Talk:Jews

For prior discussions of the infobox in the top right corner of the article, please visit Talk:Jews/infobox.

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Jews/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

This article contains a lot of citation needed tags, and it's been like this for a while. Thus, the article fails GA criteria 2 (verifiable).--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 14:12, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

The issues haven't been resolved. Closing the reassessment now.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 01:04, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

European peoples...

In the "related people" field of the infobox, European peoples are mentioned, but the sources given are all specifically speaking of Ashkenazi Jews, not Jews in general. It's basically a C+P from the sources given on the Ashkenazi infobox. I'm not sure when it was added, but it was certainly relatively recent, and I propose it be removed, because it's not supported by the sources.--Monochrome_Monitor 21:41, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, but... There is currently a laundry list of Levantine people there on the one hand and Ashkenzi Jews are a major portion of all Jews on the other (over 50% off the top of my head).Icewhiz (talk) 21:49, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

It's not a laundry list, it's from sources that are referring to Jewish relations to X. There is a difference between "Jews" and "Ashkenazi Jews". It doesn't matter how many Jews are Ashkenazi. Likewise, it would be ridiculous to say the Irish are Americans because a majority of Irish are American. It's just not in the source.--Monochrome_Monitor 22:10, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

The question is what does "related people" mean? At the template's page it says "List of other ethnic groups related to the group", so it's still unclear. If the meaning is cultural or linguistic relation, then European people should be removed. If it's about genetics, then all the people that have genetic admixture with Jews should be added as well. Infantom (talk) 08:16, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

If we remove European, Arab is likewise suspect (the Arab conquest of Israel occurred well after the major expulsion - however Jews lived in Arab communities - just as they did in European communities - Mizrahi Jews. Arabs are a Semitic group - however they were really adjacent during Biblical times (there was peripheral contact with Nabataeans which are identified as northern Arab by many but not all). Druze (a late group, arising in the 11th century in Arab conquered Egypt-Levant) is probably even more questionable than either.Icewhiz (talk) 08:28, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Arabs are related to all Jews, not just Ashkenazi Jews. There is a huge difference. Jews who lived in Arab lands have Arab admixture, but Arab admixture is not the same as having a "common ancestor" population. @Infantom: We do not include "all groups admixed with" in infoboxes. I'm removing it from the infobox, if you want to restore it please take it to talk and get a consensus.--Monochrome_Monitor 13:24, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Is not that the Levantines and Druze (Druze also Levantines) are Arabs, so why are they characterized as isolated ethnic groups?.

Identifying Levantines as Arabs is not so straightforward (though many do self-identify as such). The Druze (whose founding group is complex) themselves are isolated in the sense they have been a closed sect (marriage only inside) for the past 1000 years or so.Icewhiz (talk) 05:37, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Jewish Nation

Talking about a Jewish nation before the birth of Zionism is very much an anachronism. The article doesn't seem to "understand" that at all and uses the word "nation" in contexts where it is simply incorrect. Eg intro: "Jews originated as a national and religious group ... during the second millennium BCE" It should be "Jews originated as a people ..." Nations aren't that old. ImTheIP (talk) 22:34, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

The use of nation pre-1800s (or 1848) is of course a wider discussion, however some do use the term in Europe and elsewhere. The Maccabees could definitely be construed as a nation state (along with other early examples).Icewhiz (talk) 07:23, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

I think it is an effect of sloppy writing. I posit that the editors who have written this article have not been aware of the finer differences between nations and peoples. Usually, a people is thought to go through a process of becoming "sentient" of its own nationality. For the Jewish people, Zionism was this awakening process. If this commonly accepted wisdom, that Zionism created the Jewish nation, is to be challenged, then sources must be provided. IMHO ImTheIP (talk) 22:13, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

While I do for the most part agreee, the distinction between people and nation is somewhat post modern. There are sources who use the two interchangebly or prefer nation (for the Jewish people, and for other people). It is also possible to refer to a Jewish nation in the Macabee and the Roman Jewish wars period with some basis. So there are sources that use this language.Icewhiz (talk) 04:03, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps new to European people and others but Jews have always had national awareness, and regarded themselves as a nation much before terms such as 'religion' and 'ethnos' entered their lexicon. The Maccabean revolt and the Jewish-Roman wars are good examples. To say that "Zionism created a Jewish nation" is incorrect and misleading. Did Zionism, for instance, create the notion of Jewish political independence in Israel? or the "ingathering of the exile" and return to Israel? All those elements (and many others) predated the Zionist movement by thousands of years. Zionism revived and fulfilled them, but did not create. Anyway, as for the sources, please review footnote 12, it addresses your concern. Infantom (talk) 10:41, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Is this relevant to the history of a concept of a "Jewish nation"? "Siquidem in libro Geneseos sic Abrahae loquitur Deus, promittens fore, ut ex ipsius stirpe nasceretur olim, cuius gratuito beneficio non solum natio Judaeorum, verum etiam omnes totius orbis populi non per circumcisionem, quae tum nondum erat nata, sed per fidem evangelicam in ius et charitatem filiorum adiciti, coelestis regni consortium una cum Christo sortirentur." Desiderius Erasmus, Paraphrases in Novum Testamentum, volume 1, "In Evangelium Matthaei Paraphrasis", chapter I, 1778.

Also: "Longe faciet Dominus. Liquitur de se in tertia persona, quasi dicat: ego Dominus ablegabo Judaeos a sua patria, faciamque eos extorres, ut toto orbe vagentur. Et multiplicabitur. Qui reliqui fuerint ex Judaeis multiplicabuntur. Quae derelicta fuerat. Natio Judaeorum." Menochii, e Societate Jesu, Totius Sanctae Scripturae Commentarii ex optimis quibusque auctoribus collecti, volume 3, "Prophetia Isaiae", chapter VI, 1825. Largoplazo (talk) 12:03, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

@Largoplazo: you need good sources here. The source in footnote 12 claims that "The Jews are a nation and were so before there was a Jewish state of Israel." This claim is uncontroversial as Zionism was founded about 100 years before the establishment of the state. What is controversial, is the claim that the Jewish Nation is over 2000 years old. It would make it the oldest nation in the world by a very large margin!

The established wisdom is that the idea of the nation arose in Europe during the Renaissance and developed into the modern theory of the nation state. While there were examples of prior ethnic states, they weren't nations in the sense of the word we use today. For example, the Macedonians unified the Greek city states in the 4th century BC, but few people claims that that created a Greek Nation. This is what the article about Greece says:

"In the late eighteenth century, an increase in secular learning during the Modern Greek Enlightenment led to the revival among Greeks of the diaspora of the notion of a Greek nation tracing its existence to ancient Greece, distinct from the other Orthodox peoples, and having a right to political autonomy."

Note how the article claims that the notion of a Greek Nation stems from the 18th century. It does not claim that the Greek Nation stems from antiquity. ImTheIP (talk) 09:26, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

User:ImTheIP is correct. I agree that the word 'nation' gets thrown around casually by people, often academics, who don't actually understand the term, but that's no reason we should. Doug Weller talk 11:37, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

I feel as though concept is being confused with existence. Bipolar disorder afflicted people before it became classified in psychiatric literature, for example. What is it about nationhood that would call for it not to exist until it's conceived of as such? Largoplazo (talk) 11:56, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Early and modern proponents of nationhood extolled the previous cultural heritage or the peoples of their nations. However post-modern thought tends to associate the concept of nation with modern thought, and views ascribing nationhood upon prior pre-modern generations as a cultural appropriation. To wit, an English (or French) serf toiling away under a French (or English) lord of the manor probably cared little which way regarding nationality. And monarchies ruled over wide area of lands with many different people and language (though there was a language of the court - it was not imposed uniformly on all the people - in France there were many languages, e.g. Occitan) - the concept of a single people to a single country with a single uniform language is quite modern. All that being said, some older sources do use nation and people interchangeably and some newer sources use nation in preference to people in order to make a point.Icewhiz (talk) 12:07, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

In addition to what @Icewhiz wrote, which I agree with, a nation and a national identity is a rethinking of an individual's position in society and to whom allegiance is "pledged." During antiquity, slaves and servants would pledge their loyalty to their masters. During the middle ages, peasant would pledge it to their noblemen and kings. But after the American and French revolution, royalty lost their power and the pledge of loyalty became directed towards the nation instead. It is not a coincidence that the American pledge of loyalty is to the flag and not the president of the United States. In this way, a nation requires a sense of egalitarianism or solidarity with other members of the nation which simply did not exist on a large scale before the Renaissance. A nation also requires its people to be educated enough to be aware of its existence, because a "nation" is a much more abstract concept than a tribe or a clan. The upper classes perhaps were, but illiterate peasants and slaves were not. ImTheIP (talk) 12:52, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Jewish and origins

How correct is to say "Jewish people are (...) originating from the Israelites, or Hebrews, of the Ancient Near East." beign judaism a religion which allows convertions and with historical convertions? I think that is a definition much appropriate to talk about Hebrews but Jews. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.130.98.96 (talk) 17:34, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

It depends on your definition of the verb originating and the subject Jewish people. The Jewish people, in a conceptual sense, originated from the Ancient Near East. That's were the notion of a Jewish people originated. However, if you talk about "Jewish people" as in persons belonging to the "Jewish people" then it is not clear that they originated in the Ancient Near East, for any definition of originated. So the article is right even though it can be a little confusing because it discusses both concepts at the same time. ImTheIP (talk) 08:25, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Etymological Equivalents

In the paragraph that lists many languages' word for Jews, the Arabic term banu israil is incorrectly identified as coming from the root Judah; It comes from Bnei Yisrael, the Hebrew term for Children of Israel, i.e. Jacob. Ephraimhelfgot (talk) 02:11, 24 September 2017 (UTC)