Talk:Ashkenazi Jews

Slava570, how does this edit better inform the reader and serve WP:NPOV, in your opinion? إيان (talk) 14:32, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

Is putting Land of Israel in scare quotes, as if it's not real, NPOV? It was the name of the land where they were moving, from their perspective. It's not the only name of the land, but there was nothing wrong with it and didn't need to be deleted. Slava570 (talk) 14:40, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

If we're talking about migration that happened before the state of Israel existed we should not retroactively write into a history of the Ottoman Empire and Mandatory Palestine. I've restored the non-anachronistic version. Simonm223 (talk) 14:46, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

The Land of Israel is one of the legitimate names of the land, and doesn't refer to the state. I'd be okay with adding Ottoman empire, and later Mandatory Palestine, without deleting Land of Israel. Slava570 (talk) 14:49, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

I don't think "Land of Israel" (which is not a state) is anachronistic, but it might not be the right choice anyway. However, the construction "Ottoman and later Mandatory Palestine" is absurd. I would prefer a link to Palestine (region) or Holy Land or Land of Israel is non-problematic. Aside of avoiding absurd constructions, a non-political geographic term would also include settlements like Bnei Yehuda, which were not within the borders of Ottoman or Mandatory Palestine. GordonGlottal (talk) 15:03, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

I would suggest the first and third of your suggestions would likely fail to get consensus. Simonm223 (talk) 15:05, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

As the beginning of the sentence is "From the 1880s onwards," I agree that "Ottoman and later Mandatory Palestine", is inappropriate as both terms refer to specific timeframes of the region's past, defined by the controlling power of the time rather then an actual geographical region.

However for the same reasoning, I object to the use of "Land of Israel" due to it being primarily a religious term first & a geographical term second, personally preferring a purely geographic term be used instead. As such, I'd agree with your proposed link to Palestine (region), though I suspect others may object. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 15:33, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

I would support Palestine (region) as more NPOV, but less informative than the relevant political entities, which relevant in discussions of immigration. إيان (talk) 15:39, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

Land of Israel is not a primarily religious term. It's the traditional term used by Ashkenazi Jews for the land that they were moving to. Slava570 (talk) 15:49, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

@Simonm223 The name 'land of Israel' is thousands of years old.

This term is the primary term that is used to refer to Palestine in Hebrew literature. Has always been. Another one of my favourites is Land of the Deer but I'm afraid that that's off-topic. NorthernWinds ❄️ (talk) 22:19, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

This is a deflection of the question. In English, single quotation marks are used for use–mention distinction. Here they are used to refer to the term Land of Israel as a term. Even if it were POV to identify a term as a term, you should know too that NPOV is a policy for article content, not for talk page discussion. إيان (talk) 14:59, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

I'm not saying you're not allowed to use scare quotes on the talk page. I asked you what your intentions were, and now you've told me, so I'll take you at your word. According to Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, I reverted a bold edit. The next step is to discuss. Neither you nor Simon223 should have reverted this until we've had a chance to discuss here on the talk page (I won't revert again for now, assuming this is within CTOP). Slava570 (talk) 15:12, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

And by the way, your edit summary said "Not supported by consensus." What are you talking about, and where can I find evidence of this supposed consensus? Land of Israel has been in the article for a long time, so it is assumed that there was consensus for it. Your edit summary is misleading, and you should not have reverted in the first place. Slava570 (talk) 15:17, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

Is there a way to get an administrator involved here? I'm not asking for help with the content, but I need help understanding the proper procedure. I don't think my revert should have been reverted before discussing, as I reverted to the version that existed for a long time, and I don't know how to deal with this now. Slava570 (talk) 15:32, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

You made 2 reverts within a 24 hour period (1st,2nd) regarding content related to WP:PIA (Argument over the term "Mandatory Palestine" vs "Land of Israel").

You shouldn't have made the second revert, regardless of anyone else's editing. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 15:39, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

So this is purely a procedural question. Isn't there an exception to the revert rule if someone wrongly reverts? Shouldn't the previous version of the text remain in the article until this discussion has made progress? Slava570 (talk) 15:41, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

These (WP:3RRNO) are the exemptions to revert restrictions.

WP:BRDREVERT: "If you revert twice, then you are no longer following the BRD cycle"

In content disputes, it's better to focus on discussing what the content should be, rather then what the status quo was. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 15:52, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

I'm happy to focus on what the content should be rather than what was. But in the meantime, shouldn't the article reflect what was until we get to that point? Slava570 (talk) 15:55, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

You might consider the evidence of three different editors supporting the text you removed twice, (in contravention with WP:PIA's 1RR policy). You might also consider that no editor in this discussion agrees with your version. إيان (talk) 15:36, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

Are you reading the same talk page as me? Butterscotch Beluga, Gordon Glottal and myself now do not support the change. Slava570 (talk) 15:40, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

You might read "You might also consider that no editor in this discussion agrees with your version" more carefully. إيان (talk) 15:43, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I'm not stupid, thanks. What I'm saying is that several editors don't support your new version, either, which means we should revert to what existed before until it's sorted out on the talk page. Slava570 (talk) 15:44, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

This is the status-quo ante compared to what we have right now. I think we are already there for this specific content dispute Simonm223 (talk) 15:46, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

Simonm223, you've linked to the wrong diff. The status quo ante before Skitash's edit said Land of Israel. Slava570 (talk) 15:50, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

your new version—again, three different editors. إيان (talk) 15:47, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

Would it have been better if I had said "the new version" instead of "your new version?" Sorry about that. Repeating what I already know is not productive. Slava570 (talk) 15:54, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

I think Slava's substantive concern is reasonable, even if further reverting would not be advisable under WP:PIA. "Land of Israel" is not an anachronistic reference to the modern state of Israel; it is a historical/traditional term for the region, and Wikipedia itself treats it as one of the names associated with the broader region also discussed at Palestine (region). A wording that simply says "Ottoman and later Mandatory Palestine" may be precise politically, but it is not a clean geographic description for a sentence beginning "From the 1880s onwards", especially if the sentence is describing migration/settlement over several decades.

I would support moving away from a politically loaded or overly state-centered phrasing and using a broader regional term, such as Palestine (region), possibly with wording that preserves the Jewish historical perspective where relevant. For example: "settled in the region of Palestine, known in Jewish tradition as the Land of Israel..." or similar. That seems more neutral and informative than either removing the Jewish historical term entirely or using it alone. Michael Boutboul (talk) 16:29, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

I agree with Michael here. The "Land of Israel" is absolutely not anachronistic, as it is not referring to the modern nation state. As this is a page about Jews, I think it makes the most sense to preserve in some fashion the Jewish perspective, which is to refer to the region as the Land of Israel (Eretz Yisrael).

But, I do see value in at least clarifying what the ruling powers over the territory were (i.e. The Ottoman Empire and then the British Mandate for Palestine) in their relevant time period. Teflawn (talk) 21:03, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

Proposed text. Ashkenazi Jews from Russia, Poland and Germany immigrated to...

• 1 The Holy Land
• 2 The Land of Israel
• 3 "The Land of Israel"
• 4 Ottoman and later Mandatory Palestine
• 5 Palestine
• 6 Palestine (region)
• 7 Palestine, known in Jewish tradition as the Land of Israel
• 8 the region of Palestine

DolyaIskrina (talk) 16:32, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

My preferences are 8 and then 7 DolyaIskrina (talk) 16:52, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

In thinking about this more, I am in favor of keeping the status quo, Land of Israel. Holy Land is the religious term, not Land of Israel. This article is about Ashkenazi Jews, and from their perspective they were moving to the Land of Israel. They also called the land Palestine, though. I don't love Michael Boutboul's suggestion because it makes it sound like Palestine is the main name, while Land of Israel is secondary. A wording that makes the two terms equal would be okay with me though. However, I don't think region of Palestine and Land of Israel are an exact match in terms of what geographic area they refer to. According to Palestine (region), It generally encompasses the area inhabited by the modern states of Israel and Palestine, though over history it has also been used to refer to an area both smaller and larger. If someone can shed light on this, it might help. Slava570 (talk) 17:02, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

I don't know how "Land of Israel" wouldn't be considered a religious term as it originates from the Tanakh, a religious scripture & it's proposed borders are strictly biblical (& has several conflicting descriptions).

The names "Holy Land" & "Land of Israel" are both religious terms, with the former being used by all Abrahamic faiths & the latter being specifically Jewish (though also adopted by some Christians). Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 17:36, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

My order of preference would be 8-6-7-5-4-2-3-1. Simonm223 (talk) 17:59, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

It's just not a religious term, even if it's origin centuries ago was religious. It's routinely used as a designation of the land by Ashenazim and other Jews all around the world, both at that time and up to the present day. Slava570 (talk) 00:15, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

@Butterscotch Beluga I do not have an opinion on this but I am just reminding that the Tanakh was written based on already-established language norms. The authors of the old testiment did not invent this geographical term and it did not originate in their work. NorthernWinds ❄️ (talk) 22:28, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

I understand the concern about using "Palestine", since the term has evolved over time and today carries national connotations that it did not necessarily have in the late 19th century, when it was often used in a more purely geographic sense.

A very neutral term like "Southern Levant" could in theory avoid the issue, but it is quite technical and not widely used in general historical writing. Michael Boutboul (talk) 20:38, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

I would support it. Preferably with a wikilink. That avoids the political and biblical nomenclature and serves a pedagogical purpose. Simonm223 (talk) 21:37, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

Why is it ideal to avoid the "political" here? When we speak of immigration, we speak of entering a territory under the authority of a political entity. إيان (talk) 22:08, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

It wasn't immigration in the legal sense. Jews could not obtain visas until the Mandate, and afterwards regularly exceeded British quotas. But also as I said above, political bounderies do not accurately describe the target region for Jewish immmigrants, which included the Golan and did not include most of the Negev. GordonGlottal (talk) 01:44, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

Immigration can be legal or illegal. The word immigrate—built from the Latin prefix 'in'—has the meaning of entry (into a political territory).

As for the Ashkenazim who settled in external territories, what evidence is there that they represent a statistically significant percentage? (Even then, they would have most likely made entry at a Palestinian port.) And for what it’s worth, Ottoman Palestine doesn’t map exactly onto the borders drawn by the French and British for Mandatory Palestine, either, but these considerations are minutiae for our purposes. إيان (talk) 02:53, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

We say at History of European Jews in the Middle Ages that The Jews who immigrated to Iberia and their descendants comprise the Sephardic Jews, while those who immigrated to the German Rhineland and France comprise the Ashkenazi Jews.. So it's not exactly unusual to describe "immigration" in terms of geography, if we do it twice on a very closely related page. GordonGlottal (talk) 03:42, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a WP:RS and I don’t feel you have addressed my points. إيان (talk) 03:51, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

Deliberately eliding the local political entities supports the nationalist terra nullius POV. إيان (talk) 03:55, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

It's not nationalist to say that a group immigrated to a geographic area. (I'm not necessarily saying this is what I prefer, just that I think it's a valid option). Slava570 (talk) 12:00, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

I think using biblical terms that map to an extant state is at risk of at least appearing nationalist and thus non-neutral. Simonm223 (talk) 13:09, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

It's not a biblical term. It doesn't map to the exact boundaries of the modern state of Israel, but it maps to the exact boundaries of where Ashkenazi Jews moved. Slava570 (talk) 13:28, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

We don't need RS to recommend word choice. BTW the only source cited for this sentences has "immigrated to Israel". GordonGlottal (talk) 21:28, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

@إيان The correct question would be to ask why make it political when it was not political back then. Zionism was not even a political movement in the period in question. NorthernWinds ❄️ (talk) 22:31, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

NorthernWinds, since it appears to be your personal POV that adding the consensus understanding of the migration of European Jewry to Palestine is to make it political—what makes you believe that choosing to omit this information is not itself political? إيان (talk) 01:49, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

It's my ""POV"" that RS say that Political Zionism was founded suddenly in 1897, which is after 1880.

From your POV, do you see them saying something else? Maybe I'm reading it upside down or something. Please enlighten me!

From my POV, I see that your source says that ideologically driven by Zionist or proto-Zionist sentiments and that it does not say anything about politics. Do you see, from your POV, the word "political" or a similar derived term being used in that source to describe all or most migrations? NorthernWinds ❄️ (talk) 09:15, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

5-2-1-6-8-4-7-3. If we were to include "Southern Levant" that would be last of all, because it covers Jordan (where no Ashkenazim immigrated). One editor writes that it serves a pedagogical purpose but I think that's a good example of what wiki WP:ISNOT, we don't use obscure terminology in order to make people look it up. GordonGlottal (talk) 21:53, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

This is an honest question... How do we gauge how obscure a term for an average Wikipedia reader? I Honestly don't think Levant or Southern Levant is any more obscure than Mandatory Palestine. In fact, it seems less obscure, but I don't really know that. I think people read Mandatory and don't realize it refers to the British Mandate. (This is not an argument against using that term). Slava570 (talk) 12:08, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

Couldn't say about Mandatory I guess. I opposed that language also. GordonGlottal (talk) 10:08, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

I have more to say, but for now I think we should strike out option 3, the scare quotes option. The sentence is not using Land of Israel as a term, so the quotes are not necessary, as they imply that the Land of Israel is not something real. In a climate of systematic erasure of Jewish history by large swaths of society, this is the type of thing that might come off as bigoted, regardless of what the intention was.

Second, I don't object to using Holy Land in cases where it is appropriate, but I don't think it's best here and I feel confident that it's not going to get consensus. It would just help to whittle down our choices.... Slava570 (talk) 00:21, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

I agree that option 3 is bizarre and seems to be a misunderstanding of the role of the punctuation in the header of this discussion.

By the way, nationalist narratives are also responsible for their own massive erasures and distortions of Jewish history (see, for example, Baron’s critique of Graetz et al at Lachrymose conception of Jewish history) while simultaneously seeking to monopolize the right to speak on that history, but these are beyond the scope of this discussion. إيان (talk) 03:49, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

I strongly oppose the use of "Holy Land". We are not a religious encyclopedia and we should not be using religious language to describe geography. That is my flat last-choice, even lower than the scare-quote Land of Israel one. Simonm223 (talk) 13:47, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

Strong no for 1 (religious term not relevant to the Jews of the time), 3 (weird and unnecessary), 6 (unnatural)

Strong yes for 2 (term relevant to the context under discussion), 6 or 7 or 8(geographically neutral and informative)

Maybe for 4, 5

- BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:24, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

I'm starting to think 6 and 7 are the reasonable compromise choices. Simonm223 (talk) 15:52, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

How about this?إيان (talk) 20:25, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

I really think we should give the discussion a try before editing here. I'm against the edit, and several others also said they were against it. Another reason I'm against this option is that it says the Land of Israel is the same as (in this case) the Region of Palestine, but it's not exactly the same. If we incorporate two names, then we would have to communicate that these are approximately the same geographical area, but not the same. Slava570 (talk) 20:45, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

Discussion has been and continues to be had. BRD clearly allows for the edit I made. Not sure where you saw that several others also said they were against it though. إيان (talk) 01:40, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

I said I was against it. I'm looking again, maybe @Bobfrombrockley can clarify, as he put Palestine (region) (6) under strong no and strong yes. Others have placed it lower on their list of preferred terms. Regardless, what do you think of my proposal to leave the sentence alone and add a new sentence afterwards, something like this:

"This area roughly corresponded to the region of Palestine and the ruling powers of this land were [names and dates]" Slava570 (talk) 12:28, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Sorry I missed this point about my !voting. That was an error! I think the region is fine but region in brackets is unnatural. BobFromBrockley (talk) 07:42, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

We need to leave it at the status quo ante ("land of Israel") until there is clear consensus for change, which I don't think there is yet. I don't mind the geographical terms in that change, but I don't think we should relate that to Zionism, which was the cause in some cases but not others (see Wallach's brilliant recent work on this). BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:52, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Can you provide a full citation for this source that apparently makes the astonishing claim that Zionism is not the primary reason for the migration of Ashkenazim to Palestine? إيان (talk) 05:31, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

(or link or DOI or whatever) إيان (talk) 05:33, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

Yes, no problem; I’m happy to do so, starting with Yair Wallach who I already mentioned. In the meantime, though the onus is on you to provide a source if you want to add this to the article, because it’s not stated in the current footnoted source; i’m happy with it remaining as it is now, which requires no extra source, particularly as negatives can’t be proved. But I don’t know why you would think it’s an extraordinary claim; the article already talks about the persecution Ashkenazi Jews experienced in Eastern Europe in this period, obviously a major push factor for migration, including to the Middle East. BobFromBrockley (talk) 08:35, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

A link to the Wikipedia page is not a specific verifiable source. I need an article or chapter or whatever.

The way it is now is nationalist POV, so I’m not sure why you’re happy with it.

Migrating to Palestine is not an automatic response when people face persecution, if that’s the argument you’re making. إيان (talk) 13:08, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, I haven’t had time to look but was pasting his name in case you were interested. I’m not arguing anything at this point. You want to add something about Zionism so the onus is on you to provide a source. I’m just saying it’s hardly extraordinary to think members of a diasporic people might migrate when persecuted without a nationalist motivation BobFromBrockley (talk) 19:29, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

In the meantime, this is what I’m reading:

• Wallach, Yair (2025-10-02). "The Ottoman Production of Ashkenazi Identity". Jewish Culture and History. 26 (4): 520–536. doi:10.1080/1462169X.2025.2577066. ISSN 1462-169X. Retrieved 2026-05-02.

BobFromBrockley (talk) 20:15, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

And this:

• Wallach, Yair (2024). "The Unexplored History of Ashkenazi Integration in Late Ottoman Palestine". Jewish Social Studies. 29 (1): 161–192. doi:10.2979/jss.00006. ISSN 1527-2028. Retrieved 2026-05-02.

BobFromBrockley (talk) 23:28, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

Ashkenazi migration is typically understood as ideologically driven by Zionist or proto-Zionist sentiments. Zionist scholarship views it as a Jewish return to ancestral land, motivated by religious connection and a quest for national self-determination, while critical historiography analyzes it as a form of European settler colonialism. In both approaches, the relationship between migrants and their environment is understood as essentially antagonistic, framed through the dichotomies of Jews and Arabs, Europe and the Orient, and settlers and natives.

This article makes an argument for studying Ashkenazi integration and acculturation in Palestine. My focus here is on migrants who arrived in the region in the late Ottoman period. I demonstrate that many Ashkenazim made considerable efforts to find their place within the local social, economic, and political order in a manner that has been ignored or downplayed by the existing historiography.

This tells us that the status quo consensus is that the migration is understood as Zionist. Wallach's argument complicates the consensus view, but it does not negate it. إيان (talk) 09:00, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

This is a fact established by several historians. Again, Gur Alroey writes that "the causes of immigration to Palestine were not different from the causes of immigration to the United States" and concludes that "Zionist ideology played a very limited role in immigration to Palestine".

He also writes that those interested in Palestine "wanted to go there not because of a wish to create an ideal society or become tillers of the soil, but because they thought it might be easier to find work and begin a new life there."^[1] Michael Boutboul (talk) 12:31, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

It certainly means we can’t put the Zionist or anti-Zionist ideological claims in wikivoice without attributing them, and without showing the more recent scholarship contests this. (Still

less that we can just add the claim

in wikivoice without a source!) BobFromBrockley (talk) 07:50, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

That is POV. إيان (talk) 08:56, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

I can’t see what this is replying to. What’s POV? BobFromBrockley (talk) 07:47, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

@Bobfrombrockley He replied to this NorthernWinds ❄️ (talk) 22:43, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

I can’t see why that’s POV! BobFromBrockley (talk) 04:21, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

You don't understand why saying it’s hardly extraordinary to think members of a diasporic people might migrate when persecuted without a nationalist motivation with regard to migration of European Jews to Palestine is representative of a particular POV? إيان (talk) 04:28, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

It is a point of view in the sense that every position expressed on this talk page, including yours, obviously is, but it is not what our WP:POV policy refers to. BobFromBrockley (talk) 06:29, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

In addition to @Bobfrombrockley explanations, You may want to consult Gur Alroey's book An Unpromising Land: Jewish Migration to Palestine in the Early Twentieth Century, which studies this phenomenon in detail and challenges the idea that Zionist ideology alone explains mass Jewish migration to Palestine.

For example he writes:

"It was not Zionist ideology or the attractiveness of Palestine that brought tens of thousands of Jews to immigrate there; rather, the cause of this growth was due to unrelated external factors. Mass immigration to Palestine only began when American immigration quotas came into effect, closing the gates of the United States to Eastern European immigrants in general and to Jews in particular." Michael Boutboul (talk) 21:17, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

I also said that we should find a consensus before changing the sentence. Michael Boutboul (talk) 09:31, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

While I agree with Slava that this edit should have been discussed here before being implemented, I will say I am in favor of some version of it being used (particularly one that retains “Land of Israel” and includes the dates of the region’s ruling powers). However, the reference to Zionism should be removed, as the 1880s predate its formal emergence in 1897. The migration waves of the 1880s–1890s were driven primarily by efforts to escape an increasingly hostile Europe, rather than by a (yet-to-be) defined ideological movement. Teflawn (talk) 21:13, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

I agree it would be reasonable to include the ruling powers somehow. What if we put it in a separate sentence? "...immigrated to the land of Israel... [following sentence:] This area roughly corresponded to the region of Palestine and the ruling powers of this land were ... [with dates]" Thoughts? Slava570 (talk) 21:29, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

I'm definitely not opposed to splitting it up into 2 sentences if it improves overall readability.

I also think it's worth taking a look at the "from Russia, Poland and Germany" bit and possibly tweaking it. Poland technically didn't even exist in the 1800's, Russia would have been better described as (Western regions of) the Russian Empire, and Germany was not a major source of migration during that period. Teflawn (talk) 21:51, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

In thinking about this more, I think region of Palestine is preferable to Palestine. While some have different definitions of Palestine, the Wikipedia article considers it the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem, so it doesn't correspond well to where Ashkenazim moved. Region of Palestine also includes Jordan, as GordonGlottal said. I think we can get around this by saying "This area was part of the Region of Palestine, and was ruled by..." But if we don't think we need the ruling powers here, we could also look for another place in the article to fit that in. Regarding, the other countries, that's not part of the present controversy, nor do I think that's controversial at all, but a good point... Slava570 (talk) 22:07, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

As the sentence is covering Ashkenazi immigration to the region "From the 1880s onwards" (i.e. 1880s - 2026 & onwards), I'm unsure what purpose mentioning any momentary ruling powers would serve here. - This is why I was against "Ottoman and later Mandatory Palestine" earlier as well. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 22:01, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

Context shows that the time frame is 1880s–1948 for that sentence. The purpose is that those were the political territories the Ashkenazim entered into. This is the normal thing to address when discussing immigration. As mentioned above, it is also important in that it does not feed the notion of terra nullius in nationalist narratives by eliding the presence of political systems already in place. إيان (talk) 01:46, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

I agree Michael Boutboul (talk) 06:50, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Zionism is fundamental to the mass migration of European Jews to Palestine in this period. It should not be removed. إيان (talk) 01:47, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

I am fine with the substance, but it is too long. I also agree with Slava that you should wait for consensus before changing it. Proceeding like that does not come across as very friendly. Michael Boutboul (talk) 06:49, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Ottoman Palestine was the correct name as that was the empires name, not Land of Israel.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:37, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

Ottoman Palestine came to an end in 1917; significant migration came after that, under the auspices of the British. إيان (talk) 20:43, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

The place has many names depending on who's speaking and when. There isn't a single "correct" name. Slava570 (talk) 20:51, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

"Land of Israel" was never an official name for the region. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:07, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Is our policy to always use "official names"? BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:51, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Our policy is WP:NPOV. إيان (talk) 16:40, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Sure but does that mean always use "official names"? States are not neutral. (I think Judea and Samaria Area is an "official name" but we don't generally use it?) BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:55, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

"Judea and Samaria" is an Israeli designated name for an occupied territory, not a real official name. Israeli claims in occupied lands are not recognized by other countries.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:07, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

The terminology 'Judea and Samaria' is official in the sense it is used by the Israeli state, but it's are not NPOV. إيان (talk) 20:12, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

Is it possible to get a recap of this conversation? NorthernWinds ❄️ (talk) 22:20, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

Nevermind; read it. I have no strong opinion on this. NorthernWinds ❄️ (talk) 22:48, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, each entry in the list uses apparent Synth (not Calc) to reach its number. And some of these smaller numbers strike me as plainly not meeting the criteria for a “significant population”. Also, any entry with note c attached (Figure is an estimate of all Jews, not only Ashkenazi) doesn’t even attempt to synthesize or calculate the population of Ashkenazi Jews. Is any, some, or all of this salvageable? Mikewem (talk) 19:42, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

I was the one that did most of that. Before that there were unsourced estimates (a few of which turned out to be a bit off), and then someone had put tags on them that said sources are needed. For the ones with note c, for the most part, it is places where the sources said the number of non-Ashkenazis was negligible and/or places I simply could not find info on non-Ashkenazis (often because the numbers are negligible). It was especially difficult to find info for Italy, so I basically gave up, and that's my own best guess based on the sources.

What is considered synth in cases like these? I see infobox population estimates on other pages with no sources at all. What are the policies in cases like this? I do think these population figures are mostly useful, and it would be a shame to delete. However, if that's what everyone thinks has to happen, I'm fine with it... Slava570 (talk) 20:18, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

If one single source says the Jewish population is 80-100k, and that the Ashkenazi population is 80%, then it is I guess not synth to say the Ashkenazi population is 64-80k. But if source 1 says 80-100k and source 2 says 80%, then combining those two sources for a WP:CALC would be Synth. Mikewem (talk) 20:26, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

I only have one more thing to say, and then I'd like to see what others think. I think it would be basically impossible to collect this information without fudging the rules a bit. But the information itself is non-controversial and non-political (I think) as it's just an objective population statistics. I'm guessing the only real justification for it will be found somewhere here: WP:"Ignore all rules" essays and related topics. Slava570 (talk) 21:14, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

Any with the "c" footnote should just be removed as it is just plainly misleading to list a number in "Regions with significant populations" of Ashkenazi Jews, when the number is in fact not Ashkenazi Jews. Now while we may expect the majority of Jews in say Poland to be Ashkenazim due to the history of the region, we presently do not have a source that gives us a number. So in a worst case scenario (even if unlikely) we've taken a number for Jews where they could turn out to all be Sephardim, and yet presented them all as Ashkenazim.

At least that would be the case if "c" was an accurate footnote for the source, which it seems is not the case. As the sources in fact state that the majority of Jews in these countries are Ashkenazim, the footnote should be changed to something detailing that it is the total number of Jews and that the majority are Ashkenazim. As an example, the quote from the source for Estonia Most Estonian Jews are Ashkenazi. Now personally, I still don't like the idea of including such numbers if we don't have sources giving a definitive number or providing the necessary numbers for a CALC, and so would err on exclusion from the infobox.

Finally as to a 'cut off'/definition of "significant population", I can't find any guidance in MOS about how we may do this (though I could have missed such). I understand OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but looking to how such populations are listed in other ethnic group infoboxes for Jewish subgroups could potentially show a pattern, but after checking through them, there is no pattern. So, what it would seem to leave us with is developing a local consensus. The first point of which would be designating the vector of "significant". Would it be as a percentage of the total Ashkenazim population, as a percentage of the country's total population, a cut off at a designated whole number threshold? -- Cdjp1 (talk) 22:17, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

I had generally arrived at the same kinds of questions re: how to define significant, thank you for articulating them well. Of those 3 options, percentage of the total Ashkenazi population feels the most defensible to me. But I’m also bearing in mind that there’s a constituency out there for each of these entries, and none would probably be happy to wind up just under the cutoff line.

Thinking outside the box, since there’s no real precedent we have to follow, what if we just change the title of the list?

“Population by country”?

Conversely, we could lean into the “region” thing and keep the title, but lump together the smaller populations on the list into their larger regions. Add up the number ranges from the South American countries and replace them all with one entry of “South America”, for example. This sounds more difficult to maintain than Population by country. Mikewem (talk) 23:03, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

1. Whatever we do, I think it should be done in a way that can be made to make sense in comparison to the presentation of the list at Jews

2. That list has a lot of numbers from 2001. I think the sources here (thank you Slava!) could probably be used to update that list. Mikewem (talk) 23:13, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

I don't think we can change the title as I believe that is coded into the template. Grouping into "regions" is potentially a good call, as it is a (rather) simple CALC of just adding numbers together.

A potential option is to include no actual countries, and instead just provide a link to a section within the article providing a table, thereby bypassing the concern of over-cluttering the infobox visually.

The infobox on Jews looks less cluttered just by simply excluding flags, but the list does seem to be 'straining' due to its length. Prio facie it seems that a cut off of 10,000 was decided for that infobox. And yes, if possible we should look at updating the numbers there if they are from 2001. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 09:24, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

So, on the Jews infobox, the countries with the largest populations are cited to after 2020, which is good, it's those below the 100,000 number (excluding Brazil and South Africa) that are cited to Cohen's 2001 book. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 09:31, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

I don't think this is comparable to the Jews page because statistics on total Jews is much more readily available, so there's just no way we could do something comparable, even if we tried.

Another thing is, regardless of the outcome of this discussion, I think we should put in at the top that all numbers are estimates (Even the sourced numbers are estimates. Even the few where census figures are given are also estimates ultimately) And we can also say put a note in somehow that there are varying methodoligies for these numbers. Some sources talk about core population versus expanded population, etc. There's really just no clean way to do this. Slava570 (talk) 11:57, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

there's just no way we could do something comparable, I don't quite understand this, as we could do the simple thing of only including examples for which we do have RS, as the Jews article does for its infobox. The only question is the cut off for the list of regions with significant populations, which as mentioned seems to have been decided at a designated whole number threshold for the Jews article. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 15:21, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

When I say comparable, I just mean that I would like both end results to look reasonably cohesive together to a reader who clicks on both articles in one sitting.

I’m most intrigued by the link idea. I think that’s our way out. The length of the list does strain the infobox, but personally, I’m not enthusiastic to excise any entry, and I’m not opposed to adding entries. Being informed by GNG, we could define “significant population” as “the number is covered in reliable sources”. It takes the burden off of us to pick an arbitrary whole number.

I also would like to put “estimates” and maybe a short note addressing the concept of core vs expanded population. Another benefit of using a link and then creating our own table would be that we could include the word “estimate” in the title and a note in the title. Mikewem (talk) 16:02, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

The table idea seems like it might work. What if we create a new section within the aricle, with a table with countries on the left axist, the first column being the total Jewish population, and the second column being the percent Ashkenazi. We don't have to do the synth ourselves, but we could provide each part of the equation, and if readers choose to, they can do the math on their own. Thoughts? Slava570 (talk) 16:20, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

I think that’s a more cohesive solution than I ever could’ve come up with on my own (Jews presents column A, Ashkenazi Jews presents columns A and B, where column A is near-identical between the two articles. If no numerical percentage for column B is available, then it could be a note that says something like “most”, “almost all”, or whatever it is that the source says). Mikewem (talk) 16:54, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

Having such a table, even if it weren't linked, would probably be an improvement. And as we seem to agree on, linking to the section from the infobox will cut down on it looking 'cluttered'. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 12:49, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

I like it. I'm fine with it like this, or making the third column a percentage rather than a number... Slava570 (talk) 13:11, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Before insertion, I would like to see if we can find updated numbers for those items cited to Cohen 2001, as the Ashkenazim figures are cited to sources published up to 20 years later, so it gives a an incorrect view as to the ration of Ashkenazim to other groups. As a rough overview, in 2001 the global Jewish population was ~13.25 million , while in 2024 (where we pull some of the numbers from) it had increased by over 2.5 million . -- Cdjp1 (talk) 13:21, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Now I've updated Cohen 2001 to DellaPergola 2022, I'll make the edits to the article. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 09:33, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you, this looks good. The only thing I would say is that I don't love the note "Sources state that the majority of Jews in the country are Askenazim, but do not provide a specific figure." It sounds like a disclaimer, so I think it's tiresome to the reader to see it over and over again. It's also problematic in that it makes it sound like the figure is somewhere near 50%, when really it's somewhere close to 100% in a lot of these cases. I almost think it worked better as a note. Does anyone have any idea for how to handle this? I wonder if it can be shortened to "large majority Ashkenazim" or even simplified in any way... Thoughts? Slava570 (talk) 11:16, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

@Slava570: sorry I've only just come back to the this talkpage. Yes, visually it does look poor, so moving it to a note may be better, the issue I see with that is that it then leaves the cells in the column visually 'blank' compared to others. As to how the wording causes readers to imagine the number, I don't have a suggested solution, but there must be some way to word it better. If we can find sources that say something like "near the total population is Ashkenazim", then we'd have verifiable support for such wording over the more generic "majority". -- Cdjp1 (talk) 22:48, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Table

More information Country, Jewish population ...

Country	Jewish population	Ashkenazim	References
United States	6,300,000–7,500,000	5,700,000–6,750,000	[1][2][3]
Israel[a]	7,300,000–7,455,200	3,200,000–3,750,000[b]	[1][4][5]
Canada	400,000–450,000	350,000	[1][6][7][8]
United Kingdom	312,000–330,000	273,000	[9][10][11][12][13][14]
France	438,500–550,000	180,000–240,000	[1][15]
Argentina	171,000–240,000	147,000	[9][10][16]
Germany	118,000–125,000	Sources state that the majority of Jews in the country are Askenazim, but do not provide a specific figure.	[9][10][17]
Australia	117,200–130,000	93,000–115,000	[9][10][18]
Russia	132,000–290,000	82,644–121,000[c]	[9][10][19][20]
Hungary	46,500–100,000	Sources state that the majority of Jews in the country are Askenazim, but do not provide a specific figure.	[21][22]
South Africa	51,000–75,000	70,000	[9][23]
Brazil	91,000–180,000	46,000–75,000	[24][10][25][26]
Ukraine	40,000–190,000	44,550	[27][28][29]
Belarus	13,700–60,000		[30][31]
Mexico	40,000–65,000	34,000	[32][33][34]
Netherlands	29,700–63,000	29,200–44,100	[35][36][37]
Belgium	28,800–45,000	22,500–25,400[d]	[35][38]
Sweden	15,000–25,000	Sources state that the majority of Jews in the country are Askenazim, but do not provide a specific figure.	[39]
Moldova	2,310–20,000	Sources state that the majority of Jews in the country are Askenazim, but do not provide a specific figure.	[40][41]
Chile	15,800–28,000	14,300	[24][42][34]
Uruguay	16,300–28,000	13,500	[24][43][34]
Italy	27,000–48,000	10,500[e][citation needed]	[35]
Poland	10,000	Sources state that the majority of Jews in the country are Askenazim, but do not provide a specific figure.	[45]
New Zealand	< 10,000	Sources state that the majority of Jews in the country are Askenazim, but do not provide a specific figure.	[46]
Romania		8,900	[47]
Austria	10,300–22,000	7,210–8,400	[35][48][49]
Latvia	4,500	Sources state that the majority of Jews in the country are Askenazim, but do not provide a specific figure.	[50]
Azerbaijan		4,300	[51]
Czech Republic	3,500	Sources state that the majority of Jews in the country are Askenazim, but do not provide a specific figure.	[52]
Colombia		2,000–3,500	[53][34][54]
Ireland	2,700	Sources state that the majority of Jews in the country are Askenazim, but do not provide a specific figure.	[55]
Slovakia	2,600	Sources state that the majority of Jews in the country are Askenazim, but do not provide a specific figure.	[56]
Lithuania	2,400	Sources state that the majority of Jews in the country are Askenazim, but do not provide a specific figure.	[57]
Estonia	1,939	Sources state that the majority of Jews in the country are Askenazim, but do not provide a specific figure.	[58]
Switzerland	18,800–28,000[27]
Turkey	14,300–23,500[27]
Spain	12,900–22,000[27]
Panama	10,000–13,000[24]

Close

DellaPergola, Sergio (2022). "World Jewish Population, 2022". The American Jewish Year Book. American Jewish Committee; Springer Nature. pp. 291–402. JSTOR 10.2307/48775507.

Notes

1. [a]

   The Israel Central Bureau of Statistics includes East Jerusalem, the Golan Heights, and Area C of the West Bank in its statistics.
2. [b]

   Smaller figure includes 12.4% Jews from the former USSR (nearly all Ashkenazi) and 31.8% all other Ashkenazi Jews. Larger figure also includes 7.9% mixed Ashkenazi, Sephardic and Mizrahi Jews.
3. [c]

   Lower number is self-identifying, 2021 census. Since the 2002 Russian census, people are free to choose what ethnicity they enter on the census form, or to not enter any ethnicity.
4. [d]

   Lower figure is Ashkenazi Jews; larger figure includes mixed Ashkenazi/Sephardic Jews
5. [e]

   The total figure of Italian Jews is estimated to be 27,300, which includes Italian, Sephardic, Ashkenazi, Persian, and Libyan Jews.^[44] Ashkenazi Jews are primarily located in Northern Italy

References

1. [1]

   "World's Jewish population hits 15.8 million, on eve of Rosh Hashanah". Times of Israel. October 2, 2024. Retrieved March 21, 2026.
2. [2]

   "Jewish Amerians in 2020". pewresearch.org. May 11, 2021. Retrieved March 19, 2026.
3. [3]

   Maltz, Judy (August 24, 2025). "'Historically Underrepresented': One in 10 American Jews Has Sephardic or Mizrahi Roots, New Study Shows". Tel Aviv, Israel: Haaretz. Retrieved March 19, 2026.
4. [4]

   Lewin-Epstein, Noah; Cohen, Yinon (June 27, 2018). "Ethnic origin and identity in the Jewish population of Israel" (PDF). Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies. 45 (11): 2118–2137. doi:10.1080/1369183X.2018.1492370. Retrieved March 19, 2026.
5. [5]

   "Population of Israel". cbs.gov.il. Israel. February 3, 2017. Retrieved March 19, 2026.
6. [6]

   Bybelezer, Charles (October 2, 2024). "Jewish population hits 15.8 million globally". JNS.org. Retrieved March 16, 2026.
7. [7]

   Pergola, Sergio Della (2025). Dashefsky, Arnold; Sheskin, I. (eds.). "World Jewish Population, 2024" (PDF). American Jewish Year Book 2024: 1.
8. [8]

   Brym, Robert (December 6, 2022). "What the 2021 census reveals about Canada's Jewish community—as examined by sociology professor Robert Brym". thecjn.ca.
9. [9]

   Dashefsky, Arnold; Della-Pergola, Sergio; Sheskin, Ira, eds. (2021). World Jewish Population (PDF) (Report). Berman Jewish DataBank. Retrieved 4 September 2023.
10. [10]

    "Global Jewish population hits 15.7 million ahead of new year, 46% of them in Israel". The Times of Israel. 15 September 2023.
11. [11]

    "Religion, England and Wales: Census 2021". Office for National Statistics. Retrieved 29 November 2022.
12. [12]

    "Scotland's Census 2022 - Ethnic group, national identity, language and religion - Chart data". Scotland's Census. National Records of Scotland. 21 May 2024. Retrieved 21 May 2024. Alternative URL 'Search data by location' > 'All of Scotland' > 'Ethnic group, national identity, language and religion' > 'Religion'
13. [13]

    Dellapergola, Sergio (2019). "World Jewish Population, 2018". American Jewish Year Book 2018. Vol. 118. pp. 361–449. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-03907-3_8. ISBN 978-3-030-03906-6.
14. [14]

    "Sephardi and Mizrahi and Communities in the UK". sephardivoices.org.uk. 2026. Retrieved 19 March 2026.
15. [15]

    "France". World Jewish Congress. 2026. Retrieved 16 March 2026.
16. [16]

    "Argentina". World Jewish Congress. 2026. Retrieved March 18, 2026.
17. [17]

    "Germany". World Jewish Congress. 2026. Retrieved 18 March 2026.
18. [18]

    Stillman, Norman A., ed. (2009). "Australia". Encyclopedia of Jews in the Islamic World (PDF). p. 2.
19. [19]

    Всероссийская перепись населения 2020 (XLSX). Retrieved 16 March 2026.
20. [20]

    "Russia". 4 March 2022. Retrieved 16 March 2026.
21. [21]

    "Hungary". World Jewish Congress. 2026. Retrieved March 19, 2026.
22. [22]

    "Justice for Uncompensated Survivors Today (JUST) Act Report: Hungary". state.gov. US. Retrieved March 19, 2026.
23. [23]

    "South Africa". World Jewish Congress. 2026. Retrieved March 18, 2026.
24. [24]

    DellaPergola 2022, p. 371.
25. [25]

    "Brazil". World Jewish Congress. 2026. Retrieved March 18, 2026.
26. [26]

    "A História da Comunidade Judaica no Brasil". cafetorah.com. 2025. Retrieved March 18, 2026.
27. [27]

    DellaPergola 2022, p. 373.
28. [28]

    "Ukraine". World Jewish Congress. 2026. Retrieved 16 March 2026.
29. [29]

    "The Jewish Community of Ukraine" (PDF). Routes to Roots Foundation, Inc. Retrieved 18 March 2026.
30. [30]

    "National Statistical Committee of the Republic of Belarus". census.belstat.gov.by. 2019. Retrieved March 18, 2026.
31. [31]

    "Belarus". World Jewish Congress. 2026. Retrieved March 18, 2026.
32. [32]

    DellaPergola 2022, p. 370.
33. [33]

    "Mexico". World Jewish Congress. 2026. Retrieved March 20, 2026.
34. [34]

    Antequera, Luis (July 5, 2015). "De los judíos sefardíes: cuántos son, dónde están…". religionenlibertad.com. Spain. Retrieved March 19, 2026.
35. [35]

    DellaPergola 2022, p. 372.
36. [36]

    "Netherlands". World Jewish Congress. 2026. Retrieved March 21, 2026.
37. [37]

    Jewish Life in the Netherlands, Past and Present (PDF) (Report). Netherlands: Nederlands Israëlitisch Kerkgenootschap. 2017. Retrieved March 21, 2026.
38. [38]

    Staetsky, Daniel; DellaPergola, Sergio (November 2022). Jews in Belgium: A demographic and social portrait of two Jewish populations (PDF) (Report). London: Institute for Jewish Policy Research. Retrieved March 21, 2026.
39. [39]

    "Sweden". World Jewish Congress. 2026. Retrieved March 22, 2026.
40. [40]

    "Moldova". World Jewish Congress. 2026. Retrieved March 21, 2026.
41. [41]

    "How many Jews live in Moldova? | JPR". www.jpr.org.uk. 2022-03-10. Retrieved 2026-05-06.
42. [42]

    "Chile". World Jewish Congress. 2026. Retrieved March 19, 2026.
43. [43]

    "Uruguay". World Jewish Congress. 2026. Retrieved March 20, 2026.
44. [44]

    "Italy". World Jewish Congress. 2026. Retrieved April 10, 2026.
45. [45]

    "Poland". World Jewish Congress. 2026. Retrieved March 20, 2026.
46. [46]

    "New Zealand". World Jewish Congress. 2026. Retrieved April 10, 2026.
47. [47]

    "Romania". World Jewish Congress. 2026. Retrieved March 31, 2026.
48. [48]

    "Austria". World Jewish Congress. 2026. Retrieved March 31, 2026.
49. [49]

    Hoare, Liam (November 12, 2018). "Bukharian Jews: A Vital Part of the Austrian Jewish Mosaic". ejewishphilanthropy.com. Retrieved March 31, 2026.
50. [50]

    "Latvia". World Jewish Congress. 2026. Retrieved March 31, 2026.
51. [51]

    Zulfugarli, Maharram Pasha (2016). "The History of Azerbaijan Jewish Community (The 20th Century and the Beginning of the 21st Century)". Kwartalnik Historii Żydów. 259 (3): 761–769. Retrieved April 10, 2026.
52. [52]

    "Czech Republic". World Jewish Congress. 2026. Retrieved April 10, 2026.
53. [53]

    "Colombia". World Jewish Congress. 2026. Retrieved March 20, 2026.
54. [54]

    Harf, Heidi Paster (April 14, 2021). "The Emerging Jews of Colombia". The Washington Post Magazine. Retrieved March 20, 2026.
55. [55]

    "Ireland". World Jewish Congress. 2026. Retrieved April 10, 2026.
56. [56]

    "Slovakia". World Jewish Congress. 2026. Retrieved April 10, 2026.
57. [57]

    "Lithuania". World Jewish Congress. 2026. Retrieved April 10, 2026.
58. [58]

    "Estonia". World Jewish Congress. 2026. Retrieved April 10, 2026.