Jump to content

Talk:Jews: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Tags: Undo Mobile edit Mobile web edit Advanced mobile edit
"Jewry": new section
Line 116: Line 116:
::Absolutely. A very strange and inaccurate line. [[User:Ahboas|Ahboas]] ([[User talk:Ahboas|talk]]) 12:13, 4 September 2025 (UTC)
::Absolutely. A very strange and inaccurate line. [[User:Ahboas|Ahboas]] ([[User talk:Ahboas|talk]]) 12:13, 4 September 2025 (UTC)
:::I've made the change. [[User:Largoplazo|Largoplazo]] ([[User talk:Largoplazo|talk]]) 12:52, 4 September 2025 (UTC)
:::I've made the change. [[User:Largoplazo|Largoplazo]] ([[User talk:Largoplazo|talk]]) 12:52, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

== "Jewry" ==

@[[User:Hildeoc|Hildeoc]]: Stop trying to put "Jewry" into the lead. This is indeed a very archaic and not quite offensive but not really appropriate term for the lead. See [https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=Jewry%2CJews%2CJudaism%2CJewish&year_start=1800&year_end=2022&corpus=en&smoothing=3 ngram]. It can be covered in the article body if there is something notable and encyclopedic to say about that usage. [[WP:RPLA]] {{tq|'''Most (but not all)''' "inbound redirects" other than misspellings or other obvious close variants of the article title should be mentioned in the first couple of paragraphs of the article or section to which the redirect goes.}} Emphasis mine. Jewry is pretty much a close obvious variant to Jews. Nobody would be surprised when Jewry redirects to Jews. Nothing to explain, just an older and less common word form. 2) '''[[User:AndreJustAndre|Andre]]'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">[[User_talk:AndreJustAndre|🚐]]</span> 06:07, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Revision as of 06:07, 29 November 2025

Former good articleJews was one of the Social sciences and society good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 23, 2006Good article nomineeListed
July 6, 2008Good article reassessmentKept
October 6, 2008Peer reviewReviewed
February 26, 2009Good article reassessmentKept
April 18, 2017Good article reassessmentDelisted
Current status: Delisted good article

Jewish Diaspora Population Misreported

At the top of the page where there is a list of countries with significant amounts of Jews living in them, for some strange reason it lists South Korea and it's 1000 Jews, but fails to mention Morocco, Tunisia, Iran and some other countries like China, Turkey and India which have a much larger population of Jews living in them at present.

Is there a particular reason for neglecting to mention the existence of theses communities?

Edit: NATO country, Turkey, was added and South Korea was replaced with Panama, in a bid to avoid mentioning Iran which has 10,000 Jews living in it but not as much as Panama. I suspect political biases based on recent international conflict rather than adherence to facts on the parts of the editors, correct me if I'm wrong.

72.68.179.132 (talk) 02:28, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lead sentence translations

I made this edit to the lead sentence. In it, I (i) added in idiomatic Hebrew translations of "the Jewish people", namely Am Yehudi and Am Yisrael, the latter of which especially is idiomatic and culturally significant for modern Jews (1, 2, 3 etc.), and (ii) put all translations in the lead sentence (both existing and newly added) into footnotes rather than parentheticals.

The edit was reverted by Remsense without giving much of a reason. He said that it was "fine without footnotes". Footnotes for translation in the lead sentence improve readability and they are standard in many GAs/FAs (e.g., Germany, Japan, Islam, Nauru, Canada). They are suggested in MOS:PRONFN if the translation is distracting, which I think here it is as it takes up a good 30% of the sentence. Furthermore, (i) is kind of dependent on (ii), as if we have parenthetical translations for both "Jews" and "the Jewish people", the lead sentence is definitely too long, and I've provided what I think is a compelling independent argument for (i) above.

I'd like an explanation for this reversion by Remsense, and the input of other editors too. JDiala (talk) 06:53, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are a few existing lexical terms, but like I said such footnotes aren't obligatory and this one's fine without it.
The issue comes when adding yet more lexical terms: WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and the lead section especially needs not posture as if it's one. There's literally a dedicated section in the article body (which the lead is meant to summarize, as opposed to new information being grafted directly into the lead) for such material. Remsense 🌈  05:33, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

“Though it is not practiced by many ethnic Jews”

(in the lede) A large number of ethnic Jews do practice Judaism. Perhaps it would be better to reword this as “though many ethnic Jews do not practice it.” TheGame121.5 (talk) 23:25, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, that would remove an unfortunate ambiguity. Largoplazo (talk) 00:01, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely. A very strange and inaccurate line. Ahboas (talk) 12:13, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've made the change. Largoplazo (talk) 12:52, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Jewry"

@Hildeoc: Stop trying to put "Jewry" into the lead. This is indeed a very archaic and not quite offensive but not really appropriate term for the lead. See ngram. It can be covered in the article body if there is something notable and encyclopedic to say about that usage. WP:RPLA Most (but not all) "inbound redirects" other than misspellings or other obvious close variants of the article title should be mentioned in the first couple of paragraphs of the article or section to which the redirect goes. Emphasis mine. Jewry is pretty much a close obvious variant to Jews. Nobody would be surprised when Jewry redirects to Jews. Nothing to explain, just an older and less common word form. 2) Andre🚐 06:07, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]