Talk:Jews/Archive 33

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

Archive 33

Archive 34

MOS:FIRST

Calling all ye of little faith! I hope the next editor to remove Judaism from the first sentence of the lead (MOS:FIRST) has a better-thought-out reason for doing so than a perfunctory dislike of the exact wording. I would also challenge anyone to present a serious tertiary source that neglects its duties in this manner. I myself find the combined weight of Britannica, the Cambridge Dictionary, the Oxford Dictionary and Collins all quite adequately compelling. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:08, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Suggestion:

“ Jews or Jewish people are an ethnoreligious group, nation or ethnos whose traditional religion is Judaism [...] originating from the ancient Israelites or Hebrews in the Levant [...]. Jewish ethnicity, religion and community are strongly interrelated, as Judaism is the ethnic religion and cultural body of the Jewish people, although its level of observance can varies and not all Jews are followers of the religion. ”

Possibility of placing the phrase constituting a continuation, through ancestry or religious affiliation, of the ancient Jews in one of the spaces with [...]. Mawer10 (talk) 15:42, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

The first part is immediately better, so I'm putting that in right away. I guess this is the exact phrasing of the [...] filler and related material is the part that needs the most work and thought on the best wording. There are a lot of different variations on this part even within just the handful of tertiary sources above. The Brittanica framing is perhaps a tad long-winded. For the latter part, I'm not a fan of the "observance levels can vary" sentence - this applies universally to all religions and is a redundant phrase. I also think that "not all Jews are followers of the religion" is a vaguer way of explaining the "individuals born into the community, but not practitioners of the religion, can also be referred to as Jews" part - the latter is a closer paraphrasing of the source that is referenced, which states: "A person born Jewish who refutes Judaism may continue to assert a Jewish identity, and if he or she does not convert to another religion, even religious Jews will recognize the person as a Jew". I think it is less effective to not explicitly explain how one can be both Jewish and non-religious. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:34, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

The sentence "both followers of Judaism and individuals born into the community, but not practitioners of the religion, can also be referred to as Jews" is intended to explain how a person who doesn't follow Judaism can still be considered Jewish. However, the paragraph begins by stating that Jews are also an ethnicity. Doesn't this make the sentence redundant? If Jews are also an ethnicity, readers might assume that Jews who don't follow the religion are Jewish by ethnicity/ancestry, and they won't be surprised to read: "...Jewish ethnicity, religion... are strongly interrelated, as Judaism is the ethnic religion and cultural body of the Jewish people, although not all Jews follow the religion." Mawer10 (talk) 13:13, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Ethnicity doesn't automatically imply ancestry/familial relation, and for readers unfamiliar with Judaism, it may be a counterintuitive notion that one can be irreligious but still be counted under a term also used to describe religious adherents. The explanation needs to work for readers that are not familiar with the context. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:35, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm uncertain whether I share your perspective on this. Stating not all Jews follow the religion appears to clearly imply that individuals born Jewish who reject Judaism can still identify as Jewish. The term "Jew/Jewish" denotes an ethnoreligious group, of which members may or may not adhere to Judaism. Nonetheless, drawing from source 20, I would frame it as follows: "Jewish ethnicity, religion and community are strongly interrelated, as Judaism is the ethnic religion and cultural body of the Jewish people, although Jews who don't follow the religion can still assert their Jewish identity". This wording is not very different from my previous phrasing, and is more like the source description. The choice "Jews who don't follow the religion" is more concise and natural than "individuals born Jewish who don't follow the religion". Unlike the source, I used "still" instead of "continue to" to emphasize that Jews still have the ability to assert their Jewish identity without the religion. Another option is to state that not all Jews follow Judaism at the beginning of the paragraph: "Jews are an ethnoreligious group, nation or ethnos whose traditional religion is Judaism, although not all Jews follow the religion... Jewish ethnicity, religion and community are strongly interrelated, as Judaism is the ethnic religion and cultural body of the Jewish people". Mawer10 (talk) 22:55, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree that "although Jews who don't follow the religion can still assert their Jewish identity" also conveys the same point as the original source, so yes, that wording also works for that part. This part could just follow straight on from "strongly interrelated", without reshuffling any of the other parts. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:57, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Like this? Jews or Jewish people are an ethnoreligious group, nation or ethnos whose traditional religion is Judaism, [the ethnic religion and cultural body of the Jewish people/their ethnic religion and cultural body]... Jewish ethnicity, religion and community are strongly interrelated, although Jews who don't follow the religion can still assert their Jewish identity. The first part is similar to the one present in the article now, the second could be rewritten to something like: "Jews who don't follow the religion can still assert their Jewish identity, as Jewish ethnicity, religion and community are strongly interrelated." I'm not sure which would be the best. Mawer10 (talk) 16:22, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

I think the above works; the exact wording is kinda flexible. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:11, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

So I think the last part to deal with is where the Jews came from. I suggest leaving it as a separate sentence from the others by punctuation: "Originating from the ancient Israelites or Hebrews in the Levant, Jews are a continuation of this ancient group through ancestry or religious affiliation." What about this? Mawer10 (talk) 11:12, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

@Tombah: Again, it's truly remarkable how many people genuinely don't think "Judaism" should be in the first sentence about "Jews"! What part of the above discussion, which practically beats the talk page around the head with tertiary sources, is unclear exactly? The sum of the tertiary sources is blindingly clear. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:30, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

The first definition in the Cambridge, Oxford, and Collins Dictionaries begins by describing Jews as a people, a community, or a group before mentioning their traditional religion, Judaism. A paragraph that initially presents Jews as an ethnoreligious group, followed by the mention of their religion, and then their historical origins, provides a more balanced and coherent presentation. Mawer10 (talk) 16:20, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Not the basic Collins definition at the top, but the British and American sub definitions yes. Britannica, as an actual encyclopedia entry, not just dictionary bullet points, is probably the most instructive in terms of actually structuring an introduction. No definitions actually start with terms like 'ethnoreligious' or lengthy expositions of anything else; the common thread in both the Oxford and Cambridge dictionaries is something like "member of a group whose traditional religion is Judaism". Iskandar323 (talk) 17:18, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Britannica doesn't use the term "ethnonational group" to describe Palestinians nor "ethnolinguistic group" to describe Arabs in the introduction. The introductions of most, if not all, Wikipedia articles about population groups don't fit the Britannica standard. The term "ethnoreligious group" is a suitable adjective to describe the Jewish people as it capture both aspects of Jewishness, and the latest version of the introduction doesn't solve the "lengthy exposition" problem. The outline Jews are an ethnoreligious group whose traditional religion is Judaism and originating from the ancient Israelites or Hebrews in the Levant or Jews are an ethnoreligious group originating from the ancient Israelites or Hebrews in the Levant and whose traditional religion is Judaism is more concise, direct, and clear. Mawer10 (talk) 18:52, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

This version is not far off your first bolded suggestion above, so no disagreement that ethnoreligious group followed by "whose traditional ..." is a useful way of blending the two meanings. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:22, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

You miss my second point, which is that the current version of the introduction isn't concise and is lengthy. The first two highlighted passages make the text redundant, while the last one is quite awkward. "The Jews are members of the ethnoreligious group that is the Jewish people, whose traditional religion is Judaism, and whose members claim descent from the the ancient Hebrews or Israelites." Mawer10 (talk) 20:55, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

The 'members' formula came from the Cambridge and Oxford dictionary entries, which I was trying to oblige, while the 'claim descent' part is from Collins; the alternative formula from Britannica is to preface the 'continuation' part with "through descent or conversion." Iskandar323 (talk) 17:43, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

The blending of information from these sources didn't yield a good result. The sentence is repetitive, with the words 'members' and 'whose' used twice, and there's a sort of double presentation of the Jews (The Jews are members of the ethnoreligious group that is the Jewish people, and Jewish people, whose traditional religion is Judaism, and whose members claim descent from the the ancient Hebrews or Israelites). The word 'ethnoreligious' has become disposable and optional as it's possible to read the sentence as if it doesn't exist and serves some important role. I still don't understand why write 'Jews are members of the ethnoreligious group' instead of 'Jews are an ethnoreligious group.' Mawer10 (talk) 21:14, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Not caught up on the dispute, but don't you think the Jewish nation should also be contrasted here? For most of recorded history Jews were a nation without a state, just as the USA is a state made up of many nations - or, in another description, has none. Israel is an ethnostate or a Jewish nationstate. Zionism is Jewish nationalism. but Jews are a nation. yes? Andre🚐 23:22, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Well, Zionism#History starts this way: "The Jewish people are an ethnoreligious group and nation originating from the Israelites and Hebrews". Mawer10 (talk) 14:18, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Zionism is probably a page in a poorer state than this one, and I wouldn't rate several of the sources there, or here for that matter. Nicholson's International Relations: A Concise Introduction(2002) is a particularly odd choice on both, being both a dated and generic source not focused, even broadly speaking, on the subject in question. It is not the only one. Far more specific and up-to-date sources should be more than easy to come by. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:38, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

This is one of the reasons why I thought it useful to link to Jewish peoplehood, as a page that devotedly explores and better expressed that particular aspect of identity associated with Jews and Judaism. As for nationhood, that is a more complex notion. As the page here itself states in the body: Judaism shares some of the characteristics of a nation, an ethnicity, a religion, and a culture ... So not so much a yes or no idea as a concept in flux. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:30, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

"The Jews are an ethnoreligious group and [ Jewish peoplehood | people]". Much simpler. Or based on current version "Jews are members of the people and ethnoreligious group". Mawer10 (talk) 21:27, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Sure, works. I think the former of those two words orders is better. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:42, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

I agree that Jewish people is good, and that's certainly a well-attested notion of Jews and Jewishness, but given that Jewish nation redirects here - is there any source that doesn't consider there to be a Jewish nation? It seems to be the case that the Jewish nation is also a primary meaning of the concept. Are there some academic references that do not think the Jews constitute a nation, at least on some level? and doesn't that need to be reflected as a primary aspect here? Andre🚐 01:29, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

I have two objections to that. First, there is no universally accepted definition of "nation". Second, historically Jews as a nation is primarily a Zionist concept (except in reference to ancient times). Not only that, but one of the stated aims of Zionism was to turn the Jews into a nation, implied that they weren't before. Read Leon Pinsker's famous essay Auto-emancipation, for example. There are tons of such statements. Zero^talk 08:04, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

I think the goal of Zionism was a Jewish state. Not the Jewish nation. I also don't see how multiple definitions means it shouldn't be in this article. Wikipedia's job is not to weigh in, but to regurgitate. So I ask again, are there any sources to bear here? Andre🚐 12:24, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

This still seems more relevant to Jewish peoplehood. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:04, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Again, Jewish nation redirects to here. The Jews are a people; many also refer to them as a nation, and we can't take sides on the disputes. But is there a dispute that Jews are a nation? Because, "Jewish nation" has over a million results in Google scholar. So I object to the idea that the Jewish nation is of dubious relevance. Andre🚐 13:29, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

It's not that is of dubious relevance but that a Jewish (or any) nation/people/etc requires a common descent (see http://assets.cambridge.org/97805218/08644/excerpt/9780521808644_excerpt.pdf p10) and that is contested so yes I am sure you will find many references but many of those same references will also talk about the claim of/belief in a common descent rather than speaking about that as an established fact. There are plenty of sources eg Weitzman quoted below ("The question of Jewish origins continues to be an unknown"), can also look at Zionism article. Selfstudier (talk) 14:08, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

That seems synthetic to me. I'm not sure that it's established that a nation requires common descent. The Jewish people and nation has always been multiethnic (Egyptians, Canaanites, Ethiopians, Midianites, converts etc) and there are also recognizable ethnic divisions which are blurry. How is this different from the French, or British, or Chinese scenario? We have nations and national identities for English or Scottish or Han Chinese or French even though, of course, any given person or group or may or may not be purely made up of Han Chinese people or white Anglo-Saxon. Or consider a historical polity like the Kipchaks or whatever. Is there not a Chinese nation - or several - despite the existence of distinct Manchurian and Taiwanese people and nations? It seems that we are putting a finger on the scale here. We are not claiming all Jews are equally Levantine, in fact we know that Jews are not all Levantine even a little bit. Andre🚐 14:22, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

It would help if you gave a clear statement of what you would like to see in the article. Zero^talk 02:12, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Well maybe Jewish nation shouldn't direct here. Maybe it should direct to the nationhood section on the Jewish peoplehood page. Or, perhaps it should be a disambiguation page given that Israel's basic law has now claimed this term for itself. In scholarship, you will find everything from pieces discussing the invention of modern Jewish nationhood and descriptions of it as a dream to discussions of spiritual nationhood and Israel's ethnic–civic nationhood. In terms of Jewish nationhood, the first question isn't 'is the definition valid?', it's 'what question, pertaining to which definition, are you asking?' Iskandar323 (talk) 05:04, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

That seems fair I guess, to retarget it. Andre🚐 16:56, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

It's been about four days since last discussion on the topic took place – are we to assume the underlying issues have been settled? Emolu (talk) 13:28, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Assuming consensus due to silence, especially in controversial articles, is not a good idea. But there is no silence here; I previously mentioned that there's another repetition in the introduction. The phrase "although its observance varies from strict to none" is a shorter version of the subsequent sentence, with the only difference being that this segment excludes the mention of converts. Mawer10 (talk) 19:15, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Been 14 days now. I'm still waiting for any input whatsoever. Emolu (talk) 16:54, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

"Any" input other than the 30-ish contributions above from five, I believe, people? Largoplazo (talk) 19:11, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes?? Are the issues raised by the original editors settled, considering their concerns have been addressed and the article changed accordingly, or not?? Emolu (talk) 19:44, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

You didn't write "Been 14 days now. I'm still waiting for all concerns to have been address and the article changed accordingly." You wrote "... still waiting for any input whatsoever", of which there's been plenty, and that's what I responded to. If the former is what you meant, then the former is what you should have written. Largoplazo (talk) 21:40, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

I hope my recent edit has addressed all the concerns with the previous introduction and made the text more organized, concise, clear, and without redundancy. Mawer10 (talk) 14:45, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

I'd have to agree. Emolu (talk) 15:14, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Why have you added Levant, it is not mentioned in the sources provided and otherwise would be WP SYNTH. The article as it stands without that is perfectly sufficent. JJNito197 (talk) 18:23, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

The word "Levant" isn't even in the lede anymore, and it hasn't been for a while. Even if it was, the Levant is a common name for the region which the implicated originating peoples are said to have inhabited, so making a stink about it is WP:SKYBLUE, not WP:SYNTH. Emolu (talk) 18:28, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

The "Levant" is a big place; usage in this context is vague and imprecise. It does a disservice in many ways. JJNito197 (talk) 18:53, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

How about using "Middle East" in the paragraph? This geographical area is definitely in the sources, so there's certainly no "original research". It's a really big place compared to the Levant; isn't it less vague and more precise than the term "Levant"? Mawer10 (talk) 19:31, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

We don't need specifics unless we can prove Israelites or Hebrews inhabited a location with demarcated certainty. We should not be imposing an origin on others that is not factually evident. We could, like you say, take it outward to "Middle East", but that too would dilute it somewhat. JJNito197 (talk) 19:55, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, perhaps I misunderstood. Are you suggesting that there isn't enough evidence confirming the presence of Israelites or Hebrews in a specific and definite location within the Middle East? Well, are there any credible sources that claim the Israelites didn't originate and reside in the Levant (Palestine, specifically) or dispute the origins of the Jews as a people in that same region? Mawer10 (talk) 22:16, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

For all intents and purposes, Nito has exhibited nothing but a counter-intuitive determination to deny the existence of any evidence whatsoever of a historical Israelite people. I wouldn't bother with them. Emolu (talk) 22:21, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Thats untrue, I came across the seal of Nathan-melech recently. All I care about is adhering to the fundemental principals of Wikipedia. If you have a reliable source that states unequivocally that x = x, so be it. But you don't. You may decide to not engage with me, but may I remind you that Wikipedia is available to everyone to edit as a community project (humankind), and not some closed off private club. I, aswell as others, will not be dissuaded from engaging in difficult discourse to spare the feelings of those heavily invested in certain topics. (Breach of NPOV when it becomes obstructive) JJNito197 (talk) 08:24, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

The Jewish nation article was retargeted, but there definitely should be some improvements made to this coverage. Andre🚐 14:29, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Anyway, let's continue. I think we should keep the link to Jewish peoplehood that Iskandar323 suggested somewhere in the introduction. As for mentioning the converts, how about omitting who regards the converts as part of the community, like: "Despite this, individuals who formally converted to Judaism are regarded as part of the community." Mawer10 (talk) 21:26, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

The problem with that Mawer is that the sentence is in past tense. The reason I changed the wording was to accomodate secular, traditional and orthodox communities with "practising Jews" which is sourced, and the word "formally" was used to describe said conversion practices within said communities. The wording like this is the only way the sentence can be used with the preceeding sentence that specifies one can be born a Jew but not practice Judaism. As such, we cannot speak for these people and assume they accept newly converted Jews as "part of the community" if they are not practising themselves. Plus this can never be adequately sourced. JJNito197 (talk) 22:08, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

I see, but I still believe that using the verb 'to convert' in the past would be preferable because it indicates that the act of conversion has already taken place, emphasizing and redirecting the message to those who have already gone through the conversion process and are now fully recognized. Furthermore, it avoids any ambiguity regarding when the action is occurring. Mawer10 (talk) 23:09, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

I understand where you are coming from, but that is not the purpose of the sentence, the purpose is to show that Jews are accepting of converts who are not in the ethnic fold as it is touched upon earlier. Otherwise the accentuation of ethnicity in the lead would be erroneous as ethnic kinship or solidarity is secondary, albeit important, in unifying Jews around the world. JJNito197 (talk) 23:21, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Incorrect first sentence

First sentence says: "Jews or Jewish people are an ethnoreligious group, nation or ethnos native to the Levant, originating from the ancient Israelites and Hebrews" But anyone can convert to Judaism and become a jew, as many have, those would not be native to the Levant or originate from the ancient Israelite's. Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:31, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Being ethnically Jewish is not the same as being religiously Jewish. As an ethnoreligious group, Judaism and Jewishness are tied together, but not all Jews are Jewish and not all people who believe in Judaism are ethnically Jewish. This article is about the ethnoreligious group called "Jews," not the religion of Judaism and its practitioners. Non-Jewish converts of Judaism are not native to the Levant because they have their own ethnic group; they aren't ethnically Jewish, and not the focus of the article. PersusjCP (talk) 02:45, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Judaism is not a proselytizing religion, but rather one that is typically passed down from generation to generation within the Jewish community. Although Judaism allows for conversions, Jewish identity is a construct that encompasses cultural, historical, and social elements rooted in the heritage of ancient Israelites and Hebrews. Jews maintain connections to ancestral traditions and a shared history, including the historical link to the Levant. The Eurocentric view that establishes a strict separation between concepts of religion, ethnicity, language, and other identity elements is not applicable to all cultures. In many societies, the components of history, culture, language, religion, and ancestry do not exist in isolation but are deeply intertwined in people's perception of identity. It is important to keep this in mind when discussing Jewish, Arab, and other identities.

Some intriguing questions: What is the true meaning of being native to a region, and what criteria define that nativeness? In the context of Jewish identity, what does it mean to be 'native to the Levant'? How does analyzing the concepts of 'nativeness' and 'origin' as social constructs helps in our understanding of Jewish identity? Mawer10 (talk) 03:52, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

'Not all Jews are Jewish' ... ROFL. Why do non-Jews with zero knowledge comment on this topic? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.103.111.118 (talk) 21:56, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Conversion into the Jewish community has been and still is rather meager. Furthermore, according to genetic studies, the grand majority of both Ashkenazi Jews (European Jews) as well as Spheradi Jews (Mediterranean and Middle Eastern Jews) trace their origin to the Near East region which includes areas known today as Palestine or Israel and historically as Judea and Samaria.

Thank you for your time Homerethegreat (talk) 12:46, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Iskandar323 What makes your restructuring of the introductory paragraph better than the previous one, excluding the phrase "native to the Levant"? Why were the terms "ethnoreligious group" and "nation" pushed down? The first two descriptions (following Judaism and being born into the religion) aren't even obligatory to consider someone as Jewish. Why was ancestry placed after "in the broader sense"? Isn't "the broader sense" a better description to appear in the first line? Why place "ancient Jewish peoples" as an intermediary between the connection of ancient Hebrews and modern Jews? Why are "peoplehood, nation, and community" in quotation marks? Are you implying that these concepts are imagined in the case of Jews? Mawer10 (talk) 17:07, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

I followed the structure of Britannica, a tertiary source, which presents the simple sense, and then the broader sense. The phrase on 'being born into the religion' is saying exactly what you say - that religious practice is not necessary ... that wording comes from Krausz and Tulea, and has a longer explanation in the accompanying ref. These options are listed in an X, Y or Z format, so it is not implied that any are the case, simply that they can be the case. The third part is the broader sense, also mirrors the Britannica framing, as does the "ancient Jewish peoples" part. There may be other tertiary sources that present these ideas in a different way that would be worth considering. "peoplehood, nation, and community" is in quotation marks because it is a direct quotation from the cited source, which was misrepresented before. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:28, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Your version of the introduction describes being Jewish as primarily following a religion, and then states that being Jewish is also somewhat an ethnicity and that ancestry also determines who is Jewish, somewhat contradicting the initial statement. This becomes confusing due to the introduction not explicitly mentioning that not all Jews adhere to Judaism. And the format "Jews are followers of Judaism OR an ethnicity" places two main aspects of Jewish identity on unequal terms, in my view. Starting the introduction with "Jews are an ethnoreligious group" equally captures both aspects of Jewishness. Although Britannica is a reliable source, is there any basis for assuming the existence of a 'simple sense' and a 'broader sense'? After all, Jews consider ancestry very important in determining who is Jewish, and converts can be seen as second-class Jews. A better use of the Britannica source would be: "Jews are a 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," followed by mentioning that the traditional religion of Jews is Judaism, but not all Jews follow the religion. This is more cohesive and coherent. The use of quotation marks could be seen as scare quotes, and other sources mention that Jewish ethnicity, nationhood, and religion are strongly interconnected without using quotes. So, is the use of quotation marks really justified? Mawer10 (talk) 22:28, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

I don't see how an X or Y statement implies any form of hierarchy. + The quotation is clearly a quotation. Scare quotes bracket sarcastic remarks or saucy words, not lengthy phrases. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:00, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

The use of "in the broad sense" in the paragraph assumes the existence of a "simple sense" in defining who is a Jew. If ancestry and religious affiliation hold equal value in determining Jewish identity, what does this "simple sense" refer to? The phrasing from Britannica seems to suggest that the "simple sense" is <following Judaism>, indicating that the religios element of Jewishness precedes the existence of the ethnic/national element. In other words, religious affiliation with Judaism is presented as a prerequisite for Jewish identity, placed above the importance of ethnic or national heritage. The quotation marks in "peoplehood, nation, and community" can imply that the marked words are being used in a specific or specialized sense that might differ from their more common or literal interpretation. Mawer10 (talk) 13:40, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

This article isn't about modern Jews; it's about all Jews: ancient, medieval, modern, you name it. While Britannica confines itself to trying to define "what a Jew is," this article has a broader scope. The use of "ancient Jewish peoples" as an intermediary between the ancient Hebrews and modern Jews isn't really necessary when changing the wording to something like "Jews are a people who originated from ancient Israelites and Hebrews in the Levant." Much more straight to the point. Mawer10 (talk) 23:02, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

This is misleading. The correct description is something like "Jews are either people who follow Judaism, people who descend from followers of Judaism, or both." The phrase "originated from ancient Israelites and Hebrews in the Levant" only relates with certainty to the religion, not necessarily to the people themselves. Onceinawhile (talk) 23:39, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

"Originated" and "descended" aren't sinonyms, even though they're connected ideas. "Originated" means where something started. When we say "Jews originated from ancient Israelites and Hebrews" we're talking about when the Jewish identity began. This shows that being Jewish goes back to those old groups, starting from a long time ago. "Descended" is about family history. To say that "Jews are descended from ancient Israelites and Hebrews" means that today's Jews are connected to those old groups as family. Something like a family tree that goes back in time. Mawer10 (talk) 00:42, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

"The correct description," you are implying that my outline for the description is incorrect. What specific point is wrong? My original point is that Iskandar323's introduction is somewhat confusing. Mawer10 (talk) 00:55, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

On the topic of descent vs origination, there are potentially some interesting distinctions to be made. I imagine that Britannica separates "ancient Jewish peoples" and "Hebrews/Israelites", because those are two quite separate ethnic and cultural corpuses. Two thousand years ago there were established Jewish communities across the Near East, e.g. the thriving community in Alexandria. However, these communities that emerged in the post-Exilic were just as if not more distinct from the ancient Israelites before them as Jewish communities today are from them. The ancient Israelites were by most estimations Yahwist and only on the threshold of monotheism, with a cultic religious structure focused on ritual sacrifice within temples. That early religion was then almost entirely theologically reoriented after the Babylonian exile, and again in the Roman period. Today, most of the core pillars upon which ancient Israelite religion stood are absent from modern Judaism, aside from among the modern revivalists that wish for a return to the past. So while it might be reasonable to speak of 'descent' from ancient Jewish communities, the language of 'origination' might be more pertinent when speaking of the bridge between ancient Hebrews/Israelites and ancient Jewish peoples. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:25, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

I've reverted the opening sentence of the lede back to its original version. As highlighted by several editors earlier, this article focuses on the Jewish people, who are an ethno-religious group primarily associated with the religion of Judaism. It's important to note that while Judaism is the traditional religion of Jews, not all Jews practice it, as mentioned by multiple editors previously. This primary definition should come first. The inclusion of the term 'ancient Jewish peoples' as an intermediate population link is totally unnecessary in this context (if the origin of Jews can be traced back to the ancient Israelites through the ancient Jews, then it can be stated directly that Jews have originated from the ancient Israelites). Also, as Mawer10 points out, the use of 'originated' is more concise here, and allows to include converts as well. Tombah (talk) 06:37, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Converts are conspicuously absent from the rather anaemic version now restored. Please provide a tertiary source that, unlike Britannica, fail to reference the fact that at least one of the definition of "Jews" is as followers of Judaism. Wikipedia pages aren't works with singular meanings: if "Jews" has multiple meanings, the lead needs to properly articulate these different meanings, not shoehorn them into any given singular narrative. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:53, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Nevermind, I've managed to tag the material onto the end instead. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:41, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Please note that according to most reliable sources, modern Jews are the descendants of the Jewish populations that lived in the region today known as Palestine/Erez Israel before the "Galut" (the Hebrew name for the exile of Jews following the Babylonian conquest as well as following the failed rebellions against the Roman Empire).

These ancient Jews are according to most reliable sources and historians the descendants of the Hebrews. Indeed the name Hebrews means in Hebrew: Those who crossed; a reference to the crossing of the Jordan River. According to most sources the Hebrews believed in a monotheistic religion that evolved over the centuries into Judaism and the Samaritan religion which is similar to Judaism.

All in all, today the confirmed modern descendants of the ancient Hebrews are the Jewish and Samaritan peoples.

Thank you for your time Homerethegreat (talk) 12:54, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

The phrase native to the Levant is unsourced so it has simply been removed. Until we can prove all Jews originate from the Levant, it is simply untrue. JJNito197 (talk) 06:43, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

The phrase "originating from the ancient Israelites[12][13][14] and Hebrews[15][16][17] of historical Israel and Judah." is also untrue per opening post. Many Jews are converted, their origin does not fit in this sentence. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 06:57, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry, my friend, but the argument you're presenting seems to veer into the realm of inaccuracies. When it comes to converts to Judaism, their situation is not unlike that of immigrants integrating into a new country; it often results in intermarriage within the core population. Consider the scenario of modern Egyptians with contributions from historical Arabic immigration or modern Greeks with contributions from Slavic immigrants. These factors don't in any way diminish their connection to their ancient predecessors. Just as modern Greeks are a continuation of ancient Greeks and modern Egyptians can trace their origins back to ancient Egyptians, the same principle applies to Jews. Yes, even if they accept converts; that does not change their ultimate origin from the Israelites. Tombah (talk) 07:23, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Irrelevent content in lead

There is undue weight given to the final paragraph of the lead, with much of it citing a single source, painting a false picture of the development of western culture as a whole. Jewish contributions to culture and society should be mentioned within the article, but not in its current form.

I propose removing the following paragraph and appropriately incorporating it into article content.

"Jews have significantly influenced and contributed to the development and growth of human progress in many fields, both historically and in modern times, including in science and technology, philosophy, ethics, literature, governance, business, art, music, comedy, theatre, cinema, architecture, food, medicine, and religion. Jews wrote the Bible, founded Christianity, and had an indirect but profound influence on Islam. In these ways, Jews have also played a significant role in the development of Western culture." Yeanaah (talk) 11:12, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Looking at whether this material reflects the body of the page it is safe to say it doesn't. There is a teeny tiny "contributions" section right at the end of the page that is actually smaller than the lead paragraph ... so the whole last paragraph should probably just be migrated to that section as a basis for building a proper section. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:22, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Iskandar, I saw you removed the information regarding 20% of nobel prize winners being of Jewish origin in the body. You should focus on expanding the body, not removing content that is well sourced in a subject that already has very little information!

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jews&diff=prev&oldid=1181790034

Can you self revert perhaps? Or return the information? I assume it was a mistake. Homerethegreat (talk) 07:12, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

I see it was now added back in a shortened version. I think the longer version is better, since it explains better the Jewish contributions. I suggest its return. Homerethegreat (talk) 07:24, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. The significant contribution to human progress (the article says), cannot be hidden under 2nd level heading or otherwise minimized. It must remain at the lead. TaBaZzz (talk) 19:33, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

also oppose. I don't see the "painting a false picture of the development of western culture as a whole" and the irrelevance you're claiming. I think the contributions and influence of Jewish people is definitely significant information that should be presented in the article. Extra citation needed template can be added. dov (talk) 20:50, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Oppose - It's well sourced and reflects the historical and current contribution of the Jews and their influence on civilization, world culture, two religions that have together about 3 billion adherents... I don't see why it shouldn't be in the Lead. It actually appears to me to be a great summary of 3000 years of Jewish undertaking.

Just because the body doesn't have a lot of information doesn't mean you should remove what little information exists from the lead. It doesn't make the information less important and worthy of being in the Lead. Significantly influenced Islam, founding Christianity, having written the bible etc. This should definitely be in the lead! It's affected billions! Homerethegreat (talk) 07:08, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Oppose - Per WP:LEAD, the lead should elucidate the notability of the topic. The article delves into the role of Judaism and Jews in Western culture and civilization, along with their intellectual and cultural contributions — a scope that warrants expansion given its prominence within the academic discourse surrounding Jews. Marokwitz (talk) 12:51, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

"The fate of Hellenized Judaism remains uncertain, with questions about whether its followers assimilated into the Christianized Greco-Roman society, or if it endured as a distinct, Bible-focused community that later influenced the development of Karaite Judaism.[143]"

This is an odd statement. Isn't the fate of Hellenized Judaism that it became Romaniote Judaism? Does anyone know the specific page being cited for that? Andre🚐 00:19, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 November 2023

From the lead paragraph: “Jewish ethnicity, religion, and community are highly interrelated, as Judaism is an ethnic religion, although not all ethnic Jews practice it.”

I believe the final clause should be changed to, or something along these lines: “although not all ethnic Jews practice it and not all followers (of Judaism) are ethnic Jews.”

If it is clarified that not all ethnic Jews follow Judaism, I think it should also be stated the vice-versa is true, for additional clarity, even if it may be obvious. Perhaps could include a hyperlink to Conversion to Judaism too if so.

Thank you 2A00:23C6:95CE:B401:D9E5:B6F3:F291:DCA1 (talk) 17:52, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Melmann 18:25, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Not needed, I’m an idiot. The literal next sentence in the article is “Despite this, most religious Jews regard individuals who have formally converted to Judaism as part of the community.” Completely missed that. My request is unnecessary and can be freely removed 2A00:23C6:95CE:B401:D9E5:B6F3:F291:DCA1 (talk) 18:47, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Although that could be changed to “regard non-ethnically Jewish” or “regard gentiles” as part of the community 2A00:23C6:95CE:B401:D9E5:B6F3:F291:DCA1 (talk) 19:00, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Blue vs Black Star of David

Hi Iskandar. In the spirit of WP:BRD, can we discuss your, now reverted change to the image.

The blue Star image has been used continuously since its introduction over 3 years ago without concerns being raised. It was introduced to replace a painting of Jacob fighting the angel, the biblical introduction of an alternate name for the subject: Yisra-el (fought with G-d). The user introducing the image said it (the blue Star image they choose) was more representative of the subject, which no one disputed. There are various reasons why this is. The reverter’s edit summary has mentioned some of these. I think at the very least, the blue is aesthetically pleasing (IMHO) with the rest of the article coloration, especially the map below it. I don’t see the need for a change to something otherwise accepted. I’d like to understand your reason for the change (colourisation not required)? Thanks. Ayenaee (talk) 09:05, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Oh, I started a thread below before I saw this post. I think it is actually worth having a far broader discussion. I also think, for obvious reasons, that a blue star has problematic political connotations. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:26, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

No problem. I also think it requires a broader discussion, which is why I started this. I‘ll strike this and continue in your one below. I’ll move the point of my opening into you discussion, and with your discussion your post here as well. Ayenaee (talk) 14:26, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Western European Jews also Ashkenazi

Hi User:GordonGlottal, I agree with your recent edit summary ("tough q what to put here exactly but it has to include France unlike now". I often come across the "central and Northern Europe" statement related to Ashkenazim. My general knowledge says this is wrong. Rashi (a"s) and Simhah ben Samuel of Vitry (a"s) were French and central to Ashkenaz tradition (Nusach). I came across a ref recently saying that Siddur Ashkenaz originated in France - probably related to Siddur Vitry which was comprehensive. So yes, I think it needs to say "Europe". But I’ll have to look for references if you don’t have any. Ayenaee (talk) 17:39, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

The earliest settlements were in Alsace and the Rhineland, but Jews quickly spread to Paris, Provence, England, etc. After the English expulsion in 1290, the Italian and Rhenish urban expulsions, etc., they moved east as far as Russia (separately, there had been Jewish communities in the Caucasus since the Talmudic period). I think "Western Europe" in the UN definition is a pretty good description of where there were Jews during the formation of Ashkenazic identity, but it's annoying that it doesn't include Italy, which is usually considered Ashkenazic and had a large Jewish population from the Roman Republic through the Holocaust. GordonGlottal (talk) 18:27, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

There were also a lot of Jews in England prior to the expulsion of the Jews from England. Andre🚐 20:33, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Actually, I think a better way to treat this is to treat the French and Italian Jews as predecessors of the Ashkenazi. Jews from Avignon or Narbonne aren't really Ashkenazim yet. And of course, Sephardic Jews from Spain and Portugal are Sephardic axiomatically, which is Western Europe. Andre🚐 22:02, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

I included England in my previous comment. Iberia isn't Western Europe in the UN geoscheme. GordonGlottal (talk) 23:39, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

I understand, but my point being, the English Jews are from Western Europe, they are neither Ashkenazi nor Sephardic. Although perhaps they are considered Ashkenazi because they are more similar to the Ashkenazi ie German, Polish, and Russian Empire area Jews. Do you have a source though that the Italian Jews or the English Jews are Ashkenazi? Because it would seem many of the Italian Jews were actually Sephardic, with a Sephardic-style culture as well. Andre🚐 01:46, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

• England in the pre-expulsion period (1066-1290) was intimately connected to French culture. English Jewish literary output from that period is stylistically Ashkenazic and only had influence among Ashkenazim. The Tosfos Hahmei Anglia, for example, is basically a Tosafistic work that happened to be composed on the other side of the Channel, and there are English rabbis quoted in standard Ashkenazic works from the period. But it's a purely academic question because there are no modern cultural descendants of pre-1290 English Jews.
• Northern Italy and England both developed distinct Ashkenazic and S&P communities in the modern era. Venice and London, for examples, had about equal numbers of each. Due to whatever mix of historical factors (I'm certainly no expert) this is not true of modern Jews who trace their lineage to pre-war Italy and England, almost all of whom are Ashkenazic. Shared history of Sabbateanism, Hasidim . . . there wasn't much Reform in Italy and it had its own separate, earlier Enlightenment movement . . . but especially the Eastern European yeshiva movements and the Holocaust. The intellectual might, fame, and influence of (separately) the German university system and the Ashkenazic yeshivos meant that the religious leadership of England and Italy was educated in Central/Eastern Europe or at least by Eastern European rabbis (same collapsed independent Orthodox identity in Germany, Hungary, and the United States). And the Holocaust bound European Jewry together in a new way, which Sephardic Jews (99% of whom lived in NA/ME) weren't party to. GordonGlottal (talk) 17:21, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

  The point is well-taken and I agree about the English Jews belonging with the French Jews, who were proto-Ashkenazic. Andre🚐 17:36, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

  I just want to clarify for any future reader that I was referring to Tosefot Hakhmei Anglia because the way I spelled it turns up a Google blank. This 13th-century work of Talmudic commentary quotes various rabbis from England (mostly London) in addition to the normal French sages. These rabbis give explanations in both Hebrew and Norman French. GordonGlottal (talk) 18:24, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Main image

So the main image in the infobox on this page is currently a blue star of David, but does it need to be blue? An obvious problem with having it in blue, in the manner of the Israeli flag, is that it creates a clear risk of mis-association between Jews and Israel. This is not a political page, but a page about the people/religious adherents. Is a symbol that could be construed as reflecting a certain polity appropriate? And is a star of David the best choice at all, or is that just a stereotype? Would a menorah or a Torah scroll (the other two images on Template:Judaism) be more appropriate instead? Or some famous people, as was suggested in one previous discussion. It's unclear if there has actually ever been any substantive recent discussion on this, and the current choice may be relatively arbitrary and ad hoc. Worth having a discussion on this. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:22, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

[I think the reverter’s edit summary contains info pertinent to this discussion so I’m copying it here. I’ve pinged them to see if I have permission for the copy. If not I’ll self-revert] Edit summary from Homerethegreat when they reverted the change of the main page image by Iskandar323 from a blue to a black Star of David. Reverted at 10:47, 22 November 2023:

"Blue is the associated color of Jews for the Star of David. Please familiarize with the associated of blue with Tfelin, why blue was chosen by Jews in Israel for their flag, why the color has significance in Judaism. Also please see almost all other Wikipedia pages on Jews have a blue theme, many have blue stars of David." (Homerethegreat) Ayenaee (talk) 14:52, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

[My comments from self-struck discussion discussion opening above]: "The blue Star image has been used continuously (in the article) since its introduction over 3 years ago without concerns being raised. It was introduced to replace a painting of Jacob fighting the angel, the biblical introduction of an alternate name for the subject: Yisra-el (fought with G-d). The user introducing the image said it (the blue Star image they choose) was more representative of the subject, which no one disputed. There are various reasons why this is. The reverter’s edit summary has mentioned some of these. I think at the very least, the blue is aesthetically pleasing (IMHO) with the rest of the article coloration, especially the map below it. I don’t see the need for a change to something otherwise accepted. I’d like to understand your reason for the change (colourisation not required)? Thanks." Ayenaee (talk) 15:08, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

[Iskandar’s response to me. Also copied from the original, hopefully with permission otherwise I’ll self-revert]: "Oh, I started a thread below before I saw this post. I think it is actually worth having a far broader discussion. I also think, for obvious reasons, that a blue star has problematic political connotations." (Iskandar) Ayenaee (talk) 19:39, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

The blue Star of David (SoD) is not a symbol taken from the Israeli Flag. It’s the opposite way around, the color blue for the flag was chosen for its religious association with Jews and Judaism. In the rest of my comments I’m going to reference 4 sections from Wikipedia articles:

• Flag of Israel § Interpretation of colors (FoI)
• Flag of Israel § Criticism
• Tekhelet § Tekhelet in Jewish culture (T)
• Jewish symbolism § Colors (JS)

[I’m not writing an article here or citing in the wiki way, so referencing Wikipedia is fine for the purpose. If we get to "dueling references" - which I hope we don’t - we can do it the WP:RS way.]

I accept that that for some Jewish and non-Jewish alike the blue SoD may be seen as arising from the Israeli flag, but this is a misconception (FoI). Blue in Jewish symbols comes from the Torah commandment:

37 And the LORD spoke unto Moses, saying:
38 Speak unto the children of Israel, and bid them that they make them throughout their generations fringes in the corners of their garments, and that they put with the fringe of each corner a thread of blue. [my emphasis]
39 And it shall be unto you for a fringe, that ye may look upon it, and remember all the commandments of the LORD, and do them; and that ye go not about after your own heart and your own eyes, after which ye use to go astray;
40 that ye may remember and do all My commandments, and be holy unto your God.

— Numbers 15:37–40

This lead to the millennia long religious association between blue (Tekhelet in Hebrew) Jews and Judaism (T). This is what I’m talking about:

Tzitzit with tekhelet, tied according to a variety of opinions (from (T) where it’s bigger)

After the Jewish Diaspora the method for producing Tekhelet colour was lost, so Halacha (Rabbinical decrees which are followed by Orthodox Jews as the Oral Torah given at Sinai) was to no longer color the tassels. Some Jews transferred the blue color to the stripes on the prayer shawl, in remembrance of the commandment. This is Askenazi Jewish practice (Ashkenazi Jews originate from central and Northern Europe, but are now distributed worldwide). I read in research for a recent article (although I’ll have to find it again) that Sephardi Jews (the second largest group originally from Spain, Portugal, Northern Africa and the Middle East, but also now distributed worldwide) still use blue colouring on the tassels of prayer shawls based on different Halacha. [The two groups orthodox practices are interchangeable, theres no difference religiously only regional tradition]. So, religious practice and tradition is the source of the Israeli flag not the other way round. In essence the flag is meant to symbolize a prayer shawl including the Tekhelet and the SoD, as an acknowledged symbol of Jews and Judaism. From (JS): "From the 19th century at the latest, the combination of blue and white symbolized the Jewish people, and this combination was chosen for the Flag of Israel [my emphasis].

• The articles also refer to blue symbolizing "G-d’s glory, purity and…severity" (FoI) and "the heavens and divine revelation" (JS)
• Tekhelet was used in the Priest’s (Kohanim) temple vestments, and more so in those of the High Priest.

Other symbols:

• Black SoD: There isn’t an inherent problem with the Black SoD, but it lacks the religious connotations, which are important to Jewish identity (irrelevant of the observance level). It is a political symbol only in that it represented the Kings of Israel (David/Solomon - long story not for now). It has a slight (not large) negative connotation because of its use in the yellow patch Jews were forced to wear during the holocaust. You’ll notice that the SoD page uses the black SoD as a main image (I’ll be looking into that 😀).
• Menorah: Although symbolic of Jews, it doesn’t have the same symbolism for Jews as it might have for non-Jews. It’s an item used in Temple practice. Its use was stopped after the destruction of the Temple after which Halacha banned its making or use. It is often remembered by Jews as part of the relief on Titus’ Triumphal Arch in Rome, which is not a happy Jewish memory. It’s a mixed symbol for Jews.
• 10 Commandment tablets: Not a mixed symbol, but also not as strong as that of the Techelet which is reflected on by Jews everyday when they put it on for prayer. The tablets are associated to the shawl and Tekhelet in the command related to the tassels to "…remember all the commandments of the LORD, and do them…that ye may remember and do all My commandments". Halacha explains how the tieing of the tassels represents the 613 commandments and how these are subsumed by the 10.
• The idea of using pictures of famous or diverse Jews comes from a discussion in 2011 "Main Image of Jew is not representative - only shows European Jews", when it seems the article had a main image collage only showing European Jews. I fully support having more pictures and text representing Jewish diversity in the main body. But I don’t think the discussion is relevant to this one anymore. At some point after the discussion, the image was changed to the "Jacob fighting the angel" painting, and then to the blue SoD, as I mention in my first comment above. If the article needs more diversity that must be discussed and improved. But the star is an appropriate unifying symbol for the main image.

Suggestion: The FoI article includes an FoI:C criticism (of the flag section) which among other anti-arguments includes Arab-Israeli citizens criticism of it biasing the state away from them, and some ultra orthodox Jews practice of burning the flag on Independence Day. Criticism of the Blue SoD (it being seen as political which I understand) belongs there, or alternatively on the Star of David page. Ayenaee (talk) 19:39, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Indeed, hither how, there is the concept of tchelet in Judaism and Jewish culture and therefore a connection to the color blue. Regarding why its the Star Of David? That's just the cultural association of Jews and how Jews have been tagged. I oppose the change of turning it black. Should stay as it is. Homerethegreat (talk) 20:05, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

This is IMO kind of a mess because it is not true that blue was a Jewish symbolic color before Zionist adoption. Yes, the reason it was chosen for the 1890s Zionist flags was probably religious (although note that in the 19th century, unlike today and in the classical era, Jews did not wear blue tzitzit or tallit) but in that sense it was innovative, and the modern symbolism of blue comes from the Zionist movement, not directly from classical texts. Similarly, the Star of David itself was a relatively new and obscure Jewish symbol at the dawn of the Zionist movement, but through that catalyst it attained universal adoption by the early 20th century. Zionism is just a very important part of modern Jewish history, and many elements of modern Jewish culture which are not essentially political evince political history. When we consider this question, are we asking "Which is the best representation of Judaism?" or "Which is the best representation of an ideal Judaism, removed from its modern historical context?" I think these have different answers. GordonGlottal (talk) 20:55, 22 November 2023 (UTC

See Blue in Judaism, this precedes the creation of Israel and the blue matches the infobox. Furthermore, the Star of David is a very secular symbol compared to a menorah or Torah scroll. But photos of famous Jews would be a good alternative, but this is now not recommended by Wikipedia because of the difficulty in creating consensus about which images should be included. But we could try. Mawer10 (talk) 15:26, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

I think it's best to leave the Blue Star of David, it's the most well known symbol of Judaism and I don't see much reason to change it. A blue menorah is a possibility however the star of David is the most well known symbol. We can add a picture of the menorah further down the page, to also present it as another symbol of Judaism. Preferably also of blue colour. Homerethegreat (talk) 08:59, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Why would a menorah by blue? The traditional menorah is gold. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:21, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

The thought here might be of the state emblem which is a (lighter) blue and white menorah (no need to discuss further). I agree that if the menorah were used as a symbol of Jews it would be colored gold as a remembrance (which it is) of the menorah in the Temples. But as mentioned above it is a mixed symbol to use. It has good connotations of power, statehood, and knowledge, but equally bad connotations of weakness, exile and destruction. Theres’s not much more I can say on the menorah, so I’ll just leave my Oppose to it (as the symbol of Jews) here and move on. Ayenaee (talk) 13:54, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes, blue is a religiously significant colour, and the star of David an ancient folkloric symbol, but the intersection of those two things in the form of a blue star of David is a usage that has clearly been driven expressly by the politics of Zionism, beginning with the Second Zionist Congress in 1898, when the Israeli flag was adopted. As far as I am aware, there was not widespread historical adoption of a blue star of David prior to or outside of the Zionist movement, making it preeminently a Zionist symbol, not a Jewish symbol. And bearing in mind that this is a page about all Jewish people, not just Zionist Jewish people, is that fitting? Judaism has a a rich history of symbolism, of which the star of David represents only a part. The use of the blue star of David appears to suggest that Zionism = Judaism, or that Zionism is the most notable expression of Judaism. That the tallit has often traditionally been patterned with blue since ancient times in recognition of the symbolic significance of the colour blue is more of a reason to use an image of the tallit itself as than it is to use a star of David coloured blue reference to the same as part of the creation of political imagery in the late 19th century. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:17, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Can anyone actually provide a source stating that the blue star of David is a generic Jewish symbol that is representative of Jewish people in general, as opposed to being a version of the symbol with a colour choice that carries with it a specific political/ideological connotation connected to Jewish statehood? I see it heavily mentioned and referenced as a state symbol and/or symbol of Zionism, e.g. here and here. By contrast, the Jewish Brigade insignia from 1944–1946 – an example outside of the context of Zionism – used a gold outlined star of David. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:28, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

As does the IDF. That probably has more to do with other associations relating to marshal/defense forces than it does Judaism in general. Blue as the color has been cited above, as well as its use throughout Judaism.

i think we need to take care to do a kneejerk change of color without a ‘’specific’’ source saying that the blue star is associated with Israel and Israel alone. We do not want to turn responses to the current conflict between Israel and Hamas as spillover onto unrelated articles that could be viewed as bordering on antisemitism. Similarly, Magen David Adom is a red star because of its color association with the International Red Cross/Red Crescent, and not something else like Communist symbols often being red. Let’s be very careful here not to spillover a conflict involving a majority Jewish state to an article about Jews in general. —OuroborosCobra (talk) 15:42, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

The IDF symbol is not a stereotypical star in the sense of the double triangle, but a stylized version, so that's less instructive. But yes, there is also the red star, and of course the LGBT flag features a white star - all somewhat illustrating the point that the real commonality in terms of symbolism is obviously the shape and not the colour. Beyond this, I have provided sources showing the direct political associations of the blue version (as if it weren't obvious), so if you want to evidence any different or contrasting usage of the blue version, the WP:BURDEN at this point is on sourcing that, not on proving a negative. As to your last point, please let's try not to get distracted, but instead to focus on the content issue that has been raised here. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:59, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Let’s not pretend that this content issue is being brought up in a vacuum either. It isn’t, and I think most editors here are well aware of that. The association of blue and white with the Jewish people in general precedes the Second Zionist Conference, and comes from at least as early as the 1864 poem by Ludwig August Frankl. I think WP:BURDEN would also apply to those wanting to claim this symbol as being ‘’explicitly’’ about Israel and Israel alone (or Zionism, for that matter). The blue star was also the color mandated for the Star of David on Jewish armbands, for example, even after the Zionist movement began it was not exclusively used as such. Lastly, and this is also where I would put WP:BURDEN somewhat on you is that the 2nd Zionist Conference symbol also had the stripes. The symbol here does not. I again maintain that we need to be careful here given the current geopolitical events that we all know is happening right now. —OuroborosCobra (talk) 16:20, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Please discuss the content, and only the content. I won't say it again. Blue and white is not the topic here: the topic is the specific intersection of the colour blue and the star of David. You cannot say blue is a Jewish symbol and the star of David is a Jewish symbol and therefore a blue star of David is just an extra Jewish symbol - for a starters, this is WP:SYNTH; secondly it ignores the very obvious political environment in which the specifically blue star of David quite evidently emerged. Once again, I would ask you to source the origins of a blue star of David outside of a Zionist context. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:33, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Ok, so I checked Britannica and they actually have a black Star of David: https://www.britannica.com/topic/Star-of-David

The editors over there decided to go with a black star. Maybe you could edit the thickness of the star lines to be thinner so it looks better and there is more white space vs black. Wh15tL3D09N (talk) 16:56, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

I mean, yeah, the star of David used to be inscribed into the stonework of synagogues and written on scrolls, so it's default version is not colorized. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:18, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Not totally true (this is in jest not argument) the Arch of Titus article I referenced earlier says: ‘In 2012 the Arch of Titus Digital Restoration Project discovered remains of yellow ochre paint on the menorah relief". Disproving your last statement but proving your one about the colour of the Menorah. Ayenaee (talk) 17:23, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

I don’t want to duel RSs yet, but a question in terms of the one’s you quoted. The 1st and 3rd are interesting and I’ll look at them later when I have time. The Proquest one is paywalled. I’m aware of the gay march flag issue, but obviously not what this thesis says. Are you able to provide fair use quotes? Ayenaee (talk) 17:29, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Ah, for some reason I was able to get into that source the first time around, but now I've been locked out, so no can do. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:33, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

It’s difficult to debate logically through the emotions expressed here (not out loud but it’s apparent in the writing. No one interested in these topics can be unaware of the horror happening in real life. And it’s not humanly possible to not bring our feelings about that online. But if one edits Wikipedia that is what Wikipedia demands you do (there are lots of other venues for emotional writing - I might get booted for this next comment 😏but Wikipedia isn’t the be all and end all of existence). Emotion is cancer to building an encyclopedia and that cancer is expelled when it arises. The only ‘fighting" Wikipedia allows is the "dueling RSs‘ I mentioned above. Be logical or begone. If we can’t follow those rules it’s better for our sanity and the Wikipedia that we not edit. The irl antagonists are negotiating now. I can’t imagine how hard that is for them. But let’s AGF and try to emulate them in our small way. Take a break if you have to. WP:Cool Ayenaee (talk) 17:19, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

I would like to remind editors again that the Star of David itself was not a universal Jewish symbol until the Zionist movement and cannot itself be separated from Zionism. Zionism is a very important part of modern Jewish history. Editors like @Iskandar323 are looking for a "generic Jewish symbol" which specifically lacks any Zionist connection, but this page is not about pre-Zionist Judaism or anti-Zionist Judaism or a theoretical "generic" Judaism, rather Jews as they actually exist, on whose culture Zionism was a significant influence. GordonGlottal (talk) 19:07, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

And also, Zionism is not to Jews what Nazism is to Germans. Zionism is essentially Jewish nationalism, and nationalism is a type of ideology that is not only capable of "inventing" a people, but also influencing how they see their history, how they identify themselves, symbols, etc. I think it would be accurate to say that Zionism invented the Jewish people, and therefore is as much a part of Jewishness as Judaism. I did some research and didn't particularly find any discussion about the blue color of the Star of David, instead I found a discussion about whether the symbol itself is Jewish or Zionist. Mawer10 (talk) 19:30, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

So here is a link I found describing the origins of Israel’s flag: https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/the-israeli-flag

Anyway they specifically chose blue for the flag and the star and it is tied to Zionism. The source notes that the Star of David was chosen to be parallel in use to the cross in Christianity. If you really want a blue star on Wikipedia, maybe you could do a more complex version of the Star found here https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/magen-david so that it is not confused with the Zionist origins of the Star that is on the Israeli flag? Wh15tL3D09N (talk) 20:03, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

If by the more complex version you mean the two entwined triangles version, then yes, that would help differentiate it. The entwined star appears to be a popular motif in stainglass windows, presumably in synagogues - so perhaps such an image, if any are free, might provide a visually richer alternative option to a flat graphical symbol. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:48, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes that’s what I meant. Also it’s not accurate to say that “ Zionism invented the Jewish people, and therefore is as much a part of Jewishness as Judaism”. That’s a really dangerous assertion. I see Zionism as a political movement separate from religious Judaism. Not all Jewish people are Zionists: https://www.annefrank.org/en/topics/antisemitism/are-all-jews-zionists/ Wh15tL3D09N (talk) 21:44, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

It would be better to just change the current star color to gray, light blue, or light purple. Not black. It's better than using this less common version of the star. Mawer10 (talk) 23:50, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

I am not very familiar with Wikipedia copyright rules/attribution, but I found some images that could be used as ideas for alternatives (if anyone is artistically inclined). They are all some variation of blue:

https://www.freepik.com/premium-vector/star-david-isolated-vector-illustration-jewish-eraditional-symbol-blue-six-pointed-star-white-background_34098896.htm#query=star%20of%20david&position=47&from_view=search&track=ais&uuid=56a4e866-129e-4691-a911-a6b6a714d5bc

https://www.freepik.com/premium-vector/star-david-ancient-jewish-symbol-made-modern-linear-style-vector-icon-isolated-white-hexagonal-star-logo-emblem_31449756.htm#query=star%20of%20david&position=48&from_view=search&track=ais&uuid=56a4e866-129e-4691-a911-a6b6a714d5bc

https://www.freepik.com/free-vector/star-david-sticker-white-background_22741645.htm#query=star%20of%20david&position=16&from_view=search&track=ais&uuid=56a4e866-129e-4691-a911-a6b6a714d5bc

https://pixabay.com/illustrations/star-of-david-magen-david-7090486/

I understand that Zionism has a religious component, but it's still separate from Judaism . Zionism was created when there was no modern Jewish state, and now there is a modern Jewish state. There is an increase in anti-Zionism/ antisemitism, and it is possible that the current main image could trigger intense feelings or offense in certain people who view Israel as an "occupying power" even when no offense was meant. Personally, I do think people who are offended may be overthinking; at the same time I am able to see validity in those thoughts after reading about the history of Israel's flag. Wh15tL3D09N (talk) 00:31, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Here are some more stock images https://stock.adobe.com/search?get_facets=1&order=relevance&safe_search=1&search_page=0&k=star+of+david&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Azip_vector%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Aphoto%5D=1&clickref=1011lxYiLRPN&mv=affiliate&mv2=Freepik&as_camptype=&as_channel=affiliate&as_source=partnerize&as_campaign=Freepik&as_content=api&as_audience=idp&sdid=6WTV6YJ5

Some of these are labeled as vector images but can be downloaded as jpg. Some are free from my other post, others or not. I believe to the ones on freepik.com you need to attribute to the designer, would need to read the fine print. Again I am not familiar with Wikipedia policies but I think in general the above sites allow for design use as long as there is attribution. Wh15tL3D09N (talk) 03:00, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

I would support either a de-colorized symbol (or gray, light blue, or light purple - but needs to hear the merits on these), or something like the first option above that differentiates itself through the use of the motif often more common in synagogue windows. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:37, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure I called for a "universal" symbol; just one that was usefully representative in a de-politicised manner. It doesn't have to be something "generic" either, or necessarily that linked to Judaism if there are other better reflections of Jewish identity. And that's the discussion. But for sure the blue star of David brings up very specific political connotations and makes the top of this page look more like a backdrop to an Israeli press conference than an article about about all Jewish people. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:52, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

section break

As I said above the art of making tekhelet was lost which is why Askenazi Jews moved the blue from the tassels to the shawl. But discussion in the Talmud as to what the colour was continued. That together with modern experimentation has lead to several options. I am not a rabbi by far so the following is from a lay-person and can be ignored if you want. But I took the various colour descriptions and tried to connect them to hex colour codes. This may be totally wrong but I came up with the following:

Some possible techelets

Name	Hex	RGB
Indigo	#4B0082	75, 0, 130
Purple	#800080	128, 0, 128
DarkViolet	#9400D3	148, 0, 211
Blue	#0000FF	0, 0, 255
DeepSkyBlue	#00BFFF	0, 191, 255
CornflowerBlue	#6495ED	100, 149, 237
Teal	#008080	0, 128, 128
Rashi Blue?	#0080C0	0, 128, 192

if someone can take these and apply them to to the current image, that might help the discussion? Ayenaee (talk) 05:25, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

I’ve updated the color table to show a more Rashi (a"s) like green-blue (see note). Ayenaee (talk) 16:37, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

The level of ambiguity around the colour is pretty interesting when you get around to it. The page on tekhelet is underdeveloped, but there is clearly a strong link to the Phoenician imperial dye industry in the Mediterranean. It appears that the mollusk used to produce Tyrian purple and the mollusk used to produce the deep and/or sky blue of the tekhelet are different species, so I think we can write off the indigo as a confusion with imperial purple. The production of sea snail blue does not appear to be lost, but remains in Spain, Portugal and Morocco. Pretty fascinating. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:58, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

The problem isn’t getting dye out of mollusks but knowing which dye out of which mollusk and how (would they have exposed it to sunlight etc.etc.etc. Don’t get a rabbi started on minutia). Your comment about Spain etc. is why some Sephardim do still use blue in their tassels. Maybe we can update mollusk articles together later :). Ayenaee (talk) 11:43, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Our job is not to invent a new Jewish symbol or to decide which color would be best for it, which seems to be where this conversation is heading. And Sephardim do not "still use blue in their tassels"; rather, they have begun using blue in their tassels, along with many Ashkenazim. Yitzhak Herzog was an important leader in its revival. I will repeat what I said earlier: no Jews wore blue in the 1890s, when the color was chosen for the flag, and many colors were used on earlier Jewish national flags (eastern European communities were required to develop heraldry at various points in history). GordonGlottal (talk) 19:59, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

The Tekhelet is "skyblue" or "light blue", according to the Wikipedia's article. So, why not use this shade of blue? Mawer10 (talk) 20:18, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

I have been thinking about this because it’s unfortunate that the color of a star now generates controversy and the star itself has been compared to the swastika. Another idea could be to change the main image to the people collage one used on a few other Wiki pages for Jews in different languages?

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juden

https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pueblo_jud%C3%ADo

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juifs

https://yi.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%99%D7%99%D7%93

Also I am still very confused about what modern day Zionism is now. Seems there are different views on what it is exactly. The Wiki page on it is incredibly disorganized and doesn’t specify its modern day intentions. Wh15tL3D09N (talk) 07:29, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

That's not a bad round-up of notable individuals - and it is worth noting that the main images for both Christians and Muslims are also depictions of people, although via the artistic depiction route. More generally, for "people" pages, it is pretty common to indeed show the actual people, e.g. Rohingya people, Kuki people, etc. - just some random examples, especially when the topic is especially about an ethnic group. So for both religious and ethnic groups, pictures of the actual people are pretty routine, as opposed to a symbol. Another very viable option. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:10, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

You also linked to the Yiddish wiki where they use a menorah image. If the goal is to make the image less flag-like, we could have one that incorporates both the menorah and the star. Andre🚐 00:06, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

I found a bunch of Stars on Wikimedia Commons:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?search=star+of+david&title=Special:MediaSearch&go=Go&type=image

Here are some stained glass window ones:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Jewish_Star;_Star_of_David_(6002048043).jpg

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Saint_Mary%27s_Catholic_Church_(Pierce_City,_Missouri)_-_stained_glass,_Star_of_David_and_Tetragrammaton.jpg Wh15tL3D09N (talk) 23:41, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

That's nice, but we're not changing the logo image of Jews to a church. Andre🚐 00:02, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Summary to date
I’ve attempted below to summarise the discussion so far. I’ve tried to see through the emotion and find things the discussion agrees/disagrees on without attribution to any specific person. I’ve drawn the various proposals from the debate out in the last section. It’s these I think we should debate (not vote or !vote), rather than the already aired disagreements.

Agreement (I think mostly RS’able as well)
(a) Certain groups (comprising non-Jewish, and to some extent Jewish people) find the specific blue SoD used as the current image offensive/hurtful/anti-Palestinian because of its historical political associations with the blue SoD on the FoI, the State itself and the Israeli military.
(b) The use of the image has not been substantively debated before. The current image was inserted just over three years ago, with no debate then or since (two images used in the past were of a painting of Jacob fighting the angel, and a collage of European Jews before that). Many Jewish related articles have blue themes.
(c) The SoD with various colouring is a mainly cultural symbol associated with Jews from ancient times.
(d) The colour blue (in different hues) has been religiously associated with Jews from BCE times due to the techelet tassle commandment in the Tanach. For religious reasons post-Diaspora Jews use prayer shawls with blue lines on the shawl and white tassels (mainly Ashkenazim), while some continue to use blue tassels as well as lines (some Sephardim). A dissenting voice stated that blue as a colour was not associated with Jews before its use in the FoI, but the general agreement was that it was religiously. [The colour white is also associated with Jews religiously but this wasn’t explicitly discussed. The association with the colour gold was discussed tangentially].
(e) Jews use of blue colouring and of the SoD (using many colours incl. hues of blue), predates the choices made in the creation of the FoI.
(f) The FoI flag with its colours and symbolism was created by a meeting of the Second Zionist Congress in 1898. The choices made for the FoI borrowed from previously existing Jewish colour and symbol associations and combined them, in the way they now exist. Blue coloured SoD’s existed (together with many other coloured SoDs) before the creation of the FoI, but its specific colouring and use on the FoI did lead to it being considered a political symbol among some groups.
(g) An image should be used which represents all Jews.
(h) Real life events and emotions effect this discussion, but we must try and set that aside in the interest of the encyclopedia (or stop editing if we can’t - which is a fair and understandable human reaction). WP:Cool

Disagreement
(i) The use of the blue star of David as the main image appears to suggest that Zionism = Judaism, or that Zionism is the most notable expression of Judaism vs The SoE (any colour) and arguably the blue SoE is the best known Jewish Symbol, so there’s no need to change it.
(j) The current image should be rejected because of its political connotations vs Just because it may have certain connotations for some groups, those connotations are not there for many Jews who the image does represent.
(k) The colour black was proposed by some but rejected by others. The menorah as a representative image was proposed by some and rejected by others [I declare my COI on this].
(l) Where WP:Burdan lies.

The first two disagreements (i) and (j) are the major fault line ones [imho]. They are based on existential issues on all sides and don’t seem solvable by wiki-editors. Although i’m sure fingers are flying to refute or support them, that won’t add to the debate we’ve already had. I therefore propose that we stick to the topic - the best image, and review the proposals which arose.

Proposals from the debate
1. Use current image but colour it differently (various colour’s proposed).
2. Use another form of the SoD colored differently (various shapes and colours proposed).
3. Use another religious symbol (gold menorah, tablets, prayer shawl with blue).
4. Use an appropriate painting (previous image used Jacob fighting the angel).
5. Use a collage of diverse and/or famous Jews (Image of European Jews used previously. The choice of collage images is problematical).[Breaches MOS:NOETHNICGALLERIES, see below] Ayenaee (talk) 16:57, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
6. No change. Place wording Re the controversy under FoI:C (controversy section of FoI article). Ayenaee (talk) 14:00, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Also worth factoring in here is MOS:LEADIMAGE: "Lead images should be natural and appropriate representations of the topic; they should not only illustrate the topic specifically, but also be the type of image used for similar purposes in high-quality reference works, and therefore what our readers will expect to see. Lead images are not required, and not having a lead image may be the best solution if there is no easy representation of the topic." And its sub-guideline MOS:NOETHNICGALLERIES, which actually rules out the photo montage - I hadn't absorbed that part before. Aside from that, I would particularly call attention to the advice to follow "high-quality reference works" -- this is ultimately, the most source-led and NPOV way to go about such discussions. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:03, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Makes sense especially the montage one. It’s a good idea, and could show diversity off well, but the choosing would be impossible. I don’t want to be part of the debate about whether a Zionist should be included because they represent some Jews :(. I’ve struck that one as outside policy. Ayenaee (talk) 16:57, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't like option 3, unlike the Star of David the other proposed symbols are essentially religious while the Star of David is more secular and popular. Same for 4, especially if the painting is religious. The star is not inherently blue, so far no one has proven this with sources. It's just a color, a slightly political color in this context. We can very much agree with option 1, using the proposed colors. Mawer10 (talk) 21:41, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't know what the best version is but I do know that this isn't the appropriate process. If the current image has sat on a well-trafficked page for three years without complaint, and objections only arose in response to current events, then it is not the image but the editor which is political. It would be best to make no change in such a moment, and for no editors whose only interest is political advocacy to be involved.

This is not a place to right great wrongs. Yes, almost every element of modern Jewish culture (and especially modern non-religious Judaism, the inclusion of which is the central challenge in selecting a representative symbol) was significantly shaped by Zionism. OK, you would like to live in a world where Jews were something other than they currently are. Wikipedia will reflect any change, isn't your platform to anticipate it. GordonGlottal (talk) 01:50, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

There was considerable controversy about the symbol on the proposed flag of Israel. I think some people wanted a menorah. There are also Jewish groups who prefer not to use a blue star because they don't want to be Israeli. However, I agree with GordonGlottal. We do not need to change the image and we shouldn't change it just in response to current events. We should use the most recognizable image, and the blue star of David is not exclusively Israeli. I will note it is not an Israeli flag, which is a white and blue specific design, it is just a blue star of David and therefore generic. So I oppose any change and I agree that there hasn't been a proper demonstration that a change would help illustrate the topic better. Andre🚐 02:18, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Please can editors please stop imagining / feeding the narrative that this pertains to current events. The reasons why it is a poor main image choice are unrelated to current events and stand regardless of current events. The actual pushing, without cause, of the notion that the issues with the image pertain to current events, is itself a tendentious position. I really hope this is the last time we hear this nonsense reiterated. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:30, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

The painting option is very much worth exploring, given that this is the most obvious way to actually depict the subject "Jewish people", without going doing the route of abstraction or photos or photomontages. There is a pretty fantastic array of images at Commons cat: Paintings of Jews, with depictions of a wide range of scenes of religious and daily life, and varying stylistically from romantic abstraction to realism. There's huge diversity. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:23, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

I haven’t investigated paintings but I will. My preference is the current star in a different hue of blue. Ayenaee (talk) 22:34, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

I took a look at the paintings and the ones I liked the most to use in the article are File:Исаак Аскназий Еврейская свадьба.jpg and File:Maurycy Gottlieb - Jews Praying in the Synagogue on Yom Kippur.jpg, I had already seen these two paintings before. But I still prefer to just change the color of the star. Mawer10 (talk) 10:30, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

I don’t like the first (in terms of painting style :). The second is good and is already in the article. The problem with both is that they’re pictures of Ashkenazim doing Askenazi tradition ceremonies. Sephardim, Conservative, Reform, non religious etc. Jews won’t see themselves in these pictures at all. I found similar pictures online. On the whole Ashkenazi, religious, which are don’t think is representative. Ayenaee (talk) 21:06, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I thought that too. A random image like the one already in the article would be more representative, but again I still prefer to just change the color of the star. Photos and paintings are difficult to choose and more often discussed. Mawer10 (talk) 10:52, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

3 main subdivisions in the lead is outdated

This cites an older 1984 book and I think it's misleading, since we know that there are Romaniote Jews, Tunisian Jews, Ottoman Jews, Ethiopian Jews and many other ethnic subdivisions. We also know that the Sephardim, Ashkenazim and Mizrahim are more interrelated than they are separate. Andre🚐 03:31, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Ashkenazim, Sephardim and Mizrahim are the three main groups of Jews. Although there are other groups of Jews that do not fit into these categories, they are a minority and their origins are disputed or much more recent in history. Ottoman Jews and Tunisian Jews are in the Mizrahi or Sephardi category. Mawer10 (talk) 14:26, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Wasn't the term Mizrahim invented recently? In the 1940s according to the page. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:06, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes, the term is a bit vague and overlaps especially with the older term Musta'arabi Jews, but also with Maghrebi Jews, Mashriqi Jews, Arab Jews, Middle Eastern Jews and even Sephardic. But it's a useful category and very used. Mawer10 (talk) 15:47, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

It is a new term, but it describes realia: in liturgy, for example, most "mizrahi" Jews now pray from the same prayerbooks, which are not the same as Spanish-Portuguese prayerbooks. The tripartite way we describe the history now is fake, though. "Sephardic" and "Mizrahi" are the same population 99% of the time. Their political center of gravity "settled initially in the Iberian Peninsula" and also in "North Africa and the Middle East", more recently. It's a political fight over the importance of Iberian tradents and culture. Every Sephardic Chief Rabbi was born in the Middle East. "Mizrahi" identity is a recent political movement within the ethnically (or whatever) Sephardic population, not a separate community by descent. I think there are literally 4 fully operational non-Mizrahi Sephardic synagogues: Congregation Shearith Israel, Portuguese Synagogue (Amsterdam), Bevis Marks Synagogue, and Lauderdale Road Spanish & Portuguese Synagogue, none of which draw large crowds.

In real terms there were two major divisions from 800-1900 CE: Sephardic and Ashkenazic, and there are two major divisions in 2023 CE: Mizrahi (Sephardic) and Ashkenazic. It doesn't make sense to talk about it as three parts. GordonGlottal (talk) 17:21, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree. There are minor difference between Sephardi and Mizrahi. A minority of Sephardim use Siddur Sephard. The vast majority of Sephardi and all that call themselves Mizrahi use Siddur Edot HaMizrach and they use the same synagogues. It’s even closer than Sephardi and Ashkenazi where the traditions are equal but sometimes distinct. All three can pray in the others synagogue despite the differences, which relate to tradition not different understanding of Halacha. Ayenaee (talk) 17:48, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Just for clarity on terms: the liturgical practice known as "Sepharad" is Hasidic and has little to do with Sephardic/Mizrahi history. 4 synagogues use "Spanish-Portuguese" liturgy, 1000s use "Edut hamMizrah" which is the modern Sephardic liturgy. Despite the name, which follows the modern term "Mizrahi", Sephardic liturgy was developed and standardized in Europe. There were no Jewish printing presses east of Istanbul and so hardly any separate text development in the Middle East in the printing era. From Fez to Yemen everyone relied on European prayer books, bibles, talmuds, etc. GordonGlottal (talk) 18:13, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Agree. Siddur Sephard was an attempt to combine Askenazi, Sephardi, and Ari (Kabbalist) traditions. It failed in that Edot HaMizrach has remained the almost only Sephardi/Misrachi Siddur. But as you say it’s the Siddur of Hasidim (except Chabad who follow Nusach Ari). Ayenaee (talk) 18:40, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm mainly referring to the ethnic identity since this is the "Jews" page and not solely about religious liturgy, so thanks all for clarifying. Romaniote Jews follow a more Ashkenazic rite but are neither Sephardic or Ashkenazi.[1][2] Andre🚐 20:31, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

This is worse. There are actually more parts, not fewer. Mizrahi, the ancient Jews of Palestine, are not Sephardic, and not Ashkenazi. Andre🚐 21:41, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

To elaborate a bit further on this. Yes there is an earlier preexisting population of Jews in the Middle East, particularly Cairo, Egypt but also including a number of cities in present-day Israel such as Safed, Tiberias, Hebron and Jerusalem, that didn't migrate there from the Sephardic areas or from later Ashkenazi migrations. The term Mizrahi is recent. Andre🚐 22:09, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

That's simply not true. Romaniote Jews are older or equally old to Sephardic Jews and their origins are ancient. Tunisian Jews from Djerba are also not Sephardic and are also ancient. Ethiopian Jews are also not recent and are not Sephardic. [[3]] The Roman­iotes, or Roman­iote Jews, are the old­est Jew­ish com­mu­ni­ty in Europe, dat­ing back at least 2,300 years to the time of Alexan­der the Great. They are Hel­l­enized, Greek-speak­ing Jews native to the east­ern Mediter­ranean. They estab­lished com­mu­ni­ties in many Greek cities, such as Ioan­ni­na, where my par­ents were born. The first clear his­tor­i­cal ref­er­ence to the Roman­iotes dates to the 1300s where they were men­tioned in Byzan­tine gold­en bulls Andre🚐 20:29, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

I just said that groups of Jews who do not fit into the Ashkenazim, Sephardim, and Mizrahim categories are: 1) a minority, 2) their origins are disputed, or 3) their origins are much more recent in history. Number 2 and number 3 do not necessarily apply at the same time, you could see Groups claiming affiliation with Israelites. But what is your suggestion for the lead specifically? Mention all groups of Jews outside the three main categories? Mawer10 (talk) 20:56, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

A minority yes. By modern standard, all non-Ashkenazim are a small minority, but this wasn't true for all of history. But for 2 and 3, no. Romaniote Jews, Tunisian Jews, and Ethiopian Jews are unequivocally non-Sephardic, non-Ashkenazi, and are equally old or older in history than the Sephardim and Ashkenazim. Anyway, I don't think the lead has to mention all groups, but I believe the 3 groups thing is overly simplistic and reductive, and it's outdated compared to modern scholarship which acknowledges, for example, that Ashkenazim probably grew out of the Jews of the Rhineland as well as the Italian Jews from the Roman Empire and in Greece, ie Romaniotes/Hellenistic Jewish descendants, or that Sephardim in some cases became Ashkenazim. So my proposal would be to remove the statement from the lead and explain it in further depth in the body, or add another sentence to it explaining there are equally legitimate claims from other groups like Romaniote Jews to being an old and important subdivision. Wording negotiable. Andre🚐 21:05, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

I didn't say the Romaniote Jews, Tunisian Jews, and Ethiopian Jews are examples of groups of Jews with very recent origins or disputed origins, but they are a de facto minority since the majority of modern Jews are Ashkenazim and Sephardim/Mizrahim. And yes, I would agree to add a sentence that acknowledges the existence of other groups outside of the three main categories of Jews. Mawer10 (talk) 21:44, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

OK. Thanks. and I hope I'm not implying that you weren't agreeable by disagreeing with you; I appreciate the discussion; it's a less well-known aspect of Jewish history that we could cover better here. It's true that there are not a lot of surviving Romaniote Jews, but they were not entirely wiped out by the Holocaust or entirely absorbed into one of the other larger subdivisions. For example, Kehila Kedosha Janina is the currently only known operating Romaniote synagogue, but they have a Greek Jewish festival in Manhattan every year. Also, regarding Ottoman Jews or Tunisian Jews, most have become counted as Mizrahi Jews or Sephardic Jews by virtue of conflation. But historically, there are many Jewish people who inhabited polities that don't exist anymore or ancient cities, such as Carthage. So I wasn't talking about groups whose origins were disputed. Romaniotes and Tunisian Jews aren't a neologistic group or a disputed-origin group. Everyone pretty much acknowledges that the old Tunisian Jews (as distinct from the Italian-Sephardic-Tunisian-Livornese group) are old, probably Punic. It's true that nobody really knows the true fact of the Ethiopian Jews' origin, but we do know that it was a long time ago whatever it was. But the Romaniotes, we do know. They're the Romanized/Hellenized/Byzantine Jews and important historically. Steven Bowman has written about them as has Robert Bonfil. It's come across my radar given the work on modern Jewish historiography where some important historical work (aside from the Sephardic work) from the late medieval and early Renaissance period is coming out of the Hellenized/Romanized/Byzantine Jewish areas, which later became Ottoman. While lots of Sephardic Jews did migrate to Palestine and the Greek/Ottoman areas such as Constantintinople or Salonika, there were also many older preexisting groups that actually later became counted as Ashkenazi in many cases, not Sephardim. Andre🚐 21:55, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

References

In general I don't think it's productive to say that modern ethnic/identity divisions are "outdated compared to modern scholarship". The ashkenazic and sephardic (or ashkenazic and mizrahi, whichever term you prefer) communities exist because they exist, not because they developed in perfectly linear fashion. This is with regard to modern Jews. Yes, you can examine them more granularly and see the internal divisions, but for the last few centuries it really has made sense to speak of two great segments that account for almost all of world Jewry, one of which considers Maimonides, Isaac Alfasi, ibn Adret, Asher b. Jehiel, Isaac Karo, and Ovadia Yosef the ultimate codifiers of Jewish law, and one of which follows Gershom b. Judah, Rashi and his school, Isaiah di Trani, Moses Isserles, Mordecai Jaffe, Jehiel Mihel Epstein, and Israel Meir Kagan (obviously these are rough lists); one of which picks up the "nusah Ashkenaz" prayerbook and one which selects "nusah Edut hamMizrah"; one with heavy Islamic philosophical/theological/cultural/literary influence and one with a history of Haskalah, Hasidism, Yiddish, Reform, Brisker lomdus, Mussar, and the Holocaust. I'll formally express a preference for the following language: "In the following millennia, Jewish diaspora communities coalesced into two major ethnic subdivisions according to where their ancestors settled: the Ashkenazim and the Sephardim (Mizrahim)". Users can follow the links or read further to get details, but I'm not sure we'll figure out a three-word phrase that well summarizes either history. The language on the Hebrew version of this page is worse, IMO, referring only to Ashkenazim and the direct Iberian diaspora, not mentioning pre-existing communities in the East which are an important part of both Sephardi/Mizrahi history and modern Sephardi/Mizrahi identity. GordonGlottal (talk) 00:15, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

It's not about internal divisions between Ashkenazi groups or Sephardic groups. It's simply an oversimplification; it's one big divide, but other groups are not simply smaller subgroups of one or the other. I don't support removing the Mizrahi Jews. Many of them are not Sephardic at all and never were, but descended from for example, Iraqi or Egyptian or Iranian/Persian Jews. They have a heritage of Judeo-Arabic, not Ladino or Yiddish. My point was particularly about the Romaniote Jews who do not fit into your description (Yevanic language, for example, and most were wiped out in the Holocaust which you lump as an Ashkenazi thing), nor do the Ethiopian Jews (liturgy in Amharic and Ge'ez I think), nor do Tunisian Jews. It's true that many have since 1948 ended up in Israel and identify as Mizrahi. These groups are overlooked in most 19th century and early 20th century material, or lumped in with Sephardim. It's true that Sephardic Jews fleeing the Inquisition and expulsions did oftentimes join with these older preexisting communities, including Ashkenazic ones. Your post seems to be emphasizing the religious aspects of rabbinical Judaism with little acknowledgement of other groups, for example the Karaites, or secular Jews. See Marina Rustow's work. Judaism is an ethnoreligious identity. It is not simply religious. I am not fluent in Modern Hebrew, I can only puzzle through with my Bar Mitzvah Hebrew, so I can't speak to that. But I understand the emphasis on Ashkenazi because that is the largest surviving group. My point is that this article is about all Jews, so I'd like to see the lead reflect that the Ashkenazi/Sephardic and Mizrahi split, is only one small aspect of Jewish diversity. Andre🚐 01:27, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

• It's about numbers. There are millions of Ashkenazic Jews, millions of Sephardic or Mizrahi Jews, and perhaps a few hundred thousand Karaites, Tunisians, Romaniote, Ethiopians, etc., combined. 95% of today's Jews fit pretty well into one of the two main categories.
• I think that you're misunderstanding me @Andrevan. When I say that Mizrahi and Sephardic refer to the same population, I don't mean that all Mizrahi Jews are from Iberia, but rather the opposite. The term "Sephardim" includes primarily Jews from North Africa and the Middle East. Maimonides and Isaac Karo called themselves "Sepharadi" because they were literally born in Spain. The millions of NA/ME Jews who canonized their works called themselves "Sepharadi" because they followed these Sephardic rulings, until about a hundred years ago, when they slowly shifted to using "Mizrahi" in many contexts. The other Jews who left Iberia but did not join the NA/ME community are a totally separate, much much smaller community, who may also call themselves Sepharadim but are better known in English as Spanish and Portuguese Jews, or S&P. There are many, many more Ethiopian Jews than non-Mizrahi Sephardic Jews. Sephardic-to-the-exclusion-of-Mizrahi Jews are a tiny minority that certainly don't merit equal placement with Ashkenazi and NA/ME Jews, the two great divisions of modern Jewry. It is traditional to refer to this division as Ashkenazic/Sephardic. Until the modern founding of the State of Israel and the subsequent reorienting of political identities, NA/ME Jews called themselves Sephardic because they were proud of their historical association, however strong, with the Jewish law authorities, major colonial powers, and post-Islamic literary sophistication of the Iberian peninsula. Today, these Jews are more likely to emphasize their geographic proximity to Israel, and so call themselves Mizrahi. But it's the same people, and the terms are basically interchangeable. The term "Sephardic" is still used by absolutely everybody with regard to the Jewish law of NA/ME Jews, for example, which is why the religious leader of Mizrahi Jewry (NOT literal Spanish and Portueguse Jewry, which does not recognize him) is called the "Sephardic Chief Rabbi", why the Mizrahi political party in Israel is called "Shomrei Sefarad", etc. GordonGlottal (talk) 16:49, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

  Do you have any sources to supplement the assertions and statements in your above description? It doesn't exactly comport with my understanding. My understanding was that the "Spanish and Portuguese Jews" subgroup refers specifically mainly to crypto-Jews who fled to the Netherlands and Italy and reverted to Judaism. So they are Sephardic but they migrated earlier than most of the others. Other Sephardim fled after 1492 and they are distinct from the preexisting NA/ME Jews. Andre🚐 17:34, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

  Everything about the history of S&P is heavily contested. How many crypto-Jews there really were, etc. I think it's undeniable is that there were already large populations of S&P Jews in Amsterdam and Venice immediately after the expulsion. I don't want to get into a fight about this because it doesn't matter. The point I was trying to make is that the term "Sephardim" is understood by everyone except the very few S&P Jews, who insist they have the better claim, to refer to the same population as "Mizrahim", and, if we understand Sephardim to refer to S&P, there is no reason to mention it in the lede at all. No matter what term you prefer for the one that isn't Ashkenazim, there are only two major ethnic subdivisions. When people say "Ashkenazim do this, but Sephardim, that" they mean Ashkenazim and the one which follows the Sefardic Chief Rabbi and votes for Shas, i.e. Mizrahim. GordonGlottal (talk) 21:45, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

  I'm really not convinced, and it sounds like you might be offering a religion-centric or Israel-centric view here - but this is about Jews in thr whole world. Is there any source? Andre🚐 21:46, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

  • @Andrevan I like the language here: "The term [Mizrahi Jews] is often used synonymously with 'Sephardic Jews,' though Sephardic connotes religious practice and Mizrahi connotes place of origin." The point is that there is no definition of "Sephardim" which both (1) includes a large percentage of World Jewry and (2) does not include at least 95% of "Mizrahim", so it isn't true to say that they refer to distinct "major ethnic subdivisions" no matter what definition you use.
  • I felt comfortable using Israeli political descriptors because about 96% of Sephardim/Mizrahim live in Israel. A Pew Poll found that 2% of American Jews identify as Sephardi and <1% as Mizrahi, while Israel is 50/50 split between Ashkenazim and Sephardim/Mizrahim. Definitions of Judaism etc. etc., but if there are a roughly equal number of Jews in each that means 96% are in Israel.
  • A sidenote on the importance of wiki is that the American Pew writeup follows Wiki into using three divisions "Askhenazi (which the survey defined as following the Jewish customs of Central and Eastern Europe), Sephardic (following the Jewish customs of Spain) or Mizrahi (following the Jewish customs of the Middle East and North Africa)" but note that in in their Israel writeup, where there are actually Sephardim and Mizrahim, they say correctly "יהודים ישראלים מחולקים פחות או יותר באופן שווה בין שני סוגי זהות אתנית: יהודים אשכנזים (ששורשיהם נעוצים, מבחינה גאוגרפית, במרכז ומזרח אירופה) וכן יהודים ספרדים או מזרחיים (ששורשיהם נעוצים, מבחינה גאוגרפית, בעיקר בספרד, באגן הים התיכון או במזרח התיכון = Israeli Jews are roughly evenly divided into two ethnic identities, Ashkenazi Jews (geographically rooted in Central and Eastern Europe) and Sephardic-or-Mizrahi Jews (geographically rooted in Iberia, the Mediterranean basin, or the Middle East)."

  GordonGlottal (talk) 16:24, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

  OK, so bottom line is that your argument is essentially a numbers game. But remember that 2% of millions of people is still a decent amount of people. So even if 2% of American Jews are Sephardic, that's 150,000 people that we're handwaving away. I see treatment of smaller ethnic groups on Wikipedia (not to whataboutism/otherstuff it). I don't agree that Sephardic refers only to practice and not cultural origin and heritage as well, such as Sephardic cuisine - and I wouldn't accept that Justvision.org source as it appears to be an advocacy group. The Pew sources are fine, but also just shows that it's more about Israeli identity, and a statistic. I'd prefer to draw upon some reliable academic textbooks and journal articles. Again my proposal here is not to remove the 3 ethnic origin group thing but add a sentence or two explaining that those 3 groups aren't exhaustive and there exist other historic groups outside of those, not just within them. Andre🚐 18:56, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

  I don't think it's handwaving away a population to say that it's an extremely small percentage of the total. There are millions of Jews in the United States, a large number in other contexts, but it's certainly not a "major ethnic subdivision" thereof and you can speak about "Americans" without constantly correcting for the fact that such an abstraction will necessarily ignore any particular tiny minority.

  But anyway, the general point isn't any less true of American Sephardim and Mizrahim -- both "Sephardim" and "Mizrahim" still refer to the same group of people in America, Pew just doesn't realize it, which I think is attributable to Wikipedia and the fact that you can spend your life among American Jews and never meet a Sephardi/Mizrahi, impossible in Israel.

  There are not three groups. It's like saying "there are three major political subdivisions of the United States: Democrats, Republicans, and conservatives." On the one hand, "Republican" and "conservative" aren't synonymous, in fact there are Republicans to whom the term is very far from meaning "conservative" and vice versa, and each of those three terms undeniably refers to a very large percentage of Americans; but nonetheless it's a statement that doesn't make sense to anyone who's actually familiar with American political life, because they don't refer to distinct large segments of American society. I suggest we do exactly as the informed Pew report does, and refer to two major ethnic subdivisions, "Askenazim (geographically rooted in Central and Eastern Europe)" and "Sephardim/Mizrahim (geographically rooted in Iberia, the Mediterranean Basin, and the Middle East". The Pew report uses "Ashkenazic" and "Sephardic/Mizrahi" with the slash throughout.

  I've looked around a bit and I think the best English-language resource is Studies in Contemporary Jewry vol. XXII: "Sephardic Jewry and Mizrahi Jews", ed. Peter Y. Medding. 2007 Oxford Univerity Press. This book (especially the introduction and the first essay) uses modern sociological technique to wrestle with the question of which term is better / which is more applicable in various contexts, but no author included in it pretends that there's in any meaningful sense a tripartite ethnic division in modern Jewry. It's uninterested in the halakhic element to a fault, but that's typical of American scholars. (Also I'd quibble with the editor's use of the phrase "pure Sephardim" which is based on a misreading of the Hebrew acronym ס"ט, an appellation actually used by ordinary North African / Middle Eastern Sephardim all the time, and means not ספרדי טהור "pure Sephardi", but סיפיה טב, "may his end be good". Also he conflates Yemenite tradition, which follows Spanish customs as-of-Maimonides but later diverged slightly from the Sephardic mainstream, with Ethiopian customs, which are much much further from Sephardim than Sephardim are from Ashkenazim.) GordonGlottal (talk) 21:34, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

  I'll take a look at Medding 2007. I've had the good fortune of meeting several American Jews who are of Sephardic extraction/tradition (in a distant past, of course). But that's anecdotal so I'm not proposing any OR. However most early American Jews were Sephardic, while most later ones were Ashkenazi.[4] I think part of the disagremeent is purely semantic or nomenclatural. Modern day Judaism particularly religious Judaism in Israel has decided to make Sephardic the broad umbrella term even though historically it was vaguer or had more specific connotations, is my theory. But I do not think the article lead should just lump that in with the ethnic division explanation, since the rite and the ethnicity aren't identical.

  I just think mathematics aren't supposed to determine what lead summaries say by rounding down small percentages and then say they aren't a thing. Again, hundreds of thousands of people are worthy of note and not simplification even if that is 98%. Sephardim and Mizrahi are not analogous to "Republican" and "Conservative." Republican is a party, and conservative is an ideology. Your point is that Mizrahi Jews are generally followers of what would be considered a Sephardic rite by modern classification standards. My point is that we were talking about ethnicity, not religion primarily, though of course religion and culture figure in. And maybe you are arguing that Mizrahi is actually a sub-ethnic[5] identity of a larger Sephardic identity that includes both Spanish/Portuguese Sephardic Jews, as well as Middle East and North African Jews. But there are plenty of Mizrahi Jews historically who followed a "Palestinian minhag." You're technically correct that it's a very small percentage of people relative to either the population of America, Israel, or the world. But I think we're doing the article a disservice if we just pretend that it's not a thing or gloss over it.

  [6] Although sometimes used interchangeably, the terms “Sephardi” and “Mizrahi” refer to two distinct Jewish diasporas, each one itself characterized by significant internal cultural diversity. Despite many divergences, having inhabited numerous polities in different circumstances over the ages, these groups also shared important characteristics, including some religious rites and customs. Andre🚐 23:50, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

  "Sephardic" refers to religious tradition and "Mizrahi" refers to place of origin. It is like "Republican" and "conservative" in that the terms mean different things but overlap 99% in the population to whom they refer. It's a mistake to get caught up in the literal translation of "Sephardic" as Iberian, which has really nothing to do with its actual meaning: the religious tradition of Islamic-influenced Jewry, which naturally completely overlaps the meaning of Mizrahi: the Jewry of the Islamic world. Mark R. Cohen actually likes to use these terms for the two major ethnic groups "Jews of the Christian World" and "Jews of the Islamic World" leaving both Ashkenazic and Sephardic/Mizrahi behind. But from Isaac Alfasi, who lived in 11th-century Algeria, to Yosef Hayyim, who lived in 19th-century Iraq, the meaning of "Sephardic" is "Jews who follow the tradition which for almost-random historical reasons is called 'Sephardic'", and that term has always included mostly Jews who had no genetic connection to Iberia. In the same way that "Ashkenazic" means "Rhenish" in the oldest, most literal European sense, but it would be silly to speak of "the Rhenish diaspora" and "Polish-Lithuanian Jewry" as distinct modern groups.

  An interesting historical parallel is that the oldest term for the religious tradition of European Jewry is actually מדנחאי medinha'ei, the Aramaic equivalent of Hebrew מזרחים mizrahim. Both terms mean "Easterners", and if you know something about historical Semitic phonology you can see that they're basically the same word. This is the term that the Masoretic lists use to refer to what would later be known as Ashkenazim. At the time, European Jews were seen as following the tradition of Babylonia, while Islamic Jews were associated with Palestine. Babylonia is to the east of Palestine, so proto-Ashkenazim were מדנחאי, literally "Easterners", while proto-Sephardim were מערבאי, literally "Westerners". Medieval Sephardic authorities use the Jerusalem Talmud, while medieval Ashkenazic authorities stick to the Babylonian Talmud, etc.

  For the same reason, I don't get hung up on the dissonance of using "Mizrahi" to refer to the Jews of Morocco, which is west of any Ashkenazic center. It's crucial to allow these terms their actual meaning.

  GordonGlottal (talk) 21:46, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

  I think the issue is that the terms are ambiguous and overloaded, like most terms, and don't always mean the same thing, depending on the context and time and place and audience. For example [7] his article sketches historical shifts in the meanings and associations of the term "Sephardi" Post-Iberian migrations and the post-emancipation perception of European Jews potentially made "Sephardi" the main marker of the "Eastern half within binary ethnic discourse reflecting the "ingathering" of Jews in Palestine and the State of Israel. This did not evolve, paralleling a historically based reluctance of old-time Sephardim to be identified with "Easterners." Instead, broad ethnic divides were coded utilizing the lexeme mizrah. "Sephardi" retained some prominence and partially "reverted" to its associations with religion. Relevant factors were a dual rabbinate and the emergent Israeli Shas party combining politics, religion, and "Sephardism." There is also evidence that the images and terms "Sephardi" and "Mizrahi" You're claiming that Mizrahi always means place of origin and Sephardic means religion, but Sephardic also refers to a diasporic geographic historic identity, not simply a liturgy. There are secular Sephardic Jews.[8] e.g. rest in this subject-matter derives both from my status as a secular Sephardic Jew and from a longstanding interest in the region. Similarly, you can be a non-conservative, moderate or liberal Republican, though those are endangered nowadays. While I agree with your analysis of the etymology, definition and prescriptive meaning is less important than descriptive meaning and connotation, and how the terms are used by modern-day scholars. Andre🚐 22:30, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

GordonGlottal, Andrevan: You should present your proposals for how the text should be, this would speed things up in this discussion. Mawer10 (talk) 14:43, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Mawer. I'm proposing to add a sentence along the lines of "While these 3 major divisions are well-known and account for most of the world's Jews, they are not exhaustive and there are modern as well as historical divisions that do not fit in any of those." I haven't completely formulated the text, so open on that. I believe Gordon was actually proposing to remove Mizrahi or combine it with Sephardic using a slash or parentheses, which I'm not in favor of. However, perhaps, to address the prior discussion, we could add a sentence explaining that Sephardic originally meant Jews following the traditions of Spain and Portugal but has come to be a broader and vaguer term... or maybe that's too much. I'm curious if we got anywhere in the last discussion or we are both dug in. Andre🚐 14:52, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry for the late response. So, I'm ok with keeping the three divisions along with mentioning that the Mizrahi and Sephardic groups are now somewhat intertwined due to the expulsion of the Jews from the Iberian Peninsula and their relocation to the Middle East. This wording seems more clear: "While these three major divisions account for most of the world's Jews, there are many smaller Jewish groups that do not fit in any of those". Mawer10 (talk) 14:56, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Andre🚐 05:54, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

We just need sources to support the wording. Mawer10 (talk) 10:43, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

GordonGlottal, what do you think? Mawer10 (talk) 10:41, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Math wrong in article

Jewish population is .02% not 2% of world population. 131.106.160.148 (talk) 13:41, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Neither 2% nor 0.02% is correct. The article, however, says 0.2%, which is correct. Largoplazo (talk) 13:52, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Jewish wrote the Bible and founded Christianity

It is half true to say that they wrote the Bible. Jewish wrote only the Old Testament, not the New one. And for the founding Christianity, people seems to forget the key role of Zoroastrianism, which have deeply influenced both Judaism and Christianism (https://www.academia.edu/8616877/Zoroastrianism_The_Iranian_Roots_of_Christianity) 2A01:E0A:C9E:30F0:555B:11C:647:34A (talk) 22:38, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree it shouldn't say "Jews wrote the Bible". Nominally, nearly all the New Testament books were written by Jews: Mark, Matthew, Luke, John, Paul, Peter, at the least. However, except for the epistles by Paul, which are largely held to be authentically his, the authorship of most of them is considered unknown. Perhaps some of their authors were Jews, perhaps not. There is no support for stating categorically that "Jews wrote the Bible". Jews wrote the Hebrew Bible and probably much of the Christian Bible, but the true extent of the latter is unknown.

As for Zoroastrianism, this article is about Jews, not Judaism, so Zoroastrianism might not be sufficiently germane to be mentioned in this article. Its impact, if it had any, on Christianity, is completely irrelevant here. There's a difference between the matter of who founded Christianity (answer: Jews) and what influences came to bear on it (Zoroastrian, pagan, etc.). Largoplazo (talk) 00:26, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Era

Wikipedia's Manual of Style/Dates and Numbers states, "An article's established era style should not be changed without reasons specific to its content; seek consensus on the talk page first (applying Wikipedia:Manual of Style § Retaining existing styles) by opening a discussion under a heading using the word era, and briefly stating why the style should be changed." The original established style of this page was BC/AD, see https://web.archive.org/web/20040203143309/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jews. I do not know when someone switched the style, but I do not see any prior discussion of era in the talk section as the manual requires. The Arbitration Committee has expressed the principle that "When either of two styles is acceptable it is inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is some substantial reason for the change." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Retaining_existing_styles.

Here, according to the Manual of Style where either era style was acceptable it was inappropriate for a user to make a change of era style. As such, all references to BCE should be reverted to BC and all references to CE should be reverted to AD. Shaggydan (talk) 07:51, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

I’ll treat this AGF although this is the the archetypal article in which BC/AD should not be used because of its subject mater and should be changed to BC/BCE. If a discussion of the change was not held I would assume that it was because this is such an obvious issue that the application of [[WP:IAR|] would appropriately have been used. I’ll refer anyone interested to Common Era#Support (we don’t cite Wikipedia, but this isn’t an article, and the common era article is well written and cited). It is offensive, and by some considered a sin, for religious Jews of any denomination to be forced to use notation referring to the Christian diety as their diety in general, and even more specifically to themselves. Although offensiveness isn’t necessarily a defense against freedom of speech, this isn’t one of those cases. There is an acceptable alternative here. The OP may be technically correct, but the rigid application of guidelines here is only likely to to cause unnecessary debate, with no improvement to Wikipedia. Ayenaee (talk) 09:26, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

I also note that the change from BC/BCE was made here [9] on 26 February 2003. The (minimal) state of MOSNUM at its next edit after that date was this [10]. The current era change requirements were not included within the guidance at that time. So the change was made in compliance with MOS at the time, and has not been questioned for almost 21 years. I believe the question is moot. Ayenaee (talk) 10:25, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Related ethnic groups

Selfstudier, Jews, like most ethnic groups, have a long history of many sorts of relations (including ethnic relations) with many other ethnic groups (The very few exeptions are Aboriginals, Sentinelese etc.). The ties between Jew and Indians, for examples, are not that stronge, and by this logic we nead to add to the "related ethnic groups" of the Italians any group that was occupied by Roman empire (sunce some of the members of every such group must have assimilated in the population of Latium). We should add only the most related groups, like Samaritans, Palestinians and Canaanites. פעמי-עליון (pʿmy-ʿlywn) - talk 14:34, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Dear @פעמי-עליון. You should have at least checked the cited sources before blindly removing all the sourced content.

your statement that “no evidence that a significant number of Jews have non-Israelite origins” is completely wrong and have nothing to do with either history or genetic studies. Genetic Studies estimate that ashkenazi jews who constitute 80% of world jews have between 50-70% European ancestry (Xue,2017 ; Carmi,2014 ; Bray,2010 ), also check (Avshalom Zoossmann-Diskin,2010 ; Falk,2014 ). So the claim you made to remove all sourced content is completely baseless. This is the consensus in academia and there is not a single study that claimed otherwise. Ashkenazi jews are related to south and eastern european by both ancestry and history (language and culture as well). South and east europeans are one of the most related ethnic groups to ashkenazi jews even more than modern levantines and middle eastern groups.

Regarding the indians and ethiopians, i included them as related groups due to the same reasons with Beta jews and cochin jews who are also largely related to their respective populations genetically (Behar, 2010) , culturally and historically.

let me sum up everything by quoting from (Falk, 2017):

Despite the persistence of intra-Jewish, socio-cultural relatedness, coupled with the exclusion of Jews by Gentile society, Jewish communities have never been reproductively isolated from their neighbors. Although there is widespread evidence of certain Middle Eastern genetic components in numerous Jewish communities, there is no proof of a typical Jewish prototype. Stephan rostie (talk) 18:50, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Much of the relevant material and sources can also be found at Racial conceptions of Jewish identity in Zionism, so yeah, the reversion (twice) should be undone. Selfstudier (talk) 19:00, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

"Levantines" isn't an ethnic group and the citations used are a repeat of the ones for Arabs, and also Samaritans. Per WP:SYNTH this has been removed. Also added "others" referring to other Jewish ethnic groups like Ethiopians who are excluded, seeing as this is apparently problematic? JJNito197 (talk) 22:30, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Edit Request: "Modern Period"

The phrase "by 1941, Hitler occupied almost all of Europe" might be fine in casual conversation, but for an encyclopedia, this is not good enough. Substitute "Hitler" with either "Germany", "the German Reich", "Nazi Germany", or "Nazi forces". While Hitler commanded the occupying armies, he did not occupy. Yes, I know this is a pars-pro-toto, but it sounds very silly in a serious article. --91.64.59.91 (talk) 14:47, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Christianity as a minority religion?

Putting Christianity as minority religion would start a dangerous precedent as it begins to blur into who is actually considered ethnically Jewish based on that lots of Christians and other religions can claim to have Jewish heritage and ethnicity. Salandarianflag (talk) 00:00, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

You would have to add Jewish Buddhists and Hindus and Muslims and so on by this logic making it a very dangerous precedent to set. Salandarianflag (talk) 00:08, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

If an ethnical Jewish person converts to Christianity, that person is an ethnically Jewish person who is practicing Christianity. If two ethnically Jewish converts have children who follow Christianity, they are, again, ethnic Jews whose religion is Christianity. It's a fact, even if you think for some reason that it's dangerous. However, the link is incorrect. What Jewish Christians is about has little to nothing to do with ethnic Jews today who practice some form of Christianity. Largoplazo (talk) 01:05, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

WP:GREATWRONGS LesbianTiamat (talk) 00:20, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 February 2024

Please make the font size similar where data about number of Jewish people globally is shown. 87.248.185.33 (talk) 13:59, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, what are you referring to? Similar to what? Which part of the article specifically? Tollens (talk) 06:32, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Yeah I agree Aquonium (talk) 15:12, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

@Aquonium: Since you clearly know what the IP is referring to, could you please elaborate? Tollens (talk) 20:46, 6 April 2024 (UTC)