Talk:Who is a Jew?/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Answer, criteria, identity loss and gaining identity

I had a bit of time to look at my sandbox, and reflect on the following:

The article is a question, so should provide an answer.

The answer does not seem to be in the article.

The way to establishing this answer is to provide to the reader the criteria by which a Jew is identified.

Criteria beyond "birth or through conversion" seems to be quite confusing in the article. Can the section Converts to Judaism be made more plain language and specific?

However, since the article establishes that Jews are an ethno-religious group, and birth establishes ethnicity, it seems to me that the issue of what a non-Jewish born individual is converting to in terms of religious values/beliefs/practices also needs to be stated to clearly define a Jew as a member of the group, and to differentiate from non-Jews. It seems to me that sections Halakhic law and Religious definitions can be merged and need to be made clearer and more focused.

The process of identity loss in Judaism needs to be elaborated on more

This of course creates the problem that there are Jews who are atheists and Jews who no longer practice Judaism in any of its modern forms, such as Christian Jews for Jesus.

The process of (re-)gaining identity needs to be better defined and referenced

There are also people who self-identify as Jewish through patrilineal descent while not practising any form of Judaism, or even belonging to any Jewish organised religious denomination. Though clearly not Jewish by the scope of definitions used in the article by any religious denominations, such a person can instantly become Jewish by converting to Reform, so a bit more needs to be said, since the statement in this article states that

"people considering conversion are expected to study Jewish theology, rituals, history, culture and customs, and to begin incorporating Jewish practices into their lives. The length and format of the course of study will vary from rabbi to rabbi and community to community, though most now require a course in basic Judaism and individual study with a rabbi, as well as attendance at services and participation in home practice and synagogue life."

and therefore contradicts the statement made in the main article section which states that American Reform rabbis, formally resolved to permit the admission of converts "without any initiatory rite, ceremony, or observance whatever", and that "Reform Judaism does not require ritual immersion in a mikveh, circumcision, or acceptance of mitzvot as normative." The section that suggests a diversion to this approach in UK and Israel has lacked citation since April 2007, so am I to assume this is not true, or that this position is so irrelevant to Reform Jews that no one has bothered to substantiate this claim?--Meieimatai? 02:30, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Proselytizing??

"Religious Jews from any of the main Jewish denominations reach out to ethnic Jews, and ask them to rediscover Judaism. In the case of some Hasidic denominations (eg. Chabad-Lubavitch) this outreach extends to active proselytizing."

Proselytizing? You can't proselytize to someone who is already the same religion as you... Observant Jews generally discourage conversion anyway. Outreach gives people the chance to "act Jewish" not to convert to Orthodox Judaism... Conversion to Orthodox Judaism doesn't exist if you're already Jewish! This is a term that shows clear prejudice against outreach activity by groups such as Aish HaTorah and Chabad. The article is supposed to be unbiased, neutral, and objective. That sentence needs to be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.189.248.10 (talk) 21:05, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Well-said. I've said this in my own way before. Bus stop (talk) 21:15, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Correct argument. Somebody do this, please. Debresser (talk) 22:26, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I object to such a change. Chassidic Jews, esp. Lubavitchers, DO proselytize to other Jewish demoninations, calling upon them to 'convert' to 'real Judaism'. Chassidim do not consider modern Reform Jews to be Jews at all, having reached beyond three generations out in almost all cases. ThuranX (talk) 06:54, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh, cut out the crap. Where did you read so much nonsense? Debresser (talk) 22:56, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I've never heard kiruv referred to as proselytizing or conversion. In fact, its goal is to make ba'alei teshuva ("returnees") out of other Jews. I thought non-Orthodox Jews were just considered to be like people raised in captivity, ignorant of Judaism because of poor upbringing, not non-Jews. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 23:37, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

That is one of the things I had in mind also. Debresser (talk) 23:39, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I lived it, DBresser. Chssidics DO proselytize. If they don't consider you a Jew, then what they are doing is proselytizing, and they don't consider Reform Jews Jews, but pretenders. They'll tell you that if you have a jewish matrilineal line that can be proved, you can BECOME a Jew, but you aren't a real jew if you're Reform. Same goes for mixed marriages, wherein you blood is tainted, and must be purified by Mickvah before you can consider pursuing a conversion to Judaism. ThuranX (talk) 23:42, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Who says they (for me that is "we") don't consider reform Jews as Jews? (I am not talking about those who became Jewish with Reform, but those born Jewish.) What by all graces do you mean with "blood tainted"? Really, and with all due respect, but you seem to have some serious misconceptions. Perhaps from never having a eye-to-eye talk with somebody who actually knows things. Debresser (talk) 00:28, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

ThuranX, correct me if I am wrong, but you are positing a status that neither is Jewish nor isn't Jewish. Does such a status exist? Here (for the purposes of Wikipedia) such status would depend on the availability of reliable sources. Do you have any sort of a source that attests to the "middle ground" that you are referring to, in which a person neither is a Jew nor is not a Jew? I'm not being facetious. If something like that exists, and importantly if it can be somewhat sourced, then I think it is certainly candidate material for the Who is a Jew? article. Bus stop (talk) 23:53, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I don't question your experience, ThuranX, but the sentence at the top of this section is clearly disputed. If you want to put it back in the article, I think you'll need to find some sources to support it. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 23:54, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Malik, that's fine, and I agree, as an article, it needs citation, but the knee-jerk 'let's remove it cause it makes the bigots look like bigots' is unacceptable reasoning as well. Bus Stop, you can take your trolling elsewhere. DBresser, I have no misconceptions, those are the words of Chassidim to me, to my face. ThuranX (talk) 00:56, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to tell you - as a chassidic Jew and rabbi, who has been actively involved in what is best called Kiruv - that either you tragically misunderstood their words, or that those who said so are just not in the group of "those who know what they are talking about". And since this personal experience of yours is influencing your editing, logically, I feel this short reply is proper on this talk page. Debresser (talk) 01:09, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Citations for Proselytizing, including a law considered by the Knesset. 1, 2, 3(note conclusion at end, 4. There's citation aplenty for inclusion. If the Knesset, American courts, scholarly articles and the mainstream media (NYTimes) all find it to be Proselytizing, we can support the use of the word. ThuranX (talk) 05:16, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Question

I read the line "In the Bible, the status of the offspring of mixed marriages was determined patrilineally", sourced to Shaye J.D. Cohen, 1999, The Beginnings of Jewishness, U. California Press, page 305. Could somebody look up whether he is perhaps referring to the time of before the giving of the Torah? Because from the time of the giving of the Torah Judaism was matrilineally, as far as I know, and as stated by Rashi on Deut. 7:4. Debresser (talk) 23:28, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

The point is that the reference is correct. A Sniper (talk) 00:53, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

It correctly represents Cohen's view. I've brought the statement in line with NPOV. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:58, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. But what is Cohen's view? That is what I am asking. Debresser (talk) 00:59, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

If he's a mainstream scholar almost certainly that it was patrilineal until very late. Pretty much all mainstream scholarship thinks this. There's more disagreement about when the switch occured. But Rashi is not exactly a reliable source for this. Although it might be a good idea to include Rashi as representating the standard opinion for standard halachic Judaism. JoshuaZ (talk) 05:45, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

May I wonder why you think Rashi is not a reliable source? Isn't he a reliable source par excellence? I'd say he knew a lot more about Judaism than even Prof. Cohen, e.g. Debresser (talk) 15:42, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Rashi would be a superlative source. -- Avi (talk) 15:59, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

A source is a source, whether it is Rashi or Cohen - as long as it is noted who the source is and where it was obtained. Best, A Sniper (talk) 16:15, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

My concern is that much of what Rashi says is not agreed by secular scholars. This is especially the case with his midrashic commentary on the Torah. He's a reliable source for what the normative halachic belief has been. He's not a source for what people actually were doing in 1000 BCE. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:20, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Secular scholars agree that Rashi is a genius and the most reliable and trusted source in Jewish history. He was the Prodigy, a key in the the beginning of the Ashkenazi sect and left a legacy of a gigantic family tree of brilliant scholars - his progeny would become entire families of scholars for hundreds of years - among the most righteous people in the *history of humanity*. Today in most standard Talmuds, Rashi is on one side of the text, and Tosfos, a combination of scholars from his family tree is on the other side. His Rabbi's Rabbi, one of the greatest Torah minds ever, Rabbeinu Gershom, is in the far column. Rashi did a commentary of the entire Entire Talmud and Tanach. Check him out on youtube, I think berel wine does a bit about the house of rashi. If you find a *real* secular scholar that doesn't think he's a trusted source, I'll be really really really surprised. 93.172.3.68 (talk) 21:24, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

In fact, I dare say that Rashi, who lived 1000 years ago, is the single most sourced Jewish Schollar even in modern times.93.172.3.68 (talk) 21:32, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Well put, JoshuaZ. A Sniper (talk) 16:21, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

There is no reason to believe that normative halacha was not being followed in 1000 BCE, as the non-halacha-following denominations of Judaism are a relatively recent phenomenon (250 years or so out of what, 3300+ years of history?). -- Avi (talk) 16:25, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

The issue at hand isn't related to the Reform or Masorti/Conservative movements but rather that academic scholarship suggests strongly that in many ways practices of the ancient Israelites differed strongly from what today are considered halachic practices. One of the areas that is brought up is patrilineal descent. (A more common one is the notion of Torah m'Moshe M'Sinai which most scholars would say wouldn't have even made any sense during that time since under the Documentary Hypothesis the Torah wasn't even complete yet). Does that help explain the issue? JoshuaZ (talk) 22:16, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

However, the documentary hypothesis is a relatively recent invention, as under normative halachic Judaism, it is accepted that the Torah was given completely to Moses at Sinai. -- Avi (talk) 23:08, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

And the earth was created in six actual, physical days. A Sniper (talk) 00:26, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

If you intend to be condescending to your fellow editors, Sniper, may I please remind you that civility is as an important pillar of wikipedia as is WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. My statement was rather clear, in that bringing the "Documentary Hypothesis" as a reason to ignore the normative halachic sources must presuppose that the normative halachic sources are incorrect. Since there is no evidence that said sources are incorrect, and since according to the normative history, the tradition is that the Torah was complete, Joshua's question, although well meaning, is fallacious (technically plurium interrogationum - presupposition). This is what I pointed out. For you to reply with a sarcastic response which indicates your disbelief in the normative tradition is unacceptable according to wikipedia guidelines. You are more than welcome to believe whatever you want; but you are not allowed to let it interfere with the proper workings of the project or your interactions with other editors. -- Avi (talk) 00:42, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Although this is a simplification, I agree with the argument. But it is also true that a Jewish scholar and a university scholar are likely to have different scholary interests and points of view. Nevertheless I think we should acknowledge that Jewish religious sources are amongst the foremost historic sources about Jewish history. Debresser (talk) 20:28, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. -- Avi (talk) 20:48, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, if that is true, then Jewish scholars/writers/philosophers/apologists from the Reform movement will also be included. Best, A Sniper (talk) 21:50, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

If they have anything relevant to say, by all means. Debresser (talk) 22:23, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Which brings me to the following. The opinion of prof. Cohen seems to me to be at odds with the opinion of religious Jewish scholars, as e.g. the example from Rashi. Perhaps somebody could find a more explicit source to show the point of view of Jewish tradition? Debresser (talk) 22:27, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I would remind you that this is an encyclopaedia and not religious writing. Contemporary Jewish religious writers are just as relevant as Shlomo Yitzhaki from 1000 years ago. Best, A Sniper (talk) 00:03, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Precisely because this is an encyclopedia the religious point of view should be brought. It has been, and arguably is still, the most longlived and widespread of opinions on the subject. Debresser (talk) 00:07, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like POV to me! ;) A Sniper (talk) 00:23, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

See above, Sniper, where the only one who seems to be letting their POV interfere with proper decorum on this article is you. -- Avi (talk) 00:43, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Wasn't he winking a ;) to show that he did not mean this seriously? Debresser (talk) 00:50, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I see no wink above at the "six actual, physical days" remark. -- Avi (talk) 00:51, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Nor does it matter. Any subject connected with Judaism always has the traditional point of view foremost, for the obvious reasons I stated above. Debresser (talk) 01:00, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not concerned about that; I agree with you. I am concerned about ensuring that these conversations remain respectful, regardless of one's personal opinions of Judaism and its various denominatioins. -- Avi (talk) 01:05, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

And it would be nice if editors would mellow out a little - this is a hobby, after all. A Sniper (talk) 01:46, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a hobby; but a hobby which requires its participants treat each other with respect and courtesy. That includes refraining from either direct or indirect condescending statements about other editors and their beliefs. Or, are you of the belief that wikipedia editors, in the interest of "mellowing out" should be allowed to make condescending and dismissive remarks about other editors and their beliefs? -- Avi (talk) 02:29, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Can we dispense with the Orthodox canard that they've always been a singularly monolithic force, right up to the Reform Movement? it's not true. At all. ThuranX (talk) 05:53, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

What does that have to do with requiring courtesy and respect, Thuran? Secondly, please look up the definition of "canard," you seem to be misusing it. I see nothing about"monolithism" here, just that certain hypotheses of the last two centuries cannot be supposed as true in the face of other traditions of the last three millenia. Oh, and the Pharisees are in a direct line between the Judaism practiced in the Mishnaic period and Rabbinic Judaism, of which Orthodox Judaism is just another name. You may want to see here Pharisees#Relationship to other movements. -- Avi (talk) 06:35, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I tend to agree here with ThuranX as to the fact that there always have been sects, groups, movements, or even schisms in Judaism. Nevertheless, it remains a fact that there is something that is called and considered mainstream Judaism. True, sometimes it becomes clear only after many decades or even centuries what is mainstream and what is sect. Wikipedia does the right thing in this respect, treating mainstream Judaism as "Judaism" and mentioning notable other opinions by their names. I am sure all of us agree upon this. Let us not worry about respect, which I am sure we all give to each other, as editors as well as as individuals. Debresser (talk) 12:55, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Also as I understand it, the evidence is that the Sadducees used matrilineal descent (the Karites who are sort of their descendants certainly do) and I don't think anyone has any idea what the Essenes thought in this regard. Judaism has not been monolithic but for the simple matter under discussion the consensus from about 100 CE(and possibly earlier) to 1700 is quite clear. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:57, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

No problem. ThuranX was talking generally. Debresser (talk) 19:15, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Since others presume to know my thoughts and meanings, I guess I don't have to worry anymore about who will win here, NPOV advocates, or the pro-orthodoxy editors. I was speaking about the constant drumbeat of 'orthodox is the real Judaism' that's pushed here on Talk. It's not. There are numerous factions in Judaism, along racial lines, cultural lines, and theological. 700 years in PART of Europe hardly establishes anything, and this constant the way we do it is both the only right way and the only way it's ever been done' is plain old lying. I could speak to the motivations of the Orthodoxy in keeping things in this 'we say we're right ,therefore we are and you're all wrong', but that would get us far off topic. Suffice to say, it's a serious, core of the culture reason that has NOTHING to do with Talmud or Torah. This article should continue to maintain a goald of historical, not dogmatic, accuracy. ThuranX (talk) 22:42, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I do not think that your attitude is a good one for Wikipedia. Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_battleground does not agree with words like "win", or placing NPOV editors against any others (since all strive to be NPOV, ideally). This attitude might be popular in certain Israeli circles, but should be avoided by adult Wikipedia editors. Debresser (talk) 22:57, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Have you completely ignored the constant insistence by some editors on this talk page that Orthodox is 'right' and all other ways are both inferior and heretical? How is that anythign but a massive POV push? Further, those editors do see this page as a conflict to be won, to NOT understand that and regard the situation in those terms is naive. If you think it's about deal-making and compromise, and the other side has no interest in anything but a win, you can either leave and let the page turn into a soapbox, or you can adapt your thinking and fight against the POV push, and in any fight, there's a winner and a loser. ThuranX (talk) 04:22, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

(<-)Thuran, a few corrections. Firstly, historically, the Orthodox movement is the direct scion of Rabbinic Judaism which is the direct scion of the Pharisees, so 700 years is a bit of an understatement. Between 2000 and 2500 years would be more accurate. But that is a side point. More importantly, can you point to where anyone above was saying that the Orthodox was is the "only" way things are done? Of course there were offshoots, but when discussing the primary tradition of "Who is a Jew" or of any Judaism-related tradition between the time of, at the latest, the second temple and the emancipation, I do not think anyone can argue that the primary tradition was the Pharisee-->Rabinnic Judaism-->Orthodox Judaism. That too was not even discussed by me above, my point was that scholars such as Rashi should be the best sources for what was done in around 1000 BCE. This is both because they are well-versed in the tradition that was the most common and accepted at those times, AND they were near a full millenium closer to that time than a 19th or 21st century scholar. When Joshua brought the question regarding the Documentary Hypothesis, I merely pointed out that assuming the Documentary Hypothesis presupposes that certain traditions and scholarly works are wrong, and we cannot make such presuppositions. While there needs to be room in this article for the more modern theories, there should not be any assumption that these sources are any more accurate or reliable than the older sources; and in my opinion - as explained above - the older sources have more than one reason why they would shed clearer light on the ancient practice. Now, how does that indicate monolithism or "only way anything has been done"? Unless you believe that thousands of years of reliable responsa and tradition are irrelevant because of a relatively recent historical phenomenon (the emancipation)? If anything, the burden is upon you to explain why reliable sources that are much closer in time and tradition to the ancient practice should be ignored in favor of more recent theories? Of course, if you presuppose the older traditions are bunk and should be ignored, that would explain your reaction, but that would be an NPOV violation, would it not? -- Avi (talk) 23:03, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

There's some appalling assumptions of bad faith going on here ThuranX. I don't know about the other editors, but I'm not Orthodox (I used to be but that's a separate issue). However, it is quite clear what the consensus opinion was on this particular issue for about 2000 years. (The fact that Orthodoxy was normative for most Jews of that time period is an arguable point which isn't really relevant (There get to be serious definitional issues which we really don't want to get into. Most people would agree that Rabbinic Judaism in 600 CE looked very different from Orthodox Judaism in 1800 for example). JoshuaZ (talk) 03:46, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

The assumptions of bad faith would only be assumptions if I haven't been fighting off the POV push for Orthodox superiority here for years, from the same bad faith people, year after year. IT comes again and again, seeking to promote the 'truth' of Orthodoxy and the heretical nature of all other forms, and all other branches. Why don't you dig through all the archives first. ThuranX (talk) 04:22, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

ThuranX, you seem unwilling to accept what anyone else would consider a basic fact: For most of the last 2000 years the vast majority of Jews used matrilineal descent. Complaining about past POV pushing on this article doesn't make that any less of a basic issue and doesn't make your failures to assume good faith about long-term, pro-lific editors like Avi any better. (Incidentally, if you can figure out what Avi's actual viewpoints are based on his edits than I'm very impressed with you. He's one of the most compulsively NPOV editors out there). Now can we please stay focused on the issue at hand? Are we in consensus that Rashi is a valid source for the normative historical position for most of Judaism but not necessarily a good source for what actually happened prior to about 200 BCE or so? (deliberately extending the date range to simplify matters) JoshuaZ (talk) 04:29, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

No, not in agreement at all. Find a non-biased source analyzing the Post-Torah era writings for the wider consensus apparent in the varied Jewish communities over the relevant period of time, and we can discuss it. Rashi is a reasonable source for the thinking of the French jewry of the 1000s. And nothing else. He is contradicted at times by Rambam, who lived 150 years later, and other later writers, and contradicts some earlier thinkers, as well. As such, and by your own admission that Orthodoxy of 600 CE is different than that of 1800CE, we cannot assume him to be a reliable source for events occuring a thousand years before. Perhaps you can source Akiva, Rashi, Rambam, Avraham Abeles Gombiner, and others to build a demonstrated continuity of thought. You cannot use ONE, from a single point on a continuum of change, to assert broad claims about the entire span, esp. since he's in the middle of the span. Further, even with that continuum, you can only mske such assertions about their regions of culture, not about the changing beliefs of the Lemba, Mazrahi, and other divisions, which should also be addressed, esp. as relates to the current difficulties Ashkenazi Orthodoxy presents as a result of exclusionary principles, and the article still needs the pre-roman patrilineality well established and well sourced. ThuranX (talk) 04:40, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

There is no argument between Rashi and the Rambam regarding matrilineal descent, Thuran. The fact that the Rishonim would argue about various halachos only serves to strengthen the argument that when they are all in agreement, that would be an excellent source. Secondly, I believe your POV is showing again—please define "non-biased source." We have discussions about the Oral Law that go back millenia (Mishna, Talmud, Geonim, etc.) As was mentioned above, these sources are 1) basically the only extant sources of their eras, and are such the best resources in understanding the ancient practices and 2) the sources that follow the traditions of the ancient practices most closely of any of their contemporaneous denominations of Judaism, should any have existed (Essnes, Karites, etc.). For both those reasons, the sources listed are the best sources for understanding the ancient practices. I am afraid that when you say "non-biased" you mean "irreligious", which will basically not exist until much, much later. Specifically non-religious Jewish analysis of ancient Jewish practice is perforce a relatively recent (late 18th century and subsequent) phenomenon, and is not the best of sources. While no one is saying it should be ignored, your implication that it should be primary appears, in my understanding, to be motivated more by your distaste for what you perceive as an "Orthodox cabal" than what would be the best and most accurate source depicting the practice. As for a continuum of thought, from the Mishna to the Gemara to Rashi to the Shulkhan Aruch spans anywhere from 1200 to 1800 years, which, in my opinion, is a rather long continuum, and adequate for this article's purposes. -- Avi (talk) 04:56, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Continuing with outdent. Rambam is explicit in multiple places about matrilineal descent. It is in the Mishnah Torah. If you want I can track down a citation. Ibn Ezra is also an interesting source in that he makes it clear that the halachic opinion is universal and also that he doesn't understand it since it would make more sense to him for it to be patrilineal. The Shulchan Aruch is also quite explicit. So we have Jewish authors from a variety of times and locations. Will that be enough or do we need more? That seems like a pretty diverse group for both time and place. JoshuaZ (talk) 05:25, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

So JoshuaZ says everyone was universally thinking the same, except for his next 'so reliable' example, who wasn't so like-minded. Avbrham goes with the 'Orthodox is always right' vibe. None of this gets in in this format. No. Not at all. You're both clearly unwilling to find secondary source material here, because I think you both know that secondary sources will talk in depth about the variety of subcultures, and the schism of matrilineal/patrilineal descent conflicts, whereas by dipping into one shallow puddle, you can find primary sources who bolster each other. Find secondary sources delineating the timeline. It's not hard to understand. Secondary Sources. Finding five guys on the inside saying 'yes, on the inside, it all looks like the inside' isn't that encyclopedic. When you can find me good, reliable, secondary , scholarly sources saying 'Orthodoxy's the only right way, and only for the matrilineal period, which really did go all the way back to the beginning', then you can put it in. Until then, hell fucking no.ThuranX (talk) 06:19, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Thuran, three times is the charm I guess, your statement "good, reliable, secondary , scholarly sources" indicates that you do not believe that the eminent scholars Rashi, Maimonides, Joseph Karo, etc. are "good, reliable, secondary , scholarly sources." That can ONLY be due to a POV that immediately discounts anyone religious. Each of these figures are "good, reliable, secondary , scholarly sources" for what occurred in 1000 BCE, unless, of course, one has a POV that discounts anyone religious. At this point, I am going to have to remind you that on wikipedia, we need to edit from a neutral point of view, and we cannot allow our personal beliefs, no matter how strong and how well-rooted, to interfere with the proper functioning of the project. Furthermore, your language, apparently condescending dismissal of other editors, and assumptions of bad faith are both against the spirit of the wiki, and the letter of policy. I respectfully request you try and read the discussions calmly, and without letting your emotional response to religiosity affect your understanding of the logical arguments. Responding with dismissive obscenities only serves to indicate a lack of perspective, I believe. -- Avi (talk) 06:32, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Thuranx, it would help if you a) read what people wrote and b) strove for some minimal civility. My point regarding Ibn Ezra is that he 1) doesn't claim that the halachah should be his way (that's an important point. He's saying he doesn't find it very logical. He's not making a ruling of any sort) and is moreover a statement about the universality of the practice (quite explicitly). That's not the same thing as saying he "wasn't like minded". Incidentally, there appears to be some nice goalpost moving here given that you stated "Perhaps you can source Akiva, Rashi, Rambam, Avraham Abeles Gombiner, and others to build a demonstrated continuity of thought" and now are insisting that we use things which use consider to be secondary sources (How is Ibn Ezra talking about what Jews do not acting as a reliable source?). Incidentally, if you want secondary sources, this looks like one example which sources most of what we want in the first paragraph and then goes into some depth. also is good. That's two unambiguous sources establishing that a) from at least 200 CE to very recently Jewishness was by matrilineal descent and b) sources that the mainstream academic position is that likely not true prior to the Roman occupation. Is this good enough? JoshuaZ (talk) 06:35, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Also, if that's not enough we've got this by a Reconstructionist writer agreeing with much of what needs to be sources (although he disagrees of course with the Orthodox and Conservative about the implications). And we have this article also. Is this enough already? (incidentally, to those who know more halachah than I do, as I understand it Orthodox Jews don't paskin that the child of a non-Jewish male and Jewish female is a mamzer. Is this an example where the halachah doesn't go according to the Mishnah?) JoshuaZ (talk) 06:41, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Such a child's an outcast, not a real Jew. For the Orthodox, the marriage is a no=no, so the kid's a no-no. It's like being a rape kid. Though they meet the bare definition of a 'Jew' under Ashkenazi Orthodoxy, they're ostracized and deliberately shunned. It's a Mamzer in practice, regardless of any given ruling. And halacha can be bent like a reed to fit any vessel.

Avraham, it seems you can't grasp that all those are primary sources, and instead attack me, so stick it under your big fur hat. I want scholarly, anthropologists, sociologists, historians, and others who weren't Orthodox Jewish Rabbis to be provided as sources. Any Jewish Rabbi ofthe time is a primary source for hte iews of his Jewish Commmunity in that time, and isn't qualified to speak about significantly earlier times, unless their writing provides proper scholarly facts in support. None of those listed do so. It's identical to asking others to accept Doubting Thomas' description of his finger passing into Jesus' abdomen as an objective factual proof of the resurrection, to parallel this debate in another circumstance. Find proper, well researched secondary sources. You haven't so far. ThuranX (talk) 07:03, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

ThuranX, you can want as much as you want, but Jewish scholars (I mean talmidei chachamim) are obviousy even more relevant than academic scholars of Judaism. And I see nothing in Wikipedia that would disagree with that. They are primary sources about themselves and their opinions, but secondary sources about Jewish religion and practise. Your call for academic scholars only sounds rather discriminatory. Debresser (talk) 07:14, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Joshua, the child is considered fully Jewish. It cannot be a Mamzer, as we pasken that a mamzer is a result of Chayvei Krisus, the offspring of specific relationships that incur Kares. Having a non-Jew father a child by a Jewess, if I recall correctly, is not one of those relationships listed in parshas Acharei Mos that list these relationships. This very situation case is actually brought in Leviticus (Leviticus 24:10). I have not studied Even HaEzer in detail, so I cannot recall the Shulchan Aruch citation on this right now. As for what Thuran wrote above, he may be conflating the derogatory term with the halachic definition, which is unfortunate. -- Avi (talk) 07:17, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and Thuran, do you have any sources for your assertion that it is like a "rape kid", other than your becoming-ever-clearer emotional reactions to topics that are impinged upon by religiosity? As for my fur hat, I usually only wear a black hat on formal occasions (to daven, in shul, weddings, funerals, etc.). And not being hasidic, I don't wear a shtreimel, spodik, or similar hat. I just have a yarmulke on now, and as I usually wear a size #6 cloth 6-part, there isn't that much room. I do have a #8 (which we affectionately call a "soupbowl"), perhaps I can wear that whenever I converse with you . -- Avi (talk) 07:32, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, lookie lookie. Guess those who said I couldn't figure out your biases and beliefs were wrong. And the kid's the same as the bastard mamzer in a rape because the father's a non-jew - unions with non-jews being strictly forbidden by Orthodox, all issue thereof are considered to be just as illegitimate as any other children occurring between a male non-jew and a jewish woman, mamzers. And like I said before, you can argue that according to talmud it's not, but go look in the neighborhoods. The end result is the same. And as I said before ,those rabbis are Primary sources - They sought to actively promote their interpretations of Torah, therefore any writings on that subject, whether upon the theoretical or the practical, are influenced by that bias. The assertions above that there's no variation are falsified by the very existence of Talmud, which is nothing but argument about the interpretations and applications. If everyone was uniform, there would be no need for it. I have no objection to the review of the writings being written by Jewish researchers, I have an objection to advocacy writing being considered neutral; that is what we would be accepting were we to accept that any of the Talmudic scholars are actually neutral sources. We may as well ask Oral Roberts to write a review of the evidence of ineffable truths in the Charismatic movement and accept it as a neutral examination. When we get the objective viewpoint of a writer held to standards of neutrality by editors and professional standards, we get far more reliable information than when we rely on a guy whose entire lifestyle relies on keeping asses in chairs on a weekly basis. ThuranX (talk) 12:24, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

(<-)For the record, while not an expert, speaking as someone who, unlike Thuran, has spent decades studying halakha, I must state that Thuran's description of the status of the child of a non-Jewish father and Jewish mother is incorrect. Furthermore, I believe his interpretation of primary vs. secondary in this case is flawed, and colored by his emotional reaction to religiosity, and that all humor aside, I think that Thuran needs to think long and hard about whether he is capable of interacting with other editors appropriately, and if not, further aspects of dispute resolution may be called for. -- Avi (talk) 15:23, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

ThuranX , your opinions are prejudiced, and, wisely, not accepted by the Wikipedia community. Good luck to you, sir. Debresser (talk) 14:33, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Unindent) You know what the solution to these sorts of problems is? It is to write articles from viewpoints stated in their titles. For instance Kashrut should have more than one version. There should be the "Kashrut; liberal end of Judaic perspective" and there should be a "Kashrut; conservative end of Judaic perspective". The argumentation could be cut down. The clumsy writing could be trimmed back. The need to "include all viewpoints" could be built into the article by setting up two or more articles on the same subject, from the outset. They could clearly be linked to one another. But the good thing is that the article would only be responsible for adhering to a perspective in accordance with a vantage point indicated by the title. I don't know if this is really possible with an article like the "Who is a Jew?" article. But it might be. Bus stop (talk) 15:33, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Completely disagree, reductio ad aburdum leads to having "Plate tectonics from the hollow-earth perspective". This is why we have WP:UNDUE, WP:FRINGE, etc. We craft our articles in proportion to the existing sources. The example you bring, Kashrus, has thousands of years of history and development. That should be reflected in the article, together with a section on interpretation/acceptance by more modern denominations. What you suggest will result in the "balkanization" of all wikipedia and undermine the project completely, IMO. -- Avi (talk) 15:47, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Agree, for the same reasons, which are, actually, Wikipedia practise. Debresser (talk) 16:01, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Avi -- I think the details matter, which I haven't laid out. There could be software aspects to this. The three, or two, articles could be initiated at once, with the understanding at the outset that they logically form a whole. In fact one article should attempt to be an amalgam of the sub-articles. That would place the minimum number of articles in such a setup at three. You mention WP:FRINGE. I don't think we are talking about fringe anything. These are powerfully represented but divergent viewpoints. Furthermore the basic idea I am suggesting is not in violation of any Wikipedia standard. All the usual Wikipedia requirements would still apply to each article. I am suggesting the title reflect a scope that is fully articulated, not only in the title, but perhaps in a special, required, heading, that boldly alerts the reader that this article is a part of a group of articles that have been separated for reasons of practicality, and that a significant viewpoint exists that they should be seen as a whole, that is, in relationship to the other articles in this "pod." The details of mandatory language introducing articles in such a group could be arrived at. The basic theme would have to be an advisement that the three linked articles should be viewed as a whole by any reader wanting a well-rounded picture of the general topic under discussion. Bus stop (talk) 16:08, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

That is an interesting idea for a new project, Bus stop, but that is not in accordance with wikipedia policy, guideline, and practice. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a compendium of anything ever written. We explain all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source in proportion to the prominence of each, which is what we are doing. -- Avi (talk) 16:16, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Avi -- Can we agree that there is a serious problem in accomplishing this: "…explain all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source in proportion to the prominence of each…"? Bus stop (talk) 16:19, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Not at all. There is no issue, other than perhaps Thuran's emotional reaction to scholarship by religious figures. -- Avi (talk) 16:42, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Avi, One thing let me be clear about: I would not be in favor of dividing an article between the generally acknowledged "branches." I would NOT want a "from an Orthodox perspective" article or a "from a Reform perspective" article. The sort of division I have in mind is that of an abstract mental concept, so-to-speak. Thus I would rely upon words like "liberal end of spectrum," and "conservative end of spectrum." Bus stop (talk) 17:47, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Avi -- I am NOT suggesting that Orthodox and Reform are two different religions. I am saying: give them space to voice their perspective. I am saying nothing more than that. Bus stop (talk) 16:23, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

There should be no reason why the article we have should not reflect the Reform opinion, but the best sources for the practice in antiquity are the reliable sources that are 1) closer to that time chronologically and 2) closer to that practice traditionally. -- Avi (talk) 16:43, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Strongly disagree. Those sources are relevant because this is a topic connected to religion in any intimate fashion but for determing the analysis of academic scholars is far more reliable about what actually happened (especially since they have access to sources like the Talmud and Rashi and can evaluate their reliability as professional scholars). JoshuaZ (talk) 17:03, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

As long as setups of this sort are strongly linked by mandatory language and mandatory and bold imagery at the top of the article, indicating that this article is part of a group that must be considered as a whole in order to get a complete picture of the subject matter under consideration, there is no danger of running afoul of the eminently admirable features of Wikipedia, especially Neutral Point Of View. Bus stop (talk) 16:32, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Section break for recap

Ok, repeating this here since no one seems to be bothering to look at the sources above. Are we in agreement that these are good enough secondary sources to 1) establish that from at least the second century Judaism was matrilineal and 2) establish that the academic consensus is that prior to the Roman occupation it is very likely that Judaism was not matrilineal? JoshuaZ (talk) 17:09, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I am in full agreement, Joshua, with your first point. As for the second, I disagree in that prior to the Roman occupation, as Debresser states below, it was likely according to the halakha, which was matrilineal. Prior to Sinai it wa patrilineal. -- Avi (talk) 17:21, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Er, truth v. verifiablity. Obviously the standard frum opinion is that pre-Roman it was still matrilineal. The point of the sources given is that the academics don't think that. Claim is that sources establish academic position, not anything else. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:29, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Why isn't Rashi considered as verifiable as a current history professor? He is a recognized accepted expert in the field of Biblical and Talmud interpretation and has been published and quoted by third parties for centuries? That sounds as, if not more, verifiable than a modern history professor who has had a few papers published once or twice. Do we consider the religiosity of 21st century academicians? Why would 10th or 12th century academicians, like Rashi or the Rambam be different? -- Avi (talk) 22:06, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, in general modern academics are more reliable. They have access to more sources. Moreover, aside from reliability, the current academic consensus matters. Moreover, modern academics are less likely to have theological biases. (To use another example from a different religion. I'd take modern academic takes on what was happening in Christianty around 150 C.E. rather than a description from Augustine hundreds of years later). The notion that temporal proximity increases reliability only makes sense when it is a short time period away. Rashi is writing about a thousand years later than any time where patrilineal descent occurred. At that point, he's not intrinsically more reliable than anyone writing a hundred years after him or a thousand years after him. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:04, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

It could be argued that many have an anti-theological bias, but that is a matter for another discussion . I think that Rashi, having access to the teachings and traditions much closer to the original sources, would have an advantage in that regard. Back on topic, would it be acceptable to say that the earliest known sources, and we can identify them as Mishna, Talmud, Geonim, Rishonim, etc. all are in agreement that patrilineal descent ended at Sinai, and then say that there are more recent scholars who disagree and bring those? -- Avi (talk) 02:43, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

The exact phrasing might need to be discussed but that seems perfectly reasonable. Given that much of what the controversy is over is over essentially religious issues it would be odd not to include their viewpoint. What we label it will need to be careful. If there are no further issues I'm going to start using some of these sources and incorporating text in. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:47, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Joshua, do you want to change the article directly, or do you want to post the suggested change in a new subsection below? -- Avi (talk) 20:56, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I was going to put in on this page. I'm very busy right now unfortunately so can't do it as the moment. If someone else wants to try, by all means feel free. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:56, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

No problem. But I would be very happy if somebody could find a source that says what was the point of view of mainstream Judaism, according to mainstream Judaism. As I said, I expect it to be that Judaism was matrilinear. Debresser (talk) 17:59, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

For those telling me to leave, NO. For Bus Stop, again promoting his Reform Jews are infidels schtick by seeking to segregate the heathens from his 'TRUTH', NO. Finally, for now, I can accept JoshuaZ's interpretation, inasmuch as it moves us on to other issues to repair, but with the condition that actual scholarly citation will be found and added to that section later; even he seems to understand the need for modern scholarship. ThuranX (talk) 20:08, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

ThuranX, I didn't say anything of the sort. Cut and paste a reference to that please. You are probably reading way far into what I was saying and it is possible that you are not assuming good faith. As an editor I don't represent an orthodox point of view. For me the bottom line are the basic principles of Wikipedia. Neutral Point Of View, in my opinion is the most important wiki principle. Bus stop (talk) 20:31, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Um, ThuranX, did you read the sources linked? If you think they aren't scholarly we need to discuss that. They look fine to me. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:18, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps not as thoroughly as I should have. Those are both acceptable scholarly sources for me. One can certainly bolster the Reform and Reconstructionist views, the other a scholarly view of the history of descent 'laws' in the culture. Run with them. 20:41, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps we should all just quit this discussion, before we reach Reductio ad Hitlerum. Debresser (talk) 22:01, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I believe that at this point, unless Thuran can bring reliable and verifiable sources for his claims, they should be not be considered, and furthermore, his attitude, condescension, dismissiveness, obscenity spouting, and harassment should be considered trolling. Bus stop, Joshua, Debresser, and I have differences of opinion, but we seem to be managing to work them out rather cordially on this page; Thuran, for some reason, has bot been able to do so, and that has been pointed out by more than one person. These kinds of disruptive edits are counter to how we need to work out the best wording of the article, and should not be countenanced. -- Avi (talk) 22:10, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I think that the fact that I find so many people pushing an advocacy position is even more disturbing. It is inevitable that POV pushing editors, drawn to major topics where POVs vary wildly, will recognize each other on talk pages and support the advancement of shared POVs. That is not the same as determining a consensus on what is NPOV, but a consensus to push a POV, and needs to be pushed back against, as strongly as it takes. That's all I've done. Further, this page also suffers from a POV push to disenfranchise all non-Orthodox Jews entirely, to divorce them wholly form Judaism; that too I oppose. So when that nonsense stops, I'll stop fighting it. ThuranX (talk) 20:41, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

definition

First of all, the title of the artilce needs to be changed. I can't believe the community has been O.K. with this for so long. Is there a "Who is a Black person" or "Who is a Catholic"? No. That's because there are those who think the former is something you are born as, the latter, something you adopt. Both are accepted ways one is Jewish. When you read this mess of an article and then the Jewish population it is evident what we have here is a failure to communicate. Because the population of us Jews include those who are Reform, the largest denomination and fastest-growing. Yet, these numbers are not accepted by others, because the ethno-religious argument is brought up. How, if Jewish identity is truly an either/or scenerio, like the color of your skin, can one "convert?". Then again, we have the half-Jewish malarkey brought up in this article but not one for half-black or half-Catholic. That's because if someone is born from a Jewish father they are Jewish, just as Obama is considered black. Period. That's if we consider the ethno argument, which seems to be the bulk of this article (and to which makes the most sense). Yet the religious argument is, of course, labyrinthine and gets us back to where we started. Until the ethno-religious moniker is changed (which should not happen) then patrilineal descent by the above argument is bonafide (though interestingly not relfected as such in this article) Jim Steele (talk) 03:38, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

The article is named for the english translation of a major socio-philosophical question in Judaism, 'Mihu Yehudi'. The problems of lineage, (matrilineal or patrilineal), are addressed in here. Further, I recommend Mulatto, Quadroon, and Octoroon, and One drop rule for more on one contention of yours. Your questions, by the way, have been raised here before, and answered. Please read atalk pages through, and archives. You may find your question already asked and answered. ThuranX (talk) 05:19, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

See #Better Title? above that you are not the first to raise this question. I personally disagree, as do many others, see there. Debresser (talk) 11:40, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

ThuranX, Mulatto isn't about Jews. You are referring the person who is questioning the title to basically unrelated articles. How is that helpful? What point are you trying to make? It is no secret that any human being is capable of mating with any other human being and producing offspring, provided the correct biological genders do this. Yes, there are names given to the offspring of "black" people and "white" people. They might be called "mulatto," "quadroon," "octoroon," according to our article, even "quintroon." But what does this have to do with Judaism? And how does it relate to what is a best title for this article?

The One drop rule article is also basically irrelevant to the ostensible subject of this article. This article, as I understand it, concerns how we define "Jew" for the purposes of identifying an individual that belongs to that group, known as "Jews." The "one drop rule" notion merely says that if a known Jew is involved in the producing of offspring, that offspring is Jewish. That may or may not be true. It can even be noted in this article, if properly sourced, that that notion exists out there. But what type of weight is to be given to that? That is hardly how Jews view themselves. And again, what does the "one drop rule" have to do with the title of this article? Bus stop (talk) 13:34, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Learn to read. He complained "Then again, we have the half-Jewish malarkey brought up in this article but not one for half-black or half-Catholic." We DO, in fact, have articles for 'half-black', and more divisions. If you can't pay attention, in your zeal to play gotcha with me, you're going to further discredit yourself. ThuranX (talk) 13:44, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Catholic is a religion. Black and white are not religions. Similarly Jewish is a religion. You didn't refer him to an article on "Half Catholic" because no such article exists. Comparisons are best made between entities containing parallels. Bus stop (talk) 14:13, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, because there's no racial component at all to Judaism. You're so right, all the time. <Eyeroll> Bus Stop, we're all aware of your 'Judaism is only a religion, and only of white eastern European Chassids' attitude. It's a bigoted, racist, even, POV which got you banned from this topic. Stop pushing it, or just move on to other articles. Please. Move on. ThuranX (talk) 16:05, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

"Race" is not even an issue, because anyone can be Jewish. Not that "race" is even a meaningful designation for people, but "race" is certainly a word in common circulation in discussing the groups of people found in the world.

But sticking to this subject, there are certainly black Jews and there are certainly white Jews. It is true that the majority of Jews may be characterized as being white, or Caucasian. But isn't this so-called "racial" designation of secondary importance when addressing the question that this article ostensibly addresses? I am not aware that "whiteness" or "blackness" has any bearing on whether someone is a Jew or not. This article is supposed to be applying itself to the question of whether or not someone is Jewish. Isn't that what this article is supposed to be about?

I don't think I have ever mentioned "white eastern European Chassids" or anything even remotely related to that, but feel free to show me where I have said or implied that or something like that. Bus stop (talk) 16:16, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm tired of going in circles with you regarding your ridiculous fundamentalist mindset. you return to it over and over and over, you hate all non-Orthodox Jews, you've made it clear. I'm done discussing this, or, frankly, any other fucking matter on the topic of race and Judaism, because your'e deliberately obtuse about it, because that obtuse view fits your radical extremist mindset. ThuranX (talk) 17:16, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

How can you read into what I'm saying and come up with something so unrelated as that I "hate all non-Orthodox Jews"? Can you cite anything I've said that reflects the sentiments that you ascribe to me? Bus stop (talk) 17:25, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I have read previous discussions regarding the name of this article and am not satisfied with the rationale. The article on Jewish identity is much more informative, and lacks the bias this one has. So, perhaps my question has been answered but I am suggesting this article be merged with Jewish identity. It is of no help that this "Who is a Jew" exists. Moreover, the one drop rule as with the other articles you referenced do not have "Who is a black person?" as a title. I'm just basing my opionions/suggestions on what I see on wikipedia here right now, because my intent is to make this article better. With that being said, I find it hard to understand how someone can believe Judaism is not a race as well as a religion. By definition, Jews share a common geographical region of origin (be in Eastern Europe, Spain, etc.). Next, Jews share common physical features (e.g.dark features) and lastly, there are diseases that the group are predisposed to. Now, there are some exceptions to these, in some part based on the disapora, but again going by the definition of race Jews fulfill the criteria. So since nowhere in the mulatto article is "half-black" mentioned, I suggest "half-Jew" be in the "self-hating Jew" catagory. Because in terms of identity, it is an either/or scenerio. Anything else is denial. Finally: "The article is named for the english translation of a major socio-philosophical question in Judaism, 'Mihu Yehudi'" That's based on the definition via the Torah (Yehudi being the numbers in the tribe of Judah). There's no reason why this artilce exists and isn't merged with Jewish idenity. Jim Steele (talk) 17:00, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

There are plenty of reasons, they were given above by numerous editors. Short form is this: Enough editors here find there to be enough compelling reasons to have established a long and persistent consensus that this article ought to exist. ThuranX (talk) 17:16, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Jim, I think there's some merit to the suggestion that this article and Jewish identity be merged, but as ThuranX wrote, there's a strong, long-standing consensus to keep this article separate and under its current name. Feel free to start an RfC if you're interested, but I don't think the consensus has changed. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:06, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Definitely not. But there is merit to removing from this article all parts that are not directly related to the "Who is a Jew" controversy, and merge those to Jewish identity. Now that is a bit harder to do. Debresser (talk) 18:56, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I've just finished reading the archives. Certainly not every post, but those relevant to my concerns about this article. First of all, I'm not ready to start an RfC because a) I'm still new at this and don't want to mess the process up b) others have put some hard work into this article and I don't want to dismantle what I see as informative, important points. However, I didn't read any indications of a strong, long-standing consenus to keep this article seperate and with its current title. Oddly, it's one of the few on Wikipedia that has a rhetorical question as a title. By the way, as I said 'Mihu Yehudi' is not literally translated as "Who is a Jew". Yes, I know that's been discussed too but never resolved. Who a Jew is (and that is the translation, according to Hebrew Wikipedia, of Mihu Yehudi,is not an abstract socio-philosphical question) depends on how a community, interpretations of Torah and/or a Rabbi determines it. It can also be how a person, as an individual defines being a Jew (as mentioned in this article briefly). All of these relate to identity. Why this is not part of the Jewish identity article makes no sense. And again, how and why is "half-Jewish" part of who is a Jew? The sources include some support group for people considering themselves half-jewish. That section should be in Jewish identity. There's the either/or section of the article to kick things off. From the page history it appears that we've had both the ultra-Orthodox and Reform, with the former inciting things as the page emerged from it's original incarnation (part of where it should have stayed). Bottom line: this is an encyclopedia. It should not have an entry that is a rhetorical question, instead, this article's content should be with Jewish identity.

Jim Steele (talk) 23:53, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

The article demonstrates the connection between self-idenfiying 'Half-Jewish' people and the issues of how this is dealt with in terms of their inclusion or exclusion within the community, and, in turn, their attitudes towards that. They say they are Jews, are told they are not, and have pushed for recognition, for example. Others fall into that Silent Holocaust situation; Jewish by Jewish law, but not by any other metric and not self-identifying. All that sort of material DOES belong here, because that's where the borders of the debate, about who is and isn't, are at. ThuranX (talk) 01:30, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the article demonstrates the connection between "half'jews" and the issues around the incongruous name. All I read is one short paragraph. I do understand your explanation above, and again think that it demonstrates why the information belongs in Jewish Identity. For the record, Silent Holocaust is a profoundly offensive term, particularly for anyone who has family who have lived through the Holocaust, and thus can affirm the fact no Holocaust is silent, only the people watching it happen are. Moreover, I don't think that's the case with this Silent Holocaust nonsense, particularly when we read the screams of anger from th Ultra Orthosox who started the term.

Jim Steele (talk) 02:40, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Silent Holocaust, definition two. It's not offensive to wide swaths of people, including people who lost family to the Holocaust. Appeals to Shame and Appeals to Emotion aren't going to win you any points with me, Logical Fallacies are nonsensical distractions. You understand my explanation, but don't care. That's your point, outside the complaining distraction. You're not listening to anyone here on any point. You believe you are right, and have made it clear that you cannot be convinced by argument, fact, policy or consensus. As such, you're simply becoming an obstruction to the progress of the article, and I see no reason to further debate you. ThuranX (talk) 01:26, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't aim to win points. For the record I understand your explanation, but no, I do not care about your personal views. I'm listening to people who are asking the same question I am. The archive shows people documenting the fact that saying "There's a Jew in the room" is offensive, as opposed to "There's someone who is Jewish in the room." Check any dictionary published within 5 years for starters. I think "Who is a Jew" is so offensive and out of place on an encyclopedia it's only a matter of time before the "strong consensus" in fact agrees to change it. Yes, I believe I am right, but the volume of previous unresolved discussion on my point convinced me I'm nto alone. In fact the argument, fact, consensus and policy you mention will in time lead to the name change and or merge of this article.

Jim Steele (talk) 01:11, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

The term "Jew" is not intrinsically offensive, and avoiding it with the more lengthy "Jewish person" type circumlocution can itself be seen as offensive. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:08, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with User:Jayjg in this. Debresser (talk) 11:36, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

The article title should be changed to (actually merged with) Jewish identity but not because "Who is a Jew?" is offensive. It is out of place in an encyclopedia, as Jim Steele points out. Contrary to the argument used in defense of "Who is a Jew?" as the title, very little of this article actually concerns historical use of that particular phrase. I think the "Who is a Jew?" title is unnecessarily provocative. It is vaguely reminiscent of what would be a title for a mystery novel. Bus stop (talk) 20:40, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

outdent Even that is not a reason to rename. If that is the name of the issue, then that is what should be used. This has been argued before. What remains true in my opinion is that this article addresses the general issue of Jewish identity, instead of the specific "Who is a Jew" issue. As I said above, all parts pertaining to Jewish identity and not to the issue should judiciously be removed from this article. Debresser (talk) 14:46, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

What, in practice, would that mean? How are you going to draw a line between that which pertains to the historic question of "Who is a Jew?" and what in essence are the very same issues discussed in a context not associated that historical question? Why not a separate paragraph in Jewish identity on the phrase "Who is a Jew?"

In concrete terms, what would you move out of a "Who is a Jew?" article, into a "Jewish identity" article? Bus stop (talk) 16:00, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Although I'm surprised not as many people find the title as offensive as I do (as well as fellow Jews who I've showed this page to) I'm glad others agree it is out of place in an encyclopedia. Totally out of place. Again, is it acceptable to say "Is he a Jew" or "Is he Jewish"? Perhaps this is a matter of regional tolerance, but if someone said "He's a Jew" about me, I'd suspect an anti-Semite. It is provocative, who can truthfully argue otherwise?

Just how many other articles are questions? In terms of segments that should be removed, I'd transfer the bit on conversion/birth to Jewish identity (an article that could use it). Incidentally, a parge part of this article needs citations, and has for some time. Yet, that's neither here nor there, apparently. At present I see an article that is bloated, and protected by some with an axe to grind, not a consensus. Bold, yet judicious editing is needed here. Jim Steele (talk) 23:42, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Agree, as i said before here. Just that I am not going to be the one to start this, as it is likely to be a sensitive issue. Debresser (talk) 12:31, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Shouldn't that be patrilinear descent?

When God spoke to Moses, he described himself as the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, not matrilinearly.

Also, "It is through Isaac that your descendants will be reckoned", not through his wife Rebbecca, or mother Sarah.

Joseph (3 generations from Abraham) was married to an Egyptian woman, and in line with Deuteronomy 23, those children were accepted into the assembly. Jacob blessed those children and there never has been any exclusion of those ½ tribes. Those children were and are Jewish.

Though they was a prohibition to the 3rd generation, that period had passed.

I'm curious. Why doesn't matrilinear descent match the bible? No938 (talk) 22:42, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Oversimplifying, Judaism has both a written and oral law, and the oral law is clear that matrilineal descent is the deciding factor (Mishna Kiddushin, Shulchan Aruch, Even HaEzer 8:5). See http://ohr.edu/ask_db/ask_main.php/202/Q1/ for more. -- Avi (talk) 01:02, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

For the sake of discussion, yes I essentially was simplifying the issue, and omitting that Ezra talks of bans to marriage to Egyptians, Ammonites, etc, (and I don't mean Canaanites who are barred forever) and yet cites the Law as the reference. Even in the land of Canaan certain towns had survivors based on God's judgement to kill them all (and animals too) or to spare the women who had not slept with any man, to be taken as wives.

Even during the time of Ezra, scribes (who weren't prophets) didn't match the Law that was delivered through Moses and the prophets (who were sent by God, by definition).

I'm questioning why that oral tradition doesn't match the Law that the prophets delivered.

Thank you for your quick response and frank reply. -No938 (talk) 08:27, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

First, this is a place for discussion of the article, not the subject of the article. Secondly, the Louis Jacobs article makes it perfectly clear.

1. Yes, Israelite descent was in principle patrilineal
2. Probably, in the Biblical period, any wives taken by an Israelite automatically counted as Israelite "for the duration", just as even a non-Israelite slave was circumcised and counted as an Israelite for certain purposes
3. However, the Sanhedrin, and the "scribes" as standing in for them, had powers of legislation: in the absence of such a body, no political community could possibly work
4. In the time of Ezra, they legislated that marriages between Jew and Gentile were not only forbidden but void
5. Therefore, the product of such a marriage, legally speaking, has no father, and the status follows the mother by default.

Clearer now? --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) (talk) 10:16, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

The article has since been updated regarding the questionable reference "according to Mosaic Law" which generated the discussion. Excuse any confusion my lack of specificity may have caused. ty. -No938 (talk) 06:46, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Why so complicated?

surely it can't be that complicated to be a jew! My family is Christian, but I don't choose to be religious. therfore, I'm not christian. Surely if one follows the Jewish religion, then they're Jewish. and if they don't follow the religion they are not Jewish —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.21.9.232 (talk) 17:00, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

That's precisely the difference. Judaism is a religion, yes. But a Jew is a member of a ethnoreligious group. That includes an ethnic and a religious component. Hence the complications. Debresser (talk) 18:09, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Debresser, do you have an online source for Jews being an "ethnoreligious group?" Bus stop (talk) 23:27, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Bus stop, why don't you look at the dozens of sources that have been provided to you on various Talk pages across Wikipedia? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 00:15, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

No need to be argumentative, Malik Shabazz. Essentially two points are being made by Debresser. One is that Jews constitute an ethnoreligious group, and the other is that Christians do not constitute an ethnoreligious group. This source tangentially references Jews as an ethnoreligious group. It is actually only talking about American Jews. I know of no other online source referencing Jews as an ethnoreligious group. But the problematic nature of Debresser's assertions are wider. He is speaking of all Jews constituting an ethnoreligious group. That is a bit wider than just American Jews. And he is saying that in distinction to this, Christians do not constitute an ethnoreligious group. Is that sourced? Can that be sourced? I don't think so. As an article Talk page, this is not the place for contentious assertions. The original question, by 86.21.9.232, is out of place on this Talk page. But I think Debresser's response is just as problematic. I just think without supportive sources being supplied that the sort of response supplied by Debresser is out of place, and probably original research. Bus stop (talk) 07:56, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

"Greeks, Jews, and Armenians after their subordination to others and emigration or expulsion from their original homelands, became diaspora ethno-religious communities cultivating the particular virtues and aptitudes of their traditions". Anthony D. Smith, Myths and Memories of the Nation, Oxford University Press, 1999, p. 213. Now, you've been warned about this obsessive and disruptive WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT behavior on Talk pages before. Stop. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:45, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Jayjg, yes, that is fine that you have found a source that supports the use of the term "ethnoreligious group" in relation to Jews, but that is hardly all that Debresser is saying. Debresser is distinguishing between Jews and Christians on the basis of one group being "ethnoreligious" and the other not. Debresser is saying that Jews are "Jewish by birth" because Jews comprise an "ethnoreligious group" and Christians are not "Christian by birth" because Christians do not comprise an "ethnoreligious group." Sources do not support that. I hope that Debresser will weigh in if he feels I have mischaracterized what he is saying. Bus stop (talk) 00:50, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

The difference, dear Sir, is this. Judaism does not actively seek converts, and its central idea is that the Torah was given to "the Jewish people". The community of believers has therefore come, over the centuries, to look like an ethnic group, or a collection of ethnic groups. Christianity does actively seek converts, and its central idea is that Christ came to save "the world". Its targeted constituency is therefore the whole of humanity, and the only distinction is between those individuals who have accepted the message and those who have not. Of course particular ethnic groups (such as the Irish, the Poles or the Ethiopians) may identify with particular forms of Christianity and that may become a badge of ethnicity.

If you want a source for Jews being an ethnic group, see the JFS judgment, citing Mandla. --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) (talk) 10:05, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Still lots of questions here, circular reasoning and other logical fallacies. While it's agreed that Jews are an ethnoreligious group, it doesn't change the fact this article is in bad shape. Statistically, the Jewish population is declining every year. So I am not sure why there is an us vs. them mentality among the question of Jewish identity, specifically the exclusion of patrilineal descent. Reform Judaism is the largest group of Jews in the world, and the future of the faith as evidenced by the fact most Jews live a secular life anyway. At least this group has confronted this issue and resolved it rather then putting its collective head in the sand. Again , this whole article violates NPOV among other so-called quality control measures. Jim Steele (talk) 15:15, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Why should the decline of the group be a consideration in defining its constitutients? What are your sources to claim that Reform is the largest segment in Judaism? Did you consider that Reform is the most likely to lose Jews to intermarriage or simply losing of interest in the group? Debresser (talk) 06:07, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

And what has any of this to do with the article? All we need say is that Orthodoxy and Conservatism uses a matrilineal rule while some branches of Reform use a bilineal rule. As an encyclopedia, we should report that sociological fact and stop there: it is not for the article to debate the merits of the rules in question. As I said a long time ago (in one of the archived debates), it is not a question of contrasting Orthodox and Reform VIEWS, as if there is a "right" and a "wrong" answer, but of giving the Orthodox and Reform RULES, namely the actual practices of each movement. There is no underlying metaphysical reality of who is "really" a Jew, to which the rules correspond or fail to correspond: rather, the application of the rules creates a social reality.

Similarly, we should simply report the historical debate: the rabbis say that the matrilineal rule has always prevailed, some scholars think that the rule was once patrilineal and has changed, and the Shaye Cohen/Louis Jacobs hypothesis puts some meat on the bones and shows how this is consistent with a coherent legal system. Again it is not for the encyclopedia to judge the question of which account is the true one. So basically, I don't see why any of you have problems with the article. --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) (talk) 09:50, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any debates. I see information as too the various points of view, information in regard with several specific communities, Israel, apostates, a little of the historical background of the various opinions. All very relevant, and nothing complicated here. Debresser (talk) 11:08, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

"It is not for the article to debate the merits of the rules in question." Agreed. Though, interestingly the article's title (phrased as a question) incites all that you say it should avoid. You know, people are well aware that discussions are archived but if the answers were sufficient and the article could not be improved then there would be no activity on the talk pages. Debresser, at least according to the 1990 National Jewish Population Survery (North America) Reform had the highest numbers. I don't know of many people who would argue with these facts. If you look at the data it's not a leap of faith to surmise the population trends have continued since then. That is, the highest number of members in congregations belong to Reform. That is particularly important because young people are the future of the religion and even though the Orthodox may have a higher birth rate statistically they are only about 7% of the 5 million Jews in the USA.

Jim Steele (talk) 19:34, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Characterisation of emergence of different movements

Bus stop edited this sentence to this: 'Because Jewish identity can include characteristics of an ethnicity, a religion,[9] and citizenship, the definition of who is a Jew has varied, depending on whether a religious, sociological, or ethnic aspect was being considered, particularly since Jewish emancipation (Haskalah) and the emergence of those movements at the liberal end of the spectrum of Jewish observance, in the early nineteenth century, Reform being perhaps the most prominent of those movements.' Like the version I changed, this still seems to me to imply the biased view that Reform and Conservative are movements which 'emerged', while Orthodoxy is pre-modern Judaism, continued. Additionally, this sentence seems to reduce ideological division among tendencies within the Jewish community to a 'spectrum of observance.' Savant1984 (talk) 17:55, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Orthodox Judaism isn't what is being discussed. Observance is being discussed. The liberal movements arose somewhat contemporaneously with the period of time called the Haskalah, and they were characterized by a looser level of observance. Bus stop (talk) 18:52, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Savant1984 — there is no mention of "Orthodoxy" at all in the sentence that I wrote. Bus stop (talk) 20:30, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Baloney. Conservative Judaism isn't "characterized by a looser level of observance", but by different observance. Orthodox Judaism is a modern reactionary movement that emerged in response to Reform and Conservative Judaism. צא ולמד. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:00, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

You're right, of course, but that's the myopic POV that prevails among many of Wikipedia's Orthodox Jewish editors. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:50, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Malik Shabazz — who is an "Orthodox Jewish editor"? Please address your criticism to the edit, not to the editor. Bus stop (talk) 18:55, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Bus Stop, I think it is difficult to dispute that the leaders of neither the nascent Reform nor Conservative movements would assent to describe themselves as 'characterized by a looser level of observance'. The Reform/Liberal/Progressive movement certainly was characterised by a rejection of the authority and practice of much of both the substance and process of the Traditional law, but 'a looser' (or 'lower') level of observance is hardly a NPOV way of putting it, it seems to me. For the founders of the Positive-Historical/Conservative movement it makes even less sense. Savant1984 (talk) 19:00, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Malik Shabazz — what kind of an edit summary is this:

"what rubbish; learn a little about other Jewish movements before you characterize them as a "spectrum of Jewish observance"

In point of fact I did not characterize any particular Jewish movement as a "spectrum of Jewish observance". It would be silly to do so. And I did not do so. "Spectrum" includes all of Judaism, as concerns observance. There happens to be a considerable degree of observance at one end of that spectrum and a considerable degree of nonobservance at the other end of that spectrum. Bus stop (talk) 19:03, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

The language you reverted to referred to "the emergence of those movements at the liberal end of the spectrum of Jewish observance". How is that sentence to be read except its plain English meaning: that the various Jewish religious movements exist on a spectrum of observance? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:13, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Malik Shabazz — "Spectrum" is a word in the English language. here we see the following usage of the word:

"We are co-educational and welcome families from the entire spectrum of Jewish observance."

That is a use of the word "spectrum." There is nothing mysterious about it. "The Jewish Federation of Greater Washington" wishes to welcome those who are very observant as well as those who are not so very observant. Bus stop (talk) 20:22, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Furthermore, Malik Shabazz, you had to change Savant1984's wording from "conflicting movements" to "modern movements," a not insignificant change. Bus stop (talk) 20:56, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Nevertheless, Bus stop, it still seems to me to problematic to characterise the movements with the value-laden, vague, and controversial language of 'spectrum of observance'. It is value laden in implying that people/movements who do not do X are not observing something they ought. It is vague, in that it is not clear what makes A 'more observant' or 'less observant' than B. Is it just a matter of doing or not doing something that all pre-modern authorities would seem to agree is an halachic obligation? Is being more stringent (machmir) 'more observant'? Is following more customs (minhagim) (of what origin?) 'more observant?' It is controversial, in that there is nothing whatever in say, the principles of the presumably 'less observant' Conservative movement preventing someone adhering to it from being 'more observant' by any of these measures than an adherent of the Orthodox movement -- indeed, such cases are by no means difficult to find. Savant1984 (talk) 22:29, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Savant1984 — Judaism breaks down into groups, and groups break down into individuals. Jewish law is a part of Judaism, and within any group there are similar levels of observance. Observance refers to keeping the laws of the Torah. "Spectrum" is just a word in the English language. It is used. Do a Google search if you would like and I think you will see this for yourself. If you disagree, tell me so. The spectrum of observance of Jewish law can be seen across individuals, and it can be seen across groups. If you consider any Jewish law, you will find variations in the levels of observance of that law. This can be seen across individuals, and this can be seen across groups. There are variations amongst individuals in a group, but groups tend to have levels of observance associated with them. Some groups tend to be more observant of Jewish law, some groups tend to be less observant of Jewish law. Bus stop (talk) 23:26, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Undoubtedly 'spectrum' is a word in the English language and 'observance' in this context does usually refer to 'keeping the laws of the Torah'. Certainly the people who belong to different groups (including those who identify with various movements in Judaism today) are more or less observant in patterns which are generalisable. I fail to see what any of this has to do with my assertion that such language is, in this context, value-laden (in a manner not in keeping with NPOV), vague, and controversial. I am trying, but I simply cannot see how what you just wrote pertains to what I wrote. The sentiment you put into the article still carries very clear connotations (value-laden), is vague (as I wrote, it is not clear what 'keeping the laws of the Torah' more or less means, since different tendencies in Judaism disagree -- and authorities within them! -- disagree about what 'the laws of the Torah' are, and it is controversial in that it characterises movements by how much they 'keep the laws of the Torah' in contradistinction to pre-modern Jews. Especially given how sensitive and controversial the topic of this article is, surely you can see why this is not a sentiment that appears to me to be expressing a neutral point of view. Savant1984 (talk) 00:48, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Savant1984 — I'm not sure what you're saying. Compare the Haredi Jews to the Reconstructionist Jews as concerns the observance of the not eating of pork. Is the Reconstructionist Jew generally less observant than the Haredi Jew in the observance of the not eating of pork? Bus stop (talk) 02:12, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Of course. That doesn't mean that it's NPOV to say that Reconstructionism is charaterised by pork-eating! Savant1984 (talk) 11:05, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Savant1984 — the Reconstructionist group, as well as the individuals that comprise the Reconstructionist group, tend to be less observant than the Haredi group, as well as the individuals that comprise the Haredi group. In fact, the two groups mentioned (not to mention the individual Jews comprising those two groups), represent different points on the spectrum of Jewish observance. ("Spectrum of Jewish observance" is a common phrase.) As concerns NPOV, I don't think it enters the picture, provided such assertions are sourced, and I think reliable sources could be found to support the view that the Haredi are noted for being observant of Jewish law while the Reconstructionists are noted for not being observant of Jewish law. There are exceptions — sure. Individuals within a group are not all the same. But generalizations, if reliably sourced, concerning levels of observance would seem to have a place in an article such as this. I am just using Reconstructionist and Haredi as an example. Other groupings of Jews could be considered as well. All individual Jews could be considered. Language exists and should be used to address observance as concerns Jews. This is a topic worth addressing. This is a dimension of Judaism and of Jewish identity that is certainly within the realm of topics that can be covered. Bus stop (talk) 11:47, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Bus stop: Again, certainly statements about how members of different movements tend to act is something we can and should cover in Wikipedia. That doesn't change why the sentence I objected to was problematic, both in this context and how it as worded. Savant1984 (talk) 13:49, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I had noticed this discussion from its beginning, but didn't have the time to read what it is about. Now that I have read it, I tend to agree with Bus stop, that the various modern denominations in Judaism follow a less stringent lifestile than Orthodoxy. That is also how the adherents of these movements regularly describe themselves, as being "less strict" etc. In this reagrd I completely disagree with the statement that "it is difficult to dispute that the leaders of neither the nascent Reform nor Conservative movements would assent to describe themselves as 'characterized by a looser level of observance' ". I think they to the contrary would agree with that, and in all likeliness proudly so. Obviously, this does not imply any judgement or opinion, only a description of two lifestyles relative to eachother. In addition, I am sure that plenty of reliable sources describe them in these very same terms, and even if some will try to argue to call it a "different observance", we may safely base ourselves on those sources and common description (including self-description). If any other opinion s notable, it can be included. But we are not the ones who should fight over these theosophical differences. Debresser (talk) 14:21, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Respectfully, I think that this is an issue differences in wording that may seem trivial to some will be crucial to adherents of the parties involved. R' David Golinkin, a prominent Conservative posek, for example, certainly maintains that there is a principled preference in Conservative pesak to seek leniency (kula) over stringency (chumra). He would also certainly say that people identifying themselves as Conservative Jews tend to be less observant (here meaning 'careful to obey Jewish law') than people identifying themselves as Orthodox Jews. That's very different from assenting to characterising the Conservative movement as 'a less observant movement'. I'm not interested (on Wikipedia) in hashing out who's right about how Judaism should be lived, but I simply don't think it's consistent with NPOV to write things along the lines as the phrase I deleted at the start of this conversation. Savant1984 (talk) 16:56, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

(unindent) Savant1984 — I don't think anyone is discussing "how Judaism should be lived." Judaism has Jewish religious law. Some Jews are punctilious in observance of it, and some Jews are not observant of it. The phrase "spectrum of Jewish observance" (and variations on it) is commonly used to refer to the whole panoply of the gradations of the levels of Jewish observance of the Jewish religious laws. In order to paint a picture of Judaism in its many manifestations we refer to the observant, the nonobservant, and to many degrees in-between. Here are some examples on the Internet of the use of the phrase "spectrum of Jewish observance":

• We are co-educational and welcome families from the entire spectrum of Jewish observance.

• The answer must be that they are quoting the wrong books to the wrong people, because the letters of Paul were never written for them, but for people who were much higher up the spectrum of Jewish observance.

• Shabbos for a Novice organizes Shabbat dinners for 20s and 30s-something men and women, married and single, from across the spectrum of Jewish observance, in several U.S. cities.

• Barrack Hebrew Academy, located in Bryn Mawr, PA, welcomes students from every spectrum of Jewish observance and life.

• Across the spectrum of Jewish observance, people are seeking ways to give higher meaning to their spiritual lives—but how do you know where to begin, and what should you do first?

• Whatever denominational category does or does not inspire you; wherever you place yourself on the spectrum of Jewish observance; whatever your personal theology says about your belief in a commanding God, spend this Shabbat considering what you most need to not do for that second soul to descend upon you Friday night, ascending heavenward on the wisps of the Havdalah flames Saturday night, leaving you restored and ready for the week to come.

• Although affiliated with the Conservative movement, SSDS welcomes families from across the entire spectrum of Jewish observance and practice.

"Spectrum of Jewish observance" is a commonly used phrase to refer to variations in observance across the entire population of Jews. Groups, movements, etc. also have generally applicable and identifiable levels of observance. Bus stop (talk) 17:29, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Bus stop, I don't deny and haven't denied that the phrase 'spectrum of Jewish observance' can be used usefully and properly. My only point is that in certain contexts, such as the one in which it was objected to in this article, phrases like it (or the related phrase 'less observant') are not appropriate. I think the reason why it wasn't appropriate here I've already explained. Savant1984 (talk) 22:06, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

It occurs to me that I actually ought maybe to say why I thought the phrase you wrote inappropriate as specifically and concretely as possible rather than further feed the abstract, general debate. The reasons why the division into movements caused disputes about 'who is a Jew', were, AFAIK, the following -- 1) Reform (Liberal/Progressive) rabbis waived the traditional halachic requirements for conversion of immersion in a mikvah (tevilah), circumcision (for males), and acceptance of the weight of the commandments and halacha as traditionally understood. This created a class of proselytes not Jewish according to the traditionalists. 2) Orthodox rabbis decided to treat Conservative (Positive-Historical) rabbis as, at best, unreliable in applying the traditional halachic requirements for conversion, or, at worst, heretics who by definition could not serve on a rabbinic court (beit din) to administer a kosher conversion. This created a class of proselytes of at best doubtful status according to Orthodox rabbis. In addition to these two reasons, the Reconstructionist and North American Reform acceptance of patrilineal descent, coupled with the emergence of a Conservative opinion permitting women to serve as witness, created two more reasons for diversity opinion. Note, however, that the fact that most Reform, Reconstructionist, and Conservative Jews are 'less observant' than most Orthodox Jews is only a minor component of any of this: it is relevant insomuch as it is one reason why Orthodox rabbis have tended at best to doubt whether conversions done not under their auspices could have had witnesses they could consider kosher. Otherwise, it's simply not relevant, and bears the possibility of implying what I objected to above. Savant1984 (talk) 22:42, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Observance and nonobservance exists. There is no reason observance and nonobservance cannot be noted in an article. The Reform are less observant than the Orthodox, and the Orthodox are more observant than the Reform. These or related statements are not unacceptable in a Wikipedia article, as long as the statements are sourced. Bus stop (talk) 23:27, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

No matter how long I go away from Wikipedia, I can rely upon one thing - that Bus Stop will be on a new 'Only Orthodox are real jews' push again at this page. We'vbe had him up at AN and AN/I enough, can't we just go get a topic ban on him already, widely interpreted, against his editing of pages related to Judaism? I concur wholeheartedly with Malik Shabazz, Bus Stop's edits are again of the prejudicial sort about Reform and Conservative Judaism. ThuranX (talk) 01:32, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

ThuranX, did I say that "Only Orthodox are real jews"? Of course not. Is that a paraphrasing of what I said? Of course not. I wouldn't say that "Only Orthodox are real jews" because it is completely false. This is an article entitled "Who is a Jew?" Anyone participating in the writing of this article, including me, should know that that statement is completely untrue. What I was presenting was an argument for the inclusion in this article of a statement conveying the point that the range of religious observance among Jews is quite wide. That could probably be expressed in as short as one sentence. We know that there are Jews who are punctiliously observant of myriad halachos, and there are Jews, perhaps 50% of all Jews, who are completely nonobservant. This is a not unimportant facet of what it is to be a Jew. A Jew can be religious, and a Jew can be nonreligious. Judaism supports the notion that a Jew does not lose his/her status of that of a Jew, simply for failure to observe religious law, also known as halachos. Wikipedia is not censored. It is my contention that sourced information supporting such a statement belongs in this article, and I believe it is absent at this time. Bus stop (talk) 23:29, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

If that's all this is about, Bus stop, I don't understand what the fuss is about. Currently in the article: 'Judaism has a category for those who are Jewish but who do not practice or who do not accept the tenets of Judaism, whether or not they have converted to another religion. The traditional view regarding these individuals, known as Meshumadim (Hebrew: משומדים), is that they are Jewish; however, there is much debate in the rabbinic literature regarding their status vis-a-vis the application of Jewish law and their participation in Jewish ritual;[34] but not to their status as Jews.' There are many other statements in the article that also make the point that Jews remain Jews regardless of their religious beliefs or practices. Savant1984 (talk) 23:44, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

"Jewish observance ranges from the punctiliously observant to the nonobservant. All these are considered Jews. And all these are equally Jewish. Judaism supports the notion that a Jew is a Jew whether they are observant or nonobservant."

How's that? It's more than one sentence. And I haven't provided sources. But, do you agree with it in principle? I think its place should be very early in the article. Bus stop (talk) 23:58, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

How about this: an addition to a sentence early on in the article: 'According to halakha, the oldest normative definition used by Jews for self-identification, a person is matrilineally a Jew by birth, or becomes one through conversion to Judaism, independently of his religious beliefs or observance after birth or conversion.' Savant1984 (talk) 00:17, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

What you are suggesting now, mixes up several ideas. You first suggested that my idea was already in the article, and you produced this:

"Judaism has a category for those who are Jewish but who do not practice or who do not accept the tenets of Judaism, whether or not they have converted to another religion. The traditional view regarding these individuals, known as Meshumadim (Hebrew: משומדים), is that they are Jewish; however, there is much debate in the rabbinic literature regarding their status vis-a-vis the application of Jewish law and their participation in Jewish ritual;[34] but not to their status as Jews."

That mixes up several ideas. Now you are suggesting mixing up several other ideas, as here:

"According to halakha, the oldest normative definition used by Jews for self-identification, a person is matrilineally a Jew by birth, or becomes one through conversion to Judaism, independently of his religious beliefs or observance after birth or conversion."

Let us consider the following:

"Jewish status is irrespective of the practice of the Jewish religion. A Jew remains a Jew even if non-practicing. Jewish identity is not dependent upon the practicing of the religion."

I think the above is a single-purpose statement. It says that Jewish identity is not dependent upon the practicing of the religion. Bus stop (talk) 23:19, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I think your version may have some problems in the context of an encyclopedia article. Not linked with any specific criteria of Jewishness, it sounds kind of ex cathedra, I think (although I don't know of any significant disagreement with it). More problematic is that I think it would imply to the ignorant that someone who has no intention of 'practicing the religion' can become Jewish -- a highly controversial statement, to say the least! I don't understand why linking this point (of Jews not ceasing to be Jews regardless of religious practice or beliefs) to something else is undesirable. Nevertheless, how about something like this: 'There is widespread agreement that a person does not cease to be Jewish by virtue of his religious beliefs or practices, or lack thereof.' I can't think of any notable opinion that disagrees with that. There is one other thing that we should at least consider on this point, though: as a matter of Jewish law, it simply isn't entirely true: in the case of the people converted as infants it isn't true de jure, and for converts in general it increasingly isn't true de facto according to the Orthodox establishment. We should think of some way of noting that too. Savant1984 (talk) 23:35, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

If the word "Jew" is used in a sentence, there is not necessarily a reference to whether that person was born Jewish or whether that person was a convert to Judaism. The factor of birth or conversion can be unspecified. Furthermore there is no need for speculation as to whether or not a potential convert to Judaism will practice the religion or not. That factor can remain unspecified.

The last paragraph of the intro, before the table of contents, can read:

"A person is Jewish whether or not that person practices Judaism. A nonobservant Jew is equally a Jew as a religious Jew." Bus stop (talk) 11:36, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

It's not how I'd put it, but, whatever. Go ahead and put it in if you feel strongly about it. At the moment, this is just a discussion between the two of us after something only tangentially related, so I'm going to drop the stick and back slowly away from the dead horse. Savant1984 (talk) 19:20, 7 May 2010 (UTC)