Talk:Jews/Archive 26

Archive 20

←

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Archive 28

→

Archive 30

Marx

Shouldn't Marx be included? He is one of the most influential Jews in history. Much more so than Natalie Portman. JDiala (talk) 06:45, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Been there, done that. There are many reasons, like: Natalie is a woman, American and an actor and we want some balance in the areas of a. gender b. origin c. field of activity of the person. Also, Marx was not raised Jewish. Debresser (talk) 11:45, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree that he in theory should be in and he is more notable than Portman. But due to past conflicts over Marx, it was decided to leave him out to avoid controversy. About Portman, she is a woman which gives her credit point for the collage as women are under-represented. Trust me, adding Marx to the collage will open a Pandora Box we would rather keep closed. Mr. Sort It Out (talk) 00:39, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

why dont we expand the infobox mates, take a look at other ethnic groups, they all have at least 4 rows with 4 images, there are looots of jews that could be mentioned in infobox. kazekagetr 17:08, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

It was discussed but we came to a conclusion a larger image will look to overwhelming and on a general topic like Jews will have too many arguments. We kept it to the minimum as increasing the number will be using controversial figures. We kept the larger numbers for Ashkenazi Jews and Sephardi Jews.

There are so many sub-ethnic Jewish groups that it's best to keep it as general and minimalistic as possible. Mr. Sort It Out (talk) 13:07, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

It seems to me that there is a greater consensus to add Karl Marx's photo in the Photo Gallery over that of Natalie Portman. Can we take a vote on this?Davidbena (talk) 00:21, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Can someone please tell me how a consensus is determined here with respect to Karl Marx's photograph? - Davidbena (talk) 00:48, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Natalie Portman? There seems to be a bias here. Lenin was surely the most historically influential Jew in history. Trotsky a close second and neo-conservative Richard Perle is one of the most influential Jews (architect of the Iraq War) of all time. Should we delete Hitler from the Austrian wikipedia? You know what Im getting at. Just because You dont like Lenin doesent make him not Jewish. Also Jews arent a race so would it hurt to add a black or asian Jew just to highlight the fact that anyone can be Jewish? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.62.214.233 (talk) 02:09, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

No comment on Natalie Portman, but Lenin was not a Jew. His maternal grandfather was born a Jew but that man married a Christian, and Lenin's mother was also a Christian, though unenthusiastic about religion. Lenin's father was a devout Russian Orthodox aristocrat. Lenin was not Jewish - not culturally, not religiously, not linguistically, and not halachically. Lenin had NO real connection to Judaism, other than the fact of his grandfather's origin. Trotsky, however, was an atheist of Jewish ancestry. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:25, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

It is most correct that Lenin was not a Jew. On the other hand, Karl Marx was, and is a far more universal figure than our Ms. Natalie Portman, with all due respect. Bear in mind that people in China still arduously adhere to the tenets expressed in his seminal work on Capitalism and Communism. He may not have been a religious Jew, and may have had his idiosyncrasies, but he is still a universal - albeit, controversial - figure. Can others show us why his photo is not worthy of putting up in this gallery? Just curious. Davidbena (talk) 11:58, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Considering the vast damage done to Jewish lives and religious practice by Marxism, and Marx's elevation of atheism, featuring him as a Jew seems totally inappropriate. Considering editors' previous antipathy to his inclusion in the montage, I would not think pushing the nomination worthwhile, its chances of general acceptance being nil. Hertz1888 (talk) 16:35, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I understand your sentiments, User:Hertz1888, and I would agree with you that Marx is by no means a personality worth emulating, from a religious point of view. With that said, are we to understand from your words that the acceptance or rejection of a man's or woman's photograph in a WP montage is dependent upon that person's moral merits? For example, Theodor Herzl, on the one hand, espoused to a good vision of founding a Jewish national homeland for Jewish exiles, but was errant in his general outlook on traditional Jewish values (refusing to circumcise his son, etc.). Let's say that Karl Marx was errant in many aspects which you correctly iterated. Does this mean that he was errant in everything? I mean, obviously, some good (for some people) may have come out of his philosophy (and I have the Chinese people in mind who have benefitted from this system of governance). Why not allow a man of clear and overwhelming popularity to appear in a montage on the basis of his good merits alone, in spite of his shortcomings? After all, as far as some Asians are concerned, he introduced revolutionary ideas that were accepted by a vast number of people.-Davidbena (talk) 19:02, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Per my limited understanding, "his shortcomings" led to widespread murder and brutality. Lots of luck in pursuing this. It would be good to hear from other editors. Signing off, Hertz1888 (talk) 19:23, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

your understanding is indeed limited. His work also dealt with things as simple as free education and the end of child labor. you should actually read the Communist Manifesto - most of its actual demands are common as dirt in today's western economies. Jytdog (talk) 22:09, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Davidbena folks here seek to maintain a nice historical, geographical, gender, and "field" distribution in the list. If you want to add Marx (19th century European male economist/political scientist) then who would you take out? You need to make a concrete proposal and should consider what others are looking for. Jytdog (talk) 22:21, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

My suggestion would be to replace either Emmy Noether's photo with that of the more illustrious Karl Marx, or else do the same with George Gershwin's photo, or the actress, Natalie Portman - as charming as she might be. Their notoriety comes nowhere near to that of Karl Marx. If it's gender representation which is important to some, then it should be George Gershwin's photo that is replaced. Geographically speaking, Karl Marx lived in Germany and in Britain.Davidbena (talk) 23:20, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I think we should add this issue to WP:LAME or WP:DEADHORSE or some other page (like WP:PERSISTENT). Debresser (talk) 02:12, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

So, User:Debresser, is there a consensus for adding Karl Marx's photo to the montage, or for leaving the montage as it is in its current state?-Davidbena (talk) 13:48, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I think it is clear that the consensus has been for years to not have Marx. The suggestion has been offered repeatedly, and was rejected every time. I for one agree with those who object against Marx. Debresser (talk) 14:40, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I will not press the issue, but from what I have seen thus far (without reviewing the history), there are only two editors who object to adding Mr. Marx's photo, namely, you and our good friend User:Hertz1888. Can this rightly be judged as a consensus when, after all, you admit, this issue has been raised time and time again? Just curious. -Davidbena (talk) 18:17, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, the onus of proving change is desirable is on the ones trying to make it. By the way I am not familiar with this "good friend of mine", apart from running into him on Wikipedia. Debresser (talk) 18:47, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

"The burden of proof rests with the person who makes the exaction," this is true in monetary matters where a debt or liability has been incurred, and one seeks repayment. However, here, the proof of the public's wanting to see Karl Marx's photo in the montage is in the number of requests that have since surfaced on this WP article's Talk page. PS: By "our friend", I meant by it to say, כל ישראל חברים.Davidbena (talk) 20:16, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Mates, Lenin wasnt a Jew, he was a Chuvash. And instead of arguing about who to 'replace', we could 'add' more colmns and rows like other ethnicities, right? So why don't we 'expand' the infobox already. kazekagetr 21:45, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

He was part Jewish, as he was part Swedish, German, Russian and Kalmyk. Guy355 (talk) 22:20, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

this link states that his father was chuvash and this link says that father was chuvash while mother was half jew 1/4 german and 1/4 swede. If we talk about 'fatherhood ethnicity' then he isnt jew and if we talk about 'motherhood ethicity' he isnt jew also cause his grandpa was a jew not grandma etc etc. kazekagetr 00:04, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

User:KazekageTR, I can agree with your suggestion that we expand the existing box to include, let's say, Karl Marx, Sigmund Freud and some other famous Jewish personality, if, and only if, we can receive the assurances from our friends User:Debresser and User:Hertz1888 that these new additions will not be deleted.Davidbena (talk) 01:23, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I for one strongly oppose adding Marx. In addition, I see no imperative need in enlarging the template. Debresser (talk) 23:13, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Karl Marx may have initially started out believing in Hebrew doctrine, however he switched doctrines once he learned his life long held belief from his instructor George Hegel. Karl and the remainder of the Young Hegelian's gave up their former belief for the doctrine which Hegel taught (philosopha). As Paul defines in Colossians chapter 2, their belief in Hebrew doctrine became "spoiled" because philosopha doctrine was mixed with Hebrew doctrine. The Philosopha believe in a 5 pillar approach (Metaphysics, Epistemology, Ethics, Politics, and Esthetics) and the use of dialectics to define truth (later applied dialectics to force their version of truth). Therefore Marx was not a believer in either Jewish or Christian doctrine, he was a believer in philosopha doctrine which is ample reason for him not to be represented here. You can read of Marx and his classmates railings against the Jewish and Christian faiths via dialectics, which proves conclusively they were of neither faith and actually held great disdain for both. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.218.92.6 (talk) 14:57, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

1350 to 586 BCE

"Jews had also enjoyed political independence twice before in ancient history. The first of these periods lasted from 1350[37] to 586 BCE,[38]..."

The above excerpt from the article is an original synthesis and violates Wikipedia content policy WP:SYN. The citation for 1350 BCE talks of a theory (one among many others touched upon in the cited source) that Israel was one of the ethnic groups that emerged in the Near East in the beginning of the Egyptian New Kingdom era, c.1350 BCE. The majority of scholars can only agree that Israel emerged as an ethnic group in the region sometime before c. 1210 BCE (see Merneptah Stele), and c.1350 BCE is just one of the many dates vying for recognition as the date of the emergence of Israel. The citation for 586 BCE mentions the destruction of the Southern Kingdom by Nebuchadnezzar in that year. WP editors decided to interpret these two piece of info to mean that Israel remained politically independent from 1350 to 586 BCE. This is obviously untrue as the Assyrian conquest of the Northern Kingdom in the 8th century and their domination of the Southern Kingdom in the 7th century is an all too common knowledge. EyeTruth (talk) 00:15, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

The dates may have been wrong, but I think the fact of political independence during the period of the kings should be mentioned somehow. As the article reads now, the first independence of the Israelites/Jews was during the Hasmonean era. Debresser (talk) 09:37, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, i don't understand why the northern Kingdom of Israel and the Kingdom of Judah were removed, as both are strongly supported by archaeological and historic evidences. Infantom (talk) 10:40, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

I restored the text mentioning the period of the Judges and the Kings, just deleted the dates. Debresser (talk) 13:34, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the period of the Southern and Northern Kingdoms needed to be mentioned, and I was planning to rewrite the passage accordingly but ended up not sticking around after my initial edit. EyeTruth (talk) 02:54, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

All is well that ends well. :) Debresser (talk) 16:12, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, I don't remember anything about the -boamim, but I do know that there is archaeological evidence for Omri, Ahab, and Jehu, and others such as that bafoon, Josiah. Have to look back at my books though. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 24 Adar 5775 03:07, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

All peoples of the tribes of Israel, and are not Jews

It's a common mistake to indicate that all Israelite's are Jews, however that simply is not factual in any biblical sense. It was common for the Romans to refer to the people living in Judea as Jews simply because of their location, however that did not make them of the tribes of Israel nor did it make them of Judah. Knowing a bit about biblical history makes this very simple to understand.

First the temple to our Father for the tribes of Israel, its priests, and all its effects were the responsibility of the tribe of Levi (not Judah). Reference is Exodus 40, and the entire book of Leviticus. Therefore the belief system should be referred to as Levitical not Jewish (a common mistake of which the reason will be given further down).

The tribes of Israel were split by our Father into two sections, Samaria which contained the 10 Northern tribes and Judah/Benjamin which contained the tribes that resided in the area of Jerusalem (known also as Judea). This occurred immediately after the rule of Solomon. The tribe of Levi however still retained control of the priesthood and the temple. Solomon mislead the people of the tribes of Israel by doing things which were not right in the eyes of our Father. Solomon would be the last king over all the tribes of Israel. The next kings after Solomon would be Rehoboam (Solomon's son)who would rule over Judah/Benjamin and Jeroboam (king of the 10 Northern tribes). Even though the split occurred between the tribes of Israel, there was no change given by our Father in the order and responsibility of the Levites. they retained control over the Temple. 1Kings 11:31 1Kings 12 Chronicles 23:1 Chronicles 29:22 2 Chronicles 9 & 10 the split of the tribes occurring after Solomon's death 2 Chronicles 11 (Rehoboam ceased from fighting Jeroboam on the order of our Father)

Once the split of the tribes occurred, it was the actions of Jeroboam that would set in motion what is now mistakenly called the Jewish faith today. Jeroboam feared the 10 tribes would turn to king Rehoboam if they went down to the temple in Jerusalem during the Passover. He therefore commanded the 10 Northern tribes (Samaria) to worship two golden calves. From this point foreword it would be common place to refer to the Levites and the temple by its geographical location (Jerusalem) which was in the land of Judea. The 10 Northern tribes would be segregated to their own worship, which their king (Jeroboam) had made for them (the two golden calves). 1Kings 12 2 Chronicles 11:14 (The Levites leave Samaria, because they had been cast off by Jeroboam and go to Jerusalem)

To be called a Jew is initially an identification of people by geographical location (The people of Judea after the split of the tribes of Israel). To be identified as one from the tribe of Judah is quiet different although these two are often confused. In the book of Genesis when the blessings were being handed out by Jacob (Israel and father of the 12 tribes), this is written concerning Judah:"The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh come" Genesis 49:10. Judah was always to remain a king line even until this very day.

The temple in Jerusalem never ceased to be run by the Levites. The book of Luke opens with this fact, as the father of what is referred to as "John the Baptist", is from the tribe of Levi, of the house of Aaron (priest line), of the 8th course, Abiah (not Judah). Mary, Christ's mother, was of the daughters of the house of Aaron (Levi - Priest line). Mary, Christ's mother married into the tribe of Judah (Joseph of the house of David - Matthew 1). This was very important as it gave Christ two titles: 1) High Priest via Levi and the House of Aaron (evidence earlier with house of Aaron) 2) King over all Israel, as he was successor by marriage to the king line of Judah (house of David) to which Joseph belonged (evidence book of Matthew)

Its very common (because of the texts of the KJV) for people to assume terms and relations without digging into the facts from the original texts. This false identification, has caused great consternation for the people who are identified today as Jews or Jewish. The texts get confusing related to the death of Christ because it appears as though the Jews killed him. However, what had actually occurred is that the temple in Judea had become polluted by those not of the house of Aaron (Levi). These people were neither of Judah nor of Levi, but lied about their identity due to their geographical location (Judea), in order to gain access to the temple and finally the priesthood. Christ would identify these people in John chapter 8, where they will argue their legitimacy with him, and loose the argument. Later those who Christ identified (sons of Cain) would be the ones responsible for stirring up the crowd to yell..Crucify him! Therefore it was not Judah who hand Christ crucified.

I hope this aids in the understanding of the term Jew (which is geographical) and Judah which is specific to a tribe of Israel and the faith often referred to as Jewish which actually refers to the temple in Jerusalem which was run by the Levites (not the Jews). And finally the reason that Judea was identified as the proper geographical location for worshiping in our Fathers temple, because of the acts of Jeroboam and the two golden calves he made all Samaria to worship. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.218.92.6 (talk) 14:45, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Why do I have the feeling I just read a lot of bull shit? Debresser (talk) 14:59, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Actually the term "Yehudi" originates from the Persian province name, Yehud Medinata which was created by the Achaemenids after the Babylonian Exile when Jewish identity was sort of finalised—they even built us a fancy rickety temple. Unfortunately, we can't rely on biblical history unless it's backed up by archaeological evidence. Anyway, are there any edits you'd like to make to the article? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 17 Adar 5775 15:01, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

The claim that Yehudi solely originates from the Persian province name is certainly a faulty opinion. Sennacherib's annals on the Taylor Prism (c. 689 BCE) mentions Hazakia-u Yaudai, often translated as "Hezekiah of Judah" or "Hezekiah the Jew" or "Hezekiah the Judahite." A lot of mainstream ANE historians do rely on the Books of Kings and the Books of Chronicles to fill in the gaps, akin to how the Histories by Herodotus is used. EyeTruth (talk) 19:20, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Deletion effort

This deletion effort, relating to the Maccabiah Games (also known as the "Jewish Olympics"), may interest some followers of this page. --Epeefleche (talk) 06:50, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Historically backed up by bible references

The article says, 'Historically, Jews have descended mostly from the tribes of Judah and Simeon, and partially from the tribes of Benjamin and Levi, who had all together formed the ancient Kingdom of Judah (alongside the remnants of the Northern Kingdom of Israel who migrated to their Southern counterpart and assimilated there)' then references Chronicles 9:3 and 2 Kings.

The Bible can't be used as historical evidence. The historicity is too open to debate.--78.146.172.254 (talk) 23:44, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

It's unacceptable. Even if "According to the Bible" was attached, it would be a severe violation of WP:PRIMARY. The Bible text does not even support the claim as it is referring just to community leaders and doesn't mention the mass of the people. Zero^talk 23:57, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

• It's certainly fine to use it. Zero is incorrect here. As wp:PRIMARY states, "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on ... primary sources. Epeefleche (talk) 03:33, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

• I support adding a qualifier such as "according to the Hebrew Bible", or even better, citing a contemporary academic source discussing the matter in detail. I am under the impression that modern scholarship backs up the general outlines of this narrative, but I claim no deep expertise, and will always rely on what the best reliable sources say. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:45, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

• Let's use academic sources as Cullen suggests.
  We also need to clarify what we mean by the word Jews in the sentence. The Hebrew Bible was written at least 2,500 years ago, so it cannot possibly be commenting on the modern Jewish community. Oncenawhile (talk) 07:19, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

While we're at it, there are other sentences in the lead related to the same point:

• "... originating from the historical Israelites..." - this should be caveated with "are thought to" / "according to tradition", and we cannot use the phrase "historical Israelites" in wikipedia's neutral voice, given the scholarly debate regarding the historicity of the Israelites
• "... According to Jewish tradition, Jewish ancestry is traced back ..." - this formulation works well, so not sure we need these other formulations of basically the same thing
• "... the Samaritans, who claim descent from the Israelite tribes..." - the wording here "claim descent" implies less certainty than for Jewish tradition. We should use the same form of words (e.g. according to Samaritan tradition)  Done
• "... Judaism is the traditional faith of the Jewish nation..." - this clause seems unnecessary  Done

Oncenawhile (talk) 07:45, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

I only looked at the last sentence of your list, but it seems appropriate to reflect. The Jews are an oddity among religions, as there is a Jewish nation and also a religion. This is certainly noteworthy. Epeefleche (talk) 07:53, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Epeefleche, you're right, I hadn't recognized the point that the sentence was trying to make. Then perhaps the sentence would be better to say: "The Jewish ethnicity, nationality and religion are strongly interrelated, and whilst many modern Jews are not religiously observant, Judaism is the traditional faith of the Jewish nation.". Or instead of "not religiously observant", we could say atheist / agnostic / secular etc. Oncenawhile (talk) 11:30, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Debresser, can you explain your view on this? You deleted the added words with an edit comment that actually agreed with the statement you deleted (unless you don't understand the literal meaning of the word "many"). The subsequent clause "Judaism is the traditional..." makes little sense to an uneducated reader unless you explain somewhere that the ethnicity and religion are able to be separate. Oncenawhile (talk) 21:35, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

I think the sentence is correct as is. The word "traditional" already implies that not all people of Jewish descent are also religiously Jewish. In addition to being redundant, the wording "many" is ambiguous: does it mean a majority or a minority? what is implied by saying this? Better to avoid that sentence altogether, IMHO. Debresser (talk) 13:29, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Some of your edits were not productive, ie deleting many citations and deceptively adding a cite needed tag. Some of them were probably constructive though, sorry if those got deleted. That Jews descend from Israelites is not controversial, and its not just according to the bible. (though descent from Abraham/Sarah is according to the Bible). It's not like the Israelites disappeared, there's a clear link between them and modern Jews. Any other theories are modern revisionism, most which have been thoroughly debunked, ie mass conversion. --Monochrome_Monitor 20:12, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Edit: You didn't delete any sources, but I saw the cite needed tag and assumed it was in place of citations. Sorry! Regardless, I think making the words appear lined in red was a bit heavy-handed. --Monochrome_Monitor 20:14, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

• Zero0000's statement that the Bible can't be used as a source since it is a primary source is indeed a gross misinterpretation of WP:PRIMARY. I am not sure where that came from.
• I have no problem with adding "are thought to" / "according to tradition" to "... originating from the historical Israelites..." That would in my opinion also solve the question if we can speak about "historical Israelites".
• "Judaism is the traditional faith of the Jewish nation" seems like a very important sentence to me. Debresser (talk) 20:48, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

The problem with these simplistic associations (not accusing anyone, just in general) is their neglectance of the differing fields. Judeans were geographic, Semites were linguistic (and include Muslims), Hebrews were much later defined by their alternative local alphabet, Ioudaia were nationalists of Judean culture (as opposed to Hellenic/Greek transculturalists) and Iudaismos (origin of "Judaism") was all of their culture combined - thus including but not limited to religion, which was less central at the time since it was not nearly as established yet. I would say the common "Jew" can not simply be compared with any historical term, as the meaning has changed drastically. Whereas it originally was a nation of people that only shared their location, it now is a tight community with both a religious and traditionalist basis and a rich ancestral heritage. I have no problem with saying "their religious and cultural views are a continuation of those held in ancient Judea and Israel," or something similar. But the current lead is just an invitation for people to use the label "Jews" for a great many people including those who massacred hundreds of thousands of civilians in the Kitos War (despite most of this not actually happening near Israel but in Northern Africa and Greece). You can expect what the results of that simplistic association would be. Stressing the meaning of the word as a nation is definitely a priority. Most people still believe Jews are only religious so to them this lead will make little sense. Bataaf van Oranje (talk) 11:40, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Soldaat van Oranje. The lead doesn't compare Jews with anything, but says that Jews originate in the ancient Israelites. That is a rather general statement, which also happens to be correct, even though it doesn't specify in what way the Israelites gave rise to the Jews, be it through their culture/religion, ethnicity/genes or locality. Precisely because of its general nature, I think we can (and should) keep this sentence. Debresser (talk) 21:56, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

The lead is WP:SYNTH and must be rewritten

(Simon Schama,'The Invention of the Jewish People,' Financial Times November 13, 2009) states:

Sand’s self-dramatising attack in The Invention of the Jewish People is directed against those who assume, uncritically, that all Jews are descended lineally from the single racial stock of ancient Hebrews – a position no one who has thought for a minute about the history of the Jews would dream of taking.

Our lead adopts 'a position no one who has thought for a minute about the history of the Jews would dream of taking.'

The Jews (Hebrew: יְהוּדִים ISO 259-3 Yehudim, Israeli pronunciation [jehuˈdim]), also known as the Jewish people, are an ethnoreligious[18] and ethno-cultural group[19][20][21] originating from the Israelites of the Ancient Near East.

So? What's to be done about fixing the mess, which combines several different snippets from stale sources to make an identifiably POV claim? Schama's remark implies a wholesale dismissal of the lead definition, and asserts that those who support this haven't given it a moment's thought. Nishidani (talk) 20:04, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Nishidani and others need to take a step back and stop bringing the Israel-Palestine conflict into this article. I get it I really do you’re an activist on this issue.Jonney2000 (talk) 21:00, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

What words did you read, Jonney? I can not agree with your assessment of what was brought in, or for the reason you seem to have found. Nishidani's comment was specifically content-driven and referenced to support it, in good editorial tradition. Your comment, on the other hand, appears to be specifically editor-driven as well as outwardly hostile toward many other editors. That type of comment is frowned upon in Wikipedia, both generally and specifically. Please limit your comments to the content at hand, as most editors are working toward consensus. Despite what you wrote, your comment only takes a step in an opposite direction and to the same off-topic subject. Regards, CasualObserver'48 (talk) 05:44, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

What has the definition of 'Jews' to do with the I/P conflict? Zilch. It is a matter of competent editing, and this is farcical:

Definition 1

The Jews also known as the Jewish people, are an ethnoreligious

6 Sources

(1) Richard Jones, Gnanapala Welhengama, Ethnic Minorities in English Law Trentham Books and School of Oriental & African Studies, 2000 (no page cited)

(2) Edgar Litt (1961). "Jewish Ethno-Religious Involvement and Political Liberalism". Social Forces 39 (4): 328–332. doi:10.2307/2573430. JSTOR 2573430. No page cited/outdated/irrelevant.

(3) "Are Jews a Religious Group or an Ethnic Group?" (PDF). Institute for Curriculum Services. Not RS

But it does define ethnic identity as 'An identified social category of people based on perceptions of shared social experience or ancestry (subjective).

(4) Sean Ireton (2003). "The Samaritans – A Jewish Sect in Israel: Strategies for Survival of an Ethno-religious Minority in the Twenty First Century". Anthrobase.

This book defines the Samaritans, not the Jews.

(5) Levey, Geoffrey Brahm. "Toward a Theory of Disproportionate American Jewish Liberalism" (PDF). Irrelevant source.

(6) J. Alan Winter (March 1996). "Symbolic Ethnicity or Religion Among Jews in the United States: A Test of Gansian Hypotheses". Review of Religious Research 37 (3).

Now, any normal editor, any drafter who has a smidgeon of awareness of how things are done on Wikipedia, sees at sight this is a scrambled mess of arbitrary, unverifiable and dubious sources, when 'at a glanceall one need do is chuck out the trash, and use, say,

Stephen Sharot Comparative Perspectives on Judaisms and Jewish Identities, Wayne State University Press, 2011 p.257

This book specifically addresses Jewish identities and has a relevant remark on 'ethnoreligious' identity among Jews on that page.

One good source makes the rest of the rigged sourcing look pathetic, it is linked, and has a page anyone can read to verify. Is that so painful? If there are no objections, I would replace the incompetent crap with this sensible academic source for starters.Nishidani (talk) 12:44, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Nishidani, please stop quoting Sand as though he is a reliable source. He is not, and any discussion based on his opinions is bound to be ignored by serious editors. Really, this is becoming tiresome, irritating even. Debresser (talk) 23:08, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Debresser. This is quite deplorable. I am suggesting Sharot replace the junk of unlinked crap sourcing we have. Did you look at those sources, did you examine their adequacy? No. You're not reading. I quoted Simon Schama, whose name came up apropos Sand, to illustrate a point. I was reminded of this page by what Schama said. That he happens to be reviewing Sand is irrelevant. Some people here are getting jumpy at my mere presence and appear invariably to jump to ridiculous conclusions while ignoring the merit of the suggestions. I didn't even have Sand in mind, fa Chrissake.Nishidani (talk) 06:52, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

I must be allergic to seeing his name on Wikipedia by now. Sorry. By the way, you invoke the wrong deity. :) Debresser (talk) 21:16, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Who said Christ was a deity. Not me. Nice bloke, but a bit of a hothead.:)

Nishidani just wants to stick in his pet theory that Jews are khazars. It has nothing to do with the truth, not that the lead couldn’t uses better sourcing but that’s not what this is about CasualObserver'48. Someone should add page numbers.Jonney2000 (talk) 03:33, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Again a personal attack, out of the woodwork. I wrote the Khazar page from top to bottom because (several decades ago I did broad studies on Central Asiatic tribes, and retain an interest in the subject) it was a laughingstock, riven by obsessives who either believed Jews are Khazars (a pathetically stupid theory) or excited fantasists convinced that every mention of Khazars in Jewish history was motivated by an insidious anti-Semitic plot to disinvalidate Zionism and Jews. Anyone with a minimum of intelligence can now read that page and see all of the relevant scholarship, and the clear verdict that the idea Ashkenazi derive from Khazars is a minority theory, with tenuous support. That is how I wrote it, because that is what the best contemporary scholarship states.

Now, either address the specific point, about the stupid sourcing used in the lead, and the WP:SYNTH underlying it, roll up your respective sleeves, read on the subject, and come up with creative, source based definitions, or kindly stay off the page. And above all, stop trying to second guess my ostrensible 'real motives'. I don't have any. I made the same point about this opening line several years ago, and have at times suggested editors fix it. No one will, because, probably, bright people don't look at this page, which is a pity.Nishidani (talk) 06:52, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Sorry if you took it as a personal attack. But the Khazar theory frankly is a bit scary I have actually known people who are convinced they are Khazars. It’s like a false memory implanted for political reasons. Something similar happened with Crimean Karaites.Jonney2000 (talk) 23:49, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Nishidani, could you be more specific about your concerns. Is it the definition itself you disagree with or just the sourcing? I believe your main concern is related to the "Israelite origins". Anyway, your request to examine the sources is legitimate. regarding the ethnoreligious definition, i found some sources after a quick search (so i haven't reviewed them much), please have a look: [1], [2], [3] Infantom (talk) 14:51, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

The definition is WP:SYNTH because it has a high number of multiple sources for three specific elements of the definition. Every editor should be able to see that.

My main objection to all articles, everywhere in Wikipedia, is that they fail the quality sourcing test. There is no justification, especially in a superbly documented cultural world like Judaism's, for shabby off the rack sourcing. I can get instantaneously numerous sources for all three elements, of course. I suggested for 'ethnoreligious' replacing the junk there with, for a start, Stephen Sharot, Comparative Perspectives on Judaisms and Jewish Identities, Wayne State University Press, 2011 p.257. I deplore 'ethnic' as a word, to an old man's ear it's just a jazzy term for 'race' which I was raised to despise as a label. But, given the diffusion of this jargon, it is acceptable to Wikipedia, and I see no reason why Jews like any other community, should not be called an ethnic group, though 19th century rabbis would have objected. Refining this to 'ethnoreligious' and 'ethnonationalism' is silly, unless you can get, perhaps it's out there, a solid academic source conjoining the two in a definition addressing to clarifying the question:’Mihu Yehudi. As to 'Israelitic origins', yes, that is vexed. There is absolutely not a shadow of a doubt that there is a profound sense of connection among a large number of Jews with the biblical narrative of events in the Levant, and specifically Israel/Palestine, and a belief in descent, direct or otherwise, going back to some ancestor there. Both Israel's and rabbinical, and genetic arguments on this, however, are so contradictory, that they complicate efforts to make any fair definition that responds to facts. Nearly all statements look ideological (denialist, affirmative, whatever). Under Reform Judaism, I have several Jewish relatives: under Orthodox and Israeli law, I have none (not that it matters in the least.)Nishidani (talk) 17:02, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Finally, the lead should reflect and summarize the sensible statement in the main body of the article, which is not subject to challenge (except Judaism should be 'the Jewish people'). I.e.,

Judaism shares some of the characteristics of a nation, an ethnicity,[18] a religion, and a culture, making the definition of who is a Jew vary slightly depending on whether a religious or national approach to identity is used.[68][69] Generally, in modern secular usage Jews include three groups: people who were born to a Jewish family regardless of whether or not they follow the religion, those who have some Jewish ancestral background or lineage (sometimes including those who do not have strictly matrilineal descent), and people without any Jewish ancestral background or lineage who have formally converted to Judaism and therefore are followers of the religion.[70]

As is usual in Wikipedia, most editors never get past the lead, edit(-war) there without understanding that the solution to a lead formulation often lies in the article which it is supposed to summarize.Nishidani (talk) 19:33, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Shlomo Sand seems anti-Jewish. He wrote a whole book about how he does not want to be a Jew anymore. His writing are described as polemic by many.

In his Guardian article he clearly explains why he does not want to be part of the Jewish religion or people.

1: Judaism is too ethnocentric 2: Jewish morality is not “universal.”

His writing are not about Jewish history which he views as an invention but rather about the conflict. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/oct/10/shlomo-sand-i-wish-to-cease-considering-myself-a-jew

This is not how a serious critical scholar behaves. Jonney2000 (talk) 23:26, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

You're entitled to your opinion, but it is irrelevant, since it consists of a personal attack on a chaired scholar who is taken seriously by many historians of distinction. I didn't use Sand here, so why he is being dragged in is anyone's guess. Sand's point about his Jewishness is identical to that of Alain Corcos. He is of Jewish descent on both sides, like his brother, but is not a Jew, unlike his brother. (Alain F. Corcos, Who is a Jew? Thoughts of a Biologist, Wheatmark 2012). Nishidani (talk) 07:40, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

What changes to the article do you suggest? Shlomo Sand lost any shred of the pretense of scholarship when he descended into polemics against Judaism and Jews as inherently evil and racist. His views are so fringe and contrary to history/archeology/genetics—that Jews are entirely a people of converts (converts of who? Studies have found zero Khazar genetic contribution to the Jewish genepool, so that old conspiracy is ruled out) and that the Jewish history (which is very well-attested, as in the Cyrus Cylinder, Merneptah stele, Cuneiform inscriptions of Sargon II, Arch of Titus) never actually happened. --Monochrome_Monitor 07:46, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

That makes four editors who, instead of addressing the points made about inadequate sourcing, and the suggestion the first set be removed and replaced by a clickable verifiable reliable source for 'ethnoreligious', keep hammering at Shlomo Sand, whom I never mentioned. I note the whingeing, and that editors are neither addressing concrete issues in our article, nor spending time to improve it. If you wish a reply, stay focused on real problems, and try to use correct English (monuments and cylinders don't 'happen') rather than conjuring up Bogey men to waste time 'chatting'. This is not a forum on Jewish identity.Nishidani (talk) 09:26, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

I was able to look into this page a bit and read the comments, and it's peculiar that so many keep referring to but talk never mentioned. Also, as far as what Jonney2000 said, I don't know if writing a "whole" (as if there's any other way) book on not wanting to be a Jew makes you "anti-Jewish." Being an anti-Jewish, known more as anti-Semite, is to say that there's some sort of explicit distaste towards all Jewish people. Being against something's existence is totally different than not wanting to be a part of a religious community. You can hold to beliefs that are not represented in a religious group and harbor no ill will towards them. That's the entire basis on which tolerance and religious freedom in the modern world is founded on. If everyone who wrote about why they don't want to be in a religious community was considered "anti" said community, there would be a lot more accusations of hatred towards more people. So I think it's wrong to say he's anti-Jewish unless the book he wrote has explicit mentioning about how he hates Jews directly and wants them gone. I haven't read this book and I'm hoping that's not how he presents it. However! The article arguments that Jonney2000 pointed out cleary, clearly indicate points that are simple disagreements and not anti-Jewish. Any culture can say that any other culture's moralities aren't universal. There's no way that connects to hating a group. So now back to User:Nishidani. I'm asking now how we could best use our time to improve the article on the provided basis. Which sources are inadequate for the article? Are there any special parameters that are going to be used appropriately to judge the credibility and accountability of an article that differ from normal wikipedia articles? Looking forward to the replies, Complete turing (talk) 09:42, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Anti-Judaism is not the same as antisemitism.Jonney2000 (talk) 08:19, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Oh I was just hopping on the bandwagon. I haven't slept in 32 hours, not sure if you've noticed. Thus my English is not at its finest. What are you referring to again? Categorizing Jews as an ethnoreligious group? That's pretty well attested. The term itself isn't common but it's accurate considering Jews are understood as both an ethnicity and a religion, like the Druze. --Monochrome_Monitor 09:53, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

To repeat, at the top of the page there is a note and an enquiry, asking for direct suggestions for improvement. Please all focus on how to improve the sourcing. This is not a forum on someone I did not mention.Nishidani (talk) 10:37, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Ah. In that case I have no comment. I tried to add some info though. --Monochrome_Monitor 11:05, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

The article states the following on Samaritans A closely related group is the Samaritans, who according to their tradition trace their ancestry back to the Israelite tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh,[31] Why not simply say that Jews, according to their tradition trace their ancestry back to the Israelites? That would align the two claims. Theredheifer (talk) 07:00, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

What jews themselves dont even realise is that it is a tenet of the jewish faith to BELIEVE in jews minds they are genetic descendants of Jacob/Israel from ~1900 BC. The word jew in the old testament should be Judite/Judean which means either a genealogical descendant of Judah as people of the Israelite religion had genealogies back then and or living in southern kingdom of Judah. It is important to note modern day judaism was never the religion of the old testament but derived from the pharisees. In the new testament, Josephus and likely all other ancient Greco-Roman writers the word jew should be Judaan which simply means living in Judea/Palestine. There has been interbreeding between all ethnic groups since Jacobs 12 sons lived. Genes can not be traced back in time 700 years let alone thousands. Jacobs Y chromosome could be in 100's of millions of men on earth. It is impossible to know who has it. People of all different ethnic groups would. So it is believed in the minds of jews (and anyone of any ethnic group can convert to judaism) that they came from Jacob. This is a religious belief and in reality absurd. This makes jews delusional yes but religion is religion and someone can believe whatever they want to believe. Sellingstuff (talk) 13:06, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Infobox

I'm concerned that the Jews listed in the box misses approximately 1500 years of Jewish (not considering Israelite) history, so I added Josephus. Regardless, on significant Jews, Natalie Portman is not even in the top 200. Why is she included? --Monochrome_Monitor 21:26, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Discussed many times previously (the infobox montage content and layout are per consensus). You can find relevant discussions by searching the archives under "Portman" and (separately) "infobox". Hertz1888 (talk) 21:53, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Ah, crap. I was afraid someone would tell me to look in the archives. Okay then. --Monochrome_Monitor 21:57, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Is it okay if add some people in the infobox (not delete)? Compared to other peoples ie Greeks, Italians, Germans there aren't that many listed — Preceding unsigned comment added by Monochrome Monitor (talk • contribs) 18:01, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Have you looked at the archives? There is a long-standing consensus against expanding the infobox. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:43, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

What specifically was wrong with my additions? Isn't the goal to provide as much information as possible while remaining concise? For example, Hillel is one of the most significant figures in Jewish history, at least as influential as Maimonides. --Monochrome_Monitor 20:49, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

For starters, there can not be a picture of Hillel in existence. Debresser (talk) 18:54, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Judas Maccabeus

The picture of Maimonides is also not an authentic portrait but artistic depiction, however it's in the Infobox, as it should be. Main goal of collage is to list prominent Jews in diversity. Huge period of Jewish history is missing right now. I think Judas Maccabeus would be great addition (instead of Gershwin). Look at articles about other peoples – Assyrians, Arabs, Egyptians, Greeks, Germans, Han Chinese – all include such pics. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 07:08, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Josephus and the new testament use this greek word that comes out as jew in english https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ioudaios . Josephus (and Jesus) were Judeans, they were from Judea (Palestine). So you cant call him a 'jew'. Rabbinic judaism has only existed since the closing of the talmud 500 AD anyway so.... How about some photos of Karl Marx, Sigmund Freud, Gengrich Yagoda, Bernie Madoff, Jordan Belfort or Lenin Trotsky?Sellingstuff (talk) 13:20, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Judas Maccabeus would be great. --Monochrome_Monitor 00:53, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Wait, why can't you call Josephus Jewish? Judeans were Jewish. That's where the word Jew comes from. And all of the people you referred to are more or less reviled. You're a Jew hater. --Monochrome_Monitor 00:56, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

I added Judah Maccabee :) --Monochrome_Monitor 01:30, 12 May 2015 (UTC) I also think Hertzl should be added, anyone support? He could be put in instead of Chagall.

Claim

Regarding the new text "Jews have greatly influenced and contributed to ethics, religion, literature, philosophy, medicine, science, and business, both historically and contemporarily." Perhaps the intention was to summarize in the lead the following sentence from the article: "Jews have made a myriad contributions in a broad and diverse range of fields, including the sciences, arts, politics, and business.[226]"? If so, then why is it worded differently? If not, then I think it should either be sourced, or removed. Debresser (talk) 08:32, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

• There are two problems here. One in the new text.'historically and contemporarily' is stylistically inept: rewrite: 'Jews historically have . .'. The past present tense means the contribution is ongoing to the present day.
• If the lead has 'a myriad contributions' that's wrong. 'myriad' does not accept an antecedent 'a' in traditional prose, as far as I remember. Rewrite: 'myriad contributions'. I think however this is better expressed along the lines of 'Though a numerically small population relative to their societies, Jews have made profound contributions in all areas of human endeavor positively disproportionate to their numbers'. This is both true, and easily sourced in Eric Hobsbawm.Nishidani (talk) 10:42, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

I based it off similar lines, like in the article Greeks and English people. Lots of ethnic groups on wikipedia have something like it describing their contributions. --Monochrome_Monitor 11:05, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

That suggests another hinting edit. For formatting, article development etc., consulting other wiki pages that are thematically compatible is quite useful. Howsever, drawing on their content to modify a third article is dangerous, because (a) Wikipedia articles are not reliable (most of them in this category are fit for the laughing stocks), and (b) one should always try to address issues on a page by consulting a relevant source, preferably a book or scholarly article. What is distinctive here (and it applies equally to Greeks) is the disproportion between their contextually exiguous numbers among the larger populations of the world, and their contributions. The English don't fit, being a large population (though the Scots do, since their contribution to the Enlightenment far outweighed what you would expect from their small presence within the larger English group).Nishidani (talk) 11:14, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Again, the above advice on how when and when not to "use" other WP material is invaluable, M.M. You are receiving an increasing store of priceless nuggets of WP "lore" much of which you will not find in the guides. This is practical experience from excellent Wikipedians sharing their knowledge with you. Suggest you begin to record this information in some way convenient to you. Regards, Simon. Irondome (talk) 11:22, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Well

this edit reads.

Jews have greatly influenced and contributed to human thought in many fields, including ethics, medicine, science, music, philosophy, and business, both historically and contemporarily.

is daft rather than deft. An ethnic contribution to human thought links to pages that refer overwhelmingly to scholarly endeavours within Judaism that had little or no impact on 'human thought' (the particular influencing the general). Examine ethics, medicine,philosophy. There are Jewish traditions of ethics, Jewish medical traditions, and Jewish philosophical interests (in Judaism). None of these, not even the great Maimonides have made anywhere near, if any of, the impact Jews (and the category is Ashkenazic Jewry predominantly) have made as scientists, musicians, writers, artists etc (it fact there is no such thing as a Jewish science, except in Nazi fantasies. Even Spinoza, one of the finest philosophical minds on record, became such only after he was expelled under a death warrant from his community, and thought in wholly Western philosophical terms. So, the links don't work. Nishidani (talk) 19:29, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

"it fact there is no such thing as a Jewish science" - I actually met a chinese woman who studied Jewish Economy-The success of Jews economically throughout history. Just an anecdote.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.86.117.174 (talk) 20:13, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

You're right. I'll change the links. --Monochrome_Monitor 03:18, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

What about Hillel? In my view he was far greater than Spinoza. --Monochrome_Monitor 03:21, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

If you mean Hillel the Elder, it's probably true that he had a greater impact on the world, via Jesus who took over the Golden rule (and unfortunately failed to take on board Hillel's advice on divorce). His framing of it was far more penetrating than the Chinese version:'All men are brothers within the four seas' (四海 之內皆兄弟) because it has profound psychological depth and not sexist. But that influence is indirect. Spinoza had a profound effect on European thought. No one is 'greater' than any other at this level, anymore than Newton, or Einstein were greater than Archimedes. Hillel synthesized Judaism in a sentence -the essence of the Torah is, 'do not allow yourself to be corrupted by the hate around you,' a truth Spinoza exemplified within and beyond his community. Nishidani (talk) 12:05, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

The Golden rule was his most influential contribution, but also "If I am not for myself who is for me? And being for my own self, what am 'I'? And if not now, when?" That's very philosophical. Also "whoever destroys a soul, it is considered as if he destroyed an entire world. And whosoever that saves a life, it is considered as if he saved an entire world." That last one's in the Quran. --Monochrome_Monitor

18 million figure in the infobox

This figure shouldn't be included. People of Jewish descent identifying as Jews (not just halakhic Jews) are figured into the 13 million figure. According to the source, the expanded definition includes "non-Jewish members of Jewish households". That's not an "enlarged definition". That's a completely different statistic. I suggest it be removed. --Monochrome_Monitor 00:04, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

So where does that put me MM? I strongly self-identify as a Jew, I look Semitic, my mother was Jewish, I have all my late forebears holy books, prayer shawls, etc, etc, but I do like the odd bit of bacon. G d bears with me. I hope you do too. Self identification may well include those undergoing conversion, those with Jewish fathers, etc. We need everyone we can get already :) Irondome (talk) 00:15, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

You're included in the 13 million. However the 5 million non-Jews in Jewish households don't identify as Jewish, or else they would be listed in the core population. --Monochrome_Monitor 00:47, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Also, you're making a straw man argument. I never said that non-observant Jews aren't Jews, they are. I said that non-Jewish members of Jewish households who aren't Jewish, meaning they don't indentify as Jewish ethnically or religiously, aren't Jewish. It's easier to understand if you read the source. If you want an enlarged population, the source also gives a figure of 15,773,000 non-Jews (people who don't identify as Jewish, who "adopted another religion, or otherwise opted out, although they may claim to be also Jewish by ethnicity or in some other way—with the caveat just mentioned for recent US and Canadian data; and (b) other persons with Jewish parentage who disclaim being Jewish.") who have Jewish parents. Basically, Jews who "opted out" per the diagram on page 16. --Monochrome_Monitor 01:02, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

That figure should be given instead of the 18 million. Anyone object? --Monochrome_Monitor 01:10, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

I object to any figure that is not rounded off to millions. The numbers are so unsure, that even figures rounded off to millions might be off by a few million, so at least let's not make a laughing stock of ourselves and round off our figures. Debresser (talk) 01:50, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

I object that. The definition of the stats is very unclear. For example, see the numbers regarding Israel, the "core population" is identical to the Israeli definition of a Jew (only under the "halachik law") while ignoring ~300K ethnic Jews of whom the vast majority self-identify as Jews. There's a reason that an "enlarged population" is mentioned in the source - it's impossible to know the exact number of Jews, i think that displaying a range of Jewish population is the best option. Infantom (talk) 02:16, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

The 300k ethnic Jews you mentioned are included in the 15,773,000 figure. Both converts to Judaism and Jews who converted out are included. --Monochrome_Monitor 03:32, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

It is debatable whether Jews who converted out or have Jewish parents and don't indentify as Jewish are Jews. These are included in the 15,773,000 figure. It is not debatable whether non-Jews in Jewish households are Jews. You don't adopt someones ethnicity/religion by living with them. --Monochrome_Monitor 03:37, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

No, all of the 300K are included in 18M only. and by the definiti:::on of the source many of them are technically should be included in "law of return" category, but they still identify as Jews and we don't include this category here. As i said, the definitions in the source are very unclear. Both 15M and 18M figures use "all other not currently Jewish persons", and the 18M figure includes children of Jews too. I don't see more relevancy for the first figure. Jews are included in the 13, 15, 18 and 21 million stats, displaying a range is the best option. Infantom (talk) 11:08, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

The problem is irresolvable because the authoritative sources cannot agree. MM is right to bring up the anomaly, wrong perhaps to suggest there is a solution for one version. Sergio della Pergola is as authoritative as you get, gives 13,854,800 for 2013. Looking at his papers he defines 'Jew' in restrictive terms (i.e. there are 5,300,000 Jews in the U.S. by this criterion (I presume of descent on the mother's side), but 10,000,000 if you add in the 'household figure'). It is further complicated by the, to outside eyes at least, aleatory contextual combination, according to strategic necessity calculations, of conversion of entire populations who then become fully fledged Jewish citizens and the dictates of the politics of gathering-in especially noticeable in the Slavic immigration. The only way to fix this provisorily is to give both narrow and broad statistics in the info-box 14 to 18 million, excluding one of my close relatives unfortunately even from the latter larger definition since, though she's learnt classical Hebrew, reads the Tanakh every night, obtained a doctorate in theology dealing with this, has many Jewish friends sympathetic to her plight and frustration who are ready to help her 'sojourn' in Israel, etc., since only one of her parents, her father, was Jewish, she's stuck with being a shiksa. Other relatives fit the bill, and their children qualify, but the mothers in this case are completely indifferent to the matter (so far, despite my recommendations to pass on to the kids some proud knowledge of their personal origins, the culture etc.) All I can do is help her with Hebrew, and with imparting research techniques to delve into the past and confirm this side of her origins.Nishidani (talk) 11:41, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree that a range is best, but I don't think we should use the 18 or 21 million figure, as both explicitly include non Jews by parentage or relgion. The 15 million includes all Jews by maternal or paternal descent. --Monochrome_Monitor 15:34, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Also Nishidani, your relative is included in the 15 million figure. It includes all people who indentify as Jewish or had Jewish parents. --Monochrome_Monitor 15:36, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

In fact, the 13 million figure includes all people who identify as Jews or are identified as Jewish by someone in the same household. Isn't identification what's important? --Monochrome_Monitor 15:38, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

We have several figures here, 14 (by the foremost authority on the demographics of Jews), then 15, then 18, then 21. A demographer like Pergola would think such rubbery margins in calculations percentually problematical.Nishidani (talk) 17:12, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

To me that's all that counts, even if I don't identify with any group, for it would diminish the complexity of a multiple (some would say, in my case, schizoid) identity I think we all have. Unfortunately, in rabbinical terms, this (self-identification) does not apply, and I think della Pergola's low figure excludes it. 'identified as Jewish by someone in the same household' is wrong, as you will observe if you read the biologist Alain Corcos' book, esp.the introduction, where, while both he and his brother are descended from Jewish parents, Corcos doesn't think he is a Jew (a category he thinks based on religious observance), while his brother is, and regards Alain as a Jew, an attribution which Alain rebuffs. Wiki thrives on these complexities at its best.Nishidani (talk) 17:04, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it's right since it was in the source, but whatever. I still think the 15 million is better. --Monochrome_Monitor 02:58, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Monochrome Monitor, will you stop already changing it before achieving a consensus?? the 13M figure isn't accurate, about 300K ethnic Jews in Israel (who identify themselves as Jews) are mentioned only in the "enlarged population" definition, read it! Please revert yourself. Infantom (talk) 16:47, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry, no one responds unless I changed it. As for the 300k Israelis, they are included in the 15 million figure. --Monochrome_Monitor 17:19, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

"If an enlarged Jewish population definition is considered, including non-Jews who have Jewish parents, a global aggregate population estimate of 15,773,000 is obtained." This includes Israelis who self-identify as Jewish and are not recognized as such. --Monochrome_Monitor 17:27, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

No they are not. Read page 21, the figure ignores ~285k Jews. Nobody claims its 13, 15 or 18, we merely display a range of estimations. 3 editors have already objected your proposal, stop changing it. Infantom (talk) 17:51, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

The 13 million figure does. The 15 million figure does not. Of course I read the table, did you? "15,772,800-Sum of (a) core Jewish population; (b) all other not currently Jewish persons with a Jewish parent." Whereas 18,197,400 is "Sum of (a) core Jewish population; (b) all other not currently Jewish persons with a Jewish parent; and (c) all other non‐Jewish household members (spouses, children, etc.)." It's unreasonable to include non-jewish household members as Jews. --Monochrome_Monitor 22:58, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

And if you are referring to people of no Jewish ancestry who practice a form of Judaism but haven't converted, they aren't included in the 18 million figure either so that's no valid reason to use it. --Monochrome_Monitor 23:01, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Which "3 other users" are you referring to? Nish agreed that we should only include those who identify as Jewish. Debresser just argued that we round the number. And Irondome was teasing me. You're the only one who seems opposed to it. --Monochrome_Monitor 23:07, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Are you serious? The non enlarged population figures ignore 300K Jews that are not recognized as such by halakhic law, read it (they do have Jewish ancestry, otherwise they wouldn't have been naturalized by Israel to begin with). When self identified Jews are included in a figure, then it is very reasonable to include it. Nishidani supported "14 to 18 million" statistics and Irondome objected as well. Infantom (talk) 06:28, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

People of parental Jewish ancestry are included in the 15 million figure. The 18 million figure explicitly says "non-Jews in Jewish households". Why would non-recognized Israeli Jews be in that category? --Monochrome_Monitor 15:57, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Because the figures aren't 'loyal' to the definitions which make them very unclear. You don't need to have Jewish parents in order to have Jewish ancestry and identify as a Jew. that's the case with many non halakhic Jews in Israel. The 18 million figure includes self identified Jews with Jewish ancestry, that's should be enough for mentioning it. Infantom (talk) 10:27, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. The 15 million figure includes Jews who may identify as Jewish and/or have Jewish ancestry—the 18 million figure incluldes NON JEWS in Jewish households, not people of Jewish ancestry. --Monochrome_Monitor 01:51, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

turkic khazars - arthur koestler

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
arthur koestler has said, that the khazars, a turk people in ural, were the parents of mostly all jews on the world ... the 13. tribe - arthur koestler - read it ... khazars are a turkic uralian people — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.134.107.226 (talk) 14:31, 6 June 2015 (UTC) I suggest you too read it. He does not state that the Khazars were the 'parents of mostly all Jews in the world' (a statement that in any case is solecistic)Nishidani (talk) 17:20, 6 June 2015 (UTC) That's nice. --Monochrome_Monitor 21:30, 6 June 2015 (UTC) It's best to regard Arthur Koestler as an eclectic and eccentric fiction author, for a variety of reasons. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:36, 6 June 2015 (UTC) If one was around, and relatively young when each of those came out, they were overall quite stimulating, though they dated quickly. That he wasn't an eccentric fiction writer is shown by his The Sleepwalkers. Even Promise and Fulfilment is a very useful book, disgusting in one way (self-identification with Zionist extremism), insightful in another. If Stanford's Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences thought him stimulating company, we should not be dismissive. His private life was hell, but overall his public interventions, in fiction, popular science, and treading where angels feared to tread (often with an unsure footing), helped the cause of intelligence.Nishidani (talk) 21:59, 6 June 2015 (UTC) He was useful as a product of his era and in his time, as were Joseph Banks Rhine and Paracelsus... But the science of all those figures is outdated, and approaching Koestler as an experimental science fiction author provides a means for younger readers (like myself) to approach him with some degree of respect (a favor I would not show to Rhine, who makes me want to travel through time and beat Mesmer, Emerson, and Quimby to death with a hardback copy of Parapsychology: Frontier Science of the Mind). Ian.thomson (talk) 22:27, 6 June 2015 (UTC) This thread was never about improving the article, and should be removed, or at least not continued. Hertz1888 (talk) 22:31, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Place and pre-eminence of Jewish mythology in the page.

I'm a bit annoyed by the way some mythological facts come first on some sections. Like:

According to the Hebrew Bible narrative, Jewish ancestry is traced back to the Biblical patriarchs such as Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and the Biblical matriarchs Sarah, Rebecca, Leah, and Rachel, who lived in Canaan around the 18th century BCE. Jacob and his family migrated to Ancient Egypt after being invited to live with Joseph (who rose to the rank of Pharaoh's Vizier) in the Land of Goshen region by Pharaoh himself. The patriarchs' descendants were later enslaved until the Exodus led by Moses, which is commonly dated to the 13th century BCE.

Historically, Jews have descended mostly from the tribes of Judah and Simeon, and partially from the tribes of Benjamin and Levi, who had all together formed the ancient Kingdom of Judah.[29] A closely related group is the Samaritans, who according to their tradition trace their ancestry back to the Israelite tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh,[30] while according to the Bible their origin is in the people brought to Israel by the Neo-Assyrian Empire and some Kohanim (Jewish priests) who taught them how to worship the "native God".[31]

Or: Origins According to the Hebrew Bible, all Israelites descend from Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Abraham was born in the Sumerian city of Ur Kaśdim, and migrated to Canaan (commonly known as the Land of Israel) with his family. Aristotle believed that the Jews came from India, where he said that they were known as the Kalani.[51] According to archaeologists, however, Israelite culture did not overtake the region, but rather grew out of Canaanite culture.

I went to the Indigenous Australians page, or the Aboriginal peoples in Canada page, and if there are some reference to their mythological origins at appropriated place, the "Origin" or "History" sections never start by (or even refer to) their own mythology. Even if that was, putting it *before* any historical answer, is quite surprising.

Shouldn't those parts be rewrote a bit?

--YannickPatois (talk) 12:46, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Let's start with noting your strange usage of the word "mythological facts". These are "tenets of belief". Which is why they come first. In all Wikipedia articles about religions we first describe the religion as it sees itself, and then add academical observations. Debresser (talk) 09:36, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Are the Franks said to be from Greece, as they claimed? Bataaf van Oranje (talk) 11:27, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Population centers

The population charts appear to be outdated. It uses population information from 2010 to define some of the country's jewish figures. For example, in 2014, it was estimated that the Jewish population of Ukraine had risen to 360,000-400,000 according to the European Jewish Congress' numbers on Ukrainian Jews. The current numbers of "71,500 core - 200,000 enlarged," are way off from the actual current number of Jews in Ukraine. This should be checked for every country to make sure that population densities are as accurate as possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IJoe Wiki (talk • contribs) 20:36, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

According to the Jewish Virtual Library, the Jewish population of Ukraine in 2014 was 63,000, which seems more logical. https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/jewpop.html Benjil (talk) 11:34, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Lede is way too long

The lede is eight paragraphs long, and some are long paragraphs. This lede needs to be cut in half. Jusdafax 08:33, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree. At the same time I want to stress that this is a long article, so the lede can also be longer than usual. And, just to state the obvious, WP:LEADLENGTH is a general guideline, and some articles may deviate to either side of the guideline as needed. Debresser (talk) 12:59, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

True, so perhaps not in half. But it's at least a couple paragraphs too long. Jusdafax 23:44, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Jews speak English, Modern Hebrew, Russian, French, Arabic and Spanish.

Let's discuss.--Wikipedianjewish (talk) 06:43, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, you removed Arabic and placed Hebrew before English. Personally, I don't mind the order, since on the one hand English is spoken by more Jews than Hebrew, but Hebrew has a clearer connection to being Jewish. Arabic is still a language spoken by many Jews from Arab countries, and should stay. Debresser (talk) 07:15, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

I didn't, Averysoda and Jeppiz removed Arabic and placed Hebrew before English. I added Arabic and placed English before Hebrew.--Wikipedianjewish (talk) 07:41, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

My apologies. So, as I said, I think that Arabic should be here, and have mixed feelings about whether English or Hebrew should be first. Let's see what others have to say. Debresser (talk) 10:08, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

If we are going based on order, then yes, English should be listed before Hebrew. However, it may be difficult to accurately determine the number of Jews who speak each language. I don't think, however, that the order really matters that much. Now Arabic; not many Jews speak Arabic these days as a primary language, and I think it should belong in the "other" or "Judeo-Arabic" category. Goalie1998 (talk) 10:16, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Old Israeli Mizrahis and Sephardis speak Arabic as their native language. And Jews in Arab world still speak Modern Standard Arabic and colloquial Arabic as their native languages.--Wikipedianjewish (talk) 12:51, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

First of all, Wikipedianjewish needs to stop the heavy edit warring, or risk being blocked. The user has not yet provided any rational for their edit warring, just restating the action. As for the content, I find it fairly obvious that Hebrew should be first, it is the official language of the Jewish state and it is the traditional language of the Jews. I see no reason see insert Modern Hebrew instead of Hebrew. I write this in English, no need to specify "Modern" English even though it is not the language of Chaucer, and I go for lunch soon in French, not "Modern" French even though I speak something very different from La Chanson de Roland. As for Arabic, I have no strong feelings about including or excluding it, but as it is a change from the consensus version, the onus is on Wikipedianjewish to make a case for it.Jeppiz (talk) 10:35, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Jeppiz There is something to say for the addition of the word "modern" in the case of Hebrew, because Hebrew is a rebirthed language, unlike any other language I know in the world, and there is the possible question "wait a second, biblical Hebrew or modern Hebrew", unless specified. Especially since there are people who speak even nowadays in the archaic tongue. Debresser (talk) 12:40, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I'm well aware of the history of Hebrew. I don't really think it matters, actually. Quite the contrary, Modern Hebrew is much closer to Biblical Hebrew than modern English is to early English or Modern French to early French. Saying that the French speak French or the English speak English is no more or less likely to lead to confusion than saying that (mainly Israeli) Jews speak Hebrew.Jeppiz (talk) 12:43, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Modern Hebrew is an artificial language unlike English and French. Wikipedianjewish (talk) 13:50, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

I support "English, Hebrew, Russian, French, Spanish, and Arabic" or "English, Modern Hebrew, Russian, French, Spanish, and Arabic" Wikipedianjewish (talk) 14:06, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Why Arabic ? Almost no Jews speak Arabic as a first language today. Much more speak Russian or German or Yiddish or even Italian. Benjil (talk) 14:29, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Old Israeli Jews from Arab and Jews in Arab world still speak Arabic as their native language. Wikipedianjewish (talk) 15:11, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Which is almost nobody today. As I said more Jews alive today speak Yiddish and of course Russian or German than Arabic. Benjil (talk) 15:19, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Yiddish? I am sure Jews who speak Yiddish as their native language are less than Jews who speak Arabic as their native language. Wikipedianjewish (talk) 15:54, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Well here's the thing, unless you can find a source to elicit a change, it should stay how it is. Goalie1998 (talk) 18:42, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

So, you want to remove Arabic on the list? Wikipedianjewish (talk) 03:35, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

There is no doubt that Arabic is a first or second language to many Jews, both in the Arabic countries which still have a Jewish population, as well as in Israel. Just like Yiddish. Goalie1998, if you are going to ask for a source for that, you are going to have to provide a source for each of the languages. Arabic stays. Debresser (talk) 08:16, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

In Fact there is a doubt. My family is from an Arabic country and absolutely nobody including my grand parents but one (who has been dead for many years) speak or spoke Arabic. Most Jews left the Arab speaking countries in the 50s and 60s. In Northern Africa, many were not even speaking Arabic but only French (like even today in Morocco, the main Jewish community in an Arab country), and anyway most are dead. The numbers of Jews left in Arab countries is close to 0 (a few thousands at best in Morocco and as I said many do not speak Arabic, a few hundreds in Tunisia, and that's all). Meanwhile the number of Yiddish speakers among the most extreme ultra-orthodox Jews is in the tens of thousands. There are 100 to 200,000 Jews in Germany. And hundred of thousands of Russian speaking Jews in Israel or elsewhere. So including Arabic makes no sense at all. Benjil (talk) 10:39, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Suggestion: Look at the text preceding footnote 20 in Jewish languages—a reliably sourced list of the most common languages spoken by Jews—and delete all the others. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 10:49, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

I support this proposal: English, Hebrew, Russian and that's all. Benjil (talk) 11:11, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Disagree: Arabaic is needed, both here as well as in the other article. Benjil, you are just one person, and your personal experience isn't what needs to decide editing on Wikipedia. There are lots of Jews who speak Arabic (and I don't mean they learned it in school). For a personal case of an Arabic-speaking Jew, read this blog. Debresser (talk) 12:25, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

See for example this source, which is unfortunately not very reliable. An interesting article which I couldn't get a hold of can be found here. Also see this text from Arab Jews:

They spoke Arabic, using one of the many Arabic dialects (see also Judeo-Arabic languages) as their primary community language, with Hebrew reserved as a liturgical language.

A good source could be this one, but I really think there is no reason to source the obvious, and if anybody here will insists, I will insist on sourcing all languages! Debresser (talk) 12:34, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

What is needed to decide on Wikipedia is a relevant and credible source. Please provide us with the number of Jews who in 2015 speak Arabic and did not learn it at school. In the meantime, according to simple common sense and basic knowledge of the reality of the Jewish world today, we can assume this number is very low and consists mostly of old people. Everybody agrees that *in the past* many Jews spoke Arabic. Not today. Benjil (talk) 12:40, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

No, not only in the past! The number of Arab speakers is still high, and not only among the elderly. Many of their children also speak Arabic. Not to mention the Israelis who learn Arabic in schools. And all the Jews in all the Arabic countries. By the way, your request for a number has no basis in Wikipedia guidelines. Debresser (talk) 13:00, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Your claim is unfounded. There are almost no Jews in Arabic countries today, just a few thousands in Morocco and they speak French. The children of Jews who left the Arab world live overwhelmingly in Israel and they do not speak Arabic (not from home at least) or in France (even less). Now you had people learning Arabic at school which is another subject entirely. The burden of the proof is on you. Benjil (talk) 13:28, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

If you read the source, it says that most Jews in Arab Lands did not actually speak Arabic - either speaking the language of their original country, or the local European colonial administration. And looking at the source, Arabic is only listed under "Other Languages." I don't believe there is a significant number of native Arabic speaking Jews for it to be in the infobox. Additionally, the article itself only lists Arabic as being spoken by "most North Africans" - not a significant number of Jews relative to the other languages listed. Goalie1998 (talk) 15:44, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

• Comment The discussion above about Arabic is way too much about personal opinions. I agree with Benjil, please provide the number of Jewish native speakers of Arabic in 2015 (or the latest years at the very least), from a WP:RS. Anything else is irrelevant.Jeppiz (talk) 20:21, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

That is part of my original objection to the change. I havve not been abole to find a source that lists Jews that speak Arabic. The only sources I have found about the languages of Jews tend to not mention Arabic at all, or lump it in under Judeo-Arabic languages, which is why I oppose adding Arabic. Goalie1998 (talk) 22:17, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

First of all, I have a reliable source that mentions Arabic. Numbers are not in the list, so are not an issue. In any case, since you all insist on numbers, please be so kind to provide numbers for the other languages as well. Debresser (talk) 16:15, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

I read your source, which states

"Jews. In Arab countries... often speak Arabic natively, though the Jewish communities often included (a) emigres from non-Arabic-speaking countries who never acquired Arabic as their primary language..., or (b) indigenous members who became monolingual in the language of a European colonial administration... Moreover,... Jews who speak Arabic natively typically speak distinctive 'ethnolects' of Arabic..."

— Paul Wexler, Arabic as a Minorty Language, pg. 65

These "ethnolects" are covered in the infobox as Judeo-Spanish. Additionally, this source is describing the Jews historically, not the modern Jews. So again, you have not found a source that shows that there is a significant number of native Arabic speaking Jews today. Goalie1998 (talk) 17:01, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

What do you think about 'English, Hebrew, Russian, French, and Spanish'? English is spoken in Jewish communities more than Hebrew. Wikipedianjewish (talk) 02:38, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

More Jews speak English than Hebrew today, although I am not sure that it is by a wide margin and how much time it will be the case considering the Jewish population of Israel is growing much faster than the English-speaking Diaspora. Furthermore, the status of Hebrew as the first and main historical Jewish language can not be disputed. But it is really not very important which one is the first in the list. Benjil (talk) 06:27, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Is there any need to change what is written? Goalie1998 (talk) 07:04, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

I think the language who most Jews speak has to be the first in the list. Wikipedianjewish (talk) 06:43, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Doesn't matter much to me Goalie1998 (talk) 09:42, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree with that. With the only possible exception of Hebrew, which perhaps should be first in the list, as having an intrinsic additional value as a "Jewish" language".

I think we need sources, specifically for French, Spanish and Russian. I strongly oppose any language but Hebrew and English without a source. Debresser (talk) 10:55, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Again, we have a source. Goalie1998 (talk) 11:39, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

So it should be in the article. By the way, there it mentions Portuguese also. By the way #2, I have two good source for Judeo-Arabic, as a historical language. Debresser (talk) 23:42, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

I see the source was already added to the article. So I propose to add Portuguese as well, as per that same source. Debresser (talk) 06:20, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Is your goal to demonstrate the absurdities of Wikipedia rules when pushed to the extreme ? Well done. You need sources to add French or Spanish, seriously ? And no we do not "need" to add Portuguese, less than 1% of world Jews speak Portuguese. And we should check how much speak Yiddish today, it is the main language of the hard-line ultra-Orthodox sects who also happen to have the highest natural growth rate in the world. The Yiddish Language article is not very clear on the subject.Benjil (talk) 06:50, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, I am just trying to be consequent. If we take 5 languages from one source, then we should take the sixth as well. That is only reasonable. We would need a very good reason not to do so, I think. Unless that same source would show a significantly lower percentage for that sixth language, as you seem to claim, but I didn't see that. Where do you get percentages from?

I agree that perhaps Yiddish is not only a historical language. Debresser (talk) 09:07, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

From the Jewish Population by country. 5 languages is Ok. Maybe even just 2 because 90% of Jews in the world speak either Hebrew or English as a main language, we do not really need any more than that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benjil (talk • contribs) 09:24, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Can we move on from this? There seems to be just one editor requesting a change, and the rest of the consensus says to leave it as is. Goalie1998 (talk) 09:53, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

No, Goalie1998, we can not, and we will not. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines, and one of them is that information needs to be sourced. Another is that information needs to be balanced. You should thank me for pointing to the deficiencies of this article in these regards, and not try to avoid the subject. You are, however, welcome to take your own advice and leave the discussion, if you feel you have exhausted your interest in it.

@Benjil Five is more than enough generally, but not when we cherrypick 5 out of 6. I would be perfectly happy to accept your proposal to list only Hebrew and English though, as being by far the most widespread of the present 5 / 6 in total. Debresser (talk) 13:05, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

@Debresser: I am referring to Wikipedia's policy on Consensus. I am not abandoning the discussion, I am simply suggesting that a consensus may have been reached. Blindly using all information from a source for the sake of using the entire source is unreasonable. Thought and consideration must be given to the information, and it must be accurately interpreted. Because no estimate is given for the number of Jewish speakers of Portuguese in one source - just that it is a language spoken - we must find other information to clarify. Simply using all information provided from one source without understanding context is irresponsible. If we look at the source used, it states: "Portuguese is used mainly by Jews living in Brazil, a small number that live in Portugal, and emigrants found especially in Israel and the USA." If you extrapolate the information on that site, with the current number of Jews in Brazil and Portugal, (95,000, and 600, respectively), you can see that Portuguese is only spoken by roughly 100,000 Jews. However, "[t]he third largest group comprises the speakers of Russian with probably about two million Jews who speak it as their mother-tongue.... More than half a million of Jews speak French as their mother tongue... There are probably slightly less than half a million Jewish speakers of Spanish as a mother tongue..." I think there is a significant difference between 500,000 and 100,000 native speakers to have French and Spanish listed, and certainly a significant enough difference to keep Russian listed. The languages listed weren't cherry picked, but chosen based on number of worldwide speakers. I am opposed to adding Portuguese (and Arabic, but you seem to have abandoned that movement). Goalie1998 (talk) 15:23, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, after reading a few sources, I have come to agree with the opinion that Arabic is more a historic language, more so even than Yiddish. Debresser (talk) 21:39, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

I think it's unnecessary to include more than 3-4 languages. All the rest are included in "the vernacular languages of other countries in the diaspora". Infantom (talk) 14:47, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

So Hebrew, English, Russian (because most speakers do not live in the former USSR), and French (France, Belgium, Quebec, but also many Israelis from North Africa and the growing French Jewish-Israeli community as well as French Jews in the USA, Canada, UK... - there are 200,000 French Jews outside of France in addition to the 500,000 in France). Benjil (talk) 16:34, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

I have no objections to that proposal. Goalie1998 (talk) 16:45, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

I also agree with Benjil's proposal. Hebrew, English, Russian and French is perfectly reasonable.Jeppiz (talk) 20:30, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Based on the numbers provided by Goalie1998, I too agree with those 4 or 5 languages. However, those numbers should be sourced. Otherwise, there is no evident reason for picking 5 out of 6 languages. The reason has to be evident as well as factually true. Alternatively, I personally would prefer having only Hebrew and English. Debresser (talk) 21:39, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

It is hard to find sources that will directly state specifically the number of Jews speaking each language. Based on the other sources available, however, we are able to extrapolate (with some degree of error) the number of native speakers of a language through each country's Jewish population and the native language spoken there. Those numbers are all sourced. The only reason 5 out of 6 were picked from the source was based on the numbers stated - it wasn't random, or specifically meant to leave the sixth out for any reason other than a relatively insignificant number of Jews speak that language. I have no problem removing Spanish from the list as well ("...probably slightly less than half a million Jewish speakers of Spanish as a mother tongue..."). However, if we remove Spanish, isn't that still picking which information we use from a source? Instead of picking five out of six, we have picked four out of six. I don't see the difference. If we leave only Hebrew and English, we have then picked two out of six. We have to decide where to draw the line; how many native speakers of a language are needed before it is included in the infobox? Goalie1998 (talk) 23:29, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree with you that there is no real difference between picking 4, 5 or 6. However, Hebrew and English are much more widespread and are also spoken by many Jews over the world as a second language. Meaning that an Argentinian Jew, who can be listed as speaking Spanish, will likely know a bit of Hebrew as well, and most likely more than a bit of English. In that respect, Hebrew and English are almost lingua franca, and that is why I think the best choice is to mention only these two, and then just say "other local languages". Debresser (talk) 07:43, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

I am inclined to leave at least Russian - it is spoken by 10% of the Jewish population. Maybe French as well; it does has significant (albeit less than Russian) representation, but it doesn't appear that Spanish does. Goalie1998 (talk) 10:02, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't agree with it. Most Jews speak English nowadays. Wikipedianjewish (talk) 04:38, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

• Suggestion It seems clear a consensus (not unanimity, but a clear consensus) has been reached for Hebrew, English, Russian and French. The discussion doesn't seem to be advancing much, with the same arguments coming around several times, so I'd suggest we move on to avoid WP:SOAP.Jeppiz (talk) 17:30, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

@Jeppiz I see several editors who are actively discussing the desirableness of having fewer languages (Goalie1998: 2-4, Debresser: 2, Benjil: at one time 3, now 4). So I suggest you wait patiently and just let people talk it over. Debresser (talk) 06:18, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

I support the 4 languages proposal. Does anyone oppose it ? If not let's move on. Benjil (talk) 06:50, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Either 4 or left how it is, doesn't matter to me. Goalie1998 (talk) 08:41, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

It is necessary to put most common language in Jewish communities as the first in the list. Wikipedianjewish (talk) 05:03, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, we have noted your WP:POV and we have concluded it failed to gain any consensus. Maybe it isn't deliberate, but you repeatedly express yourself as if we were obliged to do as you wish, so I recommend you read WP:OWN.Jeppiz (talk) 15:21, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Wikipedianjewish on this point, as noted above. I think his tone is because English may not be his first language. No need to bite anybody. Debresser (talk) 16:32, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

I have no intention to "bite" anyone and English isn't my first language either. I've seen no good argument this far for why we should not give Hebrew as the main Jewish language.Jeppiz (talk) 19:16, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

If we must go this way - while it is true there are more English speakers for the moment (USA, UK, Canada, Australia and South Africa = around 7 millions), the Jewish Hebrew speaking population of over 6 millions is growing much faster so it's just a matter of a few years. Benjil (talk) 19:31, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Jeppiz Agree, first Hebrew and then the order languages by order of prevalence. Personally, I think just Hebrew and English should suffice, because other languages are much less widespread than English. Debresser (talk) 06:07, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

• If you talk about the 1st language of people who live in any country and who are Jewish, Chinese should be added : [4]. And let's not forget also the Falashas. And German (DE, CH), Flemish (BE), Polish, ...
• If you talk about places where there are well-established Jewish communities, with their own particularities, then English (US, ...), Modern Hebrew, Russian and French should be enough. Pluto2012 (talk) 20:12, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

We are talking about the number Jews who speak specific languages as their mother tongues, not just countries that happen to have Jewish residents. Goalie1998 (talk) 21:59, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

The German citizens who are Jews speak German as their mother tongue. This is the same for the Chinese ones or Polish ones or the Falashas... Pluto2012 (talk) 16:06, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Right. According to your source, " there is a new Jewish community of about 200-300 persons in Shanghai created mainly by American, European and Israeli organizations and businessmen." So that would also imply that their mother tongue isn't Chinese. Even if Chinese were their first language, it is not nearly enough of a population to be included in the infobox. As for the others, there is also not enough of a Jewish population to warrant their inclusion in the infobox. Goalie1998 (talk) 16:44, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

There was a Jewish community in China, not just a immigrant community in Shanghai but anyway : what's the limit number to be included ? Isn't this the one that gives my second alternative : "if you talk about places where there are well-established Jewish communities, with their own particularities, then English (US, ...), Modern Hebrew, Russian and French should be enough" ? Pluto2012 (talk) 18:58, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

References

Better number estimate

A more recent estimate of the world jewish population. http://mashable.com/2015/07/01/jewish-population-world-israel/ 14.2 million (including all people who identify as jews and the 200k people in israel who aren't recognized as Jews) - 16.5 million (including everyone with one jewish parent). 50.187.216.93 (talk) 16:11, 27 July 2015 (UTC) But since the low estimate we have now has a country breakdown it might just be better to use the high number. 50.187.216.93 (talk) 16:11, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Jews relatives

Not all Levantines are their relatives, The people of Cyprus are not related with they. Also the people of Turkey, Lebanon and Syria. And they are not related with Assyrians. Some ethnic group mistaked as arabs can be related or can be not related with them. They are many Arabised ethnic groups but real Arabs are descendent of Ishmaelites, Yokhshan and Keturah's son who lived in Arabia. North Africa arabised people are unrelated at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:2F0E:7066:1900:16CC:20FF:FE12:405C (talk) 09:12, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Okay, can you please bring some sources for all this? Debresser (talk) 09:16, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Many still don't understand how Wikipedia is supposed to work. EyeTruth (talk) 19:02, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Again with the inflated number estimate

I don't understand what kind of bias would motivate the labeling of "those in a Jewish household" who are not ethnically, religiously, or self-identifying as Jewish as Jews in the article. Clearly, this estimate [[5]] which is both more recent and more accurate (only including those with at least one jewish parent, who practice the religion, or who otherwise identify as Jews) is superior. It makes no sense. I seriously can't think of any reason someone who has read the description of the "broader estimate" considers it a valid measure of the world's Jews. By that logic, anyone married to a Dane would be Danish (or, using a religious definition of judaism, anyone married to a buddhist would be buddhist). --Monochrome_Monitor 19:33, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Unless I missed something, I think you misunderstand the statement in the article. My understanding of the meaning is that someone cannot be labeled Jewish solely by being in a Jewish household (such as a non-Jew who marries a Jew). Instead, if someone is identified as Jewish "by a respondent in the same household" they are considered to be Jewish. So hypothetically, if a mother is not Jewish, father is Jewish, by some definitions the child is not necessarily Jewish by birth (not born of a Jewish mother). But, according to the statement in the article, if one of the parents identifies the child as Jewish, then the child is Jewish for two reasons: identified as Jewish "by a respondent in the same household", and has one Jewish parent. It may largely be a moot point because in most circumstances if there are three people in a household and one of those people identifies another one as Jewish, I think it would usually be a parent identifying their child as Jewish. Sundayclose (talk) 20:50, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

That applies to the low estimate, all those in the low estimate are identified as such by themselves or someone in the same household. But the high estimate referenced as "broader" directs to [www.jewishdatabank.org/studies/downloadFile.cfm?FileID=3113 this]. How they define the broad estimate: "Sum of(a) core Jewish population; (b) all other not currently Jewish persons with a Jewish parent; and (c) all other non‐Jewish household members (spouses, children, etc.)." I don't believe "non-Jewish household members", ie spouses etc (children are included in (b) but spouses aren't) should be included. As an alternative, this article [6] records a high estimate (including all those with one jewish parent or who self-identify as partially jewish) of 16.5 million. --Monochrome_Monitor 23:15, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Forgive me if I'm being dense, but where is the "high estimate" mentioned in the Wikipedia article? What I found in the Demographics section is 13,421,000 estimate by Israel Central Bureau of Statistics and 13.2 million estimate by Jewish People Policy Planning Institute. I see the high estimate of 18,197,000 by www.jewishdatabank.org, but so far I haven't found that in the Wikipedia article. Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 01:17, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

It's in the infobox under "Total population" --Monochrome_Monitor 02:12, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Also, you're not being dense, I often have the same problem. :) --Monochrome_Monitor 02:13, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for that detail! In that case, I agree with you. But I think we should see if anyone can defend the rationale for the "high estimate" here before it is removed. Sundayclose (talk) 02:31, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Here is the relevant passage in the source:

All this holds true regarding the core Jewish population, which does not include non-Jewish members of Jewish households, persons of Jewish ancestry who profess another monotheistic religion, other non-Jews of Jewish ancestry, other non-Jews connected with Jews, and other non-Jews who may be interested in Jewish matters. If an enlarged Jewish population definition is considered, including non-Jews who have Jewish parents, a global aggregate population estimate of 15,773,000 is obtained. By adding non-Jewish members of Jewish households, the enlarged estimate grows to 18,197,000. Finally, under the comprehensive three-generation and lateral provisions of Israel's Law of Return, the total Jewish and non-Jewish eligible population can be roughly estimated at 21,650,000.

Indeed, the 18 million figures include non-Jews so there is no reason to count them as Jews. The relevance of this number is of interest for Jewish institutions and the State of Israel but not to a wikipedia article about the number of Jews in the world. The large estimation should be the 15,7 millions figure. Benjil (talk) 04:32, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Again, The 18M figure is labeled as Enlarged Jewish population, the same category the includes ~300K Jews in Israel that aren't recognized by the Halakha. Excluding this figure will also exclude a large number of Jews. Ironically, the the lowest figure (~13M) may also include non-Jews(converts for example, but still recognized by the orthodox law). The numbers are very unclear and the best solution is simply displaying a wide range without specifying an exact number. Infantom (talk) 11:01, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

The "enlarged Jewish population" is a nonsense if it includes people who are 100% non-Jews. They are not "enlarged Jews" or whatever. This category has been invented for all kind of reasons relative to Jewish organizations and their outreach goals but I do not think that it concerns Wikipedia. The 300K in Israel are a different case because most of them are part Jewish and identify as Jews and so are counted in the "core" population. And by the way, converts are 100% Jews. I agree that concerning Diaspora numbers are unclear, but we would not accept the 18M figures if it's own source says it includes non-Jews. We are trying to estimate the number of Jews and te 13-16M range seems to be reasonable. Benjil (talk) 12:15, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Invented category or not, it includes also Jews. When you ignore it you simply exclude numbers of Jews and all the figure in the info box becomes worthless and unreliable. The current specified range provides the best assurance for the correct figures. Converts might be Jews according to the orthodox law which is not our guideline here, in our case they are not, especially if they do not self identify as such. Infantom (talk) 12:54, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

I am sorry I do not understand you. This category adds 2 million non-Jews to the other categories of Jews we already have. So it's useless and worthless and unreliable, exactly. We can also say that there are between 0 and 7 billion Jews if you want "the best assurance". And converts - there has been a misunderstanding I thought you were speaking about converts to Judaism not out of Judaism. So that only reinforces what I said. Benjil (talk) 13:49, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Benjil. The number of Jews (self-identifying, or one Jewish parent, or identified as Jewish by a member of the household) is already included in the lower estimates. The inflated portion includes non-Jews in Jewish households and, in my opinion, should not be included in the Wikipedia article. I also question the accuracy of the adherents.com high estimate of 18 million. If you go to their website and click on their link for that information it gives a figure of 14.5 million. I suggest that we remove the statement about adherents.com.

THANK YOU ALL! I've been talking about this for months and thought I was crazy for being the only one who was apparently bothered by it. I suggest we give a high estimate of 16.5 million, which includes those with one jewish parent or who identify as "partially jewish". --Monochrome_Monitor 18:22, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Also, "0 to 7 billion Jews" is pretty funny. Maybe uncyclopedia? --Monochrome_Monitor 18:31, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

How do you know it's 2M non Jews? It is stated the figure includes people of Jewish ancestry (grandparents) and also specifically those ~300K non-Halackic Jews in Israel. You simply ignore an estimation that takes also 100% Jews into consideration while accepting non Jews in the core population estimation. I honestly couldn't care less at this point, but this current range is even more incorrect. Infantom (talk) 20:08, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

No, it's stated that includes the core Jewish population and "non Jews in Jewish households". --Monochrome_Monitor 21:00, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

• Comment A bit less hasty, there is no clear consensus for that change. And what you did was to change information coming from some identified sources while keeping the sources, and that is not allowed even when there is a consensus for the change. Could I also remind everybody that when there is a conflict between what is true and what do sources say, then we always go by the sources. I'm not opposed to the proposed change as such, if it can be demonstrated using reliable sources. Jeppiz (talk) 21:33, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, there is a consensus. In your edit summary you state that a consensus "wouldn't matter". Wikipedia does not have to blindly follow one source's claim that non-Jews in Jewish households should be included in the total number of Jews. If there are differences of opinion about how to define "Jewish", that is exactly why consensus is for. There is no claim here that a consensus on Wikipedia can change what is in the source. The consensus determines what is stated in a Wikipedia article. And what exactly is not demonstrated by a reliable source? Sundayclose (talk) 00:39, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

I used the same source. The same source that gives the 18 million also gives the 15 million figure. --Monochrome_Monitor 01:26, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Anyway, I can't revert it because I'm trying not to violate 1RR again. --Monochrome_Monitor 01:28, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

References

Please explain these words

@Reenem What is a "top Jewish demographer"? Debresser (talk) 12:10, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

I removed "top". His article describes him as a demographer. Sundayclose (talk) 13:38, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Okay, per WP:PEACOCK, I suppose.

So he is Jewish and he is a demographer? Or did you mean by "Jewish demographer" that he is a demographer of Jews? Debresser (talk) 14:22, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Good point. I revised to clarify. Thanks for pointing that out. Sundayclose (talk) 14:45, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Portraits

I suggest replacing Emmy Noether with Rita Levi-Montalcini. The latter was also a female scientist but not an Ashkenazi (who at this point represent all Jews since the times of Spinoza in the Infobox). Also, Levi-Montalcini, unlike Noether, was a Nobel laureate. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 09:22, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

A good article about an interesting person. I enthusiastically endorse this proposal. Debresser (talk) 10:58, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

I was also thinking, nearly all of them are modern Jews. Instead of George Gershwin (who was influential but did little on the subject of Jews/Judaism) we could instead use Josephus. Thoughts?
Bataaf van Oranje (talk) 12:07, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

I wasn't under the impression that a criterion for inclusion was doing something big for Jews/Judaism. In fact, I think there's something to be said for including Jews who are known for other areas of notability. I don't think all of them fit that criterion. Sundayclose (talk) 01:00, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

User:Prinsgezinde, I'd mildly oppose that proposal. I see nothing wrong with having mostly modern people in the collage. After all, a collage is supposed to appeal to people, and modern people, who may be recognized by the readers of this encyclopedia, appeal more than ancient people. Please note that I am not saying that I oppose having ancient people in collages, but I definitely do not see having ancient people as a must. By the way, Josephus, even though he is know as being a Jewish general and from the priestly tribe, was very much a Hellenist. Debresser (talk) 18:05, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree about Josephus. This article ignores about 2000 years of recorded Jewish history. If not Josephus, why not Judas Maccabeus? He's the opposite of Hellenist.--Monochrome_Monitor 20:45, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree that these portraits do not accurately represent the diversity of the Jewish population. There should be photos of Jews from Ethiopia (Beta Israel), India (Bene Israel), China (Kaifeng Jews), etc. Not all Jews are Ashkenazic or Sephardic. Userapd758 (talk) 01:52, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

The vast majority of Jews are Ashkenazic, Sephardic, or Mizrahi. We should be representative of the Jewish population. I still think we should include older Jews though. It's a shame we skip over so much history. --Monochrome_Monitor 10:55, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Are any of these portraits even of Mizrahi Jews? It is ahistorical and perhaps discriminatory to not represent Jews from diverse backgrounds. I am Ashkeazic, and it is easy for me to find photos of Jews that look like me. This page should be inclusive as it is a page for all Jews, not specifically Ashkenazic or Sephardic. Some examples: Famous Bollywood dancer Ruby Myers (Bhagdad), former Miss Israel Yityish Aynaw (Beta Israel), internationally acclaimed singer Ofra Haza (Yememite), the activist Abbie Hoffman (Persian-Jewish ancestry), singer Paula Abdual (Mizrahi ancestry), famous Rabbi Yosef Qafih (Yemenite) etc. This page should be inclusive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Userapd758 (talk • contribs)

Please refrain from signing your comments with my signature. --Monochrome_Monitor 18:42, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Lead cleanup

The lead is too long. It can't stay that way. I was trying to remove the least important paragraphs but I got reverted. Please let's discuss a way to shorten the lead. Huritisho 16:11, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

You're right that it's too long. A bit too much about the history of the Jewish people. What do you suggest we remove? --Monochrome_Monitor 16:30, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

I would remove what I already tried to remove, as a start. See the history. Huritisho 18:44, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

I suggest trimming small amounts from many topics in the lead rather than completely eliminating the info on Israel. Israel is very important in Jewish identity, both historically and currently. Sundayclose (talk) 19:28, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks to the editor who did the job of shortening the lead Huritisho 01:47, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Sundayclose that the short paragraph about Israel is paramount. Debresser (talk) 16:53, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Infantom addition

Infantom has attempted to add "in the end of the 2nd millennium BCE" and similar comments to a sentence in the Lead. I have reverted, explaining that the resulting sentence "descended from the Israelites of the Ancient Near East in the end of the 2nd millennium BCE" is ungrammatical, is unclear, and the change is unsupported by the existing references. If you could rework the paragraph/sentence to be grammatical, clarify (the modified sentence would say that the Jews "descended" in the 2nd millennium BCE?) and provide some references for whatever is supposed to have happened then. Thanks. Editor2020, Talk 05:43, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

1) Both "2nd millennium BCE" and 13th century BCE are specified in the sources, read them.

2) I rather not change much the current sentence as it's a long standing consensus, well sourced and appropriate as it is.

3) What is exactly unclear? The date indicates the era the Israelites were originated in. Infantom (talk) 16:52, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

What do you think of my latest changes to the lead? I tried to incorporate both of your ideas. Musashiaharon (talk) 05:58, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

I have made some changes, i relocated the Israelite-related sources to the right spot, added Semitic definition with sources and added wikilinks. I have also changed "Ancient Near East" to the Land of Israel, since in this new context it is about the Jews as an ethno-national group and not Israelites anymore. Infantom (talk) 11:29, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you @Musashiaharon:, you did an excellent job. Editor2020, Talk 12:55, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Suggestion

Can we replace Portman in the infobox with The Divine Sarah? Seriously, she's awesome. --Monochrome_Monitor 14:33, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

I appreciate you being bold and making the edit, but please see the WP:BOLD page in the WP:CAREFUL section, that in areas that have been the subject of frequent disagreements, you should avoid being bold. I have undone your edit, till such time as this has been discussed and a consensus established. Debresser (talk) 17:12, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Sarah Bernhardt is a an acting legend. She's infinitely more infobox worthy than Portman. --Monochrome_Monitor 17:49, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Also, not sure why we got rid of Nuer. She was more influential than the other. Ethnic subgroup should not matter.--Monochrome_Monitor 02:27, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Am I the only one with an enthusiasm for the legitimate theatre? I suppose now that I think about it I have an enthusiasm for every "obsolete" medium- hence the monochrome monitor. Irredisregardless, I'm going to be militant about getting Portman switched to Bernhardt. If we want to show a Jewish actress, that's the most famous jewish actress of all time. Arguably the most famous actress of all time. I can't see any cons. Also, can someone crop the spinoza pic? It's bothering me with its wideness.--Monochrome_Monitor 02:35, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

5 reference source articles available

I have just received e-mails of the articles "Jews" in Britannica, the OED, Merriam-Webster Unabridged, The Oxford Companion to the Bible, and A Concise Companion to the Jewish Religion. If anyone wants them, drop me an e-mail and I will forward them. I can also try to access any overview articles from encyclopedias relating to ethnicity and send them as well, although that might take awhile. John Carter (talk) 22:23, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, please send them to my email. Can be found on my userpage. Debresser (talk) 13:14, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Semitic

I suggest we remove the word "semitic" from the lead, but discuss it later in the article. It is an antiquated and problematic term when used to describe ethnicity:

• On the use of the terms “(anti-)Semitic” and “(anti-) Zionist” in modern Middle Eastern discourse, Orientalia Suecana LXI Suppl. (2012) by Lutz Eberhard Edzard:

In linguistics context, the term “Semitic” is generally speaking non-controversial... As an ethnic term, “Semitic” should best be avoided these days, in spite of ongoing genetic research (which also is supported by the Israeli scholarly community itself) that tries to scientifically underpin such a concept.

• Review of "The Canaanites" (1964) by Marvin Pope:

The term “Semitic,” coined by Schlozer in 1781, should be strictly limited to linguistic matters since this is the only area in which a degree of objectivity is attainable. The Semitic languages comprise a fairly distinct linguistic family, a fact appreciated long before the relationship of the Indo-European languages was recognized. The ethnography and ethnology of the various peoples who spoke or still speak Semitic languages or dialects is a much more mixed and confused matter and one over which we have little scientific control.

The concept of a "Semitic people" was very fashionable in the days of the mid to late 19th century romantic nationalism, but it has little credibility today. Not least because, as explained in the article Arabs, the largest group of people who might be called Semitic today are no longer thought to be of a "single ethnicity".

Oncenawhile (talk) 21:10, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Actually most current scholars consider Arabs to be a single ethnic group. Don’t confuse race with ethnicity. The idea of a Semitic race is discredited but not the idea of "Semitic" as a geographic locater aka people from the Middle East.

Where or not Jews constitute a nation in exile as may classical Jewish source hold. Is closely linked to German Reform Judaism. Although in recent years the reform movement has move away from some of its hardline practices like banning yamakas and focused instead on intermarried couples.Jonney2000 (talk) 00:39, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

It is still widely used, including in academic circles. So we can use it. There are always those who say a certain term might not be appropriate for this reason or the other. Let's stick with mainstream. Debresser (talk) 21:37, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Debresser, if you make a statement (as this applies to others) document it from high quality academic sources. You may be right, but our work here is premised on what sources say, not what we just assert.Nishidani (talk) 22:18, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. Debresser, please prove your statement that it is widely used in academic sources. I think you are wrong. It is widely used to refer to a language family, not to an ethnic group. Oncenawhile (talk) 22:31, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Peter Schäfer,Judeophobia: Attitudes Toward the Jews in the Ancient World, Harvard University Press 2009 p.297 Semite is a ‘dubious racial category’.Nishidani (talk) 22:36, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

This is blatant POV pushing and original research. Drsmoo (talk) 00:29, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Drsmoo By whom? Also, let's try to keep this a civil discussion, without accusations... I'll be home at night, and will look up some sources. Debresser (talk) 07:21, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

I have been told to look up B Lewis, Semites and Anti Semites by Bernard Lewis, however, I don't have access to this book. Debresser (talk) 07:56, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

This is by Bernard Lewis see page 4

"At one time it might thus have had a connotation of race, when that word itself was used to designate national and cultural entities. It has nothing whatever to do with race in the anthropological sense that is now common usage." http://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/who-are-the-semites/4/ Jonney2000 (talk) 01:55, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I see that. The whole quote would be: "The confusion between race and language goes back a long way, and was compounded by the rapidly changing content of the word “race” in European and later in American usage. Serious scholars have pointed out—repeatedly and ineffectually —that “Semitic” is a linguistic and cultural classification, denoting certain languages and in some contexts the literatures and civilizations expressed in those languages. As a kind of shorthand, it was sometimes retained to designate the speakers of those languages. At one time it might thus have had a connotation of race, when that word itself was used to designate national and cultural entities. It has nothing whatever to do with race in the anthropological sense that is now common usage."

It is interesting to note that he says the same about the word "Aryan": "Its transformation from a linguistic to an ethnic and ultimately even racial designation was an error of scholarship that was to have profound social, political and moral consequences." Debresser (talk) 13:17, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

This is/was a Good Article

Just thought I'd point out to all that this article was assessed as a Good Article way back in 2009. The assessed edit has a lede paragraph that is heavily simplified in comparison to the current one. Might that make a better start for a rewrite? AnotherNewAccount (talk) 22:15, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Although it's light on sources, I think it flows much better, and acknowledges the different definitions by broadly encompassing them all. I think we should keep it. Thanks! Musashiaharon (talk) 04:55, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Even the 2009 version of the article was problematic in at least one respect. It reads "The Jewish people and the religion of Judaism are strongly interrelated…" I doubt this is found in sources, and our present article suffers from the same defect. How are "The Jewish people and the religion of Judaism ... strongly interrelated"? Our article does not say. I would rewrite the sentence to something like "Religious observance among Jews varies from strict observance to complete nonobservance". Bus stop (talk) 15:59, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Excellent proposal.Nishidani (talk) 21:26, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

I will make the edit if there is no opposition. Bus stop (talk) 14:43, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

I would take this a step further: "Until 150 years ago, the practice of the Jewish religion was one of the defining elements of Jewish identity. But early in the 19th century, reformers began rewriting many traditional religious practices, so that, today, there is a diversity of forms of the Jewish religion. Moreover, increasing numbers of people who identify themselves as Jews do not practice any religion at all - which has led many to question who is a Jew."

But, of course, you can't write that in the lead unless you have a section in the article to support it. --Ravpapa (talk) 15:32, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

I would start by deleting the questionable statement that "The Jewish people and the religion of Judaism are strongly interrelated." I haven't seen any source supporting that. Furthermore our article does not go on to say how these two entities are "strongly interrelated". Therefore I would just omit that statement from the lede. Bus stop (talk) 09:19, 2 November 2015 (UTC) Bus stop (talk) 23:28, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

That statement is not questionable. It is in addition a very important statement. It is supported by all sources that call the Jewish people an ethno-religious group. Per the definition of that word. Debresser (talk) 10:17, 2 November 2015 (UTC)