Talk:Jews

This page is subject to the extended confirmed restriction related to the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Language fix request

Please correct "predominately" to "predominantly". Check Wiktionary entries if unsure. ~2026-28292-21 (talk) 11:33, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

 Done. Newbzy (talk) 08:07, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Addition of Yiddish name

@Royz-vi Tsibele: In this edit, you gave your rationale for restoring the Yiddish name that you'd added shortly before as Per MOS:FOREIGNEQUIV, including the Yiddish name would be appropriate, as "the subject of the article is clearly associated with a non-English language(s)", that being Hebrew and Yiddish. The way you wrote that implies that you think of Hebrew and Yiddish as "the Jewish languages". If you take a look at List of Jewish diaspora languages, you'll see that there are or have been dozens of Jewish languages, of which Yiddish is just one. So we'd have to talk about the extent to which the inclusion of Yiddish would call for the inclusion of a larger subset of those languages. Also tagging @Mikewem. Largoplazo (talk) 02:04, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

Going to merge my thread into this Mikewem (talk) 02:06, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

@Largoplazo Thanks for the message. While there have been dozens of Jewish languages throughout history, I think it's a little inaccurate to suggest that Yiddish is just another Jewish diaspora language. Yiddish had (and relatively still has) a much larger speaking population and extensive literary tradition, as well as more general cultural influence, than other Jewish languages with the exception (in some capacities) of Hebrew, both biblical and modern. It's rather late for me, so I can respond tomorrow with more sources on this, but I think that the "notability gap" between Hebrew and Yiddish is substantially smaller than the "notability gap" between Yiddish and other Jewish diaspora languages. Nevertheless, greater mention of Ladino could also be appropriate per that reasoning.

I'll also reformat the first sentence as @Mikewem suggests so that it's all contained in a single footnote. Mit khavershaft, Royz-vi Tsibele ^{(redt mit mir!)} 02:28, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

Royz-vi Tsibele if you feel the need to make a footnote for multiple foreign names in the first sentence, then I guess go ahead, otherwise please self revert per MOS:FOREIGNEQUIV In such cases, all non-English equivalents should be placed together in a single explanatory footnote (or in a "Names" section or similar), rather than in the text of the first sentence, in order to avoid clutter and disputes over which language to feature. Separate languages should be divided by semicolons; romanizations of non-Latin scripts, by commas.

There is already a Name section that has the endonyms in its first paragraph. Mikewem (talk) 02:05, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

@Royz-vi Tsibele The paragraph I reworded was poorly written and non-neutral. For example antisemitic is racist so we don't need to repeat it, unless trying to ram home a point of view. Also, we only need foreign names in the lead if that foreign name occurs in a significant number of English language secondary sources. Please do not fall into the trap of adding a foreign name just because the article has some undefined connection with a non-English language. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 05:04, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

@Roger 8 Roger The antisemitism supported and enforced by the Nazis was the climax of a "racial antisemitism" that had been in development in Europe along as part of scientific racism for centuries before, which purported that Jews made up an entire separate inferior "race" of people from non-Jews that needed to be suppressed and, eventually, exterminated. Making a distinction between the religious antisemitism of the past and this new racial antisemitism is necessary context. I quite literally study this full-time, so I think I know what I'm talking about in that regard.

As for your change of the word "murdered" to "died" in the paragraph on the Holocaust, I felt that that was inappropriate. It is no redundancy to say that 6 million Jews were systemically murdered in the Holocaust at an industrial scale, rather than having merely "died", and your edit seemed to unintentionally downplay that.

I would also push back against the article subject having an "undefined connection" with Yiddish. The relationship between Jews and Yiddish is very much "defined", and I wanted that to be reflected in the article. I personally don't see any major issue with including the word Yidn in the infobox and language footnote, but if others really think it should be removed, I won't push back against that. Mit khavershaft, Royz-vi Tsibele ^{(redt mit mir!)} 13:01, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

@Roger 8 Roger Also, I just looked at the edit history for the page; threatening to delete the entire paragraph on the Holocaust is completely inappropriate. I will be waiting until 24hrs after my last revert to correct your most recent edit, if you do not have the courtesy of self-reverting. Mit khavershaft, Royz-vi Tsibele ^{(redt mit mir!)} 13:14, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

Wording used

Mikewem, although less obvious than 'racist-antisemitic' as mentioned above, a genocide is murder so there is no point using the word, which is why I used 'died'. However, murdered sounds a bit better I suppose. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 07:16, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

the Jewish people or the Jewish people

This is a potential WP:THE #1 point for the alt title. The amount of the alt name that we bold here would only really affect the amount of blue text in other articles that link to this page. Choice between the Jewish people or the Jewish people.

I think that this qualifies as a Convention #1 use because Jewish people could reasonably be seen to mean Jewish persons, and we already have a lists article for notable Jewish persons, Lists of Jews.

The definite article seems necessary to disambiguate the two topics. Thoughts? Mikewem (talk) 20:06, 23 September 2026 (UTC)