wiki143 - User contributions [en]

Christianity in Mauritius

2025-05-10T17:27:25Z

218.253.54.29: /* Christian faiths */ wow i can't believe hinduism and catholicism/christianity dropped w/ hinduism from 48.5 to 38.5 atheism and islam increased https://imgur.com/a/42hkQgc

{{Short description|none}}
{{Christianity by country}}
{{Use dmy dates|date=August 2024}}
According to the 2011 census, [[Christianity]] was adhered to by 31.7% of the population of [[Mauritius]];<ref name="2011 Census Religion">{{cite web|url=http://statsmauritius.govmu.org/English/CensusandSurveys/Documents/HPC/2011/HPC_TR_Vol2_Demography_Yr11.pdf|website=Statistics Mauritius|page=68|title=Resident population by religion and sex|access-date=13 April 2020}}</ref> 80.3% of these were [[Roman Catholic]]s.

Figures in 2020 showed that 33.06% of the population were Christian.<ref>[https://www.thearda.com/world-religion/national-profiles?u=147c World Religion Database at the ARDA website, retrieved 2023-08-08]</ref>

The [[Mauritian Creole people|Mauritian Creole]] and [[Franco-Mauritian]] ethnic groups are mostly Christian and significant parts of the [[Sino-Mauritian]] ethnic group are also mainly [[Christians|Christian]].<ref name="ChangingDefinitions"/> Mauritius gained independence in 1968 and there was no state religion in Mauritius defined in the constitution. The religious organizations present at the time of independence, namely, [[Roman Catholic Church]], [[Church of England]], [[Presbyterian Church (USA)|Presbyterian Church]], [[Seventh-day Adventist]], [[Hindu religion|Hindus]] and [[Muslims]] are recognized by parliamentary decree.

[[Roman Catholic]]s are the majority Christians, while others denominations include [[Evangelicals]], [[Baptists]], [[Anglican]]s, [[Pentecostal]]s, [[Presbyterian]]s,[[Seventh-day Adventists]], [[Jehovah’s Witnesses]], [[The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints]], and the [[Assemblies of God]]. Port Louis and the island of Rodrigues have majority Catholic populations.<ref>[https://www.state.gov/reports/2022-report-on-international-religious-freedom/Mauritius/ US State 2022 report]</ref> The country has a rich missionary history within the [[Protestantism]] branch of Christianity.

==History==
{{Multiple image|caption_align=center|header_align=center
|align=left
| total_width = 400
| width1 = 488 | height1 = 319
| width2 = 4928 | height2 = 3248
|direction=horizontal
|image1=Sub-Tropical Rambles in the land of the Aphanapteryx, Port Louis Cathedral.jpg
|image2=Port Louis, Saint Louis Cathedral.jpg
|footer=Old and new images of [[St. Louis Cathedral, Port-Louis]]
}}
Christianity first came to Mauritius with the first inhabitants, the Dutch. However, the Dutch abandoned the island in 1710.<ref name="ChangingDefinitions">{{cite web|title=Christianity history in Mauritisu|url=http://213.207.98.211/nl/33/IIAS_NL33_20.pdf|format=PDF|access-date=24 October 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110510095037/http://213.207.98.211/nl/33/IIAS_NL33_20.pdf|archive-date=10 May 2011|url-status=dead}}</ref> The French brought Christianity again when they arrived in 1715. From 1723, there was a law whereby all slaves coming to the island must be [[baptised]] Catholic.<ref name="systemsofslavery">{{cite book |title=Asian and African systems of slavery |last=Watson |first=James L. |year=1980 |publisher=University of California Press |isbn=978-0-520-04031-1 |pages=158–159 of 348 |url= https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=f4DMk9-mIJ8C&oi=fnd&pg=PA158 |access-date= 28 January 2010}}</ref> This law does not seem to have been strictly adhered to.<ref name="systemsofslavery"/> In December 1810, 11,500 soldiers from Britain in 70 vessels started to north of [[Isle de France (Mauritius)|Isle de France]] from [[Rodrigues]] to neutralize the island from the French to prevent them from using it as a base to attack [[India]]. Decaen, the French Governor, was expecting the forces in Port Louis and was surprised to see them in the Ille de France. He readily surrendered with a token resistance in the capital. The British forces allowed the French soldiers to leave and allowed the settlers to stay back. To prevent inhibition in the mind of settlers, the British pledged to preserver the laws of the land, religion, custom, language and property.<ref>[[#Richards|Richards 2011]], p. 24</ref> After they had taken Mauritius from the French during the Napoleonic Wars, the British tried to turn Mauritius [[Protestant]] during the 1840s and 1850s.<ref name="systemsofslavery"/>

Another account states that Christianity was the first religion in the island country and is the religion for both the Creole and the White population, with more than 80 per cent being Sino-Mauritans.<ref>[[#Richards|Richards 2011]], p. 36</ref>
But Franco-Mauritians, usually having the same religion and denomination as the Creoles, have sometimes emphasised their differences from the Creoles by practising more traditionally, for instance celebrating [[Tridentine Mass|Mass in Latin]].<ref>{{cite book |title= Common denominators: ethnicity, nation-building and compromise in Mauritius |last=Hylland Eriksen |first=Thomas |year=1998 |publisher= Berg Publishers |isbn=978-1-85973-959-4 |page=82 |url=https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=w4GA-2nkBb4C&oi=fnd&pg=PR9 |access-date= 28 January 2010}}</ref>

==Christian faiths==
{| class="toccolours" style="clear:right; float:right; background:#ffffff; margin: 0 0 0.5em 1em; width:250"
|-
!style="background:#A8BDEC" align="center" colspan=2|Religious census (2022) <ref>{{Cite web |date=2025-05-11 |title=Mauritius {{!}} Language, Population, Religions, Maps, History, & Facts {{!}} Britannica |url=https://www.britannica.com/place/Mauritius |access-date=2025-05-11 |website=www.britannica.com |language=en}}</ref>
|-
|style="text-align:center;background:#A8BDEC"|'''Faith'''||style="text-align:center;background:#A8BDEC"| '''Total %'''
|-
|[[Hinduism]]||style="text-align:center;" |38.5
|-
|[[Roman Catholic]]||style="text-align:center;" |24.9
|-
|[[Islam]]||style="text-align:center;" |18.2
|-
|Other Christian||style="text-align:center;" |6.2
|-
|Others/Non-religious||style="text-align:center;" |12.2
|-
| colspan="2" | ''* Other Christian - [[Seventh-day Adventists]], [[Anglican]]s, [[Pentecostal]]s, [[Presbyterian]]s, [[Evangelical]]s, [[Jehovah's Witnesses]], [[Assemblies of God]] and [[The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints]], ''
|-
| colspan="2" | ''* Others - [[Buddhism]], [[Animist]] & others''
|-
|}

Reformed tradition in Mauritius dates back to 1598 during the period of Dutch. The Presbyterian Church in Mauritius is considered an inheritor of the tradition, but in spite of having Parish Ministry in just three places, it has strong links with Parishes in Scotland, France and Switzerland. Roman Catholicism is believed to have been introduced by the [[French Colonial Empire|French]] during 1721. It is part of Bishop's Conference of Indian Ocean, it had 47 parishes and 97 priests as of 2001. The Anglican Church in Mauritius was introduced during the [[British Colonial Empire|British]] from 1810 and in modern times, is a part of Province of Indian Ocean with 16 parishes and 12 priests as of 2001. The Seventh-day Adventist Church was formed in 1914, Brethren Church in 1942, New Jerusalem Church in 1907, Christian Science in 1950, Jehovah's Witnesses in 1951 and Assemblies of God in 2000.<ref>{{cite book|title=The Encyclopedia of Christianity, Volume 3|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=7ly4DgtT3LkC&pg=PA472|page=472|editor1-first=Erwin|editor1-last= Fahlbusch |publisher=Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing|year=2003|isbn=9780802824158}}</ref>

==Government policies==
Mauritius gained independence in 1968 and there was no state religion in Mauritius defined in the constitution. The nation had no indigenous population nor any indigenous tribes or religion. The religious organizations present at the time of independence, namely, [[Roman Catholic Church]], [[Church of England]], [[Presbyterian Church (USA)|Presbyterian Church]], [[Seventh-day Adventist]], [[Hindu religion|Hindus]] and [[Muslims]] are recognized by parliamentary decree.<ref name=US>{{cite book|title=Encyclopedia of Global Religion|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=WwJzAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA762|page=762|editor1-first=Mark|editor1-last= Juergensmeyer|editor2-first= Wade Clark |editor2-last=Roof|publisher=SAGE Publications|year=2011|isbn=9781452266565}}</ref> The constitution and other laws protect freedom of religion. The groups recognized by the government before independence receive an annual sum for paying their adherents. The government allows overseas missionary groups to operate on a case-by-case basis, although there are no rules that prohibit proselytizing activities. The missionaries should obtain both residence permit and work permit to operate, which is provided for a maximum of three years, without any extension. There are lot of government holidays, most of which are religious indicating the heterogeneity of religions.<ref name=US/> As per the International Religious Freedom report of 2012 published by the United States Department of State, there were no incidence of religious abuses. The report also indicates other religions claim that Hindus have a majority in the government, while Hindus have sought a policy for anti-conversion.<ref name=US/>

==Churches==
The major and the oldest church in Mauritius is the [[St. Louis Cathedral, Port-Louis]]. Originally built by French during the 18th century, the church was destroyed in a cyclone during the early 19th century. It was rebuilt in 1925 and expanded with a twin tower in 1932. A fountain built in 1786 by Governor Vicomte de Souillac and an oil painting depicting a biblical scene, painted by A. Richard in 1855, are the major artefacts in the church. St. James Cathedral, located on the Poudriere Street is locally called cyclone shelter with its two metre thick wall of the old structure.<ref>{{cite book|title=Seven Days in Mauritius and Rodrigues|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=1nB6rWoIPCgC&pg=PA46|page=46|first1=Shaen|last1= Adey|first2= Fiona|last2= McIntosh|publisher=Struik|year=2004|isbn=9781868728275}}</ref> St. Andrews, built in 1851 and St. Johns' in 1856 in Port Louis are prominent churches built by Patrick Beaton, the first minister of [[Church of Scotland]] in Mauritius.<ref>{{cite book|title=Bones of Empire|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=6ZONBQAAQBAJ&pg=PA162|page=162|first=Brian J |last=ORR|year=2013|publisher=lulu.com}}</ref>

==See also==
*[[Roman Catholicism in Mauritius]]

==Notes==
{{reflist|30em}}

==References==
{{refbegin}}
* {{cite book|title=Mauritius: Rodrigues. Reunion|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=LNwKDAAAQBAJ&pg=PA36&|first=Alexandra |last=Richards|publisher=Bradt Travel Guides|isbn=9781841629247|ref=Richards|year=2011}}
{{refend}}

==External links==
{{Mauritius topics}}
{{Africa topic|Christianity in}}

[[Category:Christianity in Mauritius| ]]

Talk:List of female Nobel laureates

2025-05-04T09:38:10Z

218.253.54.29: /* nobel prizes by religion for women - all */

{{Old AfD multi |date=21 May 2022 |result='''Withdrawn''' |page=List of female Nobel laureates}}
{{Article history
|action1=FLC
|action1date=21:23, 28 October 2008
|action1link=Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of female Nobel Laureates
|action1result=promoted
|action1oldid=247732876
|dykentry=... that [[Marie Curie]] ''(pictured)'' is the only '''[[List of female Nobel laureates|female Nobel laureate]]''' to have won multiple Nobel Prizes?
|dykdate=23 October 2008
|currentstatus=FL
|maindate=8 August 2014
}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|class=Fl|
{{WikiProject Gender studies}}
{{WikiProject Sweden|importance=low}}
{{WikiProject Awards|importance=High}}
{{WikiProject Women's History|importance=high}}
{{WikiProject Women writers|importance=high}}
{{WikiProject Lists|class=FL|importance=}}
}}

== Why there are fewer women laureates ==

I looked through these comments and everyone seemed to be missing the blindingly obvious. Yes, you can probably make an arguement that there is discrimination going on, but, just as with the "gender wage gap", there are far more important factors in play here than just that. This is a matter of intelligence differences between the two sexes. That is not to say men are on average more intelligent than women, on the contrary, they have almost exactly the same average intelligence, although with different strengths of course. What makes the difference is that men have a higher standard deviation, as with many other aspects of human characteristics. This means that whilst they have the same average, there are more men on the fringes of the distribution curve, ie, you will find that the vast majority of the world's smartest, stupidest, tallest, shortest, skinniest, fattest, slowest, fastest, etc etc, people are men. And thus, it is because men have a higher standard of deviation in their intelligence distribution than women, that you find more men than women attain the highest academic achievements.
--[[User:82.43.47.6|82.43.47.6]] 17:34, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
::: We still suffer the effects of old discriminiations, it cannot be undone within one afternoon. One hundred years ago such banal opinions like yours were closing the way to universities for women just because they were women. Did you know that Marie Curie received finally her doctorat on Sorbonne AFTER she was granted with Nobel Price? "As the Swedes ridiculed themselves first for granting a woman, it would be not such a big shame for Sorbonne anymore to honour a woman with just a doctorate" that was the reasonning of French professors that time. "Women have a brain too weak for education", "Kinder, Küche, Kirche", and as I can see in your comment, such clichees are still alive.... [[User:Merewyn|Merewyn]] 21:35, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

::: I understand if you feel emotionally incapable of viewing this arguement rationally, but please make an effort not to put ridiculous words (such as "Women have a brain too weak for education") in my mouth. You also need to be aware of the difference between judging individuals as individuals and using statistics to analyze a population.--[[User:82.43.47.6|82.43.47.6]] 12:15, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

::: Women are not discriminated against in today's career world. Things such as the "gender wage gap" can be almost entirely explained by looking at the work habit differences between the sexes. In fact, if anything, men are discriminated against in today's society and Feminism is looking set for a backlash. --[[User:129.31.204.169|129.31.204.169]] 11:39, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I took the liberty of renaming and redirecting from the Nobel page from "Women Nobel Prize laureates" to the more correct "Female Nobel Prize laureates". 6-14-2005

This article more than obviously builds an argument. Is it a true argument? Yes, of course. Is its place on wikipedia's pages? No, definitely not.
~cryout 10-22-2205

:Yeah, this is an opinionated essay. I've added the POV tag accordingly. [[User:Fredrik|Fredrik]] | [[User talk:Fredrik|talk]] 15:26, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

::I have mixed feelings on this one. I'm not sure that Wikipedia should whitewash the truth just because it's uncomfortable or controversial. On the other hand, the writing did appear a bit non-encyclopaedic. I took a stab at editing the article to make the same point in a somewhat more restrained matter. I won't be presumptuous by removing the POV tag, but if others think it's good enough now, then go for it. [[User:Michaelbluejay|Michaelbluejay]] 18:45, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I also did some editing. I removed some of the statistics about female laureates, as they were both minor and confusingly presented, and changed one sentence to read less combatively. [[User:IronDuke|IronDuke]] 22:09, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

: Hmmmm, the figures seem to tell something that is at odds with what the Officials of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences are claiming. This being the case, the figures are the main evidence that have to be presented. These figures are objective statements of facts, not an opinion as in "minor and confusingly presented" which is subjective, LOL. What IronDuke has done is to replace facts with personal opinions when editing the article. If this is called justice, then all the best, mutilated this article as much as you want, LOL. — [[User:PM Poon|PM Poon]] 02:49, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

::I have to agree with PM Poon. The figures that were excised are central to the article's thesis, and removing them definitely make the article weaker, not stronger. I don't see the figures as "confusingly presented", but if so, the solution is to make the presentation clearer, not to throw the presentation out the window completely. [[User:Michaelbluejay|Michaelbluejay]] 18:05, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

:::Figures should definitely be there, but need to be presented neutrally and not argumentatively. The current revision seems fine to me, so I've removed the tag. [[User:Fredrik|Fredrik]] | [[User talk:Fredrik|talk]] 12:23, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

First off, let me apologize if my edits were abrupt or uncalled for. To that end, I am not going to revert or edit the article at this time, but present my case. To begin with, I have not, as PM Poon suggests, inserted my personal opinions into the article (I added no facts whatsoever to the article), nor have I suggested that the facts in question are anything but facts. But there are neverthless numerous problems with this article. Maybe the clearest way to express this is to take something Michaelbluejay wrote: "The figures that were excised are central to the article's thesis." This article ought not to have a thesis, and the fact that it does have a thesis (however correct that polemical thesis may be) is central to what makes it so problematic. I'll try to take this point by point.

:::: 1. "Critics contend that the low number of female laureates is due more to male chauvinism and sexual discrimination than to a lack of qualified female candidates. They point out that no woman has been awarded the chemistry prize in the last 42 years..." This may be perfectly true, but who are the critics? Who are these people who are "pointing things out" and "contending?" Citation?

:::: 2. "Officials of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, which selects the laureates in physics and chemistry, have countered that "the prizes reflect a long body of work, often dating back to times when women were rarely seen in laboratories"[1]." I do not know if this quote is true, but I see no refutation of it. Merely countering that "the percentage of female laureates has actually decreased" does not refute the Academy's contention. What it ''does'' do is insinuate that the Academy may be lying, or sexist, or both. Again, that may well be true, but being true does not mean that it conforms to wikipedia NPOV. It is, in fact, argumentative.

:::: 3. "from 2.6 for 1901-1950, to 2.3 for 1951-2001." Why are the statistics broken down in this manner? And again, this is argumentative, not encyclopedic. Also, when did women begin to enter the sciences in substantially greater numbers? What percentage of Nobel-worthy scientists are women? Authors? Is it possible that they are in fact over-represented, that they have received more than their "share" of Nobels? I would tend to think this is not the case, but no evidence is presented to support the idea that is being (improperly) insinuated: that women in science are the victims of sexism and this is reflected in a low Nobel count.

:::: 4. "Also, only ten out of 101 women have won the literature prize, which is non-scientific in nature." All right, perhaps I am just being dense here, but what does this mean? What does "101" refer to? Candidates? Runners-up? (See also point 3 above.)

:::: 5. "There is an ingrained system whereby established researchers and scientists tend to recommend other men for positions, and not women." This quote tends to contradict the insinuation that the Swedes are sexist liars: it affirms the Swedes' contention that there are simply not enough female scientists out there (due to institutionalized sexism) and that men will therefore tend, by sheer dint of numbers, to overwhelm female candidates.

:::: 6. "If this is called justice, then all the best, mutilated this article as much as you want, LOL." [[User:PM Poon|PM Poon]] First, I'm not really sure what the word "justice" means in this context. Does it mean that this article defends the rights and accomplishments of women and that I wish to undermine that? If so (and please, please correct me if I am wrong) then I would say that the purpose of an encyclopedia is not to defend the rights of anyone per se, and that I have no desire to see women fail or get anything less than their due in any way. As for use of the word "mutilate," I think that's a rather strong way of disagreeing with an edit that was made in good faith (even if I am wrong).

:::: 7. Last point: the link at the end is dead. Mattias Karen. Among Nobel science prizes, women lose out, The Canadian Press, October 6 2005
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_Nobel_Prize_laureates"
Category: Nobel [[User:IronDuke|IronDuke]] 00:51, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

== Own research ==

This section represents partly own research by the editor. While the presentation of opinions on disputed issues is a legitimate encyclopedic topic, it has to be backed by sources. The presentation of statistics does not belong to this section, except if it is a citation from such a source. Moreover, if an opinion is only marginal, for example, appears only in very few editorials or other published texts, it does not belong here. [[User:Ανδρέας|Andreas]] 02:02, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

== Reply to IronDuke ==

First and foremost, I wish to declare that I have no intention to enter into a debate. What I will do here is just to present my views, without any intention to defend them. Just read it for what it is worth, and if you do not agree, just throw it away... just as you would, with any garbage, LOL.

I have practically left Wikipedia English and am now in another Wikipedia website. However, as I always think in English first, and therefore have to write out my articles in English before translating them (guess you can figure out the standard of my translated articles, LOL), I have two options:
* Post my English language draft in en-Wikipedia; or
* Just throw the first draft away.
I decided on the first option, thus explaining why I am still around.

Given this brief background, you can understand why I do not have any strong opinions about this article (or any articles that I wrote after my decision to leave), and should anyone wants to delete my edit (even if unjustified), it is perfectly alright to me. Personally, what cheesed me off when I read this talk page were some of the arguments presented.

You mentioned: ''..., I have not, as PM Poon suggests, inserted my personal opinions into the article (I added no facts whatsoever to the article)...''

Had you made this statement in court, I have no doubt that you would be mauled by the defence attorney. You have made a grossly erroneous assumption that if you have not added any facts, then you have not inserted any personal opinions. The selection of which facts to present, and WHICH TO OMIT, is itself an opinion. Thus, your sentence: ''I also did some editing. I removed some of the statistics about female laureates, as they were both MINOR and CONFUSINGLY PRESENTED...'' (emphasis added) tantamounts to insertions of personal opinion.

Let me elaborate on this point:
: I agree with Michaelbluejay when he said that if the figures are ''"confusingly presented", the solution is to make the presentation clearer, not to throw the presentation out the window completely.'' It seems to me that after you had identified what you think is the problem, you applied the wrong solution. In any case, CONFUSINGLY PRESENTED is a personal opinion and not a statement of fact. Michaelbluejay, for example, did not find the figures confusingly presented. Thus, by deleting the parts that you personally found to be "confusingly presented", you have thereby inserted your own personal opinions.

: The word, MINOR, is again a subjective conclusion. How do you measure whether a point is major or minor, except by perception? Do you have a measuring instrument? A weighing machine or something? In any case, does one delete a sentence, merely because it is minor? I would think so only under circumstances where there is space constraint or where you have a word limit, in which case, you decide which points to keep and which to drop, RELATIVE to each other. If, as you contend, "minor points" ought to be deleted, a lot of stuff in Wikipedia would have to be deleted, LOL.

To me, I see that your main disagreement is that you did not like the article. This explains why your "reasons" come after you decided that you did not like it, not before. You mentioned: ''This article ought not to have a thesis, and the fact that it does have a thesis is central to what makes it so problematic.''. This "thesis" argument seems to be an afterthought, after Michaelbluejay raised it. There was no hint of it at all in your post of 4 November, LOL. (This is the reason why I do not intend to go into any debate in a forum. When one argument falters, a new one is created, LOL.)

I ought to stop here before I get drawn into a long argument, but off the cuff, I will express my views on some of the points that you have raised:

* '''Point No. 2 and 7:'''
** ''Officials of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, which selects the laureates in physics and chemistry, have countered that "the prizes reflect a long body of work, often dating back to times when women were rarely seen in laboratories"[1]." I do not know if this quote is true...''
** ''Last point: the link at the end is dead.''

: The link was put in by Petaholmes after she edited my addition which merely quoted Associated Press (AP) without any link. You may like to read the same article (also the same one that Petaholmes was trying to link to) in: http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Features/2005/10/06/1251150-ap.html.
: It is very easy to search for articles in the internet. Just cut and paste a key phrase in the quotation into Google's search engine and presto!!! Don't just say: "''I do not know if this quote is true''", LOL.

: (Note: I used the phrase, "Officials of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences the prizes reflect a long body of work", to search the article in Google. Verify it yourself, since you don't trust me, LOL. Actually, I didn't even read the internet article. I merely read the Associated Press report in a newspaper. Every word in the newspaper is exactly the same as in this web page.)

* '''Point No. 4:''' ''Also, only ten out of 101 women have won the literature prize, which is non-scientific in nature. All right, perhaps I am just being dense here, but what does this mean? What does "101" refer to? Candidates? Runners-up?''

: My original edit reads: ''Out of 101 awards conferred as of 2005, women received only ten, amounting to a mere 9.9% of all literature awards conferred as of 2005.''

* '''Point No. 6:''' ''I'm not really sure what the word "justice" means in this context. Does it mean that this article defends the rights and accomplishments of women and that I wish to undermine that? If so (and please, please correct me if I am wrong) then I would say that the purpose of an encyclopedia is not to defend the rights of anyone per se...''

: No wonder you see so many problems, real and imagined, but more of the latter, LOL. Does it ever cross your mind that justice simply means "doing justice to an article?"

Lastly, I would like to apologize for the use of the word, "mutilate", for want of a better word. After my edit, I chanced to see this article again immediately after your edit, and my first response was "Oh dear!!! Look at what they have done to this article!" LOL. Please accept my sincere apologies. Honestly, I still can't think of another word that is more suitable, but I guess my edit ought to be deleted to if this is not the right place to post it.

While you were poking holes at this article, Cryout was more succinct when he said: ''This article more than obviously builds an argument. Is it a true argument? Yes, of course. Is its place on wikipedia's pages? No, definitely not.'' ~ cryout 10-22-2205

There is a vast difference between saying that the article is biased, and saying that this article is not suitable for a portal like Wikipedia. I have just reverted the article to the original version posted by Petaholmes, and I presumed there is no necessity to debate on my expansion of her article anymore. No hard feelings, okay? — [[User:PM Poon|PM Poon]] 05:53, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

:: No hard feelings at all. I might quibble with the way you interpreted some of my statements (e.g., when I wondered if the Swedish quote was "true," I was not questioning whether it had in fact been uttered, but rather whether the Swedes themselves were correct in their own assertion). I won't bore everyone with a point by point response to you detailing again everything I meant (unless people really, really want me to). I would also add that I completely support your reversion, and that it makes the article stronger. [[User:IronDuke|IronDuke]] 06:26, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

:::I think the revert makes the article weaker. I think encyclopaedia readers will be interested to know more about female laureates -- such as their percentage compared to total laureates, and how and whether that figure has changed much over time. A mere list seems grossly inadequate for an article that could be truly informative. [[User:Michaelbluejay|Michaelbluejay]] 08:31, 9 November 2005 (UTC) 

'''Hi IronDuke''', seems like we are always misinterpreting each other, LOL. Honestly, I did not understand the second part of your sentence: "''I do not know if this quote is true, but I see no refutation of it''." When you said, you "''see no refutation''", what do you mean by "''see''"? From the context of the sentence, it is not clear to me whether "''see''" should be interpreted literally or figuratively. In any case, it makes no sense to me either way as I will explain later.

But I thought the first part was pretty straight forward. "To quote" means "to repeat a passage". When you say, "''I do not know if this QUOTE is true''", you are actually asking whether "the repetition of the passage" is true. In other words, you are questioning the act of quoting, NOT its contents. Thus, if I say, "Hey, I wonder WHETHER HIS QUOTE IS TRUE. For all I know, he may just be pulling a fast one?" Was I referring to the act of quoting or its contents?

I believe most readers would construe what you had said as meaning that I might have misquoted the Swedish Academy. Had you wanted to know whether the Swedes themselves were correct in their own assertion, it would be more apt to say, "I do not know if the Swedish contention is true".

Yet, had you truly wonder, you didn't seem to have acted as if you did, LOL. What would a person normally do when he wonders? He tries to find out the truth, no? And that was exactly what I did when I read the newspapers. Andreas had contended that "''this section represents partly own research by the editor''".

Actually, I won't call it research. I just went into Wikipedia and search for the "List of Nobel laureates". I analysed the figures to see if the critics had any case, and I must regret to say this: "Yes, there seems to be a prima facie case against discrimination." Rather than throwing away my findings, which I should have done, I thought that I might as well share it as it does take time to work out the computation and trend analysis. I did not do any research at all, unless "studying the list of Nobel laureates" tantamounts to "research". If this is so, I would tend to think that Wikipedia is not against this kind of "research", but against those involving the collection of primary data.

The very fact that you did not want to look at those figures when presented, makes me wonder whether you were truly wondering. Aren't you interested in the truth? LOL.

Now, coming to your phrase, "''I see no refutation of it''". If the Swedish assertion is what you really meant, then "''see''" cannot be literal, because as you can "see", I am refuting it. And if it is figurative, I wonder how you "see" when you didn't even bother to find out the truth, LOL. — [[User:PM Poon|PM Poon]] 00:04, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

: Perhaps you and I are destined to continually misunderstand each other. But let me take a stab at clearing up some confusion. What I meant to say (and again, apologies if I phrased it in a sloppy manner) was that the statement made by the Swedes, indicating that a lack of female Nobels was due to an overall, historical lack of female scientists, was not refuted. To quote it one more time: "the prizes reflect a long body of work, often dating back to times when women were rarely seen in laboratories"[1]." What part of the preceding quote is untrue? The statistics that followed the quote (and I question whether it was necessary or desireable to make one's own computations to "counter" the quote) seemed to me to be implying (in an oblique and "confusing" way) that the Swedes were attempting to justify a sexist dearth of female Nobels by pointing to the historical lack of female scientists while ignoring the fact that women continue to receive a significantly smaller number of Nobels than men. I found the whole paragraph was essentially an excercise in POV (even if every single part of the section was "true"), which is contrary to wikipedia guidelines, as I understand them. If left to my own devices, I would simply have cut the whole section out (as you ended up doing) but I felt that perhaps a compromise on the section and a discussion of it, rather than a unilateral deletion, would be more useful. [[User:IronDuke|IronDuke]] 00:40, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

'''Hi IronDuke''', you mentioned: "''... the prizes reflect a long body of work, often dating back to times when women were rarely seen in laboratories[1]. What part of the preceding quote is untrue?''"

To determine the truth of the statement, we need to verify against known facts. Yet, in order to verify, we must first be very clear what "long" means. What does "long" means to you? How long is "long"? 50 years, 100 years? If you have not defined how long is "long", and then verify it against known facts, how do you know that the statement is true? On what basis did you arrive at your verdict? I truly wonder, LOL.

Yet, given the ambiguity to work with, I did try to make an attempt to determine its validity by relying upon circumstantial evidence. I wrote:

:''In the first half of the 20th century (1901-1950), 2.6% of the awards in the three science categories of physiology/medicine, chemistry, and physics were conferred upon women. Yet, in the second half of the 20th century (1951-2000), despite much progress being made by women since then, the figure had dropped to 2.3%, a diminution of almost 12%.''

:''The words, "dating back to times when women were rarely seen in laboratories" are too ambiguous and ought to be defined. Notwithstanding, the argument put forth by academy officials is hardly defensible. In the past 20 years, from 1986 – 2005, '''male recipients under the age of 50 in the three science categories accounted for 13.6%, as compared to 2.4% for woman of all ages since 1901. Those aged under 50 entered the laboratories only towards 1980'''. If an apple-to-apple comparison were to be made, the answer would have been even more appalling: 13.6% for men, versus 0% for women.''

From my findings, it does seem that 13.6% of Nobel prize winners in the last 20 years were men aged below 50 who had spent less than 30 years in the labs. Does "long" includes 30 years? What I am trying to infer is that if we take the most recent 20 years when women have made the most progress in all the ages, '''the score for winners under the age of 50 is 13.6% for men, versus 0% for women'''. — [[User:PM Poon|PM Poon]] 07:12, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

== Opinion by the guy that caused the discussion ==
First off, i am glad to see that my one-liner caused such a debate. But I am not quite sure that the ultimate result should be a total removal of anything but the names of the female laureates.
I am a male, and I have been called a chauvinist indeed. Still, the fact that so few women are awarded the Nobel prize strikes me every time I think about it. And this, I believe, is among the few things that undermine the mythological status of the award.
Hence, the existance of the debate about female winners should be stated in the article. The versoin that I read in the beginning, and then criticised, did teach me some facts and I would appreciate it if they are brought back in a suitable way (best by the original author).

== Request for Comment ==
I have just had a look at the article and it looks fine to me. It currently just lists all the female winners for each prize, but it may be in the middle of an editing war and so I might have caught it at a minimalist moment. Speculation about why there are so many female laureates, or so few, is not a suitable subject for this article because there are so many other fields where a similar discussion could occur eg professions, sport and the arts. This shows that female achievement is not related to Nobel Prizes but is a separate topic in its own right. A fact-based Wiki article that analysed the reasons for and barriers to female achievement in all fields in each of the past ten or twenty decades would probably be difficult to write, though it may provide a topic for several tedious PhD theses. [[User:Jmcc150|JMcC]] 18:29, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

:I disagree that speculation as to the low number of female laureates is inappropriate for this article. It might be inappropriate for an article about *nobel laureates* in general, but certainly not for an article about *female nobel laureates*. Much good information has been excised from this article. That makes it less useful, not more. [[User:Michaelbluejay|Michaelbluejay]] 15:20, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

::I agree with Michaelbluejay. A small section properly sourced discussing the low number of female laureates would be appropriate in this article. [[User:HGB|HGB]] 04:10, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

:::I couldn't disagree more. A small section on why or how there are so few(?) female laureates has no place in this article. That is strictly an opinion on a larger debate. An article about the female laureates should not be a place for an editor to make statements of a political nature. The article should contain a short bio on each laureate and the reason for the award. It is a tragedy that everyone feels they have to insert their preposterous opinions in everything they edit. It is a sad day when one cannot restrain oneself pushing their beliefs onto others at every opportunity they can get. The opinions about why their were not 35 as opposed to 34 female laureates is subject for discussion and debate and has no place in an article about these great women. You degrade these great women and their achievements by inserting your meaningless and small opinions. You should have great same for dishonoring the memory of these persons who's achievements will be documented throughout history for rest of time.

Oh by the way a few edits are needed. The picture of Marie Curie is covering the table. Their is a logic error as well. If Bertha von Suttner was the first to win the award in 1905 then how is it that Marie Curie won the Physics award in 1903??

:Hi, Mr Anonymous, I "agree" with your opinion that we should not have opinions. I also "agree" with your statements:

::"It is a tragedy that everyone feels they have to insert their preposterous opinions in everything they edit. It is a sad day when one cannot restrain oneself pushing their beliefs onto others at every opportunity they can get."

:The only one thing that I cannot agree is why you are doing the very thing that you object so strongly to. :) — [[User:PM Poon|PM Poon]] 05:55, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

The current version of the article (just statistics and list of female Nobel winners) is far more NPOV than what I see in the history. [[User:Event|event]] 03:44, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

== Deleted Franklin ==

I'm perplexed as to why this was added. Franklin was not a laureate. Perhaps it could be part of a new "Women who should have won the Nobel Prize" article. Also, I removed the dead link the graf referenced. [[User:IronDuke|IronDuke]] 00:50, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

==Original research?==
According to Wikipolicy (see [[WP:OR]]), [[verifiable]] [[source]]s are required. Where are they to substantiate the information in this article and, in particular, the table? [[User:Truthanado|Truthanado]] ([[User talk:Truthanado|talk]]) 21:46, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
:The similar [[Black Nobel Prize laureates]] has been similarly tagged. [[User:Truthanado|Truthanado]] ([[User talk:Truthanado|talk]]) 21:46, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
::Now that the comparison table has been removed and this has been appropriately labeled as a list, it seems that it is no longer [[original research]]. [[User:Truthanado|Truthanado]] ([[User talk:Truthanado|talk]]) 00:35, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

==[[List of male Nobel laureates]]==
Is this list really encyclopedic? I wonder how long would [[List of male Nobel laureates]] survive... --[[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]]|[[User_talk:Piotrus| talk ]] 00:10, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

:See [[Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_atheist_Nobel_laureates_(2nd_nomination)]]. [[User:BlueSalo|Голубое сало/Blue Salo]] ([[User talk:BlueSalo|talk]]) 00:31, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
::The Nobel website has a list specifically for this, and it's an item of interest (notably since no woman has ever won the Prize in Economics). A male Nobel laureates list is unnecessary because 1) there's like 30 women as versus 750 men 2) it's a [[WP:NOT#INFO]]/[[WP:WEIGHT]] problem 3) it's not an item of interest for obvious reasons. — [[User:Sephiroth BCR|'''sephiroth bcr''']] '''([[User talk:Sephiroth BCR|converse]])''' 00:37, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
::As an addendum, I would endorse the results of that AfD, as none of those lists have an official list from the Nobel website, and I doubt any of them are an item of interest or pass [[WP:NOT#INFO]]. For instance, if [[List of black Nobel laureates]] was brought to AfD, I would support the deletion of the list. — [[User:Sephiroth BCR|'''sephiroth bcr''']] '''([[User talk:Sephiroth BCR|converse]])''' 00:39, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
:::Oh, that's lovely :) Where's the [[List of white Nobel laureates]]? :D --[[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]]|[[User_talk:Piotrus| talk ]] 00:47, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
::::Now that would be a useless list ;-) — [[User:Sephiroth BCR|'''sephiroth bcr''']] '''([[User talk:Sephiroth BCR|converse]])''' 00:59, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
::There is an easy solution: make [[list of Nobel laureates]] a sortable table, and add categories for gender, ethnicity, nationality, and whatsnot.--[[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]]|[[User_talk:Piotrus| talk ]] 00:46, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
:::I wouldn't support that. Past the award and the country (I'm definitely not certain on the structure of the list, but ethnicity and gender certainly would not be one of them), I wouldn't include any of those items per [[WP:NOT#INFO]]. — [[User:Sephiroth BCR|'''sephiroth bcr''']] '''([[User talk:Sephiroth BCR|converse]])''' 00:59, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
::::Well, until we get semantic wiki, I see no other solution if we want to stop more "list of [insert a random adjective] Nobel laureates" from cropping up.--[[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]]|[[User_talk:Piotrus| talk ]] 01:06, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::Delete/redirect the improper articles. We have [[WP:NOT#INFO]]/[[WP:WEIGHT]] to support us in this regard. I'm not going to include information that violates these aforementioned policies. — [[User:Sephiroth BCR|'''sephiroth bcr''']] '''([[User talk:Sephiroth BCR|converse]])''' 01:17, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
::::::AfD this one then? --[[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]]|[[User_talk:Piotrus| talk ]] 01:35, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::::[[List of black Nobel laureates]]? Certainly. — [[User:Sephiroth BCR|'''sephiroth bcr''']] '''([[User talk:Sephiroth BCR|converse]])''' 01:39, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
::::::::And this one (females)? --[[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]]|[[User_talk:Piotrus| talk ]] 02:44, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::::::Absolutely not. As I illustrated above, this is appropriate given that it is verified by the list given at the official Nobel Foundation website, and is a notable item of study. None of these other lists (black, atheist, Asian, or whatever laureates) have this sort of recognition, and thus falls into the [[WP:V]]/[[WP:NOT#INFO]]/[[WP:WEIGHT]] problem. We mirror what our sources provide, and in this case, that is true. And on the practical matter of the AfD passing, I sincerely doubt you will have a chance of it passing given that this is going for FL status right now. — [[User:Sephiroth BCR|'''sephiroth bcr''']] '''([[User talk:Sephiroth BCR|converse]])''' 02:50, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
No list of female something or other (e.g. nobel laureate) shouls exist without a male list. To have female only is sexist. No black list should exist without white or asian lists. To do so is racist. What next a list of hetrosexual nobel laureates without a list of gay ones? There should be ONLY ONE list. All the lists at present show Wikipedia to be sexist, racist and not about equality. — Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/171.97.132.44|171.97.132.44]] ([[User talk:171.97.132.44|talk]]) 11:19, 23 May 2015 (UTC) 

==Just noticed something==
Some of these winners shared the award with other people, and in some cases the rationale still reflects this, for example, the first entry for Marie Curie says "in recognition of the extraordinary services '''they''' have rendered by '''their''' joint researches". There are three solutions to this (and this could also apply to the various affiliate lists too):
#List co-winners (might be a good idea)
#Simply change all lists of "for their" to "for [her]"
#Ignore it
I think #1 might be a good idea. There are several ways you could do this:

{|class="wikitable"
|-
|1903
| [[Image:Marie Curie.jpg|75px]]
| {{sortname|Marie|Curie}} {{small|(shared with [[Pierre Curie]])}}
| [[France]]
| [[Nobel Prize in Physics|Physics]]
| "in recognition of the extraordinary services they have rendered by their joint researches on the radiation phenomena discovered by Professor [[Henri Becquerel]]"<ref name="Physics1903"/>
|}

OR

{|class="wikitable"
|-
|1903
| [[Image:Marie Curie.jpg|75px]]
| {{sortname|Marie|Curie}}
| [[France]]
| [[Nobel Prize in Physics|Physics]]
| "in recognition of the extraordinary services [she has] rendered by [her] joint researches on the radiation phenomena discovered by Professor [[Henri Becquerel]]". Shared prize with [[Pierre Curie]].<ref name="Physics1903"/>
|}
Or maybe something else. -- [[User:Scorpion0422|Scorpion]][[user talk:Scorpion0422|0422]] 17:54, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
:Did the first one. I'll get around to updating the affiliate lists sometime this afternoon. — [[User:Sephiroth BCR|'''sephiroth bcr''']] '''([[User talk:Sephiroth BCR|converse]])''' 19:04, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

== Reference to this list on article of the individual laureates ==

I have now added a link to this list (under "See also") in each of the articles on the individual female laureates. Previously the list does not appear to have been cited in any of the articles. I suggest that such a link is added in connection with all future female Nobel laureates. [[User:Davshul|Davshul]] ([[User talk:Davshul|talk]]) 15:15, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
==File:Burma 3 150.jpg Nominated for Deletion==
{|
|-
| [[Image:Icon Now Commons orange.svg|50px]]
| An image used in this article, [[commons:File:Burma 3 150.jpg|File:Burma 3 150.jpg]], has been nominated for deletion at [[Wikimedia Commons]] in the following category: ''Deletion requests July 2011''
;What should I do?
|-
|
| A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so ([[commons:COM:SPEEDY]] has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.

''This notification is provided by a Bot'' --[[User:CommonsNotificationBot|CommonsNotificationBot]] ([[User talk:CommonsNotificationBot|talk]]) 00:04, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
|}

== Photos ==

The laureates of Aung San Suu Kyi, Leymah Gbowee and Tawakel Karman all have photos in their respective articles, but not on this list. If someone could improve this list by adding properly sized versions of their photos, that would be great IMO. Finding a photo of Dorothy Crowfoot Hodgkin would be swell as well. I would do this myself if I had the competence, but alas I have do not currently have that. [[User:G913|G913]] ([[User talk:G913|talk]]) 17:02, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

== External links modified ==

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on [[List of female Nobel laureates]]. Please take a moment to review [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=781466678 my edit]. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit [[User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot|this simple FaQ]] for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081015013145/http://nobelprize.org/prize_awarders/ to http://nobelprize.org/prize_awarders/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

{{sourcecheck|checked=false|needhelp=}}

Cheers.—[[User:InternetArchiveBot|'''InternetArchiveBot''']] ([[User talk:InternetArchiveBot|Report bug]]) 12:02, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

== Really? – A list of Nobel laureates based on gender? ==

How very un-encyclopedic. [[User:Mrloop|Mrloop]] ([[User talk:Mrloop|talk]]) 11:48, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
:Why not have a list of straight Nobel laureates and one of gay Nobel laureates as well? And maybe a list of left-handed Nobel laureates? One of black Nobel laureates? One of white Nobel laureates? One of latino Nobel laureates? [[User:Mrloop|Mrloop]] ([[User talk:Mrloop|talk]]) 11:22, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

== A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion ==
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* [[commons:File:A.Munro.jpg|A.Munro.jpg]]
Participate in the deletion discussion at the [[commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:A.Munro.jpg|nomination page]]. —[[User:Community Tech bot|Community Tech bot]] ([[User talk:Community Tech bot|talk]]) 21:37, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

== A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion ==
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* [[commons:File:Vienna+25 Building Trust – Making Human Rights a Reality for All (28411548968) (cropped).jpg|Vienna+25 Building Trust – Making Human Rights a Reality for All (28411548968) (cropped).jpg]]
Participate in the deletion discussion at the [[commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Files found with (C) photonews.at/Anna Rauchenberger|nomination page]]. —[[User:Community Tech bot|Community Tech bot]] ([[User talk:Community Tech bot|talk]]) 16:54, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

== nobel prizes by religion for women - all ==

there aren't that many so i actually looked them all up and have all sources and quotations and stuff. what can i do w/ this list?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_Jewish_Nobel_laureates#nobel_prizes_by_religion_for_women_-_judaism

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_Christian_Nobel_laureates#nobel_prizes_by_religion_for_women_-_christianity

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_female_Nobel_laureates#nobel_prizes_by_religion_for_women_-_all

[[Special:Contributions/218.253.54.29|218.253.54.29]] ([[User talk:218.253.54.29|talk]]) 09:37, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Shirin Ebadi

2025-05-04T09:25:59Z

218.253.54.29: /* jewish */ new section

{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|blp=yes|vital=yes|listas=Ebadi, Shirin|1=
{{WikiProject Biography}}
{{WikiProject Human rights|importance=High}}
{{WikiProject Feminism|importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject Iran|importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject Law|importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject Women's History|importance=high}}
}}
{{Broken anchors|links=
* <nowiki>[[Mohammad Mosaddegh#Support for oil nationalisation|nationalized the oil industry]]</nowiki> The anchor (#Support for oil nationalisation) has been [[Special:Diff/400759740|deleted by other users]] before. 
* <nowiki>[[Rogue state#United States usage|embargoed countries]]</nowiki> The anchor (#United States usage) has been [[Special:Diff/770752744|deleted by other users]] before. 
}}

I am curious why this page on Shirin Ebadi contains so little information on her personal life. There is nothing on her marriage, two daughters, etc. While this information is not essential, it would be helpful. I am not the person to add that information, but I hope that someone with appropriate knowledge would do so. — Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Samgmcf|Samgmcf]] ([[User talk:Samgmcf#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Samgmcf|contribs]]) 16:04, 21 December 2018 (UTC) 

==Uncategorized==
I removed the part of the article that claimed Ms. Ebadi is an "unofficial spokeswomen for all Iranian women" because this is simply untrue. In fact, with all due respect to Ms. Ebadi, there are many better qualified Iranian women than her is many different discipline.

Unlike what the Western media likes to report, the situation of women in Islamic Iran has dramatically improved compared to the pro-West previous regime. Statistics speak volumes in this case. As of this year's statistics, nearly 1/3 of all Iranian medical doctors are women, 37% of all university professors in Iran are women and 52% of all university students are females.

The Nobel Peace Prize has become a political tool and the 2003 award was just another example. Need I remind you that Yasser Arafat, Henry Kissinger and Michael Gorbachev has also been awarded this prize?

:First: the original text didn't refer to her as an "unofficial spokeswomen for all Iranian women", simply an "unofficial spokeswomen for Iranian women." A subtle difference.

:Second, your brandishing of ''one'' set of statistics doesn't support your argument very well. What was the situation like in the early years of the Iranian revolution? What was the situation previous to 1979? We have nothing to base your claim against.

:Third: to suggest the Nobel Peace Prize is a "political tool" is simplistic. The Nobel committee has certain values and a perspective just like any conservative institution in the modern world; it tends to ''reflect'' a certain status quo. In any case, if you are critical of this institution, the place to pursue your issues would be on the [[Talk:Nobel Peace Prize|talk page]] of that article. -- [[User:Viajero|Viajero]] 16:50, 12 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Before the Islamic revolution of Iran, the total literacy rate of Iran was around 33%, and the gap between the litracy rates of men and women was huge. Today the total literacy rate is just over 80% (as of this year's statistics) and the gap is very narrow. The reason for the gap today is due to the old generation. Since Iran's population is very young, in about 10 more years the total litracy rate will be close to 100%.

In the last presidential elections in Iran there were 9 women candidates in the initial phase of the elections, but only one of them received enough votes to move up to the next phase, and she was didn't get enough votes in subsequent phase. Iran has a female Vice President and a number of prominant women parliamentarians. Women's participation in Islamic Republic of Iran in all walks of life, from driving cabs and buses to directing films and plays, is not only unique in the Islamic world, it is also outstanding by any other comparison.

Unlike many other societies where women are artificially promoted, in Iran the progress of women is natural, and thus, at a somewhat slower pace, but it is real and it is rapidly improving. With all due respect to Ms. Ebadi, the fact is that she had little to do with this movement. The improvement of the situation of women in Islamic Iran is withing the scope of the same movement that has also brought electricity, piped water, schools, clinics, radio and TV to just about all villages of Iran. Under the previous regime, you would have been very hard pressed to find a village in Iran with such facilities -- today, you would be hard pressed to find one without them.

:In any nation not ravaged by war, the literacy rates naturally increase. Just because the literacy rates increased in Iran doesn't necessarily mean that it's caused by the Islamic Revolution. [[User:128.195.100.178|128.195.100.178]] 03:41, 15 Oct 2003 (UTC)
no no no cm asi q no no no yno !! q no entendieron q no shirin la ebadi haha —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/190.27.70.57|190.27.70.57]] ([[User talk:190.27.70.57|talk]]) 22:39, 22 October 2009 (UTC) 

== Weaselspeak ==

*"The selection of Ebadi by the [[Norway|Norwegian]] Nobel committee is thought by some observers to represent an implicit criticism of [[United States|American]] policy in the [[Middle East]], in particular the [[2003 Invasion of Iraq]]. [[George W. Bush]] has referred to Iran as a member of the ''[[axis of evil]]'', and Iran has also been suggested as a possible target for ''[[regime change]]''."

I think this is [[Wikipedia:Avoid weasel terms|weaselspeak]]. Who are these observers? Isn't it more likely that the prize is a criticism of Iran?

:Thank you for pointing out this page, [[Wikipedia:Avoid weasel terms]]. I had never seen it before. I have now read it and the discussion in the accompanying Talk page.
:First, at least one "observer" is cited in the accompanying citation, [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A21850-2003Oct13.html] Perhaps you overlooked this? I decided not to cite the columnist directly, as he is not well-known. Rather, I reasoned that since this point of view was presented in a major US (!) centrist daily, that I could offer it as one generic point of view. I find support for this in [[Wikipedia talk:Avoid weasel terms]]. Note this exchange:

::The point is not to forbid particular words or phrases; the point is to use these phrases as flags that signal unsubstantiated hearsay or personal bias. -- ESP 01:30 19 Jul 2003 (UTC)

:::OK, I don't think we really disagree about the substance of the matter, I'm just a bit bothered that the page doesn't even hint that these sorts of phrases are sometimes useful and OK. Possibly it could do with a couple of counter-examples to show that such phrases can serve a purpose (I'd add some myself, but I'm feeling very lazy). --Camembert

::::Well, of course, there is an exception to every rule -- and especially rules of thumb like this one. I think in the last paragraph I give some ideas about what to do with weasel words. Weasel words camouflage hearsay or bias, and should be given extra attention because of this. They should be removed if possible, and left alone if not. -- ESP 03:20 19 Jul 2003 (UTC)

:If you think I am "hiding" POV or bias with the way the paragraph is currently phrased, please feel free to tweak it. However, I would very much like to include this POV in the article. The Peace Prize is obviously controversial and "politicized" and I think it is important to convey this aspect of it. -- [[User:Viajero|Viajero]] 12:05, 16 Oct 2003 (UTC)

:: The Norwegian Nobel Comittee never discuss the reasons for their decission. Any reasoning on why they give the prize to someone will be speculations and nothing else. The first time this was added it also pointed to the Swedish Nobel Comittee, a non existing body, and to me that indicates a missing understanding about what the Nobel prize is about and what it is not about. -- [[User:Gustavf|Gustavf]] 07:25, 17 Oct 2003 (UTC)

:::I completely agree, it is futile to speculate about the motives of the Norwegian Nobel Comittee. However, I am simply trying to indicate that the Peace can be controversial and is interpreted by people in different ways. The same discussion ensued around the previous Peace Prize for Jimmy Carter. Not to report these kind of issues is not to be a good historian. If you think the text has any implicit bias, let's discuss it. -- [[User:Viajero|Viajero]] 08:42, 17 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Khatami doesn't seem to be very pleased with the prize.
"The Nobel Peace Prize is not very important, the ones that count are the scientific and literary prizes."
[http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?click_id=3&art_id=qw1066119664306B265&set_id=1]
The way I read it, is that the hard-liners dislike the prize, while the reformists like it. There has been speculation that Khatami is under pressure from the hard-liners.
I think this is more important than the Bush connection.

---------
In defense of all of Viajero's points:

First, Iran is a huge nation with a population of nearly 70 million and with one of the world's oldest and richest cultural heritages. It is a nation of stark socio-economic, ethnic, cultural, and even religious contrasts. It's outright absurd to claim that any single figure in such a diverse, pluralistic society is an "unofficial spokeswomen for ''all'' Iranian women." However, Viajero is right to call her an unofficial spokeswoman for many Iranians.

Second, it seems that a lot of users who know far less about Iran than Viajero want to nix a sentence or two under the pretension of avoiding "weasel terms." But every damn article almost will include something like "some analysts say...;" why the selective enforcement has to target this article has been unstated. Perhaps a compromise can hinge on citing particular observers and Iran specialists. I can provide some if anyone thinks that it will be helpful.

The rest of my comments will attempt to back up the other points made by Viajero concerning the political implications of the prize.

That the US administration may have regreted the prize must be mentioned. If anyone aside from Viajero (who certainly does) follows a broad array of international media, you would note the contrasts between US coverage of the award and Europe's; attention in the United States has been largely directed toward bemoaning the slight to the 83-year-old ailing pontiff. Bush's polite, unenthusiastic response paid lip service to Ebadi's contributions, exploiting it as an opportunity to go off with the usual shrill condemnations of the Islamic Republic - a country the US has all but threatened to invade.

While we cannot explain the sources of this contrast in enthusiasm for Ebadi as a matter of fact, some qualified insights must be stated. For one, there is no question that many of Ebadi's views are completely out of step with the Bush administration's. She stands for a ''non''-Western way of looking at human rights. She has declared that "the fight for human rights is conducted in Iran by the Iranian people, and we are against any foreign intervention in Iran."

Ebadi and her colleagues are working to forge an indigenous, Islamic democracy not derived from Western models. She is a pillar of the pro-democracy reform movement with a main support base among middle class, well-educated, urban Iranians - not an exponent of "regime change." She has stated her commitment to this strategy, which has been paying off. The inroads made by native, home-grown reformers have been substantial; pressure from below has been yielding concessions and political reform from above. Iran now has the most advanced (though fledgling) multi-party democracy in the region. Meanwhile, Ebadi has reiterated repeatedly that these inroads are fragile. Consequentley, she has firmly rebuked prospects of Iraq-style "liberation," arguing that progress comes in spite on (not because of) the aggressive posturing after the "Axis of Evil" speech.

This coincides with the non-violent, democratic values and principles of the the Nobel committee, which has wanted to promote the cause of moderate Muslims since the September 11 attacks, attempting to avert a gulf of religious intolerance in both the US and the Islamic world, especially after the U.S.-led wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. She is not an appendage or tool of the Bush administration's Iran policy. In fact, she comes far closer to the Nobel-model since she favors gradual domestic reform from within Iran, not by imposition.

In this sense, Ebadi is a critic of Bush policy; and she has already noted that the administration's rhetoric and actions has buttressed - not weakened - hard-liners domestically. From her standpoint, the threat of external enemies has been used to justify the internal abuses of power by the hard-liners.

Furthermore, only the naïve and most provincial in the United States would fail to understand why a home-grown democratic reformer ''from'' Iran might not want to be seen as a toady for the US ''within'' Iran. With US troops surrounding both Iran's eastern and western fronts (Iraq and Afghanistan), US support of the once pro-Saddam anti-Iranian terrorists within Iraq, and Bush "Axis of Evil" rhetoric, hard-liners can hark to memories of the Shaw's regime and fear of war in a country where the horrors of the Iran-Iraq War are vivid memories.

To understand this, you need a century of historical context that few Americans have. Before the coup the Iranian nationalist movement headed by Mossadegh rejected a situation in which the British government had received more tax revenues from Iranian oil than Iran's, while Iran suffered from abject poverty and half of all newborns died upon birth.

For having the audacity to restructure the country's leading industry under Mossadegh, the US provided guns, trucks, armored cars, and radio communications in the CIA-assisted '53 coup against Mossadeg, which subjected Iranians to over a generation of rule by the Shah's state of terror and secret police. In addition, oil profits were divided between the Shah's regime and the a new international consortium; in turn the British were awarded 40% of the country’s oil revenues, five US firms (Gulf, Socony Vacuum, Standard Oil of California, Standard Oil of New Jersey, and Texaco) won another 40%, and the rest went to Royal Dutch Shell and French Petroleum.

While the Shah had a support base among some sectors of society, the vast majority of poor and rural Iranians who remember him despise his rule. Even Secretary of State Madeline Albright apologized in 2000 for the '53 CIA role, stating: "...it is easy to see now why so many Iranians continue to resent this intervention by America in their internal affairs."

Conseqentley, the US is tainted by this past support of the Shaw. Due to the confluence of these memories, the international context today, and domestic realities within Iran, the United States is generally viewed as a lurking threat within Iran - even among reformist elements in the middle class. And the last thing Ebadi wants is a reputation as a Bush administration toady within Iran.

Ebadi does not favor Bush's approach (direct interference in Iran's internal affairs); she does not tie her reform agenda with pro-American stances within Iran. She favors constructive engagement with Iran to strengthen the hands of the reformers within the Iranian regime, although the lesser of the evils (such as the president) yet meet her standards. She merely wants moral support from the West; and does not want to be tainted by appearing too close to a Bush administration dreaded among many elements of Iran society- even among reformers. In stark contrast, the black and white rhetoric emanating from Washington paints a picture of a monolithic totalitarian evil, disregarding moderate elements within the regime.

In short, any informed observer will be well aware of the contrasts between Ebadi's approach to Iranian democratization and Bush's Iran policy. Thus, the article has to present the qualified interpretation that the prize may have given credence to Ebadi's tactics, while critiquing Bush administration policy. Viajero is right to insist that those paragrahs remain. [[User:172|172]] 23:27, 17 Oct 2003 (UTC)

== 'Kevin Bacon' game ==

From [[User:Ark30inf]]: "Users attempting to insert criticism of George W. Bush or the Invasion of Iraq by playing the 'Kevin Bacon' game with him in every unrelated article that they can while fooling themselves/rationalizing that they are NPOV."
:No, the subject of the article has been the one criticizing Bush's Iran policy. The article is merely conveying pertinent information. Now if you see flaws in the article's text, go ahead and make a case pointing out violations in NPOV policy. But no serious person is going to be convinced by a snide comment and a silly quip. [[User:172|172]] 11:24, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)
==Fair use rationale for Image:Shirin ebadi's memoir.jpg==
[[Image:Nuvola apps important.svg|70px|left]]
'''[[:Image:Shirin ebadi's memoir.jpg]]''' is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under [[Wikipedia:Fair use|fair use]] but there is no [[Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline|explanation or rationale]] as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the [[Wikipedia:Image copyright tags/Fair use|boilerplate fair use template]], you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with [[WP:FU|fair use]].

Please go to [[:Image:Shirin ebadi's memoir.jpg|the image description page]] and edit it to include a [[Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline |fair use rationale]]. Using one of the templates at [[Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline]] is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on [[Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#Images.2FMedia|criteria for speedy deletion]]. If you have any questions please ask them at the [[Wikipedia:Media copyright questions|Media copyright questions page]]. Thank you.[[User:BetacommandBot|BetacommandBot]] 15:49, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

== Clarification ==

Intro paragraph: "She is the first Iranian, the first Shia and the first Muslim woman to receive the prize."

So, is she the first Shia to receive the prize, and the first Muslim woman. If so, should read: "She is the first Iranian, the first Shia, and the first Muslim woman to receive the prize." using an oxford comma to avoid confusion. [[User:Iheartwiki19|Iheartwiki19]] ([[User talk:Iheartwiki19|talk]]) 06:30, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

با سلام من یک دختر بهایی هستم در یک شهرستان کوچک در شمال ایران که والدینم را به جرم تبلیغ دستگیر وبازداشت کرده اند در ابتدا ما از انان کاملا بی خبر بودیم و بعد از جستجو از 110 مطلع شدیم که در بازداشت وزارت اطلاعات هستند برای ازادی ایشان از شما تقاضای کمک و یاری دارم لطفا من را راهنمایی کنید —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/217.219.170.172|217.219.170.172]] ([[User talk:217.219.170.172|talk]]) 21:13, 28 October 2008 (UTC) 

: Translation of the above from Persian by Google Translate: Hi I am a girl in a price small city in the north to the mass advertising that parents have arrested Vbazdasht first we were quite unaware of the search and then we heard that 110's are the Ministry of Information for his freedom You get help and I help you please advise me —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/216.229.7.17|216.229.7.17]] ([[User talk:216.229.7.17|talk]]) 04:11, 19 June 2010 (UTC) 

==Timeline==

Suggest the tmieline be summarized into paragraphs as it is getting quite long and some bullets on it are much more notable than others --[[User:BoogaLouie|BoogaLouie]] ([[User talk:BoogaLouie|talk]]) 15:01, 9 October 2009 (UTC
:Prominent cases and publications belong in there, but not talks and presentations: these non-notable events are bloating the list. I still think it should be kept as a timeline though. [[User:MartinPoulter|MartinPoulter]] ([[User talk:MartinPoulter|talk]]) 15:06, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

==Israeli site==

This site: [[http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3811660,00.html Ynews]] has an [[Israel]]i article about this woman.[[User:Agre22|Agre22]] ([[User talk:Agre22|talk]]) 16:00, 27 November 2009 (UTC)agre22

== Internal consistency ==
In the section Ebadi as a lawyer it says, "Ebadi now lectures law at the University of Tehran..." then in the timeline it says, "...and as of October 2009 she has not returned to Iran." It might be worth mentioning in the article how she lectures law at a University she hasn't visited in four years, or alternatively, make the article say what you mean; "She lectured law at the university of Tehran for n years from 19xx to 19xx". Cheers. '''[[User:Cottonshirt|Cottonshirt]][[User talk:Cottonshirt|τ]]''' 03:45, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

== External links modified ==

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to {{plural:3|one external link|3 external links}} on [[Shirin Ebadi]]. Please take a moment to review [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=680151434 my edit]. If necessary, add {{tlx|cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{tlx|nobots|deny{{=}}InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100923032557/http://abclive.in/abclive_global/iran_shirin_ebadi_nobel_peace_medal_tax.html to http://abclive.in/abclive_global/iran_shirin_ebadi_nobel_peace_medal_tax.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20091228115257/http://www.google.com:80/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5hq--xvG_d0KxKFwGmH2qdlTjxh6A to http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5hq--xvG_d0KxKFwGmH2qdlTjxh6A
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20091103085348/http://www.marquette.edu//research/honors_ebadi.shtml to http://www.marquette.edu/research/honors_ebadi.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the ''checked'' parameter below to '''true''' to let others know.

{{sourcecheck|checked=false}}

Cheers. —[[User:Cyberbot II|cyberbot II]][[User talk:Cyberbot II|Talk to my owner]]:Online 01:39, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

== When did she become a judge? ==

The article currently states, "she officially became a judge in March 1969," and then later in the same paragraph says, "In 1975, she became ... the first ever woman judge in Iran." So, did she become a judge in 1969 or 1975? (I understand that it is possible that both are true; for example, she might have become certified as a judge in 1969 but only started working in such a capacity in 1975. If something like that is the case, then it should be explained to avoid any confusion.) [[Special:Contributions/74.71.79.71|74.71.79.71]] ([[User talk:74.71.79.71|talk]]) 19:15, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

== External links modified ==

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on [[Shirin Ebadi]]. Please take a moment to review [[special:diff/814667689|my edit]]. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit [[User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot|this simple FaQ]] for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added {{tlx|dead link}} tag to http://www.chathamdailynews.ca/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=1447519
*Added {{tlx|dead link}} tag to http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/S/SHIRIN_EBADI_NOBEL_SEIZED?SITE=AZMES&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081203123529/http://www.williams.edu/home/commencement/2004/ebadi_cit.php to http://www.williams.edu/home/commencement/2004/ebadi_cit.php
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110723170028/http://www.internationalservice.org.uk/what_we_do/development_awareness/human_rights_awards/awards_2009/dr_shirin_ebadi.aspx to http://www.internationalservice.org.uk/what_we_do/development_awareness/human_rights_awards/awards_2009/dr_shirin_ebadi.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

{{sourcecheck|checked=false|needhelp=}}

Cheers.—[[User:InternetArchiveBot|'''InternetArchiveBot''']] ([[User talk:InternetArchiveBot|Report bug]]) 05:04, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

== Early life ==

The "Early life" section at the beginning of this page does not belong there. It's a strange summary of the page and is not in order with Wikipedia's formatting for pages.

[[User:Apathyash|Apathyash]] ([[User talk:Apathyash|talk]]) 17:19, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

== jewish ==

i don't think shirin ebadi is jewish. i tried asking nima yamini. e told me shirin isn't but nima is even though they are cousins. e told me 'last message' at some point so won't elaborate how they're related.

idk what do you think? but wow there are many jewish christians (either convert or descent) who won nobels and 2 million jewish christians in the US and 0.5 million jewish buddhists in the US yet virtually 0 million jewish muslims on earth and then i think [[Tali Fahima]] is the only living jewish muslim w/ a wikipedia page... and yes christians/ex-christians comprise about 20% of [[Jewish Nobel laureates]] but like really 1 jewish muslim and actually a jewess muslim won a nobel?! WOW [[Special:Contributions/218.253.54.29|218.253.54.29]] ([[User talk:218.253.54.29|talk]]) 09:25, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

Talk:History of the Jews in Russia

2025-05-04T08:53:36Z

218.253.54.29: /* source for the 17% Russian Jewish Christians pls? */

{{ArticleHistory|action1=PR
|action1date=17:06, 9 March 2006
|action1link=Wikipedia:Peer review/History of the Jews in Russia and the Soviet Union/archive1
|action1result=reviewed
|action1oldid=42769034
|
|action2=GAN
|action2date=00:40, 11 July 2007
|action2result=listed
|action2link=Talk:History of the Jews in Russia#GA Review
|action2oldid=143860844
|
|action3=GAR
|action3date=23 July 2008
|action3result=delisted
|action3link=Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/History_of_the_Jews_in_Russia_and_the_Soviet_Union/1
|action3oldid=225588356
|
|currentstatus=DGA
|topic=History
}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|1=
{{WikiProject Jewish history|class=C|importance=High}}
{{WikiProject Russia|importance=High|ethno=yes|hist=yes}}
{{WikiProject Soviet Union|importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject Ethnic groups|importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject History|importance=high}}
{{WikiProject Judaism|importance=high}}
{{WikiProject European history|importance=high}}
{{WikiProject Israel|importance=high}}
}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
| algo = old(180d)
| archive = Talk:History of the Jews in Russia/Archive %(counter)d
| counter = 2
| maxarchivesize = 125K
| archiveheader = {{Aan}}
| minthreadstoarchive = 1
| minthreadsleft = 3
}}
{{archivebox|auto=long|bot=Lowercase sigmabot III|age=180}}

== The Holocaust ==
The section in the article reads : ''33,771 Jews of Kiev shot in ditches at Babi Yar''. From what I have seen in a TV interview of one of the survivors, she said ''300,000 thousand died, and only 300'' survived (PBS Documentary Russia's War). —The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by [[User:71.247.18.146|71.247.18.146]] ([[User talk:71.247.18.146|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/71.247.18.146|contribs]]) 17 August 2006.

==Joseph Trumpeldor==
There is signature under picture :> Joseph Trumpeldor, the most decorated Jewish soldier in the Russian Army for his bravery in the Russo-Japanese War:
But on the picture i cant see any single order? Is somebody make a jock ?
—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by [[User:76.16.183.57|76.16.183.57]] ([[User talk:76.16.183.57|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/76.16.183.57|contribs]]) 30 October 2006.

==Pale==
This article appeared in Russian Yearbook 1912 (pp 704-707) under the title JEWS transliterated in this form to English;

As far as is known, the first Jewish immigrants reached Poland in very early times from countries on the Lower Danube and from the kingdom of Khazars who had accepted the Jewish faith.
The national sagas and legends show their importance in this early era. At the end of the 11th
century many entered Poland from Germany, and in 1264 Boleslas the Pious granted them numerous priviliges which were extended by Casimir the Great in 1334, in which year the great statue concerning of them, called Jus Magdeburgium, was enacted, followed another called the Privilegia Judaeorum in 1337. The Jews soon spread to Courland, Lithuania and the Ukraine, so that there were in the 18th century numbers of Jews living in Poland and on the Russian frontier, the prohibitive policy of that country making any movement across the border impossible. The law of 1789 gave the Jews the right to live in certain provinces, but in 1792
a great change took place. The first partition of Poland gave to Russia White Russia and part of Lithuania; the second in 1793, and the third in 1795 added the ten Vistula provinces, and in
annexing this land, Russia obtained at least half of the entire Jewish race of as subjects. The Russian cencus of 1897 gave the total number of Jews in Russia as 5.215.805. In 1835 the Jews were by the "Code of the Rights of the Jews" confined to to certain districts of the Empire, these districts constituting the so called "Pale". The "Pale" consists of twenty - five of the provinces of the entire Russian Empire. It begins immediately south of the Baltic Provinces, streches throughout the west, and extends over the south as far east as the Don Cossack Territory. It covers about 362.000 square miles, or less than 20 per cent. of European Russia, and only a little over 4 per cent. of the entire Russian Empire. The "Pales" include;

1) In the Kingdom of Poland (or the region of the Vistula) the Province of Warsaw, Kalish, Kielce, Lomzha, Lioublin, Piortkoff, Plotsk, Radom, Souvalki and Siedlce.

2) In Lithuania, the Provinces of Vilna, Kovno and Grodno.

3) In White Russia, the Provinces of Minsk, Vitebsk and Moghileff.

4) In south-western Russia, the Provinces of Volhynia, Podolia, Kieff (expect the city of Kieff), Tchernigoff and Poltava.

5) In southern (new) Russia, the Provinces of Bessarabia, Kherson, Ekaterinoslaff and Taurida (except the city of Yalta).

The following specified classes of Jews are given privilege of domicile throughout the Empire:

1) Merchants of the first guild, i.e. merchants paying a very high business licence, after having paid that licence somewhere within the "Pale" for five consecutive years. This right of living anywhere in Russia, outside of the "Pale" lasts only as long as the payment of the licence is continued, but after ten annual payments the permanent right of domicile within the city in which the payment have been made is acquired.

2) Professional men and women, such as physicians, lawers, dentists, engineers, army surgeons, midwives, and graduates of universities and higher institutions of learning in general. as well as studets in such institutes.

3) Master-artisans working at their trade when admitted to their artisans´ guild, or possessing the necessary legal evidence of proficiency in their craft.

In all these cases the aquired right of domicile extends to the members of the family, and in the case of merchants of the first guild and the proffesional persons, to a limited number of servants and clerks of Jewish faith. In regard of the Jewish artisans, the lomitations are much more numerous, and in 1881 their further emigration from the "Pale" into the interior of the Empire was made exceedingly difficult, and the artisans who were living in the city, as well as in the government of Moscow, were compelled to leave. discharged soldiers form the considerable portion of jews permitted to live throghout Russian Empire, including the Grand Duchy of Finland; this right is granted only to those who served in the army prior to 1874. This class, therefore, cannot increase in number. The temporary sojourn outside the "Pale" of Jews who have no right of permanent domicile, is strictly limited by law to from six weeks to two monts, and then only in cases of proved necessity, such as law-suit, commercial transactions, or proving a will.

93.9 per cent. (4.879.640) of the Jews in Russia live in the "Pale", 4 per cent. (208.635) live in the remainder of European Russia, and 2.1 per cent. (109.530) live in all the Asiatic possessions of the Empire. Thus most of the Jews live in the "Pale", but they constitute only 11.6 per cent. of the entire population. Everywhere in the "Pale" there is terrible congession of the Jews, both in towns and cities, due, in the main, to the Laws of 3 May 1882, which were promulgated as a result of the Jewish riots of 1881. These laws prohibited the further settlement of Jews outside cities and towns, and in practice meant the expulsion of multitudes of Jews from villages where they had already settled. In 1891, by the new law, thousands of Jews were expelled from Moscow and forced forced to live in the "Pale", and Jews were prohibited from buying land or renting it from the peasants. In 1897,of the total urban population of the "Pale" 37.7 per cent. were Jews. It must here be stated that there are villages called "Miestechkoes", where Jews have the right to settle; in every case the Jews have made these into the commercial centres for the numerous outlying Russian villages.

In the "Pale" 29 per cent. of the Jews are engaged in agriculture, and 32 per cent. in commerce, whilst 63.2 per cent of the non-Jews are engeged in agriculture and only 1.4 per cent. in commerce. It is calculated that a Jewish agricultural household´s annual budget is 300 Roubles = about £ 30, but the average annual earnings are not more than 139 Roubles = £ 14. The average plot of ground owned ny a Jewish colonist is smaller than that of his Russian peasant neighbour. Thus in 1897 in the six north-western provinces and four south-western provinces, the Russian peasant had on the average 6.1 and 4.7 acres respectively, but the Jewish peasant had 4.1 and 1.9 acres. In the whole Empire 6.422.684 acres are in Jewish hands, Of this quantity 4.336.829 acres are in the "Pale", but this is only 1.5. per cent. of the whole agricultural land in the "Pale". In Poland, of the land occupied by the Jews, 86 per cent. is ownwed, and 14 per cent. is leased. In the remaining provinces of "Pale" 32.5 per cent. is owned
and 67.5 per cent leased.

The following are the most important enactments and Senatorial decisions, given in chronologial order;

1892 17 February. In accordance with a proposal of the Imperial Council, the mining industry in Turkestan is closed to Jews.

1892 2 Juni. An Imperian order, following a proposal of the Imperial Council, to the effect that throughhout the governments of Tiflis, Kutais, Baku and Elisavetpol, as well as in the State domains and privately owned lands in the province of Kouban and Terek, the acquisition or exploitation of oil-fields by Jews, as well as their adminstration, shall be allowed only by special permission of the Ministers of Interior and of Finance, as wellas of the Caucasian Commander-in-Chief.

1892 11 June. A decision of the Imperial Council that Jews shall not take part in municipal elections, and that they shall be excluded from municipal adminstrative positions. Within the "Pale", however, the adminstration expects a certain number of Jews, who are eligble for election as municipal councillors, but their number must not exceed one-tenth of the whole body, and is to be fixed by the Minister of Interior.

1892 18 June. A law establishing a special right of residence in the provinces of Kouban and terek. The indigenous Jews may remain in the places where they are registered, but only in these places, their liberty of movement thus being restricted. All other Jews, with a few exceptions, are forbidden to settle in provinces. the four privilidged categoties have had their rights curtailed. Those Jews who are allowed to remain are forbidden to acquire or rent further property.

1892 15 October. Withdrawal of the righ of residence in the government of Moscow (including the town itself) from soldiers of the old regime (so called "Nikolai" soldiers).

1893 14 January. A circular of the Minister of the Interior cancels the orders of the former Ministers Makov and Tolstoi (21 April 1882), establishing the principle that all Jews who had settled outside the "Pale" prior to April 3 1880, should be left undisturbed.

1893 24 May. an order excluding the health resort of Jalta (the faourite summer resicence of the Imperial family in the Crimea) from "Pale" of settlement.

1893 6 October. A circular of the Medical Department fixing the "percentage rule2 for apothecaries´ apprentices at 3 per cent. of the total number in St.Petersburg and Moscow, and at 5 per cent. in all other places.

1894 30 November. A Senatorial decision to the effect that the Jews of Kieff cannot become merchants of the first Guild until they have paid their licence in some part of the "Pale" of Settlement for at least a year.

1894 23 December. A circular of the Minister of the Interior decreeing that Jews who have graduated as veterinary surgeons in the veterinary college are no longer be admitted to the service of the State.

1895 18 January. A Senarorial decision that rabbis possess no right of residence beyond the "Pale" of Settlement.

1895 27 January. A Senatorial decision depriving Jews of the right of residence in the fifty-verst boundary zone, even though they are possessed of diplomas procuring them the universal privilige of domicele, unless they are descendants of Jews who have been settled there from time immemorial. The same ruling had been made as far back as 1887 in the case of artisans and merchants of the firts Guild.

1895 27 January. A circular of the Minister of the War instructing the Cossack authorities in the Caucasus and the Don territory that Jews visiting the Don. Kouban, and terek provinces for the sake of medicinal waters are not to be admitted.

1895 13 September. A Senatorial decision depriving Jewish agriculturists of the right to rent land outside the precincts of the towns and townlets. A similar decision of later date applies to artisans.

1896 9 March. A regular of the Military Council ordering Jewish soldiers, inless they belong to the privilidged categories, must not spend their forlough outside "Pale" of Settlement.

1897 31 January. A Senatorial decision to the effect that soldiers of the old regime possess no right of residence in the Caucasian provinces of Joubain and Terek.

1897 31 January. A senatorial decision according to which ink-makers are not rank as artisans, and consequently do not possess the universal right of domicile. the latter decisions applies the same ruling to tobacco workers.

1897 26 March. A Senatorial decision that outside the "Pale" of Settlement students as such (unless they possess a special domiciliary privilege) are entitled to the right of residence only in the unversity town whwre they are studying.

1897 26 March. A Senatorial decision that local Jews belonging to the merchants´ corporation of Riga are not entitled to transact business in the district of Riga.

1897 2 June. A law to effect that the admittance of Jewesses to the Women´s Higher Institute of Medicine in St.Petersburg is to be limited to 3 per cent. of the total number of students.

1897 13 November. An Imperial order depriving Jews and Jewesses studying pharmacy, or attending schools of surgery and midwifery respectively, of the right to residence in the town or government of Moscow for this purpose.

1898 18 February, 14 April, and 8 December. A Senatorial decision to the effect that fish-curers, piano-tuners and land surveyors do not belong to the privilidged artisan categories, and are therefore declared to be of non-priviliged occupations, thus possessing no right of residence beyond the "Pale" of Settlement.

1898 18 February. According to an earlier law, merchants of the first Guild, after paying Guild tax outside the "Pale" of Settlement for ten years consecutively, gained the universal right of residence even when they ceased to belong to the Guild.

1898 27 February. A Senarorial interpretation of the law limits this privilege to the town where the Guild tax has been paid.

1898 18 March. A Senatorial decision extends the restrictions relating to the right of recidence in Kouban and Terek to all artisans who have not been assigned to this region. Two years later (18 January 1900) a similar decision is applied to merchants of the first Guild.

1898 25 November. A Senatorial decision decides that Jews who are natives of Riga are not entitled to live in Livonia, but only in Riga and its suburbs.

1898 18 December. A Senarorial decision stating that the right of residence throughout the Empire which has been granted to various categories does not extend to Siberia.

1899 22 January. An Imperial order to the effect that, in the government of Moscow, Jews can be registered as merchants of the first Guild only by permission of the Minister of Finance and the Governor-General of Moscow.

1899 19 May. A Senatorial decision to the effect that the manufacture of mineral water, not being a handicraft, ranks among non-priviliged occupations, and therefore does not confer the right to residence outside the "Pale" of Settlement.

1899 28 May. A Senatorial decision that outside the "Pale" of Settlement the right of residence is vested only for those Jewish domestic servants whose masters possess university diplomas. No other categories of privileged Jews can transfer their domiciliary right to thir servants.

1899 6 October. A Senatorial decision stating that certificates gained by Jewish artisans in Courland are not valid for the rest of the Empire.

1899 14 October. A Senatorial decision according to which artisans living beyond "Pale" of Settlement are noot entitled to sell their own products in any other place than where they are domiciled.

1900 28 May. An Imperial order forbidding the entry of Jews who have acquired an hereditary title of nobility, in the Govenrmant register of nobles.

1900 5 June. A Senatorial decision ruling that compositors, not belonging to the artisan class. possess no right of residence beyond the "Pale" of Settlement.

1901 28 November. A Senatorial decision to the effect that the Jew inheriting a title of nobility does not on account possess the right to serve the State, unless he is also the possessor of a university degree.

1901 19 December. A Senatorial decision that descendants of Jews exiled to Siberia as well as descendants of persons transplated there by Nikolai I. must remain in that particular district where they have been registered.

1902 2 November. A Senatorial resolution according to which dentists, surgeons, and midwives possess the right to residence beyond "Pale" only while they are exclusively engaged in following their profession.

1903 10 May. An order forbidding Jews to purchase, lease, or manage estates beyond the "Pale".

In 1905 a commission was appointed to inquire into the Jewish question, and the Government held out promise of revising the legal status of the Russian Jews and minimizing the disabilities under which they labour.

JN

== source for the 17% Russian Jewish Christians pls? ==

the original and the archived are unclear.

also even other stuff

> 96.5% of the enlarged Russian Jewish population in Israel either belong to Judaism or are non-religious, while 3.5% (35,000) belong to other religions (mostly Christianity) and about 10,000 identifying as Messianic Jews separate from Jewish Christians.[171]

and

> A survey conducted among approximately 215,000 enlarged Russian Jewish population (taking natural decrease into consideration) indicated that about 81% of the enlarged population was religiously Jewish or Atheist, while about 18.5% identified as Christian. That gives a core Russian Jewish population of 111,800 (religiously Jewish, 52%) or 174,150 (religiously Jewish or Atheist).[192][193]

[[Special:Contributions/218.253.54.29|218.253.54.29]] ([[User talk:218.253.54.29|talk]]) 08:51, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

EDI

2025-05-04T00:19:00Z

218.253.54.29: /* Government */ The Economist Democracy Index

{{wiktionary|edi}}
'''EDI''' may refer to:
{{TOC right}}

==Government==
* [[European Deterrence Initiative]], a US defense program for strengthening European defenses
* [[Federal Department of Home Affairs]] (German: ''{{Lang|de|Eidgenössisches Departement des Innern}}''), the Swiss interior ministry
* [[The Economist Democracy Index]]

== Media ==
* [[Edi (film)|''Edi'' (film)]], a 2002 Polish film
* [[EDI (Mass Effect)|EDI (''Mass Effect'')]], a character in the original ''Mass Effect'' trilogy

==People==
* [[Edi (given name)]]
* [[E.D.I. Mean]] (born 1974), American rapper
* [[Guy Edi]] (born 1988), Ivorian-French basketball player

==Technology==
* [[Electronic data interchange]], a data standard
* [[Enlightenment (software)]], an integrated development environment
* [[Electrodeionization]], a water purification process

==Other uses==
* [[Eating Disorder Inventory]], a self-report questionnaire
* [[Edinburgh Airport]] (IATA code), in Scotland
* [[Edithvale railway station]], Melbourne
* Equality, diversity, and inclusion (EDI), also called [[diversity, equity, and inclusion]] (DEI), an organizational frameworks which seek to promote "the fair treatment and full participation of all people", particularly groups "who have historically been underrepresented or subject to discrimination" on the basis of identity or disability.
** ''[[Equality, Diversity and Inclusion]]'', an academic journal on these topics
* [[Evans-Deakin Industries]], a former Australian engineering company
* [[UCL Eastman Dental Institute]], of the University College London

{{disambiguation}}

Tedi

2025-05-04T00:18:54Z

218.253.54.29: /* Acronyms */ The Economist Democracy Index

'''Tedi''' may refer to:

== Acronyms ==

* [[Trans-European Drug Information]] (TEDI)
* [[The Economist Democracy Index]]

== People ==
* [[Tedi Thurman]], American model and actress (d. 2012)
* [[Tedi Sarafian]], American screenwriter
* [[Tedi Cara]], Albanian professional football player
* [[List of Bulgarian film directors|Tedi Moskov]], Bulgarian film director

== Media ==

* [[Tedi Medi Family]], Indian sitcom television series

{{Disambiguation}}