Talk:Jewish history

There are two references in this article to the national homeland of the Jewish people. I don't see either of them having a source. I suggest that the phrasing should be attributed to those who hold this view E.g., the wording could be something like 'the re-establishment of the Jewish Nation in Israel which Zionism regards as the national homeland of the Jewish people'. Not all Jews regard Israel as such. Alternatively the phrase national homeland could be replaced by simply homeland, e.g., 'the re-establishment of the Jewish Nation in its homeland'. There are controversies about whether there was ever a Jewish nation, as opposed to an Israelite one. The phrase homeland and homeland in the Levant and homeland in the Land of Israel are used in this article. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jews and are much to be preferred in my opinion. I have no doubt that this will need to be discussed, and there will be opposition. So I have added this here before any change is made. Regards. Pngeditor (talk) 12:58, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

The end of the section on the 21st century only covers the period up to the 2011 census. The results of the 2021 census are now public knowledge, the article should be changed to reflect this. Cigarettes and corvids (talk) 22:18, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Added this Col99100 (talk) 18:47, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Description of suggested change:

Many scholars (such as Richard Pipes and Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn) do not believe that pogroms that occured in the late 19th century in the Russian Empire were sponsored/perpetrated by tsarist authorities. Instead, they generally consider them to be spontaneous riots.

Two prominent examples of such pogroms are the Kiev pogrom (1881) and the Odessa pogroms.

Diff:

Vinidapoo (talk) 03:46, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: According to the page's protection level you should be able to edit the page yourself. If you seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. Valorrr ^{(lets chat)} 15:21, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

To what extent should this article talk about the bible? I'm unsure if it's really appropriate to discuss biblical narratives here NorthernWinds ❄️ (talk) 12:13, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

The Bible is probably irrelevant to the topic. It is a matter for Jewish mythology and folklore, not history. Dimadick (talk) 13:20, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

So I should delete any traces of biblical narrative discussed here? NorthernWinds ❄️ (talk) 13:25, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

(unless considered true by historians) NorthernWinds ❄️ (talk) 13:25, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

I'm of the opinion that the current biblical content is fine.

Collectively it is not a large portion of the article, and pretty much every single instance has some sort of prelude such as "Biblical tradition tells" or "The Bible portrays" or something to that effect that indicates to the reader that the contents of the sentences are not based off of archaeology or other historical accounts. Teflawn (talk) 16:08, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

It could be replaced with more strictly historical content. There isn't much space to maneuver - this article is big. For example, it seems that the Early Israelites section focuses a lot on the bible and less so on what history says NorthernWinds ❄️ (talk) 16:17, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

I'm in favor of keeping it most of. It's all attributed, and wherever it has been proven or disproven by scholars, that can be noted. WP:SIZERULE says for between 9K and 15K Probably should be divided or trimmed, though the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading material. I think given the many years that Jewish history should cover, a longer than usual article is justified. And anyway, it also won't really save that much space in the grand scheme of things.... Slava570 (talk) 17:06, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

I tend to think and I'm sure most everyone will concur that the Torah and other similar primary religious work should not be taken literally, but that doesn't mean it is irrelevant to history. We should not cite it directly of course, but filter it through reputable experts, mainly secular historians and archaeologists, some rabbinic experts may be OK as long as we aren't being literalist or fundamentalist, but in terms of the historical cultural and social impact. There is indeed historical value for example in considering the mentions of Persian or Assyrian polities and monarchs, or well-attested figures. For example, Hezekiah is one of the most historically and archaeologically verified biblical characters, though again we should not take the bible as literal or accurate. For an analogous situation, there is plenty of Homer in Greek history. Andre🚐 15:39, 26 June 2026 (UTC)