text:
Talk:Sadducees

Sadducees, Karaites, and Oral Torah
Hi. It's really not so clear as to what their position was regarding oral law. It is still up for debate, but then again, even the Karaites did not reject oral law--they rejected a specific oral law. As for life after death, their beliefs are entirely a matter of conjecture. Whatever position we take, there will be someone who rejects it. Danny 20:37 Feb 17, 2003 (UTC)

That's not correct. I am a Karaite. We reject the Oral Law. One may choose to follow it if he/she wishes, as long as it does not contradict the Tanakh and as long as they do not make that tradition on par with Torah. --Yoshiah ap 14:40, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)

 * I don't profess to know other than what I found in two Christian reference books written as Bible helps. What I wrote is I hope a fair summary what these books told me about how the Sadducees were presented in the Talmud.  What you seem to be saying is that the Talmud may not be accurate as to their beliefs.  I got that too, and tried to make it clear in the article that the positions attributed to the Sadducees may not have been what they actually held.  If you think you can make it clearer, feel free.  ---Ihcoyc

The problem is that both sources--Christian reference books and the Talmud--are writing from the perspective of people who disagreed with the Saduccees and are trying to place them within their own world view. I have a couple of sources at work that I could check tomorrow, but I was actually reading about it a couple of months ago, and it really is pretty murky. Danny 01:43 Feb 18, 2003 (UTC)

 * The Apocryphal Book of (Ben) Sirach was written by a Saducee--Yoshiah ap 22:00, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)

They were republicans, and thats no compliment.--Stevert

Yeah, let's go Libertarian and get rid of both evils. --Yoshiah ap 14:40, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)

And what evidence is there that any sect of the Saducees accepted the entirety of the Hebrew Bible? -Drew —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.58.82.136 (talk) 15:09, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to compare with this wiki article
 * -  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Standforder (talk • contribs) 09:00, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Introductory Edit Dispute
Yoshia removed this historically documented factual text under the impression that it is POV.
 * Sadduccees were members of a political sect of Judaism that came into existence from 175BCE after Yehoshua Ben-Shimon II (pop. Jason) bought the right to be high priest from Antiochus IV Epiphanes. Their influence lasted until around the collapse of the second temple in 70CE. They displaced the legitimate Zadokite priesthood and userped their name, but after Yehoshua Ben-Shimon II were not even genealogically qualified to be Highpriests.

Since Karaites are said to descend from Sadducees I can see how this might be difficult to swallow, but I notice that Karaites do not actually claim this link themselves. The fact is that the Zadokites were forced from the temple from 175BCE onwards and those who called themselves sadducees in Jerusalem from that time until the temple was destroyed were in fact just politically powerful pretenders. Caiaphas included.Zestauferov 07:37, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * "They displaced the legitimate Zadokite priesthood and userped their name, but after Yehoshua Ben-Shimon II were not even genealogically qualified to be Highpriests" - that cannot be proven. Do you have any of their geneologies? Can you prove whether, or not, they were part of the lineage of Zadok, or not? Ignoring that issue, some (not all) of the Pharisees were equally "just politically powerful pretenders", and were the ones who betrayed Jerusalem when Rome beseiged it.--Josiah 14:20, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I do not know where the original evidence comes from, but I do know that several experts in the field (e.g. Falk, Maccoby, Chilton) including the Jewish encyclopaedia write about the matter. Pharisees could not have been pretenders because there was no requirement for them to be Kohanim, while real Zadokites had to be. Why should it matter so much to you anyway? I thought that Karaites were descended from a variety of jews who rejected the oral tradition.Zestauferov 23:42, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * I wasn't speaking about the matter of Kohanim, but let's hit the other subjects instead. The Jewish Encylopedia does not say they were not Kohanim geneologically, it mentions that the High Priest was a Sadducee who had been put in place by Rome. Why should it matter to me? For the same reasons it matters to you. Emet.--Josiah 22:58, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

For turth! :-) It is so nice to find people on wiki without an angle, I am sorry for connecting your interest in the article to your religion. Hope you can forgive me for that. Now I was speaking only about the fact that Zadokites had to be Kohanim until 175BCE, then after it became possible to buy the position the original Zadokites left in protest, while the new high-priests who according to the authors I have mentioned believed there was no requirement to be a Kohanim. Isn't this good enough to mention in the article?01:53, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * No problem. There has always been a requirement to be a priest - priestly descent. If they had not had the geneology, no one would have let them perform the rituals. My biggest objection to your edit is that it says that the Saducees were not Priests at all. I'll start a new section to this discussion page, and let's work on showing both views in a NPOV manner.--Josiah 02:25, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Working towards a NPOV intro
July 13, 2007: I have fixed the one reference to BC and the one reference to AD...This are not very nice things to write in an article concerning Judaism. We accept the terms BCE, and CE, respectively instead, since the terms BC, and AD are specifically references to the Christian Church and the Gregorian Calendar....

Hi Z. Below is my proposal for a new introduction. I've tried to merge both the important parts of your edit, and the existing version. Please tell me what you think.

''The sect of the Sadducees - which may have originated as a Political Party - was founded in the second century BCE and ceased to exist sometime after the first century CE. It's rival, the Pharisees, is said to have originated from the same time period, but has survived as Orthodox Judaism.''

''The name "Sadducees" in Hebrew is "tsedduqim", a name they adopted to indicate that they were descendants of the High Priest Zadok, who anointed Solomon king during the First Temple era. While little or none of their own writings have been preserved til today, they seem to have indeed been a priestly group, associated with the leadership of the Temple in Jerusalem. Some say that they were not truly descendants of the High Priest Tzadok, but rather the followers of another Tzadok who rebelled against his Rabbinical Teacher.''

''Most of what we know about the Sadducees comes from Josephus, who wrote that they were a quarrelsome group whose followers were wealthy and powerful, and that he considered them boorish in social interactions. We know something of them from discussions in the Talmud, the core work of rabbinic Judaism, which is based on the teachings of Pharisaic Judaism. However, historians find the Talmud's historical statements on many issues to be suspect.''

--Josiah 02:37, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * If there are no objections, I'll change the page to match the above, before Shabbat--Josiah 10:37, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Yes it looks good, but since the three authors (experts in their field) seem to have some sources which indicate the Kohanim Zadokites went to the Deadsea sometime after 175BCE and that the High-priests after that date until the end were not all Kohanim as they were supposed to be don't you think that this deserves som mention too?Zestauferov 16:20, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * We can't be entirely sure all of whom was at the Qumran Caves. Some say the Essenes were there. Some say the Saducees were there. Some say that the forces of Bar Kokhba were there. Some say all of them were there. Most, if not all of it, is speculation.--Josiah 19:25, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

An important change must be made: "It's rival, the Pharisees, is said to have originated from the same time period, but has survived as rabbinic Judaism. Rabbinic Judaism is characterized by adherence to the rabbinic understanding of the oral law, as understood by Jewish codes of law and the responsa literature. This would include modern day denominations of Judaism such as Hasidic Judaism, Orthodox Judaism and Conservative Judaism. RK

 * I disagree. A link can be made to the Judaism (or Orthodox Judaism) page where a person could learn more about the Orthodox POV. I feel this would be better because the Judaism page would do a better job of explaining these concepts, and because it seems to drift from the main subject (imo). Would that be suitable?--Josiah 19:25, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * This is unclear. With what specifically do you disagree? What about the fact that many descendants of the Pharisees, still living by rabbinic Jewish law, are not Orthodox Jews? RK

 * I don't think that change needs to be made. Is the Sadducee page the place to be describing Orthodox Judaism? I think linking to the Orthodox Judaism page would do an equal, if not better job.--Josiah 23:39, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * Oh, I agree. Maybe I should rephrase. I just don't think we should say that "the Pharisees, is said to have originated from the same time period, but has survived as Orthodox Judaism." This just seems a little too specific. Maybe we could say "but has survived as the later forms of rabbinic Judaism." RK

 * Sounds good.--Josiah 02:35, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

RK, does that also include Progressive, Reform, Liberal, Humanist, and Reconstructionist Judaism in your opinion?Zestauferov 16:20, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * Humanists Jews do not even pretend to be pharisees or to follow rabbinic Judaism. Reform (aka Liberal) Jews themselves state that they no longer accept the oral law and rabbinic Judaism as normative. By that alone, they cannot be pharisees or rabbinic Jews. Similarly, they deny that they should live by halakha. Instead, they make the different claim of being a form of authentic Judaism, yet they don't claim to be pharisees, they don't claim to follow rabbinic Jewish law, they don't claim to adhere to the oral law, etc. No other group in history has ever had this peculiar position. I guess we should leave it up to some sort of official statement by them (if we can find one) on how they would define themselves in this regard. Do you know of any? RK

 * I've never dealt with anyone who affiliated themselves as a Humanistic Jew, though I've seen some of their sites. Would they, in essense, be Reform Jews who opnely reject all of Judaism?--Josiah 23:44, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * They could be seen this way. Their website states that they do not adhere to any principles of Jewish belief. Rather, they believe:
 * "Each Jew has the right to create a meaningful Jewish lifestyle free from supernatural authority and imposed tradition. The goal of life is personal dignity and self-esteem. The secular roots of Jewish life are as important as the religious ones. The survival of the Jewish people needs a reconciliation between science, personal autonomy, and Jewish loyalty."
 * "Freedom from supernatural authority. Theistic religions assert that the ultimate source of wisdom and of the power of the solution to human problems is found outside of people - in a supernatural realm. Humanistic philosophy affirms that knowledge and power come from people and from the nature in which they live....Judaism is an ethnic culture. It did not fall from heaven. It was not invented by a divine spokesperson. It was created by the Jewish people. It was molded by Jewish experience. Holidays are responses to human events. Ceremonies are celebrations of human development."
 * Society for Humanistic Judaism

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

move. — Nightst a  llion  (?) Seen this already? 07:51, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Requested move
User:IZAK has posted the following proposal on the Requested moves page: Sadducee → Sadducees : This article's title is presently in the singular form. It should be changed to the plural to match Pharisees -- its "sister" article on its related topic that is written in the plural form. (Presently, Sadducees is only a redirect page to the main Sadducee article -- but it should be the other way around.)

Voting and discussion
Please add * Support  or  * Oppose  followed by a brief explanation, then sign your vote using " ~ "
 * Support. David Kernow 14:38, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. Joe CrookTalk! 13:32, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. Copy naming convention of other Encyclopedias like the Jewish Encyclopedia .  Jon513 11:08, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

age and name
Doesn't the name "Zadokite" suggest that the party originates back to a time when the high priests weere Zadokites - that is, prior to the Hasmonean usurpation of the priesthood? john k 06:01, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Is the Jewish word "צְדוּקִים" correct? I ran it through Google Translate and it came up with "Inspection". Can anybody confirm? --Nosehair2200 (talk) 00:19, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Waxman
I haven't time to work on this now but Meyer Waxman in History of Jewish Literature vol. 1 makes a strong case that Josephus is highly unreliable. Josepus was attempting to parallel the Saducees to the greek epicureans (for propoganda purposes). It's very possible that Saducees did believe in some form of afterlife.Wolf2191 17:44, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

"Many scholars are skeptical of the historicity of this tradition." weaselish which scholars. Was a census done? It can easily be argued that Tzadok made a weak Saduccean sect into a powerful one. (Waxman- though he recants for some reason.) In any event will delete.Wolf2191 17:49, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

If you want to establish that the Sadducees believed in some sort of afterlife, you will need to present some sort of evidence in favor of it.

DSS community "probably" Essenes
I have removed the "probably" from the article. There is no probably about it. It is a popular position, but the Essenes were excluded from the temple and eschewed bloodline, making any Zadokite connection with the Essenes highly improbable. The fact that there were at least 800 scribal hands responsible for the copies of scrolls found at Qumran suggests that the scrolls were the product of somewhere that could support so many scribes, ie Jerusalem. It is safer not to assume an Essene connection with the DSS community. --  spin control 12:59, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Major rewrite of page
Wow! Someone knew exactly what he or she wanted to do on this page and exactly how to work Wikipedia to sort of game the system, but the person still does not want to identify him or herself. Let's see: person first made major edits from IP address 138.16.115.05. But, the bot saw that an unregistered user was making major changes on a page and simply reverted everything back! So, the user registered first as HBSamuels and redid all the major edits. Then the same user registered again as Katherineblessing and corrected a bunch of formatting errors that were left on the page after the major rewrite. And then, to cap it off, the user still logged in just from a different IP address (138.16.115.05) and did 2 more minor corrections (the second of which is still incorrect...). Now, this last correction from this last unidentified/unregistered user also precludes any editor of reverting the edits. So, someone that does not want to identify him or herself just did a major rewrite on this page, and for anyone interested in a due process of change here, the step by step option doesn't even exist any more. All that is left to the average editor is to go an look at each change that was made, one by one, and decide which version is better. The problem is that close to 50 major changes (I am estimating, guessing only here) were done, and going over them one by one is going to be a very long process, that could take a couple of hours at the least. Now, the changes that were made are serious, they are not vandalism. Looks like some scholar on the field studied the page carefully, and had the final product already written even before he or she came in and did the job in the manner described above. So, for me, the option left now is to study carefully all the major changes that were made, and decide if there is anything from the tens of lines of the old article that were obliterated that could still apply to the subject. I intend to do that sometime in the future, time allowing. I just wanted to record here what happened in case there are any admins around looking at it, and who would also have some insights or opinions on due change process in Wikipedia and on the 'system' that was used here today to accomplish a major rewrite of this page in one fell swoop, precluding even the possibility of asking the author to redo his changes step by step. warshytalk 20:31, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * One more note from a little spelling correction I just did to this major rewrite: from the new section of the supposed disputes with the Pharisees, which is written completely from a Talmudic perspective (i.e., a 'Pharisaic' perspective; certainly not from a Sadducee perspective, that would be very difficult to articulate anyhow...), my suspicion is that the objective of this major rewrite that was just accomplished is to ascertain that nothing currently left on the page may contradict the "correctness" of the religious Talmudic ruling on the subject. But with more time I may be able to say more on this... warshytalk 20:47, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

P.D.'s correction
I think P.D. is correct here. My question, to anyone interested would be:

The problem is that the "Oral Law" is not 'oral' any more, but has also been written down. Not only written down, but for some, who argue that the "Oral Law" had already also been given to Moses on Sinai, but written in stone, as it were. So where do we go from here?

As per reactions to my last comment here, right above, not too many people are checking this spot anyhow. I still am, just in case... :P warshytalk 21:08, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

greek name
The name is a greek transliteration so shouldn't the greek be in the header as well as the hebrew?. Σαδδουκαῖος --Teacherbrock (talk) 03:18, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

 * You are probably getting the Greek transliteration from Josephus. But the name itself is Hebrew, not Greek. Fact is you are calling it a transliteration, which is the correct classification here. If you want to include a Greek transliteration of the Hebrew name, that should be OK, as long as you do it in a separate note and cite the proper sources correctly in the note. That is what I would recommend, in any case. Regards, warshytalk 12:32, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Clarification of Section 5.2
Re: As Opposed to the Jesus Movement. This section states that Matthew depicts the Sadducees as a "Brood of Vipers" and cites Matt.3:7. It may be a small point but Matthew is describing a comment of John the Baptist, who does not appear to distinguish between the Sadducees or the Pharisees, calling them both a "Brood of Vipers". - In which case I'm not sure it's completely accurate or necessary to single the Sadducees out as the target of John's venom. Mannanan51 (talk) 05:38, 23 May 2011 (UTC)mannanan51

Also I should add that Matthew 23:33 seems to focus on the Pharisees, not Sadducees. Overall I am under the impression that, although the Essenes and other groups may have called the Sadducees wicked and blamed them for the Judaic wars etc., Jesus was actually more opposed to the Pharisees, and his religious arguments with Sadducees were more benign. This should probably be mentioned to balance out what is said only about Sadducees. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.199.209.146 (talk) 22:23, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Is this Wikipedia or Conservapedia?
Why would you otherwise revert a minor edit correcting BC/AD - and occasionally, inconsistently CE(!) - to BCE/CE? --120.148.210.64 (talk) 19:07, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Sadducees and assimilation
This is a quote from the article: The Rabbis, who are traditionally seen as the descendants of the Pharisees, describe the similarities and differences between the two sects in Mishnah Yadaim. The Mishnah explains that the Sadducees state, “So too, regarding the Holy Scriptures, their impurity is according to (our) love for them. But the books of Homer, which are not beloved, do not defile the hands.”[21]

Please! This is so bad it's actually funny. The Mishna in Yadayim says the exact opposite: Rabbi Yohanan Ben Zakkai, the Pharisee, said this phrase to the Sadducees. I don't have the time or inclination to change this embarrassing mistake. Maybe some noble Wikipedian will do it. 68.198.65.141 (talk) 19:40, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Beliefs section contradicts itself.
It says they didn't believe in an afterlife, but then shortly afterward it says they believed in Sheol. This seems like a clear contradiction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.100.44 (talk) 19:07, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Perhaps someone could explain this a little better? Is it that they don't believe in the resurrection of the body (this is what the New Testament seems to suggest)?--Ermenrich (talk) 21:46, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Sheol in the Torah is associated with death, as the first response above already explains, not with an 'afterlife.' Afterlife implies there is some kind of 'life' after death. Sheol is simple death, not some kind of afterlife. The Pharisees believed in some kind of afterlife, such as the resurrection of the dead, following later Hebrew prophecy, but not the Torah. Sadducees were probably focused much more specifically on the Torah itself. As for the belief in the resurrection of the dead, which the Pharisees inherited from the prophets, it was later reinterpreted in Christian theology as immortality of the soul. warshy (¥¥) 22:48, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

 * In the article:
 * The Sadducees did not believe in resurrection of the dead, but believed (contrary to the claim of Josephus) in the traditional Jewish concept of Sheol for those who had died.
 * But the table at bottom gives a clear "No" to belief in the afterlife. The article for Sheol definitely describes a *kind* of afterlife, if not the sort of renewal/"life" we typically conceive of.  I am not an expert, but there is certainly contradiction indicated in the article for a general/non-expert reader.  I do not know if the Sadducees believed in the type of "shade", dark afterlife that seems to describe Sheol, or none at all (i.e. Sheol just a term for death), but someone should clean it up.  Because as it reads, there IS a contradiction.  Mercster (talk) 10:28, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Sadducees are Heretics according to Judaism
Hi Ermenrich, why do you think that the Sadducees were not Heretics according to Judaism? See three examples: "In the Talmud the term apikoros refers to the *Sadducees (Kid. 66a); to those who denigrate rabbinic authority even in such seemingly insignificant ways as calling a sage by his first name; and to those who shame neighbors before the sages (Sanh. 99b)." from Jewish Virtual Library; "The Greek term άίρεσις originally denoted "division," "sect," "religious" or "philosophical party," and is applied by Josephus ("B. J." ii. 8, § 1, and elsewhere) to the three Jewish sects—Sadducees, Pharisees, and Essenes" from The Jewish Encyclopedia; "But the following have no portion therein [the world to come]: He who maintains that resurrection is not a biblical doctrine, the Torah was not divinely revealed, and an epikoros…Clearly, this Mishnah is not a roster of all Jewish belief, but rather focuses on the issues that fractured the Jewish community during that period. The Sages stressed these particular tenets of faith in order to distinguish the faithful rabbinic community from Sadducees and other sectarian groups." from Jewish Ideas.org I am citing WP:RS so what's your excuse for deleting my categories? IZAK (talk) 23:10, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
 * . This is called WP:original research. The Sadducees were a Jewish sect during the Second Temple Period. There was no such thing as Orthodox Judaism at this time. Furthermore, by your own source Josephus also applied the word to the Pharisees, who are the precursors of rabbinical Judaism.

 * It is anachronistic to refer to the Sadducees as a heresy in Orthodox Judaism. There are no more Sadducees.
 * As to whether the Sadducees are heretics according to "Judaism," the Sadducees were Jews. They were the top Jews, in fact, they ran the Temple in Jerusalem. While some Jewish groups today might see their ideas as heretical, that is not their defining feature.
 * The addition of current Jewish groups to this category would probably be inflammatory as well. Imagine if someone went around tagging Orthodox Judaism is a heresy according to their interpretation of the faith?--Ermenrich (talk) 23:20, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
 * How can you call The Jewish Encyclopedia as "OR" and are they also "inflammatory"? I cited three WP:RS that affirm and confirm the facts. This is an INTERNAL discussion between Jewish groups WITHIN JUDAISM and NOT an interfaith discussion between different religions. We are concerned with facts not with babies. There are real Jewish schisms and they involved the breaking away of groups from classical core Judaism. It does not matter what the status is of the schismatic/s, he is still a Heretic according to classical Jewish sources and Jewish Law, as I cited by doing a simple Google search. You are right that the term "Orthodox Judaism" does not exist way back, but Judaism exists and so therefore it is perfectly valid to apply Category:Heresy in Judaism to the Sadducees as per my WP:RS, WP:NOTABLE and WP:NPOV citations. So why did you revert me ? IZAK (talk) 23:43, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , The Jewish Encyclopedia quotes Josephus using the term άίρεσις in a completely different sense (namely sect, division) to refer to the Essenes, Sadducees, and Pharisees. It does not mean what you want it to mean. Are you going to go add heresy to the Pharisees too, as they are in fact the precursors of rabbinical Judaism.
 * If we look at the other two sources, both are fairly ambiguous and neither is actually a reliable source by the standards of Wikipedia. It mentions some equations of the Sadducees with heretics in rabbinical literature (which is a bit like noting that a Roman Catholic called a Protestant a heretic).--Ermenrich (talk) 23:48, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
 * No of course not the Pharisees, you need to read on: "In summarizing the Talmudic statements concerning heretics in Sanh. 90-103, Maimonides ("Yad," Teshubah, iii. 6-8) says: "The following have no share in the world to come, but are cut off, and perish, and receive their punishment for all time for their great sin: the minim, the apiḳoresim, they that deny the belief in the Torah, they that deny the belief in resurrection of the dead and in the coming of the Redeemer, the apostates, they that lead many to sin, they that turn away from the ways of the [Jewish] community. Five are called 'minim': (1) he who says there is no God and the world has no leader; (2) he who says the world has more than one leader; (3) he who ascribes to the Lord of the Universe a body and a figure; (4) he who says that God was not alone and Creator of all things at the world's beginning; (5) he who worships some star or constellation as an intermediating power between himself and the Lord of the World. "The following three classes are called 'apiḳoresim': (1) he who says there was no prophecy nor was there any wisdom that came from God and which was attained by the heart of man; (2) he who denies the prophetic power of Moses our master; (3) he who says that God has no knowledge concerning the doings of men. "The following three are called 'koferim ba-Torah': (1) he who says the Torah is not from God: he is a kofer even if he says a single verse or letter thereof was said by Moses of his own accord; (2) he who denies the traditional interpretation of the Torah and opposes those authorities who declare it to be tradition, as did Zadok and Boethus; and (3) he who says, as do the Nazarenes and the Mohammedans, that the Lord has given a new dispensation instead of the old, and that he has abolished the Law, though it was originally divine."" NOTE: ZADOK was the founder of the Sadducee movement. In any case, as the article clearly states that Sadducees: "The Sadducees rejected the Oral Torah as proposed by the Pharisees. Rather, they saw the written Torah as the sole source of divine authority. (Josephus)" IZAK (talk) 00:05, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * They are perfectly valid WP:RS, one is a site used all the time that itself cites sources, the other is a professor writing. And tell me, which part of "noting that a Roman Catholic called a Protestant a heretic" is not true? IZAK (talk) 00:07, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * That Right there is textbook Wp:or you can’t take Maimonides and then apply his criteria to determine that the Sadducees are a heresy. Heresy is a loaded term anyway and should not be applied outside of a discussion of how one group views others. It implies that there is a “true” or “correct” form of a religion, which violates WP:npov. The Sadducees obviously thought that the Pharisees were heretics, you realize. Go try to add a category “heresy in Catholicism “ to Protestantism why don’t you and see what happens?—00:16, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * "I" am not taking Maimonides anywhere! It is the Torah, then the Talmud, and Maimonides is just an extension of that, you obviously miss that. Heresy may be a "loaded term" in a secular sense, but it is a term used in the Jewish religion and it is not a violation of anything to point that out or to write about it because WP:NOTCENSORED. Not sure how you know what the Sadducees "thought" but we do have ample proof what they did NOT think or do, they rejected the Oral Torah which according to classical Judaism (not "me") is a SERIOUS form of Heresy in Judaism. I am not interested in Christian disputes because I am not a WP:EXPERT in that subject, but I do know something about Judaism. Do you? IZAK (talk) 01:36, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I know Wp:POV when I see it. The Sadducees are just as valid an expression of Judaism as any other and it is not appropriate to label them a heresy. The Talmud, Torah, and Maimonides are all primary sources and can't be used to formulate your own arguments about what is or isn't heresy, not that it matters anyway. We can't go calling religious groups heresies, sorry.--Ermenrich (talk) 02:20, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

As a student of European history in general and of Jewish history in Europe as part of European history I view the current attempt to expand the use of the category "Heresy in Judaism" in Wikipedia as an attempt NOT to improve the historical and encyclopedic level of the encyclopedia, but rather as an attempt to enforce religious dogma through the encyclopedia. It should be denounced and banned from Wikipedia. As a religiously and ideologically disengaged (i.e. neutral) student of history I find the entire category as it currently is rather unuseful. But the current attempt to expand and enforce its use is a clear attempt to enforce religious dogma through the encyclopedia. I completely agree with all arguments against it put forth above by Ehrmenrich. Thank you. warshy (¥¥) 17:20, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree entirely. I'll also note that the situation within Orthodox Judaism is not as clear-cut as IZAK would lead us to believe. Given the absence of a central authority, different groups don't always agree on what is heretical. Even Maimonides, cited as authority by IZAK above, was accused of heresy by some other prominent rabbis. Zerotalk 08:32, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes. I also want to add that until Ermenrich reverted the indiscriminate addition of that unchecked category to this page by IZAK, I was not aware of the Heresy in Judaism page at all. I have now looked at it, and I think it is a very bad Wikipedia page. It is completely written from the supposed perspective of "Rabbinic Judaism," and it should actually be called "Heresy according to Rabbinic Sources" instead. There is not one serious academic historical neutral source on that page that treats the topic of heresy in Jewish History from a historical NPOV perspective at all. The page needs to be first renamed, and then completely rewritten using non-religious historical academic neutral sources. Thank you, warshy (¥¥) 16:25, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Etymology
Hello everyone,

I found written in the Etymology section the following

"Flavius Josephus mentions in Antiquities of the Jews that "one Judas, a Gaulonite, of a city whose name was Gamala, who taking with him Sadduc, a Pharisee, became zealous to draw them to a revolt".[5] Paul L. Maier suggests that the sect drew their name from the Sadduc mentioned by Josephus.[6]"

I find this to be highly unlikely as Josephus clearly explained that there were three sects among the Jews, the Sadducees being one of them; it was a fourth philosophy that became the fourth sect by the hand of this Judas. Therefore, the Sadduc that Judas took with him could not possibly have been the origin of the Sadducees. Besides, even Josephus noted about this fourth philosophy "These men agree in all other things with the Pharisaic notions; but they have an inviolable attachment to liberty, and say that God is to be their only Ruler and Lord." It is well known and clearly explained in the writings of Josephus that the Pharisees and Sadducees differed greatly.

"But of the fourth sect of Jewish philosophy, Judas the Galilean was the author. These men agree in all other things with the Pharisaic notions; but they have an inviolable attachment to liberty, and say that God is to be their only Ruler and Lord. They also do not value dying any kinds of death, nor indeed do they heed the deaths of their relations and friends, nor can any such fear make them call any man lord. And since this immovable resolution of theirs is well known to a great many, I shall speak no further about that matter; nor am I afraid that any thing I have said of them should be disbelieved, but rather fear, that what I have said is beneath the resolution they show when they undergo pain. And it was in Gessius Florus’s time that the nation began to grow mad with this distemper, who was our procurator, and who occasioned the Jews to go wild with it by the abuse of his authority, and to make them revolt from the Romans. And these are the sects of Jewish philosophy."JacobLMetz (talk) 04:44, 30 September 2020 (UTC)Antiquity of the Jews Book 18.1.6

Comparison section
The comparison section is sourced to the Jewish Virtual Library and appears to be a rather direct copy/paste job. Furthermore, according to Perennial sources the JVL is generally considered unreliable. As such I'm going to cut this section. I'm gonna leave this comment over at Essenes and Pharisees too. IrishStephen (talk) 00:32, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Moses wrote that there will be an upcoming prophet
Deuteronomy 18:15 The LORD thy God will raise up unto thee a Prophet from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me; unto him ye shall hearken; So this is a clear statement of the existence of the position of the prophet. Then how they can deny Moses and deny the prophets before them ? 2A02:2F0F:E001:E900:1CC7:9F8:A2AF:D1EF (talk) 17:29, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Why is Luke's pericope missing?
The page mentions both Mark and Matthew but omits the parallel passage in Luke 20:27-40. i.e. all 3 synoptic gospels contain this critique. I suggest edits along the lines of : "The New Testament, in Matthew, Mark, and Luke, ... The parallel pericopes of Mark 12, Matthew 22, and Luke 20, recount a dispute ..." With a consequence change in the references section. My only hesitation is not being entirely sure if there was another reason for the omission for a polemical reason.

Text: The New Testament, specifically the books of Mark and Matthew, describe anecdotes which hint at hostility between Jesus and the Sadducaic establishment. A pericope in Mark 12 and Matthew 22 recounts a dispute between Jesus and a Sadducee who challenged the resurrection of the dead by asking who the husband of a resurrected woman would be who had been married to each of seven brothers at one point. Jesus responds by saying that the resurrected "neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven." He also insults them on their own terms as knowing neither the scriptures nor the power of God, presumably a claim that even though the Sadducee insisted on the written law, Jesus considered them to have gotten it wrong. Cjacooper (talk) 12:33, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Sadducees


text:
Karaite

Karaite or Qaraite may refer to:

 * Karaite Judaism, a Jewish religious movement that rejects the Talmud
 * Crimean Karaites, an ethnic group derived from Turkic-speaking adherents of Karaite Judaism in Eastern Europe
 * Karaim language,  Turkic language of Crimean Karaites.  Its Crimean dialect is an ethnolect of the Crimean Tatar language.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Karaite


text:
Wonders of the Invisible World

The Wonders of the Invisible World was a book written by Cotton Mather and published in 1693. It was subtitled, Observations As well Historical as Theological, upon the Nature, the Number, and the Operations of the Devils. The book defended Mather's role in the witchhunt conducted in Salem, Massachusetts. It espoused the belief that witchcraft was an evil magical power. Mather saw witches as tools of the devil in Satan's battle to "overturn this poor plantation, the Puritan colony", and prosecution of witches as a way to secure God's blessings for the colony.

Its arguments are largely derivative of Saducismus Triumphatus by Joseph Glanvill. A copy of Glanvill's book was in Mather's library when he died.

Robert Calef published a refutation of Mather's book in 1700.

Summary
Cotton Mather was born in 1663. After graduating from Harvard College, he followed in his father's footsteps, becoming pastor of the Second Church of Boston. He continued in this role from 1685 until his death in 1728.

Mather began with an explanation of how the people of God were living in the devil's territories. He discussed the devil's plan to overturn the plantation and churches with the help of witches.

"...An army of devils is horribly broke in upon the place which is the center, and after a sort, the first-born of our English settlements...

Mather prefaced the trials by saying he would recount them as a historian. One of the trials included was Martha Carrier's, who was "[t]he person of whom the confessions of the witches, and of her own children among the rest, agreed that the devil had promised her she should be Queen of the Hebrews." Mather presented testimonies against Martha Carrier, all of which presumed her to be guilty.

Point of view
Mather presented himself as an unbiased informer to the reader. He received his information from court records. He did not present defenses against the testimonies given.

Language
Mather’s background as a minister showed in his references to religion. Mather went into details on the traditional religious view of the Devil and witchcraft.

Puritan colonists feared the perceived witches among themselves, "and the houses of the good people are filled with the doleful shrieks of their children and servants, tormented by invisible hands.".

Legacy
Mather's book inspired the title of the 2006 album Last Days of Wonder by Chicago band The Handsome Family; lyricist Rennie Sparks has stated she was intrigued by what she called its "madness brimming under the surface of things."

title: Wonders of the Invisible World


text:
Jacob Frank

Jacob Joseph Frank (יעקב פרנק; Jakub Józef Frank; born Jakub Lejbowicz; 1726 – 10 December 1791) was a Polish-Jewish religious leader who claimed to be the reincarnation of the self-proclaimed messiah Sabbatai Zevi (1626–1676) and also of the biblical patriarch Jacob. The Jewish authorities in Poland excommunicated Frank and his followers due to his heretical doctrines that included deification of himself as a part of a trinity and other controversial concepts such as neo-Carpocratian "purification through transgression".

Frank arguably created a religious movement, now referred to as Frankism, which incorporated aspects of Christianity and Judaism. The development of Frankism was one of the consequences of the messianic movement of Sabbatai Zevi. This religious mysticism followed socioeconomic changes among the Jews of Poland, Lithuania and Ruthenia.

Historical background
There were numerous outbreaks of followers of Sabbatai Zevi, known as Dönmeh, in Eastern Poland (now Ukraine), particularly in Podolia and Galicia, between the late 17th. and the early 18th. century.

In expectation of the great Messianic revolution, the members of these societies violated Jewish laws and customs. The mystical cult of the Sabbateans is believed to have included both asceticism and sensuality: some did penance for their sins, subjected themselves to self-inflicted pain, and "mourned for Zion"; others disregarded the strict rules of modesty required by Judaism, and at times were accused of being licentious, or even comitting ritual incest. The Polish rabbis attempted to place the "Sabbatean heresy" in herem at the assembly at Lwów (now Lviv in Ukraine) in 1722. Still, they could not fully succeed, as it was widely popular among the nascent Jewish middle class.

Early life
Jacob Frank is believed to have been born as Jakub Lejbowicz to a Polish-Jewish family in Korołówka, in Podolia of Eastern Poland (now in Ukraine), in about 1726. The Polish historian Gaudenty Pikulski affirmed that Frank was born in Buchach and Agnon even showed the house where he was born was located on Korołówka street in Buchach. His father was a Sabbatean, and moved to Czernowitz, in the Carpathian region of Bukovina, in 1730, where the Sabbatean influence at the time was strong.

As a travelling merchant in textile and precious stones he often visited Ottoman territories, where he earned the nickname "Frank", a name generally given in the East to Europeans, and lived in the centers of contemporary Sabbateanism, Salonica and Smyrna.

In the early 1750s, Frank became intimate with the leaders of the Sabbateans. Two followers of the Sabbatian leader Osman Baba (b. 1720) were witnesses at his wedding in 1752. In 1755, he reappeared in Podolia, gathered a group of local adherents, and began to preach the "revelations" which were communicated to him by the Dönmeh in Salonica. One of these gatherings in Landskron ended in a scandal, and the rabbis' attention was drawn to the new teachings. Frank was forced to leave Podolia, while his followers were hounded and denounced to the local authorities by the rabbis (1756). At the rabbinical court held in the village of Satanów (today Sataniv in Ukraine) the Sabbateans were accused of having broken fundamental Jewish laws of morality and modesty.

The anti-Talmudists
Consequent to these disclosures the congress of rabbis in Brody proclaimed a universal herem (excommunication) against all "impenitent heretics", and made it obligatory upon every pious Jew to seek them out and expose them. The Sabbateans informed Mikołaj Dembowski, the Catholic Bishop of Kamieniec Podolski, Poland, that they rejected the Talmud and recognized only the sacred book of Kabbalah, the Zohar, which did not contradict the Christian doctrine of the Trinity. They stated that they regarded the Messiah-Deliverer as one of the embodiments of the three divinities.

The bishop took Frank and his followers (the "Anti-Talmudists", or "Zoharistic Jews") under his protection and in 1757 arranged a religious disputation between them and the rabbis of the traditionalist community. The Anti-Talmudists presented their theses, which began the intense dispute. The bishop sided in favour of the Frankists and also ordered the burning of all copies of the Talmud in Poland. 10,000 volumes were destroyed, which was a tremendous loss for the Jewish libraries of that era.

After the death of the bishop, the Sabbateans were subjected to severe persecution by the rabbis, although they succeeded in obtaining an edict from Augustus III of Poland guaranteeing them safety.

Declaration of being a successor to Sabbatai Zevi
At this critical moment Jacob Frank came to Iwania, proclaimed himself as a direct successor to Sabbatai Zevi and Otman Baba, and assured his adherents that he had received revelations from Heaven. These revelations called for the conversion of Frank and his followers to the Christian religion, which was to be a visible transition stage to the future "das" or religion to be revealed by Frank. In 1759 negotiations looking toward the conversion of the Frankists to Roman Catholicism were being actively carried on with the higher representatives of the Polish Church; at the same time the Frankists tried to secure another discussion with the rabbis. The Polish primate Łubieński and the papal nuncio Nicholas Serra were suspicious of the aspirations of the Frankists, but at the insistence of the administrator of the bishopric of Lwów, the canon Mikulski, the discussion was arranged. It was held in Lwów and was presided over by Mikulski. Protestant missionaries also tried to detour the Frankists to Protestantism, and a handful did join the Moravian Church.

Baptism of the Frankists
At the discussion in 1759, the rabbis energetically repulsed their opponents. After the discussion the Frankists were requested to demonstrate in practice their adherence to Christianity; Jacob Frank, who had then arrived in Lwów, encouraged his followers to take the decisive step. The baptism of the Frankists was celebrated with great solemnity in the churches of Lwów, with members of the Polish szlachta (nobility) acting as god-parents. The neophytes adopted the names of their godfathers and godmothers, and ultimately joined their ranks. Frank himself was baptized in Lwów (17 September 1759) and again in Warsaw the next day, with King Augustus III as his godfather. Frank's baptismal name was "Joseph" (Józef). In the course of one year more than 500 individuals were converted to Christianity at Lwów, and nearly a thousand in the following year. By 1790, 26,000 Jews were recorded baptised in Poland.

However, the Frankists continued to be viewed with suspicion due to their strange doctrines. Frank was arrested in Warsaw on 6 February 1760 and delivered to the Church's tribunal on the charge of heresy. He was convicted of teaching heresy, and imprisoned in the monastery of Częstochowa.

Prison and later days
Frank's imprisonment lasted thirteen years, yet it only increased his influence with the sect by surrounding him with the aura of martyrdom. Many Frankists established themselves near Częstochowa, and kept up constant communication with their "holy master". Frank inspired his followers through mystical speeches and epistles, in which he stated that salvation could be gained only by first adopting the "religion of Edom" and later adopting a future religion which Frank called daas (daat, or Knowledge in Hebrew). After the first partition of Poland, Frank was released by the Russian general Bibikov, who had occupied Częstochowa, in August 1772.

Frank lived in the Moravian town of Brno until 1786, surrounded by a retinue of adherents and pilgrims who came from Poland. His daughter Eve began to play an important role in the sect at this time. Frank kept a force of armed men at his "court". The future czar Paul I of Russia visited him together with Joseph II of Austria.

Accompanied by his daughter, Frank repeatedly traveled to Vienna, and succeeded in gaining the favor of the court. Maria Theresa regarded him as a disseminator of Christianity among the Jews, and it is even said that Joseph II was favorably inclined to the young Eve Frank. Ultimately Frank was deemed unmanageable and he was obliged to leave Austria. He moved with his daughter and his retinue to Offenbach, in Germany, where he assumed the title of "Baron of Offenbach," and lived as a wealthy nobleman, receiving financial support from his Polish and Moravian followers, who made frequent pilgrimages to Offenbach. On the death of Frank in 1791, Eve became the "holy mistress" and leader of the sect. Her fortunes dwindled in the aftermath of the Napoleonic Wars, and she died in Offenbach in 1816.

Some Frankists were active during the French Revolution, such as Moses Dobruška, a son of Frank's Sabbatian cousin in Offenbach Shendl Dobruska. Many of the Frankists saw Napoleon Bonaparte as a potential Messiah. The Frankists scattered in Poland and Bohemia eventually intermarried into the gentry and middle class. Maria Szymanowska, a piano virtuoso, came from a Frankist family. Wanda Grabowska, the mother of Tadeusz Boy-Żeleński, also descended from Frankists.

In 1883, a Russian magazine Русская старина (Russian Old Times) issued memoirs of an influential official of the Russian Ministry of the Interior, the privy councillor and staunch anti-Semite O. A. Pzhetslavsky. He promulgated the allegations that the mothers of "three of the greatest men of Poland" (Frédéric Chopin, Adam Mickiewicz and Juliusz Słowacki) were converted Jews from the Frankist sect. Similar assertions were put forth by Mieses and Balaban.

Notable Sabbatian teachers of Jakob Frank

 * Rabbi Issohar, one of Frank's principal teachers. A disciple of Hayim Malakh, Frank studied with him in İzmir in 1750–1752.
 * Rabbi Mordechai ben Elias Margalit of Prague (Mardocheusz in Polish), another of Frank's principal teachers. He helped introduce Frank to the practices of the Karakashi sect of the Dönmeh in the Turkish empire, which worshipped Beruchiah Russo (also known as Otman Baba). Frank traveled with him to Salonika in November 1753. He left Bohemia and moved to the Ottoman Empire after Jakob Frank's uncle Moses Meir Kamenker was caught smuggling Sabbatian literature into Germany in 1725. Mordechai allegedly engaged in adultery and other antinomian conduct.
 * Leib, a Jewish Sabbatian teacher of Frank's during the latter's childhood in Wallachia and Moldavia. He was also a wonderworker who attempted to dispel demons.

Jacob Frank's writings

 * The Collection of the Words of the Lord, available online in English. Translated, edited and annotated by Harris Lenowitz, with an introduction by Lenowitz.

Cultural references

 * Jacob Frank is the subject of Andrzej Żuławski's book Moliwda (1994).
 * The personality of Frank has inspired the Polish historical movie Daas of 2011 directed by Adrian Panek. Frank is played by Olgierd Łukaszewicz.
 * Jacob Frank is the central character in the novel by Polish Nobel laureate writer Olga Tokarczuk The Books of Jacob (Księgi Jakubowe) published in October 2014 by Wydawnictwo Literackie.

title: Jacob Frank


text:
Valdemar I of Denmark

Valdemar I Knudsen (14 January 1131 – 12 May 1182), also known as Valdemar the Great (Valdemar den Store), was King of Denmark from 1154 until his death in 1182. The reign of King Valdemar I saw the rise of Denmark, which reached its medieval zenith under his son King Valdemar II.

Childhood
Valdemar was the son of Canute Lavard, Duke of Schleswig, the chivalrous and popular eldest son of King Eric I of Denmark. Valdemar's father was murdered by King Magnus I of Sweden days before the birth of Valdemar; his mother, Ingeborg of Kiev, daughter of Grand Prince Mstislav I of Kiev and Christina Ingesdotter of Sweden, named him after her grandfather, Grand Prince Vladimir Monomakh of Kiev.

Valdemar was raised at Ringsted in the court of Danish nobleman Asser Rig of Fjenneslev (c. 1080–1151). Asser was a member of the Hvide noble family and had been raised together with Valdemar's father Canute Lavard. Valdemar was raised together with Asser's sons, including Absalon (c. 1128–1201), who would become an archbishop and go to battle with Valdemar, and Esbern Snare (1127–1204), who was a royal chancellor and crusader. Esbern and Absalon had a close relationship and formed an alliance with Valdemar.

Struggle for the throne
In 1146, when Valdemar was fifteen years old, King Eric III of Denmark abdicated and a civil war erupted. Valdemar was a possible contender to the throne. The other pretenders to the throne were: Sweyn III Grathe, the son of King Eric II of Denmark, and Canute V, the son of Magnus I of Sweden, both of whom declared themselves King of Denmark in 1146. The civil war lasted the better part of ten years. In 1154, Valdemar joined with Canute and was recognized as co-king along with Canute. In July 1157, a temporary compromise was struck in which the three agreed to divide the country among themselves as co-regents in shifting alliances.

Canute was killed at the Bloodfeast of Roskilde in August 1157. Sweyn was defeated by Valdemar in the Battle of Grathe Heath (Slaget på Grathe Hede) on 23 October 1157. Sweyn was killed during flight, supposedly by a group of peasants who stumbled upon him as he was fleeing from the battlefield. Valdemar, having outlived all his rival pretenders, became the sole king of Denmark.

Sole reign
In 1158, Absalon was elected bishop of Roskilde, and King Valdemar made him his chief advisor. The king reorganized and rebuilt war-torn Denmark. He strengthened the Dannevirke fortifications to the south, He built Sønderborg Castle as a fortified fortress, constructed on an islet in the Als Strait that later was connected to Als Island. He reinvented Viking raiding tactics of old to deal with the Wends to the south, which was now optimized for heavy cavalry; this use of amphibious assault was further improved upon by his successor Canute VI.

At Absalon's instigation, he declared war upon the Wends who were raiding the Danish coasts. They occupied Pomerania and the island of Rügen in the Baltic Sea and were a definite threat to the Danes in the Baltic as the Wends outnumbered the Danes more than two to one. So the Danes soon began raiding the Wendish coasts in turn; this culminated in the conquest of Rügen, which was used as another base to raid and later conquer more Wendish territory. Danish influence had therefore reached both Pomerania and the Obotrite confederacy, both being raided routinely by the Danes. Around the year 1170, a smaller contingent of the Danish fleet (headed by Valdemar and Absalon) ventured past the mouth of the Oder, where they were ambushed by a Wendish army and fleet under Casimir, at the Julin bridge (modern-day Wolin) hoping to end Danish raiding. But the Danes outsmarted the Wends and smashed their army and fleet, primarily due to the Danish ships also carrying cavalry. In 1175, King Valdemar built Vordingborg Castle as a defensive fortress and as a base from which to launch further raids against the German coast.

In 1180, as unrest spread throughout the rich province of Scania, the people demanded that Valdemar replace the "foreign" governors from Jutland, and instead install nobility from one of the 'Skåneland' provinces who traditionally ruled them. They also completely refused to pay church tithes. When Valdemar refused their demands, they rose up, saying they would pay neither taxes nor church tithes. Their numbers were so large that Valdemar not only gathered his own levies but also levies from Blekinge. The armies met at the Battle of Dysiaa, where Valdemar crushed them, and after this they once more paid taxes. But even though the entire peasant force surrendered, they still refused to pay tithes, so instead Valdemar had them bring generous gifts and donations to the church. They would pay no tithes but they would pay nonetheless, the only point he conceded were the governors, who were replaced by Scanians. This concession to the Scanians, that a Jute rules in Jutland and Rugian in Rügen, was then optimized for the rest of the Danish realm. This assisted immensely with keeping the peace within the kingdom, and the later extended realm.

Issue
Valdemar married Sophia of Minsk (c. 1141–1198), the daughter of Richeza of Poland, dowager queen of Sweden, from her marriage to Prince Volodar of Minsk. She was the half-sister of King Canute V of Denmark. Valdemar and Sophia had the following children:
 * Sophia (1159–1208), married Siegfried III, Count of Weimar-Orlamünde.
 * Canute VI of Denmark (1163–1202)
 * Maria (born c. 1165), became a nun at Roskilde (1188).
 * Margaret (c. 1167), became a nun at Roskilde (1188).
 * Valdemar II of Denmark (1170–1241)
 * Ingeborg (1174–1237), married King Philip II of France.
 * Helena (c.1176 – 1233), married William, Duke of Brunswick-Lüneburg.
 * Richeza (c.1178 – 1220), married King Eric X of Sweden.
 * Walburgis (d. 1177), married Bogusław I, Duke of Pomerania.

After Valdemar's death, Sophia married Landgrave Louis III of Thuringia.

title: Valdemar I of Denmark


text:
Talk:Lists of people by nationality

chinese
why there is no list of chinese?-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 14:52, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

 * Indeed. I was going to ask that as well. Bias much? 91.49.250.22 (talk) 20:53, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Initial discussion
v iva' REVOLUSHION !

(move from user talk:MyRedDice)

I can see your aiming for some kind of consistency with the 'list of people' pages. So, why have you decided to suffix some of them with people and others not. Mintguy

 * Only because the name of an inhabitant of Poland is "a Pole", but there is no equivalent name for an inhabitant of England. One could have:

 * list of Englishmen -- politically incorrect.
 * list of English -- grammatically incorrect because English is an adjective, not a noun
 * list of Englishpersons -- politically correct but hideous
 * list of the English -- would mean a list owned by the English people/tribe rather than a list of members of the English people.

 * It's the same problem that gives us list of poets but list of transgendered people, for example. OTOH, I'm sure there are some names for nationalities that I don't know - please correct such lapses. Martin

 * Ok, that was a bad example, because transgendered folks are at Famous transgendered people... Martin

 * Sure, I understand, what I meant was - if you're going to aim for consistency, which seems to be the reason you're making all the moves and redirects in the first place, you could have List of English people and List of Polish people etc.. As for list of poets, it falls into the same catergory as list of architects, list of physicists and list of footballers (maybe football players?) where it's a profession and not a nationality Mintguy

 * Hmm, I can see your point. I guess I was aiming for consistency amongst all lists, standardising on "list of PLURAL" - if I'd considered only consistency amongst lists of nationals, then it would be different. Plus, this way the article names are shorter, and I'm always in favour of that. Martin

 * Oh, footballers are at List of famous football players, while architects are at List of notable architects. Which kind of validates my desire for consistency! This will all have to be fixed if/when I or someone else gets round to making list of people by occupation ... Martin

See also: Talk:List of people

I disagree with the claim that Quebec is not a nation. It isn't a state or a country, but they are different to a nation. They have a shared language, culture, sense of identity, etc, which is what defines a nation. Is this a list of people by country or by nation? BTW, I am not advocating the independence of Quebec or anything, before someone accuses me of that. But state is not the same as nation, and you can have a country or state that contains multiple nations in it (eg. the Great Britain has the Scottish, English and Welsh nations in it.

 * I agree with whoever wrote this... Quebecois is a nationality, even if Quebec isn't a state :) Martin

Is Quebec in the United Nations? What other nations does it have diplomatic relations with? How do you distinguish it from "The Aboriginal Nation of Quebec"? Didn't the referendum to form a new nation fail?

More... How is Quebecois more of a nationality than Vermonter or Bostonian?

A nation is a group of people who share a combined culture, language, identity and/or ethic origin. Where ia nation corresponds with a state, it is called a nation state, eg, France, Italy. Many states consist of several nations, eg, Canada, the United Kingdom. So Quebecois is a nation, which is part of the state of Canada. Similarly Scotland is a nation but it is not a state, hence it is not part of the UN, the state it belongs to, the UK, is. Ireland is a nation-state, but before 1922 it was a stateless nation that was part of the UK. But that did not make it less of a nation. The referendum was not about the nationhood of Quebec, it was about the statehood of Quebec, and the desire of many people that the Quebec nation should become a nation-state. It is not a nation-state but remains as it has always been, a nation within a larger state. Stop misunderstanding the difference between nation and state.

Also - there is no such thing as an American nation. America is a vast landlass that includes many nations. The United States is a nation-state on the landmass of America. Please get your facts right. JTD 19:42 Feb 25, 2003 (UTC)

No, Jay, Im afraid your wrong; as wrong as an "objectivist" or some such..

 * "I disagree with the claim that Quebec is not a nation. It isn't a state or a country, but they are different to a nation. They have a shared language, culture, sense of identity, etc, which is what defines a nation."

LOL - According to this logic, We Californians are separate nations (north and south - the water issue) and the rest of the USA is divided up into its own ethnic sections! The ethnocentrism of some people, in this case the Quebekians never ceases to amaze me.. Nationality as well as nationalism is cheezy way of seeing the world, and falls along boundaries of Nation status... A nation state, a nation, a state - in the international sense, they are all the same... I'd suggest deferring to the UN designations on this matter. -'Vert

So if the European Union turned into a 'united states of Europe', are you saying the German nation, Italian nation, French nation, Danish nation, Irish nation etc would all cease to exist? Of course not! There was a german nation long before an all-german state came into being. An Italian nation long before there was a state called Italy. An Irish nation long before a state called Ireland. State and nation are not the same. Sometimes they cover the same territory, producing a nation-state. That indeed was the central demand of Woodrow Wilson after WWI, that state boundaries should match nations, hence the (arguably disastrous) decision to replace the Austro-Hungarian Empire by smaller nation-states.

But many larger states involve multiple 'nations'. In no way is California a nation: there is no unique language, no unique culture, the sense of identity that exists is linked far more to the United States than to local definition. In contrast, Scotland sees its association in the UK as secondary behind the Scottish identity, where there is a shared culture, shared heritage, sense of language, etc. Put simply, most people in the US define themselves as US citizens who live in California, Vermont, etc. Someone from Scotland sees themselves as a Scot in the United Kingdom. And if (though it is exceptionally unlikely) a United States of Europe ever came into being, people would define themselves as German/French/Irish or whereever in Europe, not Europeans who live in Ireland, France, Germany, etc. Nation is the equivalent of family, the basic unit by which we define ourselves, and which has a unique impact on how we see ourselves, how we define ourselves and what shapes our view on everyone else.

The UN has no view whatsoever on nations. It is exclusively an entity concerned with states, whether they be nation-states, multi-nation states, or sub nation states. Quebec is no different to Scotland, Wales, etc; it is an area peopled by people who share a unique culture, sense of identity, language and perspective. Personally I think they would be foolish to leave Canada; nation-states aren't all they are cracked up to be. But it IS a nation, just as Scotland is, Wales is, the Basque region is, etc. If this list covered people by state, then there should be no mention of Quebecois, any more than there should be separate mention of Scotland or Wales. But it is a list by nation. That is fundamentally different. JTD 20:44 Feb 25, 2003 (UTC)

I think listing people by 'nation' (a.k.a. cultural identity) is very problematic and arbitrary.

To use the Quebec example, there we have a multi-national (a-national would probably be more correct) country, containing a nation-province (at least in name) which contains a sizeable minority or people who do not identify as Quebecois. Would someone like Mordecai Richler be considered a Quebecois? a Quebecker? a Canadian? an English-Canadian? an Anglo-Quebecker, a Jewish-Quebecker, an Israelite? Etc.

 * Oh god, this is another fringe political movement we've stepped in, i.e. people who think Quebec is a nation. Well, fringe is probably a bit strong, since there is a strong movement in Quebec that wants to secede from Canada.  Nonetheless, this whole "Quebec is a nation" topic is a hot button for a bunch of people, some serious and some wacko.  For purposes of wikipedia, this has already been settled over at Quebec which reads "Quebec ... is a Canadian province..." and "At this point, the national question is still not resolved. For some the fight for Quebec independence is still very important to this day."

I think we're much better sticking with political boundaries (countries, states, provinces, prefectures, etc.) than trying to pigeonhole people by ethnicity - especially in a country like Canada where many people have a varied ancestry and may identify with several nationalities, or none at all. - stewacide 21:27 Feb 25, 2003 (UTC)

It is a fair point. Of course the problem is that within any 'nation' there will be people who do not identify with it. For example, there is a small 'Unionist Party of Ireland' which wants Ireland to re-join the UK and does not identify with the 'Irish nation' in the sense of its defining characteristics. So should its members be defined as 'Irish' if they don't accept that definition? What about Northern Ireland, where approximately 45% of the population define themselves as 'Irish', and 55% define themselves as British? Or the small minority (mainly Conservative Party supporters) in Scotland who define their Scottish identity behind a sense of being British? Because of this, do you drop a reference to Scottish and just use British? Do you just use Canadian? If so, how will people who regard themselves as Quebecois react? No matter what you do, some minority somewhere will insist that 'they' don't accept how 'they' are defined. JTD 21:40 Feb 25, 2003 (UTC)

Cutting in...:Quoting JTD: "In no way is California a nation: there is no unique language, no unique culture, the sense of identity that exists is linked far more to the United States than to local definition." - LOL - Wrong on nearly all counts, Bub... Culturally, were about as far away from much of the rest of the country, it seems, as can be... Its problematic, granted... and also, given the phenomenon of rapid ethnoconvergence, and dual-nationality these lines become blurred more and moreso... carrying your analogy further, Jay... If Germany joins a "UES" and over the course of a couple centuries, German gives way to English... (with some resistance, Quebec-style of course) and its borders are dissolved, and the "UES" has a sole governing body... etc... what is Germany? Strip away the details that belong to the broad category; "ethnicity"... Whats left? Scotland, is an interesting case, though, and the suggestion by any Englishman that Scotland is a mere "state" might draw swords... but that's essentially what it is... after all what do you call the UK? A State of nations? or a Nation of states - like the US. No doubt the distinction is reflective of tumultuous changes in thinking about the ever-morphing concepts of statehood and nation... hence, you may be right to be liberal in including quebec... but where is the line, and by whom is such line defined? -'Vert

 * If Quebec is a nation, then by any meaningful sense so was the Confederacy. Yet we have bent over backwards to deny the Confederacy was ever a nation at all and instead call it a "government" in the currect version of that page.  Our litmus test for the confederacy was that it had never been recognized by another nation.  What nations have diplomatic relations with Quebec?

 * If Bush was a wikipedian, he'd make a "state of the nation of states (politics)" speech... Martin

It is an extremely complicated issue, Sv, and I don't mean to demean Californians or anything like that. Maybe I didn't express it clearly. Most societies have groups in geographic areas have shared identities, but a 'nation' is more than just some shared identities, political culture, etc. It involves a sense of unique identity, often defined by centuries of history, by linguistics (even if today not everyone speaks the original language, it still will impact. Ireland, for example, doesn't speak British-english (let alone American-english) but something called Hiberno-english, which in grammatical structure is based to some extent on old Irish (gaelic) and elizabethan english (that's why Ireland is awash with foreign students who come here rather than the UK to learn english, because they find our version more grammatically correct, more free-flowing, and less full of regional variations than in the UK). Often nations share a common religious heritage which impacts on their society even where they themselves are not religious. (eg, I'm not a practising Catholic but through the experience of cultural catholicism I have a 'feel' for the religion that allows me to spot factual errors about catholicism on Wiki & correct them.) Quebec does have a society that is impacted far more by its linguistic differences, its catholicism, its links with France, etc than anywhere else in Canada. Had the Californian Republic remained separate for far longer and developed a 'unique' cultural cohesion, it could have evolved into a nation. But its complex structure and society mean there is not a standard 'Californian' - after all Ronald Reagan was governor of the state, but hardly represented liberal California. There is a far stronger communal identity in Quebec than in California, a product of its long history of shared symbols, values and culture.

Even if a United States of Europe emerged (and for historic reasons, I suspect there is more likelihood of Iraq becoming the 51st US state than that happening) the sense of nationhood would still exist in its member states; after all Belgium is one state but two (if not more) nations, the Flems and the Walloons, co-existing uneasily. (It used to be said that the late King Baudouin was the only Belgian; everyone else was something else.) Just because there isn't a state with borders doesn't end a sense of national identity. In fact that is the very reason why a USE is unlikely to happen. The European Community/Union worked because it allowed a balance between the expression of identity through the nation state and and shared number of European-wide institutions. But tip the balance in favour of a federalised Europe, and you risk creating a nationalist backlash, among people who say 'hold on, I'm Irish/British/French/whoever. I'm not some common-denominator European'. To put it simply, as long as people can define themselves in Europe through their nationality first, they will toterate and work through the EU. But put that 'Europeanism' before their identity, and you could generate a backlash - with people saying 'I want to be Irish/German/Italian in Europe, not a European who lives in Ireland/Germany/Italy.' The key thing to remember is that 'nation' and 'nationalism' can exist separate from a state, but the more separate it is, the greater the degree of sensitivity required to avoid a backlash and demands of a separate nation-state. In the case of Quebec and Scotland, the question is, can a multi-nation state show sufficient sensitivity to all sides to keep the state together, or will the sense of national identity lead to a demand for separation and the development of their own state that corresponds to their own nation, ie a nation-state?

re the above statement about the confederacy - yes it was the nearest thing the US has ever had to a separate nation with it (not counting native american nations, of course) but it still was not a nation in the literal sense. (Though had it developed, it might have evolved a sense of separate identity.) But, anonymous user (BTW, any chance you might sign your contributions? 3 '~'s or 4, if you want the time and date stated) you still seem fixated on nation = state, hence your comment on diplomatic representation. IT IS UTTERLY IRRELEVANT. How many states are diplomatically represented to Scotland? None! Is it a nation? Yes. There is diplomatic representation to the UN and the EU. Are they nations? NO! Get over your fixation. Is its utterly irrelevant whether Quebec is a state or not, in terms of this argumment. Does it have a separate culture, policy, sense of identity, language, shared history, emotional sense of itself? Yes. Which is why Quebec, like Scotland, like Wales, like Ireland before 1922, Italy before 1870, Germany before 1871, were all nations. You don't have to have a state to be a nation. Being a state does not make you a nation. Please please grasp that. JTD 22:26 Feb 25, 2003 (UTC)

Ok JTD, answer these (seriously):
 * Q1: Is Palestine a nation? THERE IS NO PLACE CALLED PALESTINE, BUT YES THE PALESTINIANS ARE A NATION
 * Q2: Was the Confederacy a nation? NO
 * Q3: Is Kurdistan a nation? YES
 * Q4: Is Celine Dion's nationality Canadian or Quebecois? DEPENDS ON HOW SHE WANTS TO CALL HERSELF. EITHER COULD BE USED
 * Q5: Is Pierre Elliot Trudeau's nationality Canadian or Quebecois? DEPENDS ON HOW HE CHOSE TO CALL HIMSELF. EITHER COULD BE USED JTD 23:00 Feb 25, 2003 (UTC)

Ok, interesting. In Q1 you say "NO PLACE CALLED PALESTINE, BUT YES THE PALESTINIANS ARE A NATION" - would you say that Quebec is not a nation but that the Quebecois are? That is, you appear to be saying that the PEOPLE are the nation and not the place.

In Q2 you deny the confederacy nationhood. On what basis would you say that the Confederacy was not a nation? Do you consider the United States a nation?

I think your clarification on Q1 and Q2 will clarify your position on Q3.

On Q4 and Q5 you say "either could be used". Do you mean that either could be used by the individual to refer to themselves, or do you mean that either could be used by an observer to describe the person in question.

On the surface, your conception of nationality appears to be what is described at Ethnicity.

 * I always learned that a nation was simply a group of people who share ethnic, religious, cultural, linguistic, geographic or political bonds -- it isn't a nice, neat definition, but it generally works. By this standard, the Confederacy was a nation and southern Americans are still a nation (which is not to say that USians are not also a nation, including both northerners and southerners).  And I think it is the people and not the place -- the Jews, even prior to Israel, were still a nation, spread out across the globe. Tuf-Kat

 * I would regard the people of the Confederacy as borderline. Of course in that case, there are racial issues to be borne in mind, in so far as slaves of the old confederacy in the 1860s would have had a different concept of what the confederacy was about to slave-owners. TK's definition of a 'nation' is pretty much as I have always understood it too, and as we were taught in college lectures. Re the above answers, it is patently obvious that there is a 'Palestinian nation', just as it is patently obvious that there is a Kurdish nation. And yes the US is a nation, with sub-national characteristics. Re Celine Dion and Pierre Trudeau, the same is true with Gordon Brown, the UK Chancellor of the Exchequer. His passport says he belongs to the state of the United Kingdom. I don't know whether he regards himself as British or Scottish; the issue about multi-nation states is that they can interlocked definitions of nationhood. Some Scots see themselves as Scots and British, others purely Scots or British, (or English and British, versus English or British). Some people in Quebec see themselves as Quebecois and Canadian, others Quebecois or Canadians, just as before 1922, some people saw themselves as Irish and British (some Northern Ireland continue to do so, wanting to remain part of the UK while supporting the Irish rugby team and members of the Church of Ireland); others saw themselves as Irish or British. On this sort of list, Dion and Trudeau could be put on either list, as Quebecois or Canadian. That's the nature of 'nationhood'. It is complicated and not bound by borders. As in the case of the Palestinians, you don't even need a territory to share ethnic, cultural, linguistic & religious bonds, and so be a nation. JTD

Fair enough, tokerboy, but that makes anything that attempts to be a list of nations or nationalities fraught with peril. We either need to agree on a definition of nationality, or move this page to another title (see MyRedDice below) or come up with some elaborate scheme of disclaimers and redirects. Another can of worms that this definition will open up is people argueing over where to place famous and infamous people. Determining what "nation-state" they belonged to is usually simple, decideing what "cultural, religious, and linguistic" group they self-identified with is going to be quite contentious.

What if I made this page list of people by area or list of people by place or list of people by location ? Would that solve people's concerns? Or make things worse? Martin

 * I'd go for {region}, {state} because region often would describe a sense of nationhood where that nation isn't a state, eg, Quebec, the Basque country, Scotland, etc. Of course there would have to be some flexibility where someone is 'inter-state', eg, the Palestinians, many of whom would not like to be called 'Israeli' even if they live in 'Israel', given that they regard Israel as an entity that 'stole' their land. (Even as I wrote that, I had images of RK suddenly appearing to begin his 'inevitable' defence of Israel!!) And while Gerry Adams would hate to be called Northern Irish, from the United Kingdom, the Rev. Ian Paisley would go ballistic if called 'Irish'. Bet you are sorry you started this page now, eh! . JTD 23:41 Feb 25, 2003 (UTC)

(or list of people by ethnicity?)

 * How about two pages: people by place (e.g. list of Chinese people) and people by nationality (e.g. list of Chinese people (ethnicity))?

 * This would give primacy to the geographical definition (which is right IMHO, considering how arbitrary 'ethnicity' is), but still allows people to make such pages if they want to. - stewacide 04:57 Feb 26, 2003 (UTC)

 * On second thought, how about list of people by citizenship? (e.g. list of Chinese citizens, list of Hawaiian citizens, etc.).

 * Completely unambiguous (you're either a citizen or your not)
 * It actually works for the US and UK (e.g. list of United States citizens, list of United Kingdom citizens)

 * As things currently stand we have the worst of everything: there's no clear distinction between citizenship and ethnicity (ethnicity could be covered by something like list of people of Chinese ethnicity), and the current standard form doesn't work for some countries/regions (e.g. list of Albanians vs. list of United States people) - stewacide 07:03 Feb 27, 2003 (UTC)

-

Given that there is now more space on List of people, I'd like to suggest removing List of people by nationality and adding to List of people, after the secion "By date":

By nationality, residence, ethnicity, language
Regards Docu 06:36 Feb 26, 2003 (UTC)

 * Ooh, that's quite nice and compact :) Martin

 * This is better. Much easier to use. Also, I am Scottish and I think I speak for many Scottish and Welsh people when I say I don't really like being grouped under British when it's not really neccesary. Same goes for Catalans. Thesean43 12:41, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorting by continent
Nothing removed, nothing added. I think it's easier to navigate. What do others think? Udzu 00:00, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

 * As the location factor has various incidents on the lists, I prefer the previous format. -- User:Docu

 * You're probably right. I've reverted it to a single list. Udzu

Turkish
Where are the Turks!?!?!?!?

 * Fixed, thanks. --Joy [shallot]   11:38, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Towards a More Comprehensive List
In its present state, this list is in quite a state (if you'll excuse the crass pun.) We should seek optimistically and collaboratively to rectify as many of its failings as possible so that it may continue to constitue an effect contents page for the many "Lists of..." pages.

The most straightforward approach would be to understand 'nationality' as synonymous with 'citizenship'. Wikipedia should be nothing if not sensitive however and given that 'nations' across the world are campaigning, fighting and dying for the right to self-determination, it would be crass not to recognise anomalies in some way. Thus we would for instance have sought to have a unified entry for "Germans" pre-unification, despite the existence of two states. Nationality is in this sense something deeper.

Running with the NPS definition we could take nationality to mean "a people having a common origin, tradition, and language and capable of forming a state, an ethnic group within a larger group (as a nation)."

Note well, however: in order that this list not become clumsy, we ought to remember what it is not, namely a "List of People by Ethnic Origin". Nationality thus conceived might perhaps be taken to be a middle ground between citizenship and ethnic origin.

Further Principles

 * Where a nationality has been or is currently widely dispersed, or is living in exile, or constitutes a not inconsiderable diaspora, then there need be no correlation between nationality and citizenship, e.g. Jewish people, Roma.
 * Where a people of a historic nation exclusively or almost exclusively inhabit the territory of a single state (as with the Scots in the UK) AND where there is a claimed "national" identity associated with the larger state AND where this is accepted by a reasonable proportion of the members of that sub-group as a national identity, then the sub-group may without deference be listed as a sub-category of the larger nationality. (e.g. Brits --> Scots, Russians --> Chuvashs.)
 * Where a people of a historic nation exclusively or almost exclusively inhabit the territory of a single state BUT EITHER there is no a claimed "national" identity associated with the larger state OR virtually no members of that sub-group accept the state identity, then the sub-group should be listed seperately. (e.g. Chechens.)

List of Baltic Germans
List of Baltic Germans was recent posted on these pages. My reason for having moved it is that, to the best to my understanding, there is no claim for seperate nationality on behalf of - specifically - Baltic Germans. The proper place for it would seem therefore to be the List of Germans pages. Anadine 09:11, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

syriacs arent syrians!!
There is a difference please read Syriacs and syrians

Shouldn't it be "list of peoples"? A "list of people" should contain every individual person on Earth, which is just ridiculous. --Eideteker 21:39, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Who are Padanians ?
I propose to abolish the subgroup of Italians named "Padanians".

"Padania" does not exist and it will never be a recognized country therefore should not be present. Many of the people who would be enlisted there would be Italians born in the north regions.

I do not think is worth to keep that voice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.251.141.196 (talk) 07:33, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

The English have been an ethnic group here for 44 months!
In March 2006 an IP (in its only edit) inserted English into the 'By ethnicity' section. For over 3 and a half years Wikipdia has claimed the English are an ethnic group. Isn't it time we got on top of these lists? I'm putting this list up for deletion, as it's untenable right now to list 'peoples' by 'nationalities'. A very least we would need a 'List of nations' to work from, which Wikipedia doesn't have at the moment. When and if it ever does, it would make this list obsolete - by containing the same information in the configurable tables we have now. Matt Lewis (talk) 21:34, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I can't find 'Korean' in the items.
It seems like there are no 'Koreans' here! 124.49.234.138 (talk) 07:31, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Lists of people by nationality


text:
Mixed drink

A mixed drink is a beverage in which two or more ingredients are mixed.

Types

 * List of non-alcoholic mixed drinks—A non-alcoholic mixed drink (also known as virgin cocktail, temperance drink, or mocktail) is a cocktail-style beverage made without alcoholic ingredients.
 * Soft drink

Caffeinated

 * Coffee drinks: Iced coffee
 * List of chocolate drinks — chocolate contains a small amount of caffeine
 * Energy drink
 * Teas

Herbal

 * Kava — not traditionally flavored, however, it is occasionally flavored like alcoholic drinks.

Alcoholic
A "spirit and mixer" is any combination of one alcoholic spirit with one non-alcoholic component, such as gin and tonic, whereas a cocktail generally comprises three or more liquid ingredients, at least one of which is alcoholic.

 * List of cocktails
 * List of beer cocktails
 * List of flaming beverages
 * List of national drinks
 * List of wine cocktails

Supplies

 * List of glassware
 * List of common edible cocktail garnishes
 * List of common inedible cocktail garnishes

title: Mixed drink