This is an archive of past discussions about Judaism. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
The "hatnote" should simply say: Also see related article entitled Jew. While we are discussing hatnotes, the Jew article should simply have the hatnote: Also see related article entitled Judaism.
"Jew" and "Judaism" are extremely common terms and need no further elaboration as to meaning.
In my opinion this (the hatnote issue) is the first issue that should be resolved, even before moving on to find the wording for the lede. Bus stop (talk) 16:25, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Why? Hatnotes are relatively trivial, they let readers know that there is another article with the same name but on a different topic, or on a closely related enough topic that they should consider it. The specific language of a hatnote is semantics. And in every instance, the contents of the hatnote follows the article. If there are any conflicts concerning the cntents of the article, we should resolve those first. Anyone writing a hatnote (and they are seldom done by committee) is just summing up the contents of the article. The article comes first ... Slrubenstein | Talk17:11, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Do you really have a problem with the current hatnote? You are in the middle of a conflict with Jayjg, and I don't know if your conflict over kashrut has been resolved yet - why not deal with things one at a time? Slrubenstein | Talk17:12, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
I see the wording contained in the hatnote as an encapsulation of the issue of the wording for the lede. (I say that the hatnote issue should be resolved first, but if you disagree let's not get hung up on that.) Obviously I am an advocate for minimal wording in both places. My stance is against what I see as indoctrination. I feel that the disputes of this nature boil down to what the different editors feel the reader needs to be told. My philosophy is to get out of the way. My philosophy is to endeavor not to interpose oneself between the reader and the absolutely essential material of the article. Therefore I'm opposed to all unnecessary language anywhere. Bus stop (talk) 17:32, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
I think the hatnote should stay as it is. It contains details to inform the reader of what to expect in this article and what not, which is precisely what a hatnote is for. Without these details a reader might have expected the Judaism article to contain historic or cultural information also. Even though it does not and should not, the concepts "Jew" and "Judaism" are easily confused. Debresser (talk) 17:37, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Debresser, this is the English language Wikipedia, therefore the reader doesn't need to be informed of what to expect. Judaism ends in "-ism." Every English speaker knows that refers to "concept." Not to mention every English speaker already knows what the word Judaism is in reference to, as well as the word Jew. There is a point beyond which more information is not helpful. It is a burden. The reader knows what to do with a link to Judaism or Jew: click on it or not click on it. And the choice of words acting as a preamble to those plainly understood words is anything but innocent. The choice of words reflects a point of view: what is left out, what is included. I suggest giving the reader a little breathing room. Bus stop (talk) 17:48, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Oh, really? I though this was the Afghan Wikipedia. Sorry. Just for the record, is just plain disagree with you. Do you mind? Debresser (talk) 17:54, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Sorry for being sarcastic. But you get my point. My point is that English speakers are thoroughly familiar with these terms. BTW -- why are you weirding up the indentation here? Bus stop (talk) 18:03, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
I think the discussion about this subject is sufficient proof that all of us English speakers (native or foreign) have quite varied expectations. The indentation is because each opinion about the subject deserves to be a second level indentation. My comment refered to the very first paragraph in this section, not to any previous posts here. Debresser (talk) 19:21, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
I was the original author of the "hatnote" back in June, 2006. (See- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Judaism&diff=prev&oldid=56760424), and have followed at least part of this current discussion with much interest. Those who say the hatnote is over-explanatory and unnecessary should be aware that in 2006 there was much confusion about this issue: many editing wars were caused by editors unaware of the distinction between the two articles, and became incensed by the fact that topics associated with Jews in general (for example yiddish theater) were not included in the Judaism article. I would urge you to be extremely cautious before overturning such a basic and long-held intro. Certainly we can agree that extremely strong consensus must be reached before doing so. I would be curious to hear any argument claiming an inaccuracy in the hatnote. shykee (talk) 19:43, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, Shykee. I have this to say about that: There is a valid point to be made concerning that there is both a Jew and a Judaism article. I think an argument could be made that only one should exist. If only one existed, it would be feasible to include all of the information in both the Jew article and the Judaism article in that one article, whichever name it would be. I assume there would be space constraints in a combined article, but I don't know that for sure. But Wikipedia shouldn't go about making artificial distinctions that don't adhere to usage in the wider world. The most obvious distinction is that one term refers to people and the other term refers to a concept. There is a relationship between those people and that concept. But beyond that I think it gets difficult to separate meaningfully between the two. Correct me if you think I'm wrong about that. I think the two are so interrelated that they can't realistically be separated. The fact of the matter is that two articles exist, and I highly doubt that consensus could be found to merge them into one another. But I think we should be careful not to set up artificial distinctions between them. We should not impose arbitrary factors differentiating between the two. Most importantly we have to be careful about neutral point of view. I'm not so much concerned about the content of the respective articles, but any language we as editors might use to distinguish between the Jew article and the Judaism article. Do sources make important distinctions between Jews and Judaism? I mean beyond simply one being the concept and the other the people? In keeping with neutral point of view we shouldn't be guiding the reader to one article or the other article based on what may be artificial distinctions set up by us. Therefore the hatnote should not be conveying implications not supported by sources. Bus stop (talk) 20:18, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Query: It is clear that in another encyclopedia, the two articles might be one ("Jews and Judaism" but that is not the case here, nor is it likely to occur. How important is it to shorten the hatnote at the possible expense of confusing the reader? How important is it to have a hatnote sufficiently detailed that any major change in the article might have to be reflected in a new hatnote? Which words in the current long-standing hatnote are apt to confuse a reader? Collect (talk) 20:28, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
You raise a good point, that there is a tradeoff between information contained in the hat-note and possible ease of use of this encyclopedia. But that also points to other problems: if there is illogic to the dividing of material between the two articles, that is a problem that arguably also should be addressed.
On principle I feel that the hat-note itself should not convey implications that may be erroneous. That is what we must ward against. Bus stop (talk) 20:38, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
The improper implication is the allocating of aspects of this general subject matter to the two respective articles. If it is arbitrary that calls for a disclosure. Bus stop (talk) 20:47, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
OK, specifically: ethnic, historic, and cultural — by what reasoning is this subject matter related to Jews and not to Judaism?
Conversely: Jewish way of life, including religion, law, culture, and philosophy — by what reasoning are these things related to Judaism and not to Jews? Bus stop (talk) 20:56, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Bus stop, I urge you to stop thining about words, and think instead about articles. This is a practical matter: the only purpose of the hatnote is to set this article off from closely related articles. The article Jews is priarily about jewish demographics and Jewish populations including genetics. It does not discuss jewish religion, law, culture, and philosophy, or even a "Jewish way of life" in general. Yes, all of this can apply to "Jews" the word and the concept. But that is not what disambiguations are about. They are about articles and these terms do NOT apply to the article, Jew. I happen to think they are much better escribed in this article. The hatnote should follow what the contents of the article encompasses.
I do not mind your inimalist aproach to hatnotes - effectively, say nothing - but if we are going to say anything we should try to sum up what the article (not just the lead, which you seem to be obsessing on) as a whole discusses. "Jewish way of life" seems to fit this article pretty well, I think. Slrubenstein | Talk01:01, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Why not tell everyone precisely what meaning you impute to each word and how it improperly categorizes either article as the articles now stand? It is hard for people to discuss without really clear reasoning as to why they hold a specific position on a specific word. Collect (talk) 22:42, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
The two articles should not arbitrarily divide the material between them as though the material were a fungible substance. What is the logic for the division of material between the two articles? If it is arbitrary, is that not a problem in itself? Bus stop (talk) 01:41, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
That is a very big "if" there. I note Encyclopdia Britannica here uses the term "Judaism" to describe the Jewish religion. While it may or may not be arbitrary, it is a destinction which seems to exist in other similar sources, and I personally can't see any real reservations in following the standard of the second :) most respected, and much older, encyclopedia currently extant. John Carter (talk) 02:00, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
John -- Britannica does not use hat-notes. Britannica has a Jew article and a Judaism article. But they don't include hat-notes. By your reasoning we should not either. If you are following Britannica as a lead, then Wiki should not use hat-notes in this instance either. Bus stop (talk) 02:24, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Please understand, Bus stop, that there is a clear distinction between the two topics. One, the article Judaism, refers to a system of thought in abstract; it pertains to a self-contained philosophy of living and belief. Even if Judaism had never been practiced by a single individual, as long as it was articulated as an ordered belief system it would merit an article called Judasim. Any importance actual people may have in this article (i.e. people who have practiced the religion- meaning Jews) is limited to when the people have had an impact on forming the system of belief. [Thus we may discuss in "Judaism" the Reform, Conservative and Orthodox movements because of their non-tangential relationship to the actual "religion"] However the other article, Jew, refers to a specified people and their actual existence, actions, and all the various variegations of the Jewish identity. This identity, while it certainly encompasses actual practice of Judaism (but without discussion of the underlying philosophy), by definition is separate from a consideration of only the religion in abstract. If this was unclear at all, please let me know. shykee (talk) 03:07, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Shykee -- Fine. That is your defense of the two article setup that we have, including both a Judaism and a Jew article. I think an argument can be made for the two existing in one article, but I'm sure consensus would want two separate articles for these two separate titles. Also supporting what I think you are saying is the precedent set by for instance Encyclopedia Britannica -- two separate articles.
But the question here concerns hat-notes. Your explanation may contain insights and subtlety. But don't we all have a pretty good sense of what the word "Jew" refers to, and what the term "Judaism" refers to? You click on a link to the other article if you so feel inclined. There is little point to educating people about something that they already know. And some people might disagree with the basis for distinctions that you articulate above, or at the very least they might take issue with a portion of it. If hat-notes are based on the reasoning you've presented, are they really representative of neutral point of view? Aren't there likely other points of view that are distinctly at variance with your stated point of view? Does Encyclopedia Britannica use hat-notes? No, they don't.
What you are presenting may be a fine argument against the merging of the article entitled Jew and the article entitled Judaism. I don't 100% agree with it. But that is not what is under discussion. Under discussion is the linking of these two articles by what is being referred to as "hat-notes." I think the sound argument is made that the two articles are on closely related subjects. Therefore it might be helpful to employ this thing called a hat-note to link them. The question boils down to what form such a hat-note should take. As I indicated above, this is in my opinion the best form for the two hat-notes:
This article (the "Judaism" article) should have the hat-note saying:
The above two hat-notes would alert the reader to the existence of a closely related article and provide a link to it. Bus stop (talk) 03:50, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
I do not have any objection to Bus stop's proposal - it is simply to indicate to anyone who reached this article that whatever they are looking for may be in another article. IF we want to be more detailed, I think this hatnote should say, "This article discusses the Jewish way of life, including religion, law, culture, and philosophy." This is descriptive and has a level of detail that will clearly help readers. If we want details, I favor this. But i we do not want details, I favor Bus stop's. Slrubenstein | Talk12:11, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Am I correct that this article refers to beliefs and practices of Jews, thet the article on Jews deals with Jews as a people, and that the one on secular Jewish culture deals with the group of Jews described as secular and their culture? Collect (talk) 12:21, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Every reader has a basic grasp of the terms "Jew" and "Judaism." No further explanation is called for. Our job is to write the two articles well. We should be mindful of the content of both articles if we are to edit either of them. We should be mindful of when we are duplicating information in the two articles. Most of the time it is not called for, but with a few exceptions it may be justifiable. The two articles obviously should bear a logical relationship to their two titles. But hat-notes don't have to be in place to detail our rationale for what went where. The logic for the division of material between the "Jew" article and the "Judaism" article should be the logic that all speakers of English share. I think we should simply write two interesting articles with links to one another, so that one can be easily accessed from the other. Bus stop (talk) 15:01, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
The hatnote is not the culprit. It merely explains the facts of the two articles and briefly references the difference between them. One refers to the people (Jew) the other to a religious system (Judaism). There are two articles. There is a difference between them. The difference is as stated in the hatnote. If you believe this difference to be unsupported, your problem lies with the actual articles, not with the hatnote that only states the facts of the existing articles. Again, the hatnote is not an opinion. It is a fact. One article references the religion. The other the people. It might be reasonable to discuss the separation between the two- but not the hatnote which merely represents the existing actual difference between the two article's subject matter. Again, the hatnote refers to the difference between the Wikipedia articles in their current attitude toward Jew vis-a-vis Judasim- a factual difference that there are in fact two articles each referencing different phenomena: a POV of the articles not the hatnote. shykee (talk) 16:24, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Shykee, you say that the hat-note "…represents the existing actual difference between the two article's subject matter." But doesn't the Table of contents do that?
Why state the obvious? Do you really think the reader needs to be informed that Jews are people? Do you really think the reader needs to be informed that Judaism is a concept? English speakers, in fact probably non-English speakers, know what the 2 words mean. They can choose to click on the link if they feel so inclined. There is a table of contents at each article. Surely the table of contents can serve as a good way to find what they are looking for. Bus stop (talk) 16:48, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
So you do agree that the hatnote is factual and correct- in fact obvious. You merely argue that it is unnecessary: let the reader look over the Table of Contents? Is that your entire issue with the hatnote? shykee (talk) 17:07, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
The table of contents is adequately detailed. It is designed to be that way. It is neither too detailed nor too cursory. It is regularly updated as a natural consequence of changes that are made to the article over time. It has a lot of "eyes" on it because it is readily in every editor's field of view as changes are made to the article. Wikipedia functions on lots of input and scrutiny. And every user of Wikipedia knows that if they click on a link to a related article they will find a table of contents there. I'm confident in that method of finding one's way around Wikipedia. Bus stop (talk) 00:39, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Judaism is not just a religious system. For one thing, I thinkmot Jewish philosophers would disagree over the degree to which Judaism is systematic ... One strand of Jewish history over the past two thousand years has been attempts to systematize the Jewish legal system, and most attempts to systematize have been followed by periods o debate and differentiation. Be that as it may, Judaism is a way of life. It is, as Depresser has pointed out, a way of life that is first and formost religious, but als legal, philosophical, and ethical, and all these belong in the hatnote. I mean, we are talking about three other words - does this really bankrupt Wikipedia? Slrubenstein | Talk01:15, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
User Bus stop has not answered the question: So you do agree that the hatnote is factual and correct- in fact obvious. You merely argue that it is unnecessary: let the reader look over the Table of Contents? Is that your entire issue with the hatnote? Do you agree that the hatnote is correct? shykee (talk) 01:37, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Shykee, What do you mean by "in fact obvious?" What is the difference between "factual" and "correct?" This article, the Judaism article, has a hat-note saying to see the Jew article for: "ethnic," "historic," and "cultural" considerations. I find a section called "Other holidays" in this, the Judaism article. Wouldn't holidays be considered "cultural?" Can you tell me why the hat-note is directing me to the other article if I am finding "cultural" considerations covered here in this article? How about "history?" This article has a section labeled "History." Why would the hat-note be directing me to the other article for considerations of a "historical" nature when "history" is covered in this article? Wouldn't you agree that the table of contents provides a much better idea of what is in the article than a few hat-note terms? Bus stop (talk) 02:46, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Purim street scene in Jerusalem.If you doubt whether "holidays" are "cultural," this photo looks pretty "cultural" to me. The picture is found in this, the Judaism article. Yet the hat-note of this, the Judaism article, is directing me to the other article for "cultural" considerations. I hope clear heads can prevail about this hat-note thing because it is just cluttering up the top of the article unnecessarily. Bus stop (talk) 03:03, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
OK. How about saying "Judaism refers to the traditions and practices of the ethno-religious group known as Jews." (with proper wikilinks). Collect (talk) 17:12, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Bus stop, please understand that the talkpage is not a place to nitpick the grammar or sentence structure of other editors. Please refrain from doing so- it adds nothing to the discussion and can only end negatively for you. However, because the question was raised and in fear of explaining the obvious: In English one often uses two similar terms for emphasis. Additionally, there is a vast conceptual difference between the terms "correct" and "obvious". Take our current discussion for example: I believe my arguments are "correct" and the hatnote is indeed "factual". The veracity of this may or may not be "obvious". However, you have previously intimated in your comments that the difference between "Jew and "Judaism" is "obvious" and hence unnecessary. Therefore, your comments are a bit perplexing. Is the problem you have with the hatnote because it is incorrect? Or is the problem that it is too obvious and hence unnecessary? Please explain your intention. shykee (talk) 17:40, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Shykee, most articles have a table of contents available to help the readers assess the contents of articles. As I've already pointed out, a simple click takes the reader from the Judaism article to the Jew article, where a well-put-together table of contents awaits. And this article additionally contains a "See also" section to help readers access related articles.
Can you point to any other articles with "hat-notes" so I can maybe get a better understanding of why you seem to be arguing so vehemently for that here? If possible, could you bring my attention to an instance that has similar parallels to the situation that applies here at this article? I am trying to understand what your reasoning is behind this.
I'm really not "nitpicking" anything. I hope I speak clearly. I try to speak clearly. If ever I am not understood I should hope that people point out whatever it is that they don't understand that I've said. If I question words used by others it is because I want to understand what someone else is saying. There is no sense going off in a tangent relating to something that someone else didn't even say. We are a wide group of people, hailing from diverse backgrounds. When clarification is asked for it should be understood as the person's need to know where we stand in relationship to one another in this communication. Bus stop (talk) 19:15, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Example "For the Jewish way of life, including religion, law, culture, and philosophy, see Judaism. For other uses, see Jew (disambiguation)." Yes, this is the other half of this discussion. There are not really any direct parallels to the use of Judaism and Jew as a simple matter of fact, but that has no real bearing on how this hatnote should be handled. Our task here is not to be perfect but to reach a reasonable consensus on how to address the bifurcation involved. At this point, it certainly appears that the consensus is that the hatnote should include some expository material. What remains to be determined, then, is how to word that material. Collect (talk) 19:50, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Some hatnote disambiguation templates include a summary of the present article's topic; others do not. For instance, in the article Honey, one might use the template {{about|the insect-produced fluid}} to produce:
This article is about the insect-produced fluid. For other uses of the term, see Honey (disambiguation).
Alternatively, one might use {{otheruses}} to produce:
'"Either of these two styles is acceptable; the choice of style in a given article is based on editors' preference and what is likely to be clearer and easier for the reader. Where an article already has a hatnote in one of these styles, editors should not change to the other style without good reason."
Sure, the question is how to do it accurately. Shykee has a particular point of view. She has been representin it as objective fact, but it is just a point of view, that Judaism is a self-contained belief system even if it had never been held by anyone. I wonder what Jewish authorities share this point of viw. But I know many Jewish authorities who do not - authorities who stress action, practice, over philosophy or belief, and authorities who see Judaism very much as the expression of the genious of the Jewish people. It is not at all hard to come across these authorities if one has attended Hebrew High School or taken courses in Jewish studies in University. So if we are going to have an explanatory hatnote (as I have said, I can go Bus stop's way, or this way) let's have a good explanation. "The Jewish way of life encompassing religion, ethics, law, and philosophy" easily fits at the top of the page and misleads nobodySlrubenstein | Talk13:31, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
The hatnote as presently in place at this article and which is presently being contemplated for alteration does not represent a sanctioned use for hatnotes. Wikipedia policy does not provide for hatnotes to be used this way. "Jew" and "Judaism" are two different terms that cannot be confused. There is no disambiguation called for between these two terms. The language that some are advocating for in the hatnote is not supported by Wikipedia policy concerning hatnotes. No reader needs any further explanation (in the form of a hatnote) concerning what the two articles contain. The "Muslim" and "Islam" articles are not connected by elaborately worded hatnotes. The "Christian" and "Christianity" articles are not either. "Jew" and "Judaism" are two different words. A basic understanding of English is assumed of a user of the English Wikipedia. The hatnote is not a place for further commentary that should be contained within the article itself. In addition to the article itself there is a table of contents which reflects and summarizes the information in the article. Additionally all of these articles contain a "See also" section for linking to related articles. Please see WP:HAT and please show me where there is to be found justification for the use of hatnotes as is found at this article.
Also, it is unreasonable to expect hatnotes when used this way to keep pace with changes made to articles over time. Already the present hatnote would seem to be obsolete as it refers a reader to another article for what is presently in this article: In this article is a lot of material on for instance "history" and "culture" yet the hatnote is indicating another article for coverage of that. The use of the hatnotes in this way in my opinion is unwieldy and impractical. Bus stop (talk) 15:16, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Slrubenstein misunderstands my point. Of course Judaism may demand action etc. However the point is that Judaism- the word- refers to a construct (which obviously may make demands of those who adhere to it). This is not a POV about Judasim. It is a statement that is a tautological truth of the English language. "Judasim" refers to the philosophy/religion/values/commandments or whatever your desired phrase. Even if there had never been a single individual who practiced Judaism it would still demand a Wikipedia article called "Judaism". However, "Jew" is a word that refers to a specified group of people. Hence the article titled "Jew" refers to that people's history, that people's culture (which may or may not include their religion). Whereas the article "Judasim" refers to the articulated religion (or whatever word you like) and it's history, it's development etc.
As far as Bus stop's request for a Wikipedia policy that mirrors my approach, please see above where I quoted the relevant policy. Your argument could easily be made against having an explanatory hatnote in the article "Honey". "Let the reader look in the table of contents!" shykee (talk) 17:09, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
All words refer to constructs; the word "Jew" refers to the idea of there being a "Jew' as much as it refers to anything concrete - this is a point made by Frege and I think all mainstream philosophers of language still agree with it. Now, if we can both agre on this, fine by me! I still think that the best predicate for the subject "Judaism" is "the Jewish way of life" although I have zero objection to adding specifics that would be more infomrative to our readers including "religion," "ethics,"'laws" and so on. Slrubenstein | Talk18:00, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Shykee -- "Honey" is also a song title. "Honey" is also the title of an album of music. "Honey" is the name of a character in a novel. "Honey" is the name of a film. "Honey" is a "term of endearment." "Honey" is the name of a TV character. It is because of these other uses that "honey" requires a hatnote. But there is no "ambiguity" in the terms Jew and Judaism. Bus stop (talk) 17:26, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Bus stop, I understand your point. Wikipedia does not require us to have a disambiguation hatnote in this case and "see also" at th end of the article is also appropriate. If you are proposing this as a way to end the conflict, it is acceptable to me. People at this point should be looking for ways to end this conflict which is just wasting a lot of time. If there must be a hatnote, I stick to my proposed phrasing as helpful and accurate. But if people just want to get rid o the hatnote, well, okay by me. Slrubenstein | Talk18:00, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Actually, I have just found the directly relevant policy and it seems that Bus stop may be correct. See WP:RELATED Here is a quote:
Linking to articles that are highly related to the topic
That would render this discussion moot. It seems to imply that there should be no hatnote in these two articles at all. However, it may be of interest to know that the hatnote was added after a lengthy battle over an attempt to add "Jewish Christians" to the article "Judaism" and not the article "Jew" (where it properly should be referenced).shykee (talk) 18:31, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Thank you, Shykee. I am hoping others agree. As Collect and Debresser have basically objected to removing the hatnotes I think the next step will be to see their responses and the responses of anyone else who may care to weigh in. Bus stop (talk) 03:53, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
I still think we should have a hatnote, and that it should be the old one. 1. This article is too long to add another section. 2. The subject to be summarised is too complex to summarise here in short. 3. The hatnote already specifies what to expect there, which can be considered as a ultra-short summary. Debresser (talk) 22:11, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Debresser, whose flexibility in this entire discussion I appreciate. I would accept a change in wording, but I feel that the hatnote provides important information about the differences between "Jew" and "Judaism" that is useful in navigating through these key articles. I would not be happy if this information were removed. --AFriedman (talk)20:18, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
There appears to no consensus that the old hatnotes are in any way a problem, and WP precedent would be that major arguments where the hatnotes are not considered to be deliberately misleading is to leave them as is. Does that end this part? Collect (talk) 22:04, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
(breaking from discussion about Jewish world population) I think the issue now raised is how and whether to address "ethnic Jew" in the article on Judaism, and particularly whether or not to address the issue in the lede. Is this a fair statement? Collect (talk) 14:48, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
I had hoped to make the conversation more clear by breaking from the lengthy prior section, and had a choice of making a break or leaving the thread dangling above. The intent was to concisely state the issue which appeared at hand, which has little to do with the discussion about how to describe the Jewish population world figures. Thanks. Collect (talk) 15:40, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Collect, I did not post this here. I have removed my words because you are putting them where I have not posted them. Please allow the Talk page to construct itself in a straightforward, chronological manner, according to each editor's input, where and when they place their input. You may have the best of intentions but I nevertheless object to my posts being moved around, duplicated, and placed under section titles that I did not post them under. You have done this twice now, here and here. Bus stop (talk) 15:57, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
I iterated your post (without moving it) so that people could see why the comments I made were made. The only comment of yours I copied was the direct response to my initial post here, and I would have thought you would appreciate that fact. When trying to actually reach conclusions on a topic, it is recommewnded that new sections be added, lest sections continue growing for months. Indeed, at over three hundred lines, I do not expect anyone to read the section. Meanwhile, might we discuss the issue raised, and not talk page protocol? Thanks. The task at hand is the article on Judaism. Should we deal in the lede with material on Ethnic Jew? Collect (talk) 17:21, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
break
Nearing the end. Perhaps (since the sentence is related to the number of Jews and not really to fine points of doctrine) We currently have the slightly awkward: " 2007, the world Jewish population was estimated at 13.2 million, 41% of whom lived in Israel[12] and 40% of whom lived in the United States.[13] This figure includes both ethnic Jews (i.e. Jews by birth) and converts to Judaism. In more conservative branches such as Orthodox Judaism, conversion entails a full commitment to Jewish observance. At least in principle, these branches expect a similar level of commitment from every Jew" with a proposed change to "The current world Jewish population is estimated over 13 million, of which about 40% reside in Israel and 40% in the United States. The population includes Jews by birth, and those who have converted to Judaism." And removing the doctrinal stuff in the last sentence as not really related to the population figures. Collect (talk) 21:59, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
I strongly oppose the use of the ugly and unnecessary brackets "(i.e. Jews by birth)". I think we agreed on "born Jewish and converts to Judaism", a few lines up. Debresser (talk) 16:23, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
It is not clear what changes are being considered for the lede. My suggestion would be to post the lede to the Talk page, make the changes to the lede that you feel need to be made, and then italicize any sentence in which you have made any change, so that it can be clear to any onlooker what changes are being contemplated. The lede of the article presently consists of 3 paragraphs. I think all three paragraphs can be addressed at once, or one at a time. Bus stop (talk) 00:39, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I was too hasty. Agree with this version. Just I'd keep "This figure includes" instead of the repeated use of the word "population". Debresser (talk) 21:21, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
" 2007, the world Jewish population was estimated at 13.2 million, 41% of whom lived in Israel[12] and 40% of whom lived in the United States.[13] This figure includes both ethnic Jews (i.e. Jews by birth) and converts to Judaism. In more conservative branches such as Orthodox Judaism, conversion entails a full commitment to Jewish observance. At least in principle, these branches expect a similar level of commitment from every Jew" is in the current lede.
"The current world Jewish population is estimated over 13 million, of which about 40% reside in Israel[12] and 40% in the United States.[13] The population includes Jews by birth, and those who have converted to Judaism." is the proposed change. Note that the change removes the detailed discussion about groups of Jews and conversion issues, which is better dealt with in a lengthy section than tacked onto a statement about total population. I had thought this was clear above. And, again, this is dealing with the one issue at a time systematic work, of which this mauy be the last issue. Once this is done, we are past the three issues raised as possibly needing mediation. Thanks. Collect (talk) 12:58, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
I think Debresser means parentheses, not brackets. Collect, there hadn't been a discussion about removing the later part of the last paragraph in the lede until you brought it up. The last paragraph brings up three major issues: (1) How many Jews are there? (2) Who is a Jew? (3) What is Judaism's central authority? I think that the concept of needing to be observant in order to become a Jew, at least according to a branch like Orthodox Judaism, is important to both (2) and (3) and provides the appropriate transition between the sections about the two concepts. --AFriedman (talk)18:44, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
We had a lengthy discussion above concerning what "birth" meant etc. We can either give a few thousand words in the lede to make the issues clear, or we can basically say "this is how many Jews there are." The discussion focussed on "what is conversion" and what is "birth" including discussion of matrilineal descent etc. Now perhaps consensus will be to cover this all in detail in the lede, but I would suggest it is better left to the body of the article, since we basically agreed on simplifying the language concerning who gets counted as Jewish for population totals. Do you feel the lede ought to encompass the entire discussion as to "who is a Jew?" BS, the third issue was how Judaism should be defined in the lede -- we ended up with a fairly clear consensus that "a set of beliefs and practices" was sufficient. If you wish to re-open that discussion, please do so, It is, however, quite substantially different than the question posed here -- when it comes to population, what is the measure used to count Jews. Do you have other language to use in this matter about who gets counted? As to "central authority" - would you like that raised as a fourth issue for discussion? Collect (talk) 23:14, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm aware of the discussion about birth vs. conversion, of course, since I participated in it. I'm also aware of the "who is a Jew" discussion, and how that article is very contentious. My thought was to have a few words about "who is a Jew" in the lede with a link to the article in question (the "Who is a Jew?" article). We don't need a few thousand words if we phrase things vaguely enough, as we've agreed to do. I think it is getting uncivil to call what I said "BS," and I'm not sure you were following exactly what I was listing--I was giving a summary of the topics that paragraph 3 of the lede, in its current form, was trying to bring up. I wasn't talking about the entire lede. Some of these topics have been discussed at length on the Talk page, and some have not. If you disagree with how the lede, in its current form, is written re: central authority in Judaism (the last part of paragraph 3), I'd be happy to discuss this with you as a fourth issue. If you don't, I don't think we should bring it up. --AFriedman (talk)00:04, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Right now, the issue of Jewish denominations is brought up as a side note to the question of population. As such, it seems a tad misplaced, as "conversion" is not even close to the major issues which have historically defined sects within Judaism. For the lede in any way to imply such is inaccurate in my opinion. Yes -- if the lede is to discuss such, it should indicate then some of the genuine issues separating the various Orthodox groups from each other, the origins and differences between them and the European Reform movements, and the development of the Conservative compromise (which I think is primarily North American?). I had supposed such was too complex for the lede to address (and certainly found the simplistic use of conversion to define the differences to be misleading). In brief -- if it is to be discussed in the lede, it certainly is deserving of its own paragraph, instead of being glued onto a discussion of population. And the inherently congregational nature of Jusaism and its relation to the development of congregational systems in Christian churches is also worth mentioning at some point. Collect (talk) 01:28, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
First one would only be population and who is counted, with percentages in Israel and US. Next paragraph, if we wish one, would be to establish the basic congregational nature of Judaism, and lack of "single central authority," That followed by a sentence or so on the modern Conservative (mainly North American), Reform (Europe 19th century) and Orthodox movements (ought we include the historical sub-groups? or is that overkill?). Did I miss any important groups? Collect (talk) 18:56, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
They look like good sites to me. Educational materials on the subject of the article are certainly appropriate Wikipedia links. You may also want to add the links to relevant pages on more specific topics, such as Torah and Open courseware, and to Wikiversity. --AFriedman (talk)08:00, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Age of judaism
The article states that Judaism is only 3000 years old and then later it states that it is 4000 years old. Then why is the calender year 5770. An article on hinduism states that it is the worlds oldest religion- 4000 years old. I always beleived Judaism is the oldest. Harvey Manes 151.205.188.211 (talk) 17:27, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
The Hebrew calendar starts at the time of creation, which predates the giving of the Torah (the "official" beginning of Judaism) by 2048 years. Nevertheless, the archfathers and even Shem also followed Judaism. All of this according to Judaism's own traditions, of course. In this article's lede it says "It is one of the oldest monotheistic religions, and the oldest to survive into the present day" (sourced). Hinduism is called the oldest only when seen as a continuation of the religion of the Vedic period. Debresser (talk) 18:52, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
'Nevertheless, the archfathers and even Shem also followed Judaism.'
To be technical, most historians would identify Judaism as we know it as starting with the Rabbinic period i.e. the Amoraim. It was only after the Hamonians that "Jew" came to mean a member of an ethnonational group and not just someone living in Judea. Before that period, historians refer to what we are talking about as the religion of "Israel."
To those who consider the above semantic quibbling, I'd add that I think most Jews consider the beginning to be when God established his covenant with Abraham. This is before the Torah and before almost all the laws and commandments many Jews consider the essential content of Judaism. But it involves an agreement to worship only God, in return for the promise of becoming a great nation (which is why "nation" or "ethnicity" is essential to any definigion of Judaism).
But I have heard different professors, dati and not, who have argued that Israel only realy became a nation at Sinai.
The point: a living covenant between Israel and God grows, matures, goes through stages. Maybe God and Abraham is the betrothal and Israel at Sinai the wedding? When two beings fall in love, how many can really say, "this is when it began?" Slrubenstein | Talk13:55, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
The article says: "They [dhimmis] had to pay the jizya (a per capita tax imposed on free adult non-Muslim males) to Muslims." They actually had to pay the jizya to that time's Muslim Goverment not simply to muslims. thanks 203.135.190.6 (talk) 10:11, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Good pick-up. I've made the change, since as an unregistered user you wouldn't have been able to. By the way, would you like to register for an account on Wikipedia, and do you have any other questions about how the site works? I'd be happy to try and answer them. --AFriedman (talk)12:22, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Discussion of Jewish law and Jewish religious movements in the lede
It isn't in the source the source and it isn't true. Both Orthodox and Conservative Judaism expect their members to adhere to halakha as those movements interpret it. Reform Judaism, on the other hand, doesn't believe that halakha is binding. — Malik ShabazzTalk/Stalk05:30, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
So now what do we replace it with? This is a core issue, central to understanding the differences between them, and must be addressed. Debresser (talk) 06:30, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
I've tried to write a sentence about Orthodox and Conservative Judaism that is closer to the point Malik made. I think it's important for the lede to have a brief statement about the basic philosophy of each of these 3 denominations. --AFriedman (talk)06:33, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Done Changed "denominations" to "movements" or "groups" in the lede. The article about the groups is titled "Jewish religious movements" and its lede mentions that these groups are sometimes called denominations, but I don't have a problem with avoiding this word in the lede. --AFriedman (talk)06:57, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
It would have been better to try and work something out here, before making edits in the article. We don't need any more edit wars. :) Debresser (talk) 07:13, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
After several days it looks like people were ok with the changes. Had there been another discussion or another change to that part of the page, I would have brought it up on the Talk page--I don't do more than ~1 revert without discussion. --AFriedman (talk)04:08, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your post. I'm not convinced the article should stay, since my impression is that "Zarfat" is not an English word. I've given a more detailed rationale on Talk:Zarfat. Does anyone else want to give the article an assessment? --AFriedman (talk)20:01, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Collect and everyone else, if you're posting this here, please also post on Talk:Zarfat where the real discussion is taking place. I've copied Collect's post to that page, BTW. --AFriedman (talk)21:11, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I've created Category:Reform Jews, having noticed that corresponding Categories representing most of the other major movements already seem to exist. Many of the most notable and accomplished Jewish people have affiliated with the Reform movement, and I think it's important to create a Category that shows this. I'm able to find information about which individuals belong in this Category in lists of notable people affiliated with specific Reform synagogues. Does anyone else want to help out with this? To me, this Category seems like important information. --AFriedman (talk)23:06, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Why is there a hatnote on top of this article? I don't see a sanctioned use for this. Judaism and Jew are two entirely distinct words. There is nothing to disambiguate. Yes, they are related, and that is a reason not to use hatnotes, according to WP:RELATED.
User:Shykee can be seen agreeing with me here on this point:
Actually, I have just found the directly relevant policy and it seems that Bus stop may be correct. See WP:RELATED Here is a quote:
Linking to articles that are highly related to the topic
That would render this discussion moot. It seems to imply that there should be no hatnote in these two articles at all. However, it may be of interest to know that the hatnote was added after a lengthy battle over an attempt to add "Jewish Christians" to the article "Judaism" and not the article "Jew" (where it properly should be referenced).shykee (talk) 18:31, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Unfortunately, the above is in Archives.
But the other important point is that the hatnote in place is just about meaningless and it is misleading. It redirects the reader to the Jew article for considerations of "…ethnic, historic, and cultural aspects of the Jewish identity…" and yet there are considerations of ethnic, historic, and cultural aspects of the Jewish identity in this, the Judaism article, in abundance.
Bus stop, I think you're going against consensus over here. We've had an extensive discussion of the subject and given that you hadn't expressed your problems with the hatnote after Collect made his final comments, your bringing up the issue now does seem to be disruptive. No one gets their way in every Wikipedia discussion. --AFriedman (talk)02:07, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
It went into Archives before I could get to it. I was surprised to see it disappear when it did. I have to pay more attention to the ticking time clock of archiving by the bot. But the issue is very much relevant. Can you defend the hatnote on the article based on Wikipedia policy? And can you explain the multitudinous references to material in this very article, that the hatnote is referring the reader to the other article for? How is that serving any purpose? I actually don't fault anyone for the mix up in subject matter between these two articles. It seems to me that it is almost inevitable that any well-written article on these two subjects is going to have overlap. Bus stop (talk) 02:32, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
I agree with the consensus, that this hatnote is relevant and needed and should stay the way it is. And I also agree that Busstop is bothering the community by bringing up old issues again without any other reason than his personal disagreement with the results. So please... Debresser (talk) 06:06, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Debresser, you are saying that the hatnotes at this article are relevant and needed but can you please explain why? Do we find hatnotes between Christianity and Christian? Do we find hatnotes between Islam and Muslim? Is there a reason why the relationship between Judaism and Jew is different? Bus stop (talk) 06:41, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
I would not have a problem with hatnotes in those cases as well. But Judaism needs it even more, because in Judaism culture, ethnicity, and religion are more intertwined than in other religions, I think. Debresser (talk) 08:47, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Debresser, I believe you are conceding that the hatnote is not being used correctly here. WP:HATNOTE does not make any provision for hatnotes to be used to link articles to components of other articles — which is your description of their present use here.
But the hatnotes here are being misused for more than one reason: Additionally the articles have plenty of overlap as concerns the topics that they cover. Thus when a hatnote refers a reader to another article for "history," that is something that is already found in the article that the reader is presently at. That is serving no purpose. Similarly for "cultural considerations." Similarly for "ethnic considerations."
Hatnotes do have a prescribed use: that is to disambiguate articles. But there is nothing to disambiguate here, as "Judaism" and "Jew" are completely different terms. No one can confuse them. Additional verbiage as seen in the hatnotes is superfluous. Bus stop (talk) 04:35, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Fully discussed. Rehashing is highly unlikely to alter consensus, and you were an active participant on the talk pages when the discussion was held. Collect (talk) 21:42, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
--Nmikalov (talk) 16:36, 18 January 2010 (UTC) stating that the secular Jewish population of Israel "largely ignores religious life" is entirely false. Though the secular population may not be as religious as other Jewish sects, they are far from ignoring their religion and its beliefs. The secular Jews of Israel still observe the High Holidays (Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur) and many of them take part in the Shabbat meal every Friday night. To state that they are "ignoring religious life" is beyond a harsh and prejudice accusation. I believe this would be a more proper phrasing: "the secular Jewish population of Israel is termed so because of their more secular approach to the religion where they are following the writings of the bible in terms of their own personal beliefs."
There's too much generalising going on here and not enough use of RS. For example, we can probably easily find RS references to Yom Kippur being "Yom Haofanayim" for secular Israelis who don't observe the day, and I'm sure we can equally find RS for secular Jews heading to synagogues in their droves on that day. We should reflect both and not pontificate. --Dweller (talk) 16:48, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
This page is about 100K long -- and most of it is well over a month old. New editors coming in are quite unlikely to read all of the old material - which is why archives exist. I sought to have part of the first section archived, but Bus Stop demurs saying that it should be allowed to grow forever <g>. What say ye others? Should we allow material which is now 40 days old to be archived where others can always find it if they desire? Or is Bus Stop right and no breaks should be tolerated (he has done this in the past). Collect (talk) 21:05, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
I had a look at the top of this page. Doesn't it say this page is being archived by MisaBot as soon as a discussion is 14 days old? Debresser (talk) 21:29, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
The date used is that of the last edit in a section -- thus as long as one edit is made every 13 days, the section will never get archived. The first post date is 24 November -- which makes that section a lot older than 14 days <g>. Collect (talk) 21:54, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
You are making changes to the Talk page and they are being objected to by me. You have said that I have "done this in the past." Yes, and no. I have not prevented you from archiving half of a section of a discussion in the past. But yes, I have objected to other basic changes that you've made to the Talk page in the past.
On December 10, you moved my words from one section heading to another section heading that you created for that purpose. You placed my post in a different context. I objected, and I moved my post back to where I posted it. Is that what you are referring to when you say that I have "done this in the past"?
You are not first discussing this. You are acting unilaterally. The bot is archiving at the frequency at which it was set to archive. If you wish to change the frequency at which the bot archives, bring that up on this Talk page. Bus stop (talk) 00:51, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
I ask you to step back -- I have not made any unilateral changes other than in the sense that everyt single post is "unilateral." The first section -- whose aim was to establish how certain topics were dealt with in the lede -- was decided more than a month ago. Since then, that section has wandered quite far afield from discussion of the lede. The archive bot will never archive the section as long as anyone ever posts to that section. Ever. I think that since most of that section is now quite stale, it is not worthwhile to prevent archiving of it. Collect (talk) 01:38, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
As is fairly apparent, User:Bus stop has been doing his darndest to ensure that the thread is not closed. Whenever the thread has been in peril of going stale, he's added a new comment to ensure it stayed live. For example, the thread had been quiet for 9 days, then he added this comment. When the thread subsequently went quiet for 7 days, he added this comment. When the thread subsequently went quiet for another 10 days, he added this comment. The thread has been quiet for 7 days since then, and it's clear everyone but Bus stop thinks the issue is now completely dead. So, within the next few days, he'll most likely add another comment to the thread, in order to ensure it stays alive and on the page. Let's just watch, and take note of that disruptive behavior if it occurs. Jayjg (talk)04:38, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
14 days is very short for a talk page, and the criterion can only be the last post, for obvious reasons. If there is a section that we feel should be archived nevertheless, we can do so manually. In this case that would be fine with me. Afterwards we should set back the archive period to something like 21 or 28 days. We set it to 14 only because there was a period with a great deal of discussions. Debresser (talk) 11:50, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
21 days is pretty common on WP. But some have 2 day criteria -- it is not the age of the section, but the time of the last reply which is used, and any section which gets zero replies in 3 weeks is, frankly, pretty dead. And the "lede" section, representing material which has been settled now by consensus, should be archived forthwith. Collect (talk) 12:06, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Jayjg, if you don't wish to respond to my last post then archive the thread, or feel free to have someone else archive it. In all of your above analysis you leave out that you and I were talking to one another in that thread. I rebutted, to the best of my ability, your latest post, of December 31. I welcome open dialogue on these issues — is that a fault? You are now indicating that you do not want to continue the dialogue that was going on in that thread — so feel free to archive it. I think you should tone down the volume in this. Issues are what should be addressed, not one another. I will respond to you as the reasonable person that I try to be. My first order of business is to speak respectfully to people, though I haven't always lived up to that. Can we try to get off on the right foot from this point forward? I would archive that thread myself, but I'm not sure how. Thank you. Bus stop (talk) 13:52, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
What weight, if any, should be given in the lede for differentiation of "ethnic Jews" from other Jews, and how should that differentiation be worded?
Sniper's definition as to how one qualifies as being a Jew mentioned above is I think probably a more useful phrase than either "ethnic Jew" or "Jew by birth". Someone who is born into and raised or enculturated as a child to the Jewish culture, based on at least what little I know, seems to be what is being discussed here. There is the question as to what to do with people who are self-described Jews who do not clearly meet both of those criteria, but I am in my ignorance of this subject not sure how many such people there are, or how much attention this article should devote to them. And, as in the Islam article, I really think that this article would benefit from maybe combining the "Jewish identity" and "Community leadership" sections into one, single, "Community" section.
I also want to make a point here. I hope everyone remebers that this article, like all of our articles, is written for the purpose of informing those who are not knowledgable about the subject. I don't myself go to any of the articles related to the Catholic Church, its practices and theology around here to learn about the church I was raised in. I already know more than the articles contain. I hope all those who are Jews by birth or enculturation around here remember that. This article shouldn't be used as a soapbox various individuals can use to advance their own opinions regarding any aspect of Judaism. John Carter (talk) 16:22, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
John Carter, you will have to be a whole lot more specific about what or who you are referring to concerning soapboxing and the advancing of positions regarding aspects of Judaism. What would be an example, even in the most general terms, of an idea that someone might use this article to "soapbox" about? I hope you understand this in the good-natured spirit that it is intended. But you said something about this, and I am just asking an innocent follow-up question. : ) Bus stop (talk) 17:19, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
It would be hard to be more specific without commenting on editors, not the article. ;) However, I can see how given people might wish to emphasize or deemphasize terms, like maybe "birth", "ethnicity", etc. Placing undue emphasis on such terms as such, rather than on the specific meaning they are being used to convey, could be seen as being supporting a given concept of Judaism which either uses or does not use such terms. John Carter (talk) 18:09, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
I like the way it was, just would make it two sentences: "This figure includes both ethnic Jews and converts to Judaism—much as some countries consider citizens to be either native-born children or naturalized immigrants.A Jew is defined as anyone with either the relevant Jewish parentage or a Jewish conversion." The flow from ethnic to conversion makes it abundantly clear that "ethnic" means "born". Also the use of brackets and "i.e." looks ugly. I would not oppose removing the words "much as ... immigrants", but do not actively propose this. Debresser (talk) 17:50, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
The question that comes to mind, to me anyway, regards Black Jews, Khazars, and such. I am currently working, on and off, on the List of new religious movements and finding out there are and have been rather a lot of them. Would someone born to Black Jew parents, who does not himself believe in Judaism, qualify as an "ethnic Jew" or not? John Carter (talk) 18:09, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
John -- "ethnic Jew" is not defined, so it is impossible to answer the question. Race has nothing to do with Judaism. If black is a race, it is irrelevant to Jewish identity. Many African-Americans, for instance are Jewish. Bus stop (talk) 18:14, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Debresser -- "Ethnic Jew" is not defined. Why use a term that is grossly deficient in definition? Can you tell me what "ethnic Jew" refers to? It can mean a group that, depending on how the term is defined, could probably be off by a factor of two. The BBC article that I linked to above literally includes as people considered for its purposes as "ethnically Jewish" as those who might just have a grandparent who is Jewish. Is that the sort of precision you are comfortable with when asserting the number of Jews worldwide? And how is the reader supposed to know what you're talking about? Bus stop (talk) 18:11, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
The meaning of the term "ethnic Jew" is completely clear in the context. But I was just stating my opinion. Let's have your proposal. Debresser (talk) 19:17, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
My "proposal" depends on what sources say. It is a sentence asserting population of worldwide Jewish membership, I think. Do the sources refer to "ethnic Jews?" Do the sources provide any elaboration on what criterion (or criteria) they use to make this determination? Bus stop (talk) 19:25, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Furthermore -- if we recognize a problem, should we just package the problem up and pass it along to the reader? My point is, what language do sources use to define "Jew" for the purposes of defining worldwide population? If they use terminology that they don't define, perhaps we should simply alert the reader to a potential problem. We could perhaps mention that to us (the editors) at this time it is not exactly clear what sort of definition of "Jew" sources are using to arrive at their numbers. Bus stop (talk) 19:05, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
We would have to ensure that we don't violate WP:OR. If we find that sources do not use the same criteria for judging, we can indicate that, pointing out thair differences. If the source itself indicates it hasn't used a specific definition, or some other source indicates that a given source didn't use a specific definition, we could say that. But we can't say anything that can't be traced back to the sources themselves in some fairly direct way. John Carter (talk) 19:35, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
The wording that we are contemplating using is not for us to decide in the absence of sources. At the beginning of the article we find:
"In 2007, the world Jewish population was estimated at 13.2 million, 41% of whom lived in Israel[12] and 40% of whom lived in the United States.[13] This figure includes both ethnic Jews (i.e. Jews by birth) and converts to Judaism.""
But our sources don't support the following: "This figure includes both ethnic Jews (i.e. Jews by birth) and converts to Judaism."
These are our sources: this and this. Those sources do not support the wording for the second sentence.
The statistics (the numbers) may be adequately sourced. But those two sources only refer to "Jews." That term (Jew) is not qualified. The sources do not mention "ethnic Jews,""Jews by birth," or "converts to Judaism." As this is un-sourced material that sentence should simply be excised. Bus stop (talk) 01:24, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Query: If we avoided the word "ethnic" entirely and said "Jews by heritage or by religious conversion" where would that be far off the mark? Collect (talk) 20:23, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
(unindent) Ditto here. I was the editor who originally wrote the sentence that drew the analogy between conversion and immigration. I added it because I was trying to make things clearer, but I don't have a problem with that analogy being deleted if other people don't like it. Overall, I think this discussion looks like it's going to lead to a conclusion I'd be happy with. I agree with Debresser that it's definitely better to write this part without "i.e.," parentheses or brackets. I also agree that it's probably important to talk about "Jewish parentage" instead of "ethnic Jew." People with the relevant Jewish parentage can be of any race, and are of almost every ethnic group despite the stereotypes of Jews as coming from particular racial or ethnic backgrounds. Wherever someone comes from and whatever their parentage, they can plausibly convert to Judaism and their children would have the relevant Jewish parentage by either the Rabbanite (matrilineal) or Kaifeng (Chinese) Jewish/Karaite (patrilineal) definition. --AFriedman (talk)22:24, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
What does "Jew by heritage" mean? Someone with two Jewish parents? Someone with one Jewish parent? A Jewish grandparent? A Jewish great-grandparent? Someone who is married to a Jew? If the child of a Catholic and a Jew is being raised in the Catholic faith, are they a "Jew by heritage"? If their sibling is being raised in the Jewish faith, are they a "Jew by heritage"? Jayjg (talk)22:49, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
No, it doesn't. What does "Jew by heritage" mean? Why is it any more clear than "ethnic Jew"? As I stated above, the phrase/concept "ethnic Jew", in its various forms, gets almost 900 google book hits[1] and almost 3000 Google scholar hits.[2] This is not some obscure, little-used term or concept. It's no less clear than "secular Jew", "non-observant Jew", or any of the other terms that have been bandied about. The Harvard encyclopedia of American ethnic groups has a whole section devoted to the Jewish ethnic group; 27 pages, in fact. We're not going to avoid a common and well understood term for reasons that are, at best, opaque. Jayjg (talk)22:46, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Consider "heritage" as meaning "something that comes or belongs to one by reason of birth; an inherited lot or portion: a heritage of poverty and suffering; a national heritage of honor, pride, and courage." The advantage is that we do not need to consider patrilineal, matrilineal or anything else to muddy the prose if we use "heritage." The word goes back to Latin, and is not a modern usage like "ethnicity" ("ethnic traits, background, allegiance, or association") which appears not to have favor for this article. And the first sentence of Ethnic group (an article is really in need of editing) makes this clear <g>. Amazingly enough "Jewish heritage" is more common than "Jewish ethnicity" in the New York Times by about a factor of 400. And since the purpose is to make a sentence which includes all Jews, subdividing them any further than necessary does not improve the sentence at hand. That said, how do the others feel here? Collect (talk) 23:01, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
The word heritage is used in numerous Wikipedia articles, categories and naming guidelines. It is completely unambiguous, and I fail to see Jayjg's point. Debresser (talk) 23:02, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
The word "ethnic" is also used in numerous Wikipedia articles, categories and naming guidelines. It is no more ambiguous that "heritage", and I fail to see Debresser's point. Jayjg (talk)00:17, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Collect, what qualifies someone as being a "Jew by heritage"? Someone with two Jewish parents? Someone with one Jewish parent? A Jewish grandparent? A Jewish great-grandparent? Someone who is married to a Jew? If the child of a Catholic and a Jew is being raised in the Catholic faith, are they a "Jew by heritage"? If their sibling is being raised in the Jewish faith, are they a "Jew by heritage"? Please give a response for each of these questions, using sources if possible. Jayjg (talk)00:17, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Posit that any Jew who is not Jewish by religious conversion is, perforce, Jewish by heritage. We are not a religious court trying to define who is or is not a Jew here. Collect (talk) 00:32, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
How about we posit that any Jew who is not Jewish by religious conversion is, perforce, Jewish by ethnicity. What's the difference? Jayjg (talk)00:37, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Well -- see how others react to that wording. The idea is to get a reasonable consensus through compromise, not to make a perfect article. I will note the NYT usage prefers "heritage" to be sure. Collect (talk) 00:44, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
But it's not clear if the NYT is consistently using the phrase in the way in which you propose to use it here. And I would think that the ideal here would be to get an accurate wording, not a compromise wording. Jayjg (talk)00:49, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
When I think of "heritage" I think of (well, aside from a kind of rose) Williamsburg Virginia and the whole "heritage industry" which leaves me with a sour taste. I agree with jayjg on this one. Slrubenstein | Talk00:55, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Firstly, I never used the word "heritage." I used "parentage" because I thought that word was a better descriptor of what the significant Jewish movements believe. Since the definition of Jewish parentage is such a controversial topic, I don't think a specific definition should be given in the lede. Rather, there could be a link to a lengthier article like "Who is a Jew?" that can truly give justice to the controversy. A summary of the controversy could also appear in the relevant subsection of this article. --AFriedman (talk)04:43, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
In my opinion, the problem with "heritage" is that "heritage" could refer to other things besides parentage. For example, no movement I know of would claim that a person raised in Israel, identifying with Israeli/Jewish culture and Hebrew-speaking would automatically be a Jew, but the analogous situation of being raised in the Basque Country, identifying with Basque culture and Basque-speaking would make someone a Basque by heritage. However, most Jewish movements accept the idea that parentage can automatically make one a Jew, but many movements outside the Orthodox and Conservative reject the idea that Judaism is automatically passed through "marentage." See Who is a Jew? Some historians think that Biblical Judaism was patrilineal, and Reform, Liberal and Reconstructionist Judaism maintain that a child who was raised as a Jew and had one Jewish parent, regardless of which parent, would be one. But these comments about "parentage" vs. "heritage" are minor points when you basically agree with what should be written here. --AFriedman (talk)16:04, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Two issues are getting muddled. On is the need to identify Judaism as an Ethnic religion which should be easy to do. The other is "who is a Jew" and I see no need for the word heritage, all we need to do is say "Jew by birth or conversion." If need be, in addition to linking Jew to the article of that name, we can also say Jews are an Ethnoreligious group. Slrubenstein | Talk01:18, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Debresser. This is what I propose - it adds a short phrase that provides another useful link, and I think otherwise resolves this dispute in a simple way everyone should find acceptable:
There's no biological distinction between Jews and non-Jews, and "biologically" is not representative of how this is thought about. So I don't support this wording. --AFriedman (talk)16:37, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
AFriedman, someone is indeed biologically Jewish, if their acquired Jewishness is by birth rather than by conversion. There are no biological markers for Jewishness, as you rightly point out. The word biological, as used here, simply references the biological connection to Judaism. There is no distinction between a Jew who is a convert to Judaism and a Jew who is "biologically Jewish." But the term biologically Jewish is valid in this context. I get 1300 hits for "biologically Jewish" on Google. The quality of those hits I cannot vouch for. It is simply another term in use, among the many similar terms. Bus stop (talk) 17:05, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
AFriedman, I beg you for the sake of comrpomise and movin on to accept "Jew by birth." There is nothing wrong with the phrase. I am sorry if for you personally it has some negative connotation. One can be an American by birth, a Jew by birth, a French citizen by birth, by birth is a perfectly innoccuos phrase and it is the simplest way to say what we mean. It is fine by Debresser, Bus stop has not voiced any objection nor Jayjg. Can't we just agree on this and move forward? Collaborative editing means working together and that means sometimes being satisfied with something that is not your ideal. But I also ask you seriously to reflect: is it "reminding you of Aryan by birth which disturbs you" a valid reason for objecting? When I edit Wikipedia, when I am in an edit conflict, when I read an edit I do not like, I always ask myself the same questions: iDoe it violate English grammar? Can it be said in fewer words? Does it violate NPOV? Does it violate V? Does it violate NOR? If the answer to any of these is yes, I feel I have valid grounds for making a change. if the answer to all of these questions is no, then it just does not matter how it makes me "feel," I do not have grounds to challenge it. There are good reasons for holding up an edit and causing endless delay. AFriedman, do you genuinely feel the reason you have given is a valid reason? If someone put what you just said in some policy (it makes me think of something that disturbs me), do you really think other Wikipedians would support making this policy? Would you even support making this a policy? We will never get anywhere unless we share the basic groundrules for an unacceptable and acceptable edit. Slrubenstein | Talk17:02, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Slr, I'm surprised you are using this argument right now. Within the past several days, you used a similar argument against the word "heritage": "When I think of 'heritage' I think of...the whole 'heritage industry' which leaves me with a sour taste." Connotation is an important aspect of the encyclopedia, especially in a lede. --AFriedman (talk)06:00, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
That is a fiar point. The difference is this: "heritage" is vague and for many Jews, is actually wrong (Is someone whose father's father was Jewish "of Jewish heritage?" "By bith" I think is more explicit and direct. We do not have to get into the matrilineal/patrilineal debate, but both Orthodox and Reform Jews would agree about "by birth." as one way to belong to Judaism. Also, to be frank, it is about reaching consensus. My sense now is that everyone would accept "by birth or conversion" except you. If everyone else prefered the word "heritage," except me, I would defer to what appeared to be a consensus. I just didn't see such agreement for heritage at the time. Slrubenstein | Talk13:19, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Without belaboring this -- "Jews include both those who are Jewish by birth and those who have had a religious conversion." Any cavils to this possibility? Collect (talk) 17:07, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
"Jew by birth" I don't like, but will settle for if everyone else is OK with it and we really can't find anything else (the lede had this wording before I rewrote it)
"Jewish descent" - not tried yet
"Jewish ancestors" - also not tried yet
"Jewish ancestry" - also not tried yet
"Jewish lineage" - not tried yet
"inherited" - not tried yet
"conferred at birth"/"received at birth" - not tried yet
With respect to the lede, since the article is about Judaism, our focus should simply be those who follow Judaism as a religion and way of life. In that context, in the article body, we can summarize what different movements/sects in their practice of Judaism state with reference to who they consider to be Jewish with respect to Judaism. I think that any more detail on that topic is a far deeper conversation (per AFriedman's itemized list) for other articles which already exist. Otherwise, I think we're getting off the main topic, no? PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk08:00, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
On the other, "born into Judaism" and "converted into Judaism" (with Judaism more than other religions, "into" would be better than simply "to" for converted) would work in the context of this article, so: "born or converted into Judaism". Just a thought. PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk08:05, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
I think what is being spoken about is a "biological connection to Judaism." I am not trying to argue for any point of view at all. But if you are seeking language to refer to those Jews who are not converts to Judaism, it would be those who have a "biological connection to Judaism." That would cover those whose father is Jewish. That would even cover those whose grandparent(s) is (are) Jewish. These are "biological" connections. Just as one inherits genetic predispositions from both of one's parents, as well as grandparents, so too does halacha assert that one "inherits" Jewish identity in this sort of way, the only important difference being that traditional halacha only recognizes the biological connection to the mother as being capable of conveying Jewish identity to the child. "Biological" is really the term I think that this particular use is looking for. Granted, it has nothing to do with biology. But the essence of the means of transmitting Jewish identity is the same. Bus stop (talk) 16:50, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
I think this pretty much says all that needs to be said:
I will accept "Born Jewish" but have reservations about "Jews by birth." I'm trying to aim for a wording that doesn't imply Judaism is some sort of snobbish clique (or anti-clique) that looks funny at people who don't come from the right family or ethnic group. There's some truth to this stereotype of Judaism, despite the message of the Book of Ruth ("assume good faith" and "don't bite the newcomers" when it comes to converts and their descendants) and even though it was an unsurprising mindset in the ghetto, when not very many non-Jews would have wanted to join us anyway, it's not nice and I believe it's truly hurting us in modern times. --AFriedman (talk)18:21, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
More or less, but I think it's possible to make the first sentence a bit more concise:
"Jews are an ethnoreligious group that includes those born Jewish and converts to Judaism. In 2007..." --AFriedman (talk)19:44, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
We had a clear proposal by User:Collect. Why don't we start with saying "agree" or "disagree"? His proposal was (I quote): "Jews include both those who are Jewish by birth and those who have had a religious conversion." Debresser (talk) 16:17, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
I know with so many threads it is easy to miss a comment, and I blieve Collect was acting in good faith. But (1) I forwarded my proposal first, (2) you seemed okay with it, Collect never registered any opposition - but AFriedman expressed opposition to the phrase "Jewish by birth." I revised my proposal to use phrasing that was no different in substance but suggested by her. Is this not how consensus-building is to occur, by people talking to one another and not past? (3) Collect's proposal, made after AFriedman said she is uncomfortable with "by birth" nevertheless uses the same phrasing. Perhaps Debresser you missed Afriedman's comment too. In any event, I have been in dialogue trying to come up with phrasing people wew would all agree with. When I first proposed this, you said it was fine by you; I think that PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА is okay with it too, and AFreidman should be as well. What is wrong with that? I don't mean any disrespect to Collect. Slrubenstein | Talk18:21, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Why not place the contemplated version of the revised lede here on the Talk page to facilitate the weighing-in of opinion on it? Bus stop (talk) 22:22, 2 December 2009 (UTC) Bus stop (talk) 22:22, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Sure. For clarity, let's start with "agree or disagree":
"Jews are an ethnoreligious group that includes those born Jewish and converts to Judaism. In 2007..." --AFriedman (talk)20:13, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
"Jews are variously referred to as constituting a religious or an ethnoreligious group."
Also I would express the thought: "…that includes those born Jewish and converts to Judaism…" in a separate sentence. Bus stop (talk) 20:51, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
What source asserts that? Is there a source which asserts that Jews are an ethnoreligious group as a consequence of Jews comprising both those born Jewish and those who have converted to Judaism? Bus stop (talk) 19:25, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Good point. I can't think of any source offhand, and I'm not sure what this classification of Jews adds to the article. IMO, it would also work to say something like "Someone is Jewish if either born Jewish, or a convert to Judaism." --AFriedman (talk)19:30, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Agree to the proposed statement "Jews are an ethnoreligious group that includes those born Jewish and converts to Judaism. In 2007..." There's no need for any modification, particularly to "Jews are variously referred to as constituting a religious or an ethnoreligious group.", any more than there is a need to modify it to "Jews are variously referred to as constituting an ethnic or an ethnoreligious group." "Ethnoreligious group" encompasses both ethnicity and religion, and is well attested to in reliable sources. Jayjg (talk)00:21, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Response to Jayjg,
I think if three sources assert that Jews are variously —
1.) an ethic group,
2.) a religious group,
3.) an ethnoreligious group
— then all three designations for Jews potentially deserve representation.
I find here at Encyclopedia Britannica the following:
"One of the three great monotheistic world religions, Judaism began as the faith of the ancient Hebrews, and its sacred text is the Hebrew Bible, particularly the Torah."
"Jews are the highest-earning religious group in the United States, with 46 percent of the working population earning a six-digit figure every year, according to a study released this week."
"By 1840, the Jewish community constituted the largest single religious group in the city [2] and from the 1880s onward constituted the majority within the city.[3]"
"Clearly, there is a religion called Judaism, a set of ideas about the world and the way we should live our lives that is called "Judaism.""
And at the same site I find this:
"The traditional explanation, and the one given in the Torah, is that the Jews are a nation."
You can argue that Jews are an "ethnoreligious" group and that argument is not entirely baseless but that is hardly the whole story despite your assertion that the term "ethnoreligious" encompasses other terms.
I agree with Jayjg above. Ethnoreligious group encompasses all three. I know of know religious Jew who rejects the claim that Jews are an ethnos, they just use the Hebrew words "goy" or "am." The fact that they use a Hebrew word rather than the English word is a silly objection for using the English word in an English encyclopedia.
Moreover, editors are free to use ethnoreligious when the word links to an article any reader can click on and be taken to to learn more. For goodness sake, is this not the whole point of an on-line encylopedia, that thanks to hypertext and links readers can easily find out what a word means or learn about a related issue? Why write as if this were paper?
Finally, when scholars use a term, it enhances the encyclopedia - and its mission to educate - when we use the term. Some people do not really know what ethnicity means - they do not know the scholarship on the concept. We should still use the term, and provide a link so people can learn more. Our articles on plants and animals provide the latin names. OF COURSE our readers do not speak Latin, but scientists use latin to classify plants and animals so we provide these terms. I do not see why we shoul dnot follow this practice consistently and use a concept that is uesed by scholars of religion to distinguish Judaism, where one may be a member of the religion by birth, from, for example, other religions where one is not automatically a member by birth. Slrubenstein | Talk15:05, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Slrubenstein, I'm unconvinced that we editors need to embrace a sense of a mission to "educate." Education should be a consequence of using reliable sources to write about a subject.
Said educative effect can be achieved by slipping the word in the article later, if required. (And justified.) I think using it in the lead section, though, would be to obscure more than it reveals, to not properly reflect the balance of the sources, and to give the potentially misleading impression that all branches use the same notions of the balance between "ethnic" and "religious" considerations. My first thought would be to use some sort of "religious and ethnic group" formulation, which hopefully helps with all the above by "unpacking" the bundling somewhat. Smartiger (talk) 23:59, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Debresser, I don't know if that "wp:deadhorse" link is relevant in this instance. Apparently you feel this discussion has come to a close. Perhaps I am mistaken. I thought we were contemplating wording for the lede. Did I miss the place where someone said that we are no longer contemplating certain changes for the lede? I am not the one who initiated the thread above. I jumped in because I saw certain suggestions for changes to be made to the lede which I disagreed with. And I made one counter-suggestion. There were voiced disagreements.
But I have brought sources to support my contention. I don't think anyone else has brought a source. Sources are what matters. You may disagree with my sources. You may bring sources of your own. It is not my understanding that we are taking a vote on what term(s) are most popular among editors. I think Wikipedia respects sources even more that it does consensus. At WP:Neutral I find the following sentence:
"The principles upon which these policies are based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus."
Therefore I think the underlying spirit of these discussions should not be one of vote-taking. I think the proper approach to evaluating the changes to the lede that I thought were being contemplated here is to bring sources to support something you wish to see instituted into the article. Bus stop (talk) 16:45, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
I am with Debresser, obviously. Bus Stop's claim that the purpose of encyclopedias is NOT to educate pople is, well, I hate to say it, just laughable. Bus stop's sources do not in any way contradict the view Debresser, Jayjg, I and it seems everyone but Bus stop holds, as to what the mainstream sources on Judaism attest or conform to, or how scholars of Religion classify Judaism. Yup, it is a dead horse. And starting to smell, yuch! Slrubenstein | Talk19:21, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Slrubenstein, did I say that the purpose of an encyclopedia is not to educate people? Furthermore, nothing is "laughable" in this discussion. We disagree over what article content should be. Have I resorted to trying to belittle what you have said, such as by characterizing it as laughable?Bus stop (talk) 19:40, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
(out) The actual discussion on the original topic continued after "break." The tangent above does not seem in any way to affect what appears to be a genuine consensus. Collect (talk) 20:40, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm certain it's not what you intend, but characterisations such as "tangents" and "dead horses" could be construed as an appeal to "having ignored all the people who disagree, we have a clear consensus". Consensus for what, exactly? There appear to be at least two distinct wordings that people have called for "agree/disagree" on, rather muddled together in the subsequent discussion. Firstly, there's the "ethnic Jew" matter; I see no problem with that as a wording, and if it's at all unclear to anyone, it'll wikilink to (a section of) an article that lays it out in some detail. But ethnoreligion is both more problematic in itself (see my comments from a little earlier), and points to an article that's much less help. Smartiger (talk) 02:02, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
As I did not refer to "horses", I would ask you redact that bit. The "tangent" is the issue of "educating" by an encyclopedia. The consensus, indeed, was that delving into the meaning of "ethnic" for a sentence whose primary purpose was to state that the population included converts was unnecessary, and not actually likely, in the context of population, to help the reader. We left the succeeding paragraph, whic surely needs work to deal with categories of Jews. Would you like to start a fresh section on wording of that paragraph, perhaps? I fear that new readers entering in may not follow the process well otherwise. That way you may have a clear field in which to discuss how "ethnicity" relates to groups with Judaism, etc. Which, frankly, is dealt with in the section on Jewish denominations. The lede might well just point out that they exist, and let the reader see the section in its entirety below. Collect (talk) 12:12, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
(breaking from discussion about Jewish world population) I think the issue now raised is how and whether to address "ethnic Jew" in the article on Judaism, and particularly whether or not to address the issue in the lede. Is this a fair statement? Collect (talk) 14:48, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Collect, I object to you changing the name of a section under which I have already posted. Please start a new section if necessary. I have reverted your "break," above. Please don't change the context of my posts after I've made them. Bus stop (talk) 15:18, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Actually ethnic Jew is not at all of a help. That is a Wikipedia article without citations for the use of the term "ethnic Jew." It is a paragraph within the Who is a Jew? article entitled Ethnic and cultural perspectives. Citations are lacking for every instance that "ethnic Jew" is used in that paragraph.
These are words that are used in the English language. But it is not helpful to foist them on the reader without sources.
These words are either not used frequently, or they are poorly defined. "Ethnic Jew" has a particularly wide rage of usage. It is poorly defined.
It may very well be the case that Judaism has been identified as an "ethnoreligion." But a source would have to be provided where that was used in this article in relation to Jews. And it is not the only term by which Judaism is characterized. Reliable sources characterize Judaism as a religion. That is a separate term from terms such as "ethnoreligious" or "ethnoreligion." Wikipedia allows for more than one assertion on a given point.
My claim is not that that article is beyond improvement (which is a matter for that article's talk page); just that it's helpful to readers, in the context we're talking of (which is the clarity of this article). As for the other matter, would you be more comfortable with my own suggestion of "religion and ethnic group", or some phrase along those lines? Smartiger (talk) 03:11, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
You know, sometimes I get so tired from editors who engage in Wikipedia:Wikilawyering, but are too lazy to do some research, write a good section to an article, or fix a few errors from the many error categories we have here. I know somebody will soon ask me whom I am refering to, to which I will respond with a Dutch proverb: the shoe belongs to whom it fits. Anyway, see inter alteres [3], [4], [http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?t=528646] (ironically), [5], and [6]. You have a computer? An internet browser? There are search engines around, you know? Debresser (talk) 13:05, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Debresser, I made this edit about a week ago. Note that in that edit I suggest that the wording could be: "Jews are variously referred to as constituting a religious or an ethnoreligious group." Do you have any objection to that wording? Would you suggest alternate wording? Bus stop (talk) 14:36, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
We should try to say what they are, not what they are referred to. That is only a last resort and largely unproductive. Just "ethonoreligious" says both. Debresser (talk) 14:55, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Debresser, I think that is original research. What source says that "ethonoreligious" says both?"
Why would any writer or speaker choose one term over the other, in a given instance? Obviously because they are different terms, and they have different meanings, or at least implications. The term "religion" does not contain the hint of "ethnicity" within it that the term "ethnoreligious" contains within it. This is so obvious that it seems almost strange to point it out.
We should not be deciding the role that ethnicity plays in Jewish identity. Our responsibility is to reflect what reliable sources say. And clearly reliable sources say that Judaism is a religion. That reliable sources also say that Jews constitute an "ethnoreligious group" is not a reason to exclude a basic word like "religion" from an article on Judaism, in our description in the lede.
Many reliable sources, probably the majority of reliable sources, utilize the term "religious" or "religion" when referring to Jews. I believe that only a far fewer number employ "ethnoreligious" or "ethnoreligion" in reference to Jews. Google searches for various combinations of such terms in association with the terms "Jew" and "Judaism" make this clear. Granted such searches do not provide definitive answers on these questions, but the results of such searches don't seem to support the supplanting of the term "religious" with the term "ethnoreligious" that some are arguing for.
It is difficult for me to understand why anyone would want to exclude a basic term like "religion" in reference to Jews. I think I made a very reasonable suggestion. Of course no one has to accept my exact wording. But this seems like a reasonable sort of statement for the lede: "Jews are variously referred to as constituting a religious or an ethnoreligious group." That allows the reader to think about a range of possibilities, which is more in keeping, I think, with the actual reality of the wide range of Jewish observance seen in the real world. Bus stop (talk) 14:46, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
That is a very technical point you are making. I am responding to the argument made by others that the term "religion" is not needed because the term "ethnoreligion" contains it. I don't think I really made any point distinguishing between the two terms "Jew" and "Judaism." They are just terms needed in order to talk about this subject. Bus stop (talk) 16:21, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Regarding your statement "But this seems like a reasonable sort of statement for the lede: "Jews are variously referred to as constituting a religious or an ethnoreligious group." As has been explained before, the reason this is neither necessary nor preferred is that "ethnoreligious" encompasses "religion". It would make more sense to have a statement in the led that "Jews are variously referred to as constituting an ethnic or an ethnoreligious group", since there are vastly more reliable sources referring to Jews as an ethnic group than the couple you were able to find on google referring to Jews as a "religious group". However, even that is not necessary, since, as stated before, "ethnoreligious" is also frequently used by reliable sources, and covers both ethnicity and religion. Persistent attempts to promote the view that Jews constitute solely or primarily a religious group, despite voluminous amounts of reliable literature stating the exact opposite, is highly disruptive. As others have said, please stop beating this dead horse. Thanks. Jayjg (talk)20:06, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
(unindent) Jayjg, can you please show me where I have tried to "promote the view that Jews constitute solely or primarily a religious group."? It was suggested here that Jews be characterized as an "ethnoreligious group." My counter-suggestion, here, was that Jews be additionally characterized as a "religious group." I have not argued to exclude any term. You have argued to exclude the term "religious."
You claim "voluminous" literature and "vastly more reliable sources" but you have yet to bring even one source yourself in support of the terminology that you wish to see in the article. Thus far in the above thread, reliable sources to support the terminology "ethnoreligious group" consist of the few made by Debresser, here, and the link to the two sources for "ethnoreligious group" found at the article Ethnoreligious group.
Your argument that "ethnoreligious" encompasses "religion" is not a sound argument. That is because it (ethnoreligious) not only encompasses "religion" but also "ethnicity." (Some) reliable sources allude to Jews as constituting a "religious group" ostensibly because those reliable sources wish to make reference to Jews constituting precisely that — a religious group. Had they wished to allude to Jews as constituting both a religious group and an ethnic group they would consider using the term you are enthusiastic about — ethnoreligious group.
Reliable sources are assumed to make informed choices in the terminology they choose to use. WP:NPOV says that all significant views be represented. Your argument is to omit certain significant views. You are basing your argument on your observation that two concepts are found in the one word "ethnoreligious." But not all sources embrace the view that both of these concepts are applicable to Jews. There are some sources that say that Jews are a "religious group," and they fail to mention the "ethnic" component that you are apparently enthused about. It is certainly possible that there are yet other sources that see Jews as only "ethnic" and not religious at all. NPOV calls for representation of significant views found in reliable sources. Your argument is for the exclusion of all views except for the view that includes both ethnicity and religion. Ethnoreligious is supported by some sources. Other sources identify Jews as comprising a religious group, and they fail to mention an ethnic component at all. I am arguing for the inclusion of that view. But please bear in mind that I am not arguing for the exclusion of any view, as long as it is supported by reliable sources.
In this case the most significant view is that Jews constitute a "religious group." I base that on number of hits for combined Google search terms. But that is certainly not my main point. My main point is that all significant views deserve representation. This is in accordance with NPOV. That Jews are also known as a "religious group" is amply supported in reliable sources. That these sources (most of them anyway) choose not to allude to an "ethnic" component is the expression of a "view," and the wiki policy of NPOV supports the expression of all significant views.
I posted some sources above, and here are a few more:
1.)Research by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life last year found that evangelical Christians were more likely to support Israel than any other religious group in America besides Jews.
2.)Antisemitism, the new racist version of the old Jew-hatred, viewed the Jews as not simply a religious group but as members of a 'Semitic race', which strove to dominate its 'Aryan' rivals.
3.)Marilyn Vaughan, a member of Ames Jewish Congregation and a member of its religious education committee, said developing a sense of community, especially for a minority religious group like Judaism, can hinge on a young person’s sense of identity with that group.
4.)Only then can we come to understand the mode of ethical relationality that informs some key historical and religious understandings of what it is to be a Jew. In the end, it's not about specifying the ontology of the Jew over and against some other cultural or religious group.
5.)Although Brandeis, the only nonsectarian, Jewish-sponsored university in the United States, has a large population of Jewish students, other religious groups on campus are active as well.
6.)“I didn’t quite know what to expect from a religious group offering free food, but I soon realized that Shabbat was about much more than that. The food was there to complement family−style guidance and celebration that students of faith find useful.”
7.)"I applaud the direct support for human rights exemplified by Canada's forthright policies under the Harper government that show an understanding of the important role the state of Israel continues to play as an example of a democracy in action," said Mallin. "But I cannot endorse separating any ethnic or religious group in order to leverage political support."
8.)"Statistics consistently show Jews to be far and away the most frequently targeted religious group, with 74 percent of hate crimes motivated by religion being perpetrated against Jews in Los Angeles County," added Susskind, citing the most recent Hate Crime Report of the Los Angeles County Commission on Human Relations. (The headline of the article happens to read: "ADL after LA synagogue attack: Jews most targeted religious group")
9.)"Inside the center, bodies of the dead were found. Gavriel Holtzberg, a 29-year-old rabbi from Brooklyn, N.Y., and his wife, Rivka, were killed at the Chabad House, an outreach center for the Lubavitch Jewish sect, the religious group confirmed. Rivka Holtzberg was born in Israel and it wasn't clear whether she also had U.S. citizenship."
10.)"Exit polls found that 77 percent of American Jews voted for Mr. Obama, a higher percentage than any other religious group. A recent Gallup poll found support for the president among 64 percent of American Jews, still the highest of any religious group."
11.)"Jews, who comprise 1.7% of the adult American population, may be the wealthiest religious group in the US, but the Hindus are catching up quickly."
12.)"Israel acknowledges itself to be a state of one particular religious group. Anyone committed to democracy will readily admit that equal citizenship cannot exist under such conditions."
13.)"The officer would not confirm that, but it was exactly the same blasts I would hear and see later in the day at Nariman House, the residence set up by a Jewish religious group for Israelis overseas, which is also known as the Chabad House."
14.)"That Jews are so protected is due to the impact of subsequent judge-made law, notably the Mandla case of 1983, which actually concerned the Sikh community. In ruling that Sikhs were not a religious group (and thus outside the protection of the Act), but rather a racial or ethnic group (and thus within its protection) the law lords set forth a definition of ethnicity that clearly applied and applies equally to Jews."
15.)"But the disclosures by Southland Jewish organizations suggest a so-called affinity scam, in which members of a perpetrator's ethnic or religious group are targeted."
16.)"I am really extremely disappointed by this ruling," she said. "It is highly regrettable that this has happened because it says that the state is interfering in what constitutes membership of a church and religious group. It is a highly regrettable situation and I hope the Jewish community will be successful in appealing this."
17.)"Moreover, since Jews are a nation first and religious group second -- bonded by shared history, not faith -- the label "Jewish state" merely defines the cultural character of the polity and does not deny political rights to any minority."
18.)"In recent years, the identifiably Jewish prison population of New York State has risen dramatically -- to 6 percent of the prison population today from 1 percent a decade ago. Rather than indicating a hike in crimes committed by Jews, state officials say it’s a result of a dramatic increase in the number of convicts choosing to identify religiously -- usually for the benefits they entail."
Also from same source:
"By declaring yourself part of a religious group -- any religious group -- you become entitled to rights, like being able to grow your hair or a beard," Leonard says. Other benefits include the right to congregate, wear religious garments and have access to reading material, to name a few."
19.)"Jews and black Protestants oppose the war in greater numbers than any other religious group – more than 70 percent, according to some polls."
20.)"Yet Edah's conference addresses a perennial choice facing any religious groupencountering a changing world: build bridges or patrol borders."
21.)"As an aging religious group, it is time for Jews to take heed of the changes affecting religion in America because they are Americans, too, and no major trend passes them by."
Also, from the same article as above:
"At a time when other religious groups are seeking adherents and promoting their religious faiths, Jewish organizations and institutions generally are so afraid of decline and loss that they turn inwards."
"The Essenes were a Jewish religious group that flourished from the 2nd century BCE to the 1st century CE that some scholars claim seceded from the Zadokite priests[1]. "Bus stop (talk) 12:57, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Why add such a monumental amount of material which might possibly be applicable to the article Jew at this point when the discussion about the lede was fairly well settled for Judaism? Collect (talk) 13:18, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Collect, obviously because we are trying to write an article in accordance with fundamental wikipedia policy. There is nothing fancy in the above. I am not arguing for a mere style that I might prefer. Bus stop (talk) 13:51, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Policy is for material to be in the article for which it is best suited. Talk pages are for discussion as to the nature of material to be added to an article, and specifically not for extended conversation about material which would be in a different article. Most of the cites you give above refer to "Jews" and not to "Judaism." (indeed, only one uses the word "Judaism" in your quotes. That particular example refers to "the Union for Reform Judaism" Vaughan was not quoted as using the word "Judaism" - it is a word chosen by the reporter. I fail to see its relevance for making any statement about "Judaism" being specifically a "religion." ) Collect (talk) 15:18, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Bus stop, are you being deliberatly disruptive, or are you just ignoring what Jayjg and others have written? No one - n-o o-n-e, nobady, has claimed that Judaism is not a religion. So you do not need to provide any sources saying Judaism is a religion, everyon )e-v-e-r-y o-n-e) agrees Judaism is a religion. jayjg and I and others are just saying it is also a nation or ethnic group, which makes it a particular kind of religion, namely, an ethnoreligious group. Now, none of your sources say that Judaism is not a nation or ethnic group. Not one. Is there any Jewish movement or sect or organization that denies that Judaism is also an "am" or a "goy?" Don't the prayer-books of Reform, Orthodox, and Conservative Jews actually say that Judaism is a People or nation, that the convenant is between God and a nation or people? Slrubenstein | Talk15:26, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Slrubenstein, reliable sources don't choose between these terms by flipping a coin or by making a random choice. When a reliable source makes reference to Jews as an "ethnoreligious group" they are expressing a "view." It could be merely a transient view for the purpose of that sentence or it could be a long-term view. But it is expressive. When a reliable source makes reference to Jews as a "religious group" that too is an expressed view. But it is a different view. NPOV is a principle that says that all views are to receive expression in an article. Bus stop (talk) 16:02, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Again, you are being disruptive. I have already noted that I and everyone else here accepts that Judaism is viewed as a religion. Yet you keep arguing against me? I don't get it - are you disputing my claim that everyone here accepts that Judaism is a religion? What is your point? Slrubenstein | Talk17:19, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Slrubenstein, am I supposed to accept that the only designation for Jews in the lede of this article is of Jews as an "ethnoreligious group," and that any dissent from that position will be viewed as being disruptive?
In point of fact I accept the inclusion of the wording that Jews comprise an "ethnoreligious group." I have suggested, that in keeping with NPOV, and as supported by reliable sources, it also be noted that Jews are variously known as a "religious group."Bus stop (talk) 18:34, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Well, now we need to move on the next question when using any source (and you have provided us wih many): context: how many of the sources you provide identify Judaism as a religion within the context of a discussion of what Judaism is? How many of your sorces says Judaism is a religion and not an ethnoreligious group? How many are within a similar context ilel "Many have asked what Judaism is and I say it is a religion?" We need to look at the contexts of your sources to see which ones have bearing on this issue. This too is policy. Slrubenstein | Talk21:59, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Bus stop, please desist from disruptive edits like this. There is an overwhelming consensus against this edit, as evidenced by the discussion above, and by the points made there. "Ethnoreligious" encompasses both ethnicity and religion. Just as there is no need to write the "Jews are variously described as an ethnic group and an ethnoreligious group", so too there is no need to write "Jews are variously described as a religious group and an ethnoreligious group". Oh, and in answer to your question of 22 December above, Jayjg, can you please show me where I have tried to "promote the view that Jews constitute solely or primarily a religious group."?, aside from your most recent edit here, here's an example. Jayjg (talk)05:12, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Jayjg, the question remains, "Can you please show me where I have tried to "promote the view that Jews constitute solely or primarily a religious group?" You've pointed, in both cases, to examples of me making reference to religion, in relation to Jews. Obviously you can point to no case in which I have referred to Jews as constituting "…solely or primarily a religious group." You have said, and I quote: "Persistent attempts to promote the view that Jews constitute solely or primarily a religious group, despite voluminous amounts of reliable literature stating the exact opposite, is highly disruptive." You said that here.
As for the word "ethnoreligious" containing the meanings, linguistically, of both religion and ethnicity within it — that might be true. But this disagreement is not over language, merely. At issue is meaning. A reliable source does not choose words haphazardly. "Religion" is used alone by some reliable sources, not in conjunction with ethnicity, as might be the case if the writer had chosen instead "ethnoreligious." Reliable sources are what we go by. If a reliable source says that Jews constitute a religious group, we do not write that Jews constitute an "ethnoreligious" group, based on some reasoning that one word "encompasses" the other. That is original research. You are clearly using that original research to exclude the most common term of reference of all for Jews, as well as Christians and Muslims. That is the common term "religious group." You are promoting a view, not to mention terminology.
Some sources, in fact most sources, use the term religion when referring to Jews. You are promoting terminology when you attempt to edit a Wikipedia article that subsumes the word "religion" into "ethnoreligious." The primary issue at stake here is your suppression of one term and the promotion of another term. Wikipedia's fundamental guidelines concern neutral point of view emerging from the adherence to reliable sources. Wikipedia's fundamental principles support the representation of all views published by reliable sources, with proportional weight given to each — not to the replacing of one basic term with another.
The edit that I have argued for is the following: "Jews are variously known as a religious[12] or ethnoreligious group that includes those born Jewish and converts to Judaism." I have tried to make that edit here.Bus stop (talk) 06:48, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
a) You said "Catholic" is a religion. "Black" and "white" are not. Similarly "Jewish" is a religion." This is clearly an argument that Jews, like Catholics, are solely or primarily a religious group. b) In the lede of this article you inserted the word "religious" before "ethnoreligious group", but failed to insert the phrase "ethnic group" before (or even after) "ethnoreligious group". Both of these are clearly examples of your attempts to "promote the view that Jews constitute solely or primarily a religious group". The evidence has been provided. Do not again pretend you have not done this, it is highly disruptive, and any further dissembling or prevarication by you on the matter will be viewed in that light. In addition, your argument about "reliable sources not choosing words haphazardly" sets up a false dichotomy, as has been explained many times. The fact that some sources refer to Jews as a religious group does not mean that they reject the fact that Jews are an ethnic and ethnoreligious group, and the notion of "religion" is no more "subsumed" or "suppressed" by the term "ethnoreligious" than the notion of "ethnic" is; this is simply a nonsensical claim. In addition, despite your claim, there is absolutely no evidence that "most sources use the term religion when referring to Jews". In fact, a point you have persistently ignored is that there are many reliable sources that refer to Jews as an "ethnic group" as well - and you have been shown these sources, despite your attempts to ignore them or argue they mean the opposite of what they say. Why, then, have you not argued for the wording "Jews are variously known as an ethnic or ethnoreligious group that includes those born Jewish and converts to Judaism"? Please ensure that you answer this question in your next response. Also, please remember that constantly repeating your arguments (rejected by all other editors here), and ignoring the arguments made by others as if they had never been made, is highly disruptive. Jayjg (talk)07:22, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Jayjg, I have never promoted "…the view that Jews constitute solely or primarily a religious group" — certainly not explicitly, but just as well — nor have I ever attempted to promote that notion implicitly. You've said this: "Persistent attempts to promote the view that Jews constitute solely or primarily a religious group, despite voluminous amounts of reliable literature stating the exact opposite, is highly disruptive."
Your "examples" above do not show me doing anything of the sort. In one of your examples above I can be seen making an edit which includes both "religious" and "ethnoreligious." How is that "solely or primarily" promoting a "religious" view? I mentioned two "views" in that edit, one of which is the view (ethnoreligious) that you wish to see in this article. Your second example is from a Talk page discussion (at the "Who is a Jew?" article) found here. The discussion concerned, among other things, Mulattos, Quadroons, Octoroons, Blacks, Whites, Catholics and Jews. (I did not introduce any of those terms to that discussion.) Clearly the first 5 terms do not relate to "religion." Equally clearly the last two terms — Jews and Catholics refer to "religious" groups of people. This is a distinction that I am perfectly justified in calling the discussion's attention to. Are you finding fault with my failing to refer to Jews as an "ethnoreligious" group? I need not use your preferred term. But more importantly, reliable sources need not and do not necessarily always use the term that you prefer to see in this article. I provided many references, above, to the use of the word "religion" in relation to Jews. But you are insistent that only one term — "ethnoreligious" — can be used in our article to describe Jewish identity. And you are going to great lengths and convoluted reasoning to try to show that I am "promoting" a view, when arguably you are just as much trying to promote a view. My argument at this point is that the article really needs to present multiple points of view.
I do not believe you have cited Wikipedia policy in support of the opinion that only the term "ethnoreligious" will do in this place in our article. Can you show me any Wikipedia policy that supports one term, to the exclusion of all others, as you are arguing for, as concerns the term "ethnoreligious?" Your argument has been that "ethnoreligious encompasses religion." Is there a Wikipedia policy that says that we substitute terms for one another in that way? I think Wikipedia policy says the opposite:
WP:NEUTRAL says that "Editors must write articles from a neutral point of view, representing all significant views fairly, proportionately, and without bias." Are you trying to argue that Jews as a "religious" group does not represent a "significant view"? A reliable source does not have to use the term ethnoreligious, and many do not. I've provided examples of many reliable sources above that indeed do not use the term "ethnoreligious" when referring to Jews. Each of those sources represents a "view." They didn't just happen to choose the term "religious." They knowingly chose "religious" because it best represented what they wished to say. They were aware of the term "ethnoreligious," but they chose NOT to use it. I believe those are the correct assumptions that we as editors make about reliable sources.
This entire question is not an insignificant question. I would hazard a guess that a large number of people come to this article to have a sort of question addressed. That sort of question involves: what is the nature of Judaism? What is the nature of this grouping of people? Are they a "nation," as is posited in some places? Are they a "people?" (I am not 100% certain what that would mean, but reliable sources can be found to support that view.) Are they a "race?" (It may not be correct, but reliable sources can be found that assert this.) This web site considers, "religion," "race," "culture," "nation," "family" as possible terms — each having a degree of validity — by which to describe the group of people known as Jews. That same web site also says, "Clearly, there is a religion called Judaism, a set of ideas about the world and the way we should live our lives that is called Judaism." In fact, Encyclopedia Britannica says, "One of the three great monotheistic world religions, Judaism began as the faith of the ancient Hebrews, and its sacred text is the Hebrew Bible, particularly the Torah." Can you tell me why Encyclopedia Britannica failed to mention that Jews were an "ethnoreligious group?" Obviously sources use a variety of terms to address this question, which happens to be a not unimportant question within the general topic of Judaism.
If you wish to include that Jews are an "ethnicity," as you made reference to in your above post, then it becomes incumbent on you to find a source for the term "ethnicity" in relation to Jews. I already answered you long ago on this issue. I said to you here (please scroll down to the lower portion of my edit at that link) that the possibility exists for you to present the argument that Jews constitute an "ethnic group," provided of course that you find a source that supports that contention.
In general, a nuanced and complex sentence should be constructed for the lede of our article reflecting the various points of view that are found to describe the nature of the identity of Jews. "Ethnoreligious" is not the one word to sum up all those points of view. I know of no Wikipedia policy for excluding all other representations based on the notion that one word "encompasses" two other words. It may be perfectly true that ethnoreligious "encompasses" both religious and ethnic. But we should be writing our article in close adherence to what reliable sources have to say on this subject. Reliable sources may choose to use one of the components of that composite word because the other component is NOT what they wish to express. The use of ANY term by a reliable source potentially represents a "significant view" and is thus supported by WP:NEUTRAL. There happen to be a variety of terms used by reliable sources with which to address the issue concerning the nature of Jewish identity. It is my contention that these are all potentially protected by the policy of WP:NEUTRAL.
Obviously a little-used term need not be included. And equally obviously an editorial decision can exclude a term. But excluding a term such as "religious" cannot be justified, in my opinion. That is because it is the most commonly used term for the purpose of identifying Jews. Google hits alone can show you that the greatest number of references to Jews are as a "religious group." Substituting "ethnoreligious" for "religious" cannot be justified based on Wikipedia policy. And doing so undermines Wikipedia's credibility. As an encyclopedia we are supposed to reflect what sources say on a subject. That means adhering to the actual words used by reliable sources, not substituting words based on our own reasoning that one term "encompasses" another. Bus stop (talk) 16:13, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Done Changed "denominations" to "movements" or "groups" in the lede. The article about the groups is titled "Jewish religious movements" and its lede mentions that these groups are sometimes called denominations, but I don't have a problem with avoiding this word in the lede. --AFriedman (talk) 06:57, 31 December 2009 (UTC)