Talk:Jews

Page says 20 million, source says 15 million.

What's going on with the population source? I'm having trouble clicking the note next to it so I can only see the actual PDF of the source.

There would probably be 20 million Jews by this point but someone with a tiny mustache ruined that. I am concerned that this wild deviation from the official numbers will feed into Holocaust denialism.

Also, this is feeding into smart assistants like Siri/Spotlight Search. Ieditthethings (talk) 04:36, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

The source gives a bunch of numbers for different definitions of "Jew". See figure 3 on page 14 of the cited source, and also read footnote [a] in front of the reference and see if they help refine your question or concerns. Largoplazo (talk) 05:31, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

The footnote glitches at least on mobile web. That page is irrelevant and talks about how people can be distantly connected. The real established values are on page 17. Ieditthethings (talk) 02:16, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

There's no option to edit our talk comments? Okay…

I see the difference now taking a closer look at the wiki page. However, the data being fed into other APIs is inaccurate and feeds into Holocaust denial. The 20m figure needs to be put elsewhere to prevent this. Ieditthethings (talk) 02:19, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Self-described nation

User:Wolfdog, I'd like to discuss your change in the lead from identifying Jews as "nation" to saying they are "self-described as comprising a nation". For one thing, it's unnecessarily wordy. Even if I were to take your point, "self-described as a nation" would do the trick without the "comprising a" part.

More substantively, isn't a nation always a group of people who identify/describe themselves as such? I fail to see that you've made any distinction here. Rather, whatever it is you're trying to clarify is already implicit in the concept of a nation. Largoplazo (talk) 02:24, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

Just reverted it. Let's see if it lasts. Pyramids09 (talk) 03:20, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

I think it's quite clear that that is not the usual meaning of the word nation in English in 2025. I'm happy to remove "comprising" if that was your main contention. My first edit was changing "nation" to "nation in the original sense of the word," but I actually worried THAT was too wordy. Does my concern make sense to you? The way nation is ordinarily used by English speakers today means nation-state and I'm trying to avoid that inevitable confusion for some readers. (There's the State of Israel of course, which has some but not total overlap.) Is there some other wording that could better get this distinction across? Thanks for discussing. Wolfdog (talk) 13:12, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

I appreciate your point about confusion with nation-state. Still, at least to me, "self-described" comes across as "they call themselves that, but we know better". Looking to the Nation article for inspiration, I've come up with an alternative proposal, "... an ethnoreligious group and a people sharing a national identity ...". What do you all think? Largoplazo (talk) 13:35, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

I was about to offer "an ethnoreligious group often described as a nation". How about that? I think that maybe avoids the inadvertent automatic confusion with modern nation-state entities like France, Israel, Thailand, etc. If you still prefer your alternative, I might just add something like "a traditional national identity" or "sharing a traditional identity as a nation". Wolfdog (talk) 14:11, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

I just saw this when you made the edit—. I don't know what "traditional national identity" means. In contrast to what other kind of national identity? Largoplazo (talk) 16:59, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

One that is recognized by a majority of sovereign states of the United Nations, for example. I'm using "traditional" here to suggest, as I said earlier, that "nation" means "nation in the original sense of the word" as opposed to the common modern sense. ("Traditional" is indeed a relative term, but it was already used in a different location in the lede before I even came along.) Would another adjective be preferred? Wolfdog (talk) 20:36, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

"People of Israel" and "nation of Israel" are both literal translations of the Biblical term עם-ישראל, which refers to the ethnic group. It has nothing to do with politics, and I don't like the rash of recent changes to pages like this which look for excuses to modulate previously-apolitical language through a political lens. We had a similar discussion about the lede image last year. I don't think it's likely to mislead those with basic English literacy—is anybody confused by Nation of Islam? But I have no problem with the current language. GordonGlottal (talk) 19:39, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

It's true that these are literal biblical translations, but nevertheless the word (in English) has evolved since these original translations and thus requires some clarification. We have many young people on Wikipedia, English language learners, etc. and I'm trying to avoid the easy misconception that Jews share some automatic nation-state identity. Clearly, that's not what we mean. (Of course, many Jews live in or feel ties to modern Israel, but that's not what we're saying here -- another justification for being a bit more discerning with our prose). Is there some alternative wording you'd like to offer? Wolfdog (talk) 20:42, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 February 2025

First word of article

Please change "The Jews, or the Jewish people, are an ethnoreligious group[14] and nation"

To "Jews, or the Jewish people, are an ethnoreligious group[14] and nation"

No RS to support the use of "the" in this context

<Edit> alternate change to option: “Jews are members of the Jewish people, an ethnoreligious group[14] and nation[15] originating from the Israelites” Mikewem (talk) 18:00, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

I'll be amazed if you've never seen a scholarly source use "the" in front of the name of an ethnic group or nationality. The Danes, the Portuguese, the Dutch, the Turks—it's ordinary English usage. (🎶That's nobody's business but the Turks'.🎶) Also, a meme that goes back I don't know how many decades is the question of whether something or other is "good for the Jews". Never "good for Jews". It's so ordinary I'm surprised it's a point of contention. Largoplazo (talk) 23:36, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

 Already done Wolfdog (talk · contribs) already performed this request. And as just a note, this guideline states the use of the definite article should be avoided when talking about a collective ethnic group. cyberdog958^Talk 11:11, 3 March 2025 (UTC)