Talk:Ashkenazi Jews/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Options for female pictures

As I mentioned above, if people are very keen on women to add to the picture box, there are plenty of non-living likely Ashkenazi women who would not fall under the strict WP:BLP rules, and for whom we have pictures. These include Rosalind Franklin, Gertrude Stein, Betty Friedan, Anne Frank, Hannah Arendt, Estée Lauder (person), Sarah Bernhardt, Judy Holliday, Stella Adler, Rosa Luxemburg, Golda Meir, Ayn Rand. I'm sure there are lots more. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:32, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly with Jayjg that the quickest solution is to snatch some well known, deceased females from the list. Golda Meir was once on the list, so please let us return her photo...and then someone choose another... Best, A Sniper (talk) 23:04, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Good choices - several are pretty high profile - I'd go with Meir, Gertrude Stein and Estée Lauder, for a diverse and interesting representation. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:41, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest to take out of the candidates list women who are highly controversial figures by large part of Jewish people (obviously they can't represent Jewish people). I can't find why you didn't count Emmy Noether as well. There is also a need for more figures that lived earlier to 19-20 CE and also after 1960's and outside Europe (USA and Israel communities which make the by far largest concentrations of Ashkenazim today). I storngly recommend on Meir, Rosalind Franklin/Emmy Noether and Anne Frank --Gilisa (talk) 18:14, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Anne Frank is definitely a bad idea, given that she was just a kid: she didn't have time to achieve anything except getting killed for the wrong reason while happening to have a diary (and considering how much publicity she already gets, why should we add to it?). Being killed really isn't that much of an achievement when you're apparently excluding a great genius like Felix Mendelssohn on the trivial (questionably chauvinistic) grounds that we have too many Germans. Again, as was the case with Trotsky, including a crazy and divisive ideologist like Rosa Luxemburg does not put people who have Jewish descent in a good light. Although Hannah Arendt is popular in hipster lit-crit circles, she doesn't have a decent reputation amongst professional philosophers, and Ayn Rand is even worse. I am no expert on Israeli politics, but my understanding is that Golda Meir was wholly incompetent as a national leader (again why on earth choose her over mendelssohn?). I don't think gender balancing the dead people in the our box should take such a high priority. If we want a ballerina, then there's ida rubinstein http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ida_Rubinstein_Face.jpg . But overall now it seems that removing the photobox altogether is starting to make far more sense. Avaya1 (talk) 23:04, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Don't get things out of context. I do not exclude no one because he was born in Germany, and any way we are talking about Ashkenazi Jews. I'm excluding him because we have to get a good representation in time, gender, field of activity and place of origin. You claimed yourself that there are not many woman here. So like you I claim that there are under representation of rabbanical figures-it seems you don't/ can't/ don't have the tools to appreciate their activity more than you appreciate Mendelson's one, but weithout no doubt they influenced much more on Ashkenazim and there is absolutly no reason that can explain why they are not here-actually they are the ancestors of most Ashkenazim...so who could make a "better" Ashkenazi?. Mendlson also converted to christianity, and that's make him less ideal and too divisive for the list (and his personal views on women are not relevant for his inclusion/exclusion from the photobox; I also agree with you about Loxemburg). There are many geniuses among Ashkenazi Jews and therefor it can't be the only criteria for inclusion. Meir indeed was incompetent but she is not controversial among Jewish people (Arendt is highly controversial and even had love affair with Nazi philosopher and considered to be self hated Jew by many). It would seem better if we have to choose 3 women, 3 rabbanical figures, make sure that there is time representation to at least 5-6 centuries and that the Jews in the photo box are not only German born (therefor Rosalind Franklin is better than Emmy Noether) and must include at least one Israeli and American Jew. Otherwise this photobox only make sense for an article on German-Austrian born Jews (known in Yiddish and Hebrew as Yeka) and only for the 19-20 CE. As for Anne frank-she is a Jewish symbol, and it realy doesn't matter that she wasn't an academic or that she was a child-it mean nothing, I can't understand where you get it from-she represent Ashkenazi history better than many others already in the photobox (e.g., Max Born). Don't forget that this photobox should represent the history and spirit of Ashkenazi Jewery history and not only outstanding intellectuals (so there is also a place for sportsman and famous figures). --Gilisa (talk) 05:32, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Anne Frank is a good choice precisely because she was destined to live an ordinary life, had she not gotten caught up in the Holocaust and written a diary that survived the war. Bus stop (talk) 13:08, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Options for Israelis pictures

I think that we should include at least one Israeli (it can be women of course) in the photobox. Here are the options:

Distinguished academics: Aaron Ciechanover/Avram Hershko/Robert Aumann/Daniel Kahneman/Ada Yonath (woman)/Ephraim Katzir/Yuval Ne'eman/Adi Shamir/Michael O. Rabin/Yakir Aharonov for all I can get free license picture.

Diplomats: Abba Eban/Shimon Peres/Ora Namir(a woman and great diplomat).

Industrialists: Stef Wertheimer/Zohar Zisapel/Eli Hurvitz.

Religious leaders: Yisrael Meir Lau/Aryeh Levin/Zvi Yehuda Kook(there are free pictures in Israeli wikipedia).

Film directors: Joseph Cedar/Ari Folman.

Novelists: Yehuda Amichai/Shmuel Yosef Agnon/Ephraim Kishon.

Artists:Nahum Gutman/Menashe Kadishman/Anna Ticho (woman)/Reuven Rubin/Itzhak Perlman/ So there are enough options to choose at least one Israeli for the photobox

Gilisa, I've crossed out all the living people on the list. Please recall, what brought us here was the fact that the list contained living people. Please be more careful in the future to avoid suggesting living people, unless you have highly reliable sources indicating that they are Ashkenazi Jews. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:38, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Jayjg, you are overdoing it. There is no doubt that Yisrael Meir Lau is an Ashkenazi, your demand to source it sounds a bit odd to me. After all he was the Ashkenazi Chief Rabbi of Israel. As for the others, it will take time to find sources (realy not impossible, you can almost always find in the Israeli media an article which indicate whether one is an Ashkenazi or Sephardic, it's in Hebrew-so it will take time to approve it). Also, if it's written in any given source that one is from "Jewish Polish family" there is realy no need to look for the exact word "Ashkenazi" (while if he/she come from Greece, Spain, Istanbul (European part of Turky) or Bulgaria he/she is most probably Sephardic and if he/she come from Romania/Italy/Slovakia/Netherlands/French you will have to carefully check. So, I returning to the beginning, plaese tell me if you agree to remove the strike from Yisrael Meir Lau name.--Gilisa (talk) 07:03, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the strikeouts from Lau, since he was, as you point out, the Ashkenazi Chief Rabbi. Regarding other origins, I think you're generally correct, though, as I pointed out above, there were even Sephardic Jews in Poland. Regardless, we need to rely on reliable sources, not our own intuition. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:06, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!--Gilisa (talk) 16:21, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

BTW, you may want to look on the German People photobox to get better sense of how Ashkenazi photobox should look like..I'm against inclusion of models (I rather prefer sportsman), but besides it seems preety balanced.--Gilisa (talk) 07:58, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

What about Nathan Rosen?--Gilisa (talk) 10:02, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Bernstein

A user just deleted the inclusion of Bernstein's phocontroversialto/link and stuck in Bruno Walter - this wasn't discussed here so I reverted. Best, A Sniper (talk) 17:46, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Writer bias

A forum I read was trolled recently by a poster advocating the inherent superiority of Ashkenazi jews, and told us to "read the wiki" when rebuffed. I noticed a sentence in here claiming that 40% of Nobel prizes in science had been won by Ashkenazi jews, which represented less than 2% of the US population at the time. Reading the source material from the citation, they had the following statement, verbatim: "During the 20th century, they made up about 3% of the US population but won 27% of the US Nobel science prizes and 25% of the ACM Turing awards." Evidently some ill-intentioned editing is taking place here, and despite the delicious irony of Jews advocating theories of racial supremacy, it's pretty annoying. Just a heads up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.131.62.161 (talk) 12:05, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

"Delicious irony?" I assume you're new to Wikipedia since you don't have an account. I don't know who you're referring to in your post, but I disagree with any racial superiority comments on Wikipedia, and apologize that you came across that. It's common for a user to edit an article without including a reference. It's just as likely that someone will add a citation later without properly reading the entire document. The 40% figure likely comes from this, referring to Jews: "In the scientific research fields of Chemistry, Economics, Medicine, and Physics, the corresponding world and US percentages are 27% and 40%, respectively." [1] I may investigate to see what the correct percentage is. Until then, remember to sign your posts with four tildas. - Cyborg Ninja 21:00, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

The original poster does not include a link to the "forum" in which he encountered the "...poster advocating the inherent superiority of Ashkenazi jews..." Therefore it is hard to evaluate that reference.

Also, I wish the original poster would show us where the alleged advocacy for "racial supremacy" is found in the Wikipedia article on Ashkenazi Jews.

I'd also be curious to know why the original poster assumes the Wikipedia article was written by Jews. I believe people of all religions write Wikipedia articles. Bus stop (talk) 19:52, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

For the racial supremacy on wiki see Ashkenazi intelligence. An article which should probably be merged with this one since it really is about just one review article. Aprock (talk) 17:41, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

New whole genome study shows Ashkenazi have more European origins

I decided to post this since Jewish genetics seems popular in this article, and considering that unreliability of solely studying haplotypes. This link cites a scientific study showing Jews have more in common with Italians than near-easterners. In addition, they seem to be more homogeneous as well, having [i] even [/i] more in common with each other than Euros or Near-easterners, showing genetic variation that can't be explained simply by the mix of the two. Since posting genetics doesn't seem risque even for Wikipedia, then perhaps this should be cited as well.

http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2009/08/refinement-of-ancestry-informative.html

While the hyperlink is a blog (from an anthropologist), there is a direct link to a scientific, peer-reviewed article on there if anyone wants to dig it out.

"[i] Jewish populations form a cluster clearly distinct from all major continental populations. The results also reveal a finer population substructure in which each of 7 Jewish populations studied here form distinctive clusters - in each instance within group Fst was smaller than between group, although some groups (Iranian, Syrian) demonstrated greater within group diversity and even sub-clusters, based on village of origin. By pairwise Fst analysis, the Jewish groups are closest to Southern Europeans (i.e. Tuscan Italians) and to Druze, Bedouins, Palestinians. STRUCTURE results show that the Jewish Diaspora groups all demonstrated Middle Eastern ancestry, but varied significantly in the extent of European admixture. There is almost no European ancestry in Iranian/Persian Jews, whereas Syrian, Sephardic, and Ashkenazi Jews have European admixture ranging from 30%~60%. [/i]" --Jtd00123 (talk) 02:50, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Here is a direct link to the study if anyone is interested. http://www.plosgenetics.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pgen.0040004

I will probably update the article myself later if the article hasn't been updated. Just wanted to give a fair warning. --Jtd00123 (talk) 13:08, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

You want to update what exactly. I don't really see any contradiction with what is written now. Benjil (talk) 13:17, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Studies on Ashkenazi genetics are obviously conflicting. The studies cited here on wikipedia state that they are closer to Middle-easterners when looking at the Y-Dna, (and makes a rather capricious conclusion that what is on the mitochondrial side is near-eastern as well) while the study I posted here on the discussion board clearly states that, when looking on a broader scale, they have they have more admixture with Europeans than Middle Easterners , and what is not admixed with Europeans and Near-easterners is independent from both the former and the latter, meaning they have genetic variation that can't be explained by simply mixing of the two ethnic groups. This is stated ostensibly, and directly conflicts what is on the wiki article. --Jtd00123 (talk) 14:35, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

EDIT: I apologize, I posted the wrong article above. http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pubmed&pubmedid=19707526 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jtd00123 (talk • contribs) 14:45, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Even that I've bad English, I'm very well familiar with genetic research methods and with population studies. Studies on Ashkenazi genome are everything but contradicting and this study is not different. It naturaly and unsurprisingly puts mediteranian populations in different cluster than non mediterranean populations (and also showed that Southern European populations are closer to Arabic clusters than Northen)-that's it. It tell nothing about the Ashkenazim being Europeans it just tell where they are placed when one variable is added or excluded from the sample and this way it conclude that Ashkenazim and Southern Europeans are more likely to share similarities in their genome, but it don't tells whether these similarities came from Jewish contribution to Southern European populations (as it's the case for ~20% of Iberians)or the vice versa or that Southern Europeans have Middle Eastern heredity (which is the case in Sicily and etc) or how close are Southern Europeans and Ashkenazim relatively to the similarities between Askenazim and Sephardim and etc. Nor does this article have such pretensions. You probably don't know how to read the results or didn't understand the experimental manipulations used in this study. Please aviod such unneutral statments and personal inaccurate commentaries. If you do change what is now on the article I'll revert it.--Gilisa (talk) 07:00, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

My commentary wasn't on "personal" or "unneutral" statements, but rather based on interpretations and assessments of the study on an anthropologist and a geneticist, from two reputable blogs. In fact, your rather whimsical conclusion in the end reflects to me that you are taking this more personally than I am, nor have you shown me any proof that you are any authority on the matter either. That being said, I wasn't aware that these interpretations were not in the study itself (which I will take blame for), so I will not edit since blogs are not allowed on wikipedia. Good day. --Jtd00123 (talk) 00:03, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

EDIT: Also, I would like to add that I have read the study myself 2 days ago and came to a similar conclusion that the interpretations were not from the source itself, which is why I did not edit. I'm still perplexed about your 2nd to last sentence. I am Ashkenazi too so I fail to see what I have to gain or lose from this. --Jtd00123 (talk) 00:28, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Achievements section

I want to delete this section. It's rasict and unneeded. --Gilisa (talk) 12:07, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I reverted your delete. Your English is indeed bad because you obviously did not understand what you were deleting. Ashkenazi Jews are a minority among *Israelis* not *Israeli Jews*, Sefaradim from Europe, not North African Jews, are indeed seen as Ashkenazim in Israel (and even sometimes North African Jews from France), and there is nothing racist in what you erased. Benjil (talk) 12:21, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Can't you see that the all section is racist? Sefaradim refer to all Jewish people who decended from Jews who live in Spain by the 15CE and they are not considerd as Ashkenazim in Israel. Those who came from Spain itself are mostly also considerd Sephardic. If people in Israel don't consider Jews from North Africa as Sephradim than it's would be out of internal racism but this is not the case-can you source your argument? It's written that although Ashkenazim comprise the majority of Jewish people they are minority in Israel, definitely suggesting that they are minority among Jewish people in Israel which is, of course, baseless. I'm going to revert you again and I ask you to be a bit more civil.--Gilisa (talk) 13:21, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

As I told you, the article states that in Israel a sefaradi from Europe can be taken as an Ashkenazi. Sefaradim are not people descending from Jews expelled from Spain but Jews who adopted the Sefaradi minhag even if their ancestors never went to Spain (as is the case of the majority of North African Jews by the way). Anyway, the article does not deal with North African Jews. It speaks about European Sefaradi Jews from Holland, Greece, Romania and other places in Europe that are seen as Ashkenazim in Israel even if they are not from a minhag point of view.

Regarding the majority/minority : the article is very clear, Ashkenazim are a majority among Israel Jews and a minority among all Israelis. What is so hard to understand exactly ? SO I will revert your baseless reverts. Benjil (talk) 13:47, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Benjil, you realy need to read the article again. I have no powers left to explain you. Anyway, go to the article on Sephradim-I don't understand where from you take the idea that this is more about the minhag (this is the cultural aspect and not the ethnical) and not their origin. Source your argument if you think it to be valid.

I have no idea what you want to explain, but I will try my side: Sefaradi/Ashkenazi are halakhic religious distinctions regarding minhagim. Nothing to do with ethnicity. Most of what we call Sefaradi Jews are not from Spain but from communities that adopted minhag sefarad. In Israel, Ashkenazi/Sefaradi is a cultural and social concept, hence Jews from Europe who are "real" Sefaradim (Sefaradi Tahor) or even just by minhag are seen as Ashkenazim. Is it clear now ? Benjil (talk) 14:15, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Second, before you blame me for having "baseless" arguments or problems in reading comprehension read the section again: It is written that altough Ashkenazim are a majority among Jews they are not majority in Isreal. The simplest interpretation for this is that Ashkenazi Jews are not a majority among Jewish people in Isreal. It's that simple but you seem to miss it. Also, even if it's written in other places in the article that they are Majority among Jewish people in Israel, this section is contradicting. There are also many duplicates in the article.--Gilisa (talk) 13:56, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

OK, you are realy starting to annoy me now : it is specificaly written in the article after you revert "..Today, Ashkenazi Jews constitute the largest group among Jews, but comprise a minority of Israeli Jews ..."

As for the Sephardim: "..Jews of any non-Ashkenazi background, including Mizrahi, Yemenite, Kurdish, and others having no connection at all with the Iberian Peninsula, have similarly come to be lumped together as Sephardic..." Jews from North Africa are considerd by virtually all literature exist as Sephardic both ethnically and both by minhag.

First, no, Jews from North Africa are not considered to be mostly from Spain. Second, Yemenite, Kurdish etc are not from North Africa, you should check a map. And they are not, mostly, from Spain. Benjil (talk) 14:15, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

You should learn Jewish history before editing here. You determine -against all known history and scientific literature that North African Jews are not descend from Jews who were expelled from Spain. Can you source this ridiculous statement or that your POV is enough?--Gilisa (talk) 17:42, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Another unneeded part: Jews of mixed background are increasingly common, partly because of intermarriage between Ashkenazi and non-Ashkenazi, and partly because some do not see such historic markers as relevant to their life experiences as Jews. -actually most youngsetrs don't find it relevant but ok..

So why do you decide this is not needed ? Benjil (talk) 14:15, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Becuase it is original research as long as it's not well sourced and explained.--Gilisa (talk) 17:42, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

or "Since the middle of the 20th century, many Ashkenazi Jews have intermarried, both with members of other Jewish communities and with people of other nations and faiths, while some Jews have also adopted children from other ethnic groups or parts of the world and raised them as Jews. Conversion to Judaism, rare for nearly 2,000 years, has become more common. Jewish women and families who choose artificial insemination often choose a biological father who is not Jewish, to avoid common autosomal recessive genetic diseases. Orthodox religious authorities actually encourage this, because of the danger that a Jewish donor could be a mamzer. Thus, the concept of Ashkenazi Jews as a distinct ethnic people, especially in ways that can be defined ancestrally and therefore traced genetically, has also blurred considerably.."-

How intermarrige and etc are relevant here? And as for artificial insemination it's realy comprise very low precent...can you source all of it? I'll revert.--Gilisa (talk) 14:07, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I did not write the article. And you do not revert as you like it. First you ask for sources from the people who wrote it, THEN you can maybe revert if not answered. Benjil (talk) 14:15, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I tried to be as polite as I could with you but you are repeatedly being uncivil. You are in the English wikipedia for several month already and you should know that writing other user "Your English is indeed bad " or using caps to get your message through is uncivil. That's not all but for now I ignore it. The all issue is that English wikipedia does not work like the Hebrew one: You first have to cite and then to write and not vice versa. Like in science: when you are claming something the burden of evidence is on you. So, I think that I made my point clear here. I'm going to revert, if you change it, it would violate WP:VAND.--Gilisa (talk) 14:34, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

You are bold. You are the one who comes here and make changes without asking anybody. The minimum is to first discuss the changes and reach consensus. That's the only reason I reverted your changes, because you decided to change out of nothing and in many cases, for wrong reasons not understanding what you were changing. I did not write this article I have nothing to prove or find sources for. The usual wikipedia procedure is to explain first what and why you want to change, then we discuss, then changes are made. Can you do that ? Benjil (talk) 07:05, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Start be civil. I don't need nobody premition to change factual mistakes. And if you insist to keep them here you must provide appropriate objective evidence, it realy doesn't matter whether you are the one who wrote it in the fisrt place or not.If you can't source something or that you source it wrongly than I can change without consensus and I have wikipedia rules to backup me.--Gilisa (talk) 07:30, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Female inclusion

Hello folks. For the last few weeks I have taken a big step back from the discussion over the photoboxes. I have included two well-known, deceased female Ashkenazic Jews. Besides there being enough religion-oriented figures, having one woman went against previous consensus. I hope that this edit improves the photoboxes. However, it is not intended to be in concrete - it is merely my attempt to move the inclusion of women. We can continue the debate on the appropriate women. I read the positive/negative comments above re: who should be represented, including the issues related to Meir and Arendt, but we have to start somewhere. These two women are without doubt internationally-known, whether or not we care for them. Arendt is on a national stamp, for example. Best, A Sniper (talk) 18:04, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I think it's quite good now, although we should try to find someone better than golda meir. And, also, if you find someone better, Eliezer Ben-Yehuda could also be replaced, since he's not such an important or famous figure (he could be replaced with e.g Alfred Tarski, Richard von Mises, Andre Weil). Avaya1 (talk) 18:46, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

He is very important in Israel, he revivied Hebrew language which is now spoken by at least 7 million people around the world and almosy by half of the Jewish people after many centuries it was only spoken in religious rituals or partly embedded into Yiddish and other Jewish dialects. You think it's not important but at best it's your own POV. As I told: the criteria for inclusion is not one's being famous (or enough important according to your criterions, even though I agree that importancy is matters to an extent that has already been achieved). The photobox should logicaly and naturaly aspire to represent the entire history of Ashkenazi Jews in terms of time and place.--Gilisa (talk) 08:15, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Gilisa. The funniest thing being that the people Avaya suggested - Tarksi and so on - I never even heard of them at all. Benjil (talk) 09:13, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

If you haven't heard of Tarski, then that's your loss. He's the most important person in logic after godel. Probably more people have heard of britney spears than newton, but that doesn't mean anything Avaya1 (talk) 02:57, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Felix Mendelson and Hannah Arendt in the photobox

I wasn't here when you entered them into the photobox but it wouldn't overdo it if I tell that these two persons-espcially Arendt are at the least controversial. Arendt is regarded as self hated Jew till today by many Jews. Also, we talked about Anne Frank. Let's change Arendt to Frank and Mendlson to Nathan Rosen. There is only one Israeli in the photo box now.--Gilisa (talk) 07:05, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

A sniper: The above were added to the infobox without consensus. Including Arendt in the photobox is at the least provocative, if you don't know why-read her article. Anne Frnak and Nathan Rosen were discussed on this talk page. Also, we discuss this issue many times: too much people from one place (Germany-and not that I've something against them but it is not an article on German Jews only), all from the same epoch and etc. This is not representative. So, I'm going to be bold and to revert. --Gilisa (talk) 07:34, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I think we should keep mendelssohn as before. I simply don't understand how he doesn't belong? His father converted to christianity, but, explicitly against his father's wishes, felix kept his ashkenazi name, and his life was an extremely important part in the history of jewish assimilation, and the german jewish community. "Ashkenazi" is not just religious concept, but also an ethnic and cultural one. Avaya1 (talk) 01:41, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Current photobox

While Arendt was suggested by Jayjg as one of few options-I spoke out against her inclusion as she is considered as highly contreversial among Jewish people and her inclusion here would be no less than bad taste if not provocative. Mendelson was suggested mainly by Avaya1.

Anne Frank was suggested by Jayjg and supported by me and by Bus Stop. While Golda Meir was supported by at least 4 users with only Avaya1 against. Only Avaya 1 objected to the inclusion of Anne Frank. I suggested Nathan Rosen as another option and no objections were written against. Then Avaya1 suggested few other options (all mathmaticians) with whom I have no problem but one user objected to their inclusion and support the inclusion of Rosen.

Anyway, when I updated the photobox and replaced Arendt with Frank and Mendelson with Rosen- A Sniper reverted my edits twice, claiming that I got no consensus-however, there is no consensus about Arendt and Mendlos as well, at the least. A sniper actions seems unjust.

More and aside for this matter, notice that both Arendt and Mendlson are German Jews and thats make the entire photobox unbalanced -before a four line was added the all photobox was more compatible to this of the German Jews article (now it's more balanced). There is not even one Isreali or American in the photobox, that's very unrepresentative. Not to mention that current status represent only very limited epoch of Ashkenazi history.--Gilisa (talk) 18:04, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

This is an article about Ashkenazic Jews. The issue with the photoboxes, by tradition, is that the subjects offer a well-balanced array of subjects of notoriety. It makes no difference whether or not Hannah Arendt is controversial to some folks - she is a) an Ashkenazic Jew and b) she is famous enough to warrant a stamp by a major world power. Your argument re: whether or not the subjects are German is rather baseless. Regardless, there needs to be more discussion. Removing Mendelsohn had no justification whatsoever. I'll leave Anne Frank for now, but there needs to be more discussion. A Sniper (talk) 18:36, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

A Sniper, your statments are realy arbitrary and you took everything I wrote out of context. I didn't tell that they are "German", don't put words in my mouth and please assume good faith. What more that this is realy not the reason for my objection, you can't be farest from it.as I wrote photobox should represent as much parts of Ashkenazi Jewery as possible and certianly that you can't include so many people from the same place and time on the expense of notable Ashkenazi Jews from Israel , USA or Romania for example. It's called common sense. You didn't realy refer to any of my arguments just made statments. First, where have you seen agreement about Mendelson that you feel so safe to leave him here-what is the criteria you made? He was also converted to Christianity, how exactly you consider him to be Ashkenazi representor. Second, why if so not to include Otto Weininger? He was Ashkenazi, the photobox should represent Ashkenazi Jewery (it was different if the article was on Jews who convert to other religion) for the possible largest extent of agreement-and Anne Frank for instance (and so Nathan Rosen) are very much uncontroversial. Arendt had a romance with Nazi professor and by many considerd as one who provided moral deafence to Nazis actions after the war. And to sum: What do you mean by "more discussion"?we discuss the all issue for weeks, descions have to be made. Another option is to call for the arbirtrators committee--Gilisa (talk) 18:47, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

We actually have been discussing this for well over a year until we did reach consensus, and the photoboxes stayed static for a period of time. Then a couple of editors showed up and now everything has been chaotic. You appear to be having a lot of arguments with a lot of editors. A Sniper (talk) 18:53, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Please refer to the arguments I have with you and answer them all. You seem to drive the all issue to larger disagreement. --Gilisa (talk) 19:01, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

(i) I'm not a fan of arendt, but my understanding is that she had her affair with heidegger long before he joined the nazi party. And that she and karl jaspers were both horrified about heidegger's behaviour. She is famous for writing against evils of the nazis. (ii) I don't understand your argument about over-representing the german-jewish community. I don't think we have any consensus about proportionally representing each european community. (iii) And see what I wrote about mendelssohn in the talk section above. He didn't convert to christianity, but his father did. And he famously went against his father's wishes in keeping his ashkenazi name. Aside from being a giant in music history, he's an extremely important part of german-jewish history, which includes the story of their unsuccessful assimilation. Ashkenazi is not just a religious, but also an ethnic and cultural concept. The story of secular or assimilated ashkenazi culture also deserves to be represented (they made an amazing contribution to german high-culture). Best Avaya1 (talk) 02:14, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

The contribution of Jews to German culture is strongly represented here. They made huge, probably greater in most fields, contributions to American culture as well, to Israel and in many other countries and it's not represented here what so ever-without one good reason. The only "answer" you gave me so far was to imply that I have something against them because they are Germans (which is less than ridiculous). If it is the reason (i.e. extent of contribution) you support virtually only Jews from Germany to be included in the photobox than you have weak argument. Otto Weininger also made huge contribution to German culture but was oto-Anti Semitic and Arendt is suspected for the same attitudes after spoke out against Jews during the early 1960s. If you want someone who represent contribution to the German culture there are almost endless options and your persistence to include Mendlson and Arendt against which there is at least objections-is unconstructive.--Gilisa (talk) 06:19, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Nobody else agrees with your idea that there are too many Germans, or thinks that we should proportionally represent the difference communities - I'm afraid you have no consensus on this. Mendelssohn and Weininger are not comparable. Mendelssohn has always been understood as one of the most important events in secular jewish culture, and he's entirely uncontroversial. You've failed to answer my point (ii). Moreover, the simple reality is that we've had a consensus to include Mendelssohn - only you have objected to this. Therefore the onus is on you to build a consensus before removing him. You might disagree with his inclusion, but you have to have some kind of consensus before removing him, as we had on including him. Avaya1 (talk) 17:11, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Avaya, all of my ancestors are Jews who came from Grmany or "Germans" as you insist to call them, obviously to imply that I've something against them as a group (which is poor indictment at best) and to disregard my claims by this allusive allegation that my actions were not made in good faith, while you impudently ignoring a point that I made clear several times very well before. But that's not important, what is important is that there is no agreement on mendlson and at the least there is no consensus. Your claims for "1 year consensus" are not valid and as you might noticed, the photobox was changed (WP:CCC)several times during the last few weeks, with many different people getting in and out of it frequently-that's not a consensus. For the last weeks it's your presistence that prevent the photo to have consensus. My reasons for removing Mendlson are at least as good as your reasons to include him, and clearly you are not the one to judge what is adequate reson and what isn't, so for now you have no consensus on him. However there is an agreement on Golda Meir (who once was well in this photobox you know) with you as the only opponent and yet I didn't include her because unlike you I'm waiting for 100% consensus, and even you was the only opponent (vs. at least 3 users supported her) and if I recall right for Anne Frank as well, when I entered Anne Frank to the photobox it was reverted per talk page. You may suggest other notable figure instead of Mendlson if you want things to go faster and the photobox to well represent the quality of this article. Don't drag me into edit wars with you and cease with your personall baseless allegations toward me. If you revert it again you will be considerd as engaging into edit war.--Gilisa (talk) 20:35, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

We're all volunteers trying to improve the website. I have no desire to make allegations against you. How about Mendelssohn for Max Born? This way we keep the representation of the German-Jewish community exactly the same. Avaya1 (talk) 15:09, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Avaya, we may start from the begining following the advise of Casliber. For now please avoid adding Mendlson, I know that you admire him and you think that he would be great for the photobox, but he's just not a good choice as I see it (and following the guidelines that Casliber suggested as well). Please do not insert him without agreement here.

As you may know consensus in wikipedia is not all or nothing, and to build a consensus we are guided by wikipedia to move forward to where we share the same view. I feel that German Jewery and the 19-early 20 CE are well represented in the photobox. Infact, I was the one who entered/suggested few German born Jews into the photobox. As we are probably not going to have an agreement on Mendlson and for sure not on Arendt I here by to suggest you to offer new notable candidates that will reflect proportionally the history and notability of Ashkenazi Jewery. I promise to consider positively any constructive candidacy you will make. Remember that wikipedia ask as to seek compromise where we can't get to an agreement and that both Golda Meir and Anne Frank candidacies were accepted by most editors on the talk page, with you as the only opponent to Golda Meir. We want to finish this issue and as you know the article quality should not suffer from long lasting disagreements, so I'm seriously ask you to find the point where consensus would be achieved.--Gilisa (talk) 14:41, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I feel that the recent revision that took Harry Schwarz out of the photobox should be be reverted to include Schwarz. I feel it is import to include him due to the fact that there is currently no South African/African representation at all in the box, especially as Schwarz was one of the leading political figures in the second half of the 20th century in South Africa. Schwarz should be included to make the box a true representation of Ashkenazi Jews. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rock12321 (talk • contribs) 17:54, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

If anyone has any problems/queries with Harry Schwarz being added, please do not hesitate to say and if there is the general consensus that he shouldn't be there, then he shall be remembed. -- User:Rock12321 00:51, 27 October 2009

I have a problem with all the Rabbanic figures at one line. This is realy outrages, like someone tried to say:"Well, they are religious figures, they are less important than ..". Must be fixed immediately.--Gilisa (talk) 10:35, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Gilisa, it is in chronological order, check the dates of birth. Remember, there was no organized secular Jewry until around the times of the Vilna Gaon (late 18th century). Beforehand, all organized Jewry was religious, and their great figures were scholars. -- Avi (talk) 17:17, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

What are the criteria for inclusion in the "photo-box?"

Have we determined that yet? Shouldn't the criteria be arrived at first, before trying to find human beings to fit those criteria? Shouldn't the criteria be simply stated, in the briefest possible terms? As there are likely to be more than one criteria for inclusion in the photo-box, shouldn't the separate criteria be ordered by importance? Can a simple list of criteria be assembled first, in the absence of the mention of people's names? A discussion in the abstract would be a little bit more intellectually refreshing and enjoyable than what is transpiring here. Bus stop (talk) 18:22, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Although in principle I agree that criteria should be stated, I think that practically it will only prolong and increase the disagreement over the photobox. I also think that anything that include rates is highly problematic. For instance: who is more notable Richard Finman or Max Born? Chagall or Mark Spitz? there is no good way to answer it and the talk page will soon reflect it. I suggest a reasonable criteria that I think to be easy to accept: We should include mostly (let's say 90%) humans who are notable for their occupation and etc, but we should have clear quotas: a quota for each epoch in the history of Ashkenazim (let's say that there are roughly 3 epoches: Middle ages, 17-eraly 20 CE, Modern days), place of birth (let's say that 1/3 would be from the Austria/Germany, 1/3 from eastern Europe and 1/3 from other countries) and to have diversity in occupation (let's say that at least two great rabbanical figures as it's now, 1-2 statesmans, 3-4 scientists, 1 sportman, 1 artist and 1 philosopher-or something lije that). Jews who willingly converted to other religion or expressed otoantisemitism should not be included for their being too controversial. Of course, this is initial guidelines, but I think that it may help to make order.--Gilisa (talk) 18:34, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

How much longer could it be prolonged? It seems like it's been going on interminably already. Increase the disagreement? The disagreement has already reached a crescendo pitch. I'm trying to bring the discussion to a more rational basis. I think names should be left out at the beginning stage. The arguments should be about principles, not people. Later we can see what human beings fit those principles. A major complicating problem is that there seems to be some doubt in most instances as to whether a person is even an Ashkenazi Jew, especially if the example is from modern times. Bus stop (talk) 20:30, 14 September 2009 (UTC) Bus stop (talk) 20:30, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

May be you are right. I'm in favor of solution, it just can't continue like that. However, I want a reasonable solution: we have two more slots available in the photobox. At least one must be a women, as for the other-it can be a men. I will not support the inclusion of anyone with extreme opinions against Judaism in the photobox and also as this article is about Ashkenazi Jewery I think it wouldn't be too much to ask that it will not be a Jew who convert to other religion. At least on of the two must come from USA or from Israel which are not represented in the photobox. If you can agree with this than all we have to do is to join as more users and get the vast majority. I believe it would be too hard to achieve it. Also, I suggested more principles in my first reply to you. As for the disability to conclude who is Ashkenazi-it's not realy a problem. As long as he was born in a European country before WWII he is Ashkenazi, aside for Greek, Italy, Netherlands, Iberia and Bulgary-this countries communities are considered Sephardic. Indeed, even in Poland and Germany many Jew decended from Sephardim but it mean nothing as they adopted the Ashkenazi Halacha, dialects and cultures within one generation and enough time has passed. They intermarried with Ashkenazim immediately and forgot about their Sephardic ansectry in a matter of very few generations--Gilisa (talk) 20:55, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I guess you're making more progress than I was aware of. I didn't realize there were only two slots not yet filled. So far the only person I'm enthusiastic about is Anne Frank. That is because my heart goes out to her. Assuming she is Ashkenazi, I think she could represent Ashkenazi Jewery alone. Bus stop (talk) 22:29, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

You have my support on Frank. She is a Jewish symbole even if didn't compose no aria or sonata and was only a teenager. I think that beside Avaya1 no one here have any objection to her inclusion. Do you agree that the photobox should include at least one American/Israeli as well? I would suggest in this case Milton Fridman or Nathan Rosen (but I'm open minded for other options as well). --Gilisa (talk) 05:56, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I have to repeat that I am basically opposed to including people on the basis of noteworthiness. Ashkenazi Jews are not noted for being noteworthy. Noteworthiness is not part of the definition of Ashkenazi Jews, so why should we want to convey that misimpression? But then again I'm opposed to the presence of the photo-box altogether at this and similar articles. I'm in favor or scholarliness in this type of article. I think the fanfare associated with these luminaries detracts from an accurate portrayal of the subject of the article, which is a large group of people, most of whom lead very ordinary lives. Bus stop (talk) 11:44, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I realy don't have problem with this and I wrote it many times. However, this kind of photoboxes can't include anonymous persons -so naturally it will include people who didn't lived ordinary lifes (including Frank btw). More, it represent Jewery history and again every epoch have its own symboles. Eli Wiesel and Anne Frank may represent the holocaust which affected tremendously on Ashkenazi Jewery. The estblishment of Israel is very important event in Ashkenazim history. Again, I'm with you about that not only superstars should be included here but to ask that only oridinary will is unrealistic and disrespectful as it is not accepted in any other photobox. So, again, we agree on Anne Frank-please suggest an Israeli to the photobox as well-I think that it would be embarrassing if no Isreali include in the photobox. It don't have to be extraordinary person, but one who represent something.--Gilisa (talk) 12:00, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think most people are listed as Ashkenazi Jews. Check out Gil Student and Berel Wein. I just figured I'd check out their articles to see if it said they were Ashkenazic Jews. The articles don't mention this. It might or might not be the case that they are Ashkenazi Jews. The point that I really want to make is that it is virtually unknowable, except anecdotally, that anyone in the modern age really is an Ashkenazi Jew. By the way, they are both interesting people. I happen to have heard them both speak. Berel Wein does reside in Israel, but I think he is from Chicago. I think photo-boxes on this article and articles similar to this article constitute more of a decoration than something that imparts good quality information to the reader. Bus stop (talk) 13:16, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Seem like good choices, both, but we should establish there being Ashkenazi as they are living persons. Actually, we have to source Gil student being Ashkenazi or to provide a free picture of Berel Wein (whose being Ashkenazi is sourced). Here is a picture from the Hebrew wikipedia [2], we have to contact Rabbi Wein's website to get an approval to use his photo. However, we can wait wit it until we have reasonable consensus here--Gilisa (talk) 13:27, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

We've already been through this; the article will have pictures of famous people because a) that's what all ethnicity articles (like this one) have, and b) because those are the kinds of pictures that Wikipedia has reliable sources indicating they are part of the ethnicity. Rather than wasting time on trying to find pictures for inappropriate choices, it would make more sense to come to a consensus on famous (non-living) people to be added. I don't have particularly strong opinions on who specifically they should be. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:06, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes notability is the criteria for photoboxes for every other ethnic group in the rest of wikipedia. Why should our article be different? Avaya1 (talk) 01:34, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Notability is the key. A Sniper (talk) 01:50, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Notability is contraindicative if you are trying to indicate the typical Ashkenazi Jew. This immoderate fanfare is merely for entertainment purposes and is not what good article-writing is about in this instance. The best choice, in my humble opinion, is to eliminate the photo-box in this article altogether. Bus stop (talk) 03:25, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I realy don't care they would be notable or not. However, even there is majority for Frank here she is still not included. You argue that the photobox should follow other similar photoboxes but only here the photobox include dead people (part of it is because for notable people it's harder to find source for their being Ashkenazi as they are fewer and because you choose a very severe definition for who is Ashkenazi (according which one whose family is 5 generation in Poland but came from Sephardic origins is not Ashkenazi-it's realy un original definition because it realy don't work like that even among ultra orthodox people who consider too much the all issue of what community one came from)and there is no good representation of occupations that made them famous.--Gilisa (talk) 06:11, 16 September

2009 (UTC)

You may want to include only notable people and it's find, but it's not the key to build a consensus: there are many notable Ashkenazi Jew. The criteria should focus on time, place and the part in history they played.--Gilisa (talk) 13:05, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

(<-) R' Moshe Isserles (the RaMa) is one of the most important figures defining Ashkenazi Jewry, as he is considered the authoritative codifier of centuries of Ashkenazi traditions that differed from the Sephardi traditions that R' Yosef Karo used in writing the Bais Yosef and Shulkhan Aruch. An argument can reasonably be made that without the Rama, there would be no Ashkenazi Jewry as all Jews would have followed the Sephardi traditions of the Bais Yosef over time, without his glosses. This predates the Secular movements (Reform etc.) by centuries, and even irreligious Jews would not have had the Ashkenazi/Sephardi differentiation without it being codified into daily law. -- Avi (talk) 15:41, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

RaMa is one of the most important figures of Ashkenazi rabbinical religious authorities in history and of course played important role in the history of Ashkenazi Jews -I have no objection for him in the photobox.--Gilisa (talk) 16:34, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I am no expert in the area at all, and have not heard of RaMa, but the criteria outlined above by Avi make him a good person to include. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:42, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Isn't it a bit bizarre that four of the people in the photo box were actually Christian, at least nominally? (One of them was actually a Christian by faith and upbringing who was by all accounts rather serious and sincere about his religion - namely, Felix Mendelssohn.) And aren't several of the other members "Jewish" only by fate (like Emmy Noether) or on a very nominal basis?

It is probably the case than in many "ethnicity" pages there is a tendency to grab at whoever is famous and has been claimed by somebody or the other before. Still, that doesn't make such a practice terribly encyclopaedic. Feketekave (talk) 13:01, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Feketekave, stop following my edits and spreading your POV anywhere you can. Emmy Noether was Jewish, even if it's hard for you to accept that she was not German as much as you like her to be. BTW, Noether's brother who live in Germany after the Nazis raised to power, flee germany because he wasn't an ethnical German.--Gilisa (talk) 17:15, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I may be forced to report this nonsense. Feketekave (talk) 19:06, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Go ahead and report this "nonesense".--Gilisa (talk) 19:50, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

See [3]. Feketekave (talk) 14:07, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Strange, I had the feeling that you knew already that I saw it...well, nevermind.--Gilisa (talk) 18:05, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

My idea - playing safe

A big problem is that there are elements in all this which transcend religion and are cultural and ethnic as well, and trying to define them with a simplistic or reductionistic label of only religion or culture or ethnicity will run into problems sooner rather than later. Best thing is to restrict photobox people to the most unambiguous possible. Anyone who has any query will be complianed about sooner or later, so keeping it really safe is prudent (ye gods, all this over a photobox!) Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:16, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

You are right. But the photobox is the first thing that readers see. Anyway, we could get to an agreement already, there is unrelevant presistence of some users.--Gilisa (talk) 06:13, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Ethnic group?

American users should be aware that in the UK and most other European states (apart from Russia) Jews are not considered as an ethnic group, but as adherents of a particular religion. 82.36.94.228 (talk) 10:16, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Uh, with all due respect, that is absurd. Best, A Sniper (talk) 06:33, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

But this is true. Ask some one from the EU. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.73.32.44 (talk) 01:56, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

A. Sniper, if you would please explain how saying that Jews not being considered an ethnic group is absurd? Do you rather believe the well thought out, objective popular opinion that Ashkenazi Jews, Sephardic Jews, Syrian Jews, and many other Jewish groups who look, talk, and act differently from each other, not to mention have been separated from each other geographically for the most part for thousands of years (if they even originated from the same source in the first place) are one ethnic group? Would you say this is plausible and not absurd?

And to the individual who started this discussion, what do you think about that? Also, what do Europeans say when someone tells them that Jews are indeed an ethnic group?

Please review WP:NOTAFORUM. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:36, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Jayjg , does Polish are ethnic group? If so, why Jews aren't? Because they forced to leave their homeland about 1600 years ago? They have make a unique genetic cluster and having their own culture, religion, languages and history. Making them absolutly an ethnic group. Claming otherwise is absurd, totaly. Many other Jews will also considered such a claim as highly offensive--Gilisa (talk) 21:31, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Few if any sources support the terminology "ethnic group" in relation to Jews. Bus stop (talk) 20:55, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

It's very odd you should make that claim, Bus stop. Over two years ago I directed you to some resources on Jews as an ethnic group. Have you not had a chance to review them yet? Or any of the other incredibly voluminous literature on Jewish ethnicity? Jayjg ^(talk) 21:24, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

You better go and make some homework before writing down such a baseless and weak argument. In genetical study papers Jews are always refered as ethnic group and so by many historians. There are who argue that Jews are not an ethnic group, but usually they hold a POV.--Gilisa (talk) 21:27, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Neither of you have provided a source for the pairing of two terms in the realm of what we're discussing. The titles of the two books suggested necessitates the use of of the term ethnic because of the nature of the comparisons — namely between groups of people distinguishable from one another. But if the "Irish," the "Italian," or the "Black" were Jewish, would they all be distinguishable from one another? No, they would not. By your reasoning (and lack of sources) the Irish person would be "ethnically Jewish," the Italian person would be "ethnically Jewish," and the Black person would be "ethnically Jewish." I haven't read the books. If a source to support the pairing of these terms with one another is found in those books, please point it out to me. Bus stop (talk) 01:49, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Huh? I pointed you to books discussing Jewish ethnicity. Are you deciding what their contents are based on your assessment of their titles? And there are hundreds more sources. "The first full length sociological treatment of Jews as an ethnic group was The Jew within American Society (1965) by C. Bezalel Sherman." [4] "Indeed, in The Ghetto, one of the first studies of Jewish ethnicity within American society..."[5] Rather than continuing to make obviously false statements on article Talk pages, it would be better to do some reading. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:14, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

By your assessment the books discuss "Jewish ethnicity." It is true that I have not read the books you refer to. Do you have a source from within those books that asserts that Jews are in fact an ethnic group, and not a religious group? The page that you are referring me to in the case of the first book asserts that Jews are a religious group. Bus stop (talk) 07:53, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

The source, in fact, says that Jews are "not only an ethnic group", but also a religious group - as you are well aware. I certainly can't force you to read the hundreds and hundreds of sources on Jewish ethnicity, but I can request that you refrain from further inaccurate or false statements on Talk: pages. You are entitled to maintain your personal views, even in light of the voluminous evidence contradicting them, but you don't really have the right to subject Wikipedia readers to them. Please review WP:TALK and WP:NOTAFORUM. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:27, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

The sentences I am referring to, from the book that you linked to, to say, "But American Jews are not only an ethnic group; in fact have only recently come to be perceived as such. They are also a religious group and have been so perceived for a much longer period of time. We should, therefore, look to the sociology of religion for an explanation of those trends and patterns."

This is not a discussion begun by me, and you have been a participant in it. Others in this thread see a problem with the terminology that you apparently support. I believe the preponderance of published sources would relegate Judaism to the category of religion, and Jews to the category of people with a religion in common. Bus stop (talk) 01:42, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

"Others"? A series of one-off IP editors? Anyway, the fact that Jews are an ethnic group is amply supported by the relevant literature, and indeed, even by the tiny fraction of that relevant literature that has been provided to you. Regarding your opinions, do you have any changes, based on reliable sources, that you wish to make to the article? Jayjg ^(talk) 03:33, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Bus stop, Jews are considerd as an ethnic group from the genetic aspect as well as from the religious and linguistic ones. They also share fundamental cultural similarities even in cases when they lived in remote communities and between differemt populations. There is no doubt that the Ahskenazi Jews do make an ethnic group with striking similarities. If you are addressing their appearance so you will find it very hard, if not impossible, to distinguish between Polish, Italian (Ashkenazi), Romanian, German or Swedish Jew. While I can many times tell if one European is not an Ashkenazi Jew and whether he is Nordic, Dinaric or Slavic(but that's a slippery slope to an original research). As Ashkenazim constitute ~80% of world Jewery and as immense number of varied and high profile genetical and morphological studies have shown repeatedly that they are all originated from the Middle East (with only ~10% of their genome of non Middle Eastren origin) and have no significant genetic differences, if any at all, between different communities, and as Yiddish (which include large part of Hebrew vocabulary and written in Hebrew letters) was their spoken language for generations and almost all over Europe -you have no other choice but to acknowledge them as an ethnic group, and to accept that this ethnic group is Jewish.

You may argue that if they are an ethnic group which comprise ~80% of Jewish people today they still can't make it just to consider the entire Jewish people as an ethnic group as ~20% of the people in this group are different from the rest 80%. And it's true in away. Ashkenazi Jews do look in average lighter than Sephardic (but realy not always) and especially than Mizrahi Jews. However, still-not only that Sephardic Jews as a whole and many of Mizrahi Jews communities share striking genetical and historical similarities (and also lingual and cultural to different, but significant extent) with Ashkenazi Jews, but also many,if not most, Ashkenazi Jews are descendent from Sephardic Jews many times. So, all in all, there is no other ethnic group in the world, which is not Jewish, and is more similar to Ashkenazim. In special cases, such as those of Yeman Jews who are also largely descendent from Arabs who covert to Judaism as well as in the case of Georgian and Indian Jews who like Yemans are mixed the issue is more complex-but still, it make much more sense to categorize tham all in the same ethnic group (and anyway they make well defined groupd). But it still don't exclude the Jews from being an ethnic group. There is only one case of Jewish group which is not ethnically Jewish and this is the case of Ethiopians who converted to Judaism in unkown way about 600 years ago.

Unlike for Jews, there is not genetic basis for the ethnic divisions in Cerntral Asia for example. There, each ethnic group is unique in terms of language and culture but many times the members in each ethnic group are from very different origins. On the contrary, there is no single reason, beside for the political one, to count Austrians and Germans as two different ethnic groups-they are different in nothing.--Gilisa (talk) 20:28, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Gilisa, are Swedes an ethnic group? What about Japanese? Yes! They have a common culture, history, and look more or less the same. Jews on the other hand are fragmented among many different groups that don't have a common culture, history, and don't look more or less the same.

It's questionable if the Jews around the world have a common origin (in reference to your claim that they left their homeland about 1600 years ago). But even if that's the case, Jews around the world are now very different from each other. An Ashkenazi Jew has nothing in common ethnically with a Sephardic Jew who has nothing in common ethnically with a Syrian Jew. Each of these individuals and the groups they belong to just share religion in common.

This is why rational people say that Jews are not an ethnic group. Clear enough for you? What else do you need?

Heres something I think you should read - http://eaazi.blogspot.com/2007/10/origins-of-modern-jewry.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.185.59.139 (talk) 03:15, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I guess that you should find better source than a website declaring itself "This website and the associated organization of the same name have the mission of providing Jews and non-Jews with the intellectual tools to stand up to Zionist intimidation and manipulation." Unfortunately for you, serioues studies showed that the essential formation of Ashkenazi Jewery started only after the 12CE. Before, there were only 20,000 Ashkenazim in Europe, concentrated at the very same places and probably originated from the Roman Jewish community and in part from Jewish scholars who flee Iraq (but that's a different story and you can ignore it as even that I can easily source it, I don't have the time). Their numbers increased rapidly in the 14 CE when persecutions of Sephardic Jews drived many of them to leave Spain much before their final expulsion. These are the conclusions of serioues scholars and not of a racist website like the one you provide here.

Next time make me a favor and sign. I know Wiki don't force you to do it, but when you present such a racist arguments you better stand behind them. As for the visual appearance of Jews around the world-how did you conclude it? Or that you made your own original racist research? Dozens, at least, of genetical studies have shown time after time that Ashkenazi Jews genetic cluster is tightly coupled with the Sephardic one, distinguished from those of the gentiles among they lived and that in no case the European contribution to Ashkenazi genome exceeding the 12.5% barrier. Actually, up to date studies and meta-analysis have further put that limit as low as 5%. And anyway, Ashkenazim make a unique well defined cluster. What you wrote represent lack of knowledge, at best, and wistful thinking. What more that Ashkenazi Jew do share the same appearance and there is also morphological study about it, in fact they share the same mandible morphology with Sephardic Jews (and it's 100% scientific). No common history? Your denying of Jewish history is outraged, baltant and vulgar.

In fact, you need to read more serious scientfic literature 9I don't know where you take this from). Many Ashkenazi Jews are actually descendent from Sephradic Jews who wander from Spain to other European countries after 1492. If that's not enough so by no doubt Ashkenazim have used the same limited number of dialects all over Europe for centuries (Yiddish is the strongest example, and was spoken for ages over entire Ashkenazim communities in Europe) as the dialects that used Sephardic Jews (Ladino) the Ashkenazi ones included large part of Hebrew vocabulary and were even written in Hebrew letters. By no doubt Ashkenzi Jews a sub ethnic group within the Jewish people. Also, they had the same history of persecutions and predestinations against, very similar traditions (to Sephardic Jews as well many times) and even the same food (all Jewish communities have the Chamin and Ashkenazi food all across Europe is basically the same).

So, what exactlt exclude them from being an ethnic group? that they also share the same religion? that's only make my arguments stronger. Gypsies don't have a country, they don't live in one place, they also have higher rates of genetic contributions from local non Gypsi sources and they still by no doubt an ethnic group. It's true that as for Ethiopian Jews -they share no, or only very limited, genetic similarities with other Jewish groups and that their traditions and history is very different, but that's because they didn't start from the same starting point as other Jewsih communities but rather are an African converts who convterted to Judaism only 600 yr ago. Yemanite Jews are mix of local Arab converts and Jewish people and so is true for Georgian and Indian Jews. Libyan Jews present moderate levels of genetical contributions from non Jewish local barbaric population, and it's well know that these locals were converted to Judaism before the time of Islam. But that's it, and it don't disqualify the Jewish people from being an ethnic group, with no doubt at all.Finally, different appearance do not indicate different ethnical origin in most cases, but I will not get into genetics and comparisons with other ethnic groups now.

For further reading about the dentofacial patterns of Askenazim and Mizrahim and other Middle Eastren populations you can read: Dentofacial pattern of two Jewish ethnic groups compared with accepted norms by Ben Baasat et al 1996. There are also more up to date studies with even more striking results that compare Ashkenazi and Sephardic morphology with other Middle Eastren and European populations, and if you insist I will refer you to them later --Gilisa (talk) 07:37, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Gilisa, Based on the page Jayjg linked to - WP:NOTAFORUM I have continued this on your discussion page. If you don't want me to write anything over there, tell me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.43.201.132 (talk) 14:32, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

There is no violation of WP:NOTAFORUM, and I would expect someone who know wikipedia rules so well to know that fringe sites are not allowed in wikipedia. I would also expect you to show us who you are and stop hiding behind wikipedia protection.--Gilisa (talk) 17:25, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I hate to butt in here, but I would say that Jewish people are neither primarily an Ethnic nor Religious group, they are a Cultural group. --Alchemist Jack (talk) 20:45, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

If you imply that ethnicity must be based on similar genetics than Jews are an ethnic group. Also, they are clearly a religious group, even if the reform and conservative new movements do make things to be less clear about it.--Gilisa (talk) 21:02, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I imply nothing. Jewish people are an ethnic group because of matrilineal transmission, but there are black, irish, west indian, etc jews, so that doesn't cover it. Not all jewish people are religious, but even non-religious or athiests define themselves, and can be defined, as Jewish. A cultural group covers religious underpinnings and ethnicity. --Alchemist Jack (talk) 21:17, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree that this is not a dry and cut issue, rather, for the last centuries Jewishness is very complicated to give a well definition as an ethnic group, but never the less it still is. There are black Jewish people because Jewishness is also about religion. Ethiopian Jews are not Jewish by their genetics (even they may be descendet to a small extant from Yemanite Jews) but they converted to Judaism about 600 years ago. Their culture is very different from those of perheps all Jewish people-so they are the exceptionals but it doesn't exclude Jewish people from being ethnically Jewish. Indian Jews are mostly the offsprings of Jews who converted local women. So it to samller extent to few other Jewish groups. Not all Jewish people are religious but it doesn't mean that Jewishness is not also about religion. If it was so than Jewish people wouldn't have Ethipians among them. As for Irish, Germans and other people who converted to Judiasm-they are Jewish, maybe not ethnically but their offsprings being born Jewish.--Gilisa (talk) 21:36, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

So, essentially it is a Cultural category. Ethiopian jews are still jewish, Atheist jews are jewish, and many other combinations remain jewish. Cultural as a definition covers ethnic, religious/non-religious, etc. --Alchemist Jack (talk) 21:43, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

If it makes it simplier for you than you may consider Jewishness as an ethnic group which contain few sub groups that are not, or not fully, ethnically Jewish.--Gilisa (talk) 21:57, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

No, an ethnic group, as we have already established, does not cover Jewishness, only a Cultural group covers all the bases. --Alchemist Jack (talk) 22:22, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I do not agree, for most Jews their Jewishness is ethnic as well. This article is about Ashkenazi Jews and they are certainly ethnical Jews.--Gilisa (talk) 06:07, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I suppose you are correct; An Ethnic group because of Culture (religious, matrilineal transmission, historical experience, etc.)--Alchemist Jack (talk) 12:08, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

actualy i would suggest that jews are best defined as a "national" group which has been displaced from its homeland. that covers the aspect of jewish law, ethnicity, culture, etc. without excluding those who converted or otherwise joined. Just as a nation has aliens and immigrants, so to does judaism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.138.206.229 (talk) 21:17, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

This has all become very heated. I started the discussion to make those of an American or Israeli pint of view aware that in most European countries, with our shameful history prejudice, the concept that Jews constitute a race or ethnic group is extremely distasteful. In the UK Jews are a religious minority, not an ethnic minority. In Germany, which is a country with a stronger ethnic identity than the UK, German Jews are as much part of the German nation or ethnicity as German Protestants. To suggest there that Jews were some kind of distinct or alien ethnic group would absolutely not be tolerable. This wikipaedia is not just American Wikipedia, but an English language Wikipedia, used by other cultures than the American, so do try to respect that. Gilisa has written extensively on some genetic proof that Jews constitute a race. What Messers Goebbels and Himmler would have done for such eveidence, and the ability to "scientifically' distinguish Jews! Gilisa, be aware that this "genetic evidence" is far from conclusive, is backed by a political agenda, and that other genetic research carried out in Tel Aviv has indicated that Ashkenazim have more in common with the Kurds and Turks than with their Sephardic and Mizrachic co-religionists or with Palestinians. 82.36.89.155 (talk) 12:25, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

The photoboxes look ridiculous

Now we have all men, except for one woman. What the hell happened? Stick Golda Meir in there and a few others, for pity's sake. This photobox issue has dragged on long enough. A Sniper (talk) 11:04, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Few users edited the photobox while totaly ignoring the talk page. Not only it look ridiculous, but they remove and add people as they like, without discussion. R. Franklin was in the photobox as well as Nother and Meir, we should add them all to the photobox now.--Gilisa (talk) 12:05, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

A sniper, there is no consensus here for Mendlson and certainly not for Arendt.--Gilisa (talk) 12:13, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Hannah Arendt is far more well known than a bio-whatever lady named Franklin. Arendt is quoted constantly in the area of human rights. However, we're well aware of the POV you've already written against her. And Moses WHO? Come on - either one of the Mendelssohn's is far more renowned and well-known than yet another rabbi. We have two already. A Sniper (talk) 15:30, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Moses Mendelssohn was not a Rabbi. He was a philosopher. His famous grandson was a Protestant Christian all his life.82.36.89.155 (talk) 12:32, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Can we keep the chronological ordering of the photos, that actually makes sense. -- Avi (talk) 15:31, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me, but you simply did a revert. Go ahead and place the folks in chronological order but don't merely revert. Best, A Sniper (talk) 15:36, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

A sniper, I realy careless about how well known Arendt is (and she is not "far more "well known"" than Franklin)-There is just no consensus on her and you just enetered her photo without seeking for consensus. We were advised to nominate more agreeable figures, without Arnedt and Mendlson there are two available slots and if you stop insisting on them then we could get to an agreement very fast. As for "Moses WHO" he was suggested by Avi and was supported by me and by Casliber, who took part in the discussion about him. He is not "Yet another Rabbi" and I suggest you not to blame me for having a POV when your words speak for themselves. It would be also great if you avoid what can be sound as aggressive strain . --Gilisa (talk) 15:55, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

My advice would be to eliminate the photo box. It has no place there anyway. The article is only about an imperfectly defined group. Some people can be said to be Ashkenazi. So what? There is no conclusive definition on what Ashkenazi means. What is the point to putting any well-known people in such a display? The placement of them in such a "photo box" carries the implication of definitiveness, when in fact the individual in question may not be representative of the type that the article is about. Furthermore most Ashkenazim are not well-known. It is a distortion of reality to single out those who may be well-known to represent what may be an ethnic group, and the photo box is a distortion of any attempt to approach the ethnic group that may be called Ashkenazim in any scholarly way. Bus stop (talk) 16:19, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Bus stop, your suggestion is, as always in such cases, too far reaching-and in this sense not very constructive. Ashkenazim is a well defined group. If one Ashkenazi ancestors are of Sephradic descent and enough time have passed for any one to tell it, it mean nothing and he's Ashkenazi (in essence, many of the Ashkenazim are from Sephradic descent). What more that all ethnic groups have photobox and we certainly not expect to find there the photos of anonymouse people. --Gilisa (talk) 16:45, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

As discussed above, the Rama may be single-handedly responsible for the continuation of Ashkenazi Jewry as an independent ethnic group by virtue of the universal acceptance among European Jewry as to his glosses on the Mechaber, keeping European Halakhic tradition distinct from Sepharadi, CENTURIES before any organized secular Jewry existed. As for the order, it should remain as close to chronological as possible, as that is a neutral method. If you would like to add more women, fine, as long as we agree on whom to remove and why. -- Avi (talk) 16:44, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Avi, I accept your suggestion. As for Arendt, she spoke out against the legitimacy of Adolf Eichman trial and provide him philosophical advocacy. These opinions she had made her too disputable figure among Ashkenazim to be included in their article photobox. Roselind Franklin made huge scientific contributions that lead to the discovery of the DNA double helix structure and unlike A sniper suggested, she is a very well known figure. I would nominate her to the one missing slot. She was also highly acceptable here.--Gilisa (talk) 16:51, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Your views on Arendt are pure POV. This is your opinion. Put Franklin with Arendt. there is still too many men. A Sniper (talk) 01:51, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd be happy with Rosalind Franklin, although I saw suggestions above for Golda Meir. Any thoughts? -- Avi (talk) 16:54, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Any of those is acceptable by me.--Gilisa (talk) 16:55, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I think we have to use Meir, the Frankin image is not free-use from what I can dig up. -- Avi (talk) 17:07, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Go ahead!--Gilisa (talk) 17:08, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

 Done -- Avi (talk) 17:15, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Ana Arendt vs. Rosalind Franklin

As was agreed by most editors here, inclusion of disputed figures in the photobox should be avoided. Ana Arendt is certainly a very disputed figure and the baseless accusations that I have a POV won't change it. I clearly explained why she is not a good nominee and the reasons I gave are at the least reasonable.

There are few editors, including me, that have supported the candidacy of Rosalind Franklin. However, A Sniper insist on Arendt while ignoring my arguments, blatantly hurl accusations against me and consistently claiming that Arendt is much more notable and well known than Franklin-which is his completly own original research (off the record, Franklin is much more known and also much more important as one of the greatest women in science ever lived. And even if Arendt was more well known, which she isn't, being well known X+1 isn't an adavantage on well known X-as long as X is above the strict threshold).

It's true that we agreed on notability and we are obligated to notability as a criterion (which Franklin certainly fulfil above and behind) but we are also obligated and agreed on figures that are as less disputed as possible ( a criteria that Arendt fail to fulfil).

I removed Arendt and as I said, I will welcome any reasonable other suggestions. But A Sniper choosed to revert me and to keep Arendt "untill I will suggest other Jewish women which is well known as Arendt". Now, Franklin stand for it, but for some reason I couldn't figure out A Sniper oppose her and removed her from the photobox against a pretty much consensus about her. Now, if there is a chance that other suggestions would be considered seriously-I have no problem to introduce them. In the meanwhile, no Arendt in the photobox. --Gilisa (talk) 08:39, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Arendt is more internationally known than Franklin, but that is beside the point. Another editor already stated that the Franklin photo can't be used. As I personally couldn't care less about Arendt vs. Franklin, please insert a photo of Franklin to replace Arendt if you can find one that can be used. My main points were a) we need more well-known Ashkenazic women in a photo collection dominated by men, and b) you had strong POV against inclusion of Arendt, which remain obvious. But me? I don't give a rat's one way or the other. Best, A Sniper (talk) 09:36, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

A Sniper, your choice to refer to my arguments as no less than "POV" need an elbartion to be expalined. What more, the fact that there is no free use photo of Franklin doesn't make Arendt the default, and before that it became evident that there is no free use photo you objected Franklin for other, unsupported reasons (e.g., that Arendt is more well known than her). That we are need "more well-known Ashkenazic women in a photo collection dominated by man" is not only your point, it was and remained mine as well and it have nothing to do with Arendt. I finished argue with you, it lead to no where.--Gilisa (talk) 10:04, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

A Sniper, your attempts to pass the lack of consensus about Arendt by painting my arguments as POV won't work. We already largely agreed that people in the photobox should be both notable and not controversial. But I have no intention to get into edit war here so I included Anne Frank which is notable and uncontroversial and above all, was supported by most editors here.--Gilisa (talk) 16:25, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of the whining above, we still need one more woman. Four as a minimum, at least. If nobody can find one, I will re-insert Hannah Arendt, and if the POV-pusher (who appears to be having an argument with him or herself) objects to Arendt because he or she finds Arendt personally controversial, let us get an admin to look over Arendt's eligibility. Best, A Sniper (talk) 21:58, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Good for you, now you come with a new demand (where did we discuss about four?). I already listed Lise Meitner-an option you choosed to ignore. I already asked you before specifically to cease using irretating derogatory names, specifically whining. You ignored any attempt of me to discuss with you seriously. Sure I'm talking to myself, because it seems you feel you have exemption from discussion on the talk page before and after conflicting editings, from previous discussion which include other users and that you can step WP:CON as you like. The only thing clear here is that you are trying to provoke, no other option-before you are nagging about POV teach yourself how to behave, and if you continue with this manner I'll report you.--Gilisa (talk) 22:14, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Just to make it clear in any case: I have no obejction for a fourth female. Before adding her, we must agree 1. who is going out and 2. who is going in. As for Arendt: she was refered as highly lacking any solidarity with the Jewish people by Gershom Scholem, as in her book Eichmann in Jerusalem she stood for Eichmann and against the state of Israel. She also explicitly expressed the worse kind of racist views against Mizrahi Jews (cited broadly by Edith Zartal) and referd as having racist views on east European Ashkenazi Jews as can be seen here. So, who ever want to blame me for unlegitimate POV against her should stick to the facts. Please.--Gilisa (talk) 07:40, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Hannah Arendt, whether her photo is used, is still an Ashkenazic Jewish woman, famous enough to have a nation place her picture on a stamp. Whether or not Gershom Whatshisface has a personal problem with Arendt has absolutely no bearing to this encyclopaedia article. But to end this waste of time ramble, please just insert someone - ANYONE - who fits the criteria of well-known, female Ashkenaz. Please. Thanks. A Sniper (talk) 08:03, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Deeply grateful for your response A Sniper. Arendt expressed racist views on other Jews, no need for original commemtary on this. If this doesn't change anything-we can also add anti semitic Jews, Arab hatred Jews and etc, right!? I will another women, but it may take few days. Arendt is not the default, please keep in mind. What about Lise Meitner?--Gilisa (talk) 08:13, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I do not care what your POV is against Arendt, OK? I have now heard enough of it. This article is not owned by you. Best, A Sniper (talk) 08:17, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

And I don't care what you see as POV, it's not owend by you either. Stop with these provoking accusations. Now for the third time, will you answer, what about Lise Meitner--Gilisa (talk) 08:20, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

No problem whatsoever with Lise Meitner. There - settled. Now go withdraw your complaint ;) Best, A Sniper (talk)

Physicist man for a physicist women sounds reasonable. I'll replace Max Born for her. Agreed?--Gilisa (talk) 09:29, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

The Khazar Hypothesis and Anti-Semitism

I've edited this sensitive section in order to correct the erroneous impression that the Khazar origin hypothesis is held exclusively by anti-semites. One counterexample is Chaim Potok, who introduces the hypothesis in his book: Wanderings, a History of the Jews, and later reiterates his support for it in the biographical account: November Nights.

--Philopedia (talk) 13:52, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, the sentence as it stands is accurate; the theory was advocated by anti-semites at the time listed. If it was advocated by others at other times does not change the sourced facts. Secondly, removing cited sources and adding what appears to be editorial opinion is not allowed per wikipedia policy. I have restored the text. -- Avi (talk) 18:35, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I have edited this again for the same reason as Philopedia. Antisemitic and antiZionist are not the same thing. The Khazar hypothesis is not antisemitic, but it is perceived (wrongly IMO) to threaten the raison d'etre of the state of Israel. To suggest that Ashkenazi Jews who have supported the Khazar hypothesis, like Koestler, Potok and recently Shlomo Sand are "anti-semitic" is quite simply ridiculous. (I wish that we could get rid of the term 'anti-semitic' altogether and replace it with Judaeophobic!)82.36.89.155 (talk) 21:31, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

And I have restored the supported material for the same reason. What is in the article now is supported and an accurate reflection of the brought sources. Please rememeber wikipedia's policies about WP:V and WP:NPOV. -- Avi (talk) 15:42, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Zarfat

A proposal for deletion is being considered at Zarfat. My understanding is that Zarfat is a medieval Jewish cultural sphere comparable to Ashkenaz, so it should have an article, but I don't know more than that and certainly can't write it. The proposal for deletion seems to be coming from people who know even less than me, so it is ill-informed in both directions. Would those of you who are familiar with Jewish history please look at this and make a decision one way or the other. --Doric Loon (talk) 11:13, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Not Roman citizens?

I'm not so sure about this sentence:

Jews were denied full Roman citizenship until 212 CE, when Emperor Caracalla granted all free peoples this privilege.

Before Caracalla extended citizenship to all free inhabitants of the empire, the number of non-Italians who were Roman citizens was quite small, though there were generally a few native Roman citizens in each of the Empire's provinces. The sentence implies that Jews were singled out in being denied Roman citizenship, which is not true, and that a Jew could not become a Roman citizen, which is also as far as I know not true (St. Paul was a Roman citizen, after all). --Jfruh (talk) 21:15, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Paul may have been a Roman citizen for other reasons (see Maccoby, for example). Jayjg ^(talk) 03:20, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what your response means, exactly. My point was that Paul stands as evidence that Jews weren't barred from Roman citizenship. And if they weren't, then what is the sentence "Jews were denied full Roman citizenship" supposed to mean? If it just means that Jews were not uniformly granted Roman citizenship before 212, well, the same could be said of just about every non-Italian ethnic group within the Empire, and it's wrong to imply (as I think the sentence does) that Jews were somehow singled out in this way. --Jfruh (talk) 06:57, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Maccoby's view was that Paul was a convert to Judaism; that is, he was born a Roman citizen, and became a Jew as an adult. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:20, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Alternatively, you could refer to the Cambridge History of Judaism, Chapter 39: Jews in Byzantium: "While individual Jews had occasionally attained Roman citizenship, most Jews (as freemen) became Roman citizens with the decree of Emperor Caracalla in 212." Jayjg ^(talk) 04:24, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm, hadn't known that about Paul. A little Google searching shows that this is not an uncontroversial theory. Still, we seem to be talking is circles here. The point I'm trying to get at here is: do you think the current wording of this Wikipedia article implies that Jews were expressly forbidden from being Roman citizens, and that this civic disability was in some way unique? Because I think that's what the language in the Wikipedia article implies, and I don't think that implication is accurate. The quote from the Cambridge History of Judaism you cite could apply to virtually any non-Italian ethnic group in the early empire. --Jfruh (talk) 20:20, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

This is getting silly....

Okay - I have semi'ed this for the time being until we can sort this out, so that further debate on possible numbers per country can be discussed here. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:43, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

-- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.69.82.248 (talk) 22:49, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm a different person to the one that wrote the above.. and the subject "this is getting silly".

I am not expert at adding my comment.. I have read this article and am appalled by what looks like the anti-ashkenazi sentiment in it....I wonder if it was written by people using anti-semitic sources, or some kind of sephardi supremecist!

Orthodox jews believe that hebrew is the holy tongue.. so "development" of it is going distant from the original way it was pronounced, and is bad.. We just don't know how it was originally pronounced, so people hang onto their customs..

The article says "Ashkenazi Hebrew came to be pronounced in ways distinct from other forms of Hebrew."

This is a suggestion that ashkenazim aren't doing it right, but every other type of jew is.

Every form of hebrew came to be pronounced in ways distinct from other forms of hebrew.

Teimani is often argued as being the most accurate(at least for letters).. since they have the most letters distinct.

Ashkenazi, Sephardi, and Teimani hebrew are different. Certainly, in some ways, ashkenazi hebrew is quite different, Specifically, different locations within europe, the cholam vowel got pronounced differently. But, the Kamatz, in ashkenazi hebrew, is like the yemenites pronounce it. So ashkenazi hebrew and yemenite hebrew are the same for the kamatz, and the sephardi one is the one that is different there.

Also, Ashkenazi is more like Teimani than sephardi is, in relation to the letter Tav. Ashkenazim still distinguish between the two. Sephardim don't. ashkenazim say T and S . Sephardim just say T. Teimani(the best) say T and Th.

The article says (just before it makes negative comments about ashkenazi pronunciation of hebrew).. It suggests that ashkenazim developed customs later. So again, an idea that sephardim have the original customs.. And ashkenazi customs are just later developments of it.

"In a religious sense, an Ashkenazi Jew is any Jew whose family tradition and ritual follows Ashkenazi practice. Until the Ashkenazi community first began to develop in the Early Middle Ages, the centers of Jewish religious authority were in the Islamic world, at Baghdad and in Islamic Spain. Ashkenaz (Germany) was so distant geographically that it developed a minhag of its own"

The fact is . That sephardim in every different country have their own customs. And sephard actually means Spain. The article is suggesting that ashkenazi customs only differ because they are ashkenazi customs that are new developments.

I see an Ethnicity section.. The sephardic article does not Why is it that the ethnicity of ashkenazim has a section? Because the article panders to anti-semites who claim ashkenazim have claimed ashkenazim aren't real jews.. (they relied mostly on the khazar argument, but now even genetics doesn't support them..and runs against them. since they don't find turkish genes there.. and they should if the theory was correct). I see a comment that the khazar theory has been debunked.. It was bad before, but with genetics it has been debunked even more.. so that's good.. Though I wonder if the author previously believed in that sort of thing..

In orthodox judaism, intermarriage is a bad thing.. because in judaism, jews should marry jews. This article has the remark that "Since the middle of the 20th century, many Ashkenazi Jews have intermarried, both with members of other Jewish communities and with people of other nations and faiths"

Do you know that genetics also show sephardim have also intermarried.. and their genetics shows that.. just as much as ashkenazi genetics shows it. Yet the sephardic article doesn't say they intermarried..

It's all about saying ashkenazim are less jewish..

The article says it's "striking" that ashkenazim appear to be an ethnic group.. Is it "striking" that sephardim are? or are not? surely they started from a locations and moved.. unless they intermarried.. I don't see mention of them intermarrying in the wikipedia article for them.

Religious jews consider Torah first and foremost, and above politics.

I see this comment in this article.. I see no such comment about sephardim.. Who vote for the political party Shas, in masses.

"Religious Ashkenazi Jews living in Israel are obliged to follow the authority of the chief Ashkenazi rabbi in halakhic matters. In this respect, a religiously Ashkenazi Jew is an Israeli who is more likely to support certain religious interests in Israel, including certain political parties. These political parties result from the fact that a portion of the Israeli electorate votes for Jewish religious parties; although the electoral map changes from one election to another, there are generally several small parties associated with the interests of religious Ashkenazi Jews"

The israeli chief rabbi , ashkenazi or sephardi, has NO authority over religious jews at all. The big authorities are scholars, like the late reb moshe feinstein. Or currently, Rabbi Elyashiv.

"a religiously Ashkenazi Jew is an Israeli who is more likely to support certain religious interests in Israel, including certain political parties."

I see no comment about sephardim that they are likely to vote for Shas!

Infact. UTJ and Agudas Yisrael may well have sephardim.. Shas is probably more of an ethnic political party than UTJ and Agudas yisrael.

many sephardim enrole in ashkenazi yeshivot. I am not sure that it's right to say that UTJ and Agudas yisrael are just associated with interests of ashkenazim. As if interests of ashkenazim are not the interests of sephardim..

This is a very strange article..

It gets worse..

Saying sephardim have stricter requirements on meat..

I don't think this is the case at all.. There is the concept of Glatt kosher, which is the strictest standard going.. and it's ashkenazi..

The article says "Sephardi Jews have stricter requirements—this level is commonly referred to as Beth Yosef. Meat products which are acceptable to Ashkenazi Jews as kosher may therefore be rejected by Sephardi Jews."

to religious jews.. stricter requirements are often seen as more pious..

so this article makes a very sweeping statement there, about how great sephardim are and how bad ashkenazim are.. And I don't know what it's based on..

but perhaps it's the other way around? in that ashkenazi is stricter

but anyhow, it is a very sweeping statement..

Certainly where I live, in britain, the London Bet Din, (many or all ashkenazi rabbis there), is hugely respected.. as are some other ashkenazi batai din. And it's the sephardi bet din that is rejected by many ashkenazi rabbis, whether it's a story of a "Get" they gave out, or the meat.

religious ashkenazim are extremely strict in their observance of law and customs..

definitely more than sephardim.

In israel lots of sephardim are going to ashkenazi yeshivot..because they are so good. sephardi yeshivot aren't attracting ashkenazim as much..

"the large majority of the victims were Ashkenazi Jews, their percentage dropped from nearly 92% of world Jewry in 1931 to nearly 80% of world Jewry today."

This is a crazy statement..

Trying to show the extent of the holocaust? or really trying to make it look like it wasn't such a big thing! Taking a figure of jews from 1931, then a figure from "today"!!! after jews have already had lots of babies to make up for all the jews that were murdered. If you want a figure showing the extent of jews killed in the holocaust.. you don't take statistics like that.. That is very strange.. So people rad it and think oh, 92% to 80%.. Well, at least still 80%! or, stil the vast majourity.. I know earlier it says 2/3 of ashkenazim were killed.. that does show the extent. But the comment made there, is very strange.. I see it comes from an article titled "Can Sephardic Judaism be Reconstructed?". Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs. Retrieved 2006-05-24." Unfortuntely, it's not uncommon for sephardic rabbis to make terrible insensive statements about jews that died in the holocaust.. such as them being reincarnations of sinners.. So maybe some sephardim have followed that..Most sephardim are quite sensitive to it though..I would hope, and share in the sadness..

I see this comment "In an essay on Sephardi Jewry, Daniel Elazar at the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs[5] summarized the demographic history of Ashkenazi Jews in the last thousand years, noting that at the end of the 11th century, 97% of world Jewry was Sephardic and 3% Ashkenazi; in the mid-17th century, "Sephardim still outnumbered Ashkenazim three to two", but by the end of the 18th century, "Ashkenazim outnumbered Sephardim three to two, the result of improved living conditions in Christian Europe versus the Ottoman Muslim world."[5] By 1931, Ashkenazi Jews accounted for nearly 92% of world Jewry.[5]"

If you want to go back to a time when ashkenazim were 3%.. There was a time when sephardim were 0%

When there were no jews in spain or portugal..

and anyhow..the fathers of the jews of germany) would've existed in countries like Spain. So It's strane that the article goes back to a time when ashkenazim were 3% and sephardim 97%.. And it's under a section called "modern history".. it goes back 1000 years.. How about going back to before there were sephardim..

The data is taken from an article on sephardim.. maybe that's why it's bias. But used biasly too.. Maybe the author read a lot of bias stuff against ashkenazim..

I notice the sephardic article has a list of sephardic rabbis..

religious jews are proud of their rabbis.. the sephardic article has a list.

No list of ashkenazi rabbis in this article. The whole article is basically just about their origins and numbers.. The bit about religious practice is that they are less strict than sephardim (yeah right!!). It seems the holocaust (which everybody knows was catastrophic) brought them down tfrom 92% to 80%.. (if statistics here are used).. using before and after figures with decades between them.. The whole article shows bias.. it's just amending older anti-semitic versions.. It used to suggest ashkenazim were persecuting sephardim in israel's early years. It was the SECULAR israeli government that did.. And the same government attack religious jews today, whether sephardi or ashkenazi., There just weren't that many religious ashkenazim in israel's early years, because ashkenazim were largely anti-zionist at a early time.. just as today.. (still pro israel.. and israel's defence. but against adding any ISM to judaism . just sticking to Torah, ).

Another example.. against this idea in the article, that sephardim are stricter with halacha. http://www.cyber-kitchen.com/rfcj/kosherfaq.htm "Ashkenazim generally soak and salt all meat, while Sephardim omit this if the meat is to be broiled."

and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosher_foods " although the Ashkenazi Orthodox Jews treat an egg as non-kosher if blood is found anywhere within it[citation needed], the Sephardi Orthodox Jews only consider blood in the yolk to be a problem; the Sephardi treat eggs with blood in the albumen as legitimate food, if the blood is removed before use"

It's well known that ashkenazim are strict with jewish law and custom..And if you want to be disgusting like this article and say one is stricter than the other (which means very little since one must do a complete listing to show that),. Then it's ashkenazim that are stricter .. And it's obvious to most religious jews.. ashkenazi yeshivot are all over the place and growing and popular.. because the learning there is so good.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090203043809AALTUg6 "Ashkenazi men wear tzitzit the whole day, many Sephradim don't"

there may be ways that sephardim are stricter..

and it's just pure pissing contests to say one is stricter than the other..

and judging by other things in the article.. like the figures used with the holocauist.. and the whole focus on the ethnic thing.. it's also strange that the article on ashkenazim is bias against ashkenazim.. Surely there are religious ashkenazi jews that can write it.. instead, we have an anti-ashkenazi article being amended gradually over time.. With a proud sephardic one listing their rabbis.

Also funny how we see a comment about ashkenazim being a hibrid population.. or a particular ethnic group..

either way it's strange.. 'cos it's either suggesting that they are mixed with non-jews. Or that they are a particular ethnic group unlike all other jews..

Fact is. Both sephardim and ashkenazim have some mix with local population.. And some of their own genes too.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.69.82.248 (talk) 22:48, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

No one is saying Sephardim are stricter, full stop: that comment was only on the subject of glatt kosher meat. Zimmels, in his book on "Ashkenazim and Sephardim", makes comprehensive lists of respects in which Ashkenazim are strict while Sephardim are lenient, and vice versa.

I think the only reason there isn't a list of Ashkenazi rabbis is that there are too many of them, so it would look almost like a list of all rabbis there have ever been! It is perhaps more important for minority groups to say "look, we have famous rabbis too". The list of Sephardi rabbis was moved over from an article on "Sephardic Judaism", when I felt that that article was getting too unwieldy and should be confined to questions of law and custom. That said, we can certainly add a list of those rabbis who have specialised in questions of Ashkenazi minhag, like Moellin and Isserlein.

I agree that there should be no prescriptive comments on which tradition is more "authentic", either in genetic descent or in pronunciation. On the latter, a balanced view is given in the articles on Sephardi Hebrew pronunciation and Ashkenazi Hebrew pronunciation. --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) (talk) 10:04, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Kane123123's view

This article is posting incorrect information. Ashkenazi Jews are a hybrid population. http://www.britannica.com/bps/additionalcontent/18/34265153/Jews-and-Their-DNA http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2009/01/another-paper-on-ashkenazi-jewish_23.html Jon Entine and Goldstein are very respected people. Get over it, you aren't 100% near eastern and even the near eastern component is more similar to northern middle easterners than to fertile crescent people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kane123123 (talk • contribs) 01:24, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:40, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Infobox pictures

The people in the infobox are there as a result of lengthy negotiation. Please don't add individuals without first proposing and getting consensus here. Also, because of WP:BLP concerns, it has been agreed that no living people will be added to the box. Thank you. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:29, 7 March 2010 (UTC)