Jump to content

Talk:Jews

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 July 2024

[edit]

Please change "After the Exile, the term Yehudi (Jew) was used for all followers of Judaism because the survivors of the Exile (who were the former residents of the Kingdom of Judah) were the only Israelites that had kept their distinct identity as the ten tribes from the northern Kingdom of Israel had been scattered and assimilated into other populations.[57]" to " After the Exile, the term Yehudi (Jew) was used for all followers of Judaism, because the survivors of the Exile (who were the former residents of the Kingdom of Judah) were the only Israelites that had kept their distinct identity as religious jews; the ten tribes from the northern Kingdom of Israel had been scattered and assimilated into other populations.[57]" ZucherBundlech (talk) 12:46, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Garsh (talk) 00:07, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not the original author, but it seems that the intent of the proposed change would just fix unclear writing, not add/remove any factual information. 45.37.105.227 (talk) 19:27, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand what you mean about clarifying, where it reads "had kept their distinct identity", their distinct identify as what. But do we know that they were all "religious"? Or do we know only that they continued to identify themselves, distinctly, as Jews, in contrast with the descendants of the other tribes? Largoplazo (talk) 12:21, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Non-White Jews

[edit]

We all know full well there are such things as Arab Jews. Why is there no data on all the Moroccon Jews? They all exist. But we only recognise the Ashkenazi Jews (Modern Israel Jews) Issue resolved MjhdNfl (talk) 00:48, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what you mean. We have several articles on Mizrahi Jews and Arab Jews, History of the Jews in Morocco, and so on. Andre🚐 03:02, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Andrevan
Ik, but shouldn't it be part of the bigger article on the Jews? MjhdNfl (talk) 03:24, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, of course, Mizrahim occurs at least 7 times on this page, North Africa at least 20 times Andre🚐 03:34, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Moroccan Jews are mentioned in five places in the article. In addition, there's a section titled "Ethnic divisions". So it isn't clear what your concern is. Largoplazo (talk) 13:13, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Largoplazo oh ok nvm MjhdNfl (talk) 13:21, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not the only Israelites that had kept their distinct identity (See: Samaritans)

[edit]

Name and etymology: "After the Exile, the term Yehudi (Jew) was used for all followers of Judaism because the survivors of the Exile (who were the former residents of the Kingdom of Judah) were the only Israelites that had kept their distinct identity as the ten tribes from the northern Kingdom of Israel had been scattered and assimilated into other populations."

This claim is not totally true and misleading. Samaritans are crying in the corner. Theofunny (talk) 08:02, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What’s with the glazing in the last paragraph?

[edit]

“Jews wrote the Bible, founded Christianity, and had an indirect but profound influence on Islam.”

Not only does this sentence contain somewhat misleading (or at least incomplete) phrasing for the first two parts, but the language itself seems to be leaning towards glazing. The preceding sentence is sufficient.

Lmk if I’m totally off base here, this is just my perception 65.112.8.31 (talk) 07:03, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seems fine to me, literally true statements, no puffery detected. Andre🚐 07:32, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]