greek and Egyptian people feature images of famous people which cannot be confirmed as accurate). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.38.166.32 (talk)

Indeed, even the portrait of Maimonides there is just a traditional depiction, and not drawn by someone who had actually seen the man. Reinistalk 09:11, 11 August 2007 (UTC)


Link spam

Someone has added a marketing link for learning Hebrew via flashcards that is out of place on this page. I'm too new a user to delete it. Can someone else please do that? Rzf3 17:56, 6 July 2007 (UTC)rzf3

Taken care of. -- Gogo Dodo 18:00, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

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

The result of the proposal was No consensus to move.--Húsönd 03:29, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


Might be better to title this "Jewish people" as opposed to Jew -- has bad connotations-- thanks. thewebthsp

New comments should be posted at the bottom. And no. this has already been spoken about at length see Talk:Jew/Archive 18. Jon513 17:14, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Initiated Controversial Move proposal per wiki policy -- thewebthsp 17:51, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I think your logic is reasonable Humus Sapiens -- my issue is not using "Jew" as a singular noun but as a plural one. Like in Borat "See the Jew... etc etc" satirizing how others use Jew in a plural, and some would say, undesirable context. Thewebthsp 17:06, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Are you seriously quoting Borat as a noteworthy influence for how encyclopedia articles are named? Tomertalk 15:12, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Oppose - "Jew" is as much a slur as Jewish people is. It would only depend on what context it it used (e.g. Jews eat Aryan babies) sounds no less offensive than "Jewish people eat Aryan babies". Reginmund 23:08, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

"Jew" is singular. We are not referring to "a Jew." But to the whole body of Jewish people, therefore, at the very least, PLEASE change the title of the page to "Jews," which is plural. Oemb1905 18:35, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Jewish people would be another option for the title. Personally I think it's a better description of the topic. Jewish peoples would be another option but I'm not sure it's particularly preferable. Looking through Category:Ethnic groups, there are examples of ethnic group titles for comparison, but as a whole they don't appear to set a clear precedent. If this article's name were changed to Jewish people, Jew could always have an article focusing on the history and usage of the term "jew". I think there's definitely enough material out there on the term itself to put together a decent article on it. Jewish people would still obviously contain information on the term's history of use but it could be covered in a lot more detail at the main article. Eloil 09:16, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

How is "Jewish people" more descriptive than "Jew"? Have you read the article? Anyways, as noted in Jew#Etymology, there is already an article focusing on the history and usage—specifically, Jew (word). Tomertalk 15:18, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Move to Jews -- I have three reasons to support this. First, most other ethnic groups are either called "(ethnic group) people" or are called by the name of their ethnic group in the plural sense. For example, German ethnic group is titled "Germans" and the English ethnic group "English people." The Jewish ethnic group(s) should be, if we were to follow this rule, "Jewish people" or "Jews." Using "Jew" as a plural noun is offensive to me, as a Jewish person.

Second -- if one were to look at google's response to why offensive results came up when "Jew" was searched but not "Jewish people" or "Judaism" is --

"If you use Google to search for "Judaism," "Jewish" or "Jewish people," the results are informative and relevant. So why is a search for "Jew" different? One reason is that the word "Jew" is often used in an anti-Semitic context. Jewish organizations are more likely to use the word "Jewish" when talking about members of their faith. The word has become somewhat charged linguistically, as noted on websites devoted to Jewish topics such as these: 

   * http://shakti.trincoll.edu/~mendele/vol01/vol01.174
   * http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/jonah081500.asp"

Third -- Why would changing the title of the article to "Jewish people" or "Jews" be problematic? "Jew" is problematic, for me, when used to describe Jews collectively. I see no reason for such sharp opposition to changing the title.

Last, my proposal was deleted within hours. Please let us come to consensus within a few days or use a formal dispute mechanism before deleting my proposal without any review. Thank you. Thewebthsp 17:06, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Should I just cut and paste the megabytes of previous discussion from the archives? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 18:26, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Well I think there should be some discussion about actually moving the page. I think it's a good idea to title this page, at the very least "Jews" not "Jew" Thewebthsp 18:37, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
There has been a great deal of discussion of it, and the consensus always works out to leaving it exactly as it is. See the archives. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 18:55, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, let's see what develops here in a few days. Sometimes things change and new consensuses develop. One question though, why the resistance to changing the article title to simply "Jews"? Thewebthsp 19:22, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Have you read the archives? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 19:32, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
I have. It seems there is a consensus to have this moved to Jews but not Jewish people Thewebthsp 21:28, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't think so. Why then it wasn't changed? In any case, WP:TITLE recommends to use singular, see Arab for example. ←Humus sapiens ну? 22:08, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Not sure why it wasn't changed. At any rate yes, signular nouns are preferred except when you're describing a group of people. For example: "They went to the store." "Jews went to the store" "Arabs went to the store." Plus in English, the singular noun "Jew" has some bad history. Thewebthsp 22:17, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:TITLE#Prefer singular nouns is quite clear. I gave you two examples of Jews using the word "Jew" proudly and freely. I refuse to give up the word "Jew" for sole use by antisemites. ←Humus sapiens ну? 22:32, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi Humus-- Yes, I do see your point. Ultimately though, we see "Jews" in the first sentence. I dunno exactly the right approach, but I think discussion is helpful? Thewebthsp 05:26, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
The right approach would be to leave the title as is. If the word "Jew" is given up to be used solely by antisemites (as you propose), the word "Jews" would be next. Note that the link you brought as evidence, Mendele: Yiddish literature and language, says: "obviously, everyone has to do what they're comfortable with, but i believe jews who are proud of being jews should show it by calling themselves jews, not jewish and definitely not jewish persons. (this last one always reminds me of the thank god now-defunct 'person of the jewish persuasion'. i was persuaded to be a jew the way i was persuaded to be a woman...)" ←Humus sapiens ну? 23:52, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose use singular in article titles, and use plural in category names. 70.55.88.11 03:05, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Neutral, but just thought I'd mention: all of the different forms are used for some ethnicities. For example, we have Navajo people, Germans, African American, Macedonians (ethnic group). There is no consistent convention. This is actually discussed at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Ethnic_Groups#Article_naming. - Jmabel | Talk 06:02, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Move to Jews. Plural should be used for consistency. The fact that not all such articles do is no excuse for not moving an individual one; else no group could ever be standardised. An essay about the word 'Jew' would belong under this title, but as we are discussing the people called 'Jews', the title should follow. The way, the truth, and the light 21:01, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Move to Jews. The word in the singular has a high incidence of antisemitic usage. Bus stop 21:42, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
    • All the more reason not to surrender the name of what I am to those who hate me for what I am. I am a Jew. I am proud to be a singular Jew as I am proud to be one of many Jews. That some fool wants to use "Jew" as a pejorative makes me proud; we must be something special if our very name is powerful enough to be an insult. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 22:07, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose move. There's nothing wrong with the word "Jew". Jayjg (talk) 22:42, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose We're not going to change the convention just to be politically-correct. See African American, Muslim, Briton etc. Saikokira 03:51, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose jew IS pc you cant make a word bad just by saying it is. i've never met a jew that thinks jew is a bad word. Heck my BEST MAN was a rabbi, and when his four year old asked why he wasnt performing the service? he said "because he is not a jew" oh those anti-semite rabbi's crack me up 72.189.79.72 10:20, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Move to Jews Hm. Interesting discussion. Actually I do see it from a philo-Semitic perspective that a Jewish person might want to use Jew as a strong good word... taking the word back as it were. I guess I didn't see it that way. Still, I think the consistency argument, that most "peoples" articles use the plural form makes using Jews a more appropriate title. Actually, this could bring up a discussion about standardization of ethnic group titles (for which currently, there is none). I think this discussion should continue for a few more days.128.91.24.53 19:13, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Move to Jews I always thought titling an article "Jew", when it covers the whole body of Jewish people, was very silly. change it to Jews. Manic Hispanic 05:46, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
    • There is nothing "silly" in following WP:TITLE#Prefer singular nouns. ←Humus sapiens ну? 23:52, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
      • There is, if the rule is followed blindly. It's not set in stone. Most of other articles are other way round, likely for the reasons that WP editors felt it unnatural. Last time I checked, "people" is a plural noun; other article, like Inuit or Cherokee are collective nouns (no proper plural). The noun "Jew" is neither plural nor collective. And the examples you pull are exceptions rather than rules. Duja► 13:39, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Move to Jews, as per all other Move to Jews comments. – Axman (☏) 15:32, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose WP:TITLE#Prefer singular nouns, There is absolutely no consistency with other article on this issue. It is simply not true that most other "peoples" article are in the plural. See Briton, Celt, African American, Cossack, Arab, and many others. It is simply absurd the move all the articles that do follow the title guidelines to be consistent with the few that don't! Jon513 09:46, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Move to Jews. Jews (plural) is a term used more to refer to the people rather than Jew (singular), which to me refers to an individual. – Marco79 11:40, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Move to Jews, like most other articles on Category:Ethnic groups. WP:TITLE#Prefer singular nouns is actually outdated in this regard (it should reflect the usage rather than impose it), and cited Arab, Briton and Celt are exceptions rather than the rule. Arguably, Celt is more focused on (vaguish) definition of term "Celt" than to the actual Celtic peoples. See the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions/Archive_10#Plurals revisited. Like I said there, I'd expect the article titled "Jew" to start with words "Jew is a..." which is clearly inappropriate (bordering on offensive). The simple rule of thumb is: use plural title if the first word (i.e. article title repetition) should naturally be in plural. And yes, I'd like to see Arab renamed too, and WP:TITLE finally updated to reflect the practice. Duja► 13:32, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Jon513. Tomertalk 22:57, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. Duja, I have absolutely no objection to the lead section using the word Jews or Jewish people. There are many occasions that the lead and the title don't match %100. The two are really separate issues. Jon513 13:48, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
    I mention that as a "rule of thumb" (which is arguably even weaker expression than a guideline). A stronger argument for the move is perhaps subtle (and seems to escape some of the opponents): it is more or less agreed that "Jew" and "Jews" are not offensive per se. However, like I tried to explain on Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions/Archive_10#Plurals revisited, singular "Jew" for the title implies that it's equally valid to take one particular Jew as an example and describe all the Jews; that can be construed as racist (I don't have any relationship with Jews whatsover, but I described that feeling as a "subconscious fear" myself before, independently of the current debate). Certainly it's not intended; however, if there is a chance that it can be construed as such (and it apparently can, as Thewebthsp argues in the nomination), why not move it to the a) title more consistent with other similar articles b) title more appropriate to the subject matter c) title which apparently does not have such connotations. Duja► 09:03, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
    Let me just re-quote myself from there: "Still, I feel uneasy with such titles: the articles describe human collectivities rather than properties of any given instance of the group member". Duja► 09:07, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
    Duja, you're using some pretty convoluted logic there, and ultimately your argument comes down to your kneejerk reaction. Article naming is not, or at least should not be subject to the whims of the uneducated and misinformed. Thewebthsp's rationale for opening this discussion says far more about Thewebthsp than it does about the appropriateness of this article's name. Tomertalk 15:10, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
    Uneducated? Misinformed? I understand you didn't mean it personal, but I don't consider either myself or Thewebthsp to fall in such category, nor either one of us (or other proponents) argued in bad faith. We just presented our uneasiness with the singular title, for one reason or another, or combination thereof: (perceived) political correctness, consistency with similar articles, the collective nature of the subject described (i.e. Jewish people). In particular, I find your statement that it "says far more about Thewebthsp than..." a weasel word. A dozen of other editors here expressed the same opinion, for various motives: let me quote The way from above: "An essay about the word 'Jew' would belong under this title, but as we are discussing the people called 'Jews', the title should follow". Duja► 14:58, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Move to Jews. "Jew" is no more offensive than "Briton", depends on who speaks the word and the context in which they speak it. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 21:16, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
um, excuse me, can you please explain yourself. If you think "Jew" is not offensive that a reason not to move it. Jon513 22:52, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, "not offensive" was my reason for not moving to "Jewish people". as far as changing to "Jews", I noted that other articles did use plural titles and so voted to move. I now note that other articles use singular titles (such as Arab). Not sure what is best and so am removing my vote altogether. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 03:24, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
This is one of the reasons I prefer [[Jew]] over [[Jews]]: neither Jew or Jews is a redirect. Yay. I win. Tomertalk 15:02, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.


jew: race or religion

the article says that jews are an ethnicity which they aren't. its only a religion —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.207.133.111 (talk • contribs).

Until the late 18th century, the terms Jews and adherents of Judaism were practically synonymous, and Judaism was the prime binding factor of the Jewish people regardless of the degree of adherence. Following the Age of Enlightenment and its Jewish counterpart Haskalah, a gradual transformation occurred during which many Jews came to view being a member of the Jewish nation as separate from adhering to the Jewish faith. Jon513 20:21, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
In fact it's the exact opposite. Until the Enlightenment and the French Revolution, Jews were a Nation. But then, the particularism of the Jewish identity did not fit into the new definitions of the State and the Nation that were born out the new ideas. France in particular decided that Jews can't be a Nation because there is only one Nation in France - the French. So Jews had to be a religion. But this had never been the Jewish view. Jews are a people. You can be an atheist and a Jew. The fact that Jews are a nation is the reason that there is a State of Israel, because like all other people, Jews have a right to self-determination. Benjil 20:32, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Judaism is a religion. Christianity is a religion. Islam is a religion. Bus stop 20:27, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

There is no one Jewish ethnicity because of conversion and the multi-ethnic composition of the Jewish people. Most Jews are either Ashkenazi or Sephardi, but there are Ethiopians, Indians, Ugandans, Russians (subbotniks), even German descendants of the Nazis who converted and are now Jews. Ashkenazi literally means, of Germany, while Sephardi means, of Spain. So clearly being a Jew is much like say having a title of any other religion. Where it diverges is that (non convert) Jews get an inheritance from their Jewish mothers as being Jews. That's why most Jews have tended to be in those 2 main groups. The two main groups are mostly of Levantine-area DNA heritage, akin to Lebanese and Syrian peoples although the closest relationship is to the Kurdish people. There is also a (now disproven) theory that Arthur Koestler wrote about that most Ashkenazi are not Semitic, but are Khazars -- this has been used by some anti-Israel groups to deliegitimize Jewish immigration to the Holy Land. Thewebthsp 21:38, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Well you seem to be unaware of the concept of Diaspora. Being from Spain or Germany does not mean these are Germans who converted to Judaism, but Jews who were scattered to Germany or Spain after the Dispersion. As you wrote yourself, DNA studies found a common origin to Ashkenazi, Sefaradi and Mizrahi (Oriental) Jews, meaning precisely that Jews are a people and not just a religion. Benjil 05:48, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
There is an old Russian-language joke that during a pogrom they beat you not on the passport, but on the nose (see the "5th record" in Passport system in the Soviet Union). Seriously, the Jewish identity is complex and is more ancient than relatively modern concepts of nation, nationality, ethnicity, race, religion, etc. In addition, social constructs are not static. ←Humus sapiens ну? 21:46, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Religion is ancient. Bus stop 21:53, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Judaism is not merely a religion (faith), in some sense it's a way of life. And the idea of separation of religion and state and is not that old. ←Humus sapiens ну? 22:05, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
But religion is very old.
Christianity is also a way of life. Islam is also a way of life. So it should not be a surprise that Judaism too is, in some ways, a way of life. Bus stop 22:10, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


I personally don't believe in race per se (because all humans are related to one another, just depends on how far you go back). Clearly some Jews look very different from one another, but such differences are irrelevant in an Orthodox synagogue.Thewebthsp 22:20, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Ethnicity is not simply about "looking alike". It is a complex constellation of biological relation, voluntary affiliation, language, religion, customs, etc. I personally think that the concept of "nation" fits the Jews better than the concept of "ethnic group", but the modern conflation of nation with state makes that very problematic. But being a Jew is certainly not simply a matter of being a believer: an apikouros like me is still not a goy. And unilaterally deciding you believe in Judaism, without any formal process of conversion, will not typically win you recognition as a Jew (there are quite a few groups in Africa facing that issue). - Jmabel | Talk 06:10, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
A gentile that believes in Judaism would be a Noahide. Jon513 13:21, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Not to be confused with Naugahyde. Gzuckier 16:44, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I would say that depends on their skin condition72.189.79.72 10:25, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

This whole article confuses me, especially this part: "The ethnicity and the religion of Judaism are strongly interrelated, and converts are both included and have been absorbed within the Jewish people." What, so I can become a member of an ethnic group by joining an religion??? Then we would have to create ethnic groups for all religions, possibly renaming Arabs as "Islams" and maybe Caucasians as "Christs". This whole article is absurd. --Sachaztan 09:42, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

There is a ridiculousness at Wikipedia about calling Jews an "ethnic group." Bus stop 11:49, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
I've made changes to the first paragraph. To those who may object: Please use this Talk page. Bus stop 12:02, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Gscshoyru -- You've just reverted the edit I've made, referred to above. Allow me to say this: Please use Talk page to make changes to the article Jew. Don't just revert. That is the first blow of edit warring. Please don't initiate edit warring. Furthermore, making incremental changes communicates what you are trying to say; reverting in totality does not. Communication also happens to be what the Talk page is for. Reverting is the least useful thing one can do, in my opinion. Thank you. Bus stop 12:18, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Yep... I messed up. I though it was vandalism, i.e. imposing a POV, and it was not. Sorry... Gscshoyru 12:23, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Don't apologize - Bus Stop has been trying to push his/her own view of ethnicity or lack thereof in Judaism on the Who is a Jew? article against consensus for some time now, and seems to have moved here after a marked lack of success. Any similar edits to this article will just garner the same response. DanielC/T+ 13:39, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Oh good. Good to know my gut feeling was right. Thanks for the encouragement. Gscshoyru 13:47, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Gscshoyru -- The point is that reverting communicates little more than disagreement. The article History holds every version of itself so there is never the risk of anything being lost. By making edits to my edits you would be communicating volumes about where you stand and what you disagree with.
Reverting is a blunt instrument. It may feel good to undo another editor's efforts, but it hobbles the project of writing the article, and it makes for a disagreeable environment. It takes more effort to actually edit, but the reward is enhanced understanding of one another's position. Bus stop 14:33, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
The difference is that Judaism is not a universalist religion—it's a tribal religion. It's meant as a religion, as a set of laws, specifically for the Jewish people. Which is why religious Jews, unlike adherents of universalist religions, are not particularly interested in converts (though once someone does convert, they've "joined the tribe", and are considered full members of the Jewish community).--Pharos 12:22, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
I won't say tribal religion but national religion, but basically, that's the point. And Bus Stop seems unable to understand it. Benjil 13:58, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Can't find any reliable source saying that someone who converts to Judaism is a Jew. Seems like its currently debated in Israel. If anyone has a good source, please notice me or post it here. --Sachaztan 12:07, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
What do you mean "reliable source" ? There is no question that someone who converts to Judaism is a Jew, that's *the meaning* of the word "converting" ? You want "reliable sources" about the fact that the sky is blue ? What is debated in Israel is which conversion. Conversion performed by non-Orthodox (mostly American) forms of Judaism are not recognized by large parts of the Jewish people. Benjil 13:18, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Ghargh! This is the talk page for Jew as in ethnic group, not Jew as in someone who follows Judaism. I'm not so stupid that I don't understand that someone who converts to a religion will become a member of that religion. What I was wondering about is if theres any source saying that someone who converts to Judaism will simultaneously become a member of the Jewish ethnic group. --Sachaztan 04:19, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Benjil -- Then why aren't you utilizing the phrase "national religion"?
I use it, I just did. But here, this article is about "Jews" not "Judaism". You understand the difference ? Jews are a Nation, Judaism is the religion of this Nation. Benjil 15:19, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Benjil -- I am talking about the article, not your use of the term ("national religion", or "Nation") on the Talk page. And Jews are what, an "ethnicity"? An "ethnic group"?
You are suggesting the word "Nation", but we do not see the word nation appearing in the introductory paragraph which I just tried to edit, only to have my edit reverted. (It does appear elsewhere in the article.)
You previously suggested the phrase "national religion", yet that phrase appears nowhere in the article.
Furthermore -- why don't you and others engage in incremental edits? What is accomplished by reverting someone's edits? No progress is made by reverting. Communication in this project takes place by two means, as I see it -- by using the article's Talk page, and by making incremental edits. Bus stop 15:56, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


removal of' ethnic group?

I am most curious why the above phrase was removed from the text. The fact that there is a health center in Chicago which specifically deals with "Jewish genetic disorders" here clearly indicates that there is widespread recognition of there being a specific Jewish ethnic group. Certainly, I would think that on that basis there is cause to include content on the generally recognized Jewish ethnic group. John Carter 18:52, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Genetics is a component of race. Genetics is not a component of ethnicity. Bus stop 19:00, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
ThuranX -- Use the Talk page. Make incremental edits. Don't just revert. I know it was a small change I made. But you are only reverting me. You can use more words if you want to get your point across, or, alternatively, you can use the Talk page. What are you accomplishing by simply reverting me? Communication is lacking and a revert of someone else's edit communicates nothing but disagreement. Articulate your thoughts on this, the Talk page, and please stop just reverting me. Bus stop 19:08, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
(Edit conflict response) If you want to be truly technical, yes. But the definition of used of ethnic group on that page includes "...a population of human beings whose members identify with each other, either on the basis of a presumed common genealogy or ancestry, or recognition by others as a distinct group, or by common cultural, linguistic, religious, or territorial traits." Each and every one of the criteria mentioned applies to the group which self-identifiies as ethnic "Jews". The word race also has certain unfortunate uses (racism) which can be avoided by using the less inflammatory word. Please indicate why you belief that this group does not qualify as an ethnic group, using some generally recognized definition of the term. By the way, I'd love to see you reference where your removal of that content was agreed to by consensus on the talk page before you made it. John Carter 19:14, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
One can't make "incremental" edits on changes which are totally against what WP:RS have to say on this subject—that Jews are an ethnic group. You just can't make your own a priori arguments to override the huge consensus among social scientists and Jewish groups themselves on this matter.--Pharos 19:13, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Pharos -- What is your reliable source that Jews are an ethnic group? Bus stop 19:17, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Please see the definition of the phrase on the Ethnic group page in the introduction. And I would still like to see where you received consensus on the removal of the content, which was in effect the reversion of someone else's work, before you did it, as I specifically requested of you above. Remember, civility applies both ways, not just to you but to the previous editors of the article as well. John Carter 19:22, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Take your choice—on a subject like this there are thousands of such sources. Which is the best one—I don't know, which is the best source to show Armenians are an ethnic group? Traditional Jewish law is a pretty big one, as are the statements of all major Jewish organizations, and various governments from Israel to the Soviet Union. And of course there are an unlimited number of sources (like this) from social scientists.--Pharos 19:59, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Pharos -- In other words you have no source for the applying of the term ethnicity to Jews, because you certainly have not provided one. Feel free to provide a source for the term as applicable to Jews. I don't know how you think your links to "Halakha" or the "Soviet Union" or "Armenians" or "unesco" support any such contention.
Note: I do see that UNESCO does refer to Jewish ethnicity. But it also needs to be pointed out that the United Nations is notoriously antisemitic, and that particular paper is a pretty minor source. Bus stop 14:16, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
I am almost finding myself forced to come to the conclusion that the above editor is explicitly not acting in good faith. A reference to the definition contained in the ethnic group page has been made repeatedly, and yet the above user sees fit to ignore that. And, I note once again, that the above user has explicitly failed to come up with any evidence to support his own position. John Carter 14:20, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) A Jew is first and foremost known as a member of a religion. That happens to apply whether the religion is practiced or not. Furthermore, a convert to Judaism need not share any of the so-called ethnicity that some editors so fervently assert are applicable to the group. It would be less possible to argue that a person born Jewish, especially of a long lineage of Jews, does not share in any characteristic "Jewish" ethnic traits. But that too is possible in theory. In point of fact one merely need go through "the motions" of being a Jew, in order to be a Jew. Those "motions" include birth, in the case of a person born Jewish, or conversion, in the case of someone converting to Judaism. No ethnic factors need be present at all. Applying the word "ethnicity" to Jews is in fact point of view pushing, and it is original research. Bus stop 19:39, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Your own unsourced statement above shows clear indications of being original research. And your statement that using the existing, sourced text of another page as a reference is "original research" is to my eyes stretching credibility to the breaking point. Please provide your own reliable source that, and I quote, "A Jew is first and foremost known as a member of a religion." I am aware of no reliable source which makes that statement. Please provide us with one. And please seek consensus yourself before removing content, as you had done to precipitate this discussion. John Carter 19:46, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia's definition on Ethnic group clearly defines Jews as an ethnic group. The Jews are actually more then just an ethnic group; the Jewish people are a nation. When G-d addresses the Jews in the Bible, he refers to them as a "nation" (Om). G-d promises Abraham, Isaac and Jacob that a "nation" will descend from them.
Let me correct a misunderstanding. Christianity is a religion of the Polish people, Greek people, Hungarian people... Islam is a religion of the Arabs, Turks... - Judaism is a religion only of the Jews. Bus Stop, you might be an atheistic Jew but you are still an ethnic Jew and you are an equal member of the Jewish nation as me. A Jew is someone who was born Jewish (even if he/she is an unpracticing Jew); or someone who converted to Judaism. A convert to Judaism is considered by Jews as an equal, as Maimonides explains in his correspondence to Yemen with Rabbi Ovadye haGer (the convert). The question to Maimonides was, how can a convert say in prayer "G-d of my ancestors (avoiseinu)? The gist of his answer if I remember correctly is that Judaism considers a convert like a brother and the convert actually becomes a descendant of Abraham; therefore when a ger (convert) is called up to the Torah he is called by his name ben Avrohom (son of Abraham). So if a convert is physically considered as a member of the Jewish nation then surely a born Jew, even an atheist should be considered a member of the Jewish nation, an "ethnic Jew". I truly don't understand your objection to the term "ethnic Jew" which is a lesser term then "Jewish nation". Itzse 20:36, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
More food for thought. When the Jews were expelled from Spain and from many other countries; the edict expelling them, referred to the Jews as an ethnic group and as a people, a nation. It didn't exempt non practicing Jews. The Abarbanel in writing about the expulsion refers to it that "Mi asher beshem Yisroel yechuneh" roughly translated to "Whoever called himself a Jew (Israelite)" was included in the edict. So from time immemorial the Jews were considered as a nation by the entire world; why then do Jews need to distance themselves from being considered a people and self destruct? Itzse 21:01, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Itzse -- There are two ways of becoming a Jew: being born Jewish, and converting to Judaism. What do you mean by "ethnic?" Can you tell me what constitutes "ethnicity," in your conception, relating to Jews?
No one is making any distinctions between non-practicing Jews and practicing Jews. Certainly I am not. No one is making any distinctions between atheistic Jews and those that believe. Certainly I am not making that distinction. I am only considering Jews.
I am making no distinctions between those who became Jews by converting to Judaism and those who are Jewish by way of being born Jewish.
"Ethnic" simply is not applicable. There is no Jewish ethnicity. And if you think there is, can you please describe it to me? Bus stop 14:08, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Please read the definition of ethnic group in the well-referenced introduction to that article to see that this group meets all the qualifications set forth there. And please provide a verifiable reference for your own statement above, "A Jew is first and foremost known as a member of a religion", which seems to be the lynchpin of your own argument. Like I said, I don't think I've ever seen that sort of statement anywhere, and on that basis I have fairly good reason to think that you may yourself be, probably unintentionally, violating the principles of original research here. John Carter 14:16, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
It might be helpful if you read
  • Ezra Mendelsohn, Jews and Other Ethnic Groups in a Multi-Ethnic World, Oxford University Press, 1987. ISBN 0195048962, and
  • Joel Perlmann, Ethnic Differences: Schooling and Social Structure Among the Irish, Italians, Jews, and Blacks, Cambridge University Press, 1988. ISBN 0521389755
There are hundreds of sources like this, but these would be a good start. Jayjg (talk) 01:41, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

We use terms with appropriate specificity. We don't use general terms where terms of appropriate specificity are available. If we are referring to a nonobservant Jew we don't call him an ethnic Jew. Similarly if we are referring to an irreligious Jew, we should not be calling him an ethnic Jew, because the term of appropriate specificity is available: irreligious Jew. If we are referring to Jews who are atheists we simply say, Jews who are atheists, or atheist Jews, or atheistic Jews, if you like. But we do not refer to them as ethnic Jews. The term has no applicability under such circumstances. Again: we use terms with appropriate specificity. If we want to refer to non religious Jews, we simply refer to non religious Jews. The point of view pushing should stop. We should say what we mean. Wikipedia is not a propaganda machine. If we can't edit in good faith we should not edit at all. Unfortunately administrators are complicit in the eroding of the presentation of Jewish identity on Wikipedia. Instead of enforcing the use of clear language, administrators can be seen enforcing the blurring of the distinctions applicable to Jewish identity. Ethnic Jew is such an amorphous term that it is not applicable whenever we are just referring to those Jews not punctiliously observant of all the laws of halacha. There are terms to use if you wish to point to those Jewish people not strictly observant. Please use those terms. Don't lapse into non-specificity. Wikipedia is not censored. We can say what we mean. Bus stop 13:39, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

We also cite specific sources when we disagree with the existing content to verify our own positions. Why is it that that is one of the few things you seem so consistently unwilling or unable to do? John Carter 14:00, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Encyclopaedia Brittanica's article on Jew: "In the modern world, a definition of Jew that would be satisfactory to all is virtually impossible to construct, for it involves ethnic and religious issues that are both complex and controversial." (emphasis added)

Also, in the article on ethnic group: "In theory, the nation-state and ethnic diversity are diametrically opposed, and on many occasions nation-states have attempted to solve the problem of ethnic diversity by the elimination or expulsion of ethnic groups—notable examples being the Nazi policy against the Jews during World War II, the expulsion of the Moors and Jews from 15th-century Spain..." (emphasis added)

Add that to the long list of reliable sources that consider Jews to be an ethnic group (not just a religious group), and that acknowledge that ethnic issues are involved in defining who is a Jew.

In at least one of his recent edits concerning this issue, Bus stop referred to use of the term ethnic Jew as "POV pushing." It is not POV pushing, but representation of a widely held point of view that is agreed on by many scholarly sources. Trying to eliminate references to this point of view, and replacing all instances of "ethnic Jew" with "secular Jew," is itself POV pushing. Bus stop is free to add reports of his own POV (that "Jew" is a religious identification, not an ethnic one)--as long as he provides reliable sources that document that point of view--but Wikipedia policy is against deletion of reliably sourced material that reports POVs that Bus stop or anyone else happen to disagree with. Nick Graves 15:15, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Parties involved in the above discussion may be interested in this conversation: Wikipedia:Community sanction noticeboard#Full Judaism community topic ban for Bus stop. Thank you. John Carter 15:56, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


simple question

were there more jewish people after the fall of nazi germany or now? (how many)

What? could you rephrase that, there are far less jews in Germany now than before the National Socialist government. Are you talking worldwide? --Hayden5650 05:30, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
I gues that he means "nazi germany" as the germany under the rule of the nazis. In other words, "is there more jews worldwide now compared to before NSDAP or are there less" --Sachaztan 05:45, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

yes to the second one...i know it was a dumb question...so i made it simple and long.

Per this source In 1939, there were 17 million Jews in the world, and by 1945 only 11 million and the Jewish population is currently 13.3 million Jews.--Sandahl 05:51, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

little plea

Please please people, stop trashtalking eachother and take it easy.

Off topic. Please don't clutter the discussion page with more unneeded topics. Sign your posts as well... GoatSmoke 07:17, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Regions with significant population (first header)

I'm curious about the organization of the list of population centers. It reads a little awkwardly (whatever the real numbers are), as there are clearly more Jews living outside of Israel than within Israel, yet Israel is centered above, and the U.S., along with every other country, is listed below.

Is there any reason for this seemingly artificial emphasis on the Jewish population of Israel? I know someone will probably answer, it's the Jewish state--and that is indeed relevant and belongs in the article, but as an American Jew, I don't feel like an "other significant population center."

In short, why not just have all the entries arrayed evenly, in order of population, or similar to the way the kurd article has them organized. -- Sammermpc 13:00, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Israel is first because it has the biggest jewish population, not only in quantity but also in quality as many Jews in the Diaspora and in the USA in particular are alienated to any Jewish culture. Israel is also the only country with a Jewish majority and of course is the land of the Jewish people. With all due respect with American Jews, they can't compete with that. They are just indeed "another significant population center". Benjil 13:31, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
So you divide Jews into "high quality" and "low quality" ones based on where they live? Now that's a pretty condescending statement :-/ --Targeman 13:55, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
No, but you can divide communities based on "high quality" and "low quality" depending on how many Jewish service the community provides (synagogues, community centers, charities, mikvahs, erev, etc). There is a difference between a vibrant community and a non-existent community. Jon513 14:53, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes that's what I meant, sorry if it was not clear enough. Benjil 14:56, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Ah, OK. :-) --Targeman 15:02, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
It might be useful to indicate in the table what the relative percentage of the population Jews are in each country, and maybe organize it in basically descending order on that basis. That might make it a bit more transparent to newcomers to the page. John Carter 15:05, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Which leads to the question, how do you determine the number of Jews in a country? Am I right to think those are guesstimates made by Jewish organizations? I am of Jewish ancestry but since I'm uncut, an atheist, and don't practice any Jewish traditions, I suppose I and people like me don't qualify? Where do you draw the line? --Targeman 15:12, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
That's a really good question, and well beyond my own profoundly limited capacity to answer. All I was really thinking about was taking the existing numbers in the table and determining what percentage of the population they constitue. I have no idea how those numbers are come by, though. John Carter 15:16, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
From what I understood, there are a few different sources, but it is mainly the work of specialists of demography like Professor Sergio DellaPergola of the Hebrew University (the main authority on the question) and surveys conducted by the main Jewish organizations in each country - the French did there own in 2002, and the USA in 2000 (with a few new ones last year with different data). In these studies they usually count the people who identify as Jews, taking or not taking into account (each survey its own methodology) the halakhic definitions. For smaller countries or unorganized communities, yes it can be partly guess work. Benjil 15:28, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm quite happy to let the matter rest, as it is really not a serious issue, but I do take issue with quite a few of Benjil's statements in ways that are perhaps not relevant to the article, but that certainly are to me. I have no issue with arranging the list in order of population, and that indeed, appears to be how it is organized (more or less). I wonder though, if the confirmed Jewish population of the United States exceeded that of Israel (and the numbers appear to suggest that that is a possibility), would the United States be listed first--and centered--and would Israel be an 'Other significant population center.' I doubt it. What if the Jewish minority in the States was more devout than that in Israel? It is not easy to make those value judgments.

Should, perhaps the list be arranged, as John Carter suggests, in order of percentage of Jewish population? That seems a bit unintuitive, but I would be fine with it. I would prefer a blank presentation of Jewish population. As it is organized, it is given the feeling that Israeli Jews have more inherent 'worth' as Jews than those living in other 'less-Jewish' places. The 'high-quality, low-quality' distinction seems absurd and more than a little artifical. What's the ratio? Is each American Jew 3/5 of an Israeli Jew? Does an Orthodox Jew get counted twice?

If you are a Jew, you're a Jew. You are no more or less Jewish conditional on where you live. A secular Jew in Israel is the same as a secular Jew in the United States. Or Mexico, or Argentina. If you're the only Jew in an entire city, you're not less of a Jew. You're one.

I think it is abundantly clear why Israel is important, and I do not feel like that distinction need be made on what is, by all appearances, a list of Jewish populations throughout the world. In any case, Israel, by dint of its population, would remain first in any other listing scheme we choose to implement. As I mentioned before, the kurd page seems organized quite nicely, and could be done so with the 'Middle East' first, or something like that.

A side note, summing the populations listed pushes you north of 14 million pretty quickly, at odds with the 13 million 'Total Population' listed. --Sammermpc 20:46, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Also check out how the Persian_people article is broken down. The vast majority are in Iran, yet Iran is listed without emphasis. --Sammermpc 19:24, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

A list of populations should not have Israel centred and singled out. The fact that others have brought up it being a Jewish state, or a provisor of more services to Jews are irrelevant to the size of the population and the current formatting is not NPOV. It doesn't make a lot of sense anyway. -- Ron

Photos of Famous Jews

Why are only actors and entertainers pictured in the photos at the top? I seem to recall politicians, philosophers, scientists, etc. there before, along with maybe one or two artists/entertainers. The way it is now is ridiculous.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.149.105.43 (talk)

I reverted the infobox back to its prior form. The change was made earlier today and I can see no discussion before making this radical change. Rickterp 21:30, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Why would picture of Emma Lazarus appear on the top? I have no doubt about her jewishness, but is she as famous as Sigmund Freud, Karl Marx , Franz Kafka or Shalom Aleichem ? (Drouch 22:48, 23 August 2007 (UTC))


Arabic speakign Jews

On the "Ethnobox" I did place Arabic along with other language under the tap "Language" Some another user did revert those edits stating that Arabic speaking Jews did was existing on the 20th not today?, I mean thats radicilous, because those people did not die out or vanished away those did migrate to Israel, and now we thinks they are native Hebrew speakers? no its incorrect they speak Arabic and Judeo Arabic, there are a special radio program for Judeo-Arabic in Israel today, there are American and Russian Jews in Israel who speaks English and Russian natively, they did not became native Hebrew speker but Arabs did? oh please that is shit talk. and btw almost all Israeli Jews understand abit Arabic. It should be placed on the Ethnobox. Balu2000 13:50, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree, no problem with that. Benjil 14:21, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
I suggest bringing it up at the talkpage for the infobox, or directly with Humus, who reverted you. He/she is very familiar with the topic, so you could probably get your questions answered that way rather than coming here. DanielC/T+ 15:23, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Nobel prize

The famous Jews section states: "The Jewish people have the largest percentage of Nobel prize winners (approximately 160 in all) compared to any other ethnic or religious group." The source provided is "The Jewish News Weekly of Northern California" which is hardly a RS. Besides, this fact is highly doubtful seeing as there's been around 800 prizes. Please provide a better source. JRWalko 01:16, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Would this source serve as a citation: [1]? Hertz1888 02:15, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Again not an RS. There's no doubt Jews have won many Nobel prizes but they have certainly not won more than "any other ethnic or religious group". Seems like this is some minor propaganda by an author who didn't even bother to check the list of winners. JRWalko 20:37, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
I'll try to find a source for that, but from what I've seen, compared to the size of the Jewish people, that claim is probably true. Of course it not true in relative terms, but note the claim says "largest percentage" - it means largest percentage of the ethnic group have nobel prize, not that if we divide the list to groups, Jews will be the largest group in the list. Perhaps a better formulation of that sentence will help. okedem 22:23, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
I need to find the precise source, but from what I recall, Jews make some 20% of Nobel Prize winners. I don't know if this is the largest percentage of any ethnic group (it would seem so), but anyway, as Jews make up 0.25% of the world population, this is a great achievement. Benjil 22:30, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Christians would by far make up a larger percentage of winners than Jews. Again, I'm not disputing the achievement, I'm just saying that a Northern California online ethnic paper probably shouldn't be cited for such a sweeping statement. I think this should be removed or changed. It should say "so and so many Nobel prizes have been awarded to Jewish people" only keep in mind that not all of those people were just Jewish. If someone is half Jewish, half Christian then probably they shouldn't be counted as a Jewish person or a Christina person. JRWalko 22:48, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Bear in mind that Christians are not an ethnic group, but a religion. Jews are first and foremost and ethnic group. Conversion to Judaism are few and rare, while Christianity is by definition a missionary religion, with no common denominator save religion. okedem 22:53, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Here's a detailed list, with pages on each winner: [2]. okedem 22:59, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

The statement says "or religion" and seeing as it has already clearly proved to be fallacious in that aspect I'm removing it. Feel free to reinstate it when a WP:RS supports it. JRWalko 00:33, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

As you will see, I have reinstated and modified the statement to a form I hope will satisfy all previous objections. It is comparative but does not depend on any specific percentage, is therefore easier to source. The original claim has been toned down, the emphasis shifted, and the religious aspect is gone. Hertz1888 06:18, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
As I said, the statement meant percentage of people of that group who won the prize - meaning, compared to the group's size. Anyways, the current formulation is much better and clearer. okedem 14:09, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Agreed, the current statement is fine and factually correct. JRWalko 19:49, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

First Jewish-Roman War as "anti-semitism"

  • Some examples in the history of anti-Semitism are: the Great Jewish Revolt against the Roman Empire;

I'm admittedly ignorant of the subject, but it seems strange to describe this as an example of anti-Semitism. Are there any mainstream scholars which describe it as such? Eleland 21:11, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the claim, as well as changing "some examples in the history are" to "the history includes", since fewer words are better words. Eleland 16:57, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Infobox

How on earth can we edit the "Jews" infobox? This is one of the few 'untouchable' ones. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Energyfreezer (talk • contribs) 14:42, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jews/Archive_19&oldid=1136843485"