Jump to content

Talk:Union générale des israélites de France

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

Commissioner François and Judenreferat Dannecker.[46] In the whole of the southern zone, the PQJ had only about thirty employees, who were not well accepted by the Vichy administration.

For commissioner François. TODO: scope_creepTalk 01:54, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Historical description

[edit]

[1]

References

  1. ^ Michael Graetz (1996). The Jews in Nineteenth-century France: From the French Revolution to the Alliance Israélite Universelle. Stanford University Press. pp. 37–45. ISBN 978-0-8047-2571-2. Retrieved 15 October 2020.

Copy edit notes

[edit]

A couple quick copy-edit notes, since this article has translations from French and German.

  • Italics: Wikipedia uses italics for foreign words and phrases but not for proper names in foreign languages. (Our house style does use italics for titles of works of art in any language which uses the Roman alphabet.)
  • Capitalization: In German, all nouns are capitalized, whether proper nouns or generic. In French, only the first letter of proper names is capitalized (unless the proper name contains another proper name, in which case that is also capitalized). In English, we capitalize the first letter of each word in a proper name, except for short words like "and", "of" and "the".

So we generally style proper names like Médecins Sans Frontières and Wermacht. I'm okay with some lower-case in French proper names, so long as it's clear from context that they're proper names. I styled Judenrat as italic capitalized since it is a generic foreign word derived from a proper name.

I wasn't as certain about capitalization of northern and southern zone. They seem to correspond to the better-known occupied zone and free zone, previous to the November 1942 occupation of both zones. I left them lower case for consistency, and used them preferentially to occupied and free zone so as to cover the broader period.

I also tweaked the layout a bit, nesting some sections and changing some section names. I labelled the main section 'History' since it is more or less chronological, but it could be reworked.

I hope this is helpful. Please {{ping|Reidgreg}} if you want to discuss. – Reidgreg (talk) 16:19, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Reidgreg: Thanks. If you plan to do a deep copyedit, then please do it. scope_creepTalk 16:51, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Reidgreg:, It is quite a deep ce. scope_creepTalk 17:04, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Reidgreg:, that is a decent copyedit, all in. It is a much better read. I notice there is a couple of clarifications need, some refs and a new small section or explanation need, re: the attachment to Petain. I will get on. Perhaps you can check it when I'm done. I'll do the refs today and try and the Petain explanation stuff tommorrow. scope_creepTalk 17:12, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Preserving content

[edit]

I have removed the "Appendix" section in accordance with our MOS. The link to the text is here. Some of this material might be appropriate for Wikisource and, if notable, some of the reading recommendations might be folded into the "Further reading" section. It cannot, unfortunately, stay where it is. —Brigade Piron (talk) 13:47, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how it became an appendix section but it was never intended to be that section. I've reverted and fixed it up somewhat. scope_creepTalk 14:40, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your comment but I am afraid the text of the decree will need to be removed per WP:NOFULLTEXT. Please do feel free to move it to Wikisource. As for the bibliography, why is this separate from the existing sources cited below? Why are these works deemed more notable than the others? As for the external links, please see WP:LINKSTOAVOID. I have restored my earlier changes. 15:05, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
If you want it in Wikisource, then you move it. I don't know how to do. It is a bib section. It is not an American-English article. It is British-English article. scope_creepTalk 15:35, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am afraid you do not seem to understand the issue here. You have clearly done good work on this article but these are requirements from the MOS rather than some subjective content issue where there is room for different opinions. Please read the guidance above. What is the relevance of the British/American English? —Brigade Piron (talk) 22:59, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with BP. Full texts are almost always WP:Undue. Useful sources that could potentially be cited are better to list on the talk page as we prioritize readers not editors in main space. (t · c) buidhe 01:19, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]