body.skin-vector-2022 .mw-parser-output .skiptotalk,body.mw-mf .mw-parser-output .skiptotalk{display:none}.mw-parser-output .skiptotalk a{display:block;text-align:center;font-style:italic;line-height:1.9}.mw-parser-output .skiptotalk a::before,.mw-parser-output .skiptotalk a::after{content:"↓";font-size:larger;line-height:1.6;font-style:normal}.mw-parser-output .skiptotalk a::before{float:left}.mw-parser-output .skiptotalk a::after{float:right}Skip to table of contents

Template:Outline of knowledge coverage Template:Vital article

Former good articleJews was one of the Social sciences and society good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 23, 2006Good article nomineeListed
July 6, 2008Good article reassessmentKept
October 6, 2008Peer reviewReviewed
February 26, 2009Good article reassessmentKept
April 18, 2017Good article reassessmentDelisted
Current status: Delisted good article
 For prior discussions of the infobox in the top right corner of the article, please visit Talk:Jews/infobox.

Change wording about status of Modern Standard Hebrew in Israel

In the third paragraph of the Culture > Language section it's stated that Modern Standard Hebrew is an official language of Israel alongside Arabic - this hasn't been the case since the passage of the 'national home' law in 2018 (https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/18/world/middleeast/israel-passes-national-home-law.html, also see Israel#Language for some more discussion). I think it should be changed to just read either "Modern Standard Hebrew is the sole official language of Israel" or something like "Modern Standard Hebrew is the sole official language of Israel, although Arabic has special status as the language of the Arab minority." Something like that.

Apologies if I've formatted this 'extended-protected' request incorrectly - I mostly just like to fix little typos / inaccuracy things like this and am far from an experienced wikipedia editor.

Alicewriteswrongs (talk) 14:06, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I endorse this proposal, but would not use the word "sole". The sentence will be clear enough without that word as well. Debresser (talk) 23:06, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Partly done: According to the text of the law available from the Knesset: "Hebrew is the State language". It does not designate Hebrew or Arabic as official languages and using that term is not consonant with the source text. As this article is not about the official language of the State of Israel, any analysis of this in the text would be WP:UNDUE and WP:OR. Therefore, I have changed the text to: [[Modern Hebrew]] is designated as the "State language"" of Israel. and cited the Knesset's English translation of the Basic Law. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:59, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Makes sense - thanks for addressing this! Alicewriteswrongs (talk) 15:02, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fringe sources for overly-vague claims

This is regarding this revert.

Since it is almost exactly the same content with exactly the same sources, I will crib from what I said at Talk:List of Jewish Nobel laureates#The overwhelming majority of those Jews are Asheknazi ones, why is that being removed.

Regarding this sentence:

None of these sources use the term overwhelming, and all sources must be evaluated in context. I dispute that these source are reliable for this specific point, since none of them directly say this is "overwhelming". Further, none of them say that the Nobel prize discrepancy prompted this controversy.

The cited Cochran et al paper which supposedly started this "controversy" mentions the Nobel prize once, in passing. Using it for this broad claim is WP:OR. It is also a very poor source in general, per below.

The first source cited was "Are Jews Smarter Than Everyone Else?" This monograph very directly challenges the entire premise. In other words, it does not support this point. To include a single tid-bit from this source without any of the context it provides would be misrepresenting a source for editorializing purposes.

Regarding this sentence:

This is extremely vague. notable is editorializing, and the source is again very poor. It is an opinion piece by Charles Murray (political scientist), who is considered a fringe source for issues related to race and intelligence per many past discussions.

Regarding this sentence:

This is again extremely vague. What is large? What would be the expected rate? All of this would need to be explained by a reliable source for this language to be appropriate.

Just as importantly, none of the three cited sources mention Ashkenazi Jews specifically, making this WP:OR.

As for the remainder of the paragraph, it relies on a single very controversial study from almost fifteen years ago with many additional problems. I previously raised these issues here: Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#Cochran and Harpending, again. There are many reasons to be cautious with this source, especially when racialism and IQ are concerned.

Grayfell (talk) 03:37, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you feel like editing the way it's written, go for it - fact is, there's no argument or debate whether the majority of Nobel prize winning Jews or Ashkenazi or not, it's not like someone goes, "Are you sure Einstein wasn't Sephardi?" And it's important.
There's a lot of opinion in those links, but also the facts.
It's more than "overwhelming," only like 3-4 on that list are not Ashkenazi (the list of Nobel Prize winners). I get the feeling you don't know the topic and choose to remove obvious things. Maxim.il89 (talk) 07:23, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing in this area can be considered "overwhelming" in my view, and any arguments using this type of qualification are immediately suspect to me. This whole field, to which I am rather new, smacks of cheap propaganda to me. I support all the arguments carefully advanced by Greyfell above for the removal of the new addition, and I will continue to use his guidance in this area until I can catch up on my own reading of all the racial and genetic controversies and traps that already exist. I am completely skeptic of the contemporary efforts to push the use of alleged "scientific" racial and genetic studies to define social and historic issues. These are newly developed fields, that try to use alleged science, in my view, to promote prejudiced social theories. The use of alleged science to promote certain preferred social outcomes is a very dangerous new trend, in my view. Mixing alleged science and politics is just a recipe for disaster. warshy (¥¥)
I feel like you're rather confused. No one is trying to promote some racial theory, I've said numerous times it's stupid and wrote this theory as "controversial" - but most of those Jews being Ashkenazi is not a conspiracy theory, it's a fact. It's like saying that the statement "most of the people in the UK are English" is controversial, it's not. Maxim.il89 (talk) 22:25, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Two opinions are not a consensus, you were literally reverted by another user two days ago who disagreed with you. Maxim.il89 (talk) 22:25, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That editor did not address any of these issues. Neither have you. Consensus is not a vote. If you want to start discussing the problems with these sources, start discussing them. Grayfell (talk) 23:38, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you think "consensus" is what you want, and as you can see, people disagree with you here, so there we go. Maxim.il89 (talk) 21:09, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Grayfell: I have no prejudice regarding the paragraph, but your claim of consensus is misplaced, and that fact alone reflects badly on you and your point of view on this issue. I also noticed WP:JUDAISM has not been notified about the discussion at the Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard, and that is another omission that reflects badly on you and your opinion. Debresser (talk) 22:31, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
More to the point, I see that there are many sources in this paragraph, a lot more than those that are presently under discussion on the noticeboard. Also, I understand that some statements are vague, but that is not always a problem. "a large number of the Nobel awards", for example, is completely clear. Don't confuse "unquantified" with vague". Debresser (talk) 22:43, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not obligated to notify any specific wikiproject. To be honest, this seems legalistic, since this page is vital and well-watched, and most editors who watch WP:JUDAISM would also watch this page. The purpose of notifications like this is to build consensus, not rally the troops in support of a specific perspective.
Since this specific change is related to scientific racism, and I had already discussed several of these sources at FRINGEN, that's where I went. Considering this likely falls under Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and intelligence, there are a broad number of place this could be taken, including WP:PSYCH and WP:GENETICS. If I wanted to start an RFC, I would've done that. If you think any specific project will prevent WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, go for it.
Per many past discussions, Charles Murray (political scientist) is a WP:FRINGE for any claim related to race and intelligence. An opinion piece by him should not be used for factual claims. It doesn't matter that he may be correct, because WP:TRUTH without context is misinformation. Another source used is Henry Harpending, who is considered a white supremacist by the SPLC, and has received a fawning eulogy from Holocaust deniers such as Steve Sailer. If this isn't a red flag that these sources are unreliable for this article, I don't know what is! Daisy-chaining bad sources together to support a specific point is inappropriate. Using some other, borderline sources to pad-out this content isn't enough to fix this problem. We need reliable sources to WP:INTERPRET data, not editors.
Further, nobody seems to want to discuss that even the reliable sources do not support this content. We cannot cherry-pick specific statistics without looking at the substance of these sources. For example, This source goes into some detail about how Cochran's theory is "bullshit", but worse, also plays into stereotypes about Jews being "crafty". Again, using a study coauthored by a white supremacist to imply that Jews are smart is inappropriate.
It is not enough to say that this statistic is technically true. We use reliable sources to provide context, not editors. I am still waiting for someone to address these issues instead of restoring contentGrayfell (talk) 23:26, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Grayfell: Okay, let's say I can agree with you that many, perhaps even most, of the sources in that paragraph are not reliable. What do you propose to replace it with? Replacing the paragraph with even just one or two short sentences with one or two good sources, would provide an alternative and go a long way to show your goodwill, rather than deleting this relevant and necessary information altogether. Debresser (talk) 16:12, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
When the vast majority of the sources are bad, and what remains is insufficient to make a case that including a remark on the topic would be due weight, then the appropriate thing to do is to remove the whole text. Wikipedia is not a collection of trivia. Sometimes, the appropriate percentage really is 0. XOR'easter (talk) 21:37, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This "information," which is just WP:SYNTH and cheap racist propaganda, is really inaccurate and rather irrelevant. It is altogether unnecessary, in my view. I support the immediate removal of any part of it until the related main article on the subject is deleted and rewritten according to Wikipedia standards. warshy (¥¥) 21:47, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)If we start with bad sources, and then back-fill with better ones, the content is still based on either bad sources or editors' assumptions. Neither of these match Wikipedia's policies. We cannot use these source as a foundation even if we remove them later.
The goal here should be to summarize reliable sources in proportion to due weight. This means we have to start with good sources, and only use weaker sources when absolutely necessary. We cannot assume that this information belongs, and we cannot assume that it should be presented in this way. We should never use unreliable sources. We also should not use opinion pieces without attribution in most cases. Considering the mountains of reliable, academic books and journals about both Judaism and the Nobel Prize, surely there is a better starting point than this garbage. See what reliable, independent sources have to say and go from there.
Additionally, to the extent this connects to race and intelligence, there is specific requirement that sources be high quality due to extensive past disruption. Grayfell (talk) 21:53, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And I respect that. More, I agree with that. At the same time, this is a well-know thesis, of Ashkenazi-Jewish intelligence, one that has been made by so many people, it is almost common knowledge. Not having it, would be a severe shortcoming. Likewise, if this thesis is used by many ultra-right writers, then that in itself should be cause for a mention. Debresser (talk) 22:35, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Which has a dedicated article to that pseudoscience at Ashkenazi Jewish intelligence currently at AfD because it's a WP:UNDUE, WP:FRINGE, WP:SYNTH and a big old dose of WP:OR.
Per Greyfell, we start writing from good sources. If the content is bad we challenge it and remove it. We are not beholden to try and fix it with better sources, particularly if we don't feel the subject should be fixed, or can be fixed, without further OR or SYNTH. Koncorde (talk) 23:48, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I did not start that AfD, but my approach here is based on that idea. Including this here needs much better sources and a lot more context, and we should be open to saying that it doesn't belong at all. Cochran et al's thesis is, perhaps, a well-known thesis, but so is the thesis that the moon landing was a hoax. It's a WP:FRINGE thesis, in other words. We need to be very, very careful in how we handle fringe material, for a variety of reasons. If we hunt around for reliable sources to add this, we risk tricking ourselves into believing this belongs via confirmation bias. We might be able to find reliable sources to support this, but this, alone, would not make it due weight in this article, which is about all Jews everywhere and in every time period. Like I said, let's look at what reliable, independent sources actually say and go from there. Grayfell (talk) 01:46, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break

Based on the above I've made this edit. To explain:

Hopefully that explains everything. Grayfell (talk) 21:26, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, comparing my recent edits to the article last month, this appears much closer to the status quo. Generally speaking, the burden to establish consensus falls on those wishing to change articles. Grayfell (talk) 21:32, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And again, I need to explain the obvious that the fact that most of those on the list are Ashkenazi Jews is very relevant to the article. And no, it's not "trivia" like someone here suggested (I assume someone who knows nothing about the history of Ashkenazi Jews), but very important, just like the information about Afro-Americans in the NBA article.

You're trying on purpose to ruin the discussion by trying to connect it to the "Ashkenazi intelligence" theory (which is pseudo-scientific), and by that discredit it, but that's just stupid.

In a section about Jewish contribution that talks about winners of all those awards (Nobel, Fields, Turing), it is relevant that most of them are Ashkenazi. Does it mean Ashkenazi Jews are smarter than others or genetically superior? Of course not, and stop trying to make it look like stating the statistical fact somehow implies the second.

If you knew some history you'd understand that Ashkenazi academic success is a result of historical circumstances, and that's it. A mixture of desire to escape the poor life of the ghetto, the Enlightenment movement, and the fact very few Ashkenazi Jews were farmers, which allowed them to be more mobile, it's the fact conservative/agricultural society rejected them (which made the world of education a logical choice). Not genes, it's history.

When this guy here said how it's just "trivia," clearly you know nothing of the topic. Maxim.il89 (talk) 01:39, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Maxim.il89: Sources which do not specifically mention Ashkenazim cannot be used for comments about Ashkenazim. Per Wikipedia:Original research: If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources.
In other words, you need sources which actually say this. It is not enough that this is obvious to you. It is not enough that you keep saying this is relevant. It also has to be significant according to reliable sources. Ignoring the problem will not make it go away.
You are the only one who wants to include Ashkenazi Jewish intelligence sources. I've tried to remove them as pseudoscience, but you have restored them without any real explanation.
Adding this list of accomplishments without any context transforms it from "important" to "trivia". If you don't think this is trivia, then stop treating it like trivia. If you want to demonstrate that this is relevant, use sources. Summarize what those sources are actually saying. Explain those historic circumstances, but stick to reliable sources. Grayfell (talk) 03:28, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The information about their ancestry in those sources is reliable. Maxim.il89 (talk) 08:48, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Jews are.....a nation"

Jews are a nation? Since when was Wikipedia siding with racial/ethnic nationalism? This is an incredible instance of bias and should be changed.PailSimon (talk) 14:28, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can't tell what premises you're working from and, therefore, what argument you're making and/or what you're actually objecting to. Do you believe there's no such thing as nations? Or do you believe that accepting the concept of nationhood and nationalism are the same thing? If you believe there are nations, what is your definition of "nation" and, given your definition, how are Jews not one? Please be specific, because otherwise there's no way to proceed from your objection. Largoplazo (talk) 14:56, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If Jews are a nation then so are Gaels, Celtic Britons, Latins and so on. Jew is the only racial/religious identity article on Wikipedia that states its subject is a nation. This is a sop to and preferential treatment for zionism.PailSimon (talk) 17:32, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
More declarations with no explanations. Now I have no idea why you do or don't think each of these groups is a nation, or whether your reasons are the same in each case. Largoplazo (talk) 22:21, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Being a nation is a core aspect of the Jewish identity. Ibn Daud (talk) 16:20, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Most Jews would reject the idea that Jews are a nation. Either way its still promoting a racial nationalist propaganda point.PailSimon (talk) 17:32, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's absoulty not true, most Jews would definitely consider themselves to some degree, to be a part of “Am Yisrael” [people (nation) of Israel], and historically almost all Jewish scholars have viewed themselves in such a fashion. This notion that Jews being defined as a nation is “racial nationalist propaganda” is completely absurd. I’d suggest you talk to actual Jewish people or read up on the historic or and contemporary Jewish identity. Ibn Daud (talk) 18:58, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
See Figure 21.2, p. 321 from Marvin Harris, Culture, People, Nature. An Introduction to General Anthropology. 7th ed., Addison-Wesley Educational Publishers, Inc. 1997. Conclusions: Jews are neither a race, nor an ethnicity. Traditionally, Jews were the adepts of Judaism. But this has been recently complicated by the category of secular Jews, which includes atheists and agnostics. See also Category:Jewish ethnic groups. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:07, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ibn I'm not going to push the whole most Jews consider Jews a nation myth because I don't think its relevant. As for your rejection of the point that its racial nationalist proraganda how about you explain why you disagree? I think that would be helpful. PailSimon (talk) 22:21, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No it's not, I'm Jewish and most of us understand that by definition, we are not a nation. We're an ethnicity, check the difference. Nation is about belonging to a country! For example, a British Jew is British by nationality. Maxim.il89 (talk) 01:48, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Any reason you're not? PailSimon (talk) 22:21, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments about what "most Jews" would or would not accept are pointless unless they can be backed up with reliable sources. And which Jews are we talking about, secular as well as religious? Sundayclose (talk) 19:13, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Sir Joseph: They are right that what exactly Jews are is a hard nut to crack. If you see those photos, those people are manifestly of different ethnic groups and belong to several different races. Yet they all consider themselves Jews. Born from Jewish parents, having Jewish grandparents and Jewish grand-grandparents. So they all are halachically Jewish, traditionally Jewish. Believe me, just by looking at a man or woman there is no way to tell if they are Jewish (or that they aren't Jewish). The director Tim Mahoney (Patterns of Evidence#Patterns of Evidence: The Moses Controversy) said that he paid local inhabitants to dress as Hebrews. Otherwise I had no means to establish that the mobs in his film aren't Jewish. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:06, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Tgeorgescu, his claim is that Jews aren't a nation, that is refuted by the RS that says the opposite. He is just trying to stir things up, same as he did on the Obama page and elsewhere. We go by RS not by OR. Sir Joseph (talk) 20:26, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Sir Joseph: Well, he did not open a can of worms... it is an open can of worms. See e.g. Professor Zvi Gitelman; Zvi Y. Gitelman (2009). Religion Or Ethnicity?: Jewish Identities in Evolution. Rutgers University Press. ISBN 978-0-8135-4450-2. and The Invention of the Jewish People. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:32, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Tgeorgescu, isn't that essay talking about religion or ethnicity and specifically with regards to secularism? It's not talking about the nationhood of the people. It's pretty clearly established that there is a Jewish nation, and he is just trying to instigate to put a white nation or indigenous nation in Europe. Let's not try to take the bait. Sir Joseph (talk) 21:39, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Look, for being considered a Romanian ethnic one should be a White Caucasian. So it is clear that people who aren't White Caucasians aren't of Romanian ethnicity (or maybe they are of mixed ethnicity). There are no such rules for Jews: one can be a White Caucasian and be a Jew, one can be a Negroid and be a Jew, one can be a Mongoloid and be a Jew. I assume that Jews can belong to all human races. I mean people who are halachically Jewish for many generations. So, in this case isn't clear what "nation" is supposed to mean. What it does not mean is that they would belong to the same ethnic group. So, we have a nation which was traditionally based upon religion, not ethnicity. And since atheism and agnosticism become popular among Jews, it is no longer required to be a believer in Judaism for being considered a Jew. E.g. if I were a secular Jew I would see no reason for the circumcision of my boys, because circumcision is a religious symbol.
Anyway, I will leave it at this. I have no hope of solving this dilemma. It is just important to know that many Jews frown upon being considered a nation. Like the edit wars about Israeli nationality vs. Israeli citizenship. In the end we cannot make everybody happy, so regardless of our choice there will still be discontentment with this article. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:02, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sir Joseph you keep saying things are the case but haven't come up with your justification for such claims. "It's pretty obvious" or any other condescending variation is not a legitimate rationale for including a far right zionist racial nationalist point of view as fact. That would be a breach of neutrality. PailSimon (talk) 22:24, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's not an easy one, not everyone who is a Jew by religion as an ethic Jew, and vice versa. There's a whole section in this article about genetics.
Jews do belong to all races, but to be an ethnic Jew, you do need to have a certain common ancestry, it just means you have other ancestries in addition to it. For example, studies have shown Ashkenazi Jews have European genes and Middle Eastern genes (the latter is the one that defines them as Jewish), get me?
To this day there is a debate in Israel who should be allowed into Israel. For example, some say Ethiopian Jews shouldn't be allowed in because it's not clear if they're ethnically Jewish (and yes, it is a racist view, but one might argue the "law of return" is racist), on the other hand, many on the far-right have a problem with allowing Russian Jews in, because those far-righters claim those Jews are not religion enough.
The question, "What is a Jew?" is not so simple. Maxim.il89 (talk) 01:46, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You still haven't provided any facts, or specifics. You continue to rely on your stereotype of the "Jewish nation" idea as "far right zionist racial nationalist point of view" while giving no basis for ascribing that point of view solely to far right zionist racial nationalists, for disagreeing with them, or explaining on what specific points you base your disagreement. You complain about point of view, while providing no objective context within which to discuss this. Largoplazo (talk) 22:29, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
But it is a far-right idea. Being a nation literally means being part of a country. For example, Mbappe is not ethnically French, but he is French in the sense of belonging to the French nation. Jews are an ethnicity and a religion, not a nation, because there's no such country as "Jewland," there's Israel, and being Israeli is a nation by definition, but that's not synonymous with being a Jew. Maxim.il89 (talk) 01:46, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The idea that the Jews, a racial group, are a nation is a racial nationalist viewpoint of the same mold as white nationalism. Many scholars would reject the views of Zionists that Jews are a nation so the article is right now quite biased in favour of the racial ideology of zionism which is itself of significant controversy..PailSimon (talk) 22:33, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Continued use of fuzzy terminology and fingerpointing while avoiding objective discussion. Largoplazo (talk) 23:07, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nó its really quite clear. What confuses you? PailSimon (talk) 06:51, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
At the end of the day, it really doesn't matter what you believe. As Michael Nicholson wrote in his 2002 book; International Relations: A Concise Introduction "The Jews are a nation and were so before there was a Jewish state of Israel". The matter of fact is that Jews are and have always been considered a nation both by themselves and by those around them. Jews being a nation is not a piece of "zionist propaganda" which is a problematic notion in it's own right. But in fact is a longstanding tradition amongst the Jewish people which dates back thousands of years. As much as it might challenge your worldview, Israel is your so called "Jewland". It's the land which the Jewish people are indigenous too and it's a land to which Jews have historically viewed as their national homeland. At the end of the day, Jews are a religion, an ethnicity, and a nation. Ibn Daud (talk) 02:38, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Cherry picking one source does not prove your claims my friend. And now Jews are most certainly not indigenous to Israel, they haven't been for over a thousand years. PailSimon (talk) 06:51, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, you've found once source, great. As a Jew, I can tell you most of us see ourselves as an ethnicity, not a nation. Even in Israel their national identity is Israeli. Maxim.il89 (talk) 08:46, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We, Jews, are an ethnicity - hence why many Jews identify as agnostic Jews or atheist Jews. No, being Jewish is not just a religion.

We're definitely not a nation, as nation means country. For example, British, American, Palestinian, Israeli, those are all nations, but being Jewish is not a nation, just like being Cornish is not a nation. Maxim.il89 (talk) 01:36, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maxim.il89, on Wikipedia, we don't rely on your understanding of Jewish identity or that of any other editor, or how persuasively you can argue for your viewpoint. We rely on reliable sources of which there are plenty that disagree. The question concerning Jewish identity is a perennial area of dispute on Wikipedia (which is why there are 31 pages of Talk page archives) so we rely on what the sources say. Unless you can provide new reliable sources that provide some new perspective into this subject, the status quo should remain. It was achieved over many, many years of debate. Liz Read! Talk! 02:08, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nation concept not new in academic publications.The Jewish Nation: Containing an Account of Their Manners and Customs, Rites and Worship, Laws and Polity. Lane & Scott. 1850. p. 363...... Abraham Malamat; Hayim Tadmor (1976). A History of the Jewish People. Harvard University Press. p. 307. ISBN 978-0-674-39731-6..--Moxy 🍁 03:55, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In the past, many identified the word "nation" as ethnicity, and presumed both are synonymous, but that's before immigration, new identities, and understanding the difference. Maxim.il89 (talk) 08:46, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Judaism is a religion. We don't call Muslims a nation or Christians nation. It must be removed from the article.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 07:38, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's an ignorant comment that shows lack of knowledge. No, Judaism is not just a religion. There is a Jewish religious identity, but also an ethnic identity based on ancestry. There's no such thing as an atheist Muslim, but there is such a thing as an atheist Jew. Maxim.il89 (talk) 08:46, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Categories