This is an archive of past discussions about Ashkenazi Jews. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Latest comment: 10 years ago106 comments13 people in discussion
As you all know, this image of Anne Frank is copyrighted. However, it's believed that the use of this work:
To illustrate the subject in question
Where no free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information
On the English-language Wikipedia, hosted on servers in the United States by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation
qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law. So please do not remove the image because there are no copyright violations in effect. Thank you. Khazar (talk) 21:42, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
I'd disagree since it isn't actually necessary to illustrate Anne Frank here, right? You'd be hard pushed to make a case that it is necessary anywhere than on her own article, which is the actual fair use rationale. Your argument would mean we could use it in any article that vaguely related to her, which is probably hundreds. In any case I've looked at the image and it has no such rationale. Stating it here is irrelevant. Dougweller (talk) 09:09, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
It isn't. However, only one of the three rules needs to be satisfied so you objection is based on mere opinion. I know you haven't looked at the picture because the conditions I posted are the exact same from the image. Khazar (talk) 18:25, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
Dougweller is correct. Since there is no reason Anne Frank must be illustrated instead of some other Ashkenazi Jew, the image fails the "no free alternative" rule. Zerotalk10:56, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
Faulty point. Only one of the three conditions has to satisfied; not all three. I can't believe that this is coming from someone as "experienced" as you. Khazar (talk) 18:25, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
It would be a good idea in future to check the policy before making such statements. Visit WP:NFCCP and note the words "only where all 10 of the following criteria are met" (my emphasis). Zerotalk23:07, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
Good idea. But which female can we replace her with? I'm not hesitant to replace her. I just know that the two "geniuses" above me really need to rethink their objections. They're one of the primary reasons this article's improvement is so slow. Khazar (talk) 22:21, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
Reconsidered. I think that Anne Frank's picture can be used with a fair use rationale here. There is hardly any other Jewish male or female whose picture embodies the Holocaust of Ashkenazic (and not only) Jewry. Definitely a mist-have in any such collage, and so fair use applies. Debresser (talk) 23:55, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
I think the picture should be used. I mean we illustrate the topic, Ashkenazi Jews, and we don't have another image available. So why not use it anyway...? Copyrights are important, but don't go farther than the legislation would. As they say in Russian: "Don't try to be more saint than the pope". 94.2.161.214 (talk) 12:40, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia is deliberately more conservative than the legislation in order to stay well clear of legal disputes that the foundation can't afford to fight. At this level of policy, modest devaluation of articles doesn't count. I think the only chance is to go to one of the noticeboards that Dougweiler mentioned and try to make a convincing case along the lines of what Debresser suggested. The folks there have more experience than we do; if they say it is ok then I won't argue against it. But I don't like your chances. Zerotalk13:02, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
I think the collage should be significantly reworked. It should be diversified to include people with different occupations and from different countries. Women with world fame are e.g.:
Sarah Bernhardt, "the most famous actress the world has ever known."
Maya Plisetskaya, "considered one of the greatest ballerinas of the 20th century".
On the other hand having already Emmy Noether and Albert Einstein, one does not necessary need to include Lise Meitner.
I also don't see why two religious leaders need to be included. Instead I would keep only one and include a painter, like Marc Chagall.
Similarly, there is currently a poet Heinrich Heine and two prose writers, Kafka and Sholem Aleichem. Two is one too many. Kafka is wider known, but he wrote in German as Heine did. In this case, it would be better to keep one poet and one prosaist but in different languages. If one keeps Heine, one can take Sholem Aleichem or Stanislaw Lem or Isaac Azimov. If one keeps Kafka, one may better choose a great poet in a different language, like Joseph Brodsky or Boris Pasternak.
By removing one prosaist, one would get a space for another occupation. There have been so many outstanding philosophers, but none is currenty included. Karl Marx is best known and had the biggest influence on the modern history. If you want to avoid him as a controversial figure, take Karl Popper, who is "generally regarded as one of the greatest philosophers of science of the 20th century" and (who btw. has also shown what was wrong with Marx).
Furthermore, having Golda Meir as a politician and zionist leader, one may remove Herzl. Instead one can put an outstanding person from other fields. E.g. Émile Durkheim, "commonly cited as the principal architect of modern social science and father of sociology" or Claude Lévi-Strauss, the "father of modern anthropology". Or someone from life sciences like Sidney Farber, who is "regarded as the father of modern chemotherapy", or like Karl Landsteiner, "noted for having first distinguished the main blood groups in 1900, having developed the modern system of classification of blood groups ..., and having identified ... the Rhesus factor ... thus enabling physicians to transfuse blood without endangering the patient′s life".
Finally, it would be important to have one business person. Historically, Mayer Amschel Rothschild is the most important one. To get a place for him one should remove one of the two classical musicians. To have the most famous one, I would put Felix Mendelssohn instead of Maler and Bernstein.
--Off-shell (talk) 23:15, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
I love so many of your ideas!!! We should keep the 5 lines of 3 structure though, do you agree?
I love the idea to include Sarah Bernhardt instead of Anne Frank, I hope that suggestion gets supported. Jews made an impact on world cinema and those representatives deserve to be included.
I do think both Lisa Meitner and Emmy Noether both should be in the collage, they both are too famous to be removed, so I don't agree on tat point.
I agree that only one religious person should be included and two is too many, I think we should keep the Vilna Gaon and remove Moses Isserles, as Vilna Gaon is more knpwn.
I agree Marc Chagall should be included, the guy is definitely one of the most famous Jews and one of the greatest artists ever. I am scratching my head as to why he was not included originally, I saw on the archive of the talk page someone suggested it but no one commented (pro and against}.
I think Sholem Aleichem should stay in any cost, he is the greatest Jewish writer ever (when I say Jewish I mean whose writing is about the Jewish life and all). I think Sholem Aleichem, the greatest Yiddish writer ever, and Heine, one of the fathers of German poetry should stay and Kafka should be removed. As painful as it is, I agree 3 authors is simply too much.
I agree about including a philosopher instead of a writer. I think Karl Marx would be better but I support the option to include Karl Popper, simply because I know many people will find Marx too controversial.
I think we should keep Golda Meir and Herzl together, both represent something different in a way. The people I offered are notable, but I think Herzl and Meir are too major to be substituted, so I guess that is the only point disagree with you.
I love the idea to include Mendelssohn, how about instead of Bernstein?
Mayer Amschel Rothschild is a good idea! After the role they played in banking and the Jewish success in finances it's a good idea.
I love those ideas! Let's wait for few hours to see if there is any objection and I will do it. Wow, I love it. It's true, the collage does need more diversification. Mr. Sort It Out (talk) 07:05, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
I strongly feel like we should stick to the current style. 4 on 4 looks more over crowded and less aesthetic. 5 lines of 3 is the style other Jewish pages like Russian Jews, Israeli Jews and Ukrainian Jews moved to for the reason the images are larger and it looks more neat. Mr. Sort It Out (talk) 16:23, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
The Anne Frank image has been removed because its fails our non-free policy. You cannot use a non-free image in this way when freely licenced images are available. See WP:NFR#Anne Frank for further information on the reason why it was removed. You already seem to have become resigned to that and will no doubt choose a suitable replacement to fill the missing spot. ww2censor (talk) 09:48, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
So here is the collage, after implementing the changes suggested by User:Off-shell.
{{Infobox ethnic group
I have to say, it does look much more diverse now in terms of professions. Also, some of the people who were suggested obviously should have been there ages ago:
Marc Chagall The greatest Jewish painter and one of the greatest painters ever.
I prefer Marx, as far better known than Popper. The controversy regarding him might be that his father converted to Christianity, which makes it problematic to describe his son as Jewish. Perhaps there are other alternatives for Popper? Debresser (talk) 00:41, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
With this argument one could probably dismiss Einstein, Botvinnik, Mendelssohn, etc. On the other hand, having included Rothschild, one can also include Marx, to maintain a kind of "political neutrality". He was an "oracular philosopher" as Popper puts it, but not a political dictator himself. --Off-shell (talk) 10:16, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
How about adding notable people who actually had some sort of Jewish identity? If a convert to Christianity still had such identity (such as Mahler) then it's ok I guess, but certainly not someone like Marx who never had such identity and as some historians say, even hated Jews. In other words, I suggest to try and avoid notable people of Ashkenazi background who hated, denied or tried to escape their roots, and search for a little more proud individuals... Yuvn86 (talk) 11:19, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
Such people are already in the collage, e.g. Herzl, Meir, Sholem Alechem, Vilna Gaon. But different people have had different attitudes towards their Jewish roots. I would say this argument would be valid for those with mixed ethnic background who deny their jewish root, as this usually indicates that they were raised in a different culture. But for someone coming from a purely jewish family, the denial or escape is a part of "their story". Avoiding them totally would introduce a bias and thus create NPOV. --Off-shell14:10, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
I agree. Someone might have two Jewish parents who converted and they might not give much weight to their Jewish roots, but at least ethnically they are still Jewish. Mr. Sort It Out (talk) 11:41, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Thinking a little more about it, I found one more weakness in the current version of the collage. A major part in the late history of Ashkenazy Jews was a large emigration to the United States where many achieved success. From the current collage, only Einstein spent significant time there, but all of his major works were done still in Europe. I think it would be reasonable to have a prominent figure who made a career in the USA. One could put a business person like Marc Zuckerberg, replacing Rotschild, who is considered controversial by some. --Off-shell (talk) 17:58, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
Popper did not deny his ancestry. He was assimilated, as a half of this collage. Concerning his parent's conversion to Christianity it is stated: "They understood this as part of their cultural assimilation, not as an expression of devout belief." I read from this that the conversion was done by his father for career reason. One should remember that the Holocaust did not happen on one day. Jews living in Europe at that time were always subject to oppression. Therefore one should not condemn those who chose such an option. Anyway, if several people here want to add more people with clear Jewish identity, one can replace Popper by Steven Spielberg. This will also be one more person from the USA. --Off-shell (talk) 21:51, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
I very strongly disagree with removing Moses Isserles; for all intents and purposes, he was the very first identifiable Ashkenazic Jew, and his changes to Karo's Shulchan Aruch is the very basis for what separated Ashkenazic Jewry from Sephardic Jewry for centuries. I am restoring the image. -- Avi (talk) 17:44, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Furthermore, as we discussed in 2009, two religious figures out of 15 isn't overkill when for centuries, most Ashkenazic Jewry was religious. The rise of Reform and Conservative Judaism was in the 18th century. Ashkenazic Jewry as a group can trace itself back certainly to Moses Isserles, and probably way before, to the exiles of the Second Temple who were take to Europe in the 1st century of the common era. -- Avi (talk) 17:59, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
The motivation for my proposal was to achieve maximum diversity in the collage. Both Moses Isserles and Vilna Gaon were rabbis and talmudists, therefore keeping them both in the collage you do not provide an additional information to the reader. For the same reason I originally proposed to replace Lise Meitner by another distinguished woman like Rosalind Franklin or Maya Plisetskaya, simply because Meitner was a physicist like Einstein, while Franklin was a biochemist, and Plisetskaya is a ballet dancer. As for your comparison with the Sephardi Jews page, Maimonides was a religious teacher and philosopher, while Montefiore was rather a political activist, a precursor of zionism, as a well as a businessman. On this page Theodor Herzl is a political activist and Rothschild a businessman. I see your point that historically Moses Isserles was the first identifiable Ashkenazi Jew, so then why not keep him and replace Vilna Gaon with Chagall? --Off-shell (talk) 21:42, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Off-shell, and will additionally admit that Avraham's edit and edit summary "per talkpage" did not sit well with me. Avraham should first have established consensus and then edit, since Off-shell's changes were well-discussed here. Debresser (talk) 23:01, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Debresser, the consensus for five years was to have both pictures, and only limited discussion over the past three days, which was not publicized on WP:JEW was used to make the change. If anything, the CHANGE was against consensus. If you wish to make that change to the collage, and it is contested, the onus is on those making the change to show consensus has changed.
Off-shell, I think that if consensus is shown to reduce the number of religious figures to one, which I would request be opened up to a larger group for discussion, then Isserles makes more sense, as he is more responsible than most anyone for the concept of the Ashkenazi Jew as opposed to European Jew. -- Avi (talk) 03:43, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
I have posted at note at WT:JEW#Ashkenazi Jews picture changes to raise the issue among more people so that we ascertain if there is consensus to reduce the pictures among a larger group of interested editors. Your arguments are decent, Off-Shelf, but consensus is more than three people. I have no issues accepting the reduction if consensus has changed, but I would hope you have no issues with 2 if consensus has not changed since 2009. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 03:49, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
If I may intrude an opinion, I agree with Avi. Jewish identity was held together by the rabbinic tradition which merits at least two seminal figures. The number of brilliant, shining spirits of the Haskalah period who would merit consideration is impossibly large, choose Chagal and you cancel Lucien Freud, Camille Pissarro or Max Jacob: why Botvinnik instead of Garry Kasparov, who held the world title longer? (well, on second thought, he defined himself as a Christian, but on third thought, Heinrich Heine, who is a must, also converted, and we have Felix Mendelssohn who also was baptised) etc. in each category you have a mutually cancelling embarras de richesses. We have two 3 women out of 15, a masculine bias; Jews played a central role in the struggle for human rights, socialism, communism, liberalism, whatever you like, and this is absent.Nishidani (talk) 17:41, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
I have no problem with putting the Ramo back in. I do have a problem with editors who edit first and discuss later. Regarding women, Nishidani, don't forget that women only entered the world stage during the last emancipated centuries, so their representation in this infobox need not be more than it is presently. I feel strongly that anybody who converted, should not be in this infobox, with possible exceptions if they are know for being Jewish apostates, and at least they should be among the first to be replaced. Debresser (talk) 20:38, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
You are asking many good questions. About Botvinnik and Kasparov I will just mention Kasparov never identified as a Jew, that's why. We picked people who we felt are recognizable enough and influential enough to represent their areas in the best way possible. Of course it's a matter of opinion, and that's why we discussed who to picl.
Jewish identity was held together by rabbinic figures until a certain point, but not today, and usually on Wikipedia the balances are based on the modern world. However, I don't oppose two rabbinical figures, but for that one must (you or Avi): Start a discussion about it, explain why, and suggest who would you like to place the figure instead. Avi's behavior was condescending and unacceptable as he totally disrespected a new consensus and instead of bringing his point up on the talk page and resolving it quickly (it never took us more than few hours to agree on something here), he chose to start a fight. Mr. Sort It Out (talk) 22:13, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
The consensus you had 5 years ago (which is ages ago) obviously wasn't good enough, as people brought up new ideas, and showed dissatisfactions with some of the features of the old collage. 5 years there was one consensus, now there is a new one. You are free to express your opinion and have a dialogue with other people at the group, but you are not the bloody judge here to decide what will be or not be. First, change your tone. Mr. Sort It Out (talk) 22:13, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
Debresser, the discussion on this talk page which led to the change which I disagree with was not advertised to the groups who would be interested. With 2000+ pages on my personal watchlist, I don't catch every one. I do not dispute that a few people discussed changes on this talk page; I do dispute that that automatically creates consensus. If no one had an issue, fine, but within one day of the change, there was a "complaint" and I posit that it is your change that requires consensus, not the one which has been in effect for years. I am not suggesting that the three of you did anything wrong; being proactive is a good thing on Wikipedia. However, when opposition to a change is raised, it is incumbent on those making the change to show that consensus for their edit exists. At this point, the onus is on those who wish only one religious image to demonstrate that there is sufficient consensus among interested editors. That is why I have reverted the edit to the one we know for sure had consensus between 2009 and 2014, and I posted to the appropriate wikiproject. Reverting it back to the one with 1 image is the version which has yet to demonstrate consensus. There are now three people who prefer 1 and two who prefer 2 on this page, and that is not sufficient consensus to remove either the Rama or the Vilna Gaon. If no one else responds here or at the wikiproject talk page, I would suggest we start an WP:RFC to get wider input. Debresser, you are a well-established editor with a long wiki pedigree, you know that consensus needs to be proven, and at this point, it hasn't been. Please follow the accepted Wikipedia procedures for demonstrating consensus and do not revert back the the 1-image collage without showing that consensus has changed by suitable discussion. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 21:15, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
At the present, after you and another editor expressed their disagreement, I agree with you. When you first reverted, you went against consensus. Debresser (talk) 21:23, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
So when 5 years ago few people had a discussion that is a "consensus" for you, even though when I look at it I see 3 dominating figures and many others whose ideas were simply ignored, but whatever. But now, when we have a dynamic discussion, a very peaceful and civil one, suddenly you have a problem? Instead of revert warring, why not TAKE PART in the discussion in a civil way? ONE person opposing something doesn't indicate a lack of consensus, the consensus is still one. What you are suggesting is changing the consensus, which is fine, but not by revert warring, but by presenting a case, the way we all did. Mr. Sort It Out (talk) 22:22, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
I have self-reverted to defuse any edit war. However, I think that consensus for the change needs to be shown, and if it isn't in a reasonable time, that both images should remain. Thanks. -- Avi (talk) 21:26, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
Avi, first of all, chill! Just because YOU oppose something, doesn't mean the rest do. We have a very nice civil discussion here, people are suggesting ideas, they are being discussed and implemented. The collage already looks much better than the old one. You can't just come and decide to change everything just because you don't feel like it.
Now, if you would bother reading the discussion, you would see that removing Moses Isserles was not a one man decision, and it was done for a reason! We decided to try and represent as many occupations and areas as possible. We already have a rabbi in the collage, Vilna Gaon, the most famous and influential Ashkenazi rabbi ever. Why do we need another rabbi? What does it add to the collage two people representing the same thing? The idea was to establish DIVERSITY.
I don't have a problem with having two rabbis! If other people don't mind, I don't mind. But we need to do it the right way!!! Discussion - deciding who we substitute him with - implementation.
Did it cross your mind that all you had to do was JOIN THE DISCUSSION and present a case?? So far, no person who presented an idea on this page was shut down. Every offer was discussed, every selection and even the style where discussed. Is anyone forbidding you from joining the discussion?? So what is the point in edit warring?
And your revert war is just ridiculous. Did you even visit the talk page before doing it? Did you not see this discussion? You have a group of people here working on a new collage, until you came with no opposition. Does that not seem like a consensus to you? It's not a Roman Senate where one person can just declare a Veto. Please read the discussion, and pay attention to the dynamics: People suggest ideas, other comment on them, and everything is happening very peacefully and with respect. Mr. Sort It Out (talk) 22:13, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
Now Avi, what exactly are you proposing? The consensus definitely agreed on Chagall to be in the collage as he represents artist. You want this rabbi in the collage, fair enough. What is your offer? Who instead and why? Mr. Sort It Out (talk) 22:22, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
Why do we need another rabbi? What does it add to the collage two people representing the same thing?
Rabbis maintained traditions, conserved identity, kept the old languages as a living option, defended communities, provided fundamental education and literacy, all over the diaspora for 2,000 years. Without them, Jews would have risked cultural extinction. Avi's concise point re Moses Isserles is more than reasonable. We have two writers, Heinrich Heine and Sholem Aleichem (should re replaced by Franz Kafka or even Isaac Bashevis Singer perhaps), two physicists (Einstein and Meitner). So one for each category is not the rule, and 2,000 years summed up in one figure, as opposed to having two representatives for very modern disciplines, many not even practicing Jews, shows the bias. I'd add that Rashi deserves as much mention as Vilna Gaon. Moses Isserles was germinal in the definition of the longbrewing Ashkenazi religious self-definition.Nishidani (talk) 14:44, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
I didn't say we don't need rabbis, all I said was one is enough to represent them. We have only one artist, Chagall, does it mean I undermine the role of other Jewish artists?
That's a very conservative narrative on the rabbis, one might argue that by their fundamentalism they actually pushed many away from Judaism. I don't agree 100% with any of those views, I think the truth is in the middle, but just presenting it.
I really don't agree that Sholem Aleichem should be replaced. The greatest Jewish/Yiddish writer definitely should be represented in a page about Ashkenazi Jews.
It doesn't matter if the people in the collage are practicing Jews or not, as the article is about Ashkenazi Jews as an ethnic group, just saying.
As we already agreed, I think, it makes sense to add another rabbi. However, I don't agree their role was so big. Just like the role of Obama is not so bad in preserving democracy. You are heading the system, but the system will live without you. Judaism would not survive without the Jews wanting to survive and passing that idea from generation to generation. Think about it! When Jews decided to walk off they walked off regardless of the rabbis opinion. Mr. Sort It Out (talk) 20:06, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Hello, Mr. Sort It Out. Firstly, if I may, comments such as "chill out" are probably more harm than help. I understand you are enthusiastic about WIkipedia, and I appreciate the passion, but let us please channel said passion and energy into discussing content and not editors. I understand where you are coming from; you are being bold and working to enhance the project. You had a discussion on this talk page, and through that came to a decision which you believed represented consensus, and implemented it. There is nothing wrong with that at all. However, you may not have been aware, I believe Debresser should remember as he was involved in that discussion, but in 2010, there was an issue that I believe set precedent as how consensus is achieved, specifically in Judaism related areas. In a nutshell, if a change is not discussed widely enough, and there is opposition, then that ipso facto demonstrates that there wasn't consensus and a wider discussion is necessary to determine whether consensus exists. This is why I reverted the page; so we both were acting in ways we believed were in accord with Wikipedia polices and guidelines. There was a discussion on WT:JEW about the proper names of the various temples in Judaism (see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism/Archive 25#Building and destroying the Beit Hamikdash) that had many more than three respondents, and the pages were moved. Subsequent to that, concerns were raised, and an enormous discussion ensued on WP:ANI, to the point it has its own sub-archive: see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/WikiProject Judaism pagemoves.The upshot was that even though there was notice on the individual talk pages (Talk:Solomon's_Temple#Correct names for the First and Second Templesand the appropriate talk page, more input was required, and so we reverted the moves and created three RfCs (see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents/WikiProject_Judaism_pagemoves#Being_bold, Talk:Solomon's_Temple#RfC:Proper_Name_for_this_Article, and similar on the other two pages). Same here; we have shown that the initial consensus is flawed, firstly even if consensus was shown because of the limited venue in which the discussion was advertised, and secondly, because now we have editors contesting the move, so what we need at this point is further discussion. I think the images should be reverted to what they were prior to the change as per precedent, but I am not going to push the issue; it is more important that we get it right going forward.
That being said, this is why I think two images of rabbinic figures is appropriate for the Ashkenazi Jews collage. What makes someone "Ashkenazi"? It is not solely being European, as Sephardi Jews lived in Europe for centuries as well. It is not direct proximity to each other, as Jews from France are much closer in distance to Jews from Spain than Jews from Poland, yet the latter are Ashkenazi and the Spanish Jews are, in the main, Sepharadi. What makes the Ashkenazi group unique and distinct from others are its traditions. These arethe Jews who follow the Rama when he differs from the Sulchan Aruch (such as the prohibition against kitniyos on Pesach); these are the Jews who were subject to the Cherem D'Rabbenu Gershom and Takkanot Shum, these were the baalei tosafot whose talmudic exegetical style was different than that of the Sephardic greats like the Rambam and the Ramban (although the latter had Ashkenazic teachers). Jews who followed these teachings and traditions for over a dozen centuries became the group we know as Ashkenazi. Therefore, I think that more than one picture of the rabbis who molded this group over 1200 or so years is appropriate. I know we have a focus on the modern in Wikipedia, and having 13 out of 15 pictures from the last 200 years is representative of that. But I maintain that these 13 people, and the last 200 years of Ashkenazi subculture, would not exist without the 1000 years of tradition and leadership which preceded it.
As for whom to pick, I have thought more about it, and would say that the most famous and important figure in Ashkenazic Jewish tradition is Rashi, whose work on the Bible and the Talmud have never been equaled, and who is considered to be among, if not solely, the greatest Jewish rabbinic figures of the last 1200 years. Unfortunately, the only image we have of him is a representation made about 500 years after his death. My opinion for the next most important figure is Moses Isserles, who codified the previous 500 years of Ashkenazic tradition and placed it within the context of the Shulchan Aruch. So, my opinion that using Rashi and the Rema would be appropriate understanding their importance in the history of what makes Ashkenazi Jewry a distinct culture above and beyond geography. If using Rashi is deemed non-optimal due to the representation being only indicative and not actual, I would proffer one of the following three options in addition to the Rema, each of whom I believe can be considered the greatest rabbinic, moral, and social leader of Ashkenazic Jewry from their time and subsequent:
Israel Meir Kagan, the author of the Mishnah Berurah, which continues the tradition of the Rema and is currently probably the most utilized and referenced work of halakhah on the topics it covers (laws of Jewish daily life, Sabbath, and holidays)
If a more modern representation (post 1900) is desired, Moshe Feinstein, who was probably one of the last world-wide accepted poskim and leaders of Ashekenazi Jews.
At this point, I think we should post to other potentially interested wikiprojects (I notified WT:JEW already). It may not be a bad idea to start an RfC as well, but at this point, I continue to maintain that the removal of the Rema is contested, and consensus has not, as of yet, been demonstrated. I welcome responses to, and discussions of, the points I made above. Although, please understand that over the next few weeks, my availability will be greatly curtailed due to Rosh Hashanah, Yom Kippur, and Sukkos (three three-day yom tov's in a row! ). -- Avi (talk) 16:02, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Hello Avi. Reading your paragraph 'What makes someone "Ashkenazi"?...' I wondered, that I did not find this in the text of the article itself (did I miss it?). Wouldn't it be more appropriate to discuss the difference in the traditions between Ashkenazi and Sephardi in the article, and put pictures of the key figures there? The point is that a non-educated reader cannot judge from the collage why you put two rabbis there. A collage can send only a very basic message to the reader: "These outstanding persons belong to this people. They did all those different great things." I think the best approach would be for any article of this kind: You put one key figure in the collage, and the others in the text where their role is discussed. --Off-shell (talk) 18:57, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Actually, Off-shell, I do see some point in having 2 rabbis. For many ages, rabbis were the leaders and the faces of the Jewish nation. It is very nice to have politicians, actors and artists, but these have become prominent only over the last few centuries. Of notice that Mr. Sort It Out also stated he has no problem with 2 rabbis, so maybe we should indeed add the Ramo back in. Debresser (talk) 17:53, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
"please channel said passion and energy into discussing content and not editors" But that is my point! Instead of edit warring, you should discuss it, like you do it now. Did you notice you achieved on the talk page much more than by revert warring? And look what you caused by edit warring, you got out a troll called Avaya1 out of the bottle (he edit wars and reverts just for the sake of it, he never uses the talk page). We are trying to maintain a certain level of civility here.
"but in 2010, there was an issue that I believe set precedent as how consensus is achieved, specifically in Judaism related areas. In a nutshell, if a change is not discussed widely enough, and there is opposition, then that ipso facto demonstrates that there wasn't consensus and a wider discussion is necessary" Yeah but I must say in the 2010 discussion the decision was formed by 3 active users, many others got ignored. The discussion now is much more dynamic and strong.
Yeah but this article is about Ashkenazi Jews, the religious identity never was taken to consideration much even in the previous collage (as a result, all collages had converts to Christianity). However, I do agree another rabbi will do no harm.
I agree about Rashi, but as you know we can use only real images (that's why King David was not used in Jews). I agree Moses Isserles is a great idea, and I think he would look great aside Vilna Gaon. You must remember the rabbis have to be recognizable and notable not in historic context as much as in terms of how well known they are, and I think when it comes to the Vilna Gaon he is probably the best known rabbi the Jews have. I also agree about Moses Isserles. I would use the Habad rabbi Lubavitc, but he in my opinion is too contemporary, and that is represented by the Vilna Gaon, and Isserles is good in representing the medieval times. Mr. Sort It Out (talk) 20:06, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Hannah Szenes suggestion
Guys, we were so busy talking about rabbis we ignored by mistake a brilliant suggestion by User:Yuvn86. He suggested to use Hannah Szenes instead one of the female scientists.
First of all, does her image have any copyrighting issues?
I support the proposal to replace Lise Meitner with Hannah Szenes in the collage. However, concerning the current photo in her article, please consider the discussion in Talk:Hannah Szenes., where it is suggested to "take it off the page and possibly replace with a more authentic one, as it is a mockery of her life and self-sacrifice". There are a number of other free photos in commons:Category:Hannah_Szenes. I propose to take this one. --Off-shell (talk) 22:32, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm incompetent to judge on this. If you are talking about a poetess who was murdered in the Holocaust Gertrud Kolmar (COI: I wrote the article) must be the default choice, as she was one of the greatest lyricists of the German language. If it is a matter of having, as I think there should be, a figure representing Jewish resistance to genocide, then Tuvia Bielski might be there. As Avraham notes, Herzl is not that important qua Ashkenazi. His ignorance of Judaism and Jewish culture often embarrassed others, and the political function is eminently covered by Golda Meir, politician, great leader and woman.Nishidani (talk) 07:19, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
I do like your suggestions, but I still feel like Hannah Szenes is more famous than Gertrud Kolmar (and we don't even have an image of her in the first place). Also, we already have writers in the collage so Gertrud Kolmar wouldn't add anything new. Hannah Szenes was a spy, a resistance member, and to this day every single person in Israel knows her name. About Tuvia Bielski... we lack women in the collage anyway so representing a female with a male when we have only 4 women anyway would really hurt the balance. That is why someone like [[Hannah Szenes] is so effective for the collage! Female, resistant member, spy, and very famous (a street after her is named in every major city in Israel). Mr. Sort It Out (talk) 07:56, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
I tend to think in global terms and recognizability. I think I have a fairly strong knowledge of poetry, and that I'm not deceiving myself in thinking few outside Israel would recognize her name, whereas the murder of Miklós Radnóti, for example, was a devastating loss to European (Ashkenazi) poetry, as was Stalin's murder of Osip Mandelstam. Heine is not the greatest German poet (he should of course be there, not questioning that. No one reading S.S. Prawer's wonderful Heine's Jewish Comedy (1983) would doubt his achievement ), whereas Kolmar is recognized as the greatest femal lyricist of the German language. On the other hand, she fits several categories (warrior+poet+woman+popular). The popular criterion is not persuasive, though it is active in the selection of Mendelssohn for music (Gustav Mahler trumps him in terms of musical genius, though I say that having used Mendelssohn's violin concerto to woo a fiancée, something unimaginable with anything from Mahler).Nishidani (talk) 08:40, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
About Kolmar... I agree she is important in world poetry, but in modern days she was forgotten by many (it's hard to find her books in book shops, at least in the UK where I live since I left Israel, and they couldn't even order it - I had to get her books online). The thing is, is she more notable than Heine? Sholem Aleichem? And that is the point, literature is already represented, and not with one person, but with two! And the first step in even considering her is having an image of her on Wikipedia, and we don't.
Same about Miklos Radnoti! We already have a poet. He was very important... but with a hand on my heart, he is not that known outside of Hungary (well, he is popular in Croatia, but that is a different story). The advantage that Heine, for example, has over him is that translations to his poetry will be found in every book shop in the UK, Israel, Russia and other countries. The only one out of the poets that in my opinion could compete with Heine is Osip Mandelshtam... but then we have to ask, who had more influenced? Who is remembered more? It's a hard one, but I tend to go with Heine. His quote about burning books became synonymous with the holocaust in the Jewish collective memory.
The thing about Szenes is that she represents: Women, the holocaust/WW2, and the Jewish military personnel (+she is very recognizable).
I love the good use you made of a Mendelssohn's violin concerto :-D I bet she loved it!
I agree with you that simply being popular is not enough, otherwise we would have, pardon me, freaks like Justin Bieber and Pamela Anderson appearing in collages (and luckily they don't). But being popular+historical memory+influence... that's something that plays a huge role. When you think of Ashkenazi Jewish military people during world war 2... Hannah Szenes is definitely one of the first ones coming to mind! And she didn't just become a face in history, she became a symbol, a legend, and that adds a lot of points in such a selection. Mr. Sort It Out (talk) 15:34, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
You use the international popularity argument against Kolmar, and for Heine but drop it with Szenes, who is an Israeli national icon, but almost unknown outside (Women, the holocaust/WW2, but not military, whereas Kolmar is a recognized genius, the top of her métier, in her chosen vocation). Heine definitely should be there. Mandelshtam and Kolmar are poets' poets, but Mandelshtam is probably more influential among literary circles, now, as Heine was in th 19th century. Six of the 15 are German (no British(Rosalind Franklin, who had the Nobel stolen from her)/Scots (David Daiches, wrote a wonderfully evocativ autobiography of that world, Muriel Spark)/Italian Jews), by the way, Scholem Aleichem is a great writer but he is less well known than either Isaac Bashevis Singer, Franz Kafka or Marcel Proust. I would choose Proust, because Sarah Bernhardt (Rachel Félix was as famous in her day, though: our choice represents a modernist bias there, though again Bernhardt is more famous. But I don't think, just to bolster the female side that we should have Sarah B in with Kubrick, maning the performative arts get two figures at the expense of a thinker) is the only reference to French Ashkenazi (it's an argument for Rashi, by the way). If one thought of a philosopher Jacques Derrida would trump Henri Bergson, though I prefer figures like Marc Bloch, Emile Durkheim, Raymond Aron or the magnificent Claude Lévi-Strauss. Wittgenstein or Popper not considered because German). An Australian Jew I reckon would wonder why John Monash as representative of military genius isn't there (and one of the few senior military men in WW1 who was both deeply intelligent about strategy and deeply caring of his men's lives. His life is a good example of how antisemites were prepared to cause massive loss of life to their troops just because of their odium for Jews on the staff).Nishidani (talk) 10:38, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
I don't feel like Szenes is unknown. Like most English Jews I spoke to know of Szenes, they either heard of her from their parents or from trips to Israel (which are very popular amount Jewish youth and play a role in their education). I'm sorry, but I asked many people about Kolmar, and non of them knew her. It's unfair, she is genius, but that, unfortunately, is the reality. You said "Mandelshtam and Kolmar are poets' poets"... I agree with that comment about Mandelshtam, but however, Kolmar is not really being discussed even in those circles. I have a BA in literature and her name was not mentioned even once. And as much as I think that being a poet's poet is more notable than being a mainstream poet... I would personally pick Mandelshtam over Heina if the collage would be a matter of personal taste... but the point in this collage is to pick notable influential recognizable people. Einstein might not have been the greatest Jewish scientist, someone very educated was proving me that the contribution of Lev Landau was higher... but because of how recognizable Eisntein is , he "wins".
And having said that... we don't even have a picture of her to use even if she would be seriously considered to replace Heine.
We need to be very careful in letting our personal tastes get in the way of creating the best collage possible. I perfer Rubinstein over Mendelssohn, but I know Mendelssohn is more famous and recognizable, so would vote for Mandelssohn for the collage (despite my personal preferences).
I think Rashi is the best rabbi to use in any collage, the problem is there is no original collage of him. The painting of him used by Wikipedia was done in the 16th century, many centuries after his death. That's why we haven't used King David for Jews.
I don't think that Sholem Aleichem is less known than Isaac Bashevis Singer. In fact, in the article about him it actually says that the criticism against awarding the Nobel prize to Singer is because he is not even the best known Yiddish writer. And at the end of the day, Sholem Aleichem is the "father", and that title puts him in a special position. And about Kafka... Kafka is more famous, true, but the reason Sholem Aleichem got picked is that Sholem Aleichem is a proper Jewish writer, while Kafka is a writer who happens to be Jewish... do you get me? Sholem Aleichem is probably the most famous figure in Ashkenazi Jewish culture, and when I say Jewish I mean Yiddish. That's what Sholem Aleichem represents here! I mean it would be weird to have an Ashkenazi Jews collage and not have the person called "The Jewish Mark Twain" (and about who Mark Twain said "tell him I am the American Sholem Aleichem").
Wikipedia today has a very strong ideology of trying to make collages more equal between men and women. On Russian Jews, Ukrainian Jews, Ashkenazi Jews and French Jews we made sure to allocate 5 spots out of 15 for women. Here we did only 4, but reducing that will be chauvinistic (unintentional, but still). About Sarah Bernhardt... she was called "the most famous actress the world has ever known."... surely that is notable enough for a collage. She was so big they allowed her to play Hamlet, a male role!
David Daiches, with all due respect, is an autobiography writer... that's not something notable enough to use in collages.
Rosalind Franklin is a great suggestion, the problem is... we already have a female scientist in, and Emmy Noether is much more famous.
I like the philosophers you offered... problem is, aren't rabbis classified as philosophers, in a way? And if you think we should add one of them anyway, who do you suggest instead? That's something where a discussion possible. Mr. Sort It Out (talk) 15:09, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
By the way I haven't looked recently at the page: too hard for someone like myself to edit without being reverted- but if there isn't section on Jewish cultural icons murdered in the gulag, or by fascism and Nazism, there should be. The immense loss to European civilization caused by that period of vast relentless evil against the Ashkenazi alone needs to be signalled, perhaps as a balancing section to an earlier page showing how indebted modern Western civilization in Europe was to the germinal creativity of people of Ashkenazi descent.Nishidani (talk) 10:44, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
I agree about that! I think the Gulag section would belong more to Russian Jews...? But yes, it sounds interesting. I didn't see such sections before but I think that makes a lot of sense, like "The Influence of the Holocaust/Stalin's Repressions on Jewish Culture"... and you talk about important Jewish cultural figures that got murdered there.
You should start a completely new discussion about it on this page, because it's not really a collage discussion, but I personally will support this idea completely. It depends on what other people say, obviously, but in my head it makes a lot of sense. Mr. Sort It Out (talk) 15:09, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
Rather The Impact of the Final Solution and the Gulag Archepelago on European Civilization.
I didn't suggest Daiches, just gave him as an example. He was a literary critic of great acuity. Noether was a mathematician (for which we have Einstein), not a scientist. Franklin was a chemist with great insight into molecular structures, and, as is clear from their own account Crick and Watson only twigged the solution to the DNA puzzle on reviewing her work, and that discovery revolutionized biology and medicine and dozens of related fields. Sarah Bernhardt's claim to 'greatest actress' is meaningless: all bst actresses of their time, in numerous cultures, are hailed as the greatest. She certainly promoted herself thus, but a significant number of critics weren't impressed.
'Aleichem is a proper Jewish writer'. That is a dangerous criterion. I think the equation with Twain somewhat demeaning to Aleichem, since Twain is not the greatest American writer: Meelville is, with many, John Updike, Henry James, Cormac McCarthy and several others vying for second place, if ranking has any sense. The greatest modern writers of Jewish extraction are Marcel Proust and Franz Kafka. Einstein wasn't a 'Jewish physicist' any more than 'Noether' was a 'Jewish' mathematician, or Mendelssohn a 'Jewish' composer. Kafka is a writer intensely aware of the Jewish world, good parts of which he cyphered into his greatest novels and stories (The Metamorphosis, etc.) Rabbis are not philosophers, just as theologians are not philosophers, for the simple reason that philosophy is the logical refinement, and revision of first principles. Religion does not, generally (the exception is Buddhist logic, cf.Dharmakirti), question its foundational principles. I don't care for gender equality. If egalitarian principles prevail, you will have a (a) national balance problem and (b) a rich-poor problem as well (c)religious-secular balancing act etc.etc.Nishidani (talk) 16:15, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
I like the name! Why not? I think it will improve the article.
I'll start a discussion or Noether vs Franlin here now, just to establish it. I see your point.
If someone does a degree in cinema, they learn about Sarah Bernhard. Her fame really was hard to imagine there days.
What I meant by saying Sholem Aleichem is a proper Jewish writer is the fact the he wrote in Yiddish and about the Jewish life. I never said Kafka ignored his Jewish heritage, that was not my point, I am just saying he was an Austrian writer of Jewish heritage. We used to have both here, by the way, Kafka and Sholem Aleichem, but it was decided that there is an overload of writers, and from a collage point of view, Sholem Aleichem represents more than Kafka (the whole Yiddish and Jewish lifestyle thing.
I am not against adding a philosopher, if it goes in instead of someone, in my opinion, it should be one of the rabbis. But again, that requires a whole big discussion.
You are taking it to an extreme now with the egalitarian comparison. We are not asking for 50%-50% men and women, all that we are saying is that we should maintain the current number of women, which is 4... I don't think that is too much to ask. It's not that we are so desperate for women we are picking models or something, those are 4 women who have a name in Jewish history. Mr. Sort It Out (talk) 21:08, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
Well, I don't think I'm an extremist. Gender equality is a touchy thing, and I just feel a deep uneasinss in any argument based on number parity. A lot of very reliable administrators and competent politicians were sidelined in Italy's PD recently because they had testicles, to be replaced with flighty young things who lacked them, but had a winsome smile to compensate: the criterion being not ability, but electoral appeal to a constituency. When I see that applied mechanically, I think:'well, if that is the principle the logical entailment is that you recruit 5-7% of the figures from the homosexual community, since they have that proportion (Here that would translate into arguing for Proust because, apart from being (1.French =nationality), and his language's most famous novelist (2) he was also homosexual (gender). Still, rest assured, I don't like to push my views: I don't have them, and I'm even displeased if Noether is axed. It's just a logical issue with me. I would like to thank you both for the amenably flexible intelligence you've applied to analysing all this. My original purpose was really just to ensure that due weight with rabbinical figures (2,000) years was not overturned by WP:Recentism. Best regards Nishidani (talk) 07:59, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
In my opinion, the current collage is satisfactory. It is much more diversified than it was before. I followed the last arguments, and I have an impression that going into fine details and comparing particular writers or musicians by 100 different parameters, all arguments inevitably become absolutely subjective. I see one more way where different proposals can still be (at least partially) accommodated: Include different persons on different pages. E.g. there is such a collage on the Jews page. A similar discussion is ongoing on Talk:Jews where a new collage is proposed. Someone proposed to keep Kafka there and remove Sholem Aleichem which I support. In this way one is included on this page, and another one on another page. The controversy on that talk page is however of a more serious kind than here. --Off-shell (talk) 12:20, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
The purpose of this collage is to represent Ashkenazi Jews, to use notable people from different areas where Jews succeeded. Women are a part of what is Ashkenazi Jews. In fact, 50% of Ashkenazi Jews are women, and it is impossible to have a collage representing Ashkenazi Jews about representing women. Representation basically representing Ashkenazi Jews, what they are and what they achieved, and who they are (including women). Mr. Sort It Out (talk) 15:04, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I just looked: the picture of Rosalind Franklin is not free, and I didn't find another one on commons.
For the case, that some other image will be found: I don't believe Franklin is more famous than Noether, and I think Noether was a greater talent than Franklin, but I support the argument by Nishidani: It's for the sake of diversity, in this case getting someone from UK into the collage. The drawback would be that we would not have a mathematician anymore. Originally I proposed Franklin as a life scientist to replace Lise Meitner, as we have already Einstein in the collage. Meitner is already replaced. Now, it's a different argument to replace Noether, and yes, "with a heavy heart", it is also a valid argument. --Off-shell (talk) 22:35, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
Don't take my suggestion as a definite vote. You are right that Noether was a genius among geniuses. My criterion is impact on, and recognizability within, the wider world, outside Judaism, with an eye to the divrsity of subjects, which is why I questioned Aleichem and Szenes. But the decision is in your collective hands, of course. I'm only kibitzing.Nishidani (talk) 08:09, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Ah, as always I didn't notice she has no free images. As weird as it's going to sound, I don't think representing British Jews should be a priority, simply because the vast majority of the Jews in England came to England from the Russian Empire in the 19th century and the 20th century. I feel like they are in fact being represented well by the Russian Jews and Polish Jews. Jews left an important mark in so many countries we will set ourselves on an impossible mission if trying to represent as many countries as possible.
The good thing about Ashkenazi Jews is that they are one united ethnic group (or sub-group, whatever definition you like), so it doesn't matter what countries the Ashkenazi Jews are from. In the case of Mizrahi Jews it is more complicated because Mizrahi Jews are a collective name for many different communities with different histories. Mr. Sort It Out (talk) 14:57, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
That's true, Iraqi Jews are different from Moroccan Jews, but Ashkenazi Jews, whether from Poland, Germany, Romania, Lithuania, Ukraine etc are a distinct ethnic group, culturally, linguistically and genetically. Guy355 (talk) 15:01, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Rabbis resolution?
Now, back to the rabbis. So the "pro-extra rabbi" camp made a good point about having two rabbis in the collage instead of one, fair enough. We need to pick instead of whom to insert the picture.
I must say, it's extremely hard as there really is no one to remove:
My first instinct was "we have two writers"... but in a way both are untouchable. Sholem Aleichem is the greatest Jewish Yiddish author ever, the one more than anyone representing Jewish culture in the collage ("The Jewish Mark Twain" as he was nicknamed, and Mark Twain actually referred to himself as "The American Sholem Aleichem"). Heine • is untouchable because he is the most famous Jewish poet ever and probably the most famous German poet ever.
Marc Chagall is the greatest Jewish painter ever and one of the greatest painters of all times, it would be really weird to remove him. It's like the Italians removing Da Vinci, it just doesn't make much sense.
Albert Einstein and Sigmund Freud are probably the most famous scientists in their areas ever. Both of them have too much of a cult around them to be removed.
Botvinnik is the most titled chess player ever to consider himself a Jew (Kasparov • never referred to himself as a Jew), and he represents the Jewish huge achievements in chess.
Felix Mendelssohn • is one of the greatest composers ever and definitely the greatest Jewish composer.
We can't remove a woman because they are already underrepresented.
So we are left with two men, both really notable, both hard to replace, but... I got them by that deduction method I described. Theodore Herzl and Mayer Amschel Rothschild. Now, any ideas who to replace? What do people think?
• An important note I feel like I need to make. Even though Heine and Mendelssohn converted they always saw himself as Jews. Heine said the conversion was just a pass to the European society and then regretted it when he saw it didn't work, and Mendelssohn was angry with his sister when she said she "doesn't mind Jews" and he said "how nice it is of you, not to mind your own people". Kasparov, however, converted to Christianity, changed his name, and never referred to himself as Jew and never spoke of his Jewish origin. I know no one brought it up, but I just felt the need to make that point. Mr. Sort It Out (talk) 13:59, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
Kasparov has often stated he is of Jewish (father) and Armenian origin. Botvinnik did not 'identify' primarily as a Jew, though certainly in his relationship to Alekhine, awareness that the latter was anti-semitic was no doubt a signiicant consideration: like Kasparov, he said his primary identity was Russian, (and Communist), but that, in terms of 'blood', he was of Jewish parentage. Kasparov's 'Christianity' is just part of his being committed to Russian culture whose majoritarian religion is C. orthodoxy, since he is otherwise indifferent to religion. Re Spielberg vs Kubrick, if sheer artistic genius is the criterion, there is no comparison, the latter should be there. Nishidani (talk) 21:28, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
Botvinnik's Russian identity was more cultural, it might sound confusing though to a non-Russian speaker. It's like a Jew in England saying his main identity is British. I'm not too fussed, if you feel like Kasparov should be in... shell we have a discussion about it? My fear was a large resistance from the "religious" camp. Mr. Sort It Out (talk) 12:36, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
I think 4 women is not enough, to be honest. I mean ideally it would be 50%-50% but that would be too difficult to achieve. In other Jewish collages the standard is 5 out of 15. Mr. Sort It Out (talk) 12:36, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Defining Jewish identity is immensely complex because it can be either (1) ethnic (2) religious or (3) self-identifying, and parties singling out one of those three as the benchmark will be contested by others. Ethnic means of 'Jewish descent', partial or fully, in which one chooses to privilege one or more of one's forefathers over the other on the basis of a Jewish ethnicity. Thus Kasparov is 'Jewish' by 'blood' but also 'Armenian', but not Jewish in so far his mother was not Jewish (the religious criterion). Botvinnik seems to have thought of his identity in three terms, descent (Jewish), cultural (Russian) and political (communist) and the last two were more important, just as for Kasparov, that fact that his father was Jewish has no importance to his primary feel for being wholly Russian. You can be of Jewish descent on both sides, and not be Jewish (Alain F. Corcos). Jesus, whoevrr he was, was Jewish in all senses, and died Jewish, but few save Einstein, given history, are happy with the fact etc. I think the parity rule should not apply.Nishidani (talk) 15:59, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
If it's complex to some then maybe it's better to simplify things, especially when it comes to identities of people (whether religious or national identities or others). In other words, if there's a choice between a prominent chess player whose father was Jewish and converted to Christianity and never considered himself Jewish, and another one with 2 Jewish parents who did not convert and had some Jewish identity, then to go with the second choice, because that's a better representative of the group/Ashkenazim. Yuvn86 (talk) 19:30, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
I agree with what you are saying, but I think, as User:Yuvn86 said, to keep it simple. It's very hard to argue a case about Botvinnik for not being Jewish, as he never gave up on being Jewish at least in the cultural/ethnic sense. He never said he wasn't Jewish or did anything to show he's not Jewish. Kasparov... when Jews convert to Christianity in the Soviet Union and Modern Russia it's not the same as Jews in Germany in the 19th century. For Jews in Germany it was the only way to make it in society, but for a Jews in the Soviet Union to convert to Christianity, converting in a country where Christianity is looked down upon like all religions... it really does have to be giving up on the Jewish identity. I myself consider myself ethnically Jewish and I don't consider myself Jewish by religion, but I am just trying to show a case one might make. Mr. Sort It Out (talk) 23:07, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
I also prefer Botvinnik in this case. And I propose another picture of him . It is an older photograph and hence of worse photographic quality than the current one, but the composition with chess is just perfect for the collage. --Off-shell (talk) 23:30, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
You bring up good points overall. Of the choices, the one I think would be least disruptive to remove would be Herzl. Yes, he is the father of modern Zionism, but I think that has very little to do with Ashkenazic tradition per se. I understand we want a good cross-section, and by that we mean intellectuals, artists, scientists, philosophers, etc. Rothschild is currently the only finance/business representative, and not having representation in that area is non-optimal, I would say. As opposed to Herzl, who was more the politician/activist, and I believe we can have Golda Meier fill most of that role. -- Avi (talk) 00:03, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
One other note, I understand Chagall is the only painter, but there are now six art-related people in the collage, a musician, a painter, an actress, a director, and two poets (Szennes is a poet as well). Perhaps that has bearing on the discussion? -- Avi (talk) 00:09, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
That's a fair point, but I think the arts are such a diverse term with so much in it, we should not look at them as one category "artists" but rather give writers, painters, musicians... a separate category each. And most famous people usually do come from the arts, that's why in every collage they have a high representation. We should avoid adding any more writers, musicians, people from the cinema or painters, that's for sure. The arts are well represented and we should stop at that, I agree. Mr. Sort It Out (talk) 08:12, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
We lack a sportsman. Though I've argued the toss re Botvinnik and Kasparov, it was only to illustrate the conceptual difficulty. I have no bias for Kasparov over Botvinnik: it's just a matter that I can't see any evidence of committed Jewish identity or pride on either side, whereas undoubtedly chess has yielded up a remarkable number of Jewish grandmasters. But choosing chess illustrates the 'intellectualist bias' in the selection. If you think of chess as an intellectual sport, then the category of sport itself comes up, and one wonders why Mark Spitz, the greatest swimmer in history, and one of the top Olympians of all time, doesn't warrant inclusion (though from cultural bias I'd prefer in sport Freddie Trueman, whom I saw bowl, and who was one of the greatest cricketers the world has ever seen.) Nishidani (talk) 09:30, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
I totally get you, I think the point you made is very fair. I even said that my personal day-to-day definition of Jewish is ethnic only, and I know many people have a different one. We went with the bias which will keep most satisfied, I think. I personally think Marx should be in, but due to the fact I know from past discussions how many people will have an issue with it, I am not suggesting it.
I think chess is a sport, most chess players will suggest it is. The beauty in picking a chess player in representing all sports is that chess really became a Jewish sport. It's not like Jew made it in a certain sport, but it's the Jew made it his national thing.Mr. Sort It Out (talk) 15:18, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Just a comment, if we are talking about Jewish chess players, there is a veritable cornucopia of them, but consider Akiba Rubinstein, considered to be one of the finest endgame players. His contributions to opening theory are also widespread, with many opening systems named after him. Kingsindian♝♚12:30, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Btw, that was just a random suggestion, not to be taken too literally. I prefer Botvinnik over Kasparov, though both were probably not attached religiously to Jewishness. For non-chess sport, may I suggest Harold Abrahams, best portrayed in the film Chariots of Fire? Kingsindian♝♚12:45, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Akiba Rubinstein is a genius, I think he should be considered for the Polish Jews article. The thing is... Botvinnik is regarded higher, historically.
My impression was that the suggestion of non-chess sportsman instead of chess sportsman was being considered. Harold Abrahams was just a suggestion, nothing more: I would place Mark Spitz ahead of him. My feeling is that chess is one of the areas where Jews have historically excelled, and it should be presented in the collage, instead of a non-chess sport. This is of course a matter of judgement, there is nothing right or wrong. Kingsindian♝♚19:47, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
I agree with you. There is no priority in representing a non-chess sport, however, chess is something so associated with Jews today it must be. Mr. Sort It Out (talk) 14:46, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Problem with Spielberg
There is a problem with having Steven Spielberg in the collage, he is still alive. In the old consensus they agreed to have only dead people present in the collage. I think there is no reason to cancel that principle, as it makes it easier in choosing people on it (it reduces the selection, which makes it easier).
Any of them is fine with me. I'm just curious: What is so special about this collage, that only dead people must be in, as compared to the other pages of this kind? --Off-shell (talk) 22:32, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
I have no idea, I find it a stupid principle, but apparently it's something they agreed on in the old discussion. I read it and didn't see the rational. If it would make such a difference I'd start a discussion to get rid of that principle, but since Spielberg and Kubrick are equally notable, I think it's just easier. However, if you or anyone else feels it makes a difference we can always have a discussion and get rid of that principle through a new consensus. Mr. Sort It Out (talk) 13:58, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
The Etymology seems confusing to me. The introduction states that Ashkenazi in modern Yiddish means 'lit. "The Jews of Germany"' but the Etymology section states that the origin of the term is Biblical, referring to a son of Gomer, Ashkenaz. I understand that the term refers to a land where the Germanic Tribes originated, but a citation in the introduction and/or a discussion of the Yiddish in the Etymology section may help make this matter more clear. 190.97.117.254 (talk) 19:25, 30 October 2014 (UTC)Notnormallyawikieditor
Maybe this wasn't explained clearly enough. The origin of the word is Biblical. During later times the word was used to indicate Germany. Debresser (talk) 20:46, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Fernandez 2014
Latest comment: 10 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
Many of my fellow editors are having a dispute over this study regarding maternal lineages of Ashkenazim. I just want to make it clear that talking about the study and further examining it will be better than reverting each other 25 times a day. I encourage anyone who specializes to genetics to input useful information and opinion. Khazar (talk) 22:08, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Fernandez says nothing of Italians, that's true, but Behar 2013 does, it also says something about Sephardi Jews, north African Jews, Greeks and Cypriots. The map also shows something about IBD sharing AJs have with Greeks and Basques. Guy355 (talk) 14:13, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
That's why we use "other Europeans". No need to mention all of them. Especially since different studies seem to mention different countries. Debresser (talk) 21:54, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
This edit request to Ashkenazi Jews has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Please change in the History section:
Instead of:
"No evidence has yet been forthcoming of a Jewish presence in antiquity in Germany beyond its Roman border nor in Eastern Europe. In Gaul and Germany itself, with the possible exception of Trier, "
I propose:
"No evidence has yet been forthcoming of a Jewish presence in antiquity in Germany beyond its Roman border nor in Eastern Europe. In Gaul and Germany itself, with the possible exception of Trier and Cologne, "
Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
This edit request to Ashkenazi Jews has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
he majority of Ashkenazi Jews are descended from prehistoric European women, according to study published today (October 8) in Nature Communications. While the Jewish religion began in the Near East, and the Ashkenazi Jews were believed to have origins in the early indigenous tribes of this region, new evidence from mitochondrial DNA, which is passed on exclusively from mother to child, suggests that female ancestors of most modern Ashkenazi Jews converted to Judaism in the north Mediterranean around 2,000 years ago and later in west and central Europe.
The new findings contradict previous assertions that Ashkenazi mitochondrial lineages originated in the Near East, or from mass conversions to Judaism in the Khazar kingdom, an empire in the north Caucasus region between Europe and Asia lasting from the 7th century to the 11th century whose leaders adopted Judaism. “We found that most of the maternal lineages don’t trace to the north Caucasus, which would be a proxy for the Khazarians, or to the Near East, but most of them emanate from Europe,” said coauthor Martin Richards, an archaeogeneticist at the University of Huddersfield in the U.K.
Richards and colleagues’ story “seems reasonable,” said Harry Ostrer, a human geneticist at Albert Einstein College of Medicine of Yeshiva University in New York City who was not involved in the study. “It certainly fits with what we understand about Jewish history.”
The Ashkenazi Jews make up the majority of Jews today and most recently have ancestry in central or Eastern Europe. Previous work has demonstrated that just four mitochondrial types, pass down from four mothers, account for 40 percent of variation in Ashkenazi Jews’ mitochondrial DNA, and some researchers have published evidence of Near Eastern origins for these Ashkenazi mitochondrial types.
To further investigate the matrilineal lines of the Ashkenazi Jews, Richards and colleagues looked at mitochondrial genome sequences in living Jews and non-Jews from the Near East, Europe, and the Caucasus. Based on the results, the team concluded that, in contrast to the evidence for many Ashkenazi males, whose Y chromosomal DNA suggests a likely origin in the Near East, the female lineage of Ashkenazi Jews have substantial ancestry in Europe. Specifically, the researchers found that the four main Ashkenazi founder mitochondrial types were nested within European mitochondrial lineages, not Near Eastern ones, and an analysis of more minor haplogroups indicated that an additional 40 percent of mitochondrial variation found in Ashkenazi Jews’ mitochondrial DNA was likely of European origin. The remaining variants appeared to be from the Near East or are of uncertain origin, and there was no evidence for Ashkenazi Jewish origins in the Khazar kingdom, according to the authors.
Historical evidence indicates that Jewish communities began to spread into Europe during classical antiquity and migrated north during the first millennium CE, arriving in the Rhineland by the 12th century. Local European women could have begun to join the Jewish population around 2,000 years ago or earlier, Richards and colleagues suggest, and the Ashkenazis may have continued to recruit additional women as they headed north.
But some scientists question these conclusions. “While it is clear that Ashkenazi maternal ancestry includes both Levantine [Near Eastern] and European origins—the assignment of several of the major Ashkenazi lineages to pre-historic European origin in the current study is incorrect in our view,” physician-geneticists Doron Behar and Karl Skorecki of the Rambam Healthcare Campus in Israel, whose previous work indicated a Near Eastern origins to many Ashkenazi mitochondrial types, wrote in an e-mail to The Scientist. They argue that the mitochondrial DNA data used in the new study did not represent the full spectrum of mitochondrial diversity.
Eran Elhaik, a research associate studying genetics at the Johns Hopkins University School of Public Health, is split. He agreed with the study authors that the study rules out a Near Eastern origin for many mitochondrial lineages of the Ashkenazis but disagreed that it rules out a Khazarian contribution. “Jews and non-Jews residing in the regions of Khazaria are underrepresented, which biases the results toward Europe as we have seen in many other studies,” he said in an e-mail to The Scientist. Elhaik recently concluded from autosomal DNA that European Jews did, in fact, have a Khazarian background.
David Goldstein, a geneticist and director of the Center for Human Genome Variation at the Duke University School of Medicine, said that the questions of whether there was a Khazar contribution to the Ashkenazi Jews’ lineage, or exactly what percentage of mitochondrial variants emanate from Europe, cannot be answered with certainty using present genetic and geographical data. Even if a set of variants are present in a specific region today, that doesn’t mean that the region always had that set of variants. Some variants could have been lost due to drift, or perhaps migration altered the balance of variants present in the population.
“These analyses really do not have any formal statistical inference about evolutionary history in them,” Goldstein wrote in an e-mail to The Scientist. “They are based on direct interpretations of where one finds different [mitochondrial DNA] types today. And so the analyses are largely impressionistic.”
Nevertheless, Goldstein noted that the new study “does offer better resolution of the [mitochondrial DNA] than earlier ones, and so the suggested interpretation could well be right.”
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c)06:07, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
References
^M.D. Costa et al., “A substantial prehistoric European ancestry amongst Ashkenazi maternal lineages,” Nature Communications, doi:10.1038/ncomms3543, 2013
Wikify
Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 9 years ago8 comments5 people in discussion
This edit request to Ashkenazi Jews has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
The last sentence of the INTRO section needs to be clarified and the citations better formatted.
The old ending of the last paragraph says:
The results of the study show that today's appr. 10 million Ashkenazi Jews descend from a population of only 350 individuals who lived about 600-800 years ago. That population derived from both Europe and the Middle East.<ref>"Schuster, Ruth 'Ashkenazi Jews Descend From 350 People, Scientists Say:Geneticists Believe Community Is Only 600-800 Years Old' (Sept 9, 2014) The Jewish Daily Forward"http://forward.com/articles/205371/ashkenazi-jews-descend-from--people-scientists/</ref><ref>http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2014/140909/ncomms5835/full/ncomms5835.html</ref>
Please replace the above with this new version:
The results of the study show that today's appr. 10 million Ashkenazi Jews descend from a population of only 350 individuals who lived about 600-800 years ago.<ref>"Schuster, Ruth ''[http://forward.com/articles/205371/ashkenazi-jews-descend-from--people-scientists/ Ashkenazi Jews Descend From 350 People, Scientists Say:Geneticists Believe Community Is Only 600-800 Years Old]'' (Sept 9, 2014) The Jewish Daily Forward</ref> That population is derived from "an even mix of European and Middle Eastern ancestral populations".<ref>Journal: Carmi, S. et al. (9 September 2014). [http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2014/140909/ncomms5835/full/ncomms5835.html "Sequencing an Ashkenazi reference panel supports population-targeted personal genomics and illuminates Jewish and European origins"]. Nature Communications 5. doi:10.1038/ncomms5835. Retrieved 20 December 2014.</ref>
Just a small point, but it is important for a lead statement. We have a citation that, 'that population is derived from "an even mix of European and Middle Eastern ancestral populations". This is a viewpoint of one of the latest scientific papers, not an established fact. Esp. in the lead, one should await for peer-reviewed and area consensus.
As all editors know, the area of genetics, esp. here, is characterized by constant revision, and upending of prior results. There is scarcely a paper whose conclusions are not refined or challenged (In fact the whole historically deductive methodology is unstable so far, but one has good reason to expect this will be thrashed out within a few years).
So I think the statement requires attribution.Nishidani (talk) 18:47, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Hello, Nishdani I think this is not a small point, but a major one. In view of the large claims attributed to one study, and the fact that other studies have reached other conclusions, I strongly feel this study (or any other one study) should not be mentioned in the lede at all, but at most in the article itself. I removed it therefore from the lede. Debresser (talk) 21:19, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi, Debress. I don't have any specific objection to a mention of genetics in the lead, which per WP:LEDE summarizes, and the text does have material on this. I'd guess that to do this, we'd have to thrash out some sentence that sums up a variety of results in the most recent research. That would, however, be quite difficult. My suggestion, putting aside my personal perplexities (admittedly I think in historical terms with an eye to the philosophy of science) at the methodology* of this and many other by way of compromise, was to suggest attribution. That was a minimum. However, I commend your bold revert. These things definitely require some discussion, and this is particularly true of leads to an article where edit-warring has been destructive. Cheers Nishidani (talk) 21:27, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
I baulk at 128 self-identified (New York?) Ashkenazi as the sample. I've heard highly regarded geneticists say these kind of things should have blind sampling, otherwise the results are preselected by the method itself. But this shouldn't affect one's judgement on wiki. Nishidani (talk) 21:32, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Okay. It was late. I didn't reread the lead, just the diffs. We already mentioned the genetics in the lead. Sorry for being dopey. The lead text strikes me as fine as it stands, how Debresser left it.Nishidani (talk) 08:26, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on Feb 17th 2015
Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Very minor edit:
Change from:
"The Holocaust also effectively put an end to the dynamic development of the Yiddish language in the previous decades, as the vast majority of the victims of the Holocaust, around 5 million, were Yiddish speakers."
to "[...] vast majority of the Jewish victims [...]".
Reason: The statement makes more sense this way, as there were also millions of non-Jewish victims, few of whom will have spoken Yiddish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.109.24.98 (talk) 11:15, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
The sentences "The Greek historian Herodotus knew for the Jews whom he called "Palestinian Syrians" and listed them as naval levies serving the Persian invaders. While Jewish monotheism was not deeply effected by Greek Polytheism, the Greek way of living was attractive for many wealthier Jews." read strangely, I recommend "The Greek historian Herodotus knew of the Jews whom he called "Palestinian Syrians" and listed them as naval levies serving the Persian invaders. While Jewish monotheism was not deeply affected by Greek Polytheism, the Greek way of living was attractive for many wealthier Jews." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.99.192.103 (talk) 20:17, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Religion in infobox
Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
The "Religion" field in the infobox says "Judaism, some secular, irreligious". I'd remove "secular, irreligious", for the following reasons:
The strictly linguistic argument: "secular" and "irreligious" are not religions.
It is obvious that not all Jews are religious, and there is no need to mention that. The degree of religiousness is not specified, nor it is asked for in this field. The only thing this field asks is what religion is, or religions are, the main religions for people who are Jews?
I agree. Nearly every ethnic group has some seculars but they include the traditional religion. No other Jewish ethnic group includes secularism, even though its more common in Ashkenazim. --Monochrome_Monitor18:26, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Belgium
Latest comment: 9 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion
I just noticed that Belgium is not on the list of "Regions with significant populations" in the infobox. Since I know for a fact that it has more (Ashkenazi) Jewish citizens than at least some 5-10 other countries on the list, that fact surprises me. Debresser (talk) 00:09, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Debresser should know, and a phone call could get the local community's statistics quickly. The Jewish Virtual Library cites 30,000 while the Dutch wiki states 40,000 (without a citation). It is certainly a very significant presence, as a percentage of the population, esp in two cities and should be included.Nishidani (talk) 17:09, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
.png)
). -- Avi (talk) 16:02, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
. --Off-shell (talk) 22:32, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Done: [1]. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 17:19, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 06:07, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Already done Khazar did this seems to have done this already. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 06:02, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
