Talk:Who is a Jew?/Archive 3

Black people article request

I am a contributor to the Black People article and I am doing a study on something that is irking me about the debate on that article. I took a compromising approach, and using this article as a good example, I created an article called Who is black. Someone changed it to Definitions of black people. I am here asking the contributors here a simple question. What would go through your mind and how would it feel if someone (especially a non-Jew) changed THIS article from Who is a Jew to Definitions of Jewish people. I felt that it would be condescending and offensive to Jews to "define" instead of "asking" them this. It feels to "define" would assume they (Jews) are less than capable of expressing their complexities from their own POV, which obviously must occur for this article to make any sense. Something about "definitions" seems to smack of arrogance (esp. if changed by a non-Jew). It also diminishes the objectivity of the article as such a subject inherently implies there is no cut-and-dry way to define. What do you think? --Zaphnathpaaneah 02:28, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Dark skin was obviously noticed throughout history, but the concept of race did not exist before several hundred years ago and so Black as an ethnic idenity did not exist. And the reason the article is not called "Who is Black" like the "Who is Jewish" article, is because this article is better than the "who is Jewish" article because it provides a list of cited and varied definitions from people of different races (plus extensive criticism), and thus can have an encyclopedic title. "Who is Black?" is a question, not a title for an encyclopedia artice. "Who is Jewish" should also be changed.__Whatdoyou 15:26, 21 October 2006 (UTC) (reposted by --Zaphnathpaaneah 16:06, 21 October 2006 (UTC) from Talk:Black People

I agree that it's a silly title, but I think "definitions of Black people" sounds even dumber. As though Black people were not people at all, but someTHING to be defined. Same thing, obviously, with Jews.FlaviaR 17:25, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

It's cowardly to half-way do something. Someone changed the title to "controversies" of Jewish identity. It's like they don't want to offend Jewish contributors with ignorance, but they have no problem offending Black people with the same ignornace. Bravo to the cowardice! --Zaphnathpaaneah 16:21, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

The title is a translation of "Mihu Yehudi?" (hebrew), the classic formulation of this question. The title has been disputed several times and discuss at length. It is a strong consensus that the title is correct. This article disscuss not only the definiton of who is a Jew but disscuss the discussion itself. Jon513 12:21, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Great, I couldn't agree more. I am applying this principle on the Who is Black article which is a translation of the english phrase "Who is black?", yet someone wants to change the title to "Definitions of Black people". I am sure the people here would be offended to read that as the title of this article, yes? --Zaphnathpaaneah 06:27, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

That is an idiotic (I'm sorry) analogy here. "Mihu Yehudi?" which translates into English as "Who is a Jew?" is different than asking "Who is Black?" in English twice. —Ryūlóng (竜龍) 07:03, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

While I agree with you, I have an idea that might satisfy everyone (okay, I'm an optimist): What if this article would be entitled "Jewish Identity" (& therefore the other article as well)??FlaviaR 17:28, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Higher Percentage of Gays/Lesbians Found in Modern Jews -- Research

I'm wondering if anyone has come across any serious scholarly research that has examined the fact that Jews tend to be quite overrepresented amongst the gay and lesbian populations in the modern World, particularly in the USA and Western Europe. I have read about this on certain Jewish websites and in a couple Jewish newsletters/newspapers, but have yet to find any academic research on this matter. I know that the worldwide Jewish community is generally very gay/lesbian friendly, but I am looking for information/statistics that have has confirmed the noticeably higher incidence of homosexuality/lesbianism in the (mostly secular) Jewish population. Thank you for any information that you can provide. --205.188.117.73 16:26, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, I have no idea from where comes this idea. Gay and Lesbians are around 2-4% of the population of each country, and there is no indication that the situation is different in Israel, where the population by large is not exactly more friendly to Gays than in Europe or USA. French Jews, as I know, are also usually not very gay friendly. But they are mostly North African Jews and there seems to be a strong difference between Ashkenazim and Sefaradim on the issue, and of course between religious and non or less religious Jews. Benjil 10:05, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Hello. I'm afraid this sort of question is a bit outside the scope of this article. You might want to address this sort of inquery to Wikipedia:WikiProject Judaism. Best, --Shirahadasha 19:28, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

At the risk of one more off-topic remark: probably only among non-Orthodox Ashkenazis, and probably not a higher percentage of gays, just a higher percentage who are out. I'm sure you'd find the same among Unitarians and any other relatively open and accepting communities. - Jmabel | Talk 00:00, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Jmabel is probably right. This is an issue of preselection: Jews tend to embrace education, self-knowledge and honesty, and American reform Judaism tends to be more accepting of people who are different (at least in terms of sexual identity), so I don't think there are MORE gay Jews - just more people who are Jewish admit / declare their homosexuality. Moehong 00:43, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Ethnic Jew, redux

Okay since non religious people can be considered Jews because their family practices it I'd like someone to answer my question. Tell me, if a black family converts to Judaism and have a kid does that make the kid an "ethnic Jew"?

If the mother was Jewish (even by conversion) when the child is born, the child is Jewish. If the parents converted after the child is born the child must accept his conversion when he or she becomes of age. The fact that they are black is inconsequential. Jon513 17:13, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

But if the child has to accept his conversion when he becomes of age, why then make him participate actively in religious ceremony (but this is the case for many other religions), and why do a circumcision on baby boys when they can't say a word. If the child once adult refuse for any reason to convert to judaism, he can't go back this surgery act. Well I really understand the importance of this act in Israel 3000 years ago, it was an obvious an clever hygenist decision. Without making a long discussion, would it be possible that some jewish parents decide to not do any circumcision on their child until this one decide to accept his conversion? or is this idea totally against the rules or jewish values? 84.239.219.71 10:00, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

It wouldn't make the child an "ethnic Jew", but it would make the child a Jew, certainly. Mad Jack 17:37, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Color is entirely beside the point. The Ethiopian Jews are black.

Halakha and the prevailing concept of ethnicity don't sit entirely easily together in the matter of conversion. Halakha defines how one becomes a Jew; the prevailing concept of ethnicity doesn't generally allow for a person becoming part of an ethnic group, although some transitions happen more easily than others. - Jmabel | Talk 06:44, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Judaism, the traditional religion/ideology, simply doesn't have or recognize a concept such as an ethnic Jew. Moreover, liberal and secularized branches of Judaism tend to be particularly sensitive to discrimination issues. Hence, there simply is no notable school of thought within Judaism or Jewish culture that has an "ethnic Jew" concept for which such a statement would hold. Such an attitude may possibly describe some outsiders' views of Jews (sources, please), but it doesn't describe Judaism's or Jews' views. Best --Shirahadasha 09:53, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

There are so many inaccuracies all up & down this page that I'm not sure where to start, so I figure I will just start from the top& go down. As a point of interest, I am lifting pretty much word-for-word what I wrote over at the J4J article: I think here is a point where confusion seems to be arising. It is true that Judaism has some characteristics of ethnicity - it can be handed down from a parent to child. However, since the only one who can do so is the mother, any similarity to ethnicity stops here. Now, some Reform Jews will say that the child of a Jewish man can be considered Jewish, but, they also say that said child has to follow & believe Judaism in order to be considered a Jew. So, even with a seeming similarity to ethnicity, it comes down to the fact that Judaism is a religion, but one that does not follow the rules other religions do. Perhaps if I say that "Judaism is a spiritual state of being, sometime snot even recognized by the Jew in question"? Would that help? I hope this clears everything up, but I bet not...FlaviaR 05:29, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Jewish Ethnicity

Perhaps it is important to note that Jews have not interbred with their host countries, thus preserving a large part of their original Semitic ethnicity. --Smnioffe 02:05, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Without re-writing your question, it may be considered more polite and more accurate to state that "some Jewish people have not mixed." Many, many, many have.

Jewish Because of Persecution

Would it be possible to include some discussion of Jewish identity (religious or secular) being re-enforced by persecution, esp. the Shoah?

Judaism is faith not RACE

Jews are people whom adhere to the Jewish faith…in another word Judaism is faith like Christianity Buddhism, and Islam NOT race…. Thanks to this DNA age it is found recently most of Jews don’t have the same DNA . Ethiopian Jews for example don’t have similarities with German Jews and most of the Jews are not even Semite…It is actually more proven that Arabs and especially the Palestinians have Identical share with their DNA ..and most important Haplogroup J1( that Define some one a Semite or not and from priestly lineage of Aaron ) is more frequent Found in the Levant, mainly in the Bedouin tribes (62,5%) and Palestinian Arabs (38,4%) than 14.6% of the Ashkenazim and 11.9% of the Sephardic results (Semino et al. 2004) a study that shows that most these so called Jews are not related to Ethnic 12 tribes of Israel. Only jews from Blood line of Jacob is called Israelite, and not vice versa217.42.216.204 21:40, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Judaism is a faith, but Jewish identity is ethno-religious. I've restored the correct text. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 23:45, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

My father is Jewish, while I am an agnostic. However I strongly identify myself with the Jewish people, because although I do not practice Judaism, I do share the culture and ethnicity. My father was born in Russia and as a child experienced anti-Semitism. People could tell he was Jewish by his appearance, his hair was darker and curlier than most, his skin was tanner and his nose was larger. Many physical traits people stereotypically attribute to Jews are often true. This is because over many generations, due to religion and discrimination of the Jewish people, intermarriage has historically been very low. Additionally, historically few people have converted to the religion. Thus, the genetic makeup of the first Semitic Jewish people living in the middle-east has been largely preserved in many modern Jews, whose family comes from a Jewish lineage. However, over the past century intermarriage between Jews and non-Jews has gone up significantly. In a few more hundred years the Jewish ethnicity will probably mostly dissolve. DNA testing has been done and proved thats Jews are ethnically related: http://www.aish.com/societywork/sciencenature/Jewish_Genes.asp --Smnioffe 22:02, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Jews have no one single Ethnicity, There are Ashkenazi Sephardic, Ethiopians Chinese , Mizrahem, and so on. So they are not one people….BUT Peoples different Ethnics. Each Jewish group Carries its Own DNA profile that is more Closely related to people whom they live with, than to each others.

When you say that ’’ historically few people have converted to the religion’’ that is utterly WRONG, Because Khazars ( Turk Origins lived in today Russia ) are among the Gentiles (Not Israelites in Origins) whom converted to Judaism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khazar81.153.69.171 16:21, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, there were conversions outside of the Sephardic and Ashkenazi Jewish group, however those are rare exceptions. The vast majority of Jewish people are of Sephardic and Ashkenazi descent. I am not talking about others such as African and Asian Jews especially since they are a minority amongst Jews. But ethnic Sephardic and Ashkenazi Jews are ethnically related to one another and to the original Semitic tribe who were the first to adopt Judaism. Again, this has been proved by DNA research, and I strongly believe that this should be included in this article. http://www.aish.com/societywork/sciencenature/Jewish_Genes.asp--Smnioffe 21:40, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Ashkenazi whom are 80% of jews are not Semitic race they are the Russians Turk Khazars81.153.69.171 00:11, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

That’s just not true. I am a Russian Jew and was born in Russia. My family's ancestors lived in Germany before Russia. Almost all Russian Jews have German or Hebrew last names. The Khazars have almost fully dissolved, and not necessarily into modern Jews. Even if a portion of the Khazars blood is in modern Jews, it is extremely miniscule.--Smnioffe 02:47, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Does the problem to answer to "is jew a faith or a ethnic group..." comes also from this: in the begining of jew history the word jew was used in the same time to describe a tribe, or a group of people, and their religion? Then century after century a group of jew can somehow still be considered as linked to the first jewish (persecution, way of becoming jewish which for some or many jewish familly meant to get married with another jew...), but lot of other jew are just converted. This is a very hard question and I believe that people will never be agree on this definition according to their own opinion.84.239.219.71 10:11, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

If i understand your question correctly, then yes, that IS part of the ongoing discussion. However, we're not trying to answer the question, merely document the debate. (It would be more accurate to understand this page as not being unlike the Talmud, where various rabbis saw a question and recorded their debates trough time as well, though the metaphor isn't a perfect comparitive.) ThuranX 23:41, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

To simplify this argument, remember that ethnicity and race are two entirely separate concepts. If this discussion is about race, then just travel and observe that Jews in every place where they have lived for a sufficient time look exactly like the native population, including blond blue-eyed Jews from Germany. Intermarriage and assimilation. The American Jews who arrived from Eastern Europe have an interesting history of migration through Europe and a long period of enforced isolation starting with Katherine the Great, but please don't imagine that they exemplify a Jewish race (as did Hitler and the rest). In fact, in genetic terms, most Europeans could be considered "Jewish" today.Vendrov 18:13, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

It is Zionism Not YHWH that define Judaism Race Not Faith

After defining Jews as race not Faith, Zionism like Nazism Calling for a PURE Jewish state just like Nazis calling for PURE..ARAYAN State. But it is openly obvious that Jews are not one race but races. Recent DNA test shows that Palestinians Lebanese Syrians have genetically more blood related to Ancients Israelites...that if they are not the Israelites. Zionism is making Judaism Race not Faith so to establish an ethno-cratic Secular not Religious state of Israel based on Race that Contradict the Laws of YHWH. Zionism definition of Judaism is Not Kosher81.153.69.171 10:28, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

That has nothing to do with Zionism. Facts are facts. Don't twist things because of your personal anti-zionist sentiments. The DNA test you write about states that some Palestinians, Lebanese, Syrians and other Arabic middle eastern peoples have small traces of the ancient Israelites blood. However, modern Ashkenazi and Sephardic Jews have mostly the same genes as the ancient Israelites did. Refer to the article I linked to before. --Smnioffe 14:01, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Lack of representation for the "inclusive" view...?

Why is there no mention of the idea that everyone is a Jew, though obviously to differing extents.

Probably for the same reason that there is no mention of the idea that no one is a Jew, or that everyone is a Martian. - Jmabel | Talk 19:36, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Distinguish between the term Jew and Israelite, they are not the same.

Please do distinguish between Jew and Israelite Every one can be a Jew because Judaism is a faith, but not any one is Israelite, because Israelite is a definition of race. Israelites were 12 ethnic tribes coming from man Jacob.

And Only the Israelites are the ones whom the bible is taking about.

Therefore any one not Israelite even being a Jew (believer in Judaism ) is considered to be a Gentile.

when we talk about Israelite we talk about Race , tribes (12 tribes) Ethnics of the DNA shared from Jacob.

Any one being Hindu ,Muslim, Buddahist, Christian, Shinto, jew, Satanist and even Atheist come from the man Named Jacob ( Israel) he or she then named Israelite regarding of his or her Faith.

Therefore I suggest to fetch and check the DNA of any one who think is from the man named Jacob (Israel) to Validate his/ her Claim. how about that?.81.153.67.74 21:55, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello, the section involved is called Divine revelation in Judaism. The point of view you are describing may be your personal point of view, but you would need reliable sources that it is a recognized viewpoint on the subject of Divine revelation in Judaism. Wikipedia describes viewpoints published in reliable sources whether or not editors personally think them correct. See our verification policy. Best, --Shirahadasha 23:38, 13 January 2007 (UTC).

Hello

I hope you would not take my previous response as being too blunt. and I do apologize if being so.

Since you have aske me of Reliable source , Here I would like to Provide it from the bible DIVINE revelation.

GEN 17:19 {and I will establish my covenant with[ him/Issac] for an everlasting covenant, [and] with his [seeds] after him.Gen17: 19 .

The Covenant in Gen17:19 is only for Isaac and his Blood Line seeds alone .It is even “Excluding”, Abraham , Ishmael whom they both had a First covenant in GEN 17:9 , and Sarah and…. and anyone not in Isaac blood line).

when we talk about Israelite we talk about Race , tribes (12 tribes) Ethnics of the DNA shared from Jacob.

Any one not Israelite is considered to be a Gentile unless having Israelite DNA / seeds of Issac in order to be in Covenant in Gen17:19.

Once again I really hope that you would not find my comments as being too blunt, and instead take them for what they truly are.

Thank you.81.152.236.23 00:38, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, in this situation, the bible is not considered a reliable source. Although that section MIGHT be useful as the premise opening a section, and then addressing the dichotomoies of the two labels, and the construance thereof in the modern era, the bible cannot function as a WP:RS for answering the question. ThuranX 01:19, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I think we can answer this question without having to get into a debate on the religious authority of the Bible. The current article is based on a contemporary dispute. The Bible doesn't tell us about what people today do; many people don't follow it. We need contemporary sources to tell us what is happening today. In addition, you appear to have a particular interpretation of the Bible on this subject. Not everyone interprets the Bible this way. Best, --Shirahadasha 18:10, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello

The Point regarding GEN 17:9 ,and Gen17:19 is Clear need No interpretation. Israelites are Race, any one coming from line Jacob bin Issac is Israelite.86.145.71.200 01:44, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Please read the introducory policies for Wikipedia. This is an encyclopedia, and relies upon reliable sources and citation to create neutral articles documenting worthy topics. Wikipedia is not designed nor purposed for proselytizing, pushign agendas, or looking for fights online. ThuranX 01:56, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

If the bible is not reliable source ! then Please accept my apology.

cheers and regards.86.145.71.200 09:53, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Article naming

Isn't there a better name for this? The titles of encyclopedia articles should not be in the form of a question. There must be some noun or noun phrase used to describe this question? Unless there is some tremendous reason not, "Who is a Jew?" would only be an appropriate title if it were the name of a book. —Centrx→talk • 21:08, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Centrx,

See the second sentence of the article:

The Hebrew phrase Mihu Yehudi ("?מיהו יהודי", "Who is a Jew?") came into widespread use when several high profile legal cases in Israel grappled with this subject after the founding of the Jewish state in 1948.

Also see the talk archives, especially [1], [2], [3], and [4]. Dbratton 22:11, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Could quotes be contained around the article title, to show we are discussing a historical phrase? If not, my suggestion above was/is to change the article title to "Jewish Identity".FlaviaR 17:31, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

lack of sources

While a small number things are sourced in this article (9 things), the majority of this article is still unsourced. The {{unreferenced}} has been added because of the lack of sources in most of the article.--Sefringle 04:57, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

we should somehow make a change so that the sign no longer says that there are no sources, but says that there are few sources, since this is deterring to people that are wanting ideas for research. --Pokoleo 03:05, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

'genetic debate'...

A recent edit tot he page suggested it was a 'genetic debate'. Here's the diff for the revert: [5] . While I agre that this is poor phrasing, I do wonder if the genetic debate couldn't be characterized as either a 'scientific' or 'anthropological' debate, as there are definitely genetic roots oriented aspects of the debate. Opinons? ThuranX 22:03, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that there is any point of view (and certainly not one notable enough to be mentioned in the first sentence) about a genetic debate. Since everyone accepts converts as full Jews it is impossible for there to be a genetic component. Jon513 12:26, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I was more interested in referring to the ashkenazi/sephardim shared genetics, as seen in incidence levels of Tay-sachs, as well as debates abotu the Khazar conversion and so on. There are sections of this page, and in the debates out there about it, and so it seemed of interest. In addition, there is talk of using genetics to determine if some of the distant peoples claiming jewishness are actually connected, like the Lemba, the Kai-feng, and so on. This is just a question about how to characterize the searches for jewishness through genetic mapping and testing and related stuff. Nothing too sserious, but the edit prompted the question in my mind. ThuranX 22:25, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Israeli Identity Card and the Question of "Who is a Jew"

Until 2005 the Israeli Identity card stated not only the 'citizenship' but also the 'nationality' of its bearer (i.e. Jew or Arab).

The article says under the heading of "Israeli rules for aliyah creates Israelis but not Jews" that:

<Until recently, the Israeli identity card had an indication of nationality, and anyone who made an alya as "4A", had NOT been marked as a Jew. Instead of that, there was an empty field.> Block quote

However, if the date of birth is giving in the Gregorian calender only, the bearer is a non-Jew and if it is given in the Hebrew Calendar too, the bearer is a Jew (according to whatever the definition of "Who is a Jew" of the issuing authority is). So this bit is only "half correct".--84.145.239.247 20:10, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

If I understand the above correctly - and I'm pretty sure I don't - the marking on the card is a strictly religious one, because there are Jews who do not have "Jew" on their Israeli identification cards because the Israeli Rabbinical Courts have not recognized their conversions. So it is NOT a "nationality" thing, it is specifically religious. If the above refers to something else, I apologize.FlaviaR 05:32, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Clarification of heredity of Judaism

The article is a little unclear about the heredity of Jewish status.

'The "Law of Return" distinguishes between two categories of subjects:

* A Jew (One who has been born to a Jewish mother) * A non-Jew, who is "a son/daughter or a grandson/granddaughter of a Jew, and the spouse thereof" who remains nonJewish, but nevertheless "is granted equal right of Aliyah and absorption" - this is the paragraph 4A of the law.'

Which is yet another reason that "The Law of Return" is never cited by Jews as being Jewish Law.FlaviaR 05:38, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Also, from Matrilineality:

In Israel, the status quo is that the Orthodox definition is followed: the child of a Jewish father and a non-Jewish mother may immigrate to Israel (and may claim rights under the Law of Return), but will be registered in official documents as a non-Jew.

So, if I had a single Jewish grandmother on my mother's side, would that make me Jewish? If Judaism is inherited from the mother that would seem to suggest yes. But According to Israeli law, I would not be Jewish as 'the child of a Jewish father and a non-Jewish mother [i.e. my mother] will be registered in official documents as a non-Jew.'

You are contradicting yourself. If your mother's mother was Jewish, then your mother would be Jewish, not a "non-Jewish mother". You would certainly be considered such by Israeli law - if you could prove it.FlaviaR 05:38, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Also, as I am 75% British by descent (and only 25% Jewish), I presumably therefore am British by ethnicity and only part-Jew.

Since it's impossible to be "part-Jewish", you are incorrect again.FlaviaR 05:38, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

What's the consensus on this? I identify as non-Jewish, either by race or religion, and am happy to do so. It seems illogical to classify myself as 'Jewish' when I am British by ethnicity, British by nationality and atheist by religion (or lack thereof). --86.139.151.62 16:19, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

You are Jewish by both matrilineal descent rules and by Israel's right of return. Assuming that your grandmother's mother was Jewish (and so on back) making your grandmother Jewish, this means your mother is therefore Jewish, therefore you are Jewish. This is only due to the matrilineality though - if it was your mother's father, or either of your father's parents, you would not be considered Jewish by either criteria. Of course proving these links for marriage rights, right of return, etc. is quite a bit more difficult if your family has not kept meticulous records of their heritage. Daniel^C/_T+ 16:39, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Would my being an atheist and rejecting the Jewish faith change this in the way that converting to another religion would nullify my right to return under the Law of Return? Presumably also it would be possible for someone to claim Jewish status simply by virtue of probability that one of their female ancestors was Jewish, no? It is very likely that many more family trees are likely to have had, some hundreds of generations ago, a female Jew whose matriline could be traced to the present day than only those who describe themselves as 'Jewish'.

Anyone who can prove unbroken female descent is considered Jewish by both Jewish Law & the Law of Return. However, were you to adopt a religious belief that was directly inimical to Judaism, such as an evangelical group whose sole mission is to make apostates of all Jews, you would be denied Israeli citizenship under the Law of Return, anyway - the Law of Return is NOT Jewish Law, even if they have some similarities.FlaviaR 05:38, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

One final question: Is there any way to relinquish 'Jewishness'? It seems curious to me that by its very definition it is apparently impossible to escape from the matriline, even if you have had no practising Jews in your family for tens or hundreds of generations (or, indeed, if all your family members are members of other religions). --86.139.151.62 17:12, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you are being confused that Judaism is both a religion and a state of being. If a person is a Jew (child of a Jewish mother) he or she is a Jew regardless of what s/he believes. If a person is a follower of Judaism (the religion) s/he is either a practicing Jew or a Noahide; depending on whether s/he is a Jew or non-Jew.

While it is possible for a non-Jew to convert to being Jewish in the eyes of halakha a Jew can never stop being a Jew, even for a hundred or a thousand generations (all female of course). Nevertheless a person who has no knowledge of any Jewish ancestry needn't, according to halakha, act as a Jew out of a doubt that he might be a Jew. So, while he might have a great-great-great-grandmother (all maternal of course) he would not be a Jew according halakha unless he could prove it. God may view the person as a non-Jew, He may view him as a Jew; I don't know, since that is outside of the scope of Jewish Law (which concerns itself with how one should behave not hypothetical question).

The Law of Return is a separate issue, it is both more inclusive than halakha and also more restrictive. It does not apply to Jews who reject Judaism and convert to another religion. I do not know if that would apply to atheist, but I don't think it would. A person needs proof of his Jewishness when applying to immigrate it Israel under the law of return, I am certain that an application based on demographic statistics would not be accepted (the bureaucracy would not know what to do with it - so they would throw it away). Nevertheless a person that can prove that he has a great-great-grandmother that is Jewish (all maternal of course) is %100 a Jew both according to halakha and the Law of Return. Jon513 19:51, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Who Is a Jew?

Let's say that a young woman learns that her father's family is of Sephardi Jew ancestry, the last practicing Jew in her family being her paternal grandfather. Her father is born to a Catholic woman, but also of Sephardi Jew ancestry. The child (the young woman's father) is given up for adoption and is raised by a non-practicing Catholic. Does that make the young woman Jewish if she begins to practice Judaism because she learns that her family is of Sephardi Jew ancestry? Or will she have to be a convert? To me she would be, but halakka has such strict rules. The young woman is of Jewish blood, her paternal grandfather being a practicing Jew and the rest of her family being of Jewish descent. It's like being of Irish ancestry but since your family settled in America in the late 1800's your not a "full-blooded" Irish lad. Anyway, would the young girl have to convert to Judaism, or can she just take the religion up (on her own) and call herself "Jewish"?

It's very easy. Her mother is not Jewish so she is not Jewish at all. She needs to convert. If you had the same story from the side of the mother, it could be interesting - the question being if the Catholic grand-mother of Jewish ancestry was in fact halakhicly Jewish. She would probably have to convert also. Benjil 06:28, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Another question over who is a Jew. If an older adult has Sephardi Jew ancestry from both his mother and father's side would they be considered Jewish if the last practicing Jews in his family were from the early 1800's? The Jewish ancestry being from his mother's maternal side, and from his father's paternal side. It would be difficult to prove, but I guess you can if you have the proper documents and information to show that you are indeed of Jewish descent although your family has since then converted to Christianity. Would this person still have to convert to Judaism or since he is of Jewish blood can he just proclaim himself Jewish?

A reminder. Wikipedia is not a forum, nor is it a substitute for actual advice from a religious authority. Finally, as the article makes clear, there are numerous interpretations of Jewish identity. Strict matrilineality (as proscribed in Halacha) eliminates tens of thousands of self-identifying and praticing Jews from being seen as Jews by White european Jews, which leads to the numerous ideas presented in the article. ThuranX 04:27, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

You show with your comments about "White European Jews" rejecting the Jewishness of others, presumably neither "white" nor European, that you are seriously confused about more than one thing. First off, no one has ever been denied Jewish status on the basis of color. Secondly, since the only status of "non-white" Jews which has ever come into question has been in Israel, then your statement about "European" is definitely wrong. The Ethiopian Jews - and the more recent Indian Jews - have been asked to undergo official conversions for the sole reason that they have been so cut-off from the body of normative Judaism for generations that no one - themselves included, because they agreed to the ritual - can be sure they are actually Jews. Nothing about racism, and absolutely everything to do with halakha, or, Jewish law.FlaviaR 05:43, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

"White European Jews" ??? What are you speaking about or implying ? The Halacha is the same for all Jews, mizrahim, ashkenazim, sefaradim, italkim, white, brown, black, europeans or not. Benjil 05:19, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

No, it's not. The same halacha can be applied to all those 'colored folk', nice use of racism, by the way, but it's only applied to their situation to define them as 'not jew', despite their self-identifications. Read the article, in it's pre-gutted form, and you'll see that. There's a wider debate about this issue than 'Halacha says yes, Halacha says no'. This article explains that debate. read it. ThuranX 16:25, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Who are you answering to ? And who spoke of "colored folk" ? The Halacha has nothing to do with these race issues and nothing to do with "White European Jews" - it was mostly written by "Brown Middle Eastern Jews". I know fully well what is the debate. That some people decided suddenly that they are Jews does not make them Jews. There is a Law that defines who is and who is not. They can become Jews if they want, they just have to follow convert accordingly. Benjil 17:13, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

"White" has nothing to do with being Jewish. A person of any race may be Jewish. Bus stop 16:36, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

ThuranX -- Please don't imply that anyone is a racist in this discussion. What you refer to as self-identification has little bearing on whether a person is Jewish or not. Bus stop 17:21, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, then we don't need this article, do we? This article is about all of the things we're discussing here. My initial reply was for the IPs to consult a religious authority, and that this site is NOT a Q&A session, nor a forum. As for Benjil's obvious racism, he's the one who used colors to describe races, an obvious racist tactic. Nothing to debate. Someone comes into this sensitive discussion and uses racist terminology, as well as disregards the entire purpose of the article, there's nothing more to debate here and I won't be returning to this section. It's clear that Bus Stop and Benjil adhere only to the most stringent of Ashkenzi Orthodox halacha interpretations, and for them, the question Mihu Yehudi ends with the 'Mi'. They don't understand the debate and how it affects millions of others, nor do they want to. Such closeminded attitudes towards people who have lived with a jewish identity for centuries, but not in the same exact tradition as they live, shows they prefer the exclusivity of Judaism to be as absolute and iron-clad as possible. I ask both to leave the article for that reason. If the only reply they can give to anythign is "Halacha says no", then they insult, in the most colonial and racist of ways, the nature of the Kaifeng and Lemba, to name two cultures disenfranchised by that exact attitude; two cultures for whom the ongoing debate behind Mihu Yehudi matters most. I'm done arguing with racists. I'll continue to work on this article and other sections, but hope never to see such bald-faced hate on here again. It will reappear, I know, sadly. ThuranX 19:04, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

You are obviously disturbed. I never said here anything racist, unless you do not know how to read I can't even understand how you can interpret what I said as racist. Furthermore, YOU are the one who spoke of "White European Jews". And you seem to have a serious hostility towards Ashkenazim. You are unlucky, I am Sefaradi - and we have, as all Jews, the exact same definition - you see, it was not the Ashkenazim who invented it, because this distinction did not even existed until a thousand years ago. In a very characteristic way, you have no arguments but insults and unfounded accusation of racism to people who do not agree with you. Very sad. Benjil 19:13, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

ThuranX -- Please don't imply that I harbor racist sentiments, because I do not. It is you who introduced race to this discussion with your, "White european Jews" comment above. Bus stop 19:53, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Ethnicity?

Either both Christianity and Judaism are "ethnicities" or neither are. What we do know is that they are both religions. Ethnicity is defined on Wikipedia as follows:

An ethnic group or ethnicity is a population of human beings whose members identify with each other, either on the basis of a presumed common genealogy or ancestry, or recognition by others as a distinct group, or by common cultural, linguistic, religious, or territorial traits. Processes that result in the emergence of such identification are summarized as ethnogenesis.

The term is used in contrast to race, which refers to a classification of physical and genetic traits perceived as common to certain groups.

The above describes Christians as much as it describes Jews. Bus stop 18:47, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

This is complete nonsense. Christianity is Christianity ; Judaism is Judaism. The fact that one is a religion does not imply that the other is the same. Judaism is not a religion, it is neither an ethnicity, it's a culture, a civilization, and a people. Just read the articles on the issue, I think they are very self-explicative. Benjil 19:41, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Benjil -- Rather than call something nonsense or tell me to read something else you can try to address the issue. You say that Judaism is a culture. Is Christianity not a culture? You say that Judaism is a civilization. Is Christianity not a civilization? And you say that Judaism is a people. Is Christianity not a people? Bus stop 20:00, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

[Edit conflict]] Bus stop, please stop. We know your views. The fact is that there are many people who view themselves as non-religious Jews. You many think that they are crazy, you may think that they are idiots, but the simple fact is that they exist and are general accepted as such. There has been great discussion both in Israel (for the law of return), and elsewhere as to who is considered a "Jew" in terms of ethnic or Halakhic definition. You many think that the whole conversation is stupid, but that should not stop an encyclopedia from documenting it. Jon513 20:04, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Jon513 -- They are called "non-religious Jews," just as you described them. I never said they were "crazy." Please stop attributing to me things I didn't say. I never said they were "idiots." Please stop attributing to me things I didn't say. I never said that the conversation was "stupid." Please stop attributing to me things I didn't say. Bus stop 20:16, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Bus stop, Jews are an ethnicity in the exact same way that Italians or Greeks or Estonians are. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:50, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

No, you've got that wrong. "Italians or Greeks or Estonians" are terms that refer to nationality.

Judaism is primarily a religion. Sure, there are cultural aspects to Judaism. But so are there cultural aspects to Christianity.

You are misusing the word ethnicity. The best way to avoid misusing the word ethnicity (in this case) is to avoid using the word ethnicity. The use in this article calls for designating those Jews who who are not religious. The term for not religious is non-religious. Do you like the word "ethnic" for some reason?

The fact is that what you are calling an ethnicity is just as applicable to Christians. You are misusing the word, not to mention selectively applying the term to Jews and not to Christians. Bus stop 12:22, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

1. The point is that Jewishness is perceived by different people as either primarily religious, primarily ethnic, or in differing mixes of both. It is the business of the article to set out the different views, not to decide which is right.

REALLY? I thought the whole point was to put facts into Wikipedia!! Seriously?? FlaviaR 05:45, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

2. Pace Bus Stop, the mix is not exactly the same as in Christianity or Islam. Christianity is not ethnically based at all, though many particular ethnicities are partly defined by their Christian heritage. Nor, in theory, is Islam, though non-Arab nations converted to Islam do take on some attributes of Arabness. At the other end of the spectrum are religions like Shinto, that are purely ethnic, and Hinduism, Zoroastrianism and Sikhism, that are mostly so. Judaism naturally belongs with this group, but is in practice somewhere in the middle of the spectrum, given the geographical dispersion of the Jews and the probability that many are descended from converts: it has changed from the religion of an ethnic group to an ethnic group defined by its relation to a religion.

3. It is observed that "once a Jew always a Jew": there is such a thing as a lapsed Catholic, or an ex-Catholic, but not an ex-Jew. However, this may mean either that the definition is ethnic or simply that the religion is authoritarian and, like historic Catholicism and Islam, does not sanction attempts to leave it.

4. In conclusion, the format of the article should be "According to orthodox halachah, the definition of who is a Jew is X. Reform movements have tweaked it to read Y. Israeli law says Z. There are other approaches, resulting from an attempt to disentangle ethnicity from religion, such as ABCDE, though some find these unconvincing. Finish." It is entirely wrong to make the article read "There is only one definition, that of halachah, and everyone else is talking nonsense", even if that is what a lot of us think. Most of the recent edits have been in this direction, and should be reverted; though I agree that the article badly needs re-formatting so as to set out the halachic position consistently before indulging in speculation about origins or presenting alternative views. --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) 11:18, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) -- Similarly to Jayjg you are misusing the word ethnicity. The term non-religious Jew identifies precisely what we are talking about in this article.

I am wondering from where you get the quote that, "There is only one definition, that of halachah, and everyone else is talking nonsense"? Or is that your paraphrasing of something someone else said? If so, can you please show me where that sort of sentiment is expressed, and who expressed it? Bus stop 13:03, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to take credit for the remark, but I can't; I didn't say it before. But I will say it now, if that will make you happy, because it's the truth. Only Jewish law can define a Jew. Other people are welcome to try, but they have to take the chance they will be wrong. Lets put it another way: should non-Americans get to decide who is/not an American?FlaviaR 05:47, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Greek is an ethnicity, as is Armenian. For centuries there were Greeks and Armenians who lived outside Greece and Armenia - indeed, there were Greeks even when there was no country of Greece. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:24, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Try to get the simple things straight first. This article addresses a question: Who is a Jew? The variables involved in coming up with different answers to that question involve religious observance and religious non-observance. There are many points between complete religious observance and the complete absence of religious observance, resulting in a variety of answers. Ethnicity is just an amorphous, poorly defined word, and it has no precise bearing on the question which is this article. There are different answers to the question depending on degrees of religious observance and nonobservance. The word to replace "ethnic" in this article is "non-religious." Bus stop 23:32, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Once again, you're trying to narrow ALL the variables to just one: Religiosity, as measured by adherence to Halacha. It is the clear contention of a number of other contributors that there is more to it than that, and the article has reflected that wider complexity for a long time. ThuranX 23:51, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Section about halakha

The section about the halakhic understanding of matrilineal descent is just that, and explanation of what it is. If you want to get into a long debate about the origins of the law, it belongs in some other article. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:52, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Jayjg, I'd argue that issues about the origin definitely factor into the discussions about Halakha and who is and isn't Jewish. The evolution of the concept matters, esp. as there are , for simplicity, 'splinter groups' of Jews, tribes whose departure from the region precluded the 'discovery' of Deuteronomy, and whose beliefs thus may be based on a four book Torah. Are they still Jews or not in part is based on this reality, that earlier accepted forms of Torah included Patrilineal descent. The information belongs in the article if it's taken as a purely academic article. To eliminate it in favor of the 'Halakha now defines Jews and if you're not Halakha you're not a Jew' party line is a POV direction for the article. This article should present both sides. That Torah contains examples of Patrilineal Descent, despite also endorsing a matrilineal rule, is definitely worthy of inclusion. Lately, I've noticed a lot of pushign for the Party Line, which I see as POV. This is a big question in modern Judaism, and it's full complexity should be discussed. If it weren't so important, if it were so settled, then there wouldn't be so great, lengthy, and widely considered a body of literature and debate on the topic. ThuranX 05:01, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I'm sure it can be discussed, but the section in question is one that is supposed to be about the traditional halakhic view. The information hasn't been "eliminated in favor of the halakha", there are plenty of sections that discuss alternative or opposing views, but that opposing view cannot be stated in every single section, even the one that is supposed to be devoted to the halakhic view. Once you go down that road then every single section becomes a morass of claims and counter-claims, and there's no end to it. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:18, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Then let's find a place it CAN go. This sort of thing goes to the heart of the debate, and is a fairly basic point of it, that the source material (Torah, not just D'varim) is, in this manner, self-contradictory. I agree not every place needs to be perfectly balanced, so long as the article is, but unlike lots of arguments that can be dismissed as specious, Torah saying 'A', then saying 'Not A', is certainly a legitimate point for inclusion. I'm willing to work together on this, so long as we're both committed to finding a good place in the article for it. I'll let you find a couple suggestions, since you're trying to tighten the Halakha section up. Then we can discuss them. I don't think this will be a tough point to hammer out. regards. ThuranX 05:24, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

There actually is a lengthy discussion of this already, in Matrilineality#Other views. Regarding the source material, of course the traditional view is that it is not self-contradictory at all; there are lengthy explanations of each supposed contradiction, but that would just make the back and forth debate even longer. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:45, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, that link doesn't contain the specific examples of the source contradicting itself. The existence of the explanations for the Source's self-conflict can be addressed in the section, with something like 'These internal contradictions have long since been debated in the Talmud (or whereever they appear), and the explanations accepted as a part of the thinking behind Halacha.' or something to that effect, that the explanations have long since been settled among the orthodoxy. I remain firm that drawing attention to the conflict belongs in this article. Finally, what you call 'the traditional view' is the Post-D'varim culture, esp. those parts which are familiar with Talmudic scholarship. The essential point is that the Lemba, the Kaifeng, and others who are theorized to have broken off at some point before the end of Talmud, or even the finding of Deuteronomy, couldn't know of it, and may have, as their cultures, in fact do, accepted patrilineality. This is, as I said above, one of the cores of the issue. Cultures who don't know, and never HAVE known, Talmudic and cultural acceptance of Matrilineal Judiac identity, cannot be held accountable to it. To further exclude this part of the debate about Mihu Yehudi is to continue to deprive readers of a fuller understanding of the scope of this problem(problem like math, not like rabble-rousers). ThuranX 05:57, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Is this the place where I should be asking about restructuring the "areas of controversy" section? It seems backwards, & therefore convoluted, since it starts with the changes made, without first defining from what it was changed! Yes, I realize Wikipedia is a "do it yourself, you don't need to ask permission" thing, but I did think it would be polite/saensible to at least ask others' opinions, first.FlaviaR 22:02, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Either I misread it the last time or someone fixed it, and beautifully!FlaviaR 05:19, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Precise language

This article should try to use language more precisely. It can say exactly what it wants to say, but instead it is engaging in hyperbole. On the one hand there is reference to the religious understanding of Judaism. It is embodied in the understanding of Jewish law, or halacha. That is clearly spelled out. But, on the other hand is the understanding of Jewish identity, and other matters relating to Jews, that applies from a non-religious point of view. The word for that is not precisely "ethnic." The use of a word like ethnic represents an overreaching in what one is trying to say. It is hyperbole. And it is imprecise. It attempts to address issues that this article is not even about. And quite frankly, those issues have nothing to do with Jews. But whether or not I am correct about that last point can be taken up in another article. In this article all that is under discussion are various approaches to defining who is a Jew and who is not a Jew. That question comes up with different answers as it slides along a scale of religiosity from the very religious to the not religious at all. This article makes the mistaken presumption of opposing strict observance of religion with ethnicity. That is a loony dichotomy. If you have on the one hand observance of the letter of the law as embodied in Orthodox Judaism, what you have on the other hand is non-religious Judaism. Instead this article has been inserting the word ethnicity where the term non-religious is called for. The non-religious are not "ethnic Jews." They are simply "non-religious" Jews. In an article that addresses such an issue it may be proper for an editor to make assertions about Judaism representing an ethnicity. But it has nothing to do with this article. This article concerns the factors that come into play in determining who is a Jew. Those factors are factors concerning the spectrum of religiosity from the very religious to the not religious at all. In fact none of the sources for this article use the words ethnicity, ethnic, or "ethnic Jew." These are entirely creations of editors here infatuated with imprecise terms. That strikes me as point of view pushing and original research. In fact I found in one of the sources cited a statement which directly contradicts the notion of Jews being an ethnic group. In the source, [6], we find the following: "Thus, Judaism must be something more than a culture or an ethnic group."

If this article simply stuck to addressing the question posed by its title it wouldn't be getting into the above mess. The question in the title is addressed by bringing to bear approaches to answer it. Those approaches range from the very religious approach to the very non-religious approach. Needless to say there are many points in between, with their corresponding answers to the above question. But tossing terminology like "ethnic Jews" into this discussion is irrelevant to addressing the question. It is also not supported by the sources given, but that is of secondary importance, because of primary importance is that it is irrelevant to the question posed as a topic for this article. Bus stop 20:29, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

The funny point is all this is that defining Judaism as a religion is absolutely unjewish and has nothing to do with the Halakha and Jewish tradition. The word "Judaism" itself has no translation is classical jewish tradition and the modern hebrew word Yahadut was built as a translation from the word Judaism. The Halakha is not a "religion", it is the Law of the PEOPLE of Israel. Jews are a people, and individual Jews can follow or not follow the Law, that's their own personnal problem, it has nothing to do with the definition of who is a Jew. Benjil 06:43, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

You seem to think that this issue can be addressed by examining it only in the light of being a spectrum, or scale. However, as the article clearly examines in it's current state, There are many other issues. Your assertion is basically 'people get "less jewish" the less they follow torah as explained by Orthodox Jews'. However, that's clearly nto the case. Many jews follow different versions of Judaism, but self-Identify jsut as strongly as other branches that they are, in fact, jewish. There are others who only participate in the major holy days, (Yom Kippur Rosh hashanah, and Pesach), who still Identify as jewish. Still other jews are Atheists, but still culturally Identify as jews, and support anti-semitic legislations, the existence of israel and many other 'jewish ideas'. The fact that governments get involved, as the Nazi regime did, as the middle eastern natiosn do, and as Israel does, adds a sociological component. When you consider the 'lost tribes', such as the Lemba, the Kaifeng, and other groups, whose definitions fo Judaism sometimes appear to end before the Chanukah tradition, but after Pesach, the definition changes yet again, opening up 'ethnic' concerns about hwo those groups trace back to ancient Judaism. To assert that there is ONLY one meter to gauge all jewishness by is to deliberately taint the debate itself, and thus to ignore major parts of the question. All of these aspects can be recast into a "Halacha or Not?" light, but that's deceptive on it's face, because it permits bigoted elitisms. For example, by saying 'The Lemba may know about YK, RH, and P, but since they don't accept matrilineality and Talmud, they aren't jews, and the fact that anthropological evidence shows they departed the region before those things exists doesn't matter, because of Halacha.' is to defeat the entire point of defining Jews. the nature of halacha, and it's applications is one of the hearts of the amtter. To say halacha is the answer, and thus the question is already answered, which is what your edits seemed designed to do, makes the question itself seem disingenuous. I'm not insulting you, but that IS how I read the results of your edits. I don't know your background, but this seems to be a very Ultra-orthodox, and narrowly focused, if not 'narrow-minded' approach to this issue. This issue is HUGE, and complicated. I wont' get into anecdotal personal experience, but I've been told I'm not a Jew for being a Reform Jew, For having mixed ancestry, (The Chassidim I was talking to flat out called my blod a tainted curse), and others have told me that having mixed ancestry means I'll never really be a Jew. All this I was told by Jews. Clearly, even within the Jewish community, there are conflicting ideas about who is a Jew. As such, This article should seek to report on all aspects of the question, NOT just the religious adeherence segment of it. Further, focusing only on Adherence to Torah means it's very easy to cite Orthodox and Chassidic sources who deny all of Reform Judaism as not Jewish at all, or at best, Lost Jews. I believe this article, and the readership of Wikipedia, is best served by showing the wide variety of questions involved, and reporting as best we can on all of it. To simply focus on Halacha as the only yardstick permits way to much POV in, in fact, setting Halacha AS the yardstick IS POV. That said, I do accept that you're truly interested in improving the article, and hope we can get this article up to GA status someday. ThuranX 21:20, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

No, I said nothing of the sort. I most certainly never said that "'people get "less jewish" the less they follow torah as explained by Orthodox Jews.'" You are making that up. Please show me where you think I've said anything like that. Bus stop 21:43, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Dude, that's exactly how you're presenting your arguments. Even this:

On the one hand there is reference to the religious understanding of Judaism. It is embodied in the understanding of Jewish law, or halacha. That is clearly spelled out. But, on the other hand is the understanding of Jewish identity, and other matters relating to Jews, that applies from a non-religious point of view.

Makes things look bad. This is how that reads.'On the one hand, holy jews by halacha, on the other, people I will dismiss in the next part, and in my edits, as not being jews, because they don't follow halacha.' You're stuck on Halacha as the arbiter of Jew-ness. Please address the bigger issues I've spoken about. I'll be back later tonight. I recommend you not edit the article again till this discussion is over. (at least, don't edit in the ways you've been doing... spelling, grammar, anti-vandalism are all great, of course.) ThuranX 21:49, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Please try not to attribute to me things I did not say.

I am saying nothing about Jewishness vis-a-vis religious observance. I dismissed no one. I said no one was not a Jew. Where are you getting any of this from? Please read what is written. Bus stop 23:17, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I've answered you, and told you how your comments come off. If you want to focus on denotation VS. Connotation, then I'll assume you know your argument regarding the article itself, and will accept that you will be moving on. You can either address the specific points, or you can go on an d on about how you didn't mean what you said. ThuranX 23:27, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Bus Stop.

Bus Stop started editing this talk page a about two weeks ago. In this time I do not think that any worthwhile discussion has taken place. Bus Stop has not in general focused on what should (in his opinion) be change in the article, which has made it very hard for me (and I assume others) to understand exactly what it is he wants. He has made some bold and general statements such as ("Either both Christianity and Judaism are "ethnicities" or neither are"). He has said that the word "ethnic" in article should be replace with "non-religious". I do not know where in the article he referring so I will go though them and explain what I think.

• "As the Jewish identity shares some of the characteristics of an ethnicity and a religion..."

the characteristic that is being referred to here is how someone can remain a Jew after converting to another religion. This characteristic is not in general found in religions.

• "...a religious, sociological, or ethnic approach to identity is used."

Again, the "ethnic approach" is that one is born a Jew one is always a Jew (just as one who is born to a race is alway of that race).

The section "Ethnic Jew" explicitly refers to the term, so I don't see how that could be objectionable to anyone. There is one sentence:

• "Many ethnic Jews reject the traditional Jewish view of Jewish identity being based on matrilineal descent, and consider someone Jewish if either parent is Jewish"

which I agree that the word "non-religious" or "secular" would work better than ethnic. If no one objects I'll change it some time in the next few days.

Bus Stop boldly rewrote the introduction for which I don't criticize him (WP:BB) however once it was reverted he should have talked about it here before edit waring. The rewritten intro presents two extreme views of who is a Jew. The Halakhic view and a view that Judaism is strictly a religion. Then concludes that there are "many shades of grey between religious thinking and non-religious thinking". Beside obvious POV issue with the rewrite ("In general, religious Judaism follows millennia old procedures that are arcane and ritualistic") I believe (and ThuranX and Dbratton seem to agree) that the rewrite failed to present this nuanced issued to satisfaction.

I invite Bus Stop to explain to us what specifically he feels should be change with the article so that real discussion can take place. Jon513 20:43, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

My compliments to Jon513. he has summarized a number of sections and feelings about Bus Stop's work. Although I continue to believe that Bus Stop does act in a good and bold faith (editing style, not theology), I also agree that his communication has been less than what is needed to find a consensus. What I would like to suggest is a continuation on Jon's method. Each of Bus Stop's editing points, ethnicity and halakha being two, should be reviewed and discussed. We've seen some perfectly acceptable rewordings and gramatical revisions, and he has ideas to contribute, but I think at this point, lengthy talk page discussion will do more than mroe article edits. Thanks to Jon and to Bus Stop. ThuranX 04:09, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

All that this article discusses is religious vis-a-vis non-religious. People should stick to saying precisely what they are saying relevant to the parameters of this article. Many articles on Wikipedia are used to launch into speeches about extraneous subjects. This is one such article. The question that is the title of this article only hinges upon whether one chooses to take religion literally or figuratively. That does not grant an editor the license to launch into their own speechification about not relevant ideas. The public does not need to be harangued by editors at Wikipedia as to how to regard a religion. The editors here should try to stick to addressing the question which is the title of this article. Those are its parameters, and the reader need not be treated to individual editor's points of view. Bus stop 14:39, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Before you got to this article, your opening statement was entirely wrong. And it's still wrong, as regards the goals of the article. Once again, you have made your "Halachic or not jewish' biases clear. You correlate halacha and religiosity as the means of identifying Jews. You wish to eliminate all mention of sociological, historical, ethnic, or self-identification related issues, and wish to entirely ignore the controversies related to the issue. To cut away all those sections and aspects would NOT make the article better, as you assert, but significantly devalue the article. We keeps trying to get you to listen, but your'e so dug in that I begin to wonder things about you, and where your POV comes from in your life. I've got some ideas. ThuranX 16:40, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

This article can be written in a clear way. But at every opportunity for the making of incisive distinction the editors here have been opting for obfuscation and the blurring of the real and applicable distinctions applicable to addressing the title of this article. Unfortunately this is a typical Wikipedia hot air article that certain editors glom onto to present their pet views of the world as they see it. My advice: no one is interested, and it is totally out of place. Bus stop 16:41, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Don't use WP:WEASEL terms when precise language is available. Don't launch upon the public extraneous opinionated comments. The question, Who is a Jew?, arrives at different answers depending on whether religion is taken as a guideline or not. I did not say that non-religious Jews were not Jews. I said nothing of the sort. I did not ever say that a Jew who was an atheist was not a Jew. I said nothing of the sort. Stop mischaracterizing my argument. Point to quotes if you think such exist. Bus stop 17:17, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you go get Fred bauder, your adoptor. You're doing here exactly the sort of 'i'm right and no one else is' bullshit you pulled on the list of converts that had you indef blocked. Get Fred, or I'll go find Isotope. You're going right into personal attacks now, accusing me of using weasel words. You're claiming I'm pushing POV. You're generally ignoring all the discussion in favor of being "Right". ThuranX 18:38, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

The word is "non-religious." "Ethnic," as used in this article, is a WP:WEASEL word. The different answers available for the question, Who is a Jew?, hinge upon the varying degrees of religiosity brought to bear in answering that question. "Religious" and "non-religious" are specific terms, relative to the far more general term "ethnic." The article should say what it means. The article shouldn't be a fluff piece that introduces unclarity. The article isn't written for the purpose of unclarity; the article is written to shed light on that which falls within the parameters of this article. Your view that Judaism is an ethnicity is something that you can take up in an article that addresses that question. My edits to this article are with the aim of answering the question posed in its title. Your edits and your reversions of my edits serve the purpose of blunting the answers to the question posed in the article's title.

Please try to rationally express your objections to my edits. I am not interested in your tangents and tantrums. Nor is the reader interested in having the wool pulled over their eyes by your particular asides. Just address the subject of the article and provide us not with your personal points of view. Bus stop 20:20, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

The objections are that you don't understand that this is an article than does not try to answer the question "Who is a Jew" but to present the issue and give all the views, not just yours. And you also seem to have a very narrow view of Jewish identity of "religious-non-religious", a view that is basically alien to all Jewish traditions. Anyway, Wikipedia works on consensus, you can't change an article as you see fit if the majority opposes, so please stop. Benjil 08:18, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Benjil -- In point of fact everything in the article already answers the question based only on religious factors. I am only trying be clear about that. You, on the other hand, are trying to obfuscate, by referring to such things as ethnic Judaism or, Judaism as an ethnicity. What you mean to say is non-religious Judaism, or, non-religious Jews. Is that not correct?

No. First I never used the term "ethnicity". I don't know if Jews are an ethnicity. But they are a people and a Nation (in the traditional meaning). As you can see in the article, you can be a complete atheist and 100% Jew. It has nothing to do with 'religion', that is, once again, not a jewish concept. Benjil 15:47, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Look at the article. You say things like: "Other Jewish denominations, which do not accept Halakha, have adopted different standards. American Reform Judaism and British Liberal Judaism accept the child of one Jewish parent (father or mother) as Jewish if the parents raise the child as a Jew." Even when you are making reference to Reform Judaism, you are defining it in religious terms. The particular religious terms happen to be the negation of Halakha, but they are religious terms nevertheless because the distinction hinges entirely on religion. You are defining Reform Judaism as distinct from, for instance, Orthodox Judaism, on the basis of religion alone. You are not in fact taking any other components of ethnicity into account. So why do you insist on sprinkling the term ethnicity and its variants throughout the article? Ethnicity happens to include a lot more than just religion. It includes also, for instance, language and culture. This is Wikipedia's own definition for ethnicity:

I did not write the article, so it is not "me" who say that. Benjil 15:47, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

An ethnic group or ethnicity is a population of human beings whose members identify with each other, either on the basis of a presumed common genealogy or ancestry, or recognition by others as a distinct group, or by common cultural, linguistic, religious, or territorial traits. Processes that result in the emergence of such identification are summarized as ethnogenesis. Members of an ethnic group, on the whole, claim cultural continuities over time, although historians and anthropologists have documented that many of the cultural practices on which various ethnic groups are based are of relatively recent invention.

The term is used in contrast to race, which refers to a classification of physical and genetic traits perceived as common to certain groups.

Everything in the article already only addresses the question "Who is a Jew?" in religious terms. Why can't we say that? Why must we make reference to ethnicity, when the only component of ethnicity being taken into consideration is religion? Bus stop 09:09, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Bus stop, I have no idea what you want. Please, for my sake, so I can understand you, quote a sentence in the article, explain what is wrong with it, and present your alternate sentence which would work better. Because for the life of me I can't understand what it is you want. Jon513 10:30, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Jon513 -- This section of the Talk page, entitled Bus stop, was started by you 2 days ago. In your initial post you mention that I rewrote the introduction to the article. My rewrite was simply reverted. No discussion, no partial edits, just 100% revert. Now you are asking me what I would change. Here is that rewrite of the introduction, verbatim, from article History:

Some Jews are religious; some Jews are non-religious. Jewish identity is defined differently by religious and non-religious Jews. The Jewish religion provides for only two means of becoming a Jew: being born a Jew, or converting to that identity. The non-religious understanding allows for not only these two means, but several others.

According to religious Judaism, Jewish identity is conferred on a child as a result of the mother being Jewish. According to religious Judaism the father's Jewishness does not confer Jewishness on a child; only the mother's identity is of relevance. But according to a non-religious Jewish approach, a child is considered Jewish if the mother is not Jewish and the father is Jewish.

Conversion is also regarded differently by religious and non-religious Jews. In general, religious Judaism follows millennia old procedures that are arcane and ritualistic. Non-religious approaches to conversion are more lax and approachable to the modern mindset.

A related question concerns whether or not a Jewish person loses that identity by conversion to another religion. Once again, this is seen differently through religious and non-religious eyes. Religious Judaism holds that a Jew remains a Jew despite apparent conversion to a different religion. Non-religious understanding is that a convert to another religion is no longer a Jew.

There are many shades of grey between religious thinking and non-religious thinking, and this has bearing on these issues.

UPDATE -- Jon513 -- Ignore the above. Address my most recent edit to the article. It is simpler. It is my edit made at: 17:04, 23 July 2007 Bus stop 14:03, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

What you need to realize, Bus Stop, is that while your edits to the intro were unilaterally reverted, that's entirely because you unilaterally made them in the first place; the only discussion beforehand was above, where you were repeatedly told that your views are not accurate. The intro currently in place is very well-written and has been shaped by people whose entire lives have been oriented around this question.

I realize that you seem to have some disagreement with the term 'ethnicity' and its application to Jewish status, but to date I haven't seen A) a convincing argument as to why it is inaccurate, or B) an acceptable replacement. Your attempt to portray it as a synonym of 'secular' is misguided, especially in terms of the Jewish community, given the definition of the term as a social construction. It's very possible to be Jewish by ethnicity but not religion (Jewish atheists), by religion but not ethnicity (Bnei_Menashe), or by both religion and ethnicity. Simply replacing all references to ethnic Jews to non-religious Jews in this article isn't sufficient, and I question whether the changes you seem to want are even necessary - the question is very well outlined in terms of the various approaches already. In any case, if you don't believe that 'ethnicity' is the appropriate word for what you want to describe, you should consider that it possibly isn't being used in that sense.

I'm happy to discuss this if you're willing to listen to what people who have studied and considered this question in great depth since early childhood have to say. If you continue to edit the article against consensus to your own interpretation though, I'm afraid that you'll continue to be reverted without discussion. Daniel^C/_T+ 14:25, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Dbratton -- Why wouldn't the Bnei Menashe be ethnically Jewish? Bus stop 15:27, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

From the second sentence of the linked article: "Ethnically and linguistically, they are Tibeto-Burmans and belong to the Mizo, Kuki and Chin peoples (the terms are virtually interchangeable)." Are you just trying to be difficult now? Daniel^C/_T+ 15:41, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Dbratton -- You fail to address the question. Why aren't they ethnically Jewish? Why would you not consider them ethnically Jewish? Bus stop 15:58, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't know why you're dragging this into reviewing minor supporting statements (though I have a good guess), but I'll humor you for one more response. The Bnei Menashe are from a completely different background over the past 1000+ years from the 95% dominant Ashkenzic/Sephardic Jews; their practices differ in distinct ways, as do their traditions and general culture. Their original heritage and overall religious beliefs may be similar, but the development of their culture and ethnicity has taken a completely different path. See here for a good overview of ethnic divisions within Judaism.

Regardless, this is far from the point. You clearly aren't listening to *anyone* here, so until I see an alteration to that behavior I'm not interested in banging my head against a wall. Daniel^C/_T+ 16:16, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Dbratton -- Wait a minute. The "...95% dominant Ashkenzic/Sephardic Jews" represent Jewish ethnicity but the Bnei Menashe do not represent Jewish ethnicity? How do you arrive at that? So, minority status deprives one of ethnicity? Do I understand that correctly? So, we should just take majority views in relation to the question "Who is a Jew?" and leave it at that. Is that what you're saying? Bus stop 16:32, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you've cleverly caught all the rest of us engaging in a 'who's a jew' bigotry game. You're such a clever mensche. Nevermind that You're ignoring an entire article about the ethnic variations within Judaism. ThuranX 17:05, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Mensche? ThuranX -- could you please stop throwing ethnic terminology around? Can we conduct discussion on this Talk page in standard English? Bus stop 17:12, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) "Ethnic terminology"??? Well, that's impossible, Bus Stop. Youv'e said ther's no such thing as ethnic judiasm, so such a term can't possibly be "Ethnic Terminology", can it? ThuranX 18:34, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Mensche is not standard English. Can you please try to confine your input to this Talk page to standard English? Bus stop 20:01, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

The trouble with Bus Stop's sentences above is that they sound as if there is, first, a precise religious definition of "Who is a Jew", and then an equally precise competing secular definition designed to replace it in the eyes of the non-religious; and "non-religious" is used as a synonym for "non-Orthodox" throughout. This is simply not right. The point is:

1. There is an Orthodox definition: mother a Jew, or converted by recognised bet din
2. Other Jewish religious movements: variations on the above (say patrilineal descent, and non-Orthodox bet din), details as stated in article
3. Israeli law, for purposes of Law of Return: any Jewish descent ("Nuremberg" test), or married to a Jew, or converted by Orthodox bet din in Israel, or by any Jewish religious movement in the diaspora

Israeli Law of Return does not give a definition of who is Jewish but of who can make aliyah. That's why there is another Law called "Who is a Jew". Benjil 15:47, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

1. Israeli law, for purposes of identity card: mother a Jew, or converted by Orthodox bet din in Israel, or by any Jewish religious movement in the diaspora
2. then, quite separately from any of these, and not in any way competing with them, there exists a looser secular approach in which Jewishness is regarded as an ethnic identity, and like all ethnic identities a matter of degree rather than of precise rules.

It is not the function of the article to decide which of these approaches is "right" or "wrong", or even to decide on the correct use of the word "ethnic": the point is that some people, rightly or wrongly, REGARD Jewishness as a matter of ethnicity. That does not mean that there is a precisely defined category of people called "ethnic" (aka "non-religious") Jews. Some halachic Jews have lapsed, while some halachic non-Jews feel, or are regarded by others as having, some looser degree of association with the Jewish people, with or without an interest in the Jewish religion, and that is all.

As for speaking of "non-religious approaches to conversion", that is an absolute howler: the approaches of the non-Orthodox movements are, by definition, "religious". (If anything, more purely so than the Orthodox approach, since they do not retain the "once a Jew always a Jew" rule.) Yes, the suggestion has been made here and there that there should be some totally non-religious procedure for declaring allegiance to the Jewish people, equivalent to conversion, but this is utterly marginal and has never really got off the ground.

So please, can we set out all the competing approaches in all their messiness, without trying for artificial schematization on "ethnic" or "religious" lines. --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) 15:08, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) -- Yes, and this all regards religion. It regards religion, or the negation of religion. No other factor is brought to light by your above post.

Furthermore, don't lecture me about deciding which approach is right or wrong, as I have made no pronouncements whatsoever concerning rightness or wrongness. I have been 100% accepting of whatever reasoning was used to arrive at a given conclusion and I have been 100% accepting of every conclusion that was arrived at. If you think otherwise, please show me where I have said anything is "right" or "wrong."

My argument concerns language. In particular I am objecting to language that obfuscates. I prefer language that articulates with appropriate specificity. Ethnicity contains within it other things besides religion. Religious identity (Jewish) does not pivot on the factor of language, nor does it, for instance, ever hinge upon cultural matters. Every time the issue of Jewish identity is addressed it is religion and religion alone that is the subject of discussion. It is the reasoning behind the term religion that determines the outcome of the discussion that addresses Jewish identity -- every time.

What you (or others) need to do is show me where the presence or absence (or any quality of) any other component of ethnicity ever has any bearing on whether or not a person is considered a Jew. Bus stop 15:51, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

No. What has to be done is you need to provide reliablesources to cite for there ONLY ever being a religious aspect to this conversation. While it is possible to shoehorn all aspects of the debate into the religious, by saying "well, Torah says XY abotu that", that's a POV method of finding an 'answer', not an NPOV means to generate an article about the question. The purpose here is not to couch an answer in terms of exploring the question. the article and editors are discussing the purposes, goals, and arguments that go with the question, the history of that investigation, various major discussions and so on. The article is NOT an answer. And since the question has been approached from all these ways, the article needs to reflect that there are numerous approaches. I recognize that you ONLY approach it from one vantage point, but you're not everyone. Unfortunately, I do not think there are any other ways to explain to you the difference between the goals of the article, and your personal POV. ThuranX 18:51, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Bus Stop appears to have moved on to the Jew article in his/her attempts to push the same POV about Jewishness being a wholly religious issue. Daniel^C/_T+ 13:42, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Daniel -- Is Bus stop permitted to edit the Jew article? Is there a purpose for your (above) announcement? Bus stop 13:54, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I believe he's pointing out that your edits there, one of which I reverted already, show you pushing your ideas there too. ThuranX 20:56, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

And now the article on Ashkenazi Jews. Daniel^C/_T+ 13:35, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Is there some reason why ThuranX and Daniel need to resort to personal attacks and harassment? Is there some reason why they don't use the Talk pages of articles for its intended purpose? Is there some reason why they don't make incremental edits, but prefer to revert in whole cloth? Is the Talk page for making announcements about what article another editor is presently editing? Should they be pushing there personal points of view on the articles that they follow me to? Should they be supporting one another's every move, following me from article to article in order to impose their will on a certain category of Wikipedia articles? Bus stop 14:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Is there some reason why User:Bus stop is once again seeking to impugn the motives of others, rather than directly responding to the points made regarding his own generally dubious actions, like removing content without having received, or even sought, prior consensus for same? User:WarlordJonCarter 14:47, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Look, Bus stop, it's actually simple. I've called the attention of your adoptor and an admin to your actions. That I follow up when I find information of a similar editing pattern on articles of a related nature isn't me stalking you, as you are dangerously close to implying. It's the proper way to keep following up on a notice I made, and update it as needed. This is called following up, not stalking. Now, as JonCarter states above, it is the preference of the numerous other editors here that you instead focus on the issue of your tendentious and controversial editing. ThuranX 15:00, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

The issue is moot. There is no such thing as a "Tibeto-Burman" ethnicity, so I have removed the "Ethnically" from the article. Tomer^talk 05:40, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

The issue is not 'moot'. To be so dismissive right after we just went through the same thing, posting this, in the same section with such dismissive imperious attitude, would be trolling if I didn't take the tiem to check and see that you're a long involved editor, so I'm going to try AGF, ans ask that you review all the discussion about this issue. Further, your comment above about halacha and hundreds of millions of jews seems to also be designed to provoke, and is unexplained. Please clarify here before making such unilateral edits to the article. Thank you. ThuranX 06:39, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Stop already with your blustering. Every edit is "unilateral". It is your attitude in this discussion (which, thank you, I have read) not mine, that is obscenely dismissive and imperious. Until you can provide a shred of credible evidence in favor of a "Tibeto-Burman ethnicity", you are arguing in support of a strawman of your own apparent invention. As for the hundreds of millions thing, your assertion that my comment is "designed to provoke" is, in my view, a completely disingenuous and obviously uninformed statement, indicative of complete ignorance not only about the halakhic definition of mihu yehudi, but, worse, about the extensive amount of literature devoted to the subject. Thank you. Tomer^talk 06:55, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Unspoken taboo?

It seems to me there is an unspoken imperative in this article to obscure the plain and obvious fact that it is through the various religious lenses that various definitions of who a Jew is are arrived at. Does this constitute a taboo against recognizing the role religion plays in Jewish identity? If no editor can identify any other factor upon which Jewish identity depends besides religion, why is there such fierce resistance to using the only applicable term? Why is religion subsumed in the larger term ethnicity? Is it for any reason other than to hide religion's role in these cerebrations? Bus stop 17:20, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Making broad personal attack style assumptions about other editors and this article is a feint to hide the fact that numerous editors here find problems with the way you are acting. Once again, you've set out to say only religion matters in the jewish identity, but now you're trying to put us all on the defensive against your offense. It's not going to work. Starting a new section to challenge all of us to counter your view, when it's your view that's the topic, isn't going to work. You still maintain this combative, tendentious editing behavior. I have left a message for your adopter, Fred Bauder. He has yet to reply. It's been a while, though, so I will be notifying Isotope23 as well. ThuranX 18:32, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I have not said that "only religion matters." You have said that only religion matters. Not you personally, but the editors who wrote the article in its present form. In point of fact only religion figures in all of the calculations presented in the article for addressing the question, "Who is a Jew?" You need to be realistic about the meaning of words. When referring to religion, we don't use the word ethnicity. Yes, religion is contained within the concept of ethnicity. But we don't (we shouldn't) use a less specific term when a more specific term is available. Nowhere in this article is anything but religion referred to as a variable determining religious identity. Just read the article. Tell me if you find a juncture at which anything but religion is the determining factor in the reasoning as to whether someone is or is not a Jew. Bus stop 19:41, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, if you will remember the The Holocaust, probably the most notorious recent attack on "Jews", you will note that the victims were not necessarily chosen on the basis of religious belief. Actually, religious belief seemed almost completely irrelevant from the sources I remember regarding which "Jews" were chosen to be placed in the camps. On that basis, I believe arguing that Judaism does have several pronouncedly different, but still valid usages, as it has been used historically to refer to those who were "ethnic" Jews as well as religious Jews. Personally, I am not myself saying that I agree with the existing construction of the article. I don't. I believe that it very likely places undue emphasis and attention to the strictly internal definitions of Jewishness, although I do understand that the right of return and other factors are much of the reason for the creation of the article in the first place. Also, I note that the primary historical definition of "Jew" would probably be "descendants of the Jewish people as described in the Hebrew Bible". These descendants do not have to be practicing religious Jews themselves to qualify under that definition. I would myself restructure the article to use the Jews of the Hebrew Bible as the starting point of the article, and develop from there. That is, however, clearly an outsider opinion and maybe not particularly well informed, although I wouldn't mind seeing it responded to anyway. John Carter 19:55, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Pardon me for interrupting, but here is the crux of the problem.

You may not have realized it, and I know that you absolutely would never advocate this, but you have just quoted something that boils down to "Judaism should be defined by Jew-haters." No, I know that you didn't say it & that you would never believe that it should be so, BUT, when anyone says "Hitler killed as Jews some peope who weren't Jews, so obviously Judaism means more than what Judaism says it does", they have said just that. THIS Is why it is important to keep sight of the fact that only Jewish law can define Jews.FlaviaR 05:54, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

First, do NOT cut into the middle of other people's statements, I've refactored the page. Second, establishing a notable point of view goes outside the 'hitler said it so it can't be used' idea, which is bullshit anyway. Hitler's often notable as regards judaism in the 20th century. How the jews, an oft persecuted group, is percieved and legislated by their persecutors has bearing on this question, as does Jewish reactions to such lines of thought. WP is NOT censored by the thought police. Jewish community reactions to the inclusion of secularized jews matters, HItler's perceptions impacted the European Jewish community, it matters. And on and on. ThuranX 12:02, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Bus stop, I still don't know what you are talking about. The article uses the word "secular" 15 times, "Halakha" 25 times, "religious" "religion" or "non-religious" 31 times. The article does not ignore religion as a major factor in the debate. Stop talking in generalities and tell us what you want to change in the article. I know you want to change the introduction - is that all? can you justify why you think your introduction is better than the current one? I am quickly losing patience with you and I think that many other feel the same way. Jon513 19:18, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Jon513 -- You can "quickly lose patience" as you choose. That is your prerogative.

The article only makes note of changes in the answers given for "Who is a Jew?" on religious/non-religious grounds. Why doesn't it say that?

You will notice that I changed the following sentence:

"As the Jewish identity shares some of the characteristics of an ethnicity and a religion, the definitions of a Jew may vary, depending on whether a religious, sociological, or ethnic approach to identity is used."

to read:

"As the Jewish identity shares some of the characteristics of an ethnicity and a religion, the definitions of a Jew vary according to which religious approach to identity is used."

I changed it because in point of fact not one instance is provided in the article of an answer to that question ("Who is a Jew?") varying as a result of a "sociological" or an "ethnic approach" taken. In point of fact only religion is provided in the article as a pivotal point for the arising of different answers to that question. It is through a variety of religious lenses that the question is viewed to come up with the variety of answers. Why not just say that? Is there a taboo against speaking plainly?

Reform Judaism happens to represent a religious approach, just as Orthodox Judaism represents a religious approach. You are deriving your answers to your question from a panoply of religious approaches. It may sound good to toss around "sociological" and "ethnic," but in point of fact the variety of answers to the several sub-questions posed in this article only result from various religious approaches to answering it/them. My rewrite above acknowledges that.

There are many other changes that I would like to make in this article. To get a taste you can look at my rewrite for the introduction, which was reverted. I hope this won't be construed as a personal attack but a certain amount of pigheadedness has set in at this article. I have apparently touched some very sensitive nerves with the things I've chosen to tamper with. Bus stop 22:20, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

You will note that the definition of "Jew" used by the Nazis in The Holocaust was a basically "ethnic" one, even if that definition isn't currently included in the article itself. John Carter 22:35, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with John Carter, your rewrite fails to take notice of the Nazi definition (and the Law of Return which to some extent is based on it) which is not in any way religious. Jon513 19:44, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

---

Maybe what we should try to get at here is that there are two sides to the question "Who is a Jew?" One side of the question is what this article deals with: criteria that various groups use in various circumstances under which the answer will be "yes" and others under which the answer will be "no." The other side is maybe not dealt with as clearly; it concerns what is meant by a positive vs. a negative answer to the question. So, for instance, if Bob satisfies certain criteria, we can say he is a Jew, but do we mean that Judaism is his religion, are we saying he is ethnically Jewish, are we saying he has citizenship rights in Israel, or some combination of these? I think what Bus stop may be getting at is that, in his view, the question "Who is a Jew?" is synonymous with the question of what people are Jewish by religion. This is not the case: for instance, the legal definition of Judaism in Israel has to do with status under the law, and not religious identity, and we should not cover only the religious identity issue. But we could perhaps stand to be clearer about this kind of thing. For instance, a sentence in the "definitions in the State of Israel" part, we could probably stand to have a sentence saying that because Israel defines itself as a Jewish state, it has laws that both define who is a Jew, and treat Jews differently from non-Jews, but that this does not necessarily have anything to do with religious identity. Mangojuice^talk 20:31, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

1 week page protection

Please work things out here on talk. Durova^Charge! 22:41, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I think that is unnecessary, only Bus stop wants to change the article and has failed to explain how or why (a very impressive feat considering how much he has written). The community is quickly losing patience and, if doesn't start talking sense, will be dismissed as a troll. Jon513 19:12, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Jon513 -- You've been responded to 3 times by me. Please see above. Bus stop 14:11, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Yesterday I put this up for discussion at WP:AN#Impartial_evaluation_requested. The responses supported my decision. If no topical discussion is forthcoming here and more editors ask for unprotection I suppose I could lift the protection early. Durova^Charge! 22:49, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Full editing restored

The editor who caused the need for protection has been sitebanned. If problems return, request semiprotection via WP:RFPP. Durova^Charge! 04:40, 28 July 2007 (UTC)