| Revision as of 23:49, 20 April 2017 editDebresser (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers, Template editors110,467 edits →Sources: Done.← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 16:08, 2 January 2025 edit undoAndreJustAndre (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users40,603 editsm Reverted 1 edit by 2A02:9130:FE13:A7D1:1816:A825:2852:39E6 (talk) to last revision by Lowercase sigmabot IIITags: Twinkle Undo |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
{{Skip to talk}} |
|
{{Skip to talk}} |
|
{{Talk header|search=yes}} |
|
{{Talk header|search=yes}} |
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
|
|archiveheader = {{talk archive navigation|noredlinks=y}} |
|
|
|maxarchivesize = 150K |
|
|
|counter = 29 |
|
|
|minthreadsleft = 3 |
|
|
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 |
|
|
|algo = old(30d) |
|
|
|archive = Talk:Jews/Archive %(counter)d |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{Not a forum|Judaism or Jewish people}} |
|
{{Not a forum|Judaism or Jewish people}} |
|
{{Outline of knowledge coverage|Judaism}} |
|
|
{{Vital article|level=4|topic=Society|class=GA}} |
|
|
{{ArticleHistory |
|
{{ArticleHistory |
|
| action1 = GAN |
|
| action1 = GAN |
| Line 47: |
Line 36: |
|
| topic = Socsci |
|
| topic = Socsci |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|class=B|vital=yes|1= |
|
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1= |
|
|
{{WikiProject Ethnic groups |class=B |importance=Top}} |
|
{{WikiProject Ethnic groups |importance=Top}} |
|
{{WikiProject Judaism |class=B |importance=Top}} |
|
{{WikiProject Israel |importance=Top}} |
|
{{WikiProject Jewish history |class=B |importance=Top}} |
|
{{WikiProject Judaism |importance=Top}} |
|
{{WikiProject Israel |class=B |importance=Top}} |
|
{{WikiProject Jewish history |importance=Low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Western Asia |importance=High}} |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
|
|archiveheader = {{talk archive navigation|noredlinks=y}} |
|
|
|maxarchivesize = 150K |
|
|
|counter = 34 |
|
|
|minthreadsleft = 3 |
|
|
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 |
|
|
|algo = old(30d) |
|
|
|archive = Talk:Jews/Archive %(counter)d |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
{| class="messagebox standard-talk" style="text-align: center; font-size: larger" |
|
|
| style="width: 80px" | ] |
|
|
| '''For prior discussions of the infobox in the top right corner of the article, please visit ].''' |
|
|
|} |
|
|
{{auto archiving notice |bot=MiszaBot I |age=30 |dounreplied=yes}} |
|
|
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn |target=Talk:Jews/Archive index |mask=Talk:Jews/Archive <#> |leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes}} |
|
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn |target=Talk:Jews/Archive index |mask=Talk:Jews/Archive <#> |leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes}} |
|
|
{{Old moves |
|
|
| list = |
|
|
* RM, Jew → Jewish people, '''No consensus''', 10 July 2007, ] |
|
|
* RM, Jew → Jews, '''Moved''', 17 January 2010, ] |
|
|
* RM, Jews → Jewish people, '''Not moved''', 10 October 2017, ] |
|
|
* RM, Jews → Jewish people, '''Not moved''', 29 April 2018, ] |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{Press |
|
|
|author = Len Sander |
|
|
|title = Bericht: So soll Misplaced Pages von Anti-Israel-Aktivisten unterwandert worden sein (Report: Misplaced Pages allegedly infiltrated by anti-Israel activists) |
|
|
|trans-title = Report: Misplaced Pages allegedly infiltrated by anti-Israel activists |
|
|
|date = October 25, 2024 |
|
|
|org = ] |
|
|
|url = https://www.berliner-zeitung.de/politik-gesellschaft/bericht-so-soll-wikipedia-von-anti-israel-aktivisten-unterwandert-worden-sein-li.2265970 |
|
|
|lang = |
|
|
|quote = Even though most of these changes have been reversed - the English-language version of the article on the subject of Jews, for example, contains the link to the historical Kingdom of Israel - the effect of concerted online campaigns should not be underestimated. |
|
|
|archiveurl = |
|
|
|archivedate = <!-- do not wikilink --> |
|
|
|accessdate = December 5, 2024 |
|
|
|
|
|
|author2 = Debbie Weiss |
|
|
|title2 = Misplaced Pages’s Quiet Revolution: How a Coordinated Group of Editors Reshaped the Israeli-Palestinian Narrative |
|
|
|date2 = December 4, 2024 |
|
|
|org2 = ] |
|
|
|url2 = https://www.algemeiner.com/2024/12/04/wikipedias-quiet-revolution-how-coordinated-group-editors-reshaped-israeli-palestinian-narrative/ |
|
|
|lang2 = |
|
|
|quote2 = In an article on “Jews,” for example, an editor removed the phrase “Land of Israel” from a key sentence on the origin of Jewish people. The article’s short description (that appears on search results) was changed from “Ethnoreligious group and nation from the Levant” to “Ethnoreligious group and cultural community.” |
|
|
|archiveurl2 = |
|
|
|archivedate2 = <!-- do not wikilink --> |
|
|
|accessdate2 = December 5, 2024 |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{archives|]|nobot=yes}} |
|
|
|
|
|
== Individual reassessment == |
|
== Non-White Jews == |
|
|
<s>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)</s> Issue resolved ] (]) 00:48, 27 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
{{Talk:Jews/GA2}} |
|
|
|
|
|
== Disputed tag on periods of independence == |
|
|
|
|
|
Moving this here - is unsourced and disputed |
|
|
|
|
|
Israelites enjoyed political independence twice in ], first during the periods of the ] followed by the ].{{disputed inline|United Monarchy|date=February 2016}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Was apparently discussed some back in 2015 at ] and may go back further. |
|
|
|
|
|
The above is unsourced so cannot be in the article in any case. The "period of Biblical judges" is an ... interesting construct, given that the current scholarship treats the notion of "Israelite" gingerly for the pre-monarchic "tribal" period... ] (]) 00:12, 16 April 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
: That talkpage discussion shows unanimous consensus for the text as it stood. The tag was added in with the edit summary "United Monarchy's existence is disputed", and no discussion followed. In view of the consensus of all 4 editors in the discussion, I think the correct thing to do is to restore the text and remove the drive-by tagging. To which I will proceed. ] (]) 08:07, 16 April 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
::In case it isn't obvious, I dispute it. It is also unsourced as I pointed out above. Please source it per BURDEN but better just take it out so we can discuss it, as this section is intended to do. ] (]) 16:34, 16 April 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
::: That was not obvious. Okay, perhaps you yourself could find a source or two for this statement? Shouldn't be that hard. ] (]) 18:15, 17 April 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
::::The content is both unsourced and dubious. Most scholarly sources say that whether such a period as the one described in Judges is dubious, and even it it existed, whether the Israelites were independent or something else is unknown. You have now twice added unsourced dubious content to Misplaced Pages. Please don't do that. The ] is on you to show that the mainstream view is that the Israelites were independent during "the period of the judges". If you want we can hold an RfC as to whether this unsourced and dubious claim should stay in the article; I think you have been around long enough to know how that would turn out. ] (]) 19:37, 17 April 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Wow you restored it '''again'''. Terrible. Please justify the restoration under the policies. Thanks. Like I said, very happy to launch RfC, where your stance will be SNOW rejected. Do we really need that? I will wait til the end of the day and if this is not removed or extremely well sourced, I will launch the RfC. ] (]) 22:27, 17 April 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::: Of course I restored it. There are 4 editors who agree with this version, and you alone disagree. In any case, since El_C protected the page (IMHO a bit overly protective), I won't be able to add the source till after the protection expires, so please give me till after the Shabbat. After all, what is the hurry; this was in the article for years. ] (]) 15:10, 18 April 2017 (UTC)\ |
|
|
:::::::::You have time to edit war but not to comply with basic WP policies. Great. Please provide diffs of 4 editors "approving" this unsourced, highly dubious content in a putative Good Article. In the meantime I will start the complete waste of everyone's time RfC. This is one for the history books. ] (]) 15:47, 18 April 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Support''' removal unless someone can find a source per ] ] (] · ] · ]) 23:04, 17 April 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
=== Sources === |
|
|
|
|
|
Per Jytdog's suggestion, let me ask the question here that I asked there. What would be a good source for a nation's independence? By discussing a nation as such, the independence is implied. Sources would not often stress the fact of political independece of a nation as such. ] (]) 16:25, 18 April 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Another question is if we need one source to mention both periods, or can they be sourced independently? I think we can source each period separately. If necessary, the sentence could be modified a bit, e.g. "The Israelites were a nation during the time of the Judges and the period of the United Kingdom." ] (]) 16:28, 18 April 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:Not sure what you mean. We have several articles on ] and ], ], and so on. ''']'''<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%);">]</span> 03:02, 27 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
By the way, loud voices notwithstanding, it is not hard to source the independence of the Israelites during the United Kingdom. The question of the accuracy of the Biblical story does not detract from the consensus of historians regarding the fact that there was a United Kingdom. That seems to be a misunderstanding by some editors. The real problem is with the period of the Judges, since sources are rather clear that there was independence, but of tribes, not as one big nation. How should the article reflect that? "Perhaps say The Israelites were independent tribes during the time of the Judges and an independent nation during the period of the United Kingdom." ] (]) 16:31, 18 April 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
|
::@] |
|
:You will not be able to find good RS making claims that the Israelites were independent during a period (the "biblical judges") that mainstream sources say probably never existed. |
|
|
|
::Ik, but shouldn't it be part of the bigger article on the Jews? ] (]) 03:24, 27 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
:The question about what kind of sources is fake in any case. You either have sources that support this statement (which you need to have per ] to restore it), or you don't. Bring sources now, or concede that the content comes out until there is actual consensus for it or an amended version of it. ] (]) 16:38, 18 April 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:::Sure, of course, ''Mizrahim'' occurs at least 7 times on this page, North Africa at least 20 times ''']'''<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%);">]</span> 03:34, 27 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
:: Could you please fix that first sentence? I don't understand what you mean. I am, however, surprised by your categorical statement ("you will not be able"). Regarding the period of the United Kingdom I have already found a good source. Also, please don't make any demands here. You are not the one to decide how things should work on Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 16:45, 18 April 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:Moroccan Jews are mentioned in five places in the article. In addition, there's a section titled "]". So it isn't clear what your concern is. ] (]) 13:13, 27 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
::::Contemporary historians strongly doubt whether "the period of the biblical judges" existed. Hence, you will not find RS discussing qualities of the Israelites during a probably-nonexistent period. One of the problems with the content is that it treats something that probably didn't exist as though it does. Please put up the sources you actually have to support your restoration of this content, or withdraw your demand that the content stay. If you do the latter we can have the article unlocked and I can withdraw the RfC below and we can get back to normal editing. (and please don't abuse edit notes in the future, as you did ).] (]) 17:51, 18 April 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
|
::@] oh ok nvm ] (]) 13:21, 28 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
::::: I have no idea what you are talking about "abuse edit notes". I do know that I have had it with you bossing people around. Please take a break from this article for 24 hours and calm down. After that, perhaps we can make some progress here. |
|
|
::::: You post above claims that historians "strongly doubt" and then continues to say "probably didn't exist". So now you have shown your POV. Unfortunately, that POV is not supported by academic sources. Which you will see when I add them. (Not that I have a problem with discussing them beforehand, but not as long as you put out demands. Don't want to retract your futile Rfc, leave it, it will anyways be redundant as soon as I can edit the article.) ] (]) 20:21, 18 April 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::Please read the article on ] and the sources cited there. I have written this three times now; glad you are finally actually reading what i am writing. ] (]) 20:50, 18 April 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::The purpose of the lockdown is to reach consensus. You have just expressed your intent to continue edit warring. If you have sources for this statement, please provide them so that we can try to reach consensus. Alternatively, please propose other content.] (]) 20:53, 18 April 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::: Don't twist my words. I said I'll provide sources. Which should resolve the issue. No edit war from my side. Unless you intend to remove the text again after the block expires, in which case you will be edit warring. ] (]) 21:01, 18 April 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::crickets. ] (]) 21:00, 20 April 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Not the only Israelites that had kept their distinct identity (See: ]) == |
|
I have made the change I proposed here, with sources. I shall be happy to receive constructive criticism, suggestions and improvements. Please try and find additional or better sources. ] (]) 23:48, 20 April 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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 ] from the ] had ] and assimilated into other populations." |
|
==RfC Jewish history== |
|
|
{{rfc|hist|rfcid=103415B}} |
|
|
The article currently includes the following content: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This claim is not totally true and misleading. ] are crying in the corner. ] (]) 08:02, 5 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
<blockquote>Israelites enjoyed political independence twice in ], first during the periods of the ] followed by the ].</blockquote> |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== What’s with the glazing in the last paragraph? == |
|
This content is unsourced and had been tagged "disputed" since February 2016 (per the version as of a few days ago which you can see ). I moved it to talk in the section above, and it was restored by an editor saying that it "has the consensus of four editors", as you can see above. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
“Jews wrote the Bible, founded Christianity, and had an indirect but profound influence on Islam.” |
|
The question - '''should this content be in the article?''' ] (]) 15:47, 18 April 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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 ]. The preceding sentence is sufficient. |
|
===!votes=== |
|
|
*'''no''' There is no basis any policy and guideline for this content to stay. The "enjoyed" is weirdly POV language. Our article on the ] says (with five sources provided): {{tq|Likewise, there is doubt among scholars that a period resembling the one described in the Book of Judges existed in ancient Israel}} It also doesn't really fit in its context. And in any case the ] is on someone restoring unsourced content moved to talk to source it. ] (]) 15:49, 18 April 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Close Rfc as ill-conceived''' This Rfc was opened hastily and unnecessarily. After the page is unblocked, I will add sources. As to the question of the Rfc itself, this text had the unanimous support of all four editors who participated in the ], and I think Jytdog, whom I used to know as a good and rational editor, has lost his cool over nothing. I'd advise him to chill. ] (]) 16:10, 18 April 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''No''' If it's not well-sourced, it doesn't belong. The previous discussion on the matter was a handful of editors that wanted to say something without doing actual research. It's time to correct their error. <span class="nowrap" style="font-family:copperplate gothic light;">] (])</span> 19:40, 20 April 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''No''' The period of Judges and the Davidic United Monarchy are at least dubious, since archaeological evidence for them is lacking. I don't doubt that the country was inhabited, but it wasn't ruled by Judges nor it was a Davidic United Monarchy, or at least the past academic consensus upon those "facts" has crumbled. ] (]) 21:54, 20 April 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lmk if I’m totally off base here, this is just my perception ] (]) 07:03, 21 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
===discussion=== |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:Seems fine to me, literally true statements, no puffery detected. ''']'''<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%);">]</span> 07:32, 21 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
A good question would be, what is considered a good source for a nation being independent. Sources that discuss a nation, imply by that fact alone that it is independent. ] (]) 16:13, 18 April 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
|
::Alright, perhaps I was mistaken. I still think it might be beneficial to reword it in a way that doesn’t oversimplify things as much. ] (]) 11:30, 21 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
:No, that is not a relevant question here. The only relevant question is - should content be in a Good Article that is dubious (tagged so for over a year), unsourced, and in Misplaced Pages's voice? The answer to this is a complete no brainer. For content proposed on talk page, your question can be discussed at leisure; it is a different issue. ] (]) 16:19, 18 April 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:::How would you want to reword it? ''']'''<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%);">]</span> 22:50, 21 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
:: Oh, calm down, will you. As I said, I will add sources after the page is unprotected. If you want to discuss this, you should have waited and discussed, instead of opening an Rfc in such a hurry. Not befitting for the experienced editor that you are. ] (]) 16:23, 18 April 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
|
::::"Jews authored the Bible, established Christianity, and influenced Islam." <span style="font-weight:bold;color:darkblue">]</span>🍁 01:24, 22 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
:::Not responding further - your remarks here remain offtopic. ] (]) 16:36, 18 April 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:::::Seems fine to me. ''']'''<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%);">]</span> 01:36, 22 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
:::The page can be unprotected early if sources are provided to everyone's satisfaction. Use the talk page for that. ] 22:00, 18 April 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
|
::::: The first two clauses seems mostly a substitution of longer words for shorter ones, with no apparent change in meaning or other improvement I can see. As far as the last clause, given that Islam is one of the three ], and the many links mentioned in the lead paragraph of ], the word ''profound'' seems an accurate description, and not puffery. |
|
|
::::: To the IP: a short, assertive statement in the ] is not an oversimplification, if it is a summary of content in the body of the article that demonstrates that the lead statement is correct and lays out the most important points without all the details excected in the body. Not everything can be crammed into the lead; remember that ] is just a summary of the most important points of the body, and that sentence seems fine for the lead. {{ec}} ] (]) 01:50, 22 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Agree with Mathglot. ] (]) 02:10, 22 December 2024 (UTC) |
“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.
level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
.svg){kind=small}
