Talk:Jews/Archive 31

I don't get this lead beginning. "...originating from the Israelites and Hebrews". OK I'm not native in English, but this suggests to me, that Jews are having two different origins. Which obviously isn't the case, in the Old Testament or Hebrew Bible. The Patriarcs were 1.Abraham & Sarah - 2.Isaac & Rebecca - 3.Jacob & Rachel (2 sons) and Leah (10 sons), a total of 12 sons, and the origin of the twelve tribes. They were all involved in the Exodus from Egypt. But only Juda's and Benjamin's tribes remained at the time of the Babylonian captivity. (?) And it was in Babylon the name "Jews" first came in use.
So Jews are the descendants of Juda and Benjamin, largely at least. (?) Please correct me if I'm wrong on this.
But who are then the Hebrews if not the same as the descendants of Juda and Benjamin ? (To my knowledge, there simply is no knowledge on the 10 other tribes after the fall of their Northern Kingdom. Israel was divided in the Northern and Southern Kingdoms after the Kings Saul, David and Salomo. And the Nothern Kingdom vanished soon afterwards.)
Are the Hebrews not the same as the descendants of Juda and Benjamin ? I had a brief look in our Hebrews and Israelites articles, as well in the sources to this article. But it seems unnecessarily complicated - at least if Hebrews and Israelites are the same. (If any spelling of Israeli names are incorrect, I appologize) Boeing720 (talk) 03:12, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

I guess the idea was that the Jews are descendant from the Hebrews, through the Israelites. Debresser (talk) 08:10, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

I have not looked into this but my impression is that at least in American usage Hebrews was often used as an old fashion racial term without religious connotation “The Hebrew Race”. In modern usage it was replaced with Jewish people.Jonney2000 (talk) 19:58, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

User:Jonney2000 I think in this case the term "Hebrews" stands for the Hebrew word "Ivri", from the root "to cross". Like Abraham, who is called "the Ivri": he who came from across the river (from Ur). Debresser (talk) 20:20, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I doubt very much that the article is using the American slang usage, as in "I'm going to talk to my Hebrews in the Diamond District about this." Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:49, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Neither I think this is about American slang. But "originating from the Israelites and Hebrews" - shouldn't "originating from the Israelites." be less confusing ? Unless there actually are two origins, which I doubt is the case. Boeing720 (talk) 03:51, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

If something is confusing, says it more clearly, but why remove information? The Jews come from the Hebrew, through the Israelites. Debresser (talk) 16:38, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Debresser - I don't wish to remove information. Only confusion. If I got you correctly, there were the Hebrews, then some Hebrews became the 12 tribes of Israel (from Abraham -> Isaac -> Jacob -> his 12 sons), and the Jews are the (at least) 2 tribes from the Southern Kingdom. If true, your way of putting this phrase is better tham the article's. Are the Hebrews all descendants from Abraham and Sarah, as of Genesis ? (I've always been under the impression that "Hebrew" was and still is the language. Like the Old Testament = The Hebrew Bible. ) Boeing720 (talk) 00:07, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

From our article Hebrews:

According to the Jewish Encyclopedia the terms "Hebrews" and "Israelites" usually describe the same people, stating that they were called Hebrews before the conquest of the Land of Canaan and Israelites afterwards.^[1]

There are those who disagree. And "alternatives" for synonym of Israelites appears to be

1. Hebrew Catholics, a community of converts from Judaism to Catholic Christianity,
2. Some authors^[which?] argue that Ibri denotes the descendants of the biblical patriarch Eber (Hebrew עבר), son of Shelah, a great-grandson of Noah and an ancestor of Abraham,^[2] hence the occasional anglicization Eberites.
3. Since the 19th-century CE discovery of the second-millennium BCE inscriptions mentioning the Habiru, many theories have linked these to the Hebrews. Some scholars argue that the name "Hebrew" is related to the name of those seminomadic Habiru people recorded in Egyptian inscriptions of the 13th and 12th centuries BCE as having settled in Egypt.^[3]
4. Other scholars rebut this, proposing that the Hebrews are mentioned in older texts of the 3rd Intermediate Period of Egypt (15th century BCE) as Shasu of Yhw.^[4]

And there may well be other ideas. I must surmise Debresser refers the older patriarch Eber - and if this is the true version, it fits with Hebrews being a larger group of peoples that predates the Isrealites which themselves predates the Jews. But as this is a disputed issue, I still wonder weather should deal with the Israelites as descendants of the Hebrews or not. It is far more easy to without doubts describe Jews as descendants of the Israelites. (and the tribes of Juda and Benjamin mainly - but perhaps some from a few other tribes as well. Boeing720 (talk) 01:50, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

I was referring to the Hebrews as in the Biblical term Ivri, mentioned in the Hebrews article, referring to "the Semitic-speaking Israelites, especially in the pre-monarchic period when they were still nomadic". Which is why it is correct to say that the Jews come from the Israelites who come from the Hebrews. Debresser (talk) 15:29, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

To me, the question is simply whether that adds enough to the article to make any additional complication worthwhile. I'm agnostic on that, myself. What is true is that Jews claim descent from the Israelites, and eventually from the Hebrews. To say something like that is less assailable (or less disputable) than whether or not such claims are construed by modern scholarship as objectively valid. StevenJ81 (talk) 15:32, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Isn't that precisely what the article says, that such descent is claimed? Debresser (talk) 15:42, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Not quite. We present this matter as if it is undisputed. I haven't read the source itself, but if the Jewish Encyclopedia states "the terms "Hebrews" and "Israelites" usually describe the same people, stating that they were called Hebrews before the conquest of the Land of Canaan and Israelites afterwards" - as is stated in our Hebrews article, then it is disputed rather than undisputed , weather Hebrews are ancestors of the Israelites or if they simply are the same people later in history. I would say that "Jews are descendants of the Isrealites" is an undisputed statement. But although there is a relationship between Hebrews and Israelites, this relationship isn't equally clear, according to some sources. Shouldn't this be reflected at all ? Boeing720 (talk) 16:15, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

The article used to say "claim descend from...". Still, I disagree with you, because, as I understand it, there is no question that Jews stem from the Hebrews. Just that the term "Hebrews" has more than one definition. I see no reason, however, how in this context, anybody could be mistaken as to what definition is meant. Debresser (talk) 18:42, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

No question ? Despite of what the Jewish Encyclopedia states ? But OK - Are the Hebrews mentioned this way in Genesis ? If so, I can agree with you. But if this solely is a matter which includes a divided modern expertise, then I think we should make some adjustments. By the way, Debresser. Thanks for your constructive and polite attitude. Boeing720 (talk) 02:48, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Ah.... when did the Book of Genesis become a reliable source for historical fact? Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:13, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

@Boeing720 Why would you say "Despite of what the Jewish Encyclopedia states"? I think the JE confirms what I said above. If they are the same people, then per definition the first are ancestors of the latter. Debresser (talk) 17:17, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken A nice question. I remind you that in a previous version this article stressed that the Jews "claim descent" from the Israelites and Hebrews. That would solve your issue. Debresser (talk) 17:17, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Debresser, to quote myself "According to the Jewish Encyclopedia the terms "Hebrews" and "Israelites" usually describe the same people" - but Hebrews in Egypt and Israelites in the Promised Land - which to me just is a change of name. What I really wonder - are/were there other Hebrews than the Israelites ?

To Beyond My Ken, I'm not aware of any other written history from these times. (But I think it has been scientifically proven that there indeed has been a foreign people in Egypt) But that was not "my problem" originally, and is a bit of a different issue. But I'm not certain weather "Hebrews" are mentioned in Genesis or not, but the twelve tribes of Israel are. Boeing720 (talk) 22:29, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

If they were the same people but in different times, that proves that Hebrew were ancestors of Israelites. You don't understand that reasoning? Debresser (talk) 19:51, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

The Book of Genesis is not a contemporaneous written history of the time, it was assembled long after any of the possibly factual historical events took place. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:29, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

That is just one point of view. One which I personally don't share. I have no doubt that the same will be said about Shakespeare as well in another few hundred years, e.g. Even if that were true, they were still a lot closer to the happenings described in it, than we are now, so I really can't appreciate these modern interpretations. Debresser (talk) 19:50, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

To Debresser. I simply have to ask - are all Hebrews the same people as the Israelites or were the Hebrews divided into Isrealites and others ? If the latter is true, then I have no problem with the formulation "...originating from the Israelites and Hebrews", but if this rather is about one and the same people, I would like to put the statement as "...originating from the Hebrew Israelites" or something similar instead.

To Beyond My Ken - In the context I brought it up, this is off-topic. However covering centuries and more, largely written in the past tense, I can see what you mean. But Genesis is still a very old book, and if discussing matters as the origin of the twelve tribes of Israel etc, there is no other stuff available. In a text "According to Genesis.." can be used. Besides, there was a "specific" foreign people in the Pharaohs' Egypt. From where and why did they arrive ? And to where and why did they leave again ? (Good questions, I think) Boeing720 (talk) 22:50, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

"The tradition, according to Genesis, is..." can be used, but not "Historically, according to Genesis..." There are certainly historical events behind the traditions, but untangling what it real and what is not is virtually impossible at this point. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:07, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

@Boeing720 You seem not to be getting the point. The Hebrews are not the Israelites. The Hebrews are the ancestors of the Israelites. And the Israelites are the ancestors of the Jews. So the Jews are descendant from the Israelites and the Hebrews. Debresser (talk) 01:30, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Do you think it would be appropriate to say that the Jews are descended from the Hebrews through the Israelites? Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:33, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

To Beynd My Ken. I think just "According to Genesis" is good enough, but perhaps depending on context. Then - please see next comment.

To Debresser. I haven't had problem with your basic logic, Hebrews -> Israelites -> Jews. But if "Hebrews" and "Israelites" had been one and the same people (just called themselves differently), then the "and Hebrews"-part had been unnecessary and confusing. But I had a deeper look in our Hebrews article. And found:

"Israelites are defined as the descendants of Jacob, son of Isaac, grandson of Abraham. Eber, an ancestor of Jacob (seven generations removed), is a distant ancestor of many people, including the Israelites, Ishmaelites, Edomites, Moabites, Ammonites, Midianites and Qahtanites."

So apparently there are/were other Hebrews than the Israelites. Hence, the "and" in "originating from Hebrews and Israelites" must be crystal clear... (The article also states "In the Hebrew Bible, the term "Hebrew" is normally used by Israelites when speaking of themselves to foreigners, or is used by foreigners when speaking about Israelites.")... Boeing720 (talk) 00:19, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Even within the narrow context of Genesis, it's obvious that "Hebrew" refers to something beyond "Israelites" or what we now consider to be, from within the context of Genesis, the first Jews. We have Joseph saying to an Egyptian, "I was stolen from the land of the Hebrews". Really, was it already known far and wide that there was this new people in town, the Hebrew people, that consisted only of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob and their immediate families, such that an arbitrary Egyptian would hear "Land of the Hebrews" and know "Oh, he's one of those Hebrews that just came into existence, who are already so numerous at this point, almost 20 of them, that there's already a whole territory known as the Land of the Hebrews!" That just sounds foolish. But, seriously, at the time, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were members of some group. We're being told that that group was known as Ivrim (Hebrews). Just as the Pilgrims were English, not American. Largoplazo (talk) 01:52, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

@Boeing720 Eber is connected the word "Hebrews" only according to one interpretation, which IMHO is not a likely one. I prefer the "from the other side of the river" theory, linked to thew word "to cross". In both cases, there could have been other peoples that were called "Hebrews", but if that was the case, no proof of it exists, so, again IMHO, for all practical purposes, we can say there were no other Hebrew than those that later became the Israelites. Debresser (talk) 15:36, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

It doesn't make sense in the context of the passage that there were no other Hebrews than those that later became Israelites, because there was no basis at that point for Joseph to imagine the group consisting of his immediately family to be a people, by any name. Abraham didn't just spring up from out of the earth, unbound to any existing people and recognized throughout the Middle East as a brand new people of his own. As remarkable as they may have thought themselves (if they did find themselves remarkable), there's no reason anyone else would have thought so, no reason why word of their existence, let alone their identity as a distinct people with an established name, would have gotten around. Joseph was certainly referring to whatever established group he belonged to. (By the way, Genesis 40:20 doesn't refer to Eber, it refers to "eretz ibrim".) Largoplazo (talk) 15:59, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Debresser. Just as I thought the whole thing was done, you now say "there were no other Hebrew than those that later became the Israelites." - If this is the case, why on earth must we involve the Hebrews like we do now ? If necessary, we could use someting like "Jews are descendants of the Israelites, a people originally known as the Hebrews". (And then I disregard everything that relates to sources, and take your word for the matter).

Largoplazo, are you saying the word "Jews", not "Isrealites" (or possibly Hebrews) is used in Genesis or in any of the five books of Moses or in Joshua ? I was under the impression that name "Jews" came in use first during the Babylonian captivity. Boeing720 (talk) 21:26, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

May I ask that all participants in this discussion focus their comments on what, if anything, needs to be done to the article? The discussion has strayed rather deeply into WP:NOTAFORUM territory, and needs to be refocused onto proposed changes to the article. Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:35, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Agree and given what Debresser has stated I propose- "Jews are descendants of the Israelites, a people originally known as the Hebrews" Boeing720 (talk) 17:59, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

And, as I indicated earlier, that would be an absurdity, because in the time of Joseph what we would today call "Israelites" consisted precisely of himself and his brothers. So, if we further say that "Hebrews" is simply an earlier term for "Israelites", then when Joseph tells another person he comes from the land of the Hebrews, it means he was basically telling him "I come from the land of me and my brothers", and implying that he and his brothers were already a distinct people who somehow had, out of the blue, the 12 of them, come to be known, far and wide (and without even a Twitter feed or YouTube channel to go viral) as "the Hebrews". That's ridiculous. Largoplazo (talk) 19:03, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

In case this isn't clear. Suppose my kids and their kids and their kids and so on wind up settling over the generations within a small territory, and come to involve distinctive customs and ways of living that set them apart from Americans in general, so that, after a couple hundred years, a general awareness of them grows, and they become known as the Largoplazos, in recognition of the storied Wikipedia prowess of their patriarch. But if my son goes to France today, is he going to tell people he comes from the land of the Largoplazos, or that he's a Largoplazan? Of course not, since the concept doesn't exist yet.

Instead, my son will say he's from the U.S. and identify himself as an American. And it makes sense to understand Joseph's words only in that light. So it may be accurate for us to write that the first Israelites were Hebrews, i.e. members of the Hebrew people, but not that they were known as "the Hebrews". Just as, 500 years from now, it will be correct to say "The first Largoplazans were Americans", and incorrect to say "today's Largoplazans were originally known as the Americans", as though most Americans didn't go right on living and procreating alongside the Largoplazans without being them. Largoplazo (talk) 19:22, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

I also think "Jews are descendants of the Israelites, a people originally known as the Hebrews" is too wordy. I'd propose "Jews are descendants of the Hebrews through the Israelites". Debresser (talk) 20:06, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

That seems clear and simple to me. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:29, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

On the other hand, it seems to be stating as fact something that we don't have factual sources for -- only questionable ancient text written long after the event. Jheald (talk) 20:56, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

How about "Traditionally, Jews are held to be descendants of the Hebrews through the Israelites". Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:00, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

I think I would prefer to leave the text as it is. I think it's about right for the opening sentence of the lead. It's not the place to try to nail down a relationship between the two, given that both are fairly multiplex and historically fuzzy concepts; IMO a diversion here to do so would be WP:UNDUE, also mistaken would be to try to assert more clarity than actually exists. Better just to say, as we currently do, that these are the traditional ancestors, and move on. Jheald (talk) 21:16, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Largoplazo and Debresser - Beginning from Joseph, can we agree on the following basic facts - Joseph and his brothers became the first Isrealites (that we do know now, and the context is "Jews"), the progenitors of the twelve tribes of Israel. They grew in numbers in Egypt, but gradually became slaves rather than guests (over many generations). Then Moses and Exodus followed and eventually all the tribes arrived at the Promised Land. First the land was ruled by judges, then by the three Kings Saul, David and Solomon. But after Solomon the country was divided in the Northern amd the Southern Kingdom. The Southern Kingdom didn't comprise all the twelve tribes of Israel. But at least Juda and Benjamin. (any other tribe ?) Only the Southern Kingdom survived. What happened to the tribes living in the Northern Kingdom after its fall isn't known. (And they never became Jews) The Southern Kingdom (including Jerusalem and Bethlehem) survived far longer. But later Nebukadnessar brought most of the people from the Southern Kingdom to the Babylonian captivity. In connection with this captivity, the name "Jews" appeared for the first time. (And the Jews returned to Judea etc)

Am I, in your opinion, wrong anywhere here ? Or have I forgotten something essential in the context of this article ? Please enlighten me if this is the case. But if not, then perhaps "The Jews are descendants of the Israeli tribes of Juda and Benjamin" (and possibly adding "The Israelites were initially known as the Hebrews") .

Anyways, (and logically speaking) if "all Isrealites" = "all Hebrews" and "all Hebrews" = "all Israelites", then I think "Jews are descendants of the Hebrews through the Israelites" unnecessarily includes one and the same people twice. "Jews are descendants of the Hebrew Israelites" would then be a better formulation, as I see it. But if not all the Hebrews (but a large majority) became the Isrealites, there would be a reason for the "Hebrews through the Israelites". Boeing720 (talk) 21:57, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

@Boeing720: The article disagrees with you. The lead says "The Israelites, as an outgrowth of the Canaanite population,[23] consolidated their hold with the emergence of the kingdoms of Israel and Judah. Some consider that these Canaanite sedentary Israelites melded with incoming nomadic groups known as 'Hebrews'. We can't state your views as fact. It would be a violation of WP:NPOV to state that a religious history such as this one is correct. The evidence shows that the pyramids weren't built by slaves, and Moses, the Exodus, etc are all disputed. I can't comment on the basic issue though. Doug Weller talk 11:31, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

• "Joseph and his brothers became the first Isrealites (that we do know now, and the context is "Jews"), the progenitors of the twelve tribes of Israel." Brothers? Why are you excluding Dinah, daughter of Jacob, and sister or half-sister to each of the other 12?
• "First the land was ruled by judges, then by the three Kings Saul, David and Solomon." Four kings, not three. Saul was succeeded by his son Ish-bosheth. Following Ish-bosheth's assassination, he was succeeded by his brother-in-law David. The narrative of the assassination is given in 2 Samuel. He was reportedly killed in his own bedchamber, while sleeping.
  • "The sons of Rimmon the Beerothite, Rechab and Baanah, went, and came about the heat of the day to the house of Ishbosheth, as he took his rest at noon. They came there into the midst of the house, as though they would have fetched wheat; and they struck him in the body: and Rechab and Baanah his brother escaped. Now when they came into the house, as he lay on his bed in his bedchamber, they struck him, and killed him, and beheaded him, and took his head, and went by the way of the Arabah all night. They brought the head of Ishbosheth to David to Hebron, and said to the king, "Behold, the head of Ishbosheth, the son of Saul, your enemy, who sought your life! Yahweh has avenged my lord the king this day of Saul, and of his seed." "
  • "David answered Rechab and Baanah his brother, the sons of Rimmon the Beerothite, and said to them, "As Yahweh lives, who has redeemed my soul out of all adversity, when someone told me, 'Behold, Saul is dead,' thinking to have brought good news, I took hold of him, and killed him in Ziklag, which was the reward I gave him for his news. How much more, when wicked men have slain a righteous person in his own house on his bed, shall I not now require his blood of your hand, and take you away from the earth?" David commanded his young men, and they killed them, and cut off their hands and their feet, and hanged them up beside the pool in Hebron. But they took the head of Ishbosheth, and buried it in the grave of Abner in Hebron."
• "The Southern Kingdom didn't comprise all the twelve tribes of Israel. But at least Juda and Benjamin. (any other tribe ?)" Not according to the narrative in the Books of Kings concerning the Kingdom of Judah. Only the Tribe of Judah and the Tribe of Benjamin acknowledged Rehoboam as a legitimate king. Rehoboam is depicted as refusing to acknowledge the requests for administrative reforms of the other tribes, so they chose someone else as their king. The Book depicts Rehoboam as even more tyrannical than his father Solomon: "Whereas my father laid upon you a heavy yoke, so shall I add tenfold thereto. Whereas my father chastised (tortured) you with whips, so shall I chastise you with scorpions. For my littlest finger is thicker than my father's loins; and your backs, which bent like reeds at my father's touch, shall break like straws at my own touch."
• "What happened to the tribes living in the Northern Kingdom after its fall isn't known. (And they never became Jews)" Not really. The Kingdom of Israel was annexed by the Neo-Assyrian Empire. "According to 2 Kings 16:9 and 15:29, the population of Aram and the annexed part of Israel was deported to Assyria. Israel continued to exist within the reduced territory as an independent kingdom until around 720 BCE, when it was again invaded by Assyria and the rest of the population deported. The Bible relates that the population of Israel was exiled, becoming known as the Ten Lost Tribes, leaving only the Tribe of Judah, the Tribe of Simeon (that was "absorbed" into Judah), the Tribe of Benjamin and the people of the Tribe of Levi who lived among them of the original Israelites nation in the southern Kingdom of Judah. However, in their book The Bible Unearthed, authors Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman estimate that only a fifth of the population (about 40,000) were actually resettled out of the area during the two deportation periods under Tiglath-Pileser III and Sargon II. Many also fled south to Jerusalem, which appears to have expanded in size fivefold during this period, requiring a new wall to be built, and a new source of water (Siloam) to be provided by King Hezekiah." ... The remainder of the northern kingdom was conquered by Sargon II, who captured the capital city Samaria in the territory of Ephraim. He took 27,290 people captive from the city of Samaria resettling some with the Israelites in the Khabur region and the rest in the land of the Medes thus establishing Hebrew communities in Ecbatana and Rages. The Book of Tobit additionally records that Sargon had taken other captives from the northern kingdom to the Assyrian capital of Nineveh, in particular Tobit from the town of Thisbe in Naphtali. In medieval Rabbinic fable, the concept of the ten tribes who were taken away from the House of David (who continued the rule of the southern kingdom of Judah), becomes confounded with accounts of the Assyrian deportations leading to the myth of the "Ten Lost Tribes". The recorded history differs from this fable: No record exists of the Assyrians having exiled people from Dan, Asher, Issachar, Zebulun or western Manasseh. Descriptions of the deportation of people from Reuben, Gad, Manasseh in Gilead, Ephraim and Naphtali indicate that only a portion of these tribes were deported and the places to which they were deported are known locations given in the accounts. The deported communities are mentioned as still existing at the time of the composition of the books of Kings and Chronicles and did not disappear by assimilation. 2 Chronicles 30:1-11 2 Chronicles 30:1–18 explicitly mentions northern Israelites who had been spared by the Assyrians in particular people of Ephraim, Manasseh, Asher, Issachar and Zebulun and how members of the latter three returned to worship at the Temple in Jerusalem during the reign of Hezekiah."
• "The Southern Kingdom (including Jerusalem and Bethlehem) survived far longer. But later Nebukadnessar brought most of the people from the Southern Kingdom to the Babylonian captivity." Most? The Babylonian captivity only involved a small part of the population. "Archaeological excavations and surveys have enabled the population of Judah before the Babylonian destruction to be calculated with a high degree of confidence to have been approximately 75,000. Taking the different biblical numbers of exiles at their highest, 20,000, this would mean that at most 25% of the population had been deported to Babylon, with the remaining 75% staying in Judah. Although Jerusalem was destroyed and depopulated, with large parts of the city remaining in ruins for 150 years, numerous other settlements in Judah continued to be inhabited, with no signs of disruption visible in archaeological studies." Dimadick (talk) 12:51, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

I thank you Dimadick, for much of this enlightenment and details, although you mixed the Old Testament/Hebrew Bible with archeology a bit. I did not exclude a tribe, did I ? There were twelve, I only mentioned two. Juda and Benjamin. (And wasn't the tribe of Benjamin largely extinguished in a war with the other tribes after a woman was raped to death; according to Judges or Samuel ? - and scientifically far smaller tribe than Juda in Babylon, and a possible reason for the word "Jews"). Or wasn't the word "Jews" first used in connection of the Babylonian captivity - according to both the Old Testament/Hebrew Bible and scientifically ?

@Doug Weller: That part was not my views of what to state in the article. I just replied to the perspective of Joseph after having read what Largoplazo wrote. I still think "originating from the Israelites[14][15][16] and Hebrews[17][18]" is confusing. It suggests two different origins and it ought to be easy to adjust. Without emotions. "Originating from the Hebrews through the Israelites" (or very similar) has been suggested earlier. (To this I must add that Debresser meant they were exactly the same people.. etc etc). Boeing720 (talk) 05:19, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

"wasn't the tribe of Benjamin largely extinguished in a war with the other tribes after a woman was raped to death; according to Judges or Samuel ?"

Book of Judges, not Books of Samuel in this case. The Concubine of a Levite was gang-raped by members of the Tribe of Benjamin in Gibeah, and then either died due to her injuries or murdered by the Levite himself (the text is unclear on this point). The Levite then asked for military action against the Tribe of Benjamin. The request led to the Battle of Gibeah and the systematic extermination of the Tribe of Benjamin: "About 600 survived the onslaught and made for the more defensible rock of Rimmon where they remained for four months. The Israelites withdrew through the territory off Benjamin, destroying every city they came to, killing every inhabitant and all the livestock."

When the surviving Benjaminites eventually surrendered and were allowed to survive, they lacked enough women for reproduction. So the elders of the Israelites allowed them to choose wives through bride kidnapping. " "And the children of Benjamin did so (on Tu B'Av); they took enough wives for their number from those [women] who danced, whom they caught. Then they went and returned to their inheritance, and they rebuilt the cities and dwelt in them."

Due to this war, the Tribe of Benjamin was subsequently referred to as "the smallest of all the tribes." However, kings Saul and Ish-bosheth are described as members of the Tribe of Benjamin. "After the dissolution of the united Kingdom of Israel in c. 930 BCE, the Tribe of Benjamin joined the Tribe of Judah as a junior partner in the Kingdom of Judah, or Southern Kingdom. The Davidic dynasty, which had roots in Judah, continued to reign in Judah. As part of the kingdom of Judah, Benjamin survived the destruction of Israel by the Assyrians, but instead was subjected to the Babylonian captivity; when the captivity ended, the distinction between Benjamin and Judah was lost in favour of a common identity as Israel, though in the biblical book of Esther, Mordecai is referred to as being of the tribe of Benjamin, and as late as the time of Jesus of Nazareth some (notably Paul the Apostle) still identified their Benjamite ancestry". Dimadick (talk) 15:15, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Not a forum - hence I will be brief. It was enlightening to read. And yes, Jesus Christ was born in Bethlehem (Matthew & Luke), a town of the Benjaminites. (I wrote "next to extinguished" not "totally").

I think Beyond My Ken's suggestion is close to optional - "(Traditionally) Jews are held to be descendants of the Hebrews through the Israelites" is better than our current lead beginning, I think. (If the word "Traditionally" is required, I can live with that). Boeing720 (talk) 18:56, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

See here if you don't want to take my word for it :) Arminden (talk) 18:31, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

 Done Redirected to Tribe of Judah. Debresser (talk) 21:49, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

I want to add Jews living in Iran to the list. There are at least 25,000 Jews living in Iran at the moment. Can anyone around here help? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.197.31.25 (talk) 23:30, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Do you have a citation from a reliable source to support that figure? Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:39, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

For the IP user above : This source claims that Jews are between 10000 and 20000 in Iran, but it also states that "Iran has one of the world's largest and longest-established Jewish communities". This source states : "Fewer than 30,000 Jews live in Iran today, compared with more than 100,000 in the 1970s, but besides a mass exodus after Iran’s 1979 revolution and the founding of the Islamic republic, their numbers have remained consistent, and they constitute the largest population of Jews in the Middle East outside Israel.". Ping me if you need any additional help. Cheers.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:32, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

@יניב הורון: To state that the Jews were "politically independent" under the Hasmoneans, is unfortunately incorrect. Even the source you added confirms this;

• "This period came to an end in 40 BCE, when the Parthian Empire exploited the Roman civil war and conquered Syria-Palestine; installed the last Hasmonean king, Antigonos, on the throne in Jerusalem (...)" -- Peter Fibiger Bang & Walter Scheidel, ed. (2013). The Oxford Handbook of the State in the Ancient Near East and Mediterranean p. 184

The Hasmoneans were Roman clients for more than two decades followed by a short period of Parthian overlordship;

• "Judea was brought under Roman control by Pompey the Great in 63 BCE. It was a client kingdom, dependent on Roman authority, from 63 BCE to 6 BCE and briefly again from 41 to 44 CE. Judea underwent two major revolts against Roman authority (...) Hyrcanus was abducted by the Parthians, who occupied the region briefly in 40 BCE at the instigation of Titus Labienus (...)" -- Michael Gagarin, ed. (2010). The Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Greece and Rome, Volume 7. p. 136

- LouisAragon (talk) 13:10, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

@Moponoly and Debresser: What in the world is going on here? Debresser, it looks to me like Moponoly is just trying to clean up the language construction a bit. I'm not understanding why you think this causes a major change to the meaning here. StevenJ81 (talk) 18:27, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

I explained in the edit summary of my last revert: "1. I see nothing double here. 2. The basic law is not based on the declaration of independence." His edit was not just copyediting, rather he added a connection that is not quite there. The basic law is not based on the declaration of independence, rather both incorporate, among many others, a certain idea. Debresser (talk) 22:53, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

1. The term "Jewish and democratic" was used twice in the same paragraph. It's annoying.

2. Right. That's the definition of being based off of something - reiterating a certain idea from another document. Moponoly (talk) 10:48, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

No, it is not. Based on implies a causal connection, while there isn't. The Declaration of Independence is not a legal document, certainly not a law. Debresser (talk) 15:38, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty#Basic principles: 1. Fundamental human rights in Israel are founded upon recognition of the value of the human being, the sanctity of human life, and the principle that all persons are free; these rights shall be upheld in the spirit of the principles set forth in the Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel. If you have a better term than "based on", I'm all ears... Moponoly (talk) 17:43, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

I surrender. Debresser (talk) 16:57, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#RfC:Genetics_references Jytdog (talk) 17:04, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

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

The main picture at the top of the page should be changed. It is not representative of Judaism. It would be much better to get rid of it and replace it by the Star of David picture directly below it. Wallace485 (talk) 21:21, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

 Not done The Star of David appearing below the infobox is part of a template applied to the article ({{Jews and Judaism sidebar}}) so is not available to also place at the top of the infobox. Can you explain further why the image in the infobox is not appropriate at this article? General Ization ^Talk 21:42, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

I think the Wallace485 mixes up Jews and Judaism. The picture may not be representative of Judaism, but it is of Jews. That having said, I agree that a better picture could and should be found. Debresser (talk) 17:17, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

@Debresser: Any suggestions as to what a better image would be an image of? General Ization ^Talk 17:29, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

By the way, we've been here before. Debresser (talk) 19:41, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

So would this be a better image? Rubens: The Reconciliation of Jacob and Esau. General Ization ^Talk 19:46, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

I don't think so. If anything, the present one is better, IMHO. Personally, I'd take File:Maurycy Gottlieb - Jews Praying in the Synagogue on Yom Kippur.jpg from later in the article and make it the main picture. Debresser (talk) 19:58, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

I like it, though we could probably benefit from some other voices here. General Ization ^Talk 20:10, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

It is quite weird having a Rembrandt painting used to illustrate an ethnicity. As there is likely no imagery pleasing everyone, perhaps it is better to have none. ImTheIP (talk) 14:47, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

@יניב הורון: Interesting how you do manage to find the "undo" button in a matter of minutes, but can't manage to find the talk page in months. I will re-open the same case once more, out of sheer WP:GF;

This sentence is incorrect;

• "Jews were also politically independent during the Hasmonean dynasty spanning from 140 to 37 BCE and to some degree under the Herodian dynasty from 37 BCE to 6 CE"

It implies that there was political independance for more than 100 yrs under the Hasmoneans. I challenged it months ago. "User:יניב הורון" in turn added a source, but the source does not back up the story. It even literally contradicts it;

• "This period came to an end in 40 BCE, when the Parthian Empire exploited the Roman civil war and conquered Syria-Palestine; installed the last Hasmonean king, Antigonos, on the throne in Jerusalem (...)" -- Peter Fibiger Bang & Walter Scheidel, ed. (2013). The Oxford Handbook of the State in the Ancient Near East and Mediterranean p. 184

A brief search reveals numerous sources which show that the Hasmoneans were Roman clients for more than two decades followed by a short period of Parthian overlordship. Here's one of them;

• "Judea was brought under Roman control by Pompey the Great in 63 BCE. It was a client kingdom, dependent on Roman authority, from 63 BCE to 6 BCE and briefly again from 41 to 44 CE. Judea underwent two major revolts against Roman authority (...) Hyrcanus was abducted by the Parthians, who occupied the region briefly in 40 BCE at the instigation of Titus Labienus (...)" -- Michael Gagarin, ed. (2010). The Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Greece and Rome, Volume 7. p. 136

Asserting that the Hasmonean kingdom became independent in 110 BC does not mean that it existed (or continued to exist) as an independent kingdom, which is yet exactly what the sentence in question implies. We're clearly dealing with WP:VER and WP:OR issues here. IF the idea is to show that were was "once" a period of political independence under the Hasmoneans, then the alinea should be rephrased. - LouisAragon (talk) 20:25, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Pinging for more opinions; @Cplakidas: @PericlesofAthens: @Kansas Bear: @Wikaviani: @Attar-Aram syria: - LouisAragon (talk) 20:25, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

The Hasmoneans can be considered independent only from 128 BC following the the general rebellion against Demetrius II of Syria in the aftermath of his failed campaign against Egypt which allowed John Hyrcanus I to make his state independent. (source: Houghton, Arthur; Lorber, Catherine; Hoover, Oliver D. (2008). Seleucid Coins, A Comprehensive Guide: Part 2, Seleucus IV through Antiochus XIII. 1. The American Numismatic Society. ISBN 978-0-980-23872-3. OCLC 920225687. Page 409). Before the events with Demetrius II, it was just a rebellious province trying to pressure the Seleucid kings to give it more autonomy. As for the end of independence, the arrival of Pompey effectively turned Judea into a client kingdom after the Siege of Jerusalem (63 BC).--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 20:37, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Was this dynasty totally independent before the siege of Jerusalem ? Or were they vassals of the Seleucid empire ?---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:50, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

According to Leon J. Wood's(rs?), A Survey of Israel's History, page 365, Antiochus VII besieged Jerusalem(c.134), took back cities, pulled down Jerusalem's walls, took hostages and 500 talents of silver. --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:53, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

AND, according to Regev Eyal's, The Hasmoneans: Ideology, Archaeology, Identity, page 208, Antiochus VII minted coins in Jerusalem c.131-129 BC. --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:59, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes, then he died fighting the Parthians in 129 bc and his brother demetrius II took the throne again but lost his hold on the realm after less than one year allowing Judea to be independent in 128 bc. No Seleucid controlled it after that date.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 21:18, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

From the quotes provided by the poster of this thread I deduce that yes, there was independence for some sixfive decades at least, from 110 to 63 BCE. So what is your problem with the sentence you came here to contest? Debresser (talk) 21:46, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Effectively, the Hasmoneans seem to have been independents from 110 BC (end of Seleucid rule over them) and 63 BC (Pompey intervention). However, this is quite different from being independent from 140 BC to 37 BC.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:51, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

I see the problem. I'm changing the dates accordingly.--יניב הורון (Yaniv) (talk) 22:34, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

"Israel's Law of Return grants the right of citizenship to any Jew who requests it." No it doesn't. They need to have moved to Israel and been accepted as an oleh. Constant Pedant (talk) 02:13, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

The law grants the right. There are certain requisites to make use of it. That is something else. Debresser (talk) 19:47, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

The right is conditional on being an oleh. It not open to "any Jew who requests it." Constant Pedant (talk) 01:44, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

You're right. Debresser (talk) 19:46, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

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

197.156.77.109 (talk) 15:06, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

• No actual request made. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:18, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

@DuckeggAlex: In sciences, parsimony means Occam's razor. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:30, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Exactly. And your edit before changing "heritage" to "ancestry" - the source (Pew) specifically said that ancestry was not part of the criteria. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:31, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

The article says "According to Behar, the most parsimonious ...". If Behar said "parsimonious", or used a synonym, and DuckeggAlex's objection is that parsimonious is the wrong word and we switched to "minimalist", which Alex says means something else, accordingly, then our claim to be relating Behar's view wold be false. Largoplazo (talk) 01:11, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

This page should be titled "Jewish People" instead of "Jews" because Jew is an offensive racial slur. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.112.8.8 (talk) 03:02, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

That's been discussed extensively and there was near unanimity against. See for example Talk:Jews/Archive_31#Requested_move_29_April_2018. Antandrus (talk) 03:15, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

The painting used on the main page as Jacob wrestling with the Angel should be attributed to Rembrandt.

Done, thanks. Jontel (talk) 14:36, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Here is a paragraph from the article Mount Ida (Crete), I bring it here as I believe here is more suitable than there. I didn't write it, use it if you like it.W5ry3 (talk) 07:55, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

According to the Mandaean scroll, Haran Gawaita, they considered themselves to be Jews or Judeans in the first century. Their religion is not a Jewish denomination, but appears to be a form of Judean or Hebraic Gnosticism. If they are Judean Israelites, can they still be considered Jews or Ethnic Jews? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ANMC001 (talk • contribs) 13:28, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

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

The Jews were also forced into slavery during WW2 64.39.147.172 (talk) 12:56, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. General Ization ^Talk 12:57, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

The correct Romanization in ISO 259-3 is "Yhudim". "Yehudim" can be correct in ISO 259-2. Please change it back to "Yhudim" under ISO 259-3. Yarenn Šagor (talk) 04:01, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

I see someone changed it to ISO 259-2. Can you also add ISO 259-3 Yhudim? Yarenn Šagor (talk) 21:31, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

That was me. I thought that was the easiest way to correct this article. Why should we have both? Debresser (talk) 22:02, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

ISO 259-3 is a better Romanization system that retains the information that exists in the original Hebrew script (in this case šwaˀ). Yarenn Šagor (talk) 11:15, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

But the opposite is true: in ISO 259-3 the shva is not rendered at all, even though it sounds as an "ə" when pronouncing the word in Hebrew. Debresser (talk) 17:51, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

In modern Hebrew the shva is pronounced "e", not "ə", and that's exactly the thing, the actual realization of this phoneme [or lack thereof] is not relevant in ISO 259-3, you extract it automatically according to the reading tradition you want. Here the rule is if you have to consonants in the beginning of a word it must be a šwaˀ naˁ and in modern Hebrew you pronounce it "e" in cases like here. That's why ISO 259-3 is suitable for Hebrew in any dialect or chronolect, you can Romanize the whole bible with it and it would still be true to however they talked back then or how we talk now, and you don't lose information that exists in the Hebrew script. If you write "Yehudim" you don't know that there's a šwaˀ there, it can be segol or ceire etc. Writing rules and reading rules are separate. Yarenn Šagor (talk) 07:39, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

In modern Hebrew the shva is pronounced "e", not "ə". I live in Israel, and I don't think so. Debresser (talk) 18:24, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

What?? lol. If you live here then for sure you must know we don't have "ə" in modern Hebrew. That's why Hebrew speakers have trouble with this vowel in English. We only have simple a e i o u Yarenn Šagor (talk) 01:43, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_Hebrew_phonology#Vowels . Yarenn Šagor (talk) 01:45, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Although I am not an expert in ISO, but I still think that it is better to keep "Yehudim" with a "e", in whatever ISO that may be. Debresser (talk) 22:21, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

"Yehudim" is just one way or pronouncing this word. Even today in a more "correct" pronunciation one might say for example /vij'hudim/ for "and Jews". The basic word is Yhudim, which is why in ISO 259-3 it is written as so. Yarenn Šagor (talk) 10:31, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

150,000 descendents, by president of Jewish Comunity of Chile in 2010, Gabriel Zaliasnik.^[1][2] Wikiedro (talk) 17:34, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

References

Why does the 'History' section only go as far as Babylon and Rome? It cuts off abruptly without covering anything more recent than 200 AD. The subject is covered very well at the linked article on Jewish history - the section on this page needs to be revamped to cover the full scope of Jewish history, not just that in antiquity. Ganesha811 (talk) 05:26, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Any thoughts on this issue? Ganesha811 (talk) 20:30, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Given the lack of response, I plan to make some changes over the next few days, balancing the History section so that it covers antiquity, medieval times, and modern history without being overlong. Please let me know if you have any issues with anything I do. Ganesha811 (talk) 20:14, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi Ganesha811, i support your proposal. The history section ignores about 1800 years of history. Infantom (talk) 18:25, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

@Ganesha811 and Infantom: how will you do this without duplicating Jewish history? And remember that anything here should be done as a summary of the main article Jewish history, not something separate. There's another problem, see Wikipedia:Article size. This article is already very large at over 165k and 300 references. If anything it should be cut down. Doug Weller talk 19:40, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Doug Weller, I agree, which is why I think it's particularly egregious that the current 'History' section is so temporally limited. Ideally, the length of the revamped section will not be much longer than the current section, but much more summarized. Ganesha811 (talk) 20:48, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

There is no need to duplicate Jewish History, just to summarize significant eras (Ancient era, Classical era, Middle ages and modernity). Speaking of cutting down content, the 'Demographics' section is way too detailed. Infantom (talk) 22:03, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. Doug Weller talk 14:13, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Doug Weller, Infantom, I spent some time this morning trying to revamp the section to make it work, borrowing heavily from Jewish history, and gave up in frustration. The task of trying to adequately summarize 3000 years of history at the right level of detail is beyond me. It should be left to someone who has a greater knowledge of Jewish history and more drive to see it done right. However, it still needs to be done. The current History section is unacceptably incomplete.

At this point, I can make one suggestion, though: I think the Origins section, which contains a high-quality discussion of the historicity vs. non-historicity of the Hebrew Bible, should be maintained and separated out as its own top-level section, with a 'History' section to follow. The two topics are related, but distinct and I think the article would benefit from the division. Ganesha811 (talk) 16:01, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps for starters, we can at least reorganize the current section under the relevant subsections (Antiquity and Classical era) and a separated section for the traditional narrative. Infantom (talk) 19:22, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Good Afternoon,

I was just wondering why Jesus was not mentioned anywhere on this Wikipedia page.

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.242.209.35 (talk) 17:56, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Because the Jews#Notable_individuals section doesn't mention any names, rather refers to another article, which in itself is a list of lists. Debresser (talk) 22:21, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Neither are Nathan or Isaiah or Jeremiah or Hosea or Elijah or Elisha or Ezekiel or Jonah, etc., etc. This is a general article about Jews, not a list of historical figures or scriptural prophets who were Jewish. Largoplazo (talk) 22:25, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect JEW. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. feminist (talk) 04:43, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

150,000 descendents, by president of Jewish Comunity of Chile in 2010, Gabriel Zaliasnik.^[1][2] Wikiedro (talk) 17:34, 22 December 2019 (UTC), Regenerate: Wikiedro (talk) 13:02, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Can the page name be changed to "Jewish People" rather than "Jews" and the ordering of the first sentence to be "Jewish people or Jews"? Jew is sometimes considered an offensive term since it is a used as a noun rather than a descriptive adjective. Similar to how the page for "white people" is not titled "whites" and it would be offensive to title the article for "black people" "blacks". Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.151.81.133 (talk) 04:17, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

If you look above, you will see that this request had been considered three times in the past, in July 2007, October 2017, and most recently April 2018. Each time the result was that there was no consensus to change the name of the article. I think that the result of another move request would be the same. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:31, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

I subscribe to this point of view. Debresser (talk) 10:18, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

I'd just be repeating the same argument as the previous times, so, no thank you. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 14:18, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

I oppose this for all the reasons it's been opposed in past discussions ensuing from identical requests, the most significant being that the premise is false. Largoplazo (talk) 15:52, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Actually most of the past discussions were about changing the page from "Jew" to "Jews" which was changed. Also, doesn't the fact that so many have brought it up lend credence to the idea that many find it offensive? I don't see the downside of the change and a potential upside to be less offensive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.151.81.133 (talk)

No, most of the discussions were about changing to "Jewish people". I don't think a few Wikipedia editors' opinions indicate any widespread feeling among Jews that the word Jew is offensive. And the potential downside is that some Jews might find it offensive that Jews shouldn't be referred to as Jews. Sundayclose (talk) 03:20, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

How did this become a contest over which request has been discussed a greater number of times? A user has just requested a change here. That change has been requested and discussed here before. That that isn't the only change that has ever been requested and discussed here, or whether another change has been requested and discussed here more, is immaterial. Largoplazo (talk) 06:33, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Giving people who imagine that a term is offensive greater weight than people to whom the term refers who think the proposition that it's offensive is ridiculous because it's the term they normally use, or at least commonly use, to refer to themselves (and I don't mean in a "we're reclaiming this for ourselves and only we can use it" way) is foolish. It brings to mind how, while some people (many if not most of them not American Indians) were insisting that "Indians" is offensive and we must only call Americans of pre-Columbian decent "Native Americans", the museum the Smithsonian Institution built, with strong native representation, to showcase native history and culture was named "The National Museum of the American Indian". Which did not lead to a storm of protests outside the museum. Largoplazo (talk) 06:33, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

No one reading the title "Jewish people" will be offended unless they specifically know there was a change and are offended that the change might imply the word "jews" is offensive. On the other hand those who find the word "jews" offensive will be offended by the article title as is. Therefore I support the change. Regarding the comments about indigenous american peoples, the wikipedia page title for them is "Native Americans in the United States" and it was changed from "American Indians" due to the controversy, even though some native Americans find it distasteful to say "Indians" is offensive because that is how they describe themselves. I think we should similarly change the page title here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.151.81.133 (talk) 08:38, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

I do agree that the title "Jewish people" avoids the potential offensiveness of the blunt title "Jews", which unfortunately has been used as a slur in history. I too was surprised by this "raw" title when I edited the article a while ago. Although not strictly identical, we do not have an article on "Blacks", we have "Black people". पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 11:17, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

What does it mean to use the normal term for a member of a particular group as a slur? If the same term is used by people as a matter of course whether or not they have, or are expressing, pejorative feelings for a member of a group, then the people with pejorative feelings aren't using it as a slur, they're using it because it's the normal word but they're saying it with a pejorative tone. In that case, the tone isn't going to change no matter what term they use. In fact, launching a campaign to discard the term as the normal, neutral term is itself what makes the term a slur. That's a disservice. And then the next generation of people who hold Jews in disregard will say "Jewish person" with the same contemptuous tone as their forebears say "Jews", and then we'll have a corresponding campaign to stop calling a Jewish person "Jewish person" because that will have become a slur (in the minds of people who don't distinguish between a slur and a neutral word said with a tone of contempt). Largoplazo (talk) 12:43, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

That's a great philosophical point and we can cross that bridge if we ever come to it. However in the mean time many people, and many Jewish people, myself included, are offended by the term right now because it is already used by anti-semites. When I see the word "Jew" I have to question to myself whether the intent was anti-semetic, whereas if it says "Jewish People" I know that they're at least trying not to be. If that ever changes we can address this again as that is the nature of language and how it changes.

• "Jew" is not in itself a slur. It is the term for a memebr of the Jewish people. Any word can be used as a slur, I guess. That is not yet reason to avoid the word. Debresser (talk) 16:11, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

@73.151.81.133: We need more than one or two opinions here that "many Jewish people are offended by the term". It's also quite possible that many Jews will be offended by changing the title of the article. And I don't buy the argument that "No one reading the title 'Jewish people' will be offended unless they specifically know there was a change". So we have to try to hide the fact that there was a change?? Changing the title of an article, especially one that pertains to a large group of people, is a major change, and this talk page is available for anyone to read just as the article is. If we get a lot of people on this talk page clamoring about being offended by the word Jew, then we may have a basis for a change. The article has been titled Jews for many years with almost no one complaining about it. Sundayclose (talk) 21:04, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Actually it has been brought up many times by many different users. See the archive. There are four in the quick links and others that can be found with some sifting. In fact, the first argument brought up against changing the name was because this was brought up before. The fact that so many have requested the change shows that they were offended enough to bring it up again and again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.151.81.133 (talk) 21:40, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

It seems like the main argument against the change is speculating that "people may get offended" vs for the change is that "people are offended." The former is upset about a change to a non offensive term, vs the latter is upset about the current term being offensive. One is upset about a precedent, one is upset about a current reality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.151.81.133 (talk) 21:45, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

No no no. "Brought up many times" does not mean there have been a lot of complaints. It is simply not true that "so many have requested the change". Look at the archives. There is little to no support beyond the three people who proposed the renaming. And I'm not seeing much support here so far. And my point about those who may be offended by a change isn't about "a change to a non offensive term". It's about the possibility that a lot of Jews refer to themselves as Jews and are offended that Wikipedia is deciding that the word which Jews use to describe themselves should not be reflected in the title to the article. Almost no one has complained that the use of the word Jews as the article title is offensive. Sundayclose (talk) 21:56, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Demonym sources? Is this like Canadians or Americans in usage?....need to explain in article so it does not keep coming up.--Moxy 🍁 22:16, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

• Jewish media which use "Jews":

• The Forward - lists itself as "The Forward: News that Matters to American Jews"
• Cleveland Jewish News -
• Detroit Jewish News -
• Jewish News of Greater Phoenix -
• The Jewish World -
• Intermountain Jewish News -
• Pittsburgh Jewish Chronicle -
• Five Towns Jewish Times -
• The Jewish Journal (Boston North) -
• Baltimore Jewish Times -
• Jewish Herald Voice - search on "Jews"
• Chicago Jewish News -
• Wisconsin Jewish Chronicle -
• Washington Jewish Week -

I stopped because the task was getting boring, not because I couldn't find any more instances. I did not come across a single Jewish newspaper website -- which had a search function -- which did not use "Jews" - so, clearly, the Jewish community does not consider "Jews" to be a pejorative, although, like almost anything, it can certainly be used in a pejorative way. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:21, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

This is an interesting Op-Ed about why people feel uncomfortable about using "Jews". Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:26, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

There's new DNA research on Canaanites, can somebody edit the article and add some info about this?

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/history/2020/05/dna-from-biblical-canaanites-lives-modern-arabs-jews/ Sitak87 (talk) 22:21, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

It's in Genetic studies on Jews, which is linked in this article. Sundayclose (talk) 00:04, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

A page from Elia Levita's (right to left) Yiddish-Hebrew-Latin-German dictionary (1542) contains a list of nations,

But afaict, the page is a list of peoples and not nations. ImTheIP (talk) 23:29, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

@ImTheIP: Are you suggesting a change to this article? Sundayclose (talk) 23:45, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes. ImTheIP (talk) 23:48, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

You're right. I can't put my finger on the first word, but the second and third words are "customs officer" and "trumpeter", and the last (before the family members) is "goy" (as in non-Jew). Largoplazo (talk) 02:30, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Then I propose that the image should be deleted. Since it is just a page from a dictionary and the image description is misleading. The image has been in the article since 2012 but appears to not have been discussed at all. ImTheIP (talk) 20:30, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree with removing it, but not as a consequence of this discussion. The image is equally relevant or irrelevant regardless of whether the dictionary page is listing nations or types of people. Its only value is (or would be) to convey that in 1542 Jews were known as a people (or nation). This is hardly a revelation worthy of drawing readers' attention to. If the dictionary were from 1542 BCE, that wold be a different matter. Largoplazo (talk) 00:52, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

150,000 descendants lives in Chile (not 18,300–26,000 according to the table of article), by three references:

• Cite 1: «En la actualidad, en Chile existen unos 25.000 judíos practicantes, y otros 150.000 que tienen ancestros [...]». Up to 175,000 in total. H. Harvey, 2012, page 193.^[1]
• Cite 2: «En ese contexto, el máximo representante de la comunidad judía de Chile [Gabriel Zaliasnik], que según indicó la integran unas 150.000 personas, se opuso a las peticiones [...] para que reconozca al Estado Palestino». EFE Agency, 2010.^[2]
• Cite 3: «Por el otro lado, se cree que entre 75.000 y 150.000 miembros conforman la comunidad judía de Chile [...]». El Mundo, 2012.^[3]

Wikidromo 01:51, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

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

Sweden has more jews than Turkey. They need be above Turkey Peacetowikied (talk) 20:47, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

To editor Peacetowikied:  Not done: actually both countries show a core Jewish population of 15,000. The second figure is the "enlarged" population, which is the sum of (a) the core Jewish population; (b) persons reported as partly Jewish; (c) all others not currently Jewish with a Jewish parent; and (d) all other non-Jewish household members (spouses, children, etc.). So it is the first "core" figure that the list is sorted by, and that is the same for both Sweden and Turkey. Thank you very much for noticing! P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 04:14, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

PS. This article uses the same sorting that is seen on page 21 of the source document. PS by P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 04:23, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

This source has for Chile only the data of people who profess Judaism (religious connection), but not to the entire Jewish community and diaspora in Chile (ethnic connection). 25,000 are the practitioners of Judaism in Chile, but another 150,000 are non-practicing Jewish descendants. There is the error in the Chilean data (see references in the previous section (the references come from 1 book, and 2 press releases from the Chilean Jewish Collective), to close in a religious affair is to ignore the ancestry affair. This may be happening with some other countries. Wikidromo 00:40, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

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

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)

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)

 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)

Makes sense - thanks for addressing this! Alicewriteswrongs (talk) 15:02, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

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:

• The overwhelming majority of the Jewish Nobel laureates are Ashkenazi Jews, which has prompted the controversial theory of Ashkenazi Jewish intelligence.

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:

• Ashkenazi Jews have a notable history of achievement in Western societies in the fields of natural and social sciences, mathematics, literature, finance, politics, media, and others. In those societies where they have been free to enter any profession, they have a record of high occupational achievement, entering professions and fields of commerce where higher education is required.

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:

• Ashkenazi Jews have won a large number of the Nobel awards.

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)

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)

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)

• Since none of these issues have been sufficiently addressed, and consensus here and at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#Spillover into Nobel Prize articles is that these sources are WP:FRINGE, I have again removed this content. Find reliable sources, and summarize from a neutral point of view. Do not use those sources to support original research. Again do not use sources about all Jews for an editorializing point about Asheknazi Jews. Summarize what reliable sources say in proportion to due weight. Avoid unreliable sources. Avoid primary sources. This is an encyclopedia. Grayfell (talk) 21:11, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

(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)

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)

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)

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)

There have been many attempts to delegate "Jew"/"Jewish" to a non official name which describes better Levantine/Silkroad migration & politics. This talk archive must have a set of these attempts, so we can collate right sources into a final argument so Wikipedia can use proper nouns rather than contentious colloquial slang as an actual article title. "Yhudeen" type words would be the psi clean ideal? "Jew (word)" &c would remain of course. I am non trying to be controversial or a para-forum weirdo. Text mdnp (talk) 20:52, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Can you rephrase that in clearer English. Koncorde (talk) 21:19, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

I see no issue with the use of the word Jew or Jewish in any capacity. Ibn Daud (talk) 22:28, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I have no idea what point you are making or what you are asking. Largoplazo (talk) 23:01, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

That we can collate here - in this talk section - properly sourced references/links - how the word "Jew" is a oddly ironic anti-Semitic slang term & should be delegated to a section of "Yudheen" type articles/word. The always superstitious cone fade of language over history, delegated the J & Jdr & Dji sound into a esoteric priestly tongue (gate keeper lexicon/jargon). Source in your local frames the words/sounds "Djra Rua" compared to "Ya/Yu" words as what people are always morphing "wind worship" spooky long-psi taurus-field concepts ideas into. Text mdnp (talk) 19:39, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

The first sentence almost makes sense. Everything after that is word salad. I like the idea of a "superstitious cone fade" though. Sounds fascinating. Koncorde (talk) 21:01, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Idiosyncratic jargon feigns the illusion of professional academic vocabulary to only the less educated via obfuscation. Speak plainly, citing professionally published mainstream academic sources. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:01, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

"Jew" is the word that English-speaking Jews (of which I am one) use to refer to a Jew, so I don't know what you're talking about. I'm giving you that as a response because the one thing that does emerge from your remarks that are otherwise gibberish is that you dispute the use of the word "Jew" to refer to Jews. Largoplazo (talk) 22:18, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

The intelligible part of the bizarre request is nonsense, since Jews, as Largoplazo says, call themselves "Jews" in English. Admittedly, it's entertaining: "superstitious cone fade" and "morphing "wind worship" spooky long-psi taurus-field concepts" are creative word salad. This and the pseudo-jargon on the editor's user page remind me of the text on Dr. Bronner's Magic Soap bottles. Carlstak (talk) 13:12, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

It had me wanting to go replay the Hylics games. Ian.thomson (talk) 10:35, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm not a gamer, but a game in which frozen burritos can be used as weapons sounds like fun. Carlstak (talk) 13:29, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Anybody mentioned "para-forum weirdo"? :) Debresser (talk) 22:06, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

It's oddly specific ^_^. Ibn Daud (talk) 23:09, 23 December 2020 (UTC)