Talk:Jews/Archive 19

message: Why is the word "anti-semitism" thrown around so easily? Why aren't there more words to describe the hatred of other ethnicities?  I am not supporting hatred, obviously, and I do think anti-semitism is a problem. However, it seems to be used too eas —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.143.238.220 (talk) 05:05, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Mainly because there are few organized ideologies of hating a particular ethnic group. Keep in mind, the first widespread use of the noun "anti-semitism" (actually Antisemitsmus) was from one of its proponents, Wilhelm Marr, who founded a "League of Anti-semites" (although the adjectival form predates that and was used by a Jewish scholar). - Jmabel | Talk 06:16, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anti-Semitism 

message: Just thought I'd say that I edited the piece of that section which briefly describes the Holocaust, speicifically the Final Solution, which stated:
... The persecution reached a peak in Adolf Hitler's Final Solution, which led to the Holocaust and the slaughter of approximately 6 million Jews from 1939 to 1945.
I changed this from 1939-1945 to 1942-1945, due to the fact that while 1 million Jews were, in fact, murdered preceeding 1942, the "OFFICIAL" decision to eradicate that Jews--the Final Solution--was decided in 1942, not 1939. This date change might not be sufficient, but the sentence is rather confusing. --Wassamatta 01:19, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wars Against Jews 

message: Where is the EDIT on the Jewish page?  Every other page has this ability.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.98.243.217 (talk) 3:13, 28 May 2007
:You can't edit this article because the page is semi-protected against editing by anonymous and newer editors to prevent vandalism. I reccomend that you register for an account. —Elipongo (Talk|contribs) 03:27, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Can't find edit tab

message: "Discussion about the source or cause of high Jewish achievement, and the issue of whether it can be attributed to cultural, social, or genetic factors, is ongoing."
This sentence is a very subtle form of racism.  By putting the sentence in the context of a comment on ongoing research it implies that there may be some sort of scientific basis for the genetic superiority.  This could be reworded in several different fashions that many people would rightfully find offensive.
"Discussion about the source or cause of low black achievement, and the issue of whether it can be attributed to cultural, social, or genetic factors, is ongoing."
To imply some culture has a genetic preference towards achievement, implies all other cultures lack said genetic propensity.  To even imply that some culture has a genetic superiority, with absolutely no grounding is dangerous.
This sentence should be removed, or the reference to genetic factors edited out.
*Well, the whole section is pretty poor, certainly. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 00:17, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Whether or not such research offends your sensibilities (I don't see why any research should be taboo) is irrelevant.  The only question is whether such research indeed takes place, and, more importantly, if there is a source for it.  Jon513 17:02, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That poor research was done at some point in time and used to advance an agenda that was fundamentally immoral does not mean that all research on related subjects should be discounted (or worse, banned.) And frankly, there is an enormous body of evidence* that suggests that there is something about Jewish culture or genetics  (or some other as of yet unconsidered variable) that causes high academic achievement.  To ignore this and to make no comment about it in an article about Jews is actually intellectually dishonest. Furthermore, there is no racist implication in suggesting that genetics may play a part in Jewish success. Racism is judging an individual on the basis of their assumed group identity. Seeing a correlation and trying to determine what is the cause for that correlation is simply good science. And the honest thing to do, should there be extant research, is to report it as accurately as is possible being careful to neither exaggerate nor downplay its importance.  *(If you doubt that this is the case, I would point you at the number of Nobel Prize winners, Fields Medal winners, the disproportionate representation of Jews at top tier Universities, the performance of Jews on IQ tests (whether or not you believe IQ is a useful way of judging "intelligence", it certainly correlates with a variety of desirable outcomes.) The evidence is blinding. Jews achieve academically. Why? It's probably a variety of factors and in as much as IQ (which correlates at least moderately well with academic achievement) is substantially heritable and Jews, as a group, seem to score between 1/2-1 STD above the mean, it is likely that, yes, Jews have a genetic predisposition for high academic achievement. And yes, this does imply that, in this particular domain, Jews have _on_average_ a genetic advantage. Get over your taboos and report the evidence. 69.37.255.177 23:01, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

text: So what your saying is that white people are genetically predisposed to dominate the planet?  Because your reasoning for causality is equally flawed.  Black people are genetically predisposed to be subservient, Jews are predisposed to being oppressed, etc, etc, etc.  The evidence you are trying cite would lead to the same conclusions.  Thank God science does not make such leaps to conclusions.  It is interesting that you say "Jews have _on_average_ a genetic advantage. Get over your taboos and report the evidence." when that is actually what we are asking for, evidence.  Anyone responding to this has YET to provide some sort of scientific evidence.  You make it seem as if the nature versus nurture discussion has been completely solved, which is absolutely false, as if the paradigm of the human mind has been mapped out already.  I would argue anyone growing up in a household being told "in comparison to the rest of the planet, our people are chosen people," would have an exaggerated concept of self worth, leading to feelings of superiority and less fear of failure.  Of course I have as much evidence for this as the genetic argument, but I am not adding it to wikipedia.  Now any allusion to gentic factors should be removed, because there is absolutely NO GENETIC EVIDENCE.  The only thing worse than supporting such arguments is actually believing them. 69.37.255.177 23:34, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

text: Actually, no your statement is not equivalent to the statement I made about IQ. My argument rests on three ideas.
1) Jews, as a group, have been measured to have an IQ between 1/2-1 STD above the mean of the general population. I can give you citations supporting this.
2) There is strong evidence (Genetic Diseases, haplotype testing, etc. etc.) that there are genetic correlations within Jews as a group.I can give you citations supporting this.
3) IQ is substantially heritable. I can give you citations supporting this. 
These three ideas taken together _suggest_ that some part of Jewish success has a genetic componenent. 
In comparison, you never actually provide any support for the idea that Jews have a natural propensity for conflict. You don't offer any support showing that a propensity for conflict is correlated with oppression. And finally, you don't offer any support for the idea that a propensity for conflict is heritable. So, I think your (facetious) analogy is a rather poor one. 69.37.255.177 23:01, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

text: If you were to cite examples of IQs I would have to request you cite all racial/social/economic/cultural groups not just Jews vs everyone else into the "mean" because that would prove relevant to the discussion (starts to get complicated doesn't it).  I would also need you to cite some sort of tie between genetics to IQ and sections of people not father/mother to child correlations which are the only ones you have cited, this is what "heritable" is all about, which you apparently have no concept of.  I have never argued that there was not some genetic correlation between Jews as a group, because that discussion would be splitting hairs, which detracts from the main point.  Especially when the main argument you are presenting is direct genetic transference from father to son as if this is some how indicative of cultural groups.  Which by the way is completely antithetical to all theories about genetics in regards to mutations, aberrations, drift, migration, .... I also recommend you look into the "IQ section" about race.  I would suggest you educate yourself on the complexities of genetics in large cultural groups, then educate yourself on the serious flaws on the actual handle we have on the development of the brain/IQ/personality, etc. Your points, by the way, do not lead to the conclusion.  Finally I would need you to cite "the gene" that causes a Jewish organ to develop differently from a gentile organ, because that would be nothing short of amazing.
Oh yeah and to prove my statement made before:  "1) Jews, as a group, have an extensive history of not being able to cohabitate with other cultures.  2) There is strong evidence (Genetic Diseases, haplotype testing, etc. etc.) that there are genetic correlations within Jews as a group.I can give you citations supporting this.  3)There is now substantial evidence that heritable biological factors play a role in the genesis of repetitive antisocial behavior. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=8891325&dopt=Citation  right out of pubmed.  I don't believe any of that, but this argument has just as much weight as yours.
I would also suggest you start your reading here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bell_Curve#American_Psychological_Association_task_force_report
One more thing, every article that Wikipedia has on race and IQ, explicitly states that there is no proven genetic racial link, not just with Jews but with any race.  So unless Wikipedia wishes to be completely self contradicting the allusion to some genetic racial link needs to be removed.  This entire discussion is absolutely frightening.  The arguments being advocated here are as baseless hackneyed and dangerous as any perpetrated by the KKK, skinheads, or Nazi's.  The argument being clouded in pseudoscience makes it that much more dangerous, and the fact that it is STILL in Wikipedia demonstrates to me that the rank and file are complicit. 69.37.255.177 23:34, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Your example _still_ doesn't match the same criteria. The characteristic measured in statement (1) isn't the same characteristic measured in statement (3). 
Look, first of all, yes, I agree that  heritability studies (right now) must look at familial groups; its the only inexpensive way to guarantee genetic overlap that will be strong enough to study with relatively small numbers. If you want to fund a study like this one http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v447/n7145/abs/nature05911.html for IQ instead of common diseases, be my guest. In the mean time, I'll make due making best guesses from the extant data. It has never been my position in this discussion that wikipedia should report "Jews are smart because their genes are better than everyone else's" my position is that there is something going on there (higher Jewish IQ, achievement etc.) and that should be reported. Also, there is evidence that self-identified Jews are genetically similiar as a group. The evidence for that should also be reported.
Go reread my initial posting  from  "That poor research... ...report the evidence" if you believe this isn't the case.  
As to the degree, to which the three statements that my hypothesis rests on are true. I think your main complaint, correct me if I'm wrong, is that I infer from the fact that IQ is heritable as determined by methods defined here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability which is based on groups for which there is a strong guarantee of genetic similiarity that differences between groups for which there is a much weaker guarantee will likely still include a genetic component. I think this is reasonable. You don't. Fine. As I said before, it _suggests_  that Jewish achievement includes a genetic component. You will note that I didn't say, "guarantee is true". Nor did I say, we should report on wikipedia that "Jews are the smartest thing since slice bread and it's all because of their superior Semitic genes". I said, "And the honest thing to do, should there be extant research, is to report it as accurately as is possible being careful to neither exaggerate nor downplay its importance."
Re: "Finally I would need you to cite "the gene" that causes a Jewish organ to develop differently from a gentile organ", because that would be nothing short of amazing." Here, you are  wrong. I do not have to show "the gene" that makes a "Jewish" organ develop differently from a "gentile" organ. All I have to show is that there is a correlation between self-identifying as a Jew and scoring highly on IQ tests that is independent of all environmental factors. It is not nessecary for me to define what is happening inside that genetic black box to prove that something important is going on there.  I do agree, however, that the strongest evidence would be to show that there was a gene or suite of genes which showed up in the Jewish population at a greater rate than the general population which correlated with higher IQ. And in the ideal case, I would also offer the mechanism by which this gene or suite of genes increased IQ. I agree, evidence of this strength does not yet exist. However, we should report the evidence we do have.
Re: Race and genetic link. Look, Race or ethnicity isn't a thing like an apple or tree. It's a useful abstraction, a genetic cluster, at best. Just because I say, for instance, Jews are genetically similiar doesn't mean I believe that if you pick two self-identified Jews that they will be any more genetically similiar then if you grab two random people off the street. What it means is that the probability that they will be more similiar then two random people off the street is high. The fact that wikipedia won't state there is a link between race and genetics is a reflection of the current social climate, not the scientific reality. Remember link does not equal guaranteed genetic similiarity. It means that the conditional probability for similiarity is higher. I could rattle off diseases until I'm blue in the face that have links to a variety of racial and ethnic groups  And you want to tell me that race is a myth??? Gaaaah!!! Go read. 69.37.255.177 23:01, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

text: You have a serious leap of faith in causality, when there a myriad of other factors you wish to omit.  And the suite of genes still isn't indicative of anything, this same suite of genes may just impact the speed at which your hair grows, we haven't even gotten that far in our understanding genetics, much less the way the brain works.  Science takes MANY leaps of faith but no one has ever been this bold with their leap to conclusions.  Secondly your argument goes that Jews have a track history of scoring high on IQ tests and they have some genetic commonalities among them, so this could be evidence of a genetic propensity for scoring high on IQ tests.  I argued that Jews have a history of not cohabiting peacefully with the cultures around them and they have genetic commonalities among them, so this could be evidence of a genetic propensity for not cohabiting peacefully with other cultures, possibly antisocial behavior.  And as always I must put the disclaimer in that I don't believe in that statement, it is just for illustration purposes.  High IQ scores do not occur in a void, on the contrary they occur in the very mysterious world of the mind that is constantly bombarded and shaped by the world around it.  This we do know.  Let me give my argument for Jews scoring high on IQ tests.  If we sew the same seeds of wheat in two different fields, but your method for harvesting that wheat was superior to mine, some may come to the conclusion that your wheat was better, but in actuality your harvesting methods produced a higher yield. 69.37.255.177 23:34, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

text: "All I have to show is that there is a correlation between self-identifying as a Jew and scoring highly on IQ tests that is independent of all environmental factors" Well, yes and no. On the one hand that would certainly work. On the other hand, you can't demonstrate that something is independent of all environmental factors. (Somewhat OT: Of course, that's the problem with all analyses of genetics vs environment. No matter what, the two must always interact; it's just a matter of given a certain combination, how much of the variation is attributable to which) Anyway, that kind of problem is why this type of research has been relevated to fringe science for a couple of decades now that real DNA technology has arrived. If you look at current research journals in genetics, it's all DNA sequences. Until somebody demonstrates a DNA sequence that correlates with self-identifying as a Jew and with scoring highly on IQ tests, this hypothesis is no more scientifically valid these days than phlogiston or the ether. 69.37.255.177 23:01, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

text: "The fact that wikipedia won't state there is a link between race and genetics is a reflection of the current social climate, not the scientific reality." "Race" was invalidated as a scientific concept long long ago. The idea that Strom Thurmond's daughter by a black woman is of the same 'race' as Desmond Tutu, and a different 'race' from Strom himself kind of flies in the face of genetics, as does the concept that Hindus are racially more similar to Africans than Europeans. You can talk about genetic similarities and ethnicities and whatever, but the word "race" lost all scientific validity long before "politically correct" was ever coined. Gzuckier 18:52, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Are you actually reading my arguments? I don't wish to omit a myriad of factors. I have never said that I presume that Jewish achievement can be purely explained by genetic means. I've said that I believe, and there is some evidence to suggest, that it is a factor.I think that a myriad of factors are involved in Jewish achievement. I think one of those factors is genetic and future investigation will prove this more and more concretely. (Note, again, just to be clear, I am not suggesting that wikipedia report my speculations. I am suggesting wikipedia report the things that are pretty well substantiated. Those being: IQ differences, records of high achievement, haplotype clustering, and genetic diseases.) 
Second of all, it's just nonsense that race has lost all scientific validity. Race is a useful abstraction, and, in medicine, it has been and continues to be used to guide diagnosis and treatment. At the end of the day, we will probably be able to pin people's genetic profiles down so exactly that, for medical purposes, it will no longer be as useful to use that abstraction because we will have more precise methods. That said, people who self-identify as a particular racial or ethnic group often cluster genetically. This isn't always the case and I'm sure if one digs deeply enough we can find instances of racial or ethnic groupings that are pretty poor abstractions (i.e. they don't have much predictive power.), but that doesn't mean that the concept of race as a whole is bunk. Note, race does not equal species. There is interbreeding between those who self-identify as one race or another. And in as much as no one actually knows their precise pedigree, there is going to be some disconnect between race and actual genetics. This does not mean, however that race has no predictive power. It's an imperfect proxy for genetic information, not the information itself. But, for many purposes, it is still a useful proxy. For instance, are you going to take a Japanese couple who are expecting a child and waste their monetary resources running an Ashkenazi Jewish Panel on them? No, of course not, the conditional probability of them both being carriers for Tay-Sachs, Gaucher's, Bloom's, Nieman-Pick's, etc. etc. etc. isn't high enough for it to be worthwhile. But, it would be if they were Jewish. My relatives certainly made sure they were tested. I will too if I am lucky enough to have children one day. So you can say that you don't believe in race, but for reasonable definitions of race or ethnicity, you're just wrong. Period. 69.37.255.177 23:01, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

text: By diverting the discussion to the use of the word "race" derails the discussion of genetics and intelligence, but to address it I would coin the old colloquialism "there is more genetic diversity with the individuals of a social group than between two separate social groups." 69.37.255.177 23:34, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

message: Is it really necessary to show a graphic image of murdered Auschwitz Jews on this page? Can't that image be moved to the Holocaust page? I dont want to diminish the importance of the Shoah or offend anyone but i think that it is wrong to have such a graphic image on a page which isnt about the Holocaust and will therefore cause shock and distress to visitors to the page who want to learn about other aspects of Jewish life (ie school children). 
Also, on a more political note, It is like saying "As Jews, this is how we identify ourselves and this is how we wish to be seen by others". Despite its effect upon my family, the holocaust doesnt define me as a Jew - I dont mind the textual paragraphs but the image is going too far IMO. - Can we have it removed please?
Breed3011 13:35, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that it's too graphic, but we do need a photo for that section, just less horrible. How about one of these?
Childwarsawghetto.jpg / A child dying in the streets of the crowded Warsaw Ghetto, where hunger and disease killed 43,000 in 1941 alone.	
Einsatzgruppen Killing.jpg / A member of Einsatzgruppe D is about to shoot a man sitting by a mass grave in Vinnitsa, Ukraine, in 1942. Present in the background are members of the German Army, the German Labor Service, and the Hitler Youth. The back of the photograph is inscribed "The last Jew in Vinnitsa".	Selection Birkenau ramp.jpg / "Selection" on the Judenrampe, Auschwitz, May/June 1944. To be sent to the right meant slave labor; to the left, the gas chambers. This image shows the arrival of Hungarian Jews from Carpatho-Ruthenia, many of them from the Berehov ghetto. It was taken by Ernst Hofmann or Bernhard Walter of the SS. Courtesy of Yad Vashem.
I prefer the "Einsatzgruppe D" picture, but the others are okay with me. okedem 13:47, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

message: I think when describing the ethnic group, Hebrew should be the more correct word and Jew would be better to describe the religion.After Hebrew were a race and and Judaism is a religion.-Vmrgrsergr 20:05, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Hebrew were a race" - says who? ←Humus sapiens ну? 22:13, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

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

message: Some people may have noticed that most categories previously using "Old Testament" have been converted to "Tanakh" by a user, without I think much discussion.  There is a discussion here which proposes converting them to use "Hebrew Bible" Johnbod 22:07, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Old Testament" is a Christian name, it relates to a group of books that are not exactly the same as the Jewish Bible, not in the same order and, most important, not in Hebrew. So no doubt we should not use here "Old Testament" in an article about Jews. Regarding the debate between "Tanakh" and "Hebrew Bible", I understand the point that most people do not know what Tanakh means, but on the other hand, "Hebrew Bible" is not a Jewish term. Both can be used in my eyes. Benjil 23:18, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Tanakh/Old Testament/Hebrew Bible categories

message: Albert Einstein • Maimonides • Golda Meir • Emma Lazarus - Jesus is far more famous than these people.
        
Jesus may be more famous but perhaps a link would be more appropriate then a picture or a segment beacuse 
the whole jew-jesus subject is a but complicated and beyond the scope of the article.
-SoH
-- Would be technically correct but would have connotations with the Jews for Jesus movement-- probably not appropriate for a main article on the Jewish people thewebthsp
technically correct, the best kind of correct. however if a picture is to be used make it as human as possible: no crucifiction no halo, just plain jesus 
72.189.79.72 10:10, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Bob Dylan might be a good candidate for a picture. He is after all a fairly well known Jew. Bus stop 19:44, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

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

message: Someone has added a marketing link for learning Hebrew via flashcards that is out of place on this page.  I'm too new a user to delete it.  Can someone else please do that? Rzf3 17:56, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Taken care of. -- Gogo Dodo 18:00, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link spam 

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

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

message: Please please people, stop trashtalking eachother and take it easy.
:Off topic.  Please don't clutter the discussion page with more unneeded topics.  Sign your posts as well...  GoatSmoke 07:17, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: little plea

message: I'm curious about the organization of the list of population centers.  It reads a little awkwardly (whatever the real numbers are), as there are clearly more Jews living outside of Israel than within Israel, yet Israel is centered above, and the U.S., along with every other country, is listed below.
Is there any reason for this seemingly artificial emphasis on the Jewish population of Israel?  I know someone will probably answer, it's the Jewish state--and that is indeed relevant and belongs in the article, but as an American Jew, I don't feel like an "other significant population center."
In short, why not just have all the entries arrayed evenly, in order of population, or similar to the way the kurd article has them organized. -- Sammermpc 13:00, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Israel is first because it has the biggest jewish population, not only in quantity but also in quality as many Jews in the Diaspora and in the USA in particular are alienated to any Jewish culture. Israel is also the only country with a Jewish majority and of course is the land of the Jewish people. With all due respect with American Jews, they can't compete with that. They are just indeed "another significant population center".  Benjil 13:31, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So you divide Jews into "high quality" and "low quality" ones based on where they live? Now that's a pretty condescending statement :-/ --Targeman 13:55, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, but you can divide communities based on "high quality" and "low quality" depending on how many Jewish service the community provides (synagogues, community centers, charities, mikvahs, erev, etc).  There is a difference between a vibrant community and a non-existent community. Jon513 14:53, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes that's what I meant, sorry if it was not clear enough. Benjil 14:56, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, OK. :-) --Targeman 15:02, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It might be useful to indicate in the table what the relative percentage of the population Jews are in each country, and maybe organize it in basically descending order on that basis. That might make it a bit more transparent to newcomers to the page. John Carter 15:05, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Which leads to the question, how do you determine the number of Jews in a country? Am I right to think those are guesstimates made by Jewish organizations? I am of Jewish ancestry but since I'm uncut, an atheist, and don't practice any Jewish traditions, I suppose I and people like me don't qualify? Where do you draw the line? --Targeman 15:12, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a really good question, and well beyond my own profoundly limited capacity to answer. All I was really thinking about was taking the existing numbers in the table and determining what percentage of the population they constitue. I have no idea how those numbers are come by, though. John Carter 15:16, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  From what I understood, there are a few different sources, but it is mainly the work of specialists of demography like Professor Sergio DellaPergola of the Hebrew University (the main authority on the question) and surveys conducted by the main Jewish organizations in each country - the French did there own in 2002, and the USA in 2000 (with a few new ones last year with different data). In these studies they usually count the people who identify as Jews, taking or not taking into account (each survey its own methodology) the halakhic definitions. For smaller countries or unorganized communities, yes it can be partly guess work. Benjil 15:28, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

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

message: Why are only actors and entertainers pictured in the photos at the top? I seem to recall politicians, philosophers, scientists, etc. there before, along with maybe one or two artists/entertainers. The way it is now is ridiculous.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.149.105.43 (talk) 
:I reverted the infobox back to its prior form.  The change was made earlier today and I can see no discussion before making this radical change.  Rickterp 21:30, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photos of Famous Jews 

message: On the "Ethnobox" I did place Arabic along with other language under the tap "Language" Some another user did revert those edits stating that Arabic speaking Jews did was existing on the 20th not today?, I mean thats radicilous, because those people did not die out or vanished away those did migrate to Israel, and now we thinks they are native Hebrew speakers? no its incorrect they speak Arabic and Judeo Arabic, there are a special radio program for Judeo-Arabic in Israel today, there are American and Russian Jews in Israel who speaks English and Russian natively, they did not became native Hebrew speker but Arabs did? oh please that is shit talk. and btw almost all Israeli Jews understand abit Arabic. It should be placed on the Ethnobox. Balu2000 13:50, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, no problem with that. Benjil 14:21, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I suggest bringing it up at the talkpage for the infobox, or directly with Humus, who reverted you. He/she is very familiar with the topic, so you could probably get your questions answered that way rather than coming here. DanielC/T+ 15:23, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Arabic speakign Jews

message: The famous Jews section states: "The Jewish people have the largest percentage of Nobel prize winners (approximately 160 in all) compared to any other ethnic or religious group." The source provided is "The Jewish News Weekly of Northern California" which is hardly a RS. Besides, this fact is highly doubtful seeing as there's been around 800 prizes. Please provide a better source. JRWalko 01:16, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Would this source serve as a citation: ? Hertz1888 02:15, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Again not an RS. There's no doubt Jews have won many Nobel prizes but they have certainly not won more than "any other ethnic or religious group". Seems like this is some minor propaganda by an author who didn't even bother to check the list of winners. JRWalko 20:37, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll try to find a source for that, but from what I've seen, compared to the size of the Jewish people, that claim is probably true. Of course it not true in relative terms, but note the claim says "largest percentage" - it means largest percentage of the ethnic group have nobel prize, not that if we divide the list to groups, Jews will be the largest group in the list. Perhaps a better formulation of that sentence will help. okedem 22:23, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I need to find the precise source, but from what I recall, Jews make some 20% of Nobel Prize winners. I don't know if this is the largest percentage of any ethnic group (it would seem so), but anyway, as Jews make up 0.25% of the world population, this is a great achievement. Benjil 22:30, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Christians would by far make up a larger percentage of winners than Jews. Again, I'm not disputing the achievement, I'm just saying that a Northern California online ethnic paper probably shouldn't be cited for such a sweeping statement. I think this should be removed or changed. It should say "so and so many Nobel prizes have been awarded to Jewish people" only keep in mind that not all of those people were just Jewish. If someone is half Jewish, half Christian then probably they shouldn't be counted as a Jewish person or a Christina person. JRWalko 22:48, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Bear in mind that Christians are not an ethnic group, but a religion. Jews are first and foremost and ethnic group. Conversion to Judaism are few and rare, while Christianity is by definition a missionary religion, with no common denominator save religion. okedem 22:53, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Here's a detailed list, with pages on each winner: . okedem 22:59, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

text: As you will see, I have reinstated and modified the statement to a form I hope will satisfy all previous objections.  It is comparative but does not depend on any specific percentage, is therefore easier to source. The original claim has been toned down, the emphasis shifted, and the religious aspect is gone. Hertz1888 06:18, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

text: As I said, the statement meant percentage of people of that group who won the prize - meaning, compared to the group's size. Anyways, the current formulation is much better and clearer. okedem 14:09, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, the current statement is fine and factually correct. JRWalko 19:49, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Nobel prize

message: *Some examples in the history of anti-Semitism are: the Great Jewish Revolt against the Roman Empire;
I'm admittedly ignorant of the subject, but it seems strange to describe this as an example of anti-Semitism. Are there any mainstream scholars which describe it as such? Eleland 21:11, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed the claim, as well as changing "some examples in the history are" to "the history includes", since fewer words are better words. Eleland 16:57, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  First Jewish-Roman War as "anti-semitism" 

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