Talk:Jews/Archive 27

Archive 20

←

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

Explanation for reference deletion

If an editor has their preferences set up or certain scripts installed, then incorrectly formatted references show up with big red messages like:

• Cite error: A list-defined reference named "Jews-are-Semitic" is not used in the content (see the help page).
  

And this article has three or four of these blaring red messages in the reference area. Now, removing the reference completely is not the solution to the problem. But you have to understand how jarring it is to come across articles with these big error messages...it's like graffiti scrawled across the page. Seeing these can prompt some editors to remove the incorrectly formatted reference entirely but the solution should be to fix it. With long and complex articles like this one or ones where a reference is used multiple times and lots of adjustments are necessary, this takes more time and care than some editor want to give. But I believe that is what is occurring with the recent content edit wars. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:00, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Spotted this on ANI and took a quick glance. It appears that this edit which rewrote the intro removed the term semitic (it was "are a semitic ethnoreligious group") with the named refs used after each term. With the term semitic removed from the intro, that was the only place those sources were used. The question becomes are the two references in the "Jews-are-Semitic" group useful and if so, use them in the article. If not, further reading might be more appropriate. Ravensfire (talk) 18:22, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

@Liz: The article had two such messages, one now gone due to incorporating the abandoned references, the other by commenting them out. Hasty removal of the references, coupled with unclear or hostile edit summaries (the mildest of which was "Removing rubbish") led several editors to regard the removal as vandalism. I suggest that any editor removing a named reference check for red error messages in the references section and either correct the situation or call others' attention to it in the edit summary space. Hertz1888 (talk) 19:13, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree, Hertz1888. I don't recommend just removing an incorrectly formatted reference. And I think the edit summaries were hostile. I was just explaining what might have set the editor off because not everyone has this feature enabled and can see these error messages. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:29, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Which you explained well. Now that you mention it (again), I realize that if not all editors are set up to see the error messages, it would be harder to avoid them. Thanks for the response. Hertz1888 (talk) 20:57, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

I own up that it was probably my bold and reckless edit that caused one of the cite errors; the other being caused by this later amendment by another editor. I honestly didn't expect the rewrite to stick like it has and fully expected it to be reverted almost instantly. I did see one of the cites was a named cite, but assumed it was being used later in the article. I didn't think to check for cite errors. Maybe Wikipedia needs a bot to go through and remove this sort of thing automatically? AnotherNewAccount (talk) 01:32, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

There is a bot which does the reverse (AnomieBOT): if you remove the definition for the named reference, and it is used elsewhere, it will rescue the references. So it is best to remove the reference in the case you described. Kingsindian ♝♚ 01:56, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Removing the offending refs. peremptorily, before anyone was able to rectify the problem (possibly by reusing the refs. or correcting a syntax error) is exactly what the edit-warring editor was trying to do. How about a bot that would notify the editor causing the problem, similar to how there is a bot that reports unclosed parentheses and brackets? Hertz1888 (talk) 02:08, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

I was talking about the action of AnotherNewAccount, not the other editor. The latter was removing references which were no longer used, from what I gather. The problem would have been avoided if AnotherNewAccount erred on the side of removing the named reference - if it had been used elsewhere in the article it would have been fixed by AnomieBOT anyway. But of course, I am not against a bot whose function is as you describe. Kingsindian ♝♚ 03:01, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Sarah Bernhardt

Please? She's amazing. Had more talent in her gangrenous leg than Portman in her body. Her mother was Jewish and we don't know who the crap her father was, so she's Jewish. Also, she identified as Jewish. And she's awesome. --Monochrome_Monitor 22:41, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree. 7 against 2 women is pure chauvinism. Portman doesn't measure up to the long picture of historic importance. We need SB and 2 more women. Nishidani (talk) 22:57, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

My own feeling is that Portman is the only young-ish figure in the list. It is a mug's game to compare talents of different eras. My vote is with Portman. I have no comment on the gender balance. Kingsindian ♝♚ 23:40, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I oppose the existence of the photo box. Just eliminate the photos and be done with it. There is no reason for the collection of photos in the Infobox of this article. This is an article on Jews in general—not on individual Jews. Why would any particular nine Jews be depicted? These discussions are like popularity contests based on the input of a few editors here at Wikipedia. Bus stop (talk) 02:28, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

I disagree. Portman is well know, and a collage should - in my opinion - include well know people. Even if, and I stress the if, the contribution of other people to whatever important field has been larger. In addition, the "young people" argument also counts for something.

Portman and Bernhardt are both women, so the gender balance is not an issue. In general, I am against gender balance in collages. There is no historical reason for it. The only reason is political correctness, and that is something I really despise. Debresser (talk) 16:36, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

The historical reason is that 50% of Jews are/were women. Also, I'd argue Bernhardt is far better known. I mean, professionally, not personally.--Monochrome_Monitor 23:13, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

I have no opinion about SB, but even if 50% of Jews are:were women, historically, significant Jews - the one we put in the photo box - have mostly been men. So no need to be PC and impose an artificial parity. Benjil (talk) 05:54, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

My argument precisely! Debresser (talk) 07:26, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

I suggest we add instead of subtract. Ie, add Noether and some others. There doesn't need to be 3 rows and 3 columns. --Monochrome_Monitor 23:16, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

By all means add a few rows and as many women as you like. If they have an article they can go in the collage as far as I'm concerned. I'm surprised Golda isn't there. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:49, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

There's room for a few more. Native Americans in the United States has a four-by-four grid and that doesn't look at all wrong. AnotherNewAccount (talk) 02:00, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Or 3x5, like Sephardi Jews, or 3x4. But I repeat that I do not think we should add more women just for the sake of parity. If we add poeple, we should discuss first whom we want to add. Debresser (talk) 07:28, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

I'll admit Edna Ferber was a stretch (though I do love Show Boat), but the others were not added for parity. --Monochrome_Monitor 07:38, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Needs more contemporary Jews

I think it needs more contemporary Jewish people - both male and female. There are just too many "old dead dudes", and too many black and white photographs. Stephen Spielberg? Scarlett Johansson? Mila Kunis? Leonard Cohen? Joan Rivers? Bar Rafaeli? Nigella Lawson? Sasha Baron Cohen, or his wife Isla Fisher - a good example of a convert to Judaism. Maybe even Rabbi Shmuley Boteach? AnotherNewAccount (talk) 02:00, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Why does it need "more contemporary Jews"? Bus stop (talk) 02:10, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Because Wikipedia is mostly read by ordinary people, even if it's mostly edited by pedantic nutcases squabbling over the exact details of the Israeli Law of Return. It stands to reason that the collage should have people who are well known to the general public in order to give a better understanding of who the exactly the Jewish people are. AnotherNewAccount (talk) 02:40, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable until I think about the ratio of those depicted to those not depicted. Consider for instance that the photomontage contains no Jewish chess players. Why should the photomontage contain anyone? Bus stop (talk) 03:00, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Am I the only one who finds "native americans in the united states" to be a highly ironic article name? Though, I guess it's just because we Americans claim the name of an entire continent. --Monochrome_Monitor 04:31, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

I disagree completely. Look at Greeks for instance. 90% of people in that infobox are over a thousand years dead. But that's okay, because the most influential and well-known Greeks are ancient Greeks. If 18th century Jews are influential, there's no reason not to list them. If anything they have weathered the test of time. No one will remember mila kunis in 100 years. Everyone will remember Einstein. Also, the black and white pictures are great. It's cohesive and quaint. --Monochrome_Monitor 04:31, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Agree about the irony. And I also agree that we should have more contemporary people, since collages exist among other things to appeal to the reader, not only to give a balanced historical overview. Debresser (talk) 07:30, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Okay. Time for a bold edit. --Monochrome_Monitor 04:32, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

While I don't really care if Portman or Bernhardt is in the photo gallery, if you wanted to make a bold edit you could have just done so instead of asking here. I feel silly giving my opinion and getting it summarily disregarded. Kingsindian ♝♚ 05:53, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

@Monochrome Monitor I have summarily reverted your "bold" edit. Please re-read WP:BOLD. It says clearly, that if you know there is opposition, you should dam well not make the edit. Debresser (talk) 07:24, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

I didn't think the opposition was vehement. I thought you were on the fence. --Monochrome_Monitor 07:28, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Editors need time to think things over and more time to comment. It is not generally a good idea to post an idea and then make the edit on the same day. I was patiently looking at this discussion, to see what side it would go, when suddenly you made the edit. Debresser (talk) 11:03, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

My apologies. I just saw nish's vote, and figured I had a spectrum of approval. Do you have any qualms about adding more people to the infobox in general?--Monochrome_Monitor 17:43, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Please tell me you wont revert my minor edit replacing a picture to a black and white one. Also, do you contest replacing portman with bernhardt? --Monochrome_Monitor 17:47, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

@Monochrome Monitor As I said above. I am fine with adding a few pictures, maybe make this 3x4 or even 3x5. And I also said I am strongly in favor of Portman, as the more recognizable and younger face. Debresser (talk) 20:35, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

At that I disagree. Recognizability isn't everything. In terms of actresses Bernhardt is the paragon. --Monochrome_Monitor 23:23, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Of course "recognizability isn't everything". It is one of several reasons that make me prefer Portman. Debresser (talk) 08:47, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

The reason I prefer Bernhardt is because she's considered to be one of the greatest actresses in human history, and the first world-wide acting celebrity. Why again do you prefer Bernhardt? --Monochrome_Monitor 20:22, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't :) You meant Portman. 1. Famous, as in recognizable. 2. Modern (includes color picture, also not something to sneeze at). 3. List of awards and nominations received by Natalie Portman. Debresser (talk) 22:40, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Awards and nominations don't matter. There are just a ton of awards and nominations today. Hell, Drew Barrymore has won more awards than Ethel Barrymore, her far more talented great aunt (no offense, it's an honor just to be compared to Ethel in terms of esteem). There are brilliant actresses who haven't won much, like Lillian Gish, one of the greatest movie actresses of all time. --Monochrome_Monitor 01:32, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

I can not agree with you that "Awards and nominations don't matter". I agree that not all awards are equally important, but the facts that she has so many of them (even a separate page on Wikipedia), and that they include two Academy Awards, do mean something, in my opinion. Debresser (talk) 08:06, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Looking at English people, they have a 6x4 grid and a nice mix of historical figures, artists, intellectuals, scientists, etc. I think it shouldn't be too hard to do something like that here. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:45, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

But with smaller pictures, otherwise the collage would be too large. I don't think we should make this that large. We have 3x3 now, and let's take it a step at a time. Debresser (talk) 08:18, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Converts to judaism absorbed

It seems unnecessary to say that. No ethnic groups are "pure", of course there is admixture. Though Jews are one of the more isolated, making the disclaimer even more strange. --Monochrome_Monitor 17:49, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

There have always been converts, including notable converts. Perhaps even more than we think. In any case, I think it makes sense to mention that Judaism isn't closed to converts. It is a defining characteristic. Debresser (talk) 20:38, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

I would suggest the sentence be rewritten to "World Jewry has received converts to Judaism throughout the millennia." Bus stop (talk) 23:33, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Agree, that's better.--Monochrome_Monitor 06:02, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Now somebody decided "assimilated into" is better. I don't know if I agree with that. What do you say? Debresser (talk) 08:16, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Assimilated is fine, probably the most accurate term describing the 'joining' to the Jewish people. Infantom (talk) 10:07, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Absorbed

As we see at Afro-Mexican "Though Mexico had a significant number of African slaves during colonial times, most of the African-descended population were absorbed into the larger Mestizo (mixed European/indigenous) population through unions among the groups." Similarly at Jews we have "Converts to Judaism have been absorbed into the Jewish people throughout the millennia." Yet I'm finding Absorbing is what a cultureless sponge does. Assimilated is correct when talking about people. Bus stop (talk) 09:37, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

I think that both have a point I agree with. In the final account, it doesn't make much of a difference. Debresser (talk) 12:35, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Predictable but

'originating from the Israelites or Hebrews of the Ancient Near East'. It is obvious, for the nth time, that the cultural heart of Judaism is grounded in the ancient Near East. It is also true that the Jewish people's identity as Jews was cemented in Israel in the centuries following the return of the priestly elite and others from Babylon. That this means all Jews originated from the Israelites or (what's that 'or' doing there?) Hebrews is nonsensical. I was pretty certain this obsessive emphasis on the religious definition of a Jew as someone with genetic continuity would slip back in, but it is still hopelessly wrong, and uninformed.Nishidani (talk) 21:41, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

It seems appropriate to me to mention both terms, "Israelites" and "Hebrews," since they both refer to the same people. Maybe just add some commas to clarify that this is an appositive phrase.

I don't really understand your point about the returnees from Babylon. These returnees are not relevant when discussing the origins of the Jews, who clearly were around half a millennium before the Babylonian exile even began. (The first Temple stood for four centuries before the exile, etc.) Musashiaharon (talk) 05:07, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Nishidani's point is surely again about converts? If so, then I reject it as I have done many times before. If not, then I'd be happy to hear his arguments. Debresser (talk) 08:24, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Musashiaharon. The point is that term term Jews was not used before the Babylonian exile. It is OR to use it in these circumstances. This occurs in several places in wikipedia, and it should be corrected.Johnmcintyre1959 (talk) 18:19, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Suggested extension of WP:ARBPIA to this article

For your information, I've posted a request that WP:ARBPIA be extended to this article [2]. Jeppiz (talk) 19:04, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Direct (internal wikilink) to above request: WP:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Amendment request: Palestine-Israel articles. Hertz1888 (talk) 20:09, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

I have posted there, why I strongly oppose this proposal. Debresser (talk) 20:17, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

I also posted. 1RR is ridiculous overkill. Musashiaharon (talk) 21:45, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

No. Ridiculous. Jews have existed in various forms for 3000 years. The conflict has existed for like 70 years. --Monochrome_Monitor 13:27, 19 November 2015 (UTC) Frankly this suggestion is offensive.

Just an illustrative example of problems in language

Its Law of Return grants the right of citizenship to any Jew who requests it.

We all know what this generally means, but it is not quite correct. The Supreme Court has denied citizenship to people born of a Jewish mother, for example, which is the strict halakhic definition of a Jew. In cases like this, all I am suggesting is that the language be tweaked, in order that the facts, rather than the unvarnished doctrine, are duly respected.Nishidani (talk) 11:21, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

How would you "tweak" the language? Bus stop (talk) 12:15, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Qualify Jew with 'legally recognized' or, less happily add 'almost invariably' to grants. Even the exception I am thinking of, halakhic Jews denied citizenship, has not been applied coherently. Bruno Hussar obtained Israeli citizenship after Oswald Rufeisen was formally denied that right, yet their circumstances were identical.Nishidani (talk) 13:48, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Nishidani, again a big "no". A general sentence in the lead does not have to encompass all exceptions. This is a same mistake you are making regarding converts. Debresser (talk) 13:09, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

This is, like it or not, a collaborative enterprise, and while animosity and rejectionism are not forbidden, one's disagreement should be argued with care. With this Doctor No persona, you make me feel like James Bond. When I read your invariably negative responses to anything I write recently, I'm reminded of a phrase from Turgenev:а как другой человек может иначе сморкаться,чєм он сам сморкаться,этого он понять не в состоянии, and of the empathy to enter into the pith and marrow of others counseled for the intelligent reader implicitly in the Ovidian incipit:in nova fert animus mutatas dicere formas. corporaNishidani (talk) 14:10, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Since Nishidani's point is accurate, but perhaps more detailed than strictly necessary, it would rightly fit into a short endnote. Oncenawhile (talk) 13:53, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

'legally recognized' by the State of Israel is fine by me. But not just 'legally recognized'. There is no single legal recognition of who is/is not a Jew, only those of various branches of Judaism, and the SoI.Johnmcintyre1959 (talk) 15:47, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

That is not my definition of "tweaking". There would be justification for adding the word "almost". Therefore the sentence could read "Its Law of Return grants the right of citizenship to almost any Jew who requests it". Bus stop (talk) 17:43, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

That's okay, even if the Law of Return is wider than that and allows aliyah to people whom the state doesn't recognize as Jews, and these run into several hundred thousand. Still, the article is not about the law of return.Nishidani (talk) 17:58, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

@Nishidani However much I like your quotes, I'd prefer if you skip the personal attacks. If you did, you'd notice that your post from 14:10, 30 October 2015 would be left without content...

A footnote would be one solution, as Oncenawhile suggests. On the other hand, if the issue is already dealt with in the article proper, the lead doesn't need to include all the details, even at the price of being a bit less correct. See WP:LEAD that a lead is "a summary of its most important aspects" (stress added).Debresser (talk) 16:32, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree. The fact there are a handful of exceptions that prove the rule is for the body, not the lead. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:29, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

No. Failure to formulate simple statements that are factually correct, covering all bases, is not a virtue for an eencyclopedia. There is no reason for opposing the crafting of generalizations so that they stand as accurate statements. This is an issue of competent writing as opposed to l/haziness.Nishidani (talk) 22:38, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

No indeed. Read the thing. Granting the right of citizenship to any Jew who requests it is exactly what it does. That the courts found that a certain person wasn't a Jew and thus may not have applied the law to them, doesn't change what the law says. The statement is accurate. The handful of cases where people wanted the law applied to them but it wasn't can go in the body, although frankly I think these anecdotes are "not a virtue for an encyclopedia". No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:55, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Out of over 3 millions Jews who were granted Israeli citizenship by the Law of Return, a handful were refused (I know of two cases in fact but there may be more) while being halakhically Jews because they converted to a Christian religion. So I agree that there is no need to change what is written. Benjil (talk) 05:50, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

I think it good form to assume other editors contributing to a topic know something about the topic. The Law of Return granted citizenship to Jews and their spouses, which meant, esp. in the post-war period that any Jew on one side could get citizenship for her husband or his wife, though a goy. The number of Russian Jews who had non-Jewish spouses numbered about %50 and, again from memory, the number of non-Jewish Russians granted citizenship was something like 300,000. So the Law admits substantial numbers of non-Jews. I repeat, writing an encyclopedic article means crafting the sentences in such a way that they do not mislead the reader and often it requires just a little commonsensical tweaking to achieve descriptive accuracy.Nishidani (talk) 21:23, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

That does not contradict the text, since it doesn't say or imply "only Jews", nor is it relevant to this article which is about Jews and not about the Law of Return. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:53, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

It's not a matter of contradiction, but of inadequacy. A generalization should cover all significant realities. This fails to do so by omission of a notable element of the Law of Return, an omission in keeping with the tendency to ethnicize in exclusivist terms a discourse that is, in fact, far more open than the formula allows.Nishidani (talk) 08:08, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

@Nishidani Let me get this straight. You are saying that all the people who disagree with you here have a "discourse" and are editing out of some POV? Would you please like to repeat that at WP:ARBCOM? You do notice that you disagree with most editors on anything related do Israel and Jews, don't you? May it be that the problem is with you? And before you start whining again about editors making personal comments about you instead of discussing the issue at hand: 1. the issue at hand has been discussed, and you are the only one to still disagree. 2. it is you who started with the personal remarks! Debresser (talk) 08:45, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

It's rare I see you getting anything straight, since circularity is a constant in comments here. You have almost zero knowledge of the relevant scholarship in most of the areas I happen to edit together with you, whether regarding Judaism or the IP area. The 'discourse' I referred to refers to scholarship. You really should do a course in good manners, elementary reading, i.e. how to construe a sentence for what it means rather than trying, jejunely, to penetrate some ostensible motive in its author's mind. So focus on what is being written, not on what you suspect might be the secret intentions of the writer. Nishidani (talk) 15:29, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps we need to look at the Law of Return: "The Law of Return is Israeli legislation, passed on 5 July 1950, that gives Jews the right of return and the right to live in Israel and to gain Israeli citizenship. Bus stop (talk) 15:34, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Who was that personal attack directed at? It's hard to tell since you don't get along with so many of us. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:46, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

us? 'us' e.g.wir. I suggest, if you really want an answer, that you consult Theodor W. Adorno's Minima Moralia, in his Gesammelte Schriften, Bd.4 Suhrkamp, 1980 p.215 Nishidani (talk) 20:02, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Us. Myself and at least one more person. I doubt Adorno's book notes who you were addressing in your above post. A post that consists of nothing other than personal attacks. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:46, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

My working theory since youth, backed by Ecclesiasticus, is that anything I might have to say has been already said, almost invariably more cogently. Adorno, if you ever read his work, was addressing, precisely, the kind of usage you employed in saying 'we/us' when you meant 'I'. Anyone who uses 'we' in an argument has lost both it, and the attention of his interlocutor.Nishidani (talk) 21:02, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Of course it is duly noted that the use of scholarship here, or an attempt to put any issue on a logical and evidential basis, is interpreted as a personal attack by a number of editors, which is a sad comment on the quality of their contributions.Nishidani (talk) 21:04, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Kindly explain the "attempt to put any issue on a logical and evidential basis" in this post. I must be missing something obvious, apropos sad comments on people's contributions. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:27, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

If you miss something on first reading, reread, without rereading into everything I write some Machiavellianesque trace of (anti-Semitic) antipathy. Once you suspend (you're entitled to the fantasy) that habit, what I write will mean what it is intended to mean.Nishidani (talk) 12:08, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

That made me laugh, thanks. It's obvious what you meant, you called your interlocutor stupid, ignorant, and rude, and said he can't read. All this as you complain about personal attacks against you. I was just wondering if you'd have the integrity to admit to what you did there. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:51, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

I think this section can safely be concluded as that there is no consensus for adding more details to the line quote at the beginning. Debresser (talk) 22:37, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Before we actually close it, here is another suggestion: why don't we simply delete the sentence? It doesn't seem to me that the Law of Return is so important to an article about Jews that it merits a place in the lead. --Ravpapa (talk) 05:57, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

That is also an idea. I am neutral to this suggestion. Debresser (talk) 08:02, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

I would strongly suggest either removing this sentence from the lead, or doing some major rewording, since it is neither accurate nor particularly well-placed as-is. First of all, the Law of Return applies not only to those who are deemed Jewish by an Israeli/halachic court, but also to people of recent Jewish descent, who are not themselves Jewish, and to the spouses or civil partners of Jews, who are not themselves Jewish. And the law does not apply to Jews, or those of Jewish descent, who are fleeing criminal prosecution. PA Math Prof (talk) 13:57, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

All trace their origins to Southern Levant place in Land of Israel

If you write or endorse the writing of that dumb kind of language, then you require a source that states the point, in more or less those terms. So you need 'southern Levant+Land of israel'à'Jews'. What https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jews&diff=691241655&oldid=691229211 this edit supplied was a blog re Ashkenazis on the Levite gene, linking Levite Ashkenazis males with that gene to Israel. That is irrelevant to the request for a source on all Jews tracing their origins to a place called the Land of Israel in the Southern Levant-Nishidani (talk) 15:47, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

One could easily cite essentially any rabbinical text regarding Jews tracing their/our lineage to the "land of Israel" or eretz yisrael in Hebrew.. I would also strongly advise Nishidani to avoid the hostility and lack of civility shown in the above post. It's also onky necessary to link to one of the sources relating to Jewish belief in origin in Eretz Yisrael. The Southern Levant is an overarching geographical region which contains the Land of Israel..Drsmoo (talk) 17:39, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Sorry but biblical texts can't be used as RS for this sort of claim. You make a good point however that the text could say that Jews believe/argue/assert that they can trace their lineage back to the LoI, and to the Israelites. That would be more acceptable than the present wording which implies it as a fact that Jews and Israelites are covered by the same term.Johnmcintyre1959 (talk) 22:00, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

I said rabbinical text, not biblical text. Looking at your posting history, it is full of edits regarding Judaism, and yet you don't know the difference betweem a rabbinical text and a biblical text?It is also a well established fact that Jews and Israelites are covered by the same term.Drsmoo (talk) 00:10, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

How about the dictionary definition? http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/jew Jeffgr9 (talk) 23:28, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Modern Jews are the continuation of the Israelites. Arguing that they were somehow a different people is ridiculous - the name was changed, but Jews still refer to themselves as "B'nei Yisrael", meaning the children of Israel, and "Am Yisrael", the nation of Israel. Trying to treat Israelites and Jews as if they were two separate entities is nonsensical. The name commonly applied to that people changed over time, but the people are the same people, through historical contiguity. Your argument, for those who are trying to differentiate between Jews and Israelites, is like trying to draw a distinction between the Siamese people, and the Thai people. The name changed, the people did not. PA Math Prof (talk) 14:17, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

It is a well established fact that Jews and Israelites are not covered by the same term except by religious Jewish sources. Academic sources do not use them in the same way. Rabbinical sources can only be used as a claim that Jews trace their lineage back to the LoI. It cannot be used as anything other than a claim, which is exactly what I said.Johnmcintyre1959 (talk) 21:54, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

How about this as an RS for LoI?

″The name Ereẓ Israel (the Land of Israel) designates the land which, according to the Bible was promised as an inheritance to the Israelite tribes. In the course of time it came to be regarded first by the Jews and then also by the Christian world as the national homeland of the Jews and the Holy Land. The concept of ha-Areẓ (“the land”) had apparently become permanently rooted in the consciousness of the Jewish people by the end of the Second Temple period, at which time the term Ereẓ Israel also became fixed and its usage widespread. Prior to this there was no name in existence, or at any rate in general use, to denote the land in its entirety. At different periods there were names that designated parts of the country, either alone or together with an adjacent territory; in some periods it was regarded as part of a wider geographical unit. Prior to this there was no name in existence, or at any rate in general use, to denote the land in its entirety.″ From the Encyclopaedia Judaica. v 10 Land of Israel. It correctly states that the claim is a biblical one, and did not become used among Jews until after the Second Temple, so too late to apply to a continuous claim from Israelites or Hebrews.Johnmcintyre1959 (talk) 21:54, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

First century numbers (Who is a Jew?)

For some time I have realized that is article probably gets the number of Jews in the first century wrong. The estimate is from Salo Wittmayer Baron. Who used Bar Hebraeus. He gave a number of 7 million in the Roman Empire and 1 million outside. No idea where the 8-10 million within the Roman Empire is coming from Yehuda Bauer is probably wrong.

Even former supporters of the 8 million number like Louis H. Feldman have now stated that they were wrong about Bar Hebraeus.

Hellenized Jews where probably not following the Mishnah. In any case who is a Jew changed overtime.

I am not sure what these number have to do with “Who is a Jew?” Other than wow that is a really big number.Jonney2000 (talk) 16:06, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

A lot of Latin sources complain of the demographic growth of Jews within the cities of the Roman empire. It became an excuse to justify expulsions. And the growth was not just Jewish, but in good part due to conversion, since Judaism invented social welfare on a faith basis, incentivating widespread conversion, and Christianity, an inchoate Jewish sect, took this over, and when the split came, you had reverse 'conversion' with Jews adopting the rabbinically defined heretic form of Judaism. As you say, this is all very complex, and that is why we should be careful to vet and introduce all figures to what the best up to date scholarship is saying.Nishidani (talk) 16:26, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Bad faith editing run amok

• The Jews trace their ethnogenesis to the part of the Levant known as the Land of Israel.[15 =source. Israel Foreign Ministry]

As Debresser was comprehensively informed recently such government sources are not acceptable for historical facts (See RS/N here, and Muslim history in Palestine here

• Modern archaeological discoveries confirm the existence of the people of Israel in Canaan as far back as the 13th century BCE.[16][not in citation given]
• From there, the Jews were scattered over the world by exile,[17] most recently in the early Common Era.

Sorry to disappoint, but modern historiography no longer subscribes to that story. Jews, like other Mediterraneans, the Greeks and Phoenicians, made colonies everywhere and were continually involved in moving on, and not 'moving back'. The lien with Jerusalem is strong from the beginning with donations from each community, but much of the diaspora was established by emigration and conversion, not by forced exile, most recently in the Early Commnon Era refers of course to the myth of a mass expulsion from Judea/Samaria/Philistia/Palestine, which never happened, as the writings of Je4wish contemporaries like Philo of Alexandria attest. Jews were all over the Mediterranean long before Titus and Vespasian.Howard Adelman,Elazar Barkan, No Return, No Refuge: Rites and Rights in Minority Repatriation, Columbia University Press, 2011 p.159 (Since the Second Temple period (516 BCE onwards), most Jews lived in the diaspora . . .in the popular imagination of Jewish history, in contrast to the accounts of historians or official agencies, there is a widespread notion that the Jews of Judea were expelled in antiquity after the destruction of the Temple,and the Great Rebellion. . .Even more misleading, there is the widespread, popular belief that this expulsion created the diaspora. The historical demographic reality is that the bulk of the Jewish diaspora resulted from emigration and conversion to Judaism rather than from expulsion'.

So could editors please desist from temptations to turn this page into a political assertion of modern myths or popular fairy tales and start taking historical studies seriously. It's absurd, this contempt for scholarship, and this passion for edits that reflect on a political mythology or popular misunderstandings based on a poor education, indoctrination or group hearsay.Nishidani (talk) 08:26, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

So you consider the Roman historical accounts, which describe the forced removal of Jews from Israel, including written accounts and depictions of Jews being marched off in chains, as "modern myths and popular fairy tales"? I'm sorry, I was under the impression that we respected historical sources. It would appear that some editors prefer to ignore sources that disagree with their political views.PA Math Prof (talk) 14:23, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

I think it’s a fair point. But Hellenized Judaism was not the predecessor of Rabbinic Judaism. Several Greek translations of the Hebrew bible where made they all feel into disuse. Rabbinic Judaism originated from a much smaller subset of Judaism. Namely the conservative elements within the Pharisees. It’s clear from the Talmud’s how conservative Rabbinic Judaism was. Rabbinic Judaism in many ways was a rejection of Hellenized Judaism and Hellenized Jews. Hebrew/Aramaic because the language in which the religion was expressed those who could not understand it where excluded.

The line of Hellenized Judaism assimilated and died out. Philo was disregarded etc. Ashkenazi Jews for example still mention the Exilarch in the Sabbath services. Babylon and its academy's and the line of Exilarch’s became the lineage of Rabbinic Judaism.

Hellenized Judaism is a sideshow linked more to Christianity then Rabbinic Judaism. Jonney2000 (talk) 09:26, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Quite so, but we are writing about the history. Throughout these articles, we are given extensive paraphrases of Biblical narrative, instead of the scholarship on the historical contexts of these narratives, privileging the primary sources, and the way they are refracted in Sabbath and other services, prayer and community stories, over secondary sources. The result, to my eyes, is quite devastating , but, ultimately, boring. I was told these stories in childhood, and only scholarship redeemed my interest in them, because it was no longer a priest or rabbi or imam expounding doctrine and identity, but lay scholars from all of those monotheisms, collegially teasing out the obscure historical realia from the patchwork of myths of traditional interpretation. I believe wiki subscribes to the standards set by scholarship, which, in any case, makes all of these stories far deeper, complex, and meaningful than what we get in popularizations, which tend to recycle potent material as clichés. And as to the dying out of the Hellenized traditions, you know of course that Maimonides, so decisive for the formalization of rabbinic codes, was intimately familiar with Greek philosophy and deeply influenced by it, through Arabic translations, and in a sense, through that contact, reestablished the lost liens with the Greek tradition within early Jewish thought. In Judaism, there was for centuries a notable tensions between the Palestinian (Hellenized influences) and Babylonian schools that are reflected in the Talmudic traditions. The former were influenced by Greek logic in halakhic judgements, it is often argued, the latter less so.Nishidani (talk) 10:14, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Jews do in fact (correctly) trace their ethnogenesis to the Land of Israel. That was a nice diatribe but it doesn't change the facts. Contrary to your edit, this article is based on scholarly sources, of which there is a clear consensus regarding the origins of Judaism being in Israel /Judea/Eretz Yisrael. With regard to bad faith editing, i would advice Nishidani to respect the consensus on the article, respect scholastic sources, and cease personal attacks Drsmoo (talk) 13:25, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

If you cannot distinguish reasoned argument from diatribe (the header alone suggests impatience) then desist. The Land of Israel means one thing to a goy, and another thing to a secular Jew, and a more extensive thing to religious Jews. One should aim at plain, unambiguous language and not play games with standard English usage. I know I am arguing against a consensus: the consensus is to keep the article boring, stupid and unfactual. A working consensus, however, cannot trump the scholarly consensus, which is supposed to govern our writing of articles. I'm just reminding folks that the drafting is hopelessly dated, and an article on the Jews deserves better, perhaps a group of educated Jews who actually have some degree in the subject, prefer reading historical works to newspaper articles on politics, and have some free time.Nishidani (talk) 14:41, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

The article is in line with and based upon the scholarly consensus. If you need reminding again, the article, which hasnt changed substantially, was rated as Good by Wikipedia. Drsmoo (talk) 14:50, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

These are all unsourced claims and counter-factual. A subject as elaborately studied as this is by a first rate scholarly community does not need the hopelessly confused or waffly Paul Johnson, all of whose historical works are written better than that one, to write its history, and he is the most cited source, nor on Jared Diamond whose parallel article on Japan got a universal thumbs down on the relevant Japanese article - great scholar in his field, but lazy outside of it - nor should it be drawing on the Jewish Virtual Library which, unlike the Jewish Encyclopedia of old, is not au courant with contemporary scholarship, nor on government write-ups of history, nor on sites like shamash org.HISTORY.com. www.projetaladin.org. jdc.org. The formatting is a mélange of inadequate styles. To rest on the laurels of an incompetent 'good' evaluation is pointless: a topic of this importance deserves Featured Article quality reflecting the stringent standards the innumerable Jewish historians demand from their subject matter. People only seem to get passionate about detailed scholarly sourcing when it comes to genetic proofs of the Levantine link, and snore through the rest of the topic.Nishidani (talk) 15:01, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Enough games. The article is extremely well sourced. Your claims are erroneous and the scholarly consensus is clear and overwhelming. Your claims are not only against the consensus of this article's editors, but the Wikipedia admins as well. Along with being against the overwhelming consensus of scholars and historians. Wikipedia is not the place for rewriting history against scholarly consensus in order to push a political narrative. Drsmoo (talk) 15:13, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Along with being against the overwhelming consensus of scholars and historians. Wikipedia is not the place for rewriting history

Have you the slightest idea of what that means grammatically? I.e. that the first clause defines Wikipedia which means that you are saying 'Wikipedia is against the scholarly consensus' and (at the same time) not the place for rewriting history against the scholarly consensus. That's what I mean about the quality of (dis)attention by editors here.Nishidani (talk) 15:22, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

So far I have given evidence and argument, and you make claims. I take familiarity with scholarship and readiness to cite it as an index of sincerity, and waffle on encountering it as just that, waffle. This article is edited in terms of the logic of numbers, not on evaluations of the merit of text, from section to section. If the consensus is for mediocrity, by all means, wield numerical sway to maintain it. Nishidani (talk) 15:18, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

It should have been a comma rather than a period. I am typing on phone. I'll keep that as another example of your personal attacks though. You have posted diatribes, insulted pulitzer prize winning historians as being "inadequate" railed against the scholarly consensus, the consensus on this article and the Wikipedia admins, all while offering nothing substantive and making personal attacks every step of the way. Drsmoo (talk) 15:30, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

The following sources give scholarly confirmation of the lead in saying that Jews/Hebrews/Israelites/Semites were scattered all over the Earth by the Roman Exile:

Note for Clarification: To those, such as Kingsindian ♝♚, who asked what the source information provided means in relation to this topic: the Cohen, Johnson/Cassius Dio, and Botticini/Eckstein/Salo W. Baron articles specifically refer to the Romans' forced dispersal or scattering of Jews from Provincial Judea—or, at the very least, their capital: Yerushalayim (Jerusalem). The Boyarin, Cohen, Safran, and Sheffer articles refer to how Jews are a diasporic people, with the Land of Israel/Eretz Yisrael/Canaan/etc. serving as their "natal homeland." That said, the Jewish diaspora, as I have written into the lead, includes Ancient Egyptian Occupation of the Levant, Assyrian Captivity and Exile, Babylonian Captivity and Exile, Greek Occupation and Exile, in addition to Roman Occupation and Exile, all in part responsible for the diaspora we see today. These periods of oppression show the power currents that swept over Jews and the Land of Israel and disrupted (or 'changed') their and their descendants' lives forever, while also highlighting how Jews worked to survive and continue their ethnocultural/ethnoreligious heritage and customs, even in exile. Jeffgr9 (talk) 17:59, 22 November 2015 (UTC) End of Note

Boyarin, Daniel, and Jonathan Boyarin. 2003. Diaspora: Generation and the Ground of Jewish Diaspora. p. 714.

"...it is crucial to recognize that the Jewish con- ception of the Land of Israel is similar to the discourse of the Land of many (if not nearly all) "indigenous" peoples of the world. Somehow the Jews have managed to retain a sense of being rooted somewhere in the world through twenty centuries of exile from that someplace (organic metaphors are not out of place in this discourse, for they are used within the tradition itself)." (p. 714).

Cohen, Robin. 1997. Global Diasporas: An Introduction. p. 24. London:UCL Press.

"...although the word Babylon often connotes captivity and oppression, a rereading of the Babylonian period of exile can thus be shown to demonstrate the development of a new creative energy in a challenging, pluralistic context outside the natal homeland. When the Romans destroyed the Second Temple in AD 70, it was Babylon that remained as the nerve- and brain-centre for Jewish life and thought...the crushing of the revolt of the Judaeans against the Romans and the destruction of the Second Temple by the Roman general Titus in AD 70 precisely confirmed the catastrophic tradition. Once again, Jews had been unable to sustain a national homeland and were scattered to the far corners of the world" (p. 24).

Safran, William. 2005. The Jewish Diaspora in a Comparative and Theoretical Perspective. Israel Studies 10 (1): 36.

"...diaspora referred to a very specific case—that of the exile of the Jews from the Holy Land and their dispersal throughout several parts of the globe. Diaspora [ galut] connoted deracination, legal disabilities, oppression, and an often painful adjustment to a hostland whose hospitality was unreliable and ephemeral. It also connoted the existence on foreign soil of an expatriate community that considered its presence to be transitory. Meanwhile, it developed a set of institutions, social patterns, and ethnonational and/or religious sym- bols that held it together. These included the language, religion, values, social norms, and narratives of the homeland. Gradually, this community adjusted to the hostland environment and became itself a center of cultural creation. All the while, however, it continued to cultivate the idea of return to the homeland." (p. 36).

Sheffer, Gabriel. 2005. Is the Jewish Diaspora Unique? Reflections on the Diaspora’s Current Situation. Israel Studies 10 (1): 1–35.

"...the Jewish nation, which from its very earliest days believed and claimed that it was the “chosen people,” and hence unique. This attitude has further been buttressed by the equally traditional view, which is held not only by the Jews themselves, about the exceptional historical age of this diaspora, its singular traumatic experiences its singular ability to survive pogroms, exiles, and Holocaust, as well as its “special relations” with its ancient homeland, culminating in 1948 with the nation-state that the Jewish nation has established there" (p. 3.).

"First, like many other members of established diasporas, the vast majority of Jews no longer regard themselves as being in Galut [exile] in their host countries.7 Perceptually, as well as actually, Jews permanently reside in host countries of their own free will, as a result of inertia, or as a result of problematic conditions prevailing in other hostlands, or in Israel. It means that the basic perception of many Jews about their existential situation in their hostlands has changed. Consequently, there is both a much greater self- and collective-legitimatization to refrain from making serious plans concerning “return” or actually “making Aliyah” [to emigrate, or “go up”] to Israel. This is one of the results of their wider, yet still rather problematic and sometimes painful acceptance by the societies and political systems in their host countries. It means that they, and to an extent their hosts, do not regard Jewish life within the framework of diasporic formations in these hostlands as something that they should be ashamed of, hide from others, or alter by returning to the old homeland" (p. 4).

For Johnson, Paul A History of the Jews "The Bar Kochba Revolt," (HarperPerennial, 1987) pp. 158-161.: Paul Johnson analyzes Cassius Dio's Roman History: Epitome of Book LXIX para. 13-14 (Dio's passage below analysis). among other sources:

"Even if Dio's figures are somewhat exaggerated, the casualties amongst the population and the destruction inflicted on the country would have been considerable. According to Jerome, many Jews were also sold into slavery, so many, indeed, that the price of Jewish slaves at the slave market in Hebron sank drastically to a level no greater than that for a horse. The economic structure of the country was largely destroyed. The entire spiritual and economic life of the Palestinian Jews moved to Galilee. Jerusalem was now turned into a Roman colony with the official name Colonia Aelia Capitolina (Aelia after Hadrian's family name: P. Aelius Hadrianus; Capitolina after Jupiter Capitolinus). The Jews were forbidden on pain of death to set foot in the new Roman city. Aelia thus became a completely pagan city, no doubt with the corresponding public buildings and temples...We can...be certain that a statue of Hadrian was erected in the centre of Aelia, and this was tantamount in itself to a desecration of Jewish Jerusalem."

The passage from Cassius Dio's Roman History: Epitome of Book LXIX para. 13-14:

"13 At first the Romans took no account of them. Soon, however, all Judaea had been stirred up, and the Jews everywhere were showing signs of disturbance, were gathering together, and giving evidence of great hostility to the Romans, partly by secret and partly by overt acts; 2 many outside nations, too, were joining them through eagerness for gain, and the whole earth, one might almost say, was being stirred up over the matter. Then, indeed, Hadrian sent against them his best generals. First of these was Julius Severus, who was dispatched from Britain, where he was governor, against the Jews. 3 Severus did not venture to attack his opponents in the open at any one point, in view of their numbers and their desperation, but by intercepting small groups, thanks to the number of his soldiers and his under-officers, and by depriving them of food and shutting them up, he was able, rather slowly, to be sure, but with comparatively little danger, to crush, exhaust and exterminate them. Very few of them in fact survived.

14 1 Fifty of their most important outposts and nine hundred and eighty-five of their most famous villages were p451razed to the ground. Five hundred and eighty thousand men were slain in the various raids and battles, and the number of those that perished by famine, disease and fire was past finding out. 2 Thus nearly the whole of Judaea was made desolate, a result of which the people had had forewarning before the war. For the tomb of Solomon, which the Jews regard as an object of veneration, fell to pieces of itself and collapsed, and many wolves and hyenas rushed howling into their cities. 3 Many Romans, moreover, perished in this war. Therefore Hadrian in writing to the senate did not employ the opening phrase commonly affected by the emperors, 'If you and our children are in health, it is well; I and the legions are in health'" (para. 13-14).

There are other sources cited for Johnson's entry on the Bar Kochba Revolt cited on pages 160-161. Jeffgr9 (talk) 22:04, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. Jeffgr9 (talk) 19:57, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Having written all that out, you might like to reread each one and show where each underpins your initial statement:'The following sources give scholarly confirmation of the lead in saying that Jews/Hebrews/Israelites/Semites were scattered all over the Earth by the Roman Exile'. They are generic remarks on the diaspora, which is not in doubt. You are wrongly citing them for attributing the present diaspora to the Fall of the Second Temple. Nishidani (talk) 21:38, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Roman exile+diaspora

this has no page links, and with the Boyarin citation looks like a falsification of sources, since Boyarin's views of the diaspora are not those of what he himself called the 'Pharisaic' invention of the diaspora. So it should be checked, and the original editor, in accordance with standard practice, should cite and link to the specific pages where this 'thesis' clichéd disinformatsia is advanced.Nishidani (talk) 22:17, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

How about you actually check it, as you suggested, rather than engaging in bad faith and harassment.Drsmoo (talk) 22:37, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Take any edit of mine. It will have a link to allow anyone to look precisely at the source text and check the accuracy of my paraphrase. The editor heaving in that 'stuff' has provided neither links nor textual quotes, but large page ranges. I know at least Boyarin's work well, and what he is quoted for is completely contrary to what he writes in his historical works, hence the suspicion is legitimate. This is not a faith-based operation, where you see a bundle of vague links added and think:'Wow! That's impressive. Thank goodness someone looked into it. One checks, and if editors don't check, then they are editing blindly.Nishidani (talk) 08:28, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

So check then, rather than engaging in bad faith and harassment. Drsmoo (talk) 10:40, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Enough with the sniping. The point is that the page ranges are huge (85-118) for the first reference and 1-35 for the second last etc. Besides, the first and second ref are overlapping (are they the same reference?) and it is not even clear what is being cited. Maybe can Jeffgr9 provide some representative quotes? Kingsindian ♝♚ 10:52, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Actually I had checked a few, after I twigged that Boyarin was being fraudulently used. Paul Johnson, for example, but doing easily verified groundwork in sources for the otiose or POV-pusher is an annoying waste of my time, and in any case, chat here just trumps any evidence I, at least, might bring to the page. Johnson's position on those pages before the Fall of the Second Temple, and before the 'Roman exile, (i.e. expulsion from Jerusalem) is the normal modern one, the Jews in millions were already in diaspora: in Rome 200 years earlier, and all over the Mediterranean and Middle East in millions, a million living in Alexander alone at the time (pp132ff in my copy of the Phoenix Giant edition 1996).

The same goes for Robin Cohen, Global Diasporas: An Introduction Routledge, 2008 pp.23-6

'By the fourth century BCE there were already more Jews living outside than inside the land of Israel p.24

'The fact that the bulk of the Jewish diaspora long preceded the rise of Christianity, or the destruction of the Second Temple, was conveniently forgotten. The myth of the ‘wandering Jew’ became part of a continuing Christian myth, a myth often absorbed and perpetuated by Jews themselves Jews are forced to wonder, so the dogma went, because of their party in the killing of Christ.' p.26

If the editor can't provide the relevant quotes from each source adduced to ostensibly confirm what is, otherwise, a known historical myth, the whole shebang of pretentious sourcing should be removed.Nishidani (talk) 11:27, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Once again Nishidani you are just demonstrating your ignorance or your misunderstanding of the subject. Everybody knows that the diaspora started before the Jewish-Roman Wars, and that at the time of Jesus the majority of Jews lived in the diaspora. Nobody never said the opposite. The issue is about: 1. the fact that the Romans did deport many (100,000 according to Josephus for the first war, and an huge unknown number for the Bar Kokhba war according to Cassius Dio); 2. the hypothesis that most Jews of today are the descendant of the Jews from Judea and not from the diaspora who disappeared. Benjil (talk) 13:32, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

The existence of large numbers of Jews living outside of Israel prior to and during the various exiles and expulsions is known well by historians and anyone familiar with Jewish history. For example, the (historical fiction) story of Purim. Of course, that has no bearing whatsoever on the Roman exile, nor is it relevant. Drsmoo (talk) 13:41, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

You are all consistently talking past the evidence . I may well be ignorant, at least compared to the brilliant luminaries who honour this page, but the meme being repeated is contradicted by a highly reliable source, not by my undoubted ignorance. I quoted it earlier. It was ignored. So here it is again, and I would appreciate, since it represents the modern consensus, an explanation of why these scholars are ignorant.

in the popular imagination of Jewish history, in contrast to the accounts of historians or official agencies, there is a widespread notion that the Jews of Judea were expelled in antiquity after the destruction of the Temple, and the Great Rebellion. . .Even more misleading, there is the widespread, popular belief that this expulsion created the diaspora. The historical demographic reality is that the bulk of the Jewish diaspora resulted from emigration and conversion to Judaism rather than from expulsion'.Howard Adelman,Elazar Barkan, No Return, No Refuge: Rites and Rights in Minority Repatriation, Columbia University Press, 2011 p.159

On Wikipedia, if you have a conflict in sources, you have a problem that cannot be resolved by ignoring one source and pushing another. That is POV pushing.Nishidani (talk) 16:49, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

If people can stop for a moment to bash Nishidani's supposed ignorance and actually look at the text, it would be good. The sentence reads that "people of Israel" existed in Canaan as far back as the 13th Century BCE. The next sentence states that "Jews" (not the "people of Israel") scattered all over the world by exile, most recently in the Common era. The only source so far which I can verify is the first one (Marvin Perry), which talks about Roman era expulsions around 100 AD. What happened between the 13th century BCE and the Roman expulsions? How did "people of Israel" become "Jews" etc? Are they the same? According to who? etc. Perhaps Jeffgr9 can enlighten us as to what on earth are the ton of references supposed to be showing. Imagine that I am a totally ignorant reader trying to find out about the topic (you won't be too far off the mark). Kingsindian ♝♚ 14:32, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Absolutely. Thank you Nishidani (talk) and Kingsindian ♝ for bringing the need for specific quotes for these references to my attention. The main thesis for all of this data serves to prove a connection between the roots and histories of all Jews—from the Ancient Israelites/Hebrews to modern-day Diasporic Jews. There were many Diasporas for Jews: Egyptian Occupation; Assyrian Captivity, Babylonian Captivity, Greek Occupation; Roman Occupation and Exile.

As I noted before, the Miriam Webster Dictionary shows a linguistic connection for the names of Jews/Hebrews/Israelites/"Semites" http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/jew .

And though the term "Semite" does refer to people who originate from the Levant, it most significantly references Jewish immigrants into Europe after their Exile. The term "Anti-Semitism" initially refers to racism against Levantine peoples; however, again, it most significantly refers to racism against Jews. Here is a very recent example of this: http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/1.687134

I will add the quotes to the specific references soon. Thank you all. Jeffgr9 (talk) 16:31, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

For Boyarin, Daniel, and Jonathan Boyarin. 2003. Diaspora: Generation and the Ground of Jewish Diaspora. p.714:

"...it is crucial to recognize that the Jewish con- ception of the Land of Israel is similar to the discourse of the Land of many (if not nearly all) "indigenous" peoples of the world. Somehow the Jews have managed to retain a sense of being rooted somewhere in the world through twenty centuries of exile from that someplace (organic metaphors are not out of place in this discourse, for they are used within the tradition itself)." (p. 714). Jeffgr9 (talk) 18:31, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

For Safran, William. 2005. The Jewish Diaspora in a Comparative and Theoretical Perspective. Israel Studies 10 (1): 36.:

"...diaspora referred to a very specific case—that of the exile of the Jews from the Holy Land and their dispersal throughout several parts of the globe. Diaspora [ galut] connoted deracination, legal disabilities, oppression, and an often painful adjustment to a hostland whose hospitality was unreliable and ephemeral. It also connoted the existence on foreign soil of an expatriate community that considered its presence to be transitory. Meanwhile, it developed a set of institutions, social patterns, and ethnonational and/or religious sym- bols that held it together. These included the language, religion, values, social norms, and narratives of the homeland. Gradually, this community adjusted to the hostland environment and became itself a center of cultural creation. All the while, however, it continued to cultivate the idea of return to the homeland." (p. 36).

For Cohen, Robin. 1997. Global Diasporas: An Introduction. p.24 London:UCL Press.:

"...although the word Babylon often connotes captivity and oppression, a rereading of the Babylonian period of exile can thus be shown to demonstrate the development of a new creative energy in a challenging, pluralistic context outside the natal homeland. When the Romans destroyed the Second Temple in AD 70, it was Babylon that remained as the nerve- and brain-centre for Jewish life and thought" (p. 24).

Comment. This is taken out of context. The paragraph begins:

Accepting that there are positive early historical experiences to record with respect to the most prominent 'victim diaspora' and that a number of the far-flung Jewish communities were not forcibly dispersed, we are then faced with the inevitable resulting question. Why is the received wisdom describing the Jewish diaspora generally so tragic and miserable? To explain this, we need to return, if only briefly, to the opening of the Christian era.

Superficially, the crushing of the revolt of the Judeans against the Romans and the destruction of the Second Temple by the Roman general Titus in AD 70 precisely confirmed the catastrophic tradition. Once again, Jews had been unable to sustain a national homeland and were scattered to all corners of the world. However, numerically and experientially, the exodus of the Jews after Titus's campaign was not that decisive an event. It was nonetheless, so construed by prominent Christian theologians, who were anxious to demonstrate that God's punishment followed what they regarded as the Jews' heinous crime in acting as accomplices to deicide. The fact that the bulk of the Jewish diaspora long preceded the rise of Christianity, or the destruction of the Second Temple, was conveniently forgotten.' (pp.24-5

In short, Cohen is analyzing a catastrophic, and what he says is a counterfactual, discursive tradition. The sentence once again,... here does not mean Cohen believes that this is true, but rather that a superficial reading of the event confirmed a catastrophic tradition, something which Christian propagandists played up and which was adopted also (see pp.25.6) by Jews. This text therefore is not talking of a fact of exile after 70 (there are no classical texts which speak of any banishment from Israel: only accounts that prisoners were sold off or sent to work in foreign mines, as was a common practice). Jews were not allowed into Jerusalem, Yavne became the religious capital, etc.) It is talking of how a narrative victim meme grew out from the event, to make it appear as though it was a repetition of the Babylonian exile, precisely the opposite sense to the way it is being taken.Nishidani (talk) 20:53, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Cohen also describes Jews, as well as Africans and Armenians, as representatives of a "Victim" diaspora on page 18: "Also discussed: Irish and Palestinians. Many contemporary refugee groups are incipient victim diasporas but time has to pass to see whether they return to their homelands, assimilate in their hostlands, creolize or mobilize as a diaspora" (p. 18.). I included the full pdf above under the Robin Cohen link. Jeffgr9 (talk) 21:22, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

"...the crushing of the revolt of the Judaeans against the Romans and the destruction of the Second Temple by the Roman general Titus in AD 70 precisely confirmed the catastrophic tradition. Once again, Jews had been unable to sustain a national homeland and were scattered to the far corners of the world" (p. 24).

The first passage, which precedes Nishidani (talk)'s first quote from Cohen above ('By the fourth century BCE there were already more Jews living outside than inside the land of Israel') proves that previous Exiles and Diasporas of the Jewish people (Israelites, Hebrews, Judeans, etc.) allowed for Jewish prosperity to occur outside of the Land of Israel (or, in other words, the Land of the People of Israel (or Ya'akov): the Israelites), while at the same time acknowledging that that land (originally designated as Canaan) was/is the "natal homeland" of Jews. The second passage, which also precedes Nishidani (talk)'s second quote from Cohen above ('The fact that the bulk of the Jewish diaspora long preceded the rise of Christianity, or the destruction of the Second Temple, was conveniently forgotten. The myth of the ‘wandering Jew’ became part of a continuing Christian myth, a myth often absorbed and perpetuated by Jews themselves Jews are forced to wonder, so the dogma went, because of their party in the killing of Christ.') shows that Jews were in fact scattered from Roman expulsion after their destruction of the Second Temple. Both of Nishidani (talk)'s quotes point to the previous Jewish diasporas—Egyptian Occupation, Assyrian Captivity, Babylonian Captivity, and Greek Occupation-as precursors to Roman Exile of Jews and later Roman-Catholic/European Christian Nations' persecution of Diasporic Jews later on.Jeffgr9 (talk) 20:44, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

“No Return, No Refuge: Rites and Rights in Minority Repatriation” is a quite politicized text. Written by two non-historians / biblical scholars.

There has been in the west an orientalist tendency to see the Jewish diaspora as utterly unchanging from the time of the Babylonian exile onwards but this is not correct. In the popular imagination the Greek speaking western diaspora is too often lumped together with the eastern diaspora often maliciously by anti-Zionist. Pure orientalism!

Encyclopedia of the Jewish Diaspora gives a good over view of the Hellenistic Diaspora.

https://books.google.com/books?id=NoPZu79hqaEC&printsec=frontcover&dq=jewish+diaspora&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiV3KGT2J_JAhWMQiYKHfSpBDUQ6AEILzAD#v=onepage&q=jewish%20diaspora&f=false pages 9-16

Modern Judaism come from the “eastern diaspora” and the academy’s in the land of Israel and in Babylon. Trying to cover 3000 plus years of history in two or three sentences is hard. Anything you have will be at best an approximation. The loss of Jerusalem was huge, huge. Jonney2000 (talk) 20:26, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

For Sheffer, Gabriel. 2005. Is the Jewish Diaspora Unique? Reflections on the Diaspora’s Current Situation. Israel Studies 10 (1): p. 3-4.:

"...the Jewish nation, which from its very earliest days believed and claimed that it was the “chosen people,” and hence unique. This attitude has further been buttressed by the equally traditional view, which is held not only by the Jews themselves, about the exceptional historical age of this diaspora, its singular traumatic experiences its singular ability to survive pogroms, exiles, and Holocaust, as well as its “special relations” with its ancient homeland, culminating in 1948 with the nation-state that the Jewish nation has established there" (p. 3.).

"First, like many other members of established diasporas, the vast majority of Jews no longer regard themselves as being in Galut [exile] in their host countries.7 Perceptually, as well as actually, Jews permanently reside in host countries of their own free will, as a result of inertia, or as a result of problematic conditions prevailing in other hostlands, or in Israel. It means that the basic perception of many Jews about their existential situation in their hostlands has changed. Consequently, there is both a much greater self- and collective-legitimatization to refrain from making serious plans concerning “return” or actually “making Aliyah” [to emigrate, or “go up”] to Israel. This is one of the results of their wider, yet still rather problematic and sometimes painful acceptance by the societies and political systems in their host countries. It means that they, and to an extent their hosts, do not regard Jewish life within the framework of diasporic formations in these hostlands as something that they should be ashamed of, hide from others, or alter by returning to the old homeland" (p. 4).

These quotes show that Jews are a diasporic group whose homeland, no matter which "hostland" they inhabit, is Israel.Jeffgr9 (talk) 20:55, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

No one is quarreling with the centrality of the galut or diaspora to Jewish historical memory and culture. What is being said is that the diaspora which should be in the lead) was not only 'exile' (as in Babylonia, or putatively after 70), but it was the result of emigration, conversion and many other things. A very significant part of the Babylonian community after Cyrus's decree decided to stay on, chose not to return to Israel, partially for theological reasons (some texts speak of returning to Israel before the messiah's return as sinful) The demographic evidence indisputably shows that the Jews were all over the Mediterranean and Middle East long before the Roman destruction of the temple, and they were there for many different reasons not connected with forced exile. Philo of Alexandria before the destruction of the Temple, indeed, wrote that the main reason a majority of Jews were outside Palestine was demographic growth.Palestine could not support their numbers. Any Egyptian Jew, for example, could freely make aliyah to Palestine at that time if he wanted to. Most didn't. Philoìs view though no doubt well informed is not decisive, of course, it is one of many contemporary bits of evidence which was ignored forgotten in the Galut as the narrative of exile as a divine punishment for sins was developed under the Rabbinic cathedocracy, to form an identitarian motif for Jewish communities. But what communities believe and hold dearly true (Boyarin) is one thing: what historians retrieve from the literary and archaeological record another. Most editors here want the narrative storyline confirmed, and I am simply reminding folks that it does not correspond to the historical complexities, but is a gross simplification.Nishidani (talk) 21:05, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the great work Jeffgr9 The citation from Robin Cohen is direct and to the point and the others reinforce it. You don't need to type it out again.Drsmoo (talk) 21:57, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

For Johnson, Paul A History of the Jews "The Bar Kochba Revolt," (HarperPerennial, 1987) pp. 158-161.: Paul Johnson analyzes Cassius Dio's Roman History: Epitome of Book LXIX para. 13-14 (Dio's passage below analysis). among other sources:

"Even if Dio's figures are somewhat exaggerated, the casualties amongst the population and the destruction inflicted on the country would have been considerable. According to Jerome, many Jews were also sold into slavery, so many, indeed, that the price of Jewish slaves at the slave market in Hebron sank drastically to a level no greater than that for a horse. The economic structure of the country was largely destroyed. The entire spiritual and economic life of the Palestinian Jews moved to Galilee. Jerusalem was now turned into a Roman colony with the official name Colonia Aelia Capitolina (Aelia after Hadrian's family name: P. Aelius Hadrianus; Capitolina after Jupiter Capitolinus). The Jews were forbidden on pain of death to set foot in the new Roman city. Aelia thus became a completely pagan city, no doubt with the corresponding public buildings and temples...We can...be certain that a statue of Hadrian was erected in the centre of Aelia, and this was tantamount in itself to a desecration of Jewish Jerusalem."

The passage from Cassius Dio's Roman History: Epitome of Book LXIXpara. 13-14:

"13 At first the Romans took no account of them. Soon, however, all Judaea had been stirred up, and the Jews everywhere were showing signs of disturbance, were gathering together, and giving evidence of great hostility to the Romans, partly by secret and partly by overt acts; 2 many outside nations, too, were joining them through eagerness for gain, and the whole earth, one might almost say, was being stirred up over the matter. Then, indeed, Hadrian sent against them his best generals. First of these was Julius Severus, who was dispatched from Britain, where he was governor, against the Jews. 3 Severus did not venture to attack his opponents in the open at any one point, in view of their numbers and their desperation, but by intercepting small groups, thanks to the number of his soldiers and his under-officers, and by depriving them of food and shutting them up, he was able, rather slowly, to be sure, but with comparatively little danger, to crush, exhaust and exterminate them. Very few of them in fact survived.

14 1 Fifty of their most important outposts and nine hundred and eighty-five of their most famous villages were p451razed to the ground. Five hundred and eighty thousand men were slain in the various raids and battles, and the number of those that perished by famine, disease and fire was past finding out. 2 Thus nearly the whole of Judaea was made desolate, a result of which the people had had forewarning before the war. For the tomb of Solomon, which the Jews regard as an object of veneration, fell to pieces of itself and collapsed, and many wolves and hyenas rushed howling into their cities. 3 Many Romans, moreover, perished in this war. Therefore Hadrian in writing to the senate did not employ the opening phrase commonly affected by the emperors, 'If you and our children are in health, it is well; I and the legions are in health'" (para. 13-14).

There are other sources cited for Johnson's entry on the Bar Kochba Revolt cited on pages 160-161. Jeffgr9 (talk) 22:05, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Neither Josephus nor Dio Cassius's figures have anything to do with historical reality and are dismissed as 'impossible' and 'incredible' (Schwartz below) in terms of the ability of the land to carry the numbers they mention. Nearly all of your material ignores the point you raised to justify 'expulsion by Rome'. It is a myth, not to be found in see Seth Schwartz, 'Social and Economic Life in the Land of Israel,’ in William David Davies,Louis Finkelstein,Steven T. Katz (eds.) The Cambridge History of Judaism: Volume 4, The Late Roman-Rabbinic Period Cambridge University Press, 1984 pp.23ff. and was well summed up by Chaim Gans, A Just Zionism: On the Morality of the Jewish State, Oxford University Press, 2008 p.12

‘the Zionist movement’s acceptance of the Judeo-Christian myth of the Jews’ expulsion from the Land of Israel by the Romans, and the role this myth plays in the Zionist narrative of Jewish history,.. .Zionism assumes the Judeo-Christian myth that the Romans expelled the Jews from the Land of Israel. . There is evidence that no such expulsion ever took place. Zionism accepts the myth of expulsion because expulsion, unlike abandonment, appears to provide a better justification for the Jews’ return to Palestine.'

All we have so far in an exercise in repeating an identifiable Zionist myth, which conflicts with the fact that there is no demographic evidence, nor textual evidence for an expulsion by Rome. Wikipedia is not the place to repeat the faulty lessons one is indoctrinated with, or which one absorbs artlessly by listening to fairy tales or old historical hares.Nishidani (talk) 23:15, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

That is what you claimed Nishidiani, but that is not what was written in 'Social and Economic Life in the Land of Israel' This is what the source writes about the Bar Kochba Revolt https://books.google.it/books?id=BjtWLZhhMoYC&lpg=PA23&hl=it&pg=PA125

"Although Dio's figure of 985 as the number of villages destroyed during the war seems hypberbolic, all Judaean villages, without exception, excavated thus far were razed following the Bar Kochba Revolt. This evidence supports the impression of total regional destruction following the war. Historical sources note the vast number of captives sold into slavery in Palestine and shipped abroad."

"The Judaean Jewish community never recovered from the Bar Kochba war. In its wake, Jews no longer formed the majority in Palestine, and the Jewish center moved to the Galilee. Jews were also subjected to a series of religious edicts promulgated by Hadrian that were designed to uproot the nationalistic elements with the Judaean Jewish community, these proclamations remained in effect until Hadrian's death in 138. An additional, more lasting punitive measure taken by the Romans involved expunging Judaea from the provincial name, changing it from Provincia Judaea to Provincia Syria Palestina. Although such name changes occured elsewhere, never before or after was a nation's name expunged as the result of rebellion."

The constant personal attacks, lack of good faith and uncivil behavior were one thing, but misrepresenting sources is another altogether. Drsmoo (talk) 02:24, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

I cited Seth Schwartz's chapter in that book.

Joseph’s figures are ‘impossible’p.23

Dio’s figures like Josephus’s are incredible p.36

Jeff copied those figures out. Josephus's figures say over 1 million Jews died during Titus' campaign. That is the total population of Palestine at that period. It is a massive exaggeration. The devastation was huge as with Bar Kochba, but one should not use either historian's figures, except as they are sieved by competent historians of antiquity.Nishidani (talk) 07:59, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Address the evidence (2 notable sources identify the 'expelled from Israel by Rome' meme as a fiction). Jeffgr9 has done hard time consuming work looking at this, and trying to clarify, and his efforts are to be applauded. He is actually engaging with the literature that jars with what he thinks. That is how one works here, not by maintaining mantras about other people's 'attitude'.Nishidani (talk) 07:47, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, according to Botticini, Maristella and Zvi Eckstein. "From Farmers to Merchants, Voluntary Conversions and Diaspora: A Human Capital Interpretation of History." p. 18-19. August 2006.: scholars estimate the number of Jews killed in Judea/Eretz Yisrael/Palestine during the revolts between The Great Revolt (67-70 CE) and The Bar Kokhba Revolt (115-135 CE) sums up to around 1.3 million Jews:

"The death toll of the Great Revolt against the Roman empire amounted to about 600,000 Jews, whereas the Bar Kokhba revolt in 135 caused the death of about 500,000 Jews. Massacres account for roughly 40 percent of the decrease of the Jewish population in Palestine. Moreover, some Jews migrated to Babylon after these revolts because of the worse economic conditions. Massacres account for roughly 40 percent of the decrease of the Jewish population in Palestine. Moreover, some Jews migrated to Babylon after these revolts because of the worse economic conditions. After accounting for massacres and migrations, there is an additional 30 to 40 percent of the decrease in the Jewish population in Palestine (about 1—1.3 million Jews) to be explained" (p. 19). Jeffgr9 (talk • contribs) 08:55, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

As Table 3 shows (left-hand side), the Jewish population decreased by

roughly 90 percent in the first half of the millennium–from about 2.5 million (including 300,000 Samaritans) before the Great Revolt (66—70 C.E.) to only 200,000 by the sixth century and even less by the eighth century.30 The death toll of the Great Revolt against the Roman empire amounted to about 600,000

Jews, whereas the Bar Kokhba revolt in 135 caused the death of about 500,000 Jews.31 Massacres account for roughly 40 percent of the decrease of the Jewish population in Palestine. Moreover, some Jews migrated to Babylon after these revolts because of the worse economic conditions.

Unfortunately for this paper, the figures come from Salo Wittmayer Baron (1971) and Mosheh David Herr and Aharon Oppenheimer (1990) and are way out of whack with the demographic analyses of most recent historians.

Seth Schwartz accepts 1,000,000 for the population in the mid first century, whereas Salo Baron , followed by the authors, places it with Josephus at 2,500,000. Dio Cassius says 580,000 died during the Bar Kochba revolt. Apart from the fact that it is estimated a third of the dead, whatever the figure, were battle casualties and the rest died of famine and disease, ever since Ronald Syme glossed the ancient report by remarking, ‘The total of Palestinian population which this figure implies would make Karl Julius Beloch turn in his grave’ this has been viewed often with skepticism because it sits poorly with the results of demographic studies on what numbers of people Palestinian agrioculture could sustain. Peter Schäfer on the other hand, while accepting that this figure has been challenged, notes that it is not necessarily an exaggeration. This is all speculative, and we cannot pick and choose, but opnly describe how scholarship argues each point.

The problems are that, Judaism immediately flourishes in the Galilee, half of the population was not-Jewish, the devastation brought famine, the figure sits uneasily with demographic estimates of what the population of Palestine was at the time (if 580,000 were killed, then virtually all Jews were killed in one reckoning, which is counter-factual. There was no expulsion in any case. Many undoubtedly moved out, also because hardscrabble labour in Palestine was economically poorly rewarded compared to farmer income in, say, Babylonia.Nishidani (talk) 14:23, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Let me explain why I think there is an unnecessary animosity here (which I do not detect in your contributions). The problem was simply to document the 'Jews were exiled from the land of Israel by Rome' thesis.

• You can get any number of sources repeating this.
• It is a standard part of a traditional rabbinical narrative, that took on added force as an element in the Zionist doctrine regarding a 'return'
• What is problematical with it, is that many sources (I can quote them) dismiss it as a myth, since no classical source in Greek or Latin mentions a decree of expulsion. What is mentioned is a ban on Jews in Jerusalem, which is not equivalent to an exile from the Land of Israel, and it was later overturned.
• So you have a source conflict, as often, between one thesis (I) exile due to Roman expulsions (ii) no exile took place, both positions easily sourced to RS.
• When this occurs, one cannot simply cancel one version in favour of another. If you mention such an idea it has to be phrased neutrally as a POV, contested by other sources.
• Most responses to my documentation on the myth thesis cite Josephus and Dio Cassius concerning the reported huge losses sustained by Jews as on two occasions, by Titus/Vespasian and Hadrian, when they rose up in a great revolt against Roman imperialism.
• This kind of reply shifted the goalposts from the thesis that Jews were expelled from the land of Israel (the only issue that is under discussion) to the idea that the Roman subjugation of Judea and elsewhere caused a great loss of life to Jews.
• To keep repeating this, citing Josephus and Dio Cassius, is erroneous because it looks as though editors are reading my rejection, based on strong sources, of the 'myth' of Roman expulsion as having some ulterior motivation, namely to downplay the suffering of Jews under Roma rule. The innuendo is that I am editing out of some 'anti-Semitic' or Judeophobic hostility to Jews or Jewish suffering (as one finds in Holocaust denialism). To imply that, inadvertently or otherwise, is indecent. What happened in Judea was, on a large scale, what Thucydides described in his Melian debates, and what Romans applied to recalcitrant populations (the Carthago delenda est policy leads to similar proportions of relentless killing, involving upwards of half of a native population, etc.) Treatment of those wars in an exceptionalist light overlooks what Romans tended to adopt against the Gauls (entire urban populations had their hands cut off), and a policy of decimation relentlessly imposed on all resisting Celts, etc.
• It is pointless my replying that huge losses were sustained in those wars. That is obvious. I've been reading these histories, in the original languages, for half a century, and the related scholarship. If I say Josephus and Dio Cassius's figures, like nearly all ancient statistics, are rubbery and prima facie suspect, that should not be read, except by the malevolent, as some trace of Nishidani's ostensible tendency to make light of Jewish suffering. It is simply a technical point that inflated figures from primary sources are no guide to history, conflict with numerous studies of the demography of ancient Palestine, and are unrelated to the basic issues at hand, i.e. was there (1) an edict of expulsion of the Jews and (2) did that event create the diaspora. There was no edict, and the diaspora was in place six centuries earlier, with the Babylonian exile. The catastrophe of the Roman wars was not, contrary to popular myth, the seminal point for the creation of a diaspora.
• this paper, now introduced, is a very important one, excellent because, for once, we have sociologically-grounded arguments for a phenomenon (not meme repetition from ancient sources) and thanks for bringing it to my attention. It is invaluable not so much for what is quoted above pp.18-19, but for many other points made, relevant to the diaspora, notably the argument for a voluntary diaspora, an argument which ill suits the popular misconception that diaspora meant forced exile.Nishidani (talk) 10:31, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

That paper is just one theory. I see no indications that it is the accepted point of view of the issue. Debresser (talk) 19:13, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

As all scholars are taught, and most usually know, academic work is theoretical. It tries repeatedly to find the best solution in terms of interpretative adequacy to make sense of the imprecise bundle of random data passed down to us by historical chance. Virtualy every event in history is surrounded by conflicting interpretations. If it isn't then the world practicing that scholarship is totalitarian. Your point would also imply no source used on the page is valid.Nishidani (talk) 20:39, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

It can be used with attribution. Preferably, we should wait to bring sources from peer-review. All of this is regular Wikipedia guidelines on reliable sources.

I personally really like the theory, but have not had the time to seriously read the article. Your general observation about history is of course completely true, which makes our responsibility only the larger, in representing all the view with the due amount of attention. Debresser (talk) 10:13, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

I read this theory. It may be true or not but this paper has serious flaws. The demographic data is a joke : we have no idea how much Jews lived in the first or second centuries or even after, just educated guesses whose value is very low. The old hypothesis about Jews being 10% of the Roman Empire was based on a mistake from Bar Hebraeus who mistook a census of the Roman citizens population for a census of the Jewish population. We just know there were "many" Jews in the first century before the wars. The mathematical formulas to determine the percentage of people converting according to the utility they have in their sons represent all that is wrong in some parts of modern economics (classical liberal economists would have a heart attack). By the way, as far as I know, the Mongol invasion of the Middle East did not reduce the population by 30-40% but 50-90%, which also may contradict this theory. And so on. But that's not the place for a debate.Benjil (talk) 11:36, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

With population estimates as widely divergent as 2-3 million to 4.5m (as in this paper) to 8m, any conclusions regarding numbers can't be that serious.

I have no problem with the idea that many Jews converted, although, again, based on the data the numbers could be much lower (close to zero) or much higher. However, I do not see major support in this paper for emigration. It says on page 18 (page 22 of the PDF) "Moreover, some Jews migrated to Babylon after these revolts", but no percentage is given, and in the context it seems that this percentage was not very large. The word "some" also seems to indicate minor emigration rates according to the authors of this paper.

On the other hand, I could make the argument, that in view of the long Jewish history in Babylonia, the relatively short distance between Israel and Babylonia, and the long period in which it was common practice for the Jews in Babylonia to visit the Temple in Jerusalem, it is well possible that more people emigrated from Israel to Babylonia than this paper surmises. Debresser (talk) 13:22, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Re-write of Diaspora line in lead

I have re-written one of the lines in question. I believe it to encompass much of what we have discussed here. It details and cites various historical and ethnocultural periods of rule of the Levant. Drsmoo (talk), you should include your quotation of Nishidani (talk)'s source there as well. Thank you all. Jeffgr9 (talk) 03:28, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I think our exchange of news sources shows that the real, enduring issue to be expanded in the lead, and then in the body of the article, is the Galut in Jewish history from Babylonia to modern times. It is only a complication to assert the 70-135 CE thesis, since it is widely challenged as a myth, as some of several highly reliable sources I introduced attest. A good deal of the material you've produced provides an excellent basis for such a redraft/expansion, The notion of Galut is absolutely central to Jewish cultural identity, and one does not need to use only the fairy tale version. If anything, showcasing an improbable meme as if it were the core of the diaspora detracts from the topic. Nishidani (talk) 07:53, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

That's very good in my opinion. I've replaced the Twelve Tribes of Israel and the united monarchy with the northern kingdom of Israel and the kingdom of Judah, since their historicity is proven. Thanks. Infantom (talk) 10:49, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

I have been following these discussions and the edits on this page carefully. As one of my bosses used to say: if Dovid is quite, that means he is happy (with whatever is going on). I just wanted to say that I'm still here. :) Debresser (talk) 19:17, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Draft proposals to replace the defective lead

Reference discussion on the WP:NOR/SYNTH issueshere. What we have in the body of the article Jews#Who_is_a_Jew.3F. ; see also Who is a Jew?, Jewish identity

• (1)'(A Jew is) a member of the Jewish people, an ethnoreligious group originating from the Israelites or Hebrews of the ancient Middle East. The Jewish people and the religion of Judaism are strongly interrelated, and converts to Judaism have been absorbed into the Jewish community throughout the millennia.2009 GA form
• (2)We should start with the core definition of a Jew (A Jew is any person whose mother was a Jew or any person who has gone through the formal process of conversion to Judaism) and then add other commentary. Bus stop (talk) 00:38, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
• (3)The notion of Jews simply being people who practice Judaism is way off the mark. Consider the following: "It is important to note that being a Jew has nothing to do with what you believe or what you do. A person born to non-Jewish parents who has not undergone the formal process of conversion but who believes everything that Orthodox Jews believe and observes every law and custom of Judaism is still a non-Jew, even in the eyes of the most liberal movements of Judaism, and a person born to a Jewish mother who is an atheist and never practices the Jewish religion is still a Jew, even in the eyes of the ultra-Orthodox." Bus stop (talk) 14:40, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
• (4)Jew, Hebrew Yĕhūdhī, or Yehudi, any person whose religion is Judaism. In the broader sense of the term, a Jew is any person belonging to the worldwide group that constitutes, through descent or conversion, a continuation of the ancient Jewish people, who were themselves descendants of the Hebrews of the Old Testament. In ancient times, a Yĕhūdhī was originally a member of Judah—i.e., either of the tribe of Judah (one of the 12 tribes that took possession of the Promised Land) or of the subsequent Kingdom of Judah (in contrast to the rival Kingdom of Israel to the north). The Jewish people as a whole, initially called Hebrews (ʿIvrim), were known as Israelites (Yisreʾelim) from the time of their entrance into the Holy Land to the end of the Babylonian Exile (538 bc). Thereafter, the term Yĕhūdhī (Latin: Judaeus; French: Juif; German: Jude; and English: Jew) was used to signify all adherents of Judaism, because the survivors of the Exile (former inhabitants of the Kingdom of Judah) were the only Israelites who had retained their distinctive identity

Reference literature

• • (a)Morris N. Kertzer What is a Jew?, Simon and Schuster, 1996 p.7 says fundamentally all Jews are Jews by choice and that the ‘ethnic definition is going the way of the dinosaur.
  • (b)Michael Greenstein The American Jew: A Contradiction in Terms, Gefen Publishing House Ltd, 1990 pp.1ff.
  • (c)Marc Lee Raphael, Judaism in America, Columbia University Press, 2012 pp.22
  • (d)Alain F. Corcos Who is a Jew? Thoughts of a Biologist : An Essay Dedicated to the Jewish and Non-Jewish Victims of the Nazi Holocaust, Wheatmark, 2012 Ist chapter.
  • (e)Michael Walzer,Menachem Lorberbaum,Noam J. Zohar(eds.) The Jewish Political Tradition: Membership, Yale University Press, 2006 p.436

'the halakhic notion of the Ur-Jew depends on a combination of blood relations and "ideology" (accdeptance of the Torah). This combination manifests itself in the full-fledged definition of a Jew-namely, anyone born to a Jewish mother or converted properly to Judaism, where "properly" means according to halakha. Ech of these conditions, birth or conversion, is sufficient condition for being a Jew. But the full-fledged definition does not guarantee that each individual Jew is Jewish by virtue of both birth and ideology. On the contrary, a Jew by birth is a Jew no matter wehat his or her ideology, as expressed by rashi's famous dictum, "Even though he has sinned, he is (still)Israel". By this definition, the grandson of nikita Krushchev is a jew, and the grandson of David Ben-Gurion a non-Jew, as Jacob Talm on pointed out with dismay.'(Rshi's definition mneans the Israeli Supreme Court erred in denying that Oswald Rufeisen was a Jew.

• Comment: I object to any proposal that does not mention the origins of the Jews. I object to any attempt to disconnect Jews from their history. The article is about Jews and should define what Jews are not who happen to be Jews at this particular moment in time. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:27, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

It's somewhat premature to object to what no one has proposed. Make a proposal, and that includes everyone. I have no proposal myself, but will post several given at the NOR discussion tomorrow. Above all, since numerous RS discuss precisely the definition, it would be useful if editors could jot down the books whose definitions or discussions of a definition they find useful. Nishidani (talk) 21:37, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree with both these comments. That is actually possible. :) Debresser (talk) 22:52, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I swore I would keep my nose out of this argument, but temptation is too great - so here goes: I agree with No More Mr Nice Guy that it would be wrong to disconnect Jews from their history. The problem is that this entire article does just that. The article makes a very big thing about the Biblical origins of the Jewish people, then skips 1500 years of building of a religion, an ethnicity and a culture. But the truth is that we Jews are living a tradition which has little or nothing to do with the Patriarchs and blood sacrifices in the Temple. Where are the defining elements of today's Jewish identity? Jewish literature, Jewish music, Jewish humor? 1500 years of Halakhic rulings that have completely changed the face of orthodox practice? Where is there a discussion of the Jews' contributions to Western culture? All that is missing from the article.

The lead, as it currently stands, actually does reflect the content of the article, with all its shortcomings. When the article is edited to properly reflect the Jews as a cultural, ethnic and religious group, then the lead can be rewritten accordingly. Then, Shalom Aleichem and Ibn Gvirol and Moses Mendelssohn will be much more relevant to the lead - and to real modern and historical Jewish identity - than Esther and Simeon. --Ravpapa (talk) 07:45, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

As usual, (almost)spot on, except for the contradiction in agreeing with NMMGG ('it would be wrong to dismiss Jews from their history'(where history seems contextually to mean one specific period in ancient Israel, otherwise it has no meaning for no person in his right mind would suggest Jews have no history-to thecontrary) and then stating that 'we Jews are living a tradition which has little or nothing to do with the Patriarchs and blood sacrifices in the Temple.' It is patently clear that Jewish religious history evinces a profound symbolic link to Levantine antiquity. It is also clear that it is much, much more than that. The one is reductive, making the history a function of the Bible (as do fundamentalist Christians), the other accentuates the extraordinary diversity,within that symbolic continuity, of both Jewish cultures and the magnificently disproportionate role secularized Jews (detached from the past) played in the making of the modern world. The politics of ethnicity, which emphasizes unity, is constantly trumping here the culture of complexity, which discriminates, as it celebrates, differences. The lead was an obscenely false political statement, and while the reintroduced one is problematical, it is so superior compared to what we had that, as far as I care, it can stay. A pity no one cares to fix the article generally, along the lines you suggest. That would mean work, which is not as sexy as argufying the same old tired political talking points.Nishidani (talk) 08:15, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Converts/intermarriage in lede?

Not prepared to making a draft for the lead, I put in this subsection for others who want to make additions. As an outsider, I'm of course well aware that there is a broad spectre of opinions, ranging from making an absolute connection between Jews and ancient Israelites in "the Holy Land" to claiming that modern Jews are not descendants of ancient Israelites at all. The latter claim is completely wrong, but that does not make the first claim completely right. I think almost any neutral scholar in the field would agree that today's Jews partly descend from the ancient Jews in the Middle East, partly from other people with whom they have married or whom they have converted. If someone really wants to claim only that modern Jews are the direct descendants of ancient Jews, it would be hard to explain the different between Scarlett Johansson, Tahounia Rubel and Emmanuelle Chriqui. I think any definition should include that Jews are in part descendants of the ancient Israelites and in part descendants of several other peoples among whom they have lived. Focusing on just one side or the other is bound to be WP:POV. Jeppiz (talk) 11:30, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I agree with all of this. I would also like the "origins" section of the article to address the elephant in the room directly, which is to make a statement that the question of the origins of the Jews has become controversial and policitized over the last 120 years, given it is the fundamental assumption and justification behind Zionism. Such a sentence would need to be written with impeccable neutrality, so as not to be seen to be inferring anything other than the existence of politicization. Oncenawhile (talk) 12:22, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

very useful. Just a small point. The 'Israelites' were not, unlike the Jews as defined in the rabbinical dispensation around the Ist/2nd century CE, ethnically exclusive. Down to the latter period, the Israelitic/Jewish tradition, particularly as Hellenism became a model, was very receptive, not to 'conversion' but simply including anyone who wished to enter the various communities (Ezra and Nehemiath's writings rather complicated this). The Ivri/people Israel/Israelites of the Merneptah inscription on, as we see from the wide variety of differential terms, were a congeries of tribal peoples probably of decidedly varied origin. The situation is extremely confused because the Biblical narrative is that a people from elsewhere came to Palestine, having assumed already an identity forged under Patriarchs outside of Palestine, whereas archaeologists and historians are increasingly thinking of a continuity with the old Canaanite population (you can see this in the Israelite article, which more or less says the Israelites were in Israel/Palestine since the 8th millennium BCE because they were an expression of the Canaanites, which is totally fatuous. The pre-Monarchic period people of the legendary Völkerwanderungen are often called 'proto-Israelites'/ or pre-Israelitic is you prefer 'proto-Israelitic' for the hill culture of 12-11 century BCE. General language, even in many sources, is insouciant of such terminological and historical precision, it reflects a staid conservative hangover from popular narratives grounded in an earlier era of scholarship, and it's only this slipshoddedness that sticks in my craw.Nishidani (talk) 12:04, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Intermarriage with non-descendants of Israelites don't abolish the ancient Jewish ancestry. All those personalities you mentioned might share similar ancestry although the differences in their physical appearance.

Anyway, I still suggest to use wording that based on Britannica's definition regarding the origins. Infantom (talk) 12:55, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't know about Britannica, but I agree with the first line of the previous editor. I have been making this point to Nishidani in so many discussions already. It may be that the confusion is because of the difference between how Jews see themselves, and how academics sees Jews. With the attitude of academics towards the Bible as a source of information, these two points of view are bound to be very different. Sentences like "Jews consider themselves to be etc." can help to disambiguate. Since the way Jews see themselves is a lot clearer than the many and varied theories of academics, those should be treated in a section of the article proper. Debresser (talk) 13:08, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Two points here:

(1) Jeppiz's statement is far more nuanced and accurate than Infantom's. Two specific areas relate to Jeppiz's use of the word "partly", and also the reference to "ancient Jews" as opposed to the unprovable Israelites (it's much easier to make an undisputed connection to the Jews of Judea, whereas any connection further back to the patriarchs is based solely on Biblical evidence).

(2) If we go down the "consider themselves" route, we should make it clear that this is a relatively recent phenomenon. Prior to the 18th century there is no evidence of Jewish communities considering anything about their biological descent from the patriarchs. Oncenawhile (talk) 14:01, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

What???? Before the 18th century no one really questioned the origins of the Jews. Ancient and less ancient religious text are clear on origins. Also rabbinic Judaism has many text that are not part of what Christians call the Old Testament.

Not counting all the minor rabbis’, mystical writings and apocalyptic texts which are forgotten today but which were used by later rabbis. Especially the apocalyptic texts like the Apocalypse of Zerubbabel

We have a relatively good idea of what Jews thought of themselves except for an somewhat ambiguous gap between 0 CE and 300 CE or even as late as the closing of the Babylonian Talmud around 500 CE where Targum and Talmud dating and interpretation is debated often based on 19th and early 20th century arguments originally made many times by overly apologetic Christian scholars and endlessly repackaged. Many of the debates are really based on the origin of Christianity rather than Judaism. Or if these Jewish texts are “authentically Jewish” or based on Christianity.Jonney2000 (talk) 18:02, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

@Jonney2000: the question of Jewish ethnic origins is a component of Jewish nationalism, which along with almost all ethnic nationalisms, was constructed in the last 200 years. This is covered at the Historiography and nationalism article. Oncenawhile (talk) 23:29, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

@Oncenawhile: No you have a clearly POV which you have already succeed on pushing into the modern Hebrew article.Jonney2000 (talk) 03:28, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

As someone who spent 11 years in Yeshiva reading ancient Jewish texts, the notion that Jews didn't consider themselves directly/biologically descended from the patriarchs is laughably incorrect. It was (and is) a fundamental element of Jewish culture and self-identification. One quick example, from The Guide for the Perplexed by Maimonidies (He was a very important Jewish Scholar/Rabbi, if you're not familiar) https://books.google.com/books?id=j6rRzSrcrWoC&pg=PA127#v=onepage&q&f=false "He kept the oath made to our ancestor Abraham, He appointed Moses to be our teacher and the teacher of all the prophets, and charged him with his mission." Anyone with any experience with Judaism would be very aware of the importance that has always been placed on the direct connection with the patriarchs, as well as the direct connection to the land of Israel. Both of these have always been fundamental aspects of Jewish identity, repeated over and over by Rabbis.

Another example, from the Hagaddah (if you're unfamiliar with it, this is what Jews read during Passover (the holiday where we celebrate the exodus from Egypt)) http://www.chabad.org/holidays/passover/pesach_cdo/aid/661624/jewish/English-Haggadah.htm "Just as He blessed our forefathers, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, "in everything," "from everything," with "everything," so may He bless all of us (the children of the Covenant) together with a perfect blessing, and let us say, Amen." And "This is the bread of affliction that our fathers ate in the land of Egypt." There is an (essentially) infinite supply of this. It is so categorically essential to Judaism that it is mind boggling that an editor so ignorant about the religion and culture would make so make so many (POV) edits trying to (inaccurately) redefine that culture and religion. Drsmoo (talk) 05:05, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

I too am shocked by Oncenawhile's ignorance. I wouldn't say it's a matter of POV, it's plain and simple ignorance. Debresser (talk) 16:26, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Of course it's a matter of POV. This is exactly the sort of thing I meant when I was talking about trying to disconnect Jews from their history. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:25, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

@Debresser and No More Mr Nice Guy: I think you are misunderstanding Oncenawhile's position - he is coming from a specific culture and his way of thinking is reflecting it. Modern Arab nationalism is denying not the rights of certain peoples or their existence, but is inherently denying the existence of the core question of any non-Arab ethnic groups in the Middle East, unless they can be seen as part of the pan-Arab group. Therefore, while Arab Jews can pass, the issue of Israelite / Jewish existence as a separate group with continuous history and presence in the Middle East is strongly rejected by Arabists, pretty much as the question of Aramean, Assyrian, Maronite, Coptic, Kurdish, Yezidi etc., unless those are defined as "Aramean Arabs", "Assyrian Arabs" ... The pan-Arabist rejection of historical continuity prior to the Arab conquests is essentially bound in the principles of Islam, which as a religion defies any predecessor. We can see such approach in Syrian Arabization of Antioch, in Iraqi Arabization of Babylon and Ninveh, in Jordnian and Palestinian Arabization of Jerusalem etc. The point is - no matter what you tell Oncenawhile, his world view is somewhat limited to a certain angle of events, so it is pointless to have a proper discussion about things his culture is rejecting.GreyShark (dibra) 12:09, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Modern Arab nationalism is denying not the rights of certain peoples or their existence,but is inherently denying the existence of the core question of any non-Arab ethnic groups in the Middle East, unless they can be seen as part of the pan-Arab group.

modern Jewish nationalism has huge problems with the question of a non-Jewish ethnic group in Palestine

Both nationalisms draw their core toxins from the One-Book-Holds-All-the-Truth syndrome or pathology, and the squabble over who's holier than thou nationalistically, in that sense, is rather puerile, were it not, in either case, so devastating for a sense of being in the post-enlightenment modern world.Nishidani (talk) 20:19, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

I was so shocked, because I have in the past edit constructively with Oncenawhile. The truth is that the opposite of his claim is true, that Israel and the return to Israel has always been foremost in Jewish thought, and Zionism was novel only in its active and mostly non-religious pursuit of that goal. Palestine, however, was never a nation, or even an self-conscious ethnic group till the last 50 or so years. It is fully rational to say, that politics created the Palestinians. Debresser (talk) 19:02, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

We already go down the 'considered' to be descendants of Israelites/Hebrews, rather than descendants of Israelites/Hebrews for Samaritans. I take it no one has any objection if, with an RS of course I describe the Samaritan people as descendants of ancient Israelites/Hebrews with a direct link to the Land of Israel (which they have never left)?Johnmcintyre1959 (talk) 15:43, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

The biblical account of the Samaritans probably has at least a degree of ancient propaganda. I doubt anyone would object if it’s well sourced. But ancient texts do dispute this.Jonney2000 (talk) 18:02, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Very odd since i didn't make any statement at all, so what inaccuracy or nuances are you referring to? I simply pointed an obvious fact that intermarriage do not abolish one's ancestry, so any example of physical appearance is pointless. Infantom (talk) 17:36, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

• Question Was my first post really so unclear that Jonney2000 and Drsmoo didn't understand a word of it? Given that their comments have nothing to do with the topic, I'll assume good faith and thus assume the fault is mine for not having been clear. Let me try to be clearer: Modern Jews are partly descendants of ancient Jews, and partly descendants of other peoples. That is entirely uncontroversial, and easily sourced with a large number of academic, peer-reviewed articles by experts in the field. Any lead that either denies the connection between modern Jews and ancient Jews or overstates it by ignoring that modern Jews also descend from other peoples will be definition be a WP:NPOV-violation. Jeppiz (talk) 10:32, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Jonney and I were not responding to your post. With that said, your claim that the current lead, which is taken from a version of the article rated "good" is defective is inaccurate. Drsmoo (talk) 14:41, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

When did I "claim that the current lead is defective"? Jeppiz (talk) 14:52, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

I had inferred it based the starting of a new (sub) section. Just to reiterate, I was not replying to you in the first place, and I did not take issue with your post.Drsmoo (talk) 15:02, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Same I was not replying to you. Or what you said I am fine with the current lead which does not use the word descend but rather originate.Jonney2000 (talk) 15:57, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree that converts and intermarriage are important topics regarding Jews, and they should be discussed, but not in the lede. The lede, especially the first paragraph, is supposed to give an idea of what the subject is. This means describing what differentiates this subject from similar subjects. If an actual definition is too hard, at least talk about their origins, their homeland, their culture, etc. Unlike these topics, the presence of genetic admixture, converts and intermarriage is not unique to Jews, doesn't come close to defining them, and so does nothing to tell you what the subject is. Really, it doesn't belong in the lede at all. If we absolutely must include it, it should go in a later paragraph. Musashiaharon (talk) 04:44, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Lede proposals

Infantom

• Proposal: ...also known as the Jewish people, are an ethnoreligious group that constitutes, whether by descent or assimilation, a continuation of the ancient Jewish people, who were themselves descendants of the historical Israelites of the Ancient Near East. The Jewish ethnicity, nationality and religion are strongly interrelated, as Judaism is the traditional faith of the Jewish nation, while its observance varies from strict observance to complete nonobservance. Infantom (talk) 00:58, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Comment I have received a number of reference work articles from WP:RX regarding this subject. I rather like the first paragraph of theEncyclopedia of Race and Racism, which I am willing to forward to anyone should they give me an e-mail address to send it to. It starts with a three-paragraph lede. Personally, I think we could do much worse than to basically roughly reproduce the content of their first paragraph. It is obviously too long for me to reproduce here, but, like I said, I will forward it and the other reference sources I received upon being given an address to send them to. John Carter (talk) 01:36, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Musashiaharon

I've made some changes to the lede, attempting to incorporate previous material while moving less-important information to the second paragraph. I think that since most definitions largely overlap and agree, the details of those definitions need not be mentioned in the first para. I've moved it to the second. The information about converts also seemed less important and was moved to the next para:

• v1 diff
• v2 diff
• Work in progress:

The Jews (Hebrew: יְהוּדִים ISO 259-3 Yehudim, Israeli pronunciation [jehuˈdim]), also known as the Jewish people, are an ethnoreligious people originating from the Israelites, or Hebrews, of the Ancient Near East. Their traditional faith is Judaism, and they trace their ethnogenesis to the southern Levant (in what is commonly known as the Land of Israel) from the 18th through the 14th centuries BCE and onward. Modern archeological discoveries confirm Jewish presence in Judea and Samaria as far back as the 13th century BCE. From there, the Jews were scattered over the world by exile, most recently in the early Common Era.

The population of Jews worldwide was estimated at 13.90 million in 2014 by the North American Jewish Data Bank. This constitutes less than 0.2% of the total world population, or roughly one in every 514 people. According to this report, about 43% of all Jews reside in Israel (6 million), and 40% in the United States (5.3–6.8 million), with most of the remainder living in Europe (1.41 million) and Canada (0.39 million). These numbers include those who self-identified as Jews in a socio-demographic study or were identified as Jewish by a respondent in the same household. The exact world Jewish population, however, is difficult to measure. In addition to issues with census methodology, disputes among proponents of halakhic, secular, political, and ancestral identification factors regarding who is a Jew may affect the figure considerably depending on the source.

References

This edit was really not appreciated. So many things you changed are presently under discussion or have been discussed heavily in the past. This article is really not fit for bold edits. Debresser (talk) 12:47, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

I support some of the information to be added, as a second paragraph for the lede. Infantom (talk) 23:30, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Please specify. I'm not sure what you are objecting to (version 1 diff). This was mostly a small reorganization; as far as I'm aware, my few additions are not being discussed anywhere. Musashiaharon (talk) 16:26, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Debresser, I noticed that you again reverted my content without explanation. I invite you again to specify your objections so that we can reach a mutually-agreeable version. You cite lack of consensus in your edit comment, but that's a bit too general for me to work off of. Could you be more specific about what you didn't like? Musashiaharon (talk) 04:16, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

1. You add nation. The word "nation" is hard to define. In addition, it seems unnecessary after we already have "ethnoreligious group". 2. You add "tribe" as well. That my have been true 3,000 years ago, but to calls modern Jews a tribe is close to insulting. 3. "Jew have welcomed converts to Judaism as new family members" sounds awfully unencyclopedical. 4. You add genetic studies. That is a minefield, which the consensus is too keep out of the lead as much as possible. Debresser (talk) 12:47, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply! "Nation," "tribe" and "family members" were not my contributions (see v1 and v2 diffs). I agree that the lede is better without these.

In regard to the genetic studies, I added them in to offset the statements about converts. Honestly, I don't think converts belong in the lede (see my comment at the end of Converts/intermarriage in the lede?). I didn't feel bold enough to remove it though, since there seemed to be a consensus to keep it. (My aforementioned comment is meant to feel out whether removing it has any support.) If it had to remain, I at least wanted to move it out of the first paragraph and note an aspect of the controversy over whether it is significant. My WIP version above completely removes mention of converts from the lede, since this is better dealt with in the later parts of the article. What do you think? Musashiaharon (talk) 20:53, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Good, I see we are down to only one issue. :) I don't mind having converts in the lead, as long as it is a short mention without details, but I also don't mind removing it from the lead. I do oppose adding genetic studies to the lead, which is a minefield which will haunt us forever. I see no reason to balance converts with genetics. Debresser (talk) 08:22, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Wording

Nationhood

Suggestion to add nation next to ethnoreligious group.

Sources:

• Alan Dowty (30 January 1998). The Jewish State: A Century Later, Updated With a New Preface. University of California Press. p. 3. ISBN 978-0-520-92706-3.
• Craig R. Prentiss (1 June 2003). Religion and the Creation of Race and Ethnicity: An Introduction. NYU Press. pp. 85–. ISBN 978-0-8147-6701-6.

In addition, national element of Jewish identity is already mentioned within the article so the lead should summarize it as well. Debresser, better pay attention to the sources and the explanations rather then reverting automatically.

Infantom (talk) 23:27, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't have strong objections to this. I agree that Jews are a nation, but for conciseness and clarity in the lede, I feel like only one of "ethno-religious group," "nation" or "people" should be used. Between these, I personally prefer "ethno-religious people," since this is the most specific and descriptive, and emphasizes their common culture, beliefs and heritage. "Group" is somewhat vague, and "nation" emphasizes political influence, which I think is important, but not as much as peoplehood and its implications above. It's a pretty minor issue though. Musashiaharon (talk) 03:54, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

See my objections against "nation" above. I seem to remember other editors have opposed "nation" in the past as well. Debresser (talk) 12:48, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

The thing is that nation is an important characteristic of Jews and is not covered by the ethnoreligious definition. Its weight in the general definition of the Jewish people is equal to the other ethnic or religious elements (if not more in the case of religion) and being absent from the lede makes it completely insufficient. I can't see how clarity is being harmed by this.

Debresser, no, ethnoreligious definition is not corresponds to nation and doesn't cover its definition, so it is indeed necessary to mention it. The definition of nation might be ambiguous, yet Jews qualify for all of its options. I don't know about other editors, this is a new discussion. Infantom (talk) 14:36, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Infantom I am open to discussion. What do you think the definition of a nation is, and why do you think that Jews fit that definition? Debresser (talk) 08:18, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

I will use Dr Azar Gat's definition (he is an expert of the issue) : a Nation is a people that possess elements of political self-determination and self government. A people is an ethnos that have sense of common identity, history and fate. Jews do answer to these definitions. Benjil (talk) 09:52, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi Debresser, sorry i missed your reply. Since we are talking about a meaning of a specific English word, i think every dictionary's definition would be sufficient. [3], [4], [5], [6]. Infantom (talk) 11:04, 15 November 2015 (UTC)