This is an archive of past discussions about Jews. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Jews are a nation? Since when was Wikipedia siding with racial/ethnic nationalism? This is an incredible instance of bias and should be changed.PailSimon (talk) 14:28, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
Jews have identified as a nation for FAR longer than they have identified as a religion. The original names the Jewish people used for ourselves were "Am Yisrael", which means "the NATION of Israel", and "Benay Yisrael", which translates as "the Children of Israel". Those are ethnic/national identities, not religious ones. WHo are you, to tell Jews how we historically defined ourselves, and how we define ourselves now? 65.78.115.150 (talk) 02:30, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
I can't tell what premises you're working from and, therefore, what argument you're making and/or what you're actually objecting to. Do you believe there's no such thing as nations? Or do you believe that accepting the concept of nationhood and nationalism are the same thing? If you believe there are nations, what is your definition of "nation" and, given your definition, how are Jews not one? Please be specific, because otherwise there's no way to proceed from your objection. Largoplazo (talk) 14:56, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
If Jews are a nation then so are Gaels, Celtic Britons, Latins and so on. Jew is the only racial/religious identity article on Wikipedia that states its subject is a nation. This is a sop to and preferential treatment for zionism.PailSimon (talk) 17:32, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
More declarations with no explanations. Now I have no idea why you do or don't think each of these groups is a nation, or whether your reasons are the same in each case. Largoplazo (talk) 22:21, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
Most Jews would reject the idea that Jews are a nation. Either way its still promoting a racial nationalist propaganda point.PailSimon (talk) 17:32, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
That's absoulty not true, most Jews would definitely consider themselves to some degree, to be a part of “Am Yisrael” [people (nation) of Israel], and historically almost all Jewish scholars have viewed themselves in such a fashion. This notion that Jews being defined as a nation is “racial nationalist propaganda” is completely absurd. I’d suggest you talk to actual Jewish people or read up on the historic or and contemporary Jewish identity. Ibn Daud (talk) 18:58, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
See Figure 21.2, p. 321 from Marvin Harris, Culture, People, Nature. An Introduction to General Anthropology. 7th ed., Addison-Wesley Educational Publishers, Inc. 1997. Conclusions: Jews are neither a race, nor an ethnicity. Traditionally, Jews were the adepts of Judaism. But this has been recently complicated by the category of secular Jews, which includes atheists and agnostics. See also Category:Jewish ethnic groups. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:07, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
Ibn I'm not going to push the whole most Jews consider Jews a nation myth because I don't think its relevant. As for your rejection of the point that its racial nationalist propaganda how about you explain why you disagree? I think that would be helpful. PailSimon (talk) 22:21, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
Jews have to call ourselves a nation in order to pray, so if you think the Jewish religion is racial nationalist propaganda, OK fine, but Wikipedia has to adhere to a neutral point of view. Jewish nationhood is baked into the religion. פֿינצטערניש (Fintsternish), she/her (talk) 21:10, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
We literally make several references to being a nation in our Hebrew prayer, e.g. אשר בחר בנו מכל העמים. Nationhood is fundamental to the Jewish religion; they are inseparable. Anyone who says otherwise doesn't understand Judaism. And to be clear, Jews have been a nation for far longer than the modern concept of nationalism was a thing, and long before Zionism was a thing. פֿינצטערניש (Fintsternish), she/her (talk) 21:01, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
"Nationhood is fundamental to the Jewish religion; they are inseparable." Of course it is, but nation as used in the Jewish sense and nation as used in the secular sense are not the same concept. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:58, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
No it's not, I'm Jewish and most of us understand that by definition, we are not a nation. We're an ethnicity, check the difference. Nation is about belonging to a country! For example, a British Jew is British by nationality. Maxim.il89 (talk) 01:48, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
There are different definitions of the term "nation". You are thinking of a nation state, but a "nation" is also "an aggregation of persons of the same ethnic family, often speaking the same language or cognate languages."[1]Rreagan007 (talk) 17:20, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
By definition we're a nation, and we were a nation long before "British" came to be seen as a nation. That's why we call ourselves a nation several times over when praying. Nations and countries, prior to the modern era, were not considered one and the same; you could've avoided this by just clicking the link to the article on nations. פֿינצטערניש (Fintsternish), she/her (talk) 21:06, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
Comments about what "most Jews" would or would not accept are pointless unless they can be backed up with reliable sources. And which Jews are we talking about, secular as well as religious? Sundayclose (talk) 19:13, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
@Sir Joseph: They are right that what exactly Jews are is a hard nut to crack. If you see those photos, those people are manifestly of different ethnic groups and belong to several different races. Yet they all consider themselves Jews. Born from Jewish parents, having Jewish grandparents and Jewish grand-grandparents. So they all are halachically Jewish, traditionally Jewish. Believe me, just by looking at a man or woman there is no way to tell if they are Jewish (or that they aren't Jewish). The director Tim Mahoney (Patterns of Evidence#Patterns of Evidence: The Moses Controversy) said that he paid local inhabitants to dress as Hebrews. Otherwise I had no means to establish that the mobs in his film aren't Jewish. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:06, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
Tgeorgescu, his claim is that Jews aren't a nation, that is refuted by the RS that says the opposite. He is just trying to stir things up, same as he did on the Obama page and elsewhere. We go by RS not by OR. Sir Joseph(talk)20:26, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
Tgeorgescu, isn't that essay talking about religion or ethnicity and specifically with regards to secularism? It's not talking about the nationhood of the people. It's pretty clearly established that there is a Jewish nation, and he is just trying to instigate to put a white nation or indigenous nation in Europe. Let's not try to take the bait. Sir Joseph(talk)21:39, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
Look, for being considered a Romanian ethnic one should be a White Caucasian. So it is clear that people who aren't White Caucasians aren't of Romanian ethnicity (or maybe they are of mixed ethnicity). There are no such rules for Jews: one can be a White Caucasian and be a Jew, one can be a Negroid and be a Jew, one can be a Mongoloid and be a Jew. I assume that Jews can belong to all human races. I mean people who are halachically Jewish for many generations. So, in this case isn't clear what "nation" is supposed to mean. What it does not mean is that they would belong to the same ethnic group. So, we have a nation which was traditionally based upon religion, not ethnicity. And since atheism and agnosticism become popular among Jews, it is no longer required to be a believer in Judaism for being considered a Jew. E.g. if I were a secular Jew I would see no reason for the circumcision of my boys, because circumcision is a religious symbol.
Anyway, I will leave it at this. I have no hope of solving this dilemma. It is just important to know that many Jews frown upon being considered a nation. Like the edit wars about Israeli nationality vs. Israeli citizenship. In the end we cannot make everybody happy, so regardless of our choice there will still be discontentment with this article. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:02, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
Sir Joseph you keep saying things are the case but haven't come up with your justification for such claims. "It's pretty obvious" or any other condescending variation is not a legitimate rationale for including a far right zionist racial nationalist point of view as fact. That would be a breach of neutrality. PailSimon (talk) 22:24, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
It's not an easy one, not everyone who is a Jew by religion as an ethic Jew, and vice versa. There's a whole section in this article about genetics.
Jews do belong to all races, but to be an ethnic Jew, you do need to have a certain common ancestry, it just means you have other ancestries in addition to it. For example, studies have shown Ashkenazi Jews have European genes and Middle Eastern genes (the latter is the one that defines them as Jewish), get me?
To this day there is a debate in Israel who should be allowed into Israel. For example, some say Ethiopian Jews shouldn't be allowed in because it's not clear if they're ethnically Jewish (and yes, it is a racist view, but one might argue the "law of return" is racist), on the other hand, many on the far-right have a problem with allowing Russian Jews in, because those far-righters claim those Jews are not religion enough.
You still haven't provided any facts, or specifics. You continue to rely on your stereotype of the "Jewish nation" idea as "far right zionist racial nationalist point of view" while giving no basis for ascribing that point of view solely to far right zionist racial nationalists, for disagreeing with them, or explaining on what specific points you base your disagreement. You complain about point of view, while providing no objective context within which to discuss this. Largoplazo (talk) 22:29, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
But it is a far-right idea. Being a nation literally means being part of a country. For example, Mbappe is not ethnically French, but he is French in the sense of belonging to the French nation. Jews are an ethnicity and a religion, not a nation, because there's no such country as "Jewland," there's Israel, and being Israeli is a nation by definition, but that's not synonymous with being a Jew. Maxim.il89 (talk) 01:46, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
The idea that the Jews, a racial group, are a nation is a racial nationalist viewpoint of the same mold as white nationalism. Many scholars would reject the views of Zionists that Jews are a nation so the article is right now quite biased in favour of the racial ideology of zionism which is itself of significant controversy..PailSimon (talk) 22:33, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
As noted anti-Zionists Neturei Kartaput it, "At Sinai, in the presence of the assembled multitudes of Jews, recently released via Divine miracles from Egypt, the Creator revealed His Torah to the nation" and "NKI seeks peace and reconciliation with all peoples and nations." And, "One of the basics of Judaism is that we are a people in exile due to Divine decree." But I guess to you, that's ethnonationalist racial propaganda. I'm sure you look forward to being "anti-Zionist" at them. פֿינצטערניש (Fintsternish), she/her (talk) 21:39, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
At the end of the day, it really doesn't matter what you believe. As Michael Nicholson wrote in his 2002 book; International Relations: A Concise Introduction "The Jews are a nation and were so before there was a Jewish state of Israel". The matter of fact is that Jews are and have always been considered a nation both by themselves and by those around them. Jews being a nation is not a piece of "zionist propaganda" which is a problematic notion in it's own right. But in fact is a longstanding tradition amongst the Jewish people which dates back thousands of years. As much as it might challenge your worldview, Israel is your so called "Jewland". It's the land which the Jewish people are indigenous too and it's a land to which Jews have historically viewed as their national homeland. At the end of the day, Jews are a religion, an ethnicity, and a nation. Ibn Daud (talk) 02:38, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
Cherry picking one source does not prove your claims my friend. And now Jews are most certainly not indigenous to Israel, they haven't been for over a thousand years. PailSimon (talk) 06:51, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
You're confused by what I meant. Ibn seemed to be using the previous "discussion" as some sort of factual authority. That's what I was referring to.PailSimon (talk) 22:42, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
Wow, you've found once source, great. As a Jew, I can tell you most of us see ourselves as an ethnicity, not a nation. Even in Israel their national identity is Israeli. Maxim.il89 (talk) 08:46, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
Maxim.il89 I'm actually very surprised to hear that. Growing up in both a quasi-secular and modern orthodox Jewish community, Jews being considered a nation was a foundational part of our identity as Jews. And most other Jews I have talked to on this topic have expressed the same things. However all of this doesn't prove anything. That's just my subjective experience as a Jew in North America. Just as your experience is not representative of mainstream Jewish thought either. Chabad for example, states "Even as we have left our land and are without a monarch or central authority. We are citizens of a mobile, distributable, highly-resilient nation—quite similar to the World Wide Web." https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/498027/jewish/Are-Jews-a-Race.htm. Ibn Daud (talk) 17:36, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
We, Jews, are an ethnicity - hence why many Jews identify as agnostic Jews or atheist Jews. No, being Jewish is not just a religion.
I don't know whom PailSimon wanted to call "randomers", but on Wikipedia any editor can edit. PailSimon, please refrain from trying to relegate the opinions of other editors to the second plane by tagging them a such or the other. Debresser (talk) 21:32, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
We're definitely not a nation, as nation means country. For example, British, American, Palestinian, Israeli, those are all nations, but being Jewish is not a nation, just like being Cornish is not a nation. Maxim.il89 (talk) 01:36, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
Maxim.il89, on Wikipedia, we don't rely on your understanding of Jewish identity or that of any other editor, or how persuasively you can argue for your viewpoint. We rely on reliable sources of which there are plenty that disagree. The question concerning Jewish identity is a perennial area of dispute on Wikipedia (which is why there are 31 pages of Talk page archives) so we rely on what the sources say. Unless you can provide new reliable sources that provide some new perspective into this subject, the status quo should remain. It was achieved over many, many years of debate. LizRead!Talk!02:08, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
In the past, many identified the word "nation" as ethnicity, and presumed both are synonymous, but that's before immigration, new identities, and understanding the difference. Maxim.il89 (talk) 08:46, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
In the past, people understood that many nations lived in the same country at once and that this was normal. Only today do people confuse nation for country out of ignorance of the history of the term and its very recent association with nation-states. Luckily Wikipedia already has an article going into this, explaining that nation does not mean country.
Similarly, in the past, Jews understood that the Hebrew words they were praying said that they were a nation. Only today, when there are Jews who say the words without understanding them and are brought up with almost no knowledge of Hebrew at all, is it possible for Jews to claim otherwise out of ignorance. פֿינצטערניש (Fintsternish), she/her (talk) 21:18, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
That's an ignorant comment that shows lack of knowledge. No, Judaism is not just a religion. There is a Jewish religious identity, but also an ethnic identity based on ancestry. There's no such thing as an atheist Muslim, but there is such a thing as an atheist Jew. Maxim.il89 (talk) 08:46, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
And this demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding of social and ethnic identity. There are plenty of Muslims that identify as Muslim, but either do not practice the faith or subscribe to its teachings. There are plenty of people who do the same with being Christian or Jewish. When people discuss the idea of being a "Christian nation" when referring to the largely secular UK for instance they are typically referring to the concept of our society having its legal and social foundation in the teachings if the Bible (however true or false that may be) but there is also a broader and at the same time more niche concept, of a cultural identity rooted in Christianity that see's the wider population adhere to its observances (holidays for instance) out of tradition.
Muslims have the same thing, however in most primarily Muslim apostasy is a crime and as such little is recorded or known about it, while in the UK the habit is just to assume all people that identify as Muslim are religiously Muslim. In contrast in the UK we are quite accustomed to the idea of a difference between being baptised into a faith, married in a church etc and being nominally a non-practicing Christian.
Now, when it comes to the concept of a "Jewish nation" the issue is that people are conflating the ideas of an overarching social structure and culture that an entire ethnic group subscribes to (be that true or false) with the concept of a nation state (which harks back to the idea of the landless Jewry prior to the formation of Israel where the Jewish historic "nation" was the broad cultural consensus that was uktimately used to spin up ideas of Zionism, and anti-semitism against the group).
Meanwhile some historians and sociologists (or generally people who study such phenomenon in pop-culture) talk about a Jewish nation in another similar broad concept. As such if we are using "nation" in the article we should be very clear in what vein we are doing so. Koncorde (talk) 13:23, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
Christianity is multi-national by design. It's intended to be universal, and this is clear in the earliest writings of the Christians. And the contrast with Judaism is explicit from the beginning: Christianity is posited to be for everyone, thus distinguishing itself from Judaism, which is only for the Jewish nation. Islam, similarly, is meant to be a religion of everyone. It has been one of the biggest historic points of contention between Judaism and other "Abrahamic religions" that Judaism is only meant for one nation, though in the modern era we are well aware that there are countless other religions meant only for one nation (ethnic religions), who also struggle with attempts by much larger powers to coopt and universalize them.
In my opinion, presentations of subjects in Wikipedia articles should roughly follow presentations given in other sources. For example, here is the first few sentences of Britannica's entry "Jew": Jew, Hebrew Yĕhūdhī or Yehudi, any person whose religion is Judaism. In the broader sense of the term, a Jew is any person belonging to the worldwide group that constitutes, through descent or conversion, a continuation of the ancient Jewish people, who were themselves descendants of the Hebrews of the Bible (Old Testament). In ancient times, a Yĕhūdhī was originally a member of Judah—i.e., either of the tribe of Judah (one of the 12 tribes that took possession of the Promised Land) or of the subsequent Kingdom of Judah (in contrast to the rival Kingdom of Israel to the north). ... In the second paragraph Britannica explains the problem: In the modern world, a definition of Jew that would be satisfactory to all is virtually impossible to construct, for it involves ethnic and religious issues that are both complex and controversial.ImTheIP (talk) 08:59, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
"nation" is true and sourced, so the only bias here is on the side of the editor who seems to have a problem with this, for unexplained reasons. I think this provocative thread should simply be closed or ignored. Debresser (talk) 17:07, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
In short, Jews who have denied that we are a nation have been reacting to antisemitism by trying to make themselves appear more respectable to surrounding peoples. The notion that Jews are not a nation is specific to Europe and primarily German Jewish in origin, though it has come to be adopted in a number of contexts where surrounding peoples have been uncomfortable with the idea of another nation living among them. By the same token, there is nothing inherently Zionist about Jewish nationhood, and in fact Jewish nationhood has historically gone hand in hand with the idea that we were a nation in exile. The problem is that in the modern era, beginning in Europe and then spreading throughout the world, states have sought to legitimize themselves by appealing to the notion that everyone within their boundaries is a member of a nation - thus turning Jews into inherent outsiders. And many Jews have understandably tried to lessen the burden of persecution by declaring that Jews are not a nation. פֿינצטערניש (Fintsternish), she/her (talk) 13:09, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
What does that sentence even mean, "the nation claim is not universally adhered to"? In any case, we have a few sources calling it a nation. That is enough. There is no requirement that all sources about the Jewish people call it a nation in order for us to say so on Wikipedia±. Debresser (talk) 00:14, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
The problem is that those sources are talking very much in a particular sense of "nation", and without reading both sources it is unclear if they are even referring to the same sense of nation. One qualifies their statement by saying "were so before there was a Jewish state of Israel" but the immediate following sentence is "Many Jews live away from Israel. Many of these would not really regard themselves as members of a Jewish nation, though many would", so it evidently a matter of his assertion rather than a truth. There are several other items in his book that also call into question his initial statement but I would need to see it in the full context. Meanwhile the other says "in the original sense", then immediately (again) follows it up with the idea that it has been diluted and or that the sense of a nation has only been true at some point in time, but not all times or locations (and certainly not now).
In short, the sources we have don't actually declare unanimously and without qualifier that the Jews are a nation. I would hazard that a section in the article on the idea of Jewish nationhood / ethnos / ethnostate / nationhood / religion is probably warranted to better explain the intro. Koncorde (talk) 03:49, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
As far as it concerns to Wikipedia's guidelines (reliable sources which are also very explicit), 'nation' is an accurate and legitimate definition. Unless opposite sources are provided there's not much to do with this discussion. Aside from that, since there is a Jewish nation-state with millions of Jews who clearly possess a Jewish national identity, all this 'controversy' seems very odd. There is no need for all Jews in the world to regard themselves as members of a Jewish nation as much as you don't expect Irish Americans to identify as national Irish. Infantom (talk) 11:28, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
Except the sources aren't explicit, as I deal with immediately above. I can only assume everyone is reading the single sentence quoted rather than the full context, and then trying to ret-con the outcome by saying "of course not everybody has to agree to be a nation". Well in that case, who are in fact part of this nation? Because we're talking about all Jews on this page - not a subset - which I presume we can reliably identify? Koncorde (talk) 15:43, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
The Brittanica article itself, in your excerpt, uses the extremely offensive and ideologically biased term "Old Testament," so maybe it's not the best authority to go for on what language to use for Jews. פֿינצטערניש (Fintsternish), she/her (talk) 09:57, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
Let's get the discussion back on track. The arguments are as follows: 1. No consensus on the question of whether Jews are a nation. Two articles discussing the question in the context of Trump's executive order declaring Jews a "race or nationality": [2], [3]. An essay from 1890 discussing the same question (spoiler: the author's answer is "No!"). Yes, the essay is from 1890 but the battle lines have not moved an inch in the last 130 years. There is a wide range of opinions (and since the question can have no objective answer, opinions is all we have) on the question of nationhood both within the Jewish community and in the ethnographic community. 2. Leads in Wikipedia articles should resemble leads of other encyclopedias and dictionaries. Comparing the lead of this article with other sources ([4], [5], [6], [7]) shows that it doesn't. ImTheIP (talk) 15:26, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
We have as close as you can get to an objective answer on this question: thousands of years of Jewish texts that say that yes, we are a nation, including daily Jewish prayerbooks that state this multiple times, the Tanakh, the Talmud, the whole body of medieval Jewish literature, Rabbinic responsa, everything central to Jewish identity saying loudly that Jews are a nation. And we have the exact source of disagreement: modern European nationalism (which definitely existed in 1890). As such, it's very important not to give WP:UNDUE to arguments made very recently in the context of a new kind of intense persecution, based on the idea of modern European nation-states. It's understandable that there are some Jews who would want to portray themselves as compatible with new secular nation-states, both civic and ethnic, but it is baseless. פֿינצטערניש (Fintsternish), she/her (talk) 15:53, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
The last sentence reeks of a little like a No True Scotsman argument where anyone who doesn't think of themselves as a nation must be doing so because of persecution. You keep mentioning these multitude of sources, but we're not using any of them, and we're not sourcing the "nation" concept to this historic concept. The two current sources and even the section on [Jewish national identity] pretty much stops in antiquity. Koncorde (talk) 19:47, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
ImTheIP, Maybe check your sources again. Source 4 explicitly says Jew is used as a nation. The fact is that Jews are not just a religion, but indeed a nation, and has been one for millennia. Sir Joseph(talk)15:55, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
It seems to me that this discussion is a warrant for (the early) Wittgenstein's dictum that the problems of philosophy are problems of language. It's already been pointed out that "nation" is a word and a concept much older than "nation state". Judaism "is" obviously not a nation state, but that doesn't mean it can't be the older, broader concept of "nation". And let it be clear that "nation" is also not synonymous, or leads to, "national identity"--since that is a concept that's tied to the idea of "nation state". Drmies (talk) 19:54, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
So, to clarify the lede. If we take it that the Jews are a nation by some older definition (no argument here) who says that, when, and where?
If they are a nation, then why does the second paragraph say they only originated as an ethnic and religious group? We have Finsternish above stressing that all Jews self identified as a nation - I presume from a certain date, or from the beginning?
Then when we look at the citations used under "Who is a Jew" we immediately run into a qualifier Judaism shares some of the characteristics of a nation (emphasis mine) and then each of the citations is a mixed bag of self qualifying claims, referring to a mix of Israel, antiquity etc but unclear if they are referring to the same concept of a nation or a unique nationhood as presented by ourselves in another section. Sources here for people to hover and read what look like quote mines rather than actual factual sourcing.[1][2][3][4][5][6] In short if Fintsternish is right (I am assuming so) we should be using authoritative sources to say this explicitly because it is evidently a fact. If it's more complex than that, then we should explain that better in the lede to save confusion with the modern nation state. If there are multiple perspectives, millenia of discussions, and then the diaspora and growing alienation - then we need to summarise that better too. Koncorde (talk) 20:17, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
I don’t think this is particularly complicated, aside from the point raised above that “nation” in this context differs slightly from the concept of the modern nation-state. There are any number of quotes from Jewish literature over the centuries, and especially liturgy, that refer to this concept. In addition to academic discussion of the matter, which does largely focus on the difficulty of translating the concept so that modern people can grasp it. The Jews are the people of Judah. That’s what largely defines them; the national struggle for the security of that nation, and later, the restoration of their nation (whether in the Babylonian Captivity or after the Jewish Roman Wars). But Jews largely identify themselves as “the people of Israel” (Am Yisrael), a concept highlighting the unity of all Israelites, which stems from a desire to unite all the tribes as they believe they once were under the United Monarchy. This concept has shifted over time, especially with the destruction of Jerusalem and the creation of Syria Palaestina, and their life in “exile”. This concept has been fluid over time, and subject to slightly differing interpretation by various sources. But the idea that Jews have always considered themselves a nation shouldn’t even be in question. Anyone attending a synagogue service should already know this is referred to near constantly in the liturgy. It’s a foundational concept in Judaism and Jewish identity. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 22:52, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
Apologies, I've switched over to my desktop since writing something of that length on a mobile device is a bit cumbersome. Koncorde, the underlying point I was making is that we're objectively going to have to quote mine to some extent, and gloss over it with some of the few academic sources discussing this. The literature and litury are presented as "self-evident" and don't particularly explain the concept, and the concept does vary in its interpretation slightly depending on author and time period. These sources themselves don't particularly clarify what they mean. They refer to the "Nation of Israel", though it's obviously a concept that arose in Second Temple era Judah, after the northern nation of Israel had been destroyed; this stems still from a First Temple period concept of unifying the two kingdoms. The former concept was then changed to an exilic concept of a "nation in exile" throughout the Middle Ages, and then later was somewhat reinterpreted by various Jewish groups and authorities since the Enlightenment era, as the modern concept of an ethnicity emerged. I'm not sure how we elaborate on something this complex (although still "not [too] complicated [to grasp", as I said earlier), in the lead paragraph. It's so much more nuanced than just saying they're "a nation". Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 23:05, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
Don't worry AS, I can follow two posts :)
So are we saying we can't find anything in millenias worth of text to ascribe it to? I don't read scripture so I am coming at this from a lay-persons point of view, where I read an opening sentence and I see what is a bold claim that I actually suspect is some level of quantifiably true... but the sources certainly don't back it up and my limited search of English speaking sources comes up with similarly ambiguous arguments.
This immediately makes me question just how much thought has gone into presenting this information with suitable context by using secondary sources using lots of qualifiers or talking about the nature of nations because their actual subject matter is something unrelated.
This strikes me as a good occasion to use WP:PRIMARYCARE and go to the material source that says the actual uncontroversial thing in the actual context (and then we footnote suitable comments from scholars and ascribe properly in the lede the idea of Jewish Nation is fundamental to the teachings (as Fintsternish has pointed out). Koncorde (talk) 23:36, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
That's pretty much what I was thinking, and said not nearly as succinctly as yourself, in my first post. I too am a layperson when it comes to this, though I do read some of the texts, and its on the periphery of my field[s] of study. WP:PRIMARYCARE definitely applies here. It's unfortunately just an "assumed fact" throughout most of history, without being elucidated as to what it actually means, and I'm fairly sure that readers would not have had a wholly unified understanding of what it meant, as it was always something of a nebulous and changeable concept. From within Wikipedia, I'm sure something could be mined from Who is a Jew? as far as higher quality secondary academic sources. A lot of the primary sources will necessarily come from the Bible and the Mishnah, and maybe the Nusach (as all Orthodox Jewish liturgical traditions refer to the hope of the restoration of "the nation", which is also translated as "the people", which illustrates the issue we're dealing with here). One notable example is in Exodus, where the Israelites are referred to as a "kodesh goy", a very direct reference to the concept of the Israelites as a nation in their own right. We should assiduously avoid sources that use these concepts to highlight the ideology of Religious Zionism, obviously. I don't know; I can't say what would be appropriate sourcing until I can do a quick survey of some texts. However, I'm sure that some of the editors here, who are more familiar with Jewish literature that either of us, who can think of specific examples from primary sources. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 00:25, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
Unless this rambling discussion turns into a discussion regarding about improving this article, I'm going to archive it. This is not a forum to discuss Jewish identity or whether Jews are or are not a nation. Talk pages should involve specific ideas about improving THIS article not for swapping your opinions. There are plenty of message boards where they would eat this stuff up but not here. LizRead!Talk!01:18, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
Evening Liz. There are two people (at least) discussing improving the article immediately above you, and I have been trying to get people to engage with the sourcing issue for the last few days (Symmachus and myself). If you want to hat this discussion and we can start one dedicated to WP:PRIMARYCARE then that is fine. Koncorde (talk) 01:24, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
Great. But what we are saying is that using the primary source is indisputable because it is directly attributed. This is the same thing we do at the Torah and Ten Commandments for instance. We don't wait for someone to have an opinion on them in order to describe what is self evident, especially when that opinion is (as raised by Fintsernish) problematic. All our secondary sources at the moment are, at best, exercises in quote mining times people have put the word "nation" in a sentence with the word "Jew", yet have wildly different interpretations of the word nation which may or may not have anything to do with the POV of the Jewish people (for example, Neusner is definitely not referring to the Jewish "nation" of yore when he says "That there is a Jewish nation can hardly be denied after the creation of the State of Israel").
In short; we are trying to use a 19th/20th century definition of "nation", and retro-fit it to the Jewish. This is evident when we say stupid things like "Judaism shares some of the characteristics of a nation" but in the opening sentence are saying they are definitely a nation because two people in two completely unrelated topics kinda mentioned it out of context, and our second sentence says "nationhood" with no reference at all. Is nationhood the same thing as nation in this context? Koncorde (talk) 11:01, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
"we are trying to use a 19th/20th century definition of "nation", and retro-fit it to the Jewish" That I can agree with. Debresser (talk) 17:16, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
I was able to do a survey of scholarly sources last evening, and there's been enough written on the subject that I don't think we'll really need to include primary sources for supporting text. Obviously, we're not going to do a full-on analysis of the concept's usage and understanding throughout history in this case, so I think these will be adequate. I'll post them (with quotations) when I have more time, along with an analysis of their weight and reliability (i.e., acceptance and prevalence in academic thought), and some proposed prose text. In the meantime, if someone wants to hat this long discussion thread as User:Liz suggested, or at least the inactive parts of it, feel free. It is indeed a little cumbersome to navigate, and a some of it isn't overly relevant. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 20:14, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
Here is Genesis 25:23: The Lord said to her, “Two nations are in your womb, and two peoples from within you will be separated; one people will be stronger than the other, and the older will serve the younger.” Can someone explain the odd shift from "nation" to "people"? Seem to me to imply that the words were synonymous. ImTheIP (talk) 16:11, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
Not necessarily. According to commentaries (Rashi, Rashbam, Sforno), "goy" (here translated as "nation") means "people" as in a group of people that are united by culture, while "le'om" (here translated as "people") means people that find themselves in one country. Debresser (talk) 16:54, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
Very interesting. Do you have any English sources? I haven't been able to find any myself that discusses why the Bible (in my view) almost randomly switches between "people" and "nation." ImTheIP (talk) 01:08, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
^Brandeis, Louis (25 April 1915). "The Jewish Problem: How To Solve It". University of Louisville School of Law. Retrieved 2 April 2012. Jews are a distinctive nationality of which every Jew, whatever his country, his station or shade of belief, is necessarily a member
@Fincl: Could you outline your rationale for this edit? Ethnic coalescion "according to where their ancestors settled" reads a bit redundant, and omitting any intermarriages with local populations is misleading. Iroh (talk) 01:33, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
I'm not so strongly in disagreement with the first issue, although I don't see the phrasing exactly as redundant yet not necessary either. But I really don't see how intermarriages would be relevant to the lead section, which shouldn't include the more specific details; instead, they have relevancy in the Genetic studies section, which is why they are mentioned there and surely not omitted. Fincl (talk) 02:31, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
Transliteration error
At the head of the article, where the pronunciation is transcribed in the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA), there is an error. The /e/ should instead be a schwa, /ə/. This is the actual phoneme associated with the Tiberian vocalization consisting of two vertical dots. The 'e' is rendered by thee dots (two above, one below), or, in the Sephardic accent only, two horizontal dots (otherwise IPA /e:/ or, occasionally, /ej/). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:589:4b00:c200:c1c0:2131:2c56:f812 (talk) 18:45, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
Done and I also capitalized a W in "Western" and put quotation marks around the quoted sentences after checking the source. Largoplazo (talk) 15:57, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
this reads like an advertisement for a product
wikipedia shouldn't sell religions like this. this article should be less glowy, and more objective. judaeism cannot be powerful when many christians discriminated against them, which inevitably led to its small following in present time. the article should be shortened, since religion is just powerful people and forces, almost never heartfelt belief. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:588:8100:e3c0:742d:2dca:3586:ac00 (talk) 20:59, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
I was wondering if "Ethnic groups in Europe", "Ethnic groups in North Africa", "Ethnic groups in South Asia" etc. should be added along with the "Ethnic groups in the Middle East" category just because of the existence of Jewish communities in those places for thousands of years and also due to the fact Ashkenazi Jews specifically descend from Central/Eastern Europe, Mizrahi Jews specifically descend from MENA nations, and so on. If those categories are better left up to the specific articles, then that's alright too of course.
It's just that was just comparing this to the Romani article because of the similar circumstances of them both arising in modern times out of a diaspora. And that article has "Ethnic groups in Europe", "Ethnic groups in the Middle East", "Ethnic groups in South Asia", and "Ethnic groups in North Africa". digiulio8 (talk) 04:43, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
That makes sense to me. The names of these categories don't imply origination in the respective regions, just presence. Largoplazo (talk) 21:14, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
Contribution
In sports :
Olympics : " Between 1896 and 2018, Jewish athletes have won at least 451 medals in Olympic Games competition." which is demographically speaking, the highest rate for a population (or ethnic group) in the world.
mathematics Jewish Fields Medalists (25% of recipients)
Computer science Jewish Recipients of the ACM A.M. Turing Award in Computer Science (31% of recipients)
Music and literature
Also on the history of Jews in Europe, there is only an emphasis on persecution, while according to Bernhard Blumenkranz there was no significative persecution before the crusade period. Also there should be a mention of the importance of Jews in trade in that period, particularly linking Europe with the north of Africa, and then also with Asia by the radanites. Also Jews had a high rate of literacy, the only group in the world at that time, and therefore they were also heavily involved in qualified activities such as medicine. Money lending is a more complex subject, in part because it gained importance when other professions were forbidden. Also an important subject is the trade with the New world, Sephardic Jews were at the forefront of for exemple chocolate, sugar or pepper. but latter also to bring coffee to Europe.
Maybe it is also possible to make a mention of pro-social involvements, for example of Jews involvements in political, humanitarian or ideolgical causes. Maybe also on the morality of the Bible (maybe also including the first Christians, the link of the Jews of Arabia with Islam, or on the development of the western civilization). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vanlister (talk • contribs) 16:52, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
--Vanlister (talk) 13:34, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
Jews authored the Bible
In the lede we see:
Despite their small percentage of the world's population, Jews have significantly influenced and contributed to human progress [...] Jews authored the Bible,[43][44]
Many scholars believe that Luke was a Greek physician who lived in the Greek city of Antioch in Ancient Syria,[b] although some other scholars and theologians think Luke was a Hellenic Jew.[5][6] [...] This comment has traditionally caused commentators to conclude that Luke was a gentile. If this were true, it would make Luke the only writer of the New Testament who can clearly be identified as not being Jewish. However, that is not the only possibility. Although Luke is considered likely to have been a gentile Christian, some scholars believe him to have been a Hellenized Jew.[5][6][15] The phrase could just as easily be used to differentiate between those Christians who strictly observed the rituals of Judaism and those who did not.[14]
So apparently, those "some scholars" are being given preference over the "many scholars" (weasel word much?) on the Jews page, and we can conclude this because this page flatly maintains that Jews authored the Bible.
The only alternative reading is that the word 'authored' - as it appears in this text - is being used to suggest that Jews were simply among the whole of those who wrote some of the books of the Bible, and therefore were part of it, but the sort of slipperly, weasely language present, which one might expect on a site like Wikipedia, could also just as well suggest that the whole of the text was written by Jews. That would be a controversial contention, considering it first depends on which definition of 'Jew' one is opting to embrace and second depends on one interpretation of events. It also would present that adherents of religion A, who explicitly denounce the core teachings of religion B, wrote the book of religion B. Finally, it would be done without addressing any counterargument, and fails to address the anomaly in Israel regarding Jews, preaching the New Testament and the law. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.255.64.121 (talk) 00:46, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
Atheism isn't a religion, it's the lack of a religion. I was trying to find the last discussion I read that emphasized this point but haven't put my finger on it yet. The fact that you stick the word "Jewish" in front of it (using Jewish in its sense of identifying a heritage, ethnicity, or community) doesn't change that. And your comment that "Jew" and "atheism" are related reads as a denigration of Judaism. Largoplazo (talk) 23:21, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
(edit conflict) BennTheResearcher, I think Largoplazo's interpretation of your summary as a smear might be because of a language/dialect/grammar issue. My initial reaction was the same but I chose to assume good faith. As for the change itself, at first I thought it was good because Jews can be irreligious and that fact is supported by the article as early as the second sentence, but in the same edit summary Largoplazo made a point that I think is important: Not having a religion isn't a religion. Irreligion isn't a religion, it's the absence of one, so it might not make sense to put it under "Religion" in the infobox. ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 23:24, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
Ezlev is correct re AGF. I opted somewhat in that direction when I wrote "reads as" rather than simply "is" but I should have followed it with "to me".
Thank you Ezlev & Largoplazo. I understand. I just wanted to emphasize that there are atheist Jews and that a "Jew" can be an atheist. Irreligion isn't a religion, I agree. In this regard, I support whatever Wikipedias style deems appropriate. If this information isn't added as additional info under "Religion" in the infobox, we will not add it; there is nothing we can do.--BennTheResearcher (talk) 23:54, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
If this is the emphasis of the proposed edit, why not also point out that there are people who qualify as Jews who by religion are Catholic, Protestant or other? Meters (talk) 00:02, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
I recently tried to fix citation #58 parameter, but when I click on edit for "Who is a Jew?", the page is not found. It appears the subtitles for this article need major repairing. Or am I missing something? Leitmotiv (talk) 04:08, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
@Leitmotiv: An edit on January 26 wrecked the structure of the page, a substantial chunk of which wound up at the bottom of the article stuck in a note reference. I've fixed it. Largoplazo (talk) 13:01, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Hello, sorry I apologize, I made the mistake, not sure how I missed it in preview, I was most likely editing too fast at the time. Thank you - RandomEditorAAA (talk) 21:58, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 February 2022
This edit request to Jews has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Already done:That link is to the same page of the book that the current citation is. The difference in the end of the two links seems to be an automatic redirect. SpinningCeres23:40, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
Protected edit request 13 February 2022
This edit request to Jews has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
However, if a notable topic X is commonly referred to as "Foo", but the article "Foo" is not about X, there must be a hatnote linking to the article on X or linking to a disambiguation page that contains a link to the article on X.
Ideally, limit hatnotes to just one at the top of the page or section. Multiple hatnotes may be appropriate when they serve different purposes, such as disambiguating topics with similar names and explaining redirects.
I do not believe a disambiguation page for the surname "Jewry" is sufficient to have a prominent hatnote for this article - especially as that disambiguation page has two entries, and no additional information about the surname. The liklihood of anyone looking up "Jewry" to look for a list of articles about people with that last name (i.e. all two of them) versus looking up this page is so remote and unlikely as to be virtually nil. Instead, my suggestion is that it might be appropriate to add it to the "See Also" section of Jew (disambiguation). Singularity42 (talk) 22:05, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 February 2022
This edit request to Jews has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
I believe "patrineal" as in the article is just a typo of patrilineal, and even if it isn't, it makes more sense in the article in analogy to the use of matrilineal. I can't edit the page though, so would appreciate if someone else could do this.
AllenY99 (talk) 18:57, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
The statement has nothing to do with the name or etymology and more primarily with social opinion. Suggest it be removed or moved to a different section. 147.226.7.161 (talk) 15:12, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
It does deal with the noun "Jew." More on social percetion that on etimology, but it is definitely referring to the "Name..." part of the title. It is a good summary of the perception of the name in current day American society. I'd leave it there. Thank you, warshy(¥¥)16:16, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 July 2022
This edit request to Jews has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
In this article “Greek” is linked to the Wikipedia article “Ancient Greek” - recommend changing the link to “Koine Greek” as this is Greek introduced by Alexander the Great and used by Jews in the Mediterranean during the period mentioned. Examples of Jewish writing in Koine Greek include the Septuagint. AttempingUpright (talk) 16:34, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
See also the 2007, 2017 and 2018 discussions on this very topic (all linked to at the top of this page), where the community consensus was that the reliable sources show it is not offensive and this is the appropriate title. Singularity42 (talk) 13:59, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
In short, as an endonym it is a precise and neutal descriptor, and, happily, a very positive one at that. The slur is an ineradicable part of exonymic usage, but if that is a problem for non-Jews, stiff cheddar for them.Nishidani (talk) 15:24, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
"Jew" has been used as a slur in exactly the same way that every single name of every ethnic, national, or religious group has been used as a slur by people who are bigoted against those groups and say their names in a derogatory tone. In other words, it hasn't been used as a slur, it just sounds like one when bigots say it; they aren't using it as a slur, they're using it because it's the term for members of the group. Is it of no significance that it is the term for a person who is Jewish? The term Jews use? Plus, we've already had this discussion here a zillion times. When proposing a change on a talk page, please check to see whether it's already been discussed. Largoplazo (talk) 21:11, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
As a Jew, I have a problem not with "Jew," but with "Jewish people." We refer to ourselves individually as Jews, and collectively as "the Jewish people"; most references to "Jewish people" -- without the definite article -- are in neo-Nazi and other anti-Jewish publications. 2601:C0:8000:1100:2D44:C217:4269:E475 (talk) 02:16, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
As a Jew, i prefer Jew to Jewish People. Like the above commentator, i find that the term Jewish People is most often found in antisemitic spaces ... but i also have seen it in the religious publications of end-times-believing philosemitic Christians. It is not a term that actual Jews use, that's for sure. catherine yronwode, not logged in 75.101.104.17 (talk) 21:33, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
This issue is mentioned in the first section of the article, although more extensive coverage is found at Jew_(word). I could see grafting some of the content from Jew_(word) and condensing it here as a solution to this. FWIW, Jew as a derogatory has no equivalent in recent memory. I also don't believe anti-semites are more likely to use "Jewish people" than non-haters are. - Hunan201p (talk) 05:32, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 November 2022
This edit request to Jews has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Jacob and his family migrated to Ancient Egypt after being invited to live with Jacob's son Joseph by the Pharaoh himself. The patriarchs' descendants were later enslaved until the Exodus led by Moses
This requires a citation outside of the traditional biblical narrative. While the text here notes that this is the biblical narrative, modern archeologists maintain that the Exodus never occurred and that is is only a myth. BobMcK (talk) 13:11, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
For the Exodus being preponderantly myth: Israel Finkelstein, William G. Dever (Dever is as conservative as mainstream archaeologists can be), and many others. In fact there are very few mainstream archaeologists who maintain that the Exodus story from the Bible (which one, there are four of them) is substantially true. To get a sense of what they are saying: the Exodus is 5% true, and 95% embellishment (fantasy). tgeorgescu (talk) 23:28, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
If you look a couple of paragraphs past that, you'll find "Modern archaeology and the current historical view has largely discarded the historicity of this narrative." In other words, it's covered, it just took until after the recounting of the Biblical narrative to get there. Largoplazo (talk) 21:53, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
Your understanding of the meaning of the word "ethnicity" is narrow. See, for example, the first two sentences of the Ethnicity article: "An ethnicity or ethnic group is a grouping of people who identify with each other on the basis of perceived shared attributes that distinguish them from other groups. Those attributes can include common sets of traditions, ancestry, language, history, society, nation, religion, or social treatment within their residing area." Largoplazo (talk) 21:45, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
My understanding of ethnicity is narrow but clear accurate.
Your or definition of ethnicity is broad and vague and contradicting itself.
Now let's consider Catholic Christians or Muslims as ethnicity as per your definition
Group of people sharing common set of history of church and religion.
Since Catholic Christians have the same religion and social treatment of early church persecution then when the church dominated it flipped the persecution, then after, by the 20th century church is nerfed by science.
And
Since Muslims have same history, society and religion.
Forced entry and no return back later.
But this ends up Indonesia and Arab and Turks in the same group with Pakistan?
This ends in Swedes, Western Ukrainians Mexicans and French being in the same ethnicity with South Sudan? Catholic Christians.
How many Arabs got married to Indonesians?
How many Mexicans can get married to a Swede?
Which breaks your statement and breaks my heart for your response.
One point to mention, the word ethno religious group is a group that shares same religion and ethnicity (Korea for example)
On the other end you defined ethnicity as a group sharing same religion and traits and history and social treatment.
Why are we using ethno religious rather than religious or ethnic then?
if
A is ethno religious
B is religious
C is ethnicity
A is B and C
C is B but not A
This statement coming out of your definition is breaking itself.
The simple answer is the Jewish people are an ethnoreligious group because they think they are/self-identify as one. It tends to be trickier when groups seem like they are obviously part of a certain group but don't identify as such, but when a group does identify as being one people, that's all the very loose definition of ethnicity really requires. There are no rights or wrongs really. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:09, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
WP:NOTAFORUM. Anyway you should double-check your information. The majority of the Jewish population's divisions - in all the locations you mentioned - share the same Y haplogroups, which are strikingly similar to a number of Middle Eastern populations, especially the Lebanese. Genetic studies have also shown proximity to other groups, such as Druze, Palestinians and Southern European populations. According to the prevalent theory in modern genetic research, the majority of Jewish subgroups are descended from a single ancient Middle Eastern population, with different degrees of admixture with other populations (usually on the maternal lines). Genetic studies comparing contemporary Jews and ancient Jews are still missing, but research on Canaanite and Iranian populations during the Bronze Age provides the same insights. I agree with Iskandar323 simple answer - a group's self-identification as a particular ethnicity is sufficient to classify it as such, but in the case of the Jews, it goes far further than that. Tombah (talk) 07:41, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
Everything Tombah wrote reflects a selective reading of our slanted and deeply muddled articles on 'Jewish' DNA, and is incorrect, often widely so (Lebanese etc!) in all its assertions. There is no 'prevalent theory' and cdertainly Israeli modern practice confutes the idea that to be a Jew one needs Middle eastern descent links. Iskander's remarks correctly that being Jewish is a matter of cultural self-definition.Nishidani (talk) 07:53, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
Nobody said that to be a Jew one needs Middle eastern descent links. Converts have been a part of the Jewish people since its earliest days, and some Jewish communities were primarily established by converts, but this does not change the widely accepted theory that the majority of Jewish divisions have a shared genetic link to the ancient Middle East, with varying level of admixture (in the case of Ashkenazi and most Sephardic Jews, it is derived especially from Southern European populations). I am aware that you are a strong advocate for the minority view of Elhaik et al., however, the vast majority of genetic studies and researchers concur with the above. Tombah (talk) 08:59, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
I don't advocate for any one view. I ensure Elhaik is represented in these articles because whenever he and his teams' results are mentioned, editors find it repellent, and in need of parapgraphs of rebuttal. If you read closely the genetics pages on Jews, by examining from 2000 to 2022 all of the varying papers selectively synthesized, you will see that the details amount to a mishmash of different results, with variations in results ranging up to 60-80%&. Some papers give Ashkenazi a 40%-60% Levantine component, others 3% and the term Middle East is widely abused to cover any area from Iran to northern Turkey. The Genetics of the Jews article cites research stating that 'All European Jews seem connected on the order of fourth or fifth cousins' and then cites another stating that:'is would make all Ashkenazi Jews related to the point of being at least 30th cousins.' Well well, since family lore suggests one of my greatgreat grandmothers was of Goan descent, I can jump on that and tout my Indian (rather than of Irish/English) descent, those latter two being the major sources for two and a half centuries. That is how identity is subjectively gamed. Of the immense mosaic of individuals in any geneaology, one hunts for any evidence of a component that clusters with the preferred modern identity group, and showcases that while ignoring the rest of the genetic evidence pointing to different origins. We are all cousins to the 30th degree, technically. So, until geneticists get their act together and begin to use precise language, and ascertain a point of agreement on such details, there is no 'prevalent consensus'. Just scattershot chaos.Nishidani (talk) 11:17, 17 May 2023 (UTC):
There is a prevalent consensus, in general and also specifically regarding Ashkenazi Jews. It is not some, but most papers that give Ashkenazi's 40-60% Middle Eastern ancestry, and the consensus is even tighter if you are focusing on the paternal lineages of Jewish ancestry (which most researchers agree point to a middle eastern origin of most communities). Anyway, the purpose of bringing genetics into this discussion was to say, no, it's wrong to say that Jews can be described solely as a religious group, as most communities are also linked genetically, and the majority of Jewish ethnic divisions share a substantial component of their ancestry that comes from the ancient Middle East. So this is not chaos. However, I do share the hope that geneticists would paint a clearer picture by using a more precise language when describing Jewish genetic profiles, as well as by comparing contemporary Jewish populations with, for instance, Jews living in Judaea or in diaspora communities during the Second Temple period. I suppose it's best to wait and see. Tombah (talk) 14:35, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
I gave you detailed reasons why the pages you are citing for those views, contradict themselves in the evidence they cite for those views.Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Like it or not you and I, for one, have shared ancestors.
How far back must we go to find the most recent shared ancestor for – say – all Welsh people or all Japanese? And how much further is it to the last person from whom everyone alive today- Welsh, Japanese, Nigerian, or Papuan-can trace descent. . . Speculative as they are, the results are a surprise. In a population of around a thousand people everyone is likely to share the same ancestor about ten generations. Some three hundred years- ago. The figure goes up at a regular rate for larger groups, which means that almost all native Britons can trace descent from a single anonymous individual on these islands who lived in about the thirteenth century. On the global scale, universal common ancestry emerges no more than a hundred generations ago-well into the Old Testament era, perhaps, around the destruction of the First Temple in about 600 B.C.Steve Jones, Serpent's Promise: The Bible Retold as Science Hachette 2013 p.27.
The Levantine component of an Ashkenazi is around 3% by one calculation. That is slightly high than the 2% of the Neanderthal genome we all have on average. We are not, for that reason, of Neanderthal or Levantine descent, unless we privilege one minor element in our heritage as overridingly determinate, i.e. express a subjective identification. The choice anyone makes as to how they are to be identified is subjective, A cultural and often a politically loaded exercise of preference as to what tidbit in a vast genealogy of one's specific genetic profile one one opts for, if one cares to opt for anything. It was well put by geneticist David Reich:-
Reich describes himself as an Ashkenazi Jew, who feels American, speaks English, and whose mind is a product of the European Enlightenment, an intellectual tradition quite different from that of his biological ancestors. He has not had his own DNA tested, but if he did it wouldn’t tell him ‘who he is’.Steven Mithen, 'Neanderthals, Denisovians and Modern Humans.' LRB Vol. 40 No. 17 • 13 September 2018 reviewing David Reich, Who We Are and How We Got Here: Ancient DNA and the New Science of the Human Past Oxford University Press 2018
Let's not go for historical views of a book or two books from two authors.
Ethnic groups share common language and traits.
It comes to you yourself if someone comes from another ethnic group and standards asking marriage to your sister or daughter
You will be more likely to accept him if he is really behaving like you do, means if you were Brit, you may accept a Dutch or a German, much less likely Italian or Greek
I noticed that Jews of Poland do NOT accept Moors nor Sephardic nor Yemeni
Same happens for French Jews vs Polish
That ANNIHILATES the idea that Jew is a nation.
If you say Spanish Jew or Moor Jew .. it seems to be more of a nation.
Yes - I agree here, but the majority of white people of south Europe (Sicilia, Italy and Greece) share the same root of ancient middle east linked DNA at the percentage you mentioned.
But still they are not considered a single ethnic group, like Greek, Spanish nor Italian.
On the other end, you cannot tell me that Mark Zuckerberg and Sam Altman share Lebanese Druze the same group of DNA?! Because those two are Polish white converts to Judaism.
And if you read the comment from our friend @NOTAFORUM he mentioned that Jews share a lot of genes with the middle east, but still Wiki insist on classifying Jews as Ethnic group and Middle-eastern as another Ethnic group, ignoring totally that it's RELIGION of Islam vs RELIGION of Judaism, but both ethnic groups show similarities at the far end.
That makes the simple answer is (Jewish is Religion), not (ethnicity)
Btw, I have Anatolian, North Caucasus, Italian and a Spanish Jewish Group in my DNA as per 23 n me. (If I say Spanish Jewish group and Polish Jewish group), I can consider it ethnic group clearly, but Jew of Poland and Jew of Yemen?? There is not much in common.
If you read the first line of my comment, I fall in the category of my first line in this comment. But nevertheless, I don't consider myself (ethno-religious group)
And Soviet Union former agenda was: we are the same group! After dissolving in 1990, the truth came up, especially Armenia and Azerbaijan - the very next year, West Ukraine and East Ukraine who sided with Russia now.
Same happened with Pan Arabism, Pan Turkism a century ago.
The Agenda tells us who we are, but when it's time to get married, you will discover the truth in your feeling when a boyfriend / suitor comes to your daughter, and you share 0 traits with him.
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 May 2023
This edit request to Jews has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Hello,
I was wondering if in the introduction, the part "significant contributions to Western culture" could be replaced by "significant contributions to Western civilisation"
Regards Varoon2542 (talk) 02:21, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
| image_caption = The [[Star of David]], a common symbol of the Jewish people
Some Jews reject the Magen David as a Jewish symbol and think it's some form of sophisticated idolatry.
Besides, it's a problem to de-humanize humans which are Jews by trying to "tie" (to be metaphoric here) each unique immaterial mind of each one of them with a geometrical shape. The Nazis (may their name be rotten), have done a similar thing, they have forcefully symbolized people who couldn't resist. The average reader here can't resist to the symbolization done in this article.
I claim that it shouldn't be done and there are better approaches to present Jews to the world. For example:
If you go to the article Muslims you immediately see a beautiful painting of group of Muslim men praying passionately over a building's roof. Why, instead of a giant idolized symbol, won't appear a beautiful painting of Jews praying passionately or perhaps a gallery of different people identify as Jews? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A10:8012:17:CDC6:80D3:432D:840F:2CE2 (talk) 22:41, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
Some Jews reject prayer, so if you insist that we can only depict that which all Jews share in common, we aren't going to depict anything. Your characterization of the star and its meaning seems really strange to me. We had a gallery of different Jewish people but such galleries have been removed across Wikipedia following this discussion. 22:54, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
Some secular Muslims (at least according to statistics) as in Turkey, Kazakhstan, Malaysia, Iran, UAE, Morocco, Tunisia, etc. also reject prayer. Without actions, a religious definition doesn't really mean anything so I personally think there is no problem showing people pray. 2A10:8012:17:CDC6:8DA3:4B97:E2F2:E303 (talk) 11:05, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
The page, which is about people, would indeed be better showing some people, not a symbolic abstraction. the star, a.k.a. the Seal of Solomon, is the sort of thing you put as an image in a navbox, e.g. Template:Judaism, where it sits alongside the commandments and menorah. Given that today it is also being used as a very specific political symbol, it's doubly inappropriate to be used here. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:03, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
I suggested we replace the haggard meme about the earliest Jews being an 'ethno-religious' community formed during the 2nd millennium BC be replaced by 'religious' because the concept of ethnicity that far back is deeply problematical. The Bible is rife with intermarriage, exogamous relations across peoples, and at the same time, in the priestly recensions culminating in Ezra-Nehemiah, the later strictures against intermarriage are retrodated awkwardly. In the 13-12th centuries we know of an Israel, as a locus and seed, one of several groups in the Transjordan dialect span of tribes, and they only emerge in narrative focus for the distinctive emphasis on adherence to a YHWH, a primarily religious definition, not an ethnic denominator (if the Israelites were in large part Canaanites, as recent historiography now affirms, and the priestly recensions take 'Canaanites' to be ethnically different, 'foreigners', one sees the issue clearly). The latter enters in force in the proscriptions against marrying foreigners issued by the priestly class that recast the oral traditions to accord with later laws.
In short, if we speak of the late second millennium, we must do so in terms of what archaeological, philological, historical and sociological evidence might tell us about what lies behind the emergence of an Israelitic 'ethos', and not retroject ideas that framed that period according to the ideological concerns of the priestly cast that wrote up the past traditions in terms of their obsession with 'ethnic' purity. Ezra and Nehemiah are the fathers of race theory, after all, but the ancient communities of Israel were highly 'ethnically' heterogeneous, distinguished in their earliest known phases by devotion to a particular god. At the conclusion of his study (he accepts an early dating for Deborah's song, which has been challenged in recent decades)
it seems to me very likely that the song presumes an ethnic context and that the origins of Israelite ethnicity should be assigned to a date no later than the ninth century B.C.Ep.321.
If 900-800 BCE is, in just one scholarly view, the point of departure, we cannot retrodate ethnicity as if it were a fact to the late Bronze Age,four centuries earlier, as the text insisted on writing. Nishidani (talk) 13:20, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
That last quote also pertains to just the "origins" of Israelite ethnicity, not Jewish ethnic and/or religious identity, per se, with the latter being particularly informed by the theological reformulations of the exilic and post-exilic periods. The article itself notes that the codification of Jewish identity only took place in around 200 CE. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:30, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
Native the Levant is WP SYNTH
This user Emolu has just reverted this edit[8] with the reasoning "it has six sources" even though that per Wikipedia:SYNTH, these sources cannot be used in such manner. Just because Israelites apparently lived in the Levant and Jews believe they are descended from this group ethnically (but moreso spirtiually), it doesn't mean all Jews in the world are native to the Levant. It sounds antiquated, racialist and outdated with the wording "native". I will rv back to last good version until we can provide a cite for the sentence which is not WP SYNTH.JJNito197 (talk) 07:06, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
I was not making the argument that all Jews are native to the Levant. The Jewish people are native to the Levant, just like the Arab people are native to the Arabian Peninsula, and the Armenian people are native to the Armenian plateau – in spite of the fact that millions upon millions of Arabs, Armenians, and ethnic Jews, do not live in these places. Also, caution assigning spiritual descent with primacy over the ethnic descent – the vast majority of Jews are direct descendants of the Israelites and Hebrews – which is why it is in the lede, with 6 sources to support it. Emolu (talk) 15:35, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
Worth noting that the page Arabs doesn't ascribe the 'nativeness' of the ethnic group to anywhere, because it's also a diverse group, and such a statement would also be antiquated/racialist there. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:21, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
You're viewing "native" through the lens of racialism – which just isn't my intent. There's nothing inherently raci(al)st about describing the geographical origin of an ethnic group, and such things only become a concern when these facts are used to support a prejudicial thesis, which is not the case here. Still, that doesn't mean either of us have to abandon pragmatism here, and your concerns are valid. I'm personally fine with substituting for more neutral terminology, like "originating". Emolu (talk) 00:15, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
Surely being pragmatic you understand that the evidence for the Israelites even existing outside the Bible is scarce, let alone in the Levant. The wording currently in the article is fine, as claiming descent (from the Israelites) is not something one can scorn at or question unless one is doing it for fleshly affirmations and not pious reasons like spiritual inheritance. JJNito197 (talk) 07:12, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
I am... actually at a loss for words with this comment. Saying extrabiblical evidence for the existence of Israelites is "scarce" is like saying the sky is yellow. Emolu (talk) 11:18, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
You know, that's not really a controversial statement so your loss for words is telling nonetheless. I would caution editing these topics on wikipedia unless you can understand the fundemental principal NPOV and be willing to have your preconceived notions challenged. JJNito197 (talk) 14:26, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
These are not my preconceived notions – these are archaeological facts. Israelites are well attested extra-biblically. That you would even suggest otherwise is genuinely disturbing to me, not because my worldview is so fragile that the mere possibility of change leads to its complete destruction, but because you are placing yourself as the arbiter of the fact's truthfulness. Emolu (talk) 14:31, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
I consider that to be a poor use of the word "native". If nothing else, it's too easily confused with the notion of where individual Jews are native to. It would be much better to write of where the Jewish people originated. Largoplazo (talk) 19:28, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
The question of Jewish origins continues to be an unknown.(Weitzman - "I confess to still nursing the hope that, despite all the dead-ends we have come up against in this book, scholars will find ways to keep asking how the Jews originated. This is not because I expect them to ever break through to a definitive answer but because I value the humility that comes from recognizing that we do not know that answer and because, at the same time, I would lament the loss of a certain kind of ambition that modern-day scholarship has inherited from the myth-makers of old, the dream of being able to solve the enigma of beginnings) We have Zionism#Ethnic unity and descent from Biblical Jews under the section head "Beliefs" Selfstudier (talk) 12:00, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
As is cited in the article itself (in the very first sentence), we have six vetted sources which unequivocally state the origins of the Jewish people are not only known, but at this point considered axiomatic to academia. As Cline 2003 says, "Few would seriously challenge the belief that most modern Jews are descended from the ancient Hebrews". Emolu (talk) 12:32, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
Jews have their origins in the ancient Israelites, that's a fact. As for saying that 'Jews descend from the Israelites,' that's something entirely different. We should use the language of 'origin' instead of 'descent' in the introduction. Mawer10 (talk) 13:42, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
Like I said before, I'm all for using "originate". It's a win-win, seeing as it already implies descendancy anyway. Emolu (talk) 13:49, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
Weitzman, Steven (2019). "Biological Approaches to the Origin of the Jews". The Origin of the Jews: The Quest for Roots in a Rootless Age. Princeton University Press. ISBN978-0-691-19165-2.
Likewise, I see no reason to disbelieve Cline, or any of the other 5 sources. As for Weitzman, I'd trust a bioarchaeologist, or an actual geneticist, over a biblical scholar. 15:05, 5 September 2023 (UTC) Emolu (talk) 15:05, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
"winner of the 2017 National Jewish Book Award in Education and Jewish Identity". Maybe read some of the reviews.
Oh cool, he won an award. Does that entitle him to completely upend scholarly consensus? I'm not reading any reviews, because reviews mean absolutely nothing, but maybe you should read WP:FRINGE. Emolu (talk) 15:17, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
It being a claim doesn't exempt it from all scrutiny. It still violates WP:FRINGE, and if you really want to bank on its status as a proposal for its inclusion, it still wouldn't work because that would violate WP:RSUW. Emolu (talk) 15:22, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
You misunderstand me, the "claim" or "belief" is the claim of descent. As it says in the article "...whose members claim descent..." or Cline "...the belief that...·" As long as it is not presented as a fact, fine by me. Selfstudier (talk) 15:26, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
Weitzman is not cited anywhere on the page, his voice and his positions are irrelevant. Let me run through the content of the sources actually cited on the page:
...most of whose members descend from the ancient Hebrews or Israelites. is backed up by six sources:
- Encyclopedia Britannica's page on Jew: "a Jew is any person belonging to the worldwide group that constitutes, through descent or conversion, a continuation of the ancient Jewish people, who were themselves descendants of the Hebrews of the Old Testament."
- Encyclopedia Britannica's page on Hebrew: "Hebrew, any member of an ancient northern Semitic people that were the ancestors of the Jews."
- Jerusalem Besieged: From Ancient Canaan to Modern Israel (2004) by Eric Cline, p. 33: "Few would seriously challenge the belief that most modern Jews are descended from the ancient Hebrews. However, even this simple and ostensibly indisputable claim requires a caveat, because of the often repeated notion that Ashkenazi Jews might be descended from the royal Khazars of southern Russia, who converted to Judaism in the eighth century CE. Even though some scientific doubt—in the form of modern DNA studies—has been cast on the supposed Khazar-Ashkenazi link, the issue continues to be researched and debated."
- A Short History of the Jewish People: From Legendary Times to Modern Statehood (1998) by Raymond Scheindlin, p. 1: "The first act in the long drama of Jewish history is the age of the Israelites"
- Encyclopedia of the Peoples of Africa and the Middle East. (2009), p. 337: "The people of the Kingdom of Israel and the ethnic and religious group known as the Jewish people that descended from them have been subjected to a number of forced migrations in their history."
- Legacy: A Genetic History of the Jewish People (2012) by Dr. Harry Ostrer, which honestly I'm not going to extensively quote, because any and all parts of the book can be taken here. I recommend giving it a read-through as, unlike Weizman, Ostrer is an actual MD, and he exhaustively cites his points and sources.
These are not sources which say the descendancy was only limited to religious or cultural practices, they do not say that the notion of continuity from the Israelites and Hebrews is metaphorical or ambiguous – they state clearly and unequivocally that, as the page now says, most Jews descend from the ancient Hebrews or Israelites.Emolu (talk) 15:56, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
Besides for Ostrer those are weak sources. Remember that the Cline book is from 2004 and the Scheindlin piece is from 1998 so we would give them less weight than more recent academic work. Also note that due weight is based on all extant RS, not just the ones used on the page. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:17, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
While I understand some of them are somewhat "old," given the fact that in the past 20 years there have been exactly zero major amendments to the scholarly consensus surrounding the ethnogenesis of the Jewish people, I would argue their strength remains. Encyclopedia Britannica... I would understand where you're coming from. Wouldn't necessarily agree, but could definitely see where you're coming from. Emolu (talk) 16:39, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
Two of them specifically state claim/belief. Also see Zionism article. Weitzman reviews Ostrer (as well as others, including those that are critical of Ostrer). You appear not to have heard of the "ethno-nationalist myth of common descent". When I get around to it, I will add sourcing to the article to make it clear that this is by no means an established fact. Selfstudier (talk) 16:50, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
While you're at it, take a look at page 300 of Weizman's book (where he mentions Ostrer, though he at no point reviews his 2012 book) which reads: "Is it possible that there is bias at work in the genetic study of the Jews, that researchers are predisposed to accept results that confirm what Jews believe about themselves, and to discount results at odds with that self-image? Possibly, but there have also been studies that suggest that in some contexts self-identity and genetically established ancestry can match up fairly well. That is what much of recent genetic research has been suggesting about the Jews: that there is a correspondence between what they believe about the origin of their ancestors and the genetic ancestry registered in their DNA, that they have an ancestry distinct from that of the non-Jews among whom they live, and that some of those ancestors came from the Near East." Emolu (talk) 17:22, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
Well hey if you're really gonna shoehorn it in the page, you should know your own source doesn't even match the point you're using it to make. Emolu (talk) 17:45, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
What, if anything, is wrong or is being objected to in this bolded portion to Weitzman? I believe it is a fairly accepted fact, and not a nationalist myth, that recent DNA research has lent evidence to the claim in bold. Which is of course, not equivalent to "modern day Jews are the people from the Bible." We can't make that claim, that is a bit of a sticking point, since the historicity of the Bible as a work that any actual people were in is not universally accepted or even mostly. If I'm not mistaken on the recent research, the "ancient Hebrews" were probably more closely related to modern-day Palestinians or Mizrahi Jews than Sephardic or Ashkenazi Jews who make up most of modern-day Jews and have a big European component, as much as 70% or 80% European. But yeah, that 20% or 2% on some level was probably "ancient Hebrew" and that is I think not that controversial at this point given recent research, ie originating in the Middle East/North Africa and having a connection to, probably ancient Persia/Babylon, which is evidence that there is on some level some connection to the Jewish historical narrative, but of course does not make it a reliable source or a usable one, nor are many of those above. Andre🚐03:05, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
If you cannot gleam what is wrong with a source affirming an idea being used to unequivocally deny the same idea, then I cannot help you. Emolu (talk) 03:44, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
Hm, I think maybe you misunderstood my message, I'm saying that the quoted portion of Weitzman seems quite uncontroversial and reasonable. Andre🚐03:52, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
As far as I'm aware, there haven't been any genetic studies dedicated specifically to ancient Hebrew genetics. Currently, the available research consists of a single study that examined genetics related to the Canaanite/Zagrusian Bronze Age period. In the mentioned study, Ashkenazi Jews were identified as having roughly 41% European admixture, which is notably different from the previously mentioned range of 70%-80%. Earlier research has suggested a dual ancestry for Ashkenazi Jews, with approximately 50%-50% contributions from Levantine and European (mostly southern European) ancestries. While direct genetic investigations into ancient Hebrews or classical Jews are lacking, it appears that genetic research does align with the historical narratives of Jewish ancestry. Koroneiki (talk) 08:56, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
"Most" is not a word that improves most sentences; it is intrinsically vague - it provides the reader with nothing except uncertainty, on a scale from 51-99% - better not to make vague claims in wikivoice and stick instead to non-generalizations. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:39, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
I think we're conflating "Jews are probably somehow Middle Eastern with European and possibly Caucusus admixture" with "there's literal historical truth to be found in the biblical mythology." The former belongs here, the latter belongs at Historicity of the Bible or an article like that. Yes, Jews are probably originally from the Middle East, with European admixture. That doesn't in any way confirm the historicity of the mythology. Andre🚐17:58, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
' ... Ashkenazim (Central and Eastern Europe) ... ' - utter nonsense. Should be 'Western, Central and Eastern Europe'. Once again, non-Jews with zero knowledge comment on this topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.103.111.118 (talk) 21:57, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
You have to see it diachronically: the definition of "who is Ashkenazim" varied during history. It no longer means the same as what it meant a couple of centuries ago, it changed its meaning.
Sephardi used to mean Jews from Spain. Today it means Jews from Morocco, Ethiopia, and such countries. So, the Jews who were called Sephardi in the 19th century, they are called Ashkenazim in the 21st century. tgeorgescu (talk) 03:23, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
Ethiopian Jews aren't Sephardic - they are a separate group with their own language and traditions, and differences in culture. Sephardic Jews typically refers to Jews from Spain, Portgual, and the Ottoman Empire who follow groupings of related and specific rites. After exoduses and expulsions, many ended up in other places such as the Netherlands, and North Africa including Tunisia, etc. Sometimes groups are lumped in as a way of classifying but also, the reason why many Jews that were thought of as Sephardic became thought of as Ashkenazim is because many Sephardic Jews, after expulsion, migrated to Ashkenazic-dominated communities and became integrated into Ashkenazic rites and cultures. Andre🚐20:42, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
Done and I also capitalized a W in "Western" and put quotation marks around the quoted sentences after checking the source. Largoplazo (talk) 15:57, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Judahitish. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 November 13#Judahitish until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. snood1205(Say Hi! (talk)) 17:14, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
Already done:That link is to the same page of the book that the current citation is. The difference in the end of the two links seems to be an automatic redirect. SpinningCeres 23:40, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
Not done. Reliable sources say otherwise. Singularity42 (talk) 21:56, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:54, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the 
.jpg)