Talk:Jews/Archive 34

Archive 30

←

Archive 32

Archive 33

Archive 34

Missing: term for Israelites + Jews, together

Please go to Talk:Israelites#Missing: term for Israelites + Jews, together for this topic. Here just the start of the discussion:

In Jewish religion as well as several strands of historiography, the assumption of continuity or even identity is made between Israelites and Jews. Terms like "Nation/People of Israel" (caps not always a must) can't currently be linked to any Wik. article, because neither Israelites, Jews, or Israelis covers more than part of the intended meaning. Arminden (talk) 09:12, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

The use of ethnic Jew

The use of of the term "ethnic Jew" is inaccurate and invalidating of Jews by Choice. The ethnicity(which is not genetic but environmental)and religion are intertwined and converts are fully adopted into both. JbC are 100% Jewish and thus, able to question and abandon their faith and remain Jewish. I think an alternative term should be chosen, like "Jews by Descent". MagicalEnbySarah (talk) 09:28, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

How does that help? If you choose to come into Judaism, then you aren't a Jew by descent. I mean, you might be, maybe you have a Jewish ancestor, but that's a separate matter, the point is that your Judaism isn't on account of that descent.

You may be reading it too inflexibly. The point is that there are people who are Jewish by faith, by religious observance; there are ethnic Jews; and there are people who are both. If you've chosen to be part of the Jewish people, you aren't an ethnic Jew, but you're Jewish. Largoplazo (talk) 10:34, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 April 2024

Palestine is a relatively new term and becomes political very quickly. Recommend using Levant or Western Asia however being that this topic is about the Jews recommend using the language that they use to describe where they are from, that being their ancestral homeland of Ancient Israel/Judea Samaria. F smithers (talk) 10:23, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk|contribs) 11:46, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

The area's been known as Palestine for over 2,500 years. Largoplazo (talk) 12:33, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Edit proposal

I would sincerely ask that you directly, clearly and unambiguously emphasize the Semitic origin in the first paragraph. Thanks. Bagyblazha (talk) 15:24, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Edit request

Please add a hatnote to handle the incoming redirects JudenJuden, JuifsJuifs, JuivesJuives.

Please add:

{{redirect-multi|3|Juden|Juifs|Juives|other uses|Juive|and|Juif|and|Jude|and|Juden (disambiguation)}}

"Juden", "Juifs", and "Juives" redirect here. For other uses, see Juive, Juif, Jude, and Juden (disambiguation).

-- 64.229.90.32 (talk) 15:42, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

 Done Left guide (talk) 05:04, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Edit, Jews are not a race or ethnic group

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Edit, Jews are not a race or an ethnic group

"A reevaluation of the anthropological genetics literature on Jewish populations reveals them not simply to be a body of genetically related people descending from a small group of common ancestors, but rather a “mosaic” of peoples of diverse origins. Greek and other pre-medieval historiographic sources suggest the patterning evident in recent genetic studies could be explained by a major contribution from Greco-Roman and Anatolian-Byzantine converts who affiliated themselves with some iteration of Judaism beginning in the first and second centuries ce and continuing into the Middle Ages. These populations, along with Babylonian and Alexandrian Jewish communities, indigenous North Africans, and Slavic-speaking converts to Judaism, support a mosaic geography of Jewish ancestry in Europe and Western Asia, rather than one arising from a limited set of lineages originating solely in Palestine."

See

https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/702709?journalCode=jar

The Geography of Jewish Ethnogenesis.pdf

Also there is no Jüdische Typus

"It has been argued that Jews are not genomically distinct from non-Jews."

Eran Elhaik, https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/genetics/articles/10.3389/fgene.2016.00141/full In Search of the jüdische Typus: A Proposed Benchmark to Test the Genetic Basis of Jewishness Challenges Notions of “Jewish Biomarkers, Frontiers of Genetics Vol.7, 5 August 2016: ‘Claims that Jews can be accurately distinguished from non-Jews . . and carry “Jewish heritage” in their DNA . . are . .frequently made. Supporters of the alternative school have consistently dismissed any racial notion of Jews over the past centuries, citing the ongoing failures to provide a robust test for Jewishness and the rich historical, archeological, and linguistic evidence for Jews’ history of assimilations and mixtures with non-Jewish populations rather than seclusion periods. This position can be summarized as: “A Jew is a Jew because he chose to be a Jew and not because he was forced – because of biology or by some external social force – to define himself as a Jew”.’

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_studies_of_Jews

2601:444:300:B070:F9EE:7B8A:A564:1D43 (talk) 01:24, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

 Not done. Although there's a correlation, neither "race" nor "ethnic group" typically refer to populations which are exclusively bounded by genetics. See our articles on Race and Ethnicity. GordonGlottal (talk) 02:17, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

That's not exactly the case. European Jews are all practically the same genetic group,but Ashkenazim do have a percentage of at least 20% Slavic+Germanic which makes them a bit different from Italkim, Sephardim, and Romaniotes, but other than that they're mostly all southern European and Levantine. They also cluster quite close to Mizrahim such as Iraqi Jews from what I've read, but when it comes to Yemenites and Ethiopians, then it becomes a bit confusing.

In the end though, ethnicities aren't really defined by genetics in the first place,so it's mostly culture and religion. Yamnaya (talk) 17:10, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

We are an in fact an ethnic group. Stop trying to erase our history. Enough.

The argument presented here seems to cherry-pick findings from genetic studies to push an agenda that diminishes the validity of Jewish ethnicity. By focusing solely on genetic diversity within Jewish populations, it disregards the broader context of Jewish identity, which encompasses a rich tapestry of history, culture, and tradition.

Reducing Jewishness to a mere collection of genetic markers overlooks the lived experiences and shared history that have shaped Jewish communities for centuries. It perpetuates a reductionist view that undermines the complexity of Jewish identity and ignores the cultural, religious, and historical factors that bind Jewish people together.

Moreover, the dismissal of the concept of a "Jewish Typus" and the assertion that Jews are not "genomically distinct" from non-Jews without acknowledging the broader context of Jewish history and identity is deeply troubling. It not only overlooks the resilience of Jewish communities in maintaining their distinctiveness throughout history but also echoes anti-Semitic rhetoric that seeks to delegitimize Jewish identity.

This argument not only fails to provide a comprehensive understanding of Jewish ethnicity but also risks perpetuating harmful stereotypes and biases against Jewish people. It's important to approach discussions about Jewish identity with nuance and sensitivity, recognizing the multifaceted nature of Jewishness beyond genetic markers.

In addition, I must point out what I feel is utmost hypocrisy.

1. Selective Application of Identity: People who argue that Jews are solely a religious group often ignore the fact that Jewish identity is not simply religion, in fact the religion itself centers around the ethnic and tribal identity of the jewish people, the practices itself center around the Land of Israel, that is what it is. One example is the Shmita, plus the Hebrew calendar, etc.

2.Ignoring Historical Prejudice: Historically, Jews have faced discrimination and persecution based on their ethnicity, regardless of their religious beliefs. Anti-Semitic rhetoric often targets Jews as a racial or ethnic group, regardless of whether they practice Judaism. Denying the ethnic dimension of Jewish identity while perpetuating stereotypes and prejudice against Jews as a group is contradictory.

Disregarding Self-Identification: Many Jews identify strongly with their ethnic or cultural heritage, even if they are not religiously observant. Dismissing Jewish identity as purely religious disregards the self-identification and lived experiences of Jewish individuals and communities who see themselves as part of a broader ethnic or cultural group.

3.Double Standards: Those who claim Jews are only a religious group may fail to apply the same logic to other religious communities. For example, they may acknowledge the ethnic or cultural aspects of other religious groups, such as Muslims or Hindus, while denying the same complexity to Jews. This double standard reveals a bias against Jews and undermines the consistent application of principles of identity and diversity in Wikipedia.

The other thing I notice is the contradiction of you attempting to deny the racial or ethnic dimension of Jewish identity in order to justify speaking about Jews as a unified group, despite acknowledging the wrongness of racism. 74.71.4.108 (talk) 15:00, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Can't see a single source in all that wall of opinion text. Only ones I can see are by OP. Selfstudier (talk) 15:07, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

@Yamnaya and Selfstudier: Note that before the first reply to this request the OP was blocked as one of the many recent socks of User:SteveBenassi. Genetic studies of Jews was just protected for 6 months because of this editor and similarly themed edits. I suggest that we collapse this thread. Meters (talk) 18:21, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Sock or not, I would still like to see a proper response to the points made. With sources. I understand that Elhaik might be somewhat controversial, so if we had a couple sources saying that research is fringe or at least not mainstream, that might do. Idk anything about the first one but same idea. OR should the discussion be at the genetics article? Selfstudier (talk) 18:26, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Now I see that there is a collapsed thread there in the genetics article that I think maybe should not actually be collapsed. Selfstudier (talk) 18:38, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Yep, I will take my concerns there, so can go ahead and collapse this one here. Selfstudier (talk) 18:44, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

I promise I am not that person, Nor am I a sockpuppet. This is an IP address, and a densely populated neighborhood. 74.71.4.108 (talk) 20:32, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Thats why its my opinion. With all due respect I have never used this site before in this manner, but I found the comment I was responding to, to be incredibly offensive and bordering on antisemtism. Perhaps my bias is apparent and I can recuse myself if you'd like. 74.71.4.108 (talk) 20:34, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Eran's work along with the Khazar theory had largely been debunked. Good try though. 2603:8001:D300:1694:987:51A:5722:4269 (talk) 00:35, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

"It has been argued that Jews are not genomically distinct from non-Jews."

1. "It has been argued that" is far from conclusive information.
2. My genetic test assessed my genetic makeup as somewhere between 96% and 98% Ashkenazi Jewish, consistent with my emergence from four Ashkenazi grandparents. They must have some idea of what, at least, distinguishes Ashkenazi genetics to have been able to classify me as that and not, say, Slavic or German, don't you think? I know that's WP:OR but I think it, along with my first point, reasonably suggests to me that you might be cherry-picking and grasping.

Largoplazo (talk) 00:53, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 July 2024

Please change "After the Exile, the term Yehudi (Jew) was used for all followers of Judaism because the survivors of the Exile (who were the former residents of the Kingdom of Judah) were the only Israelites that had kept their distinct identity as the ten tribes from the northern Kingdom of Israel had been scattered and assimilated into other populations.[57]" to " After the Exile, the term Yehudi (Jew) was used for all followers of Judaism, because the survivors of the Exile (who were the former residents of the Kingdom of Judah) were the only Israelites that had kept their distinct identity as religious jews; the ten tribes from the northern Kingdom of Israel had been scattered and assimilated into other populations.[57]" ZucherBundlech (talk) 12:46, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Garsh (talk) 00:07, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

I am not the original author, but it seems that the intent of the proposed change would just fix unclear writing, not add/remove any factual information. 45.37.105.227 (talk) 19:27, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

I understand what you mean about clarifying, where it reads "had kept their distinct identity", their distinct identify as what. But do we know that they were all "religious"? Or do we know only that they continued to identify themselves, distinctly, as Jews, in contrast with the descendants of the other tribes? Largoplazo (talk) 12:21, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Non-White Jews

We all know full well there are such things as Arab Jews. Why is there no data on all the Moroccon Jews? They all exist. But we only recognise the Ashkenazi Jews (Modern Israel Jews) Issue resolved MjhdNfl (talk) 00:48, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean. We have several articles on Mizrahi Jews and Arab Jews, History of the Jews in Morocco, and so on. Andre🚐 03:02, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

@Andrevan

Ik, but shouldn't it be part of the bigger article on the Jews? MjhdNfl (talk) 03:24, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Sure, of course, Mizrahim occurs at least 7 times on this page, North Africa at least 20 times Andre🚐 03:34, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Moroccan Jews are mentioned in five places in the article. In addition, there's a section titled "Ethnic divisions". So it isn't clear what your concern is. Largoplazo (talk) 13:13, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

@Largoplazo oh ok nvm MjhdNfl (talk) 13:21, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Not the only Israelites that had kept their distinct identity (See: Samaritans)

Name and etymology: "After the Exile, the term Yehudi (Jew) was used for all followers of Judaism because the survivors of the Exile (who were the former residents of the Kingdom of Judah) were the only Israelites that had kept their distinct identity as the ten tribes from the northern Kingdom of Israel had been scattered and assimilated into other populations."

This claim is not totally true and misleading. Samaritans are crying in the corner. Theofunny (talk) 08:02, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

What’s with the glazing in the last paragraph?

“Jews wrote the Bible, founded Christianity, and had an indirect but profound influence on Islam.”

Not only does this sentence contain somewhat misleading (or at least incomplete) phrasing for the first two parts, but the language itself seems to be leaning towards glazing. The preceding sentence is sufficient.

Lmk if I’m totally off base here, this is just my perception 65.112.8.31 (talk) 07:03, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Seems fine to me, literally true statements, no puffery detected. Andre🚐 07:32, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Alright, perhaps I was mistaken. I still think it might be beneficial to reword it in a way that doesn’t oversimplify things as much. 65.112.8.31 (talk) 11:30, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

How would you want to reword it? Andre🚐 22:50, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

"Jews authored the Bible, established Christianity, and influenced Islam." Moxy🍁 01:24, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Seems fine to me. Andre🚐 01:36, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

The first two clauses seems mostly a substitution of longer words for shorter ones, with no apparent change in meaning or other improvement I can see. As far as the last clause, given that Islam is one of the three Abrahamic religions, and the many links mentioned in the lead paragraph of Judaism and Islam, the word profound seems an accurate description, and not puffery.

To the IP: a short, assertive statement in the WP:LEAD is not an oversimplification, if it is a summary of content in the body of the article that demonstrates that the lead statement is correct and lays out the most important points without all the details excected in the body. Not everything can be crammed into the lead; remember that WP:LEAD is just a summary of the most important points of the body, and that sentence seems fine for the lead. (edit conflict) Mathglot (talk) 01:50, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Agree with Mathglot. Carlstak (talk) 02:10, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Page says 20 million, source says 15 million.

What's going on with the population source? I'm having trouble clicking the note next to it so I can only see the actual PDF of the source.

There would probably be 20 million Jews by this point but someone with a tiny mustache ruined that. I am concerned that this wild deviation from the official numbers will feed into Holocaust denialism.

Also, this is feeding into smart assistants like Siri/Spotlight Search. Ieditthethings (talk) 04:36, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

The source gives a bunch of numbers for different definitions of "Jew". See figure 3 on page 14 of the cited source, and also read footnote [a] in front of the reference and see if they help refine your question or concerns. Largoplazo (talk) 05:31, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

The footnote glitches at least on mobile web. That page is irrelevant and talks about how people can be distantly connected. The real established values are on page 17. Ieditthethings (talk) 02:16, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

There's no option to edit our talk comments? Okay…

I see the difference now taking a closer look at the wiki page. However, the data being fed into other APIs is inaccurate and feeds into Holocaust denial. The 20m figure needs to be put elsewhere to prevent this. Ieditthethings (talk) 02:19, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 February 2025

First word of article

Please change "The Jews, or the Jewish people, are an ethnoreligious group[14] and nation"

To "Jews, or the Jewish people, are an ethnoreligious group[14] and nation"

No RS to support the use of "the" in this context

<Edit> alternate change to option: “Jews are members of the Jewish people, an ethnoreligious group[14] and nation[15] originating from the Israelites” Mikewem (talk) 18:00, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

I'll be amazed if you've never seen a scholarly source use "the" in front of the name of an ethnic group or nationality. The Danes, the Portuguese, the Dutch, the Turks—it's ordinary English usage. (🎶That's nobody's business but the Turks'.🎶) Also, a meme that goes back I don't know how many decades is the question of whether something or other is "good for the Jews". Never "good for Jews". It's so ordinary I'm surprised it's a point of contention. Largoplazo (talk) 23:36, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Already done Wolfdog (talk · contribs) already performed this request. And as just a note, this guideline states the use of the definite article should be avoided when talking about a collective ethnic group. cyberdog958^Talk 11:11, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Self-described nation

User:Wolfdog, I'd like to discuss your change in the lead from identifying Jews as "nation" to saying they are "self-described as comprising a nation". For one thing, it's unnecessarily wordy. Even if I were to take your point, "self-described as a nation" would do the trick without the "comprising a" part.

More substantively, isn't a nation always a group of people who identify/describe themselves as such? I fail to see that you've made any distinction here. Rather, whatever it is you're trying to clarify is already implicit in the concept of a nation. Largoplazo (talk) 02:24, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

Just reverted it. Let's see if it lasts. Pyramids09 (talk) 03:20, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

I think it's quite clear that that is not the usual meaning of the word nation in English in 2025. I'm happy to remove "comprising" if that was your main contention. My first edit was changing "nation" to "nation in the original sense of the word," but I actually worried THAT was too wordy. Does my concern make sense to you? The way nation is ordinarily used by English speakers today means nation-state and I'm trying to avoid that inevitable confusion for some readers. (There's the State of Israel of course, which has some but not total overlap.) Is there some other wording that could better get this distinction across? Thanks for discussing. Wolfdog (talk) 13:12, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

I appreciate your point about confusion with nation-state. Still, at least to me, "self-described" comes across as "they call themselves that, but we know better". Looking to the Nation article for inspiration, I've come up with an alternative proposal, "... an ethnoreligious group and a people sharing a national identity ...". What do you all think? Largoplazo (talk) 13:35, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

I was about to offer "an ethnoreligious group often described as a nation". How about that? I think that maybe avoids the inadvertent automatic confusion with modern nation-state entities like France, Israel, Thailand, etc. If you still prefer your alternative, I might just add something like "a traditional national identity" or "sharing a traditional identity as a nation". Wolfdog (talk) 14:11, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

I just saw this when you made the edit—. I don't know what "traditional national identity" means. In contrast to what other kind of national identity? Largoplazo (talk) 16:59, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

One that is recognized by a majority of sovereign states of the United Nations, for example. I'm using "traditional" here to suggest, as I said earlier, that "nation" means "nation in the original sense of the word" as opposed to the common modern sense. ("Traditional" is indeed a relative term, but it was already used in a different location in the lede before I even came along.) Would another adjective be preferred? Wolfdog (talk) 20:36, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

"People of Israel" and "nation of Israel" are both literal translations of the Biblical term עם-ישראל, which refers to the ethnic group. It has nothing to do with politics, and I don't like the rash of recent changes to pages like this which look for excuses to modulate previously-apolitical language through a political lens. We had a similar discussion about the lede image last year. I don't think it's likely to mislead those with basic English literacy—is anybody confused by Nation of Islam? But I have no problem with the current language. GordonGlottal (talk) 19:39, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

It's true that these are literal biblical translations, but nevertheless the word (in English) has evolved since these original translations and thus requires some clarification. We have many young people on Wikipedia, English language learners, etc. and I'm trying to avoid the easy misconception that Jews share some automatic nation-state identity. Clearly, that's not what we mean. (Of course, many Jews live in or feel ties to modern Israel, but that's not what we're saying here -- another justification for being a bit more discerning with our prose). Is there some alternative wording you'd like to offer? Wolfdog (talk) 20:42, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

This is a bizarre conversation. The fact that Americans don't know what the word "nation" means doesn't mean we have to pretend to not know what it means either. Scholarly sources use the word correctly. JDiala (talk) 21:55, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Deletion of quotation about endurance of Judaism

User:JDiala has twice removed a sourced quotation about the age of Judaism compared with that of any other modern faith. I thought this was a WP:1RR article (though now I don't see this indicated), so I self-reverted my second reversion. But JDiala's stated justification for the first removal was incorrect and for the second was irrelevant. Any thoughts? Largoplazo (talk) 22:24, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

It is a sourced quotation, but it is from a poor source (a newspaper columnist Charles Krauthammer, not a scholarly work). The poor quality of the source is already enough reason to exclude. But it is also very false. The quotation makes a set of very specific empirical claims, many of which are not true and others which are debatable. For instance, it claims that modern Jews speaks the same language as the Jews of 3,000 years ago. That is false. Modern Jews do not speak Old Hebrew. That is a distinct language from New Hebrew. They are not mutually intelligible. The quote says that Jews are the only nation to worship the same God as 3,000 years ago. That is also contentious at best, because although (as you note) the Hindu pantheon has evolved, they still worship many of the same deities as from the Rigveda period, like Agni. The quote says that Jews have the same name as 3,000 years ago. Yet the word Jew, derived from יְהוּדִי, only began to refer to the entire nation following the Babylonian exile, which was far earlier than 3,000 years ago, as our own article discusses in the "Name and etymology" section.

This is generally a good lesson for why scholarly sources are preferred over newspaper columnists. The latter are incentivized to make bombastic, propagandistic claims (as is happening here, the author is trying to push a certain propaganda narrative that Jews are older, and hence better able to preserve their culture and peoplehood, than everyone else) whereas the former are adept at nuanced, careful evaluations, which is what we want in an encyclopedia. JDiala (talk) 23:16, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

Here you've made some good points, thanks. Based on those, I don't object to the deletion. Largoplazo (talk) 04:08, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Treating Biblical/Modern Hebrew as a binary leads only to confusion. Hebrew has continuously evolved for the last 3,000 years. The language of Job and that of Esther are far apart. The language of classical rabbinic texts ("Mishnaic Hebrew" and "Amoraic Hebrew") represents another massive shift, but a Modern speaker still struggles to read it unaided. However, the late medieval Hebrew (11th-14th centuries) of Maimonides, Rashi, etc. is largely intelligible to Modern-fluent religious Jews, with a familiar grammatical structure and vocabulary. This is why, despite the gigantic range of texts preserved from this period, and no shortage of scholars engaged in their study, no specialized dictionaries for the study of any historical Hebrew beyond the 6th century CE have ever been produced—resources designed for Modern Hebrew generally suffice. By the late 17th century, Hebrew literary style is already somewhat fixed, and even obscure works would still be accessible to a 21st-century reader. Of course huge quantities of vocabulary have been added in the last 300 years, some European loanwords have dropped out, etc. etc., but the pace of change is actually slow compared to many other languages. Such as English. Mishnaic Hebrew (c. 200 CE) is perhaps as far from 21st-century Hebrew as 14th-century English is to 21st-century English, or: significantly easier than Shakespeare. To find a Hebrew as difficult for modern readers as the English of Beowulf, you would have to look back to earliest Biblical poetry, perhaps 1,700 years further.

Can't speak to the comparative point generally, but Hinduism is no parallel. There is no continuous Hindu literature stretching back thousands of years; only with extensive modern scholarship can a historical narrative be reconstructed analytically, which will never be as specific or coherent, and does not exist within the tradition of Hinduism itself. GordonGlottal (talk) 21:15, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

On Hebrew: the point is that it's complicated. The quote doesn't delve into the complications. That's not acceptable. The reality is that an average Hebrew speaker today would not be able to speak to an Israelite 3,000 years ago. That's enough reason to be very cautious when including such simplistic statements. On Hinduism: putting aside that your claims are false and borderline offensive, and that you are not citing any sources ... the most problematic thing is that you are simply goalpost stretching. Krauthammer made a specific point that only Jews worship the same God as 3,000 years ago. That is false, as it is possible to exhibit specific Hindu Gods from the Rigvega period (1500-500 BCE) which remain in the Hindu pantheon. In fact, several of these Gods are likely derived from earlier proto-Indo-European Gods, so the real timeline could be as long as 5,000 years. Hinduism did of course change and evolve over the millennia, but Judaism did too particularly after the destruction of the temple and the rise of Rabbinic Judaism. The practices and beliefs of, say, modern reform Jews today would be alien and probably even offensive to the Israelites of 3,000 years ago. JDiala (talk) 01:22, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

I don't understand your argument. Hebrew exhibits a reasonably slow pace of change over the last 2,500 years. Literally no modern speaker of any language could speak to their ancestor of 2,500 years fluently. A Modern Hebrew speaker would understand far more of Hebrew 2,000 years ago than a modern English speaker could of English 1,000 years ago. The various forms of Hebrew used by 21st-century Jews (including Modern Hebrew) are the "same language" inasmuch as any historical dialect can be the "same language" as a modern version.

I haven't made any claim about theology. It is obviously not true that any denomination of Judaism holds the same tenets today as 3,000 years ago, or 2000 years ago. What constitutes a "same god" is a theological question, but I'm curious—how specifically can you define the Hindu pantheon, and still find 3,500 year parallels? To a specificity that the Jewish god wouldn't also qualify?

The point I was making is that Judaic tradition is continuous, not that it's unchanging. A 21st-century Orthodox Jewish schoolchild can name the major Judaic tradents from every century in the last 2,000 years and their works, and this list would be the same in every previous century, up to its own time. One would reach the same result by opening a modern Judaic ritual code and tracing its citations to the previous generation, and the one before that, etc. This is a genuinely interesting feature of a small religion! And one which is not paralleled in Hinduism. The history of Hinduism's development can certainly not be traced to any such level of detail through its own continuous canon, but only through academic rediscovery, and then still to a lesser extent. Something similar could be said of Christianity, but at the ~1,700 year mark Jews start to have the better claim. GordonGlottal (talk) 04:03, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

You are correct that no one can speak to their ancestors from 3,000 years ago. That's precisely why Krauthammer's statement is misleading, because it could suggest otherwise for Jews. Most readers would associate "same language" with mutual intelligibility. It is also misleading because for the majority of Jewish history (the diaspora period) Hebrew was never a primary language. It was reintroduced in the modern era in a rather artificial way. The statement requires an asterisk at the very least.

Jews did have a "clearer" sense of their history than other peoples because they had a strong legalistic and citation culture. However, I do not think that the historical roots of other peoples can be discredited as being less legitimate simply because they had other modes of communicating their belief (like oral).

I certainly think that there are elements of truth to what you say, and there could be a way to communicate to the reader the story of Jewish continuity, which I don't disagree is in many ways unparalleled. But I don't think Krauthammer does this in a measured way. I would encourage you to propose your own wording if you are interested. I'd also recommend citing scholarly sources, since (as I mentioned above) Krauthammer is not a scholarly source. JDiala (talk) 06:04, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

“Most readers would associate "same language" with mutual intelligibility.”

I don’t believe that to be the case. For example, older versions of English are not intelligible to modern readers, but they’re still English. Drsmoo (talk) 14:54, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

With that said, I do agree that this quotation is not ideal, and a scholar of Jewish Studies would be better. Drsmoo (talk) 14:59, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

We should not be declaring in Wikivoice a statement by political commentator Charles Krauthammer that "The Israelite ancestry makes Jews..." whatever. I agree with JDiala that scholarly publications should always be used in preference to statements by newspaper columnists and TV commentators to cite as sources for historical or political commentary, and I don't think you'll find a genuine scholarly source that supports Krauthammer's declaration. Carlstak (talk) 00:42, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

I also would have removed the quotation if I'd noticed it. Zero^talk 04:36, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

I agree that we would need to do better than an opinion piece by Krauthammer. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 05:43, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

1. Agni could be worshiped 3000 years ago. The quote does not say worship only. The quote gives combination of 4 points, worship and 3 more. This combination is what makes difference.

2. Hindu does not pass the point of name. No such ethnic group is recorded in the 2nd millennium BC. In the earliest Indian sources in the 1st millennium BC Sindhu means river (Indus). Derived from Sindhu, the Persian exonym Hindu appears in the reign of Darius who was born 6 centuries after Merneptah died and the Indians did not describe themselves as Hindu for two millennia longer.

3. Not the same language would be Yiddish. Hebrew is the same language whatever changes it underwent.

4. The word Jew, derived from יְהוּדִי, only began to refer to the entire nation following the Babylonian exile. The Israelite ancestry pre-dates that exile.

5. Krauthammer is not the best quality source but we have here another Journalist Anshel Pfeffer, Sheldon Gordon and Elan Ezrachi of forward.com, and an anonymous article by BBC. Why mass attack this time?Pseudopolybius (talk) 03:02, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

I don’t think sources that are “not the best quality” should be maintained. If better sources can be used, use those instead. If not, the statement isn’t necessary for the article. Drsmoo (talk) 14:15, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Use of "Jewish gift to mankind" quote in Contributions section

" Due to the Jewish contribution to the Manhattan Project, the atomic bomb was labeled as a "Jewish gift to mankind." "

The quote is taken out of context and was originally written with irony.

Moreover, presenting it as if the bomb was labeled a "Jewish gift to mankind" based on a single blog post is misleading; the source is not enough to support such a generalization. The reijoweq (talk) 13:24, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Yeah. A more complete quote is "Inventions will come, of which one cannot even dream now, all from those smallest, most useful, most selfless particles of God’s world. And this is the new Jewish gift to mankind, the first gift since mankind exterminated six million Jews. So Jews take revenge." I agree that the little slice of this remarkable column isn't really helpful, and I've removed it. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 16:05, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Edit Request : Jews were not the only Israelites that had kept their distinct identity, there needs to be a mention of Samaritans in the "Name and etymology" that states this, for more historical accuracy.

Jews#Name and etymology: "After the Exile, the term Yehudi (Jew) was used for all followers of Judaism because the survivors of the Exile (who were the former residents of the Kingdom of Judah) were the only Israelites that had kept their distinct identity as the ten tribes from the northern Kingdom of Israel had been scattered and assimilated into other populations."

But this is not entirely correct as Samaritans, a very closely related people but today number very few ( less than a 1000) due to historical persecution and forced conversions, also kept their distinct identity as descendants of the Israelites. Jews and Samaritans were the only two groups to do so. There are a lot of sources and content in the Samaritans page corroborating this. Could an editor please work on this for a little more historical accuracy? I am also not sure what would be the best way to clarify this in that section. Thank you. Theofunny (talk) 19:37, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

"Dosick (2007)"

Very encyclopedic, reference a source without having this source listed anywhere. It's NOT in "Sources". Really, great job as always. jae (talk) 14:28, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

I dunno. I looked for the book so I could add it, but while I've found several books on Judaism written by a Wayne Dosick but none of them are from 2007. Largoplazo (talk) 20:28, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Jewish Diaspora Population Misreported

At the top of the page where there is a list of countries with significant amounts of Jews living in them, for some strange reason it lists South Korea and it's 1000 Jews, but fails to mention Morocco, Tunisia, Iran and some other countries like China, Turkey and India which have a much larger population of Jews living in them at present.

Is there a particular reason for neglecting to mention the existence of theses communities?

Edit: NATO country, Turkey, was added and South Korea was replaced with Panama, in a bid to avoid mentioning Iran which has 10,000 Jews living in it but not as much as Panama. I suspect political biases based on recent international conflict rather than adherence to facts on the parts of the editors, correct me if I'm wrong.

72.68.179.132 (talk) 02:28, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

Lead sentence translations

I made this edit to the lead sentence. In it, I (i) added in idiomatic Hebrew translations of "the Jewish people", namely Am Yehudi and Am Yisrael, the latter of which especially is idiomatic and culturally significant for modern Jews (1, 2, 3 etc.), and (ii) put all translations in the lead sentence (both existing and newly added) into footnotes rather than parentheticals.

The edit was reverted by Remsense without giving much of a reason. He said that it was "fine without footnotes". Footnotes for translation in the lead sentence improve readability and they are standard in many GAs/FAs (e.g., Germany, Japan, Islam, Nauru, Canada). They are suggested in MOS:PRONFN if the translation is distracting, which I think here it is as it takes up a good 30% of the sentence. Furthermore, (i) is kind of dependent on (ii), as if we have parenthetical translations for both "Jews" and "the Jewish people", the lead sentence is definitely too long, and I've provided what I think is a compelling independent argument for (i) above.

I'd like an explanation for this reversion by Remsense, and the input of other editors too. JDiala (talk) 06:53, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

There are a few existing lexical terms, but like I said such footnotes aren't obligatory and this one's fine without it.

The issue comes when adding yet more lexical terms: WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and the lead section especially needs not posture as if it's one. There's literally a dedicated section in the article body (which the lead is meant to summarize, as opposed to new information being grafted directly into the lead) for such material. Remsense 🌈 论 05:33, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

“Though it is not practiced by many ethnic Jews”

(in the lede) A large number of ethnic Jews do practice Judaism. Perhaps it would be better to reword this as “though many ethnic Jews do not practice it.” TheGame121.5 (talk) 23:25, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

I agree, that would remove an unfortunate ambiguity. Largoplazo (talk) 00:01, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

Absolutely. A very strange and inaccurate line. Ahboas (talk) 12:13, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

I've made the change. Largoplazo (talk) 12:52, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

"Jewry"

@Hildeoc: Stop trying to put "Jewry" into the lead. This is indeed a very archaic and not quite offensive but not really appropriate term for the lead. See ngram. It can be covered in the article body if there is something notable and encyclopedic to say about that usage. WP:RPLA Most (but not all) "inbound redirects" other than misspellings or other obvious close variants of the article title should be mentioned in the first couple of paragraphs of the article or section to which the redirect goes. Emphasis mine. Jewry is pretty much a close obvious variant to Jews. Nobody would be surprised when Jewry redirects to Jews. Nothing to explain, just an older and less common word form. Andre🚐 06:07, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, but I do not agree. The term is noteable as such, and should be included. Also, none of the renowned major dictionaries I consulted (e.g., Oxford, Collins, Merriam) labels this as "archaic". Hildeoc (talk) 06:34, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Collins and Merriam-Webster do label at least one each of the usages as archaic. And, regardless, something can be archaic without the dictionary updating to label it such. It's not a commonly used term in the modern day. While it is occasionally used, you are also using it wrong. It's a collective noun that needs no article. Regardless, there's no consensus for your addition to the long-standing lead section. Andre🚐 06:40, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

AAMOF, I am not using it "wrong" at all – think of similar terms such as gentry or clergy. Also, there is a pertinent redirect, so it correspondingly should be included. Hildeoc (talk) 06:50, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Jewry is not a word like gentry or clergy. If it is used at all it is usually used as in "American Jewry," "world Jewry," "Ethiopian Jewry." It's not THE Jewry of America. That might be grammatical but it is unstylistic and the way you've used it in the lead is inappropriate. Please revert yourself as it is your 4th revert. Andre🚐 06:52, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

No, here it is being used as an abstract noun – i.e., expressly not as in "American Jewry" or "world Jewry", which are both modified to denote specific groups of Jews. Hildeoc (talk) 06:56, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

World Jewry is a specific group? As opposed to Mars Jewry? Andre🚐 06:56, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

In strictly grammatical terms, yes. Hildeoc (talk) 06:58, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

No. Nobody would write "The Jewry." Wikipedia is not written based on obscure stuff in the dictionary, it's written based on common usage and the principle of easily understood, normal use. The policy clearly makes a possibility of not being so literal. Andre🚐 06:59, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

What policy are you exactly referring to? Hildeoc (talk) 07:08, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

I refer to the editing guideline for redirects having to list all forms. They do not require this. Andre🚐 07:09, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

As I already said, Jewry is noteable as a not "obvious variant" for "Jews" – rather it is actually a morphologically distinct form. Hildeoc (talk) 07:16, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

It has an archaic morphology. One that is used mostly to refer to 1200s decrees and ghettoes. Andre🚐 07:17, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

And the same logic goes for "gentry", "clergy", etc. indeed. Hildeoc (talk) 06:59, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

It does not. "World Clergy" makes no sense and not a construction anyone would use. Jewry is an abstract proper noun. Andre🚐 07:00, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Of course, "world clergy" makes perfect sense (e.g., "a congress of Catholic world clergy"). Also, you're missing the point here: use determiner for unmodified term here (as for "Jewry"); when modified, use no determiner. Hildeoc (talk) 07:11, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

I challenge you to find any single source every referring to "world clergy" in that usage. The point here is that "The Jewry" is NOT a synonym that any person would reasonably associate. I challenge you to find any reasonable recent authoritative source that uses that. Andre🚐 07:13, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

I agree, "the Jewry" (unless followed by a qualifying phrase) sounds ancient and really forced. Looking through Google Books hits for "the Jewry" I find that nearly everything after 1925 with "the Jewry" is followed by something like "of 18-century America" or "of medieval England". There's some collection from 1925 that has naked "the Jewry" a lot, and then I see a bunch of uses earlier than that.

Having said that, since "Jewry" redirects here, shouldn't there be a redirect-distinguish hatnote for Jewellery? Largoplazo (talk) 07:18, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

If Jewry is a common term for jewelry, maybe it should be a disambig page. Andre🚐 08:14, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

It isn't a common term for it. The "distinguish" hatnotes are for terms that may easily be confused with the subject of the article (or a redirect that leads to it). Largoplazo (talk) 14:09, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Ah, right. I didn't understand what you meant but I do now. Can you use that tool that shows the path people typically use to get to a page to find out if anyone is typing "jewry" and meaning "jewelry"? If they do, at any meaningful rate, I'd agree with the hatnote. Andre🚐 22:28, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

It does. Also, check, for instance, at Gentry: The gentry largely consisted of landowners who could support themselves ... Hildeoc (talk) 07:19, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

"The gentry" is in common usage, as is "The clergy." "World gentry" has a conceptual mapping but is not very common. And it really doesn't make sense. "British gentry" and "British Jewry" are both in common use, but the latter is increasingly less common. The reason is easy to understand. British Jews makes more sense. Jews of Britain sounds fine. Jewry of Britain, let alone THE Jewry of Britain, sounds downright medieval and it does NOT belong in the first sentence. Andre🚐 07:22, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

That is, very much in the first place, more about your personal taste, perception, and assessment of currentness than anything ... Is it formal to use "Jewry"? Yes. But that's about it to virtually all reputable up-to-date dictionaries. Hildeoc (talk) 07:32, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

it is the current view of 3 editors against your WP:1AM Andre🚐 07:49, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

I only see you and @Largoplazo engaging here ... Hildeoc (talk) 07:53, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

@Mikewem also reverted the change earlier. Andre🚐 07:56, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Not engaging here though. Hildeoc (talk) 08:22, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

"Perceived hostility towards Israel and the Jewry is a recurrent issue amongst the respondents." Hildeoc (talk) 07:35, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

"The massive presence at the leadership of Hungary of the Jewry is explained, considers the author, because they were skilled people, specialized ..." Hildeoc (talk) 07:39, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

This article has a number of spelling and grammatical errors. It is written by a non-native English speaker or is just a translation from Hungarian or Romanian or whatever and that's why they have chosen this awkward wording. Andre🚐 07:48, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

"... the Jewry has been able to keep under wraps through various means of media control." Hildeoc (talk) 07:53, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

You are literally quoting antisemites. Andre🚐 07:55, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

"The Jewry was not slow to take advantage of this new flexibility." Hildeoc (talk) 07:58, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Medieval. Andre🚐 07:58, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Nope, 2013 😂 Hildeoc (talk) 07:59, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

The topic of the work is The English Medieval Jewry, c.1075–1290 Andre🚐 08:00, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

But the quote is from academics from 2013, silly 🤦‍♂️ Hildeoc (talk) 08:01, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

The context is medieval, it's appropriate to use in that context. Andre🚐 08:02, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Please, look for yourself instead of trying to fool me with this kind of kindergarden. Hildeoc (talk) 08:03, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Hillaby, J., Hillaby, C. (2013). Lol Hildeoc (talk) 08:00, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

"The case of the Jewry is chosen due to its peculiar history and contemporary experience of persecution and discrimination, the myth, and ..."

Etc. etc. Hildeoc (talk) 07:42, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

"The groth of the Jewry in western Christendom took place in two quite different sectors of Europe—the south and the north." (2021)

At any rate, there is sufficient evidence to be found for "the Jewry" as a term still in native speakers' [academic] use. Hildeoc (talk) 08:20, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

OK, that is an authoritative source using it by a native speaker, but he is still referring to a medieval series of events and a medieval body of Jewish people. I doubt you can find a modern referent. Andre🚐 08:22, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

I will not jump through any of your hoops any longer. Have a nice day Hildeoc (talk) 08:34, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

I agree with AndreJustAndre that "Jewry" does not belong in the lead, and that it is an increasingly archaic word. I am a 73 year old California Jew and I remember the term mostly from its narrow usage by the Soviet Jewry movement which existed from the 1960s to 1991. Since then, the vast majority of the time I hear the term, it is in the context of recounting the history of that movement. The comments about jewellry remind me of a very well known (to people of my age) comedy skit on Saturday Night Live featuring Gilda Radner playing the fictional Emily Litella, a hearing impaired woman who confuses the words "Jewry" and "jewellry". That was first broadcast in January, 1976, nearly 50 years ago. "Jewry" is simply not in common usage by native English speakers in 2025. It is clunky, awkward and outdated. Cullen328 (talk) 08:39, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. Alright then, folks, I reverted myself in respect of your consensus. 🫡 Hildeoc (talk) 08:49, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Your conduct here was not good, and you wasted editor time. Mikewem (talk) 13:34, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

I don't want to comment on this ad hominem. Anyway, so now we have a redirect Jewry without any mention here. Hope you guys are satisfied ... Hildeoc (talk) 14:28, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

I'm satisfied. The word appears 11 times in the text of the article and once in a section hatnote link. If someone wants to address it directly as a term, used either to refer to Jews as a collective or to specific Jewish populations, that can be done in the name and etymology section. Largoplazo (talk) 15:34, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Agreed with Cullen328 and Largoplazo in case that wasn't clear Andre🚐 17:26, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

What about a simple redirect hatnote then? Hildeoc (talk) 03:22, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Don't think it's necessary. Andre🚐 03:23, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for that Gilda reference. I love that Wikipedia has a table of every Gilda malaprop. Andre🚐 17:23, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 December 2025

−

finance..

+

finance.

Introduced from this edit. ~2025-42841-72 (talk) 18:34, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

Ping Andrevan. ~2025-42841-72 (talk) 18:38, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

 Done I chose to rewrite most of that paragraph, but the double period is no longer there. Mikewem (talk) 19:21, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

Whoops. Thanks. [ 20:37, 25 December 2025 (UTC)]

Oh hey, it wasn't me. And I guess I don't get a ping on the old username. Andre🚐 20:38, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

Star of David.svg in infobox

Isn't the Star of David more associated with Israel when it's blue? Wouldn't it be more neutral if it was Black or something? Like so?

• 
  5 Ideo Hebrew Hexagram ico.svg
• 
  Black Star of David.svg

Nurken (talk) 07:47, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

See the long discussion of this from 2023 at Talk:Jews/Archive 33#Main image. Even if discussion were to be renewed here, it would be best for everyone if it didn't start from scratch but, instead, picked up from all the points already made. Largoplazo (talk) 15:53, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

Jew Hunting in the UK

It would be helpful to educate everyone about the Jew hunting currently occurring in the UK. Can someone create a section or page to cover this? ~2026-13555-90 (talk) 12:24, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

In the context of a general article about Jews including their (our) millennia-long history as targets of systemic persecution on vast scales and thousands of small-scale anti-Semitic activities, do allegations about one limited hate campaign in Sheffield rise to the level of inclusion in the article? It seems that that would give it undue weight. Largoplazo (talk) 13:03, 2 March 2026 (UTC)