Jews 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.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ethnic groups, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to ethnic groups, nationalities, and other cultural identities on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ethnic groupsWikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groupsTemplate:WikiProject Ethnic groupsEthnic groups
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Israel on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IsraelWikipedia:WikiProject IsraelTemplate:WikiProject IsraelIsrael-related
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Judaism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Judaism-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JudaismWikipedia:WikiProject JudaismTemplate:WikiProject JudaismJudaism
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Jewish history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Jewish history on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Jewish historyWikipedia:WikiProject Jewish historyTemplate:WikiProject Jewish historyJewish history-related
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ancient Near East, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of ancient Near East–related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ancient Near EastWikipedia:WikiProject Ancient Near EastTemplate:WikiProject Ancient Near EastAncient Near East
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Western Asia, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Western AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject Western AsiaTemplate:WikiProject Western AsiaWestern Asia
This article has previously been nominated to be moved. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination.
Discussions:
RM, Jew → Jewish people, No consensus, 10 July 2007, Discussion
RM, Jew → Jews, Moved, 17 January 2010, Discussion
RM, Jews → Jewish people, Not moved, 10 October 2017, Discussion
RM, Jews → Jewish people, Not moved, 29 April 2018, Discussion
Debbie Weiss (December 4, 2024). "Wikipedia's Quiet Revolution: How a Coordinated Group of Editors Reshaped the Israeli-Palestinian Narrative". Algemeiner Journal. Retrieved December 5, 2024. 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."
(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]
@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:RPLAMost (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. Andre🚐06:07, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I do not agree. The term is noteable as such, and should be included. Also, none of the renowned major dictionaries I consulted (e.g., Oxford, Collins, Merriam) labels this as "archaic". Hildeoc (talk) 06:34, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Collins and Merriam-Webster do label at least one each of the usages as archaic. And, regardless, something can be archaic without the dictionary updating to label it such. It's not a commonly used term in the modern day. While it is occasionally used, you are also using it wrong. It's a collective noun that needs no article. Regardless, there's no consensus for your addition to the long-standing lead section. Andre🚐06:40, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
AAMOF, I am not using it "wrong" at all – think of similar terms such as gentry or clergy. Also, there is a pertinent redirect, so it correspondingly should be included. Hildeoc (talk) 06:50, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Jewry is not a word like gentry or clergy. If it is used at all it is usually used as in "American Jewry," "world Jewry," "Ethiopian Jewry." It's not THE Jewry of America. That might be grammatical but it is unstylistic and the way you've used it in the lead is inappropriate. Please revert yourself as it is your 4th revert. Andre🚐06:52, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, here it is being used as an abstract noun – i.e., expressly not as in "American Jewry" or "world Jewry", which are both modified to denote specific groups of Jews. Hildeoc (talk) 06:56, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No. Nobody would write "The Jewry." Wikipedia is not written based on obscure stuff in the dictionary, it's written based on common usage and the principle of easily understood, normal use. The policy clearly makes a possibility of not being so literal. Andre🚐06:59, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As I already said, Jewry is noteable as a not "obvious variant" for "Jews" – rather it is actually a morphologically distinct form. Hildeoc (talk) 07:16, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It does not. "World Clergy" makes no sense and not a construction anyone would use. Jewry is an abstract proper noun. Andre🚐07:00, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, "world clergy" makes perfect sense (e.g., "a congress of Catholic world clergy"). Also, you're missing the point here: use determiner for unmodified term here (as for "Jewry"); when modified, use no determiner. Hildeoc (talk) 07:11, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I challenge you to find any single source every referring to "world clergy" in that usage. The point here is that "The Jewry" is NOT a synonym that any person would reasonably associate. I challenge you to find any reasonable recent authoritative source that uses that. Andre🚐07:13, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, "the Jewry" (unless followed by a qualifying phrase) sounds ancient and really forced. Looking through Google Books hits for "the Jewry" I find that nearly everything after 1925 with "the Jewry" is followed by something like "of 18-century America" or "of medieval England". There's some collection from 1925 that has naked "the Jewry" a lot, and then I see a bunch of uses earlier than that.
It isn't a common term for it. The "distinguish" hatnotes are for terms that may easily be confused with the subject of the article (or a redirect that leads to it). Largoplazo (talk) 14:09, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, right. I didn't understand what you meant but I do now. Can you use that tool that shows the path people typically use to get to a page to find out if anyone is typing "jewry" and meaning "jewelry"? If they do, at any meaningful rate, I'd agree with the hatnote. Andre🚐22:28, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"The gentry" is in common usage, as is "The clergy." "World gentry" has a conceptual mapping but is not very common. And it really doesn't make sense. "British gentry" and "British Jewry" are both in common use, but the latter is increasingly less common. The reason is easy to understand. British Jews makes more sense. Jews of Britain sounds fine. Jewry of Britain, let alone THE Jewry of Britain, sounds downright medieval and it does NOT belong in the first sentence. Andre🚐07:22, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That is, very much in the first place, more about your personal taste, perception, and assessment of currentness than anything ... Is it formal to use "Jewry"? Yes. But that's about it to virtually all reputable up-to-date dictionaries. Hildeoc (talk) 07:32, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This article has a number of spelling and grammatical errors. It is written by a non-native English speaker or is just a translation from Hungarian or Romanian or whatever and that's why they have chosen this awkward wording. Andre🚐07:48, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
OK, that is an authoritative source using it by a native speaker, but he is still referring to a medieval series of events and a medieval body of Jewish people. I doubt you can find a modern referent. Andre🚐08:22, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with AndreJustAndre that "Jewry" does not belong in the lead, and that it is an increasingly archaic word. I am a 73 year old California Jew and I remember the term mostly from its narrow usage by the Soviet Jewry movement which existed from the 1960s to 1991. Since then, the vast majority of the time I hear the term, it is in the context of recounting the history of that movement. The comments about jewellry remind me of a very well known (to people of my age) comedy skit on Saturday Night Live featuring Gilda Radner playing the fictional Emily Litella, a hearing impaired woman who confuses the words "Jewry" and "jewellry". That was first broadcast in January, 1976, nearly 50 years ago. "Jewry" is simply not in common usage by native English speakers in 2025. It is clunky, awkward and outdated. Cullen328 (talk) 08:39, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm satisfied. The word appears 11 times in the text of the article and once in a section hatnote link. If someone wants to address it directly as a term, used either to refer to Jews as a collective or to specific Jewish populations, that can be done in the name and etymology section. Largoplazo (talk) 15:34, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Done I chose to rewrite most of that paragraph, but the double period is no longer there. Mikewem (talk) 19:21, 25 December 2025 (UTC)
