Jump to content

Talk:Who is a Jew?/Archive 8

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9

This article is overly detailed for a general audience

While I can appreciate the amount of work supporting the intricacies of the subject, for a wikipedia article it is simply too long and too detailed for the general reader. It needs some significant paring and I added the overly detailed tag to get it going. Mr Debresser do you concur? Lexlex (talk) 13:58, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree there is much detail in this article, but I don't think overly much. The article reviews the question from several distinct points of view, historically and modern, religious and sociological, as well as according to the laws of the State of Israel. That is not detail, that is points of view.
I do think that the Israelite identity loss claims section should be split from here, and that could partially amend the problem you noticed. Debresser (talk) 16:51, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
In retropspect, this article is written from the POV of the religion and while very detailed, from a secular point of view, a Jew is merely anyone who chooses to be one. Attempting to resolve various conflicting religious beliefs within Judaism to determine religious "truth" seems well beyond the scope of Wikipedia. I would argue that it really doesn't belong here. Other than religious scholars, who would read this? I see no such articles on other religious questions and wonder what audience this article is intended to reach. Can anyone help clarify? Lexlex (talk) 22:38, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
The article is not written from the POV of the religion since it presents Jewish identity in various ways that are not accepted by the religion, and furthermore, the religion itself does not consider Jewish identity to be (solely) religious but (also) national/ ethnic /cultural. Anyway the definition of who is a Jew is not subjective as the definition of who is a Christian is not or who is a French is not. However you define Jewish identity, there are rules and laws to determine who is a Jew. Benjil (talk) 04:17, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
The rules and laws you speak of are religious, not secular—therefore it is most certainly POV from the religion. There is no secular equivalent. The whole concept of membership in the religion is based on various interpretations of these religious rules. My point is: why is it being covered so extensively here in a secular encyclopaedia? The associated quasi-socratic talk pages will just keep growing. Combined with the large number of pages on various points, It's starting to feel like a WP:Forum for religious chit chat and discussion. That's not what Wikipedia is. Lexlex (talk) 07:09, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
Secular Jews also agree, mostly, that the religious rules determine who is Jewish. In any case, that is just another point of view. Debresser (talk) 10:59, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
These are not "religious" rules but that's not even the issue. I also do not know what you mean by "secular encyclopedia". There are rules to be defined as a Jew, as there are for a French, an English, a Chinese, a Muslim or a Christian, even a member of a football club. That's not "whoever feels like it". Benjil (talk) 14:19, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
Please forgive the comparison, but an extensive article on who is a Boy Scout or who is eligible to play dungeons & dragons would be severely pared down or removed from Wikipedia using longstanding guidelines. Why then is such extensive and intricate religious reference provided here? It really belongs in a site dedicated to the pursuit of that religion for religious scholars to review. If you disagree, please help me understand what you are using to "top out" your religious articles—there are quite a few revolving around this subject. What are you using to determine when it's too much? Lexlex (talk) 20:31, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I have proposed merging this article. Discussion can be found here. Ergo Sum 02:58, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Importance to non-Jews, citation needed

"The question 'who is a Jew?' is also sometimes of importance to non-Jews. ... The definition can impact on whether a person may have a certain job, live in certain locations, receive a free education, live or continue to live in the country, be imprisoned, or executed."

Obviously this is of importance to Christians and Muslims under Jewish occupation, but citation needed. Keith McClary (talk) 05:42, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Society for Humanistic Judaism, fringe belief

The Society for Humanistic Judaism has a staff of four and claims a membership of 10,000. Even if true, this would be 1/1000 of the "Jewish" population. Isn't that a fringe belief that should not even be mentioned according to WP policies? Keith McClary (talk) 06:01, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Traditional interpretation and variations - section

The introduction was to long and muddied. A new section created with authoritative sources. I hope for additional suggestions for improvements or an alternative name for the section. Thank you. Regards, RudiLefkowitz (talk) 13:53, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

DNA as it corresponds to Nuremberg Law and the Laws of Return

If three out of four Jewish Grandparents made one a "Jew" for the purposes of prosecution under the Nuremberg Laws; including property forfeiture, forced labor and possibly death, then would more than fifty percent Jewish DNA mean Jewishness for the same purposes? It is assumed that two fully Jewish grandparents would create a grandchild of fifty percent Jewish DNA. Of course, there was no DNA science at the time, but many people would accept the Nuremburg definition of Jewishness, today, and so this line of thinking should not be discarded. Furthermore, the Laws of Return correspond roughly to persecution of the Jews in Europe before and during WWII, and so they should be also made to correspond to the conclusion, or answer to this question.

If, on the other hand, the Laws of Return correspond to the eviction of the Jews from Judea-Samaria by Trajan's edict, then that should be made clear and could readily be supported by DNA evidence, and the to-my-mind artificial or linguistic distinction between Sephardic and Ashekazi Jews might be dispensed with, as well. Historically, both groups came from the same place, at the same time, sometimes by the same conveyances. In the case of the people who would be come the Sephardi, it appears Greek and Roman ships transported them to Greece, Italy and Spain. These then, if they made the trip north, became Ashkenazi upon adopting Germanic language and customs.

Alternatively, if they walked or rode from the Middle East up the Danube and down the Rhine, settling along the way (Moldavia was fifty percent Jewish when the Nazis arrived) they eventually became the ones known as Ashkenazi in many quarters. Correct me if I'm wrong.

I carry 68 percent Ashkenazi DNA, an impossibility if my mother alone was fully Jewish, as she was (I, and everyone, takes fifty percent of their DNA from each parent). However, my father was strictly Sicilian, albeit from a family that followed the "Jewish" occupation (at least in Italy) of blacksmith or iron-working, and now it appears the balance of my Jewish blood, nearly that of one fully-Jewish grandparent, came from him. Thus, the distinction between Sephardi and Ashkenazi seems artificial to my way of thinking. Both, came from the same place at the same time. I suspect that the Sephardi were more likely to arrive in their new homes as slaves to the Romans, but within a few hundred years, they were almost all considered free people. The point at which many of these became Catholics and the circumstances of their conversion is also a very important point to consider, and is dealt with at length elsewhere in Wikipedia (Inquisitions, Early Christianity, etc). Jagtig (talk) 18:08, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 17 external links on Who is a Jew?. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:32, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Biblical excommunication

One thing about the wiki article that surprises me is that there is no mention of Biblical excommunication. According to Mosaic law, some transgressions, such as eating leavened bread during Passover, or eating the fat of an animal suitable for sacrifice, result in the transgressor being "cut off from his people," and presumably no longer a real Jew. Apparently modern Judaism ignores this aspect of Mosaic Law and considers a Jew who ignores the Passover prohibition, or one who habitually eats pork, as still Jewish. Strange. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.112.177.64 (talk) 19:28, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

The meaning of the Biblical "karet" is mysterious and much disputed. It is not helpful to translate it as "excommunication", which is a much later Christian concept (and even that does not imply that the excommunicated person ceases to be a Christian). The position in modern Jewish law is that even a Jew who converts to another religion is only considered a non-Jew in the sense that his or her status is in abeyance: for the purposes of lineage "he has sinned, but he is an Israelite". --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) (talk) 15:22, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
Precisely. Being "cut off" or "excommunicated" does not stop one being a Jew. Debresser (talk) 17:39, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

How does the rambling 1998 philosophical polemic by Amos Oz get to be a Reliable Source?

How does the rambling 1998 philosophical article by Amos Oz get to be a Reliable Source? It's just one man's opinion. In the same article he says: "Deep in their hearts, even the Right knows that there will be a partition, and, though they may fight over the boundaries, they know that there will be a Palestinian state". Would Wikipedia allow this as a statement of fact? Why do we include his opinions or the miniscule "Humanistic Judaism". Zionism depends on the religious definition of "Jewish" - with the wishy-washy Humanist definition, Zionism would fall apart. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keith McClary (talk • contribs) 05:23, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

What is "political Zionist interpretation of Jewishness"?

From the context it seems to mean the Israel government legal definition. Political Zionism does not say anything about it. Keith McClary (talk) 21:58, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

I am noticing an increased usage of the word "Zionist" to mean the point of view of the State of Israel. I feel that in such context, the term "Zionist" is against our WP:NPOV policy. Debresser (talk) 20:04, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

DNA bunk

"The modern genealogical DNA test of ethnicity is certainly a non-religious definition of 'who is a Jew?'". This is certainly not supported by the cited article. The so-called "Jewish genes" are widespread in the Mideast. They be more frequent among Jews but only a minority of Jews have them. Keith McClary (talk) 21:55, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Genetic citizenship: DNA testing and the Israeli Law of Return is a more credible and relevant source. "the Israeli Prime Minister's Office confirmed that many Jews from the Former Soviet Union (‘FSU’) are asked to provide DNA confirmation of their Jewish heritage in order to immigrate". Keith McClary (talk) 17:30, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

In any case, the DNA stuff merely establishes a relation to people who are "Jewish" according to religious definitions. It is certainly not a definition in itself. Keith McClary (talk) 22:02, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

You brought it up two years ago, why haven't you changed the article yourself? :) You're probably right in that the section should be scrapped. ImTheIP (talk) 22:18, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
I am not so sure, that the statement "DNA stuff merely establishes a relation to people who are "Jewish" according to religious definitions. It is certainly not a definition in itself." is correct. Debresser (talk) 20:05, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
Honestly, I'm not sure what point Keith McClary is making. But I'm fairly sure "DNA stuff" has never been used, nor ever will be used, to classify whether someone is a Jew or not. E.g if someone does a DNA test and finds out that they have Jewish ancestry and x% Jewish genes, it doesn't really answer the "Jew or not?" question at all. ImTheIP (talk) 08:15, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
Being an avid fan of SciFi, who knows what definitions will be used in the future. :) Debresser (talk) 22:04, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Lead needs reform to highlight relevance of title

The lead needs reform, because in its current state it leaves readers wondering why this question has a Wikipedia article and why it's seen as so important (and by whom). I've no idea how to go about this. I've read the rename debate and seen that apparently the Hebrew equivalent is a popular phrase, but I would've thought if they were keeping this name they would've made the lead more descriptive of this fact. Yes, this is a basic question about Jewish identity, but who is asking this exact question verbatim? It should be in the lead. SUM1 (talk) 03:46, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

I actually had a rather different problem with the lead -- why is stuff about "overlap" in genetics with Greeks and Italians there? Jews are commonly considered to be an ethnic group, but what haplotype you have is not going to change if people consider you to be Jewish. And likewise a Greek or Italian individual who just happens to have a similar genetic signature to an Ashkenazi is not somehow "a little bit Jewish" just because of that, assuming they have no known Jewish ancestry. -- Calthinus (talk) 03:02, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
This title definitely seems weird to me. Why not just give it a title like "Jewish Identity" or "Definitions of Jewishness" or something like that. Feels way more encyclopedic and within line with Wikipedia's Manual of Style. Nikki Lee 1999 (talk) 01:07, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
It's a Hebrew translation. El_C 01:09, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
So does that mean an english translation would be better? "Who is a Jew" definitely comes off weird and it being a direct translation seems to make sense. I think "Definitions of Jewish Identity" would make more sense. tag: El_C, SUM1, Calthinus Pokerplayer513 (talk) 18:38, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
It's not really a common format for a title, but this is really the normal way to refer to the concept. It's not the same as "Definitions of Jewish identity" in my opinion. "Who is a Jew" is a complicated but still fairly discretely defined topic -- what determines if X individual is considered Jewish. Anything involving the phrase "Jewish identity", meanwhile, is a broader topic, because that also concerns how that identity is understood by Jewish individuals, how it is manifested in interpersonal and intergroup interactions, how (a particular understanding of) Jewish identity shapes the behavior of the Jew holding it it, and many other rather interesting but very complicated topics. That in the long term could change the scope of the page -- which I wouldn't be for; better to develop these things, if anyone wants to, in Jewish identity. --Calthinus (talk) 19:04, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
It really is the WP:COMMONNAME (example), even if it seems a bit awkward in English. El_C 19:19, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
Ok that makes sense. Thanks El_C. - Pokerplayer513 (talk) 23:10, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
Just because the Jewish Virtual Library titles an article "Judaism: Who Is A Jew?" is not a sufficient reason for Wikipedia to title this article Who is a Jew? Bus stop (talk) 00:26, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
By all means, if you can point to a more common name that enjoys usage in English, propose a title change. El_C 00:30, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
Google scholar has over 5,000 results for "who is a Jew." See also https://knesset.gov.il/constitution/ConstMJewishState.htm under Law of Return. El_C 00:35, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
Bus stop, we have been here before. The fact remains that this is the common name. Debresser (talk) 01:49, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
I would say there is no "common name" for the subject of this article. WP:COMMONNAME is only applicable when confronted with two choices, one of which is truly a "common name". The examples given—Bill Clinton (not: William Jefferson Clinton)—bear this out. Bus stop (talk) 16:11, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
There is — and this is it. It would be original research for us to make up our own translated name when one exists in official Israeli law translated into English (see above) and in the scholarship overall. El_C 16:36, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
But we are not making up a name at all. You refer to "our own translated name". I have not seen any editor suggest their own translated name. Furthermore the country of Israel is not the arbiter of whether a person is Jewish or not except for their purposes which concern the Law of Return. I've got news for you—Jews have existed before the 1948 creation of the State of Israel. Bus stop (talk) 16:57, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
But the issue that arose after the State of Israel was founded is what gave prominence to the issue, and the common name is now based on it. Debresser (talk) 16:42, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
Debresser—you say "the issue that arose after the State of Israel was founded is what gave prominence to the issue". Do you have any sources to support that assertion? Bus stop (talk) 13:04, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Bad logic

The phrase "if their mother is Jewish", used in the definition of a Jew, is bad logic. This has probably been pointed out already. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.176.110.47 (talk) 10:29, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Don't think it has. Nor is it bad logic. Never heard of a recursive definition? Debresser (talk) 17:52, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

If my removal of what I considered to be extraneous commentary is deemed a "racialist edit", then please report me at WP:AN/I. Bus stop (talk) 20:08, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

I don't think that was a "racialist edit", and to the best of my knowledge you weren't reported for it, so why raise the issue now? Debresser (talk) 13:54, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
If I did anything improper let them air the issue out at WP:AN/I. It is my contention that the "Bad logic" section of this page would be an instance of WP:FORUM. It is on that basis that I removed this thread. But my removal was reverted with an edit summary describing my edit as "racialist". I not only don't think I did anything improper but I don't think anyone—for instance at WP:AN/I—would think I did anything improper. Bus stop (talk) 07:17, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
Neither do I. Debresser (talk) 20:42, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Are Mandaeans considered Jews?

I posted this under Talk:Jews, but I think it belongs here. According to the Mandaean scroll, Haran Gawaita, they considered themselves to be Jews or Judeans in the first century. Their religion is not a Jewish denomination, but appears to be a form of Judean or Hebraic Gnosticism. If they are Judean Israelites, can they still be considered Jews or Ethnic Jews? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ANMC001 (talk • contribs) 15:02, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

There seems to be some things unclear from this article...

Maybe it should be approached differently? How about an article like "List of jews" and then just list the ones that are? Like any other list article on wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.224.242.207 (talk) 15:46, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

We have Lists of Jews and it links to subtopics. Bus stop (talk) 18:30, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Persian Jews

I am surprised that Persian Jews are missing from this article. Was this intentional? Jooojay (talk) 08:14, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

That doesn't seem entirely on topic; there is detailed coverage of the Jews of specific countries at Jewish diaspora and Persian Jews are included there. -- Beland (talk) 22:31, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Self Identified Jew

I am a self identified Jew, I was born a Catholic and self converted. According to the article I'm not accepted as a valid jew, that seems really disrespectful and discriminatory. I am a Jew because I choose to be. 50.125.87.180 (talk) 11:57, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

You're not. Now, if that offends you, taht's just your bad luck. And if you'd like to be a member of a club, would anybody care about your self-proclaimed membershp? No. Well, same thing here. Debresser (talk) 14:18, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
The fact is that I am, and if that offends YOU, that's just your bad luck. Sorry but not sorry, your opinion will never change who I am :) Here in the USA we have freedom of religion, which means as a US citizen I am free to worship as I please and identify as whatever religion I choose. 50.125.87.180 (talk) 00:58, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
I don't think anything in the article is telling you that you are not free to worship and identify as a Jew. I think the article just mentions an Orthodox Jewish view. Just as you are entitled to your view, so too are Orthodox Jews entitled to their view. From the point of view of article-writing the presence or absence of reliable sources supporting an assertion determines what is in the article and what is not. Bus stop (talk) 01:41, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
I am not offended. You may do whatever you want under the law of whatever country you live in, but that will never make you a Jew unless you follow certain procedures. Debresser (talk) 18:28, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
We have an article on conversion. Conversion to Judaism. Although unsourced, it even mentions Orthodox conversion programs in Canada - if that' accurate, it should be sourced. One of the witnesses at my wedding was a converted Jew - her Jewish by birth husband recognizes her as a Jew. Doug Weller talk 18:36, 29 June 2019 (UTC) Here's a source.[1] Doug Weller talk 18:44, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
There isn't a single mainstream Jewish denomination (Orthodox, Conservative, Reform, Reconstructionist) that accepts self-ID. Even Humanistic Judaism provides courses on "adopting Judaism." If you want to add info to the article about self-identification with Judaism, please find a source and then add the info. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 01:14, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
Their argument is sound: "as a US citizen I am free to worship as I please and identify as whatever religion I choose". The article only addresses what Judaism considers to be Jewish, with "Judaism" as broadly construed as possible. But no matter how broadly one construes Judaism, self-conversion is not posited as a possibility—as far as I know. You are correct that if they bring a source they are welcome to add that to the article. Bus stop (talk) 06:59, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

This article is about the standards that existing Jewish denominations use. If you identify as a Jew, then you are a Jew in that you practice the religion of Judiasm. But you are not considered a Jew to the existing denominations listed in this article. They would require that you convert on a process that is specific to that denomination. ask123 (talk) 17:11, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

I don't think Judaism provides for "self-conversion". The question posed was "I am a self identified Jew, I was born a Catholic and self converted." OK, it was not a question. But it includes the concept of self-conversion. Self-conversion is a nonexistent concept in Judaism, at least to the best of my admittedly limited knowledge. Bus stop (talk) 17:36, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
There is no authority that has a monopoly on the term "Judaism"; there are many different denominations that disagree with each other about many questions, including membership rules. Anyone can legitmately claim to practice a form Judaism with meeting the criteria of any existing authority (they become their own authority in a one-person denomination), though it is not true that anyone can legitimately claim to be a member of a particular sect if that sect has official rules for membership which they do not meet. -- Beland (talk) 04:34, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
There is no means by which a person can become a "one-person denomination". Bus stop (talk) 05:12, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Discussion on jew-tagging

An article in Commentary is starting to lead to some discussion on this issue as it affects Wikipedia articles. Please see the media section of the latest Signpost and proceed from there. This article could probably use a section on jew tagging, or it could possibly be made into its own article. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 20:03, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

This would not be the right place, IMHO. Debresser (talk) 20:50, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
Agree that this is not the right venue. For another angle on this off-wiki, see (((Echoes))), which started out as malicious tagging by antisemitic alt-right groups, and now is a combination of that original malicious intent, along with attempts at reappropriation by some Jews, as well as some false self-tagging with echoes by non-Jewish allies as a means of demonstrating philo-Semitic support. Mathglot (talk) 22:58, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

This article

The title of the article needs to be changed. "Who is a Jew?" is not a well-known or trademarked phrase, and the article which addresses the issue can be merged with Jewish identity, the same way the query "Who is an Arab" redirects to Arab identity. If this format is acceptable, there's nothing stopping me from writing articles titled "Who did 9/11?" or "Why is the sky blue?". Ridiculous. Iyi muhabbet (talk) 17:22, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

This question has been raised, and answered, many times. Please have a look in the talkpage archives. Debresser (talk) 18:08, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
The question has been raised, and there have been many attempts to merge the article into Jewish identity, but a few users seem to have sabotaged all previous attempts for some reason. The title is entirely unencyclopedic and goes against WP naming conventions. Wikipedia is not Yahoo Answers and the content of the page does not match the title.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Iyi muhabbet (talk • contribs)
Those editors must really want to hide the truth and sabotage this project. Debresser (talk) 23:02, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Supreme Court decision

@Beyond My Ken: please explain your revert. Onceinawhile (talk) 16:21, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

First, you explain the reason you made the change you did. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:04, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
Beyond My Ken, why so aggressive? Two reasons: (1) the previous text was not clear that the first sentence was related to the second, and (2) it didn't properly explain the reason. Now your turn. Onceinawhile (talk) 17:21, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
Sorry, I have things going on elsewhere that have put me in a bad mood, Let me take a look at my revert. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:33, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
Original text: However, there was an exception in the case of a person who had formally converted to another religion derived from the Rufeisen Case in 1962.[1] Such a person, no matter what their halakhic position, was not entitled to immigration under the Law.
Your text: However, there is an exception in the case of a person who had formally converted to another religion derived from the 1962 Oswald Rufeisen Case in 1962.[1] Such a person, no matter what their halakhic position, was not entitled to immigration under the Law; the Supreme Court concluded that "no one can regard an apostate as belonging to the Jewish people".[2]
I don't think your text clears up all that much, although it does add a ref. A better text would be:
Proposed text: However, there is an exception in the case of a person who has formally converted to another religion. This is derived from the Rufeisen Case in 1962,[1] in which the Supreme Court ruled that such a person, no matter what their halakhic position, is not entitled to immigration under the Law; they concluded that "no one can regard an apostate as belonging to the Jewish people".[3]
This, I think, is clearer, better written, and grammatically improved. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:41, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
Beyond My Ken, many thanks. I think this works well. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:30, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ a b c Cite error: The named reference Navot, Suzi p.189 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ Yabuda Savir, The Definition of a Jew under Israel's Law of Return, 17 Sw L.J. 123 (1963)
  3. ^ Yabuda Savir, The Definition of a Jew under Israel's Law of Return, 17 Sw L.J. 123 (1963)
I've put that version into the article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:06, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

"ethnically Jewish"

Sources do not support to any substantial degree that "Ethnic Jew is a term generally used to describe a person of Jewish parentage". Sources support that "ethnically Jewish" is terminology that is more commonly used than "ethnic Jew" to describe a person of Jewish parentage, therefore I've made this edit. Bus stop (talk) 17:50, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Which sources indicate that it's more commonly used? Why use the longer, more wordy formulation? What's wrong with the word "Jew"? Jayjg (talk) 20:11, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
You are asking what is wrong with the word "Jew" but I never said anything was wrong with the word "Jew". Sources do not use the terminology "ethnic Jew" to any appreciable extent. But sources often use the terminology "ethnically Jewish". For instance Newsweek writes "German philosopher Karl Marx, who developed socioeconomic theories of class conflict that came to underpin subsequent communist and socialist movements, was raised in an ethnically Jewish but largely non-religious family. His father converted and became a Protestant Christian before Marx's birth." (I've added the emphasis to the words "ethnically Jewish".) Bus stop (talk) 21:02, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
I can find hundreds of reliable sources that use the term "ethnic Jew". The Palgrave Dictionary of Anglo-Jewish History writes "He had converted to Lutheranism and later to Catholicism, but with the Anschluss, as an ethnic Jew, he was under threat...". Magical American Jew: The Enigma of Difference in Contemporary Jewish American Short Fiction and Film writes "...Alvy's identity as an ethnic Jew—a contributing source of his personality—is central." Here's a source that's specifically about Jewish identity, and "Who is a Jew": "The Jew will survive — perhaps not the ethnic Jew of Horace Kallen’s 'grandfather,'".... The author (Shaul Magid) has highly relevant and impressive credentials. Jayjg (talk) 21:25, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
Jayjg—Google Ngram Viewer shows these results. There are more than twice as many occurrences of the terminology "ethnically Jewish" than the terminology "ethnic Jew".
As for sources, most use the terminology "ethnically Jewish".
The New York Times
Another study released last month, by the Glenmary Research Center, put the number of people who described themselves as ethnically Jewish at 6.1 million.
Dr. Tobin said his definition of Jews included people who said they were Jewish even if they adhered to other religions (a minute amount, he said); those who gave no religion but said they were ethnically or culturally Jewish; and those who gave no religion but said they had been raised as Jews, had a Jewish parent or formerly practiced Judaism.
The Forward
Even non-Jews are getting in the act, with one pundit writing in the Washington Examiner that Sanders is only “ethnically Jewish.”
Sanders’ mother was Jewish, so Sanders is Jewish, period – there’s no “technically Jewish” or “ethnically Jewish” category.
The Atlantic
As Jews assimilated into American culture, "ironically, investment in religiosity paved the way for greater white identification of many Jews," he said, allowing more religiously observant Jews to think of themselves as white, rather than ethnically Jewish.
The Washington Post
"“He’s ethnically Jewish. He could be culturally Jewish. But his religious Judaism is certainly up for questioning,” Zemel said."
Reuters
One out of five Americans who consider themselves culturally or ethnically Jewish say they do not believe in God or they do not follow any particular faith, in a sign of the changing nature of American Jewish identity, according to a study released on Tuesday.
Jewish Standard
Answers.com gives the misleading answer: Yes. “He was ethnically Jewish.” But his parents, Answers.com notes, had converted to Lutheranism-to avoid anti-Semitism.
Pew Research Center
"To better understand question order and wording effects that might exist, we conducted a brief pilot study Nov. 14-18, 2012, among 1,513 respondents from a commercially available list of people with ethnically Jewish names." Bus stop (talk) 22:05, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
The two expression are not exactly the same. One -- "ethnic Jew" -- can only be used as a direct description: "He is an ethnic Jew". The other -- "ethically Jewish" has a degree of indirection, and therefore of perceived politeness or delicacy: "He is ethnically Jewish." The faster rise in the use of the latter over the use of the former can easily be explained by a great societal understanding that directness can easily be construed as impoliteness by the subject of the description, and therefore a bit more finesse is now being utilized. (Some may want to call that "political correctness", but I wouldn't go there in this case.) If this is correct, than the increased use of one over the other doesn't indicate an actual preference for one over the other as much as it indicates a different in attitude about expressing descriptions of people.
In other words, I don't think the stats tell us anything worthwhile about which one to use. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:48, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
There is nothing special about any of these terms. This is plain English. You are fetishizing over a term. The article could be re-written using such terms as "non-observant", "non-religious", "secular" and "assimilated". And of course "ethnically Jewish". I only chose "ethnically Jewish" because it is similar to "ethnic Jew". Can you please tell me why you are obsessing over the term "ethnic Jew"? There are tons of sources for "nonobservant Jew", "secular Jew", and "nonreligious Jew". Why are you obsessing over "ethnic Jew"? Bus stop (talk) 03:38, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
"Secular Jew" is even more popular than "ethnically Jewish". Go figure. Bus stop (talk) 03:59, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
@Bus stop:, all of the sources you've listed also use "Ethnic Jew". As your engram points out, both phrases are quite common; in fact, "ethnically Jewish" is just the adjectival form of "ethnic Jew". So the real question is, why are you "obsessing" over using "Ethnically Jewish"? Why do you feel the need to change one form to the other? Jayjg (talk) 14:06, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
Jayjg—I am not finding "ethnic Jew" in any of the sources I've listed. Why are you saying all of the sources you've listed also use "Ethnic Jew"? Bus stop (talk) 14:45, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

@Bus stop: I've found examples of the sources above also using "ethnic Jew". In any event, it's not particularly relevant; reliable sources often use both, as one is just the adjectival form of the other. Now, please answer the question in my previous post. Jayjg (talk) 14:48, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Bus stop's argument for changing the wording is that the suggested wording is more common than the current. So I checked with Google and indeed, "ethnically Jewish" produces about four times as many hits as "ethnic Jew". Thus, his or her argument makes sense. I've read your comments, but I fail to see your counter-argument. Why do you prefer "ethnic Jew" over "ethnically Jewish"? ImTheIP (talk) 16:11, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
Both are commonly used. Both are used by reliable sources. "Ethnically Jewish" is just the adjectival form of "Ethnic Jew". The article has used "Ethnic Jew" since 2006; why do you want change it now to use a longer, slightly different grammatical form? Jayjg (talk) 16:44, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
Jayjg—you say Bus stop: I've found examples of the sources above also using "ethnic Jew". Please present several examples. Bus stop (talk) 18:11, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
Bus stop, sorry, I won't be taken down rabbit holes. As I stated earlier, the real question is, why are you "obsessing" over using "Ethnically Jewish"? Why do you feel the need to change one form to the other? Jayjg (talk) 18:38, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
Jayjg—if you look at this ngram you can see that the term "secular Jew" occurs 5 times more frequently than the term that you prefer which happens to be the term "ethnic Jew", and the term "ethnically Jewish" occurs 3 times more frequently than the term which you prefer which happens to be the term "ethnic Jew". Can you please explain your preference for the least used of these 3 terms? Bus stop (talk) 19:15, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
Bus stop, both "Ethnically Jewish" and "Ethnic Jew" are commonly used. Both are used by reliable sources. "Ethnically Jewish" is just the adjectival form of "Ethnic Jew". The article has used "Ethnic Jew" since 2006; why do you want change it now to use a longer, slightly different grammatical form? Jayjg (talk) 20:12, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
Jayjg—do you think there is some special status associated with the term "ethnic Jew"? I don't think that term enjoys any special status. Any speaker of English is likely aware of the many similar terms. Aside from "secular Jew" and "ethnically Jewish" there exists terminology such as "non-observant Jew", "non-practicing Jew", "assimilated Jew", and "non-religious Jew". Why are you so concerned that the article use the one specific term "ethnic Jew"? Do you think that term has some kind of special significance? Bus stop (talk) 21:31, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
Bus stopYou conspicuously failed to answer my question yet again. You can't do an end-run around that question by pretending this is about me. As is quite obvious, it is actually you who have an issue with the phrase "ethnic Jew". You want to make the change, so you have to justify it. Please answer the question. Jayjg (talk) 15:26, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
Bus stop: I'm with Jayjg on this. It's you who wants to make a change to a stable version of the article, so the onus is on you to make the argument that it needs to be done. The statistical argument doesn't cut it: as Jayjg points out, both expression have widespread use, and the different between the number of uses is not sufficient to sustain an argument for a change, especially considering any sentence can be reformatted with minimal effor to use either one -- which means they're effectively equivalent.
All that being the case, just what, exactly, is your reason for pushing so hard for what seems to be a rather trivial and unimportant change? As I said, the onus is on you to convince other editors, not vice versa, so drop the statistical argument and tell us the real reason behind it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:50, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
Beyond My Ken—you refer to both expressions, implying 2 expressions, but I think we are discussing more than 2 expressions. We are discussing several terms. I think I count six terms in total. This article discusses Jews who are not particularly religious. Various language is associated with such people. We should provide the reader with the various language that is used. Conversely, we should not be shoehorning all Jews who are not particularly religious into one term. No rationale has been presented for shoving all Jews who are not particularly religious into one term, and the one term that you favor enjoys little usage in sources. Other terms enjoy much more usage. We are not here to promote terms. I've made this edit. Please discuss it on this Talk page. Bus stop (talk) 02:34, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Bus stop "Ethnic Jew" and "Ethnically Jewish" are the same phrase. There is no difference between the two, except that one is a noun, and the other an adjective. It's as if were to do an ngram on "France" and "French", discover that "French" has twice as many uses, and then systematically try to reword Wikipedia articles so that they only used the word "French".

Beyond My Ken, what Bus stop fails to mention is that he's been trying to remove the phrase "ethnic Jew" from Wikipedia for well over a decade now. He's coming up with new justifications, but it's still the same campaign. In 2009 he was trying to remove it because he claimed ethnic Jew is not defined and "Ethnic Jew" is not defined. Why use a term that is grossly deficient in definition?. Back then the behavior was the same; try to come up with many different circumlocutions and alternate phrases, as long as it wasn't "ethnic Jew". In 2009 the behavior got so disruptive that he was eventually warned that if he didn't stop, it would go to the admin boards, which cooled it down for a while. Jayjg (talk) 15:26, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Jayjg—you are reverting an edit which contains the term "ethnic Jew" therefore what are you objecting to? Bus stop (talk) 15:47, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
Bus stop, your change included a list of noun phrases, with one conspicuous exception: would include "secular Jew", "ethnic Jew", "non-observant Jew", "non-practicing Jew", "non-religious Jew", and "ethnically Jewish". One of these things is not like the others; can you say which it is, and why? Jayjg (talk) 15:54, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
Jayjg—is that your only objection? If so, then a solution is probably in sight—we simply remove the term "ethnically Jewish" from the sequence. Bus stop (talk) 16:25, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
Bus stop "ethnically Jewish" does not belong, but that was clearly not my only objection, as you've also seen and responded to the comment below. Jayjg (talk) 17:05, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
Bus stop, also, your changes did not appear to improve the section in any way, nor add any new information. In addition, they duplicated information. The only apparent "advantage" to your edit was that it de-emphasized the phrase "ethnic Jew". Jayjg (talk) 16:05, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
You say my edit "duplicated information". I don't believe it did. What do you believe it duplicated? Bus stop (talk) 16:25, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
Bus stop, no, I don't play the game where you pick on one small part of a comment, and try to see if you can disprove that (see your comments above of 14:45, 13 August 2020 and 18:11, 13 August 2020 and my responses), or simply change one small part of your edit (see your comment above of 16:25, 14 August 2020). Respond to the whole comment, then I'll respond. Jayjg (talk) 17:05, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
Jayjg—you wrote "In addition, they duplicated information." No, they did not. If you think they did then you should have no difficulty saying what was "duplicated". Bus stop (talk) 17:19, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
Bus stop please review my previous comment. Jayjg (talk) 17:22, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
Jayjg—of course I read your previous statement. And of course I did not duplicate any information in this edit. I only rearranged information. And my edit included the term "ethnic Jew", therefore what specifically is your objection? Bus stop (talk) 17:42, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
Bus stop, perhaps it will help you understand what's wrong with these kinds of responses if I respond in the way you typically do. OK.
Bus stop, are you claiming that the only thing that edit did was it "rearranged information"? Jayjg (talk) 17:47, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
Jayjg—I'm claiming that I basically only rearranged information. One other thing that I did was add the term "assimilated Jew". Bus stop (talk) 18:28, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
Bus stop Are you sure that's the only other thing you did? Jayjg (talk) 20:47, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
  • OK, I believe I understand that Bus top's attempted changes having nothing to do with grammar, or usage statistics, they are about enforcing their personal ideological PoV on Wikipedia. For this reason I object to these attempts, and insist that if Bus stop wants to make these changes, that they open an RfC and get community consensus. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:31, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
    • Beyond My Ken—in what way is this edit advancing an ideological point of view? Can you explain that to any degree? And by the way this edit (same link) has "nothing to do with grammar, or usage statistics". Bus stop (talk) 20:36, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
        • I'm not playing that game either. What you said above entirely supports my comments. I'm out of this discussion, but if necessary I will revert your changes they are not accompanied by a consensus. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:06, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
      • Bus stop, if you start answering questions fully and truthfully, including your reasons for wanting to make this change, I'll explain to you exactly what the problems are with your edit. I'll even show you what you duplicated. But you have to show good faith first; that means full answers that are truthful, and don't involve rabbit hole digressive questions, and deflections from your own actions and motivations. Deal? Jayjg (talk) 20:47, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

I think we know that "ethnic Jew" is not the most "generally used" term for referring to Jews who are not particularly religious. Yet the article reads:

Ethnic Jew is a term generally used to describe a person of Jewish parentage and background who does not necessarily actively practice Judaism, but still identifies with Judaism or other Jews culturally or fraternally, or both. The term ethnic Jew does not specifically exclude practicing Jews, but they are usually simply referred to as "Jews" without the qualifying adjective "ethnic".

Google Ngram Viewer makes it pretty darn clear that other terms are used much more frequently than "ethnic Jew". And Wikipedia has usage statistics that unsurprisingly show the same usage characteristics. Here is how Wikipedia breaks down usage of the same 4 terms that the Ngram Viewer is addressing:

  • "Ethnic Jew" occurs in 24 Wiki articles.[2]
  • "Assimilated Jew" occurs in 25 Wiki articles.[3]
  • "Ethnically Jewish" occurs in 77 Wiki articles.[4]
  • "Secular Jew" occurs in 108 Wiki articles.[5]

There are various ways of addressing this problem. I made an attempt but I was reverted. So I am using the Talk page to point out that there is a problem, hoping others will brainstorm some possible solutions. I've changed the section heading to Talk:Who is a Jew?#terms of reference. I hope nobody will mind. Bus stop (talk) 15:36, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Please stop argumentation which is not going over and start an RfC. Nothing else will do. You are beginning to become disruptive. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:13, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
I wouldn't call this disruptive. In general, calling good-willing editors disruptive is not nice. Debresser (talk) 18:29, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
Telling editors (of whatever status) who are indulging in tendentious argumentation and IDHT behavior that they are being disruptive is perfectly acceptable, and I reiterate it: Bus stop, please stop being disruptive. Start an RfC if you wish, but this behavior is not acceptable. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:20, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
Bus stop, of course "ethnic Jew" (54,300 ghits) and its adjectival equivalent "ethnically Jewish" (44,000 ghits) "is a term generally used to describe a person of Jewish parentage etc.". And of course, the article neither claims nor implies that is the most "generally used" term - "most" is a word you just threw in as a little straw man game. And, as is obvious, a section titled "Ethnic definitions" should start with the term that uses the word "ethnic", even as it also mentions other similar terms; that's just common sense and good writing. Unfortunately, however, you weren't really open or honest about why you wanted to make the change. You've been trying to eliminate the phrase on Wikipedia for over 10 years, and you used to be more open about your reasons. In fact, it appears that you have an issue with the word "Jew"[6]. So let's try again; please, try very hard, to be fully open and honest about why you want to make this change. Maybe actual honesty will convince people to change their positions on this. Jayjg (talk) 20:10, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
Jayjg—the purpose of the article isn't to promote language, especially in the absence of citations. You need a source to support an assertion such as "Ethnic Jew is a term generally used to describe a person of Jewish parentage and background who does not necessarily actively practice Judaism". As per WP:VERIFY "Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed." Bus stop (talk) 01:30, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
Bus stop I see you've stopped asking responding directly again. Now you're moving the goalposts too. OK, we can go back to the "Bus stop" mode of communication.
Bus stop, in your proposed edit you claim that "secular Jew", "ethnic Jew", "non-observant Jew", "non-practicing Jew", "non-religious Jew", and "ethnically Jewish" are Terms generally used to describe people of Jewish parentage etc.. Please recall, the purpose of the article isn't to promote language, especially in the absence of citations. Where is your proof for this claim? Jayjg (talk) 16:42, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
Jayjg—Webster tells us one of the definitions of "secular" is "not overtly or specifically religious".[7] There are two topics being covered in the section currently called "Ethnic definitions". One topic is those Jews who are not particularly religious. The other topic is Jews who practice a different religion. I propose we break the current "Ethnic definitions" section into 2 sections, one called "Secular Jews" and the other called "Jews practicing another religion". Bus stop (talk) 21:17, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
Bus stop: oh, an entirely new objection and issue. Moving the goalposts again, are we? And no response to my questions. OK. What does "Jews who are not particularly religious" mean? Does it include agnostic Jews? Atheist Jews? Jews who go to synagogue on Yom Kippur, but nothing else? Jews who attends a seder each year, but don't make one of their own? Jews who have no religious practices whatsoever? Also, which reliable sources divide ethnic Jews into those two categories? Jayjg (talk) 14:44, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

arbitrary break 1

I have watched this thread for some time now, but have withheld any comment, since it wasn't immediately clear to me what the issue was. I now see that the issue is whether we should use "ethnic Jew" or "ethnically Jewish". As a matter of English language, I think that "ethnically Jewish" is the better term, and since that term has been shown to have been used by plenty of reliable sources, I propose to go with that. Debresser (talk) 20:34, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that's not the issue. Bus stop has been fighting the term "Ethnic Jew" since at least 2007; for some reason, he claims that "ethnic" is meaningless, whereas "religious" is meaningful; despite the fact that the latter term is considerably less meaningful in a Jewish context than the former. Here's one of his many arguments supporting his view on that from 2007. That's why his edits always remove or deprecate the term "ethnic" and "ethnic Jew", and always substitute the term "religious"/"non-religious". The Talk: page archives of this article are filled with various arguments he's made trying to support this change, and the given reasons change from year to year, but the attempted edits are always trying to achieve that goal. If he would even one time be actually honest about why this matters to him, he might actually sway others to his argument, but after 13 years of this, I'm not hopeful. Jayjg (talk) 21:31, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
Jayjg—we are talking about language-usage. And we are talking about topic separation. Both "secular" and "assimilated" are more appropriate terms than "ethnic". We can look to actual usage in sources and we can look to dictionary definitions to determine what term best expresses the thought we are trying to express. The currently-named "Ethnic definitions" section contains two related but different topics. There are Jews who are not particularly religious. And there are Jews who practice a different religion. We bring about a little bit of clarity by addressing these two situations in two different sections, under two different headings. Concerning terminology, "secular" means "not overtly or specifically religious", yet you are using "ethnic" as if it meant "not overtly or specifically religious". And you have "ethnic Jew" occurring 8 times in the "Ethnic definitions" section. The words "secular" and "assimilated" are more appropriate than "ethnic". "Assimilated" means "to absorb into the cultural tradition of a population or group" The dictionary gives this example: "… the belief that tolerant hosts would be able to assimilate immigrants of whatever creed or colour." From where are you deriving that "ethnic" is a more appropriate term than "secular" or "assimilated"? We are talking about language usage. Notice this sentence: "Many Jewish leaders, both religious and secular, have argued that Jews need enemies--that without anti-Semitism, Judaism cannot survive." Why doesn't it say "both religious and ethnic" instead of "both religious and secular". Because "ethnic" would be an inappropriate term in that usage. How about this sentence: Theodor Herzl, the founder of political Zionism and a secular Jew, believed that "our enemies have made us one ... It is only pressure that forces us back to the parent stem.". Why doesn't Dershowitz refer to Herzl as an ethnic Jew instead of a secular Jew? Because "ethnic" would be the wrong term for that usage. And an educated man like Alan Dershowitz knows how to write. Here is the source. There are many instances in that same Dershowitz article. "Certainly many Jews, especially secular Jews, agree with you and hope you are right." Why isn't he saying "many Jews, especially ethnic Jews, agree with you"? Because it is the wrong word for that usage. "Ethnically" is also a very useful term for indicating "Jewish-by-birth". I am aware of your position that "ethnically Jewish" is just the adjectival form of "ethnic Jew". But we are not at liberty to coin new usages for terms. This is complete silliness: Ethnic Jew is a term generally used to describe a person of Jewish parentage and background who does not necessarily actively practice Judaism. No, "ethnic Jew" is not "a term generally used to describe a person of Jewish parentage and background". No source supports that. And such usage is rarely found in actual usage. The current section should be broken into two brief sections. One should be called "Secular Jews". The other should be called "Jews who practice another religion". In the absence of sources, Jayjg, you are foisting language usages on readers that are rarely if ever seen in actual sources. You can start with a dictionary. Please tell me how the dictionary definition of "ethnic" has anything to do with the sentences in which you are using it. It is simply not true that "Ethnic Jew is a term generally used to describe a person of Jewish parentage and background who does not necessarily actively practice Judaism". This article is not even primarily concerned with telling people what terminology is used. There are many different ways of saying the same thing. Inexplicably you are choosing the least used term—ethnic Jew—and claiming it is a term "generally used". Of course the section is virtually un-sourced. Bus stop (talk) 21:47, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
Jayjg—you are linking to something I said in 2007. If you look at the post immediately above mine, I was responding to you. Here is what you wrote: "Bus stop, Jews are an ethnicity in the exact same way that Italians or Greeks or Estonians are."[8] Doesn't that explain why you are so insistent on the term "ethnic Jew"? Who cares if Jews are an ethnicity or not? If Jews constitute an "ethnicity", does that mean we must refer to Jews who are not particularly religious as "ethnic Jews"? Wouldn't the term "secular Jews" be more apt for that purpose? "Secular" literally means "not overtly or specifically religious". Sources overwhelmingly use the term "secular Jew". But for some as yet unexplained reason you prefer "ethnic Jew". Why don't you explain what the great advantage is, as you see it, in this little-used term? Bus stop (talk) 23:22, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
Bus stop, you continue to claim that "ethnic Jew" is rarely found in actual usage. In reality, I've already shown you that "ethnic Jew" and its adjectival equivalent "ethnically Jewish" get 54,300 ghits and 44,000 ghits respectively. I've also already pointed out the paper specifically about Jewish identity / "Who is a Jew" by Shaul Magid (the Distinguished Fellow in Jewish Studies at Dartmouth College) that uses the term ethnic Jew. If anything, we should be following Magid's lead, not Dershowitz's. Your claims are unsourced and/or specious. I am not "choosing" anything; rather, you have been on a 13-year crusade against a specific term. The Talk: page archives of this article are littered with sections where you make all sorts of arguments attempting to remove the term, and in turn being resisted in this by a half dozen editors. Don't try to turn this around; you want to make this change, so you have to come up with a compelling and honest explanation as to why you want to make it. Jayjg (talk) 19:05, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
If the issue is whether the term "ethnic Jew" or "ethnically Jewish" is the appropriate way to designate people of the Jewish ethnicity, then of course it is. The level of religiosity is not related to that.
Dershowitz would call Herzl a secular Jew, since that is what set him aside from other ethnical Jews of his time and age. Debresser (talk) 23:54, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
Jayjg—why do you think "ethnic Jew" would be preferable to "secular Jew" for this particular purpose? You say "Don't try to turn this around; you want to make this change, so you have to come up with a compelling and honest explanation as to why you want to make it." Yes, I want to "make this change". Actually, there are several changes I'd like to make to the article. Individual words are incorrectly used in the article in its current state. And the article is organized in a way that does not make much sense. For instance you have one heading for 3 topics. The Ethnic definitions section consists of 3 topics. One topic is Jews who are not particularly religious. The word that indicates "not particularly religious" is "secular". Its definition is "not overtly or specifically religious". You apparently think "ethnic" would be preferable to "secular" in that particular usage. Can you explain why? When referring to Jews who are not particularly religious, why would you refer to them as "ethnic Jews"? "Ethnic" does not mean "not particularly religious". "Secular" means "not particularly religious". The dictionary definition of "secular" is "not overtly or specifically religious". Bus stop (talk) 23:52, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
Bus stop, do you want to remove or deprecate the term "ethnic Jew" because you think the word "ethnic" does not apply to Jews, because Judaism is primarily a religion? Jayjg (talk) 18:25, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
Jayjg—you are larding an irrelevancy into the article by substituting the little-used phrase "ethnic Jew" for the far more commonly used phrase—"secular Jew". It is also the more precise term. "Ethnic Jew" is the least used phrase of the phrases that have been discussed. Please explain why you insist on using a little-used term that does not even mean what you are trying to say. You are trying to reference Jews who are not particularly religious. "Secular" means "not overtly or specifically religious ". Why are you avoiding the term "secular"? Please explain why you prefer "ethnic Jew" to "secular Jew". Your assertions in the article are not supported by sources. I have only addressed "usage" concerns but an equally important concern is the absence of verifiability. Please provide a source supporting your assertion, for instance, that "Ethnic Jew is a term generally used to describe a person of Jewish parentage and background who does not necessarily actively practice Judaism". No source is provided. "Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed." You can't foist exceptionally imprecise terminology on the article. The terminology you are foisting on the article also is not widely in use. Finally, you are linking to something I said in 2007. If you look at the post immediately above mine, I was responding to you. Here is what you wrote: "Bus stop, Jews are an ethnicity in the exact same way that Italians or Greeks or Estonians are."[9] Doesn't that explain why you are so insistent on the term "ethnic Jew"? I have not gone searching through your edits from 2007, but as long as you have done so, isn't this relevant to why you favor the term "ethnic Jew"? We should be writing in plain English rather than contriving to use language that promotes your belief that "Jews are an ethnicity in the exact same way that Italians or Greeks or Estonians are." Bus stop (talk) 19:41, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
Bus stop, I asked you two simple questions in my previous post. Please answer them. Jayjg (talk) 20:22, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
Jayjg—you say "Bus stop, I asked you two simple questions in my previous post. Please answer them." OK, let us look at your "previous post". This is your "previous post": "Bus stop, do you want to remove or deprecate the term "ethnic Jew" because you think the word "ethnic" does not apply to Jews, because Judaism is primarily a religion?" No, of course not. I could not care less whether the word "ethnic" applies to Jews or not. I experience no compulsion to categorize Jews and Judaism as a religion, as an ethnicity, or as anything else. Your question seems irrelevant to me. You have several un-sourced assertions in what is currently called the Ethnic definitions section of the article. Only the very last 2 sentences ("Religious Jews of all denominations sometimes engage in outreach to non-religious ethnic Jews. In the case of some Hasidic denominations (e.g. Chabad-Lubavitch), this outreach extends to actively proselytizing more secular Jews") are supported by sources. I propose changing the section heading to "Jewish outreach". And I would eliminate the term "ethnic" from the first of those 2 sentences. The sentence will then read "Religious Jews of all denominations sometimes engage in outreach to non-religious Jews." Bus stop (talk) 00:55, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Bus stop, I asked those questions because in the past you have explicitly given those reasons for why you wanted to remove the term "ethnic Jew" from this article (and others). I don't have several un-sourced assertions in the article; I didn't write that material, and it's not my article. That said, I have no objection to your removing the word "ethnic" from that specific sentence. Jayjg (talk) 14:16, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Jayjg—unsourced assertions pertaining to ethnic Jews should be removed because no source supports those assertions. We do not tell people how to reference Jews. We use language to reference Jews. These are two different things. Thus, we can say there are Jews that do not observe rituals. And we can say secular Jews sometimes adopt different religions. That is the use of language, something we do at Wikipedia every day. But we don't say things like "Ethnic Jew is a term generally used to describe a person of Jewish parentage and background who does not necessarily actively practice Judaism". That is the misuse of language. You can look up the word "ethnic" and you can look up the word "secular" and see which one is more appropriate. I've made this edit to address some of these issues. Please don't add back the un-sourced material. Bus stop (talk) 15:12, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
Bus stop, you proposed removing one word from one sentence, and instead did a whole section re-write and rename, apparently based on your own personal/religious views. I knew it was a mistake to believe what you were posting on this talk page, but I thought I would assume good faith anyway. I won't make that mistake again. Jayjg (talk) 15:59, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
No, not "based on [my] own personal/religious views", Jayjg. Just so you know, I do not care one way or the other whether Judaism is portrayed as an ethnicity or a religion—but you need to support any assertions in that regard with sources. If you wish to insert a sentence into the article asserting that Judaism can be considered an ethnicity—be my guest. It does not concern me in the least. I would have no objections to the inclusion of any such assertions—but you must provide reliable sources to support any such assertions. For your information, I experience no compulsions to categorize Jews/Judaism as religion, ethnicity, culture, or "identity", although in the final analysis my personal opinion would be that "identity" fits best. But this basically is not an interest of mine. But the problem here is that you can't foist unsupported assertions on an article such as this. You are not free to portray Jews willy-nilly any way you please such as by saying "Ethnic Jew is a term generally used to describe a person of Jewish parentage and background who does not necessarily actively practice Judaism". You are creating reality out of whole cloth. No source supports that. Wikipedia doesn't get to create reality. I have removed that and you have re-added it. I'm going to ask you to abide by basic policy. "Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source." Sources are required to support assertions. Bus stop (talk) 16:57, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
Bus stop, you claim If you wish to insert a sentence into the article asserting that Judaism can be considered an ethnicity—be my guest. It does not concern me in the least., but your actions belie your words. We cannot ignore the fact that for the past 13 years you have been trying to remove the phrase "ethnic Jew" from Wikipedia; that the Talk: page archives of this article are filled with sections where you argue with at least a half-dozen other Wikipedia editors about why it is so important to you to remove this phrase from Wikipedia; and that you have repeatedly given various and varied reasons as to why you think it's so important to remove the phrase. As I've said before, you have to converse honestly on this Talk: page if you want to get somewhere. Also, your talk page comments continually attribute to me material that I have not written (e.g. you can't foist unsupported assertions on an article). The onus will not be reversed here: if you want to make a change to material that has been in the article for years, you will have to get consensus for it; any further comments you make that take this tack (pretending that I am the author of these statements, or trying to "foist" them on the article), will be ignored in toto. Again, the requirement here is that you communicate honestly. Please think very carefully about doing this in any further comments you make. Jayjg (talk) 18:10, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

What's an ethnic Jew? WOuld it be something like an ethnic Catholic? Can one be Jewish without being ethnic? So many serious matters to consider here.Achar Sva (talk) 04:49, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Regarding this specific question, I recommend reading the Final Afterward of Stephen Sharot's Comparative Perspective on Judaisms and Jewish Identities (Wayne State University Press, 2011), particularly pages 257 to 260. You might also want to review Jacob Neusner's article "Jew and Judaist, Ethnic and Religious" in Religion and the Creation of Race and Ethnicity (NYU Press, 2003, Chapter 5, pages 85-100) - almost 20 years old, but still relevant. If you have a lot of time, you might want to read Zvi Gitelman's Religion or Ethnicity?: Jewish Identities in Evolution (Rutgers University Press, 2009), which gives a longer historical perspective. Jayjg (talk) 15:39, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Slightly Unclear Wording

"The traditional European definition of Jewishness (although it was not uniform across Europe) defined a Jew as one belonging to the "Mosaic faith". That is, a Jew was someone who practiced Judaism.[73] The definition gradually changed at the beginning of the 20th century due to the emergence of racial ideology. The European definition is traditional in many respects and reflects not only how the Europeans saw Jews, but also how Jews saw themselves."

Is this claiming the traditional European definition (religious) reflected how Europeans and Jews saw themselves, or that the emergent view of Jews from the 20th century onwards (ancestral) better reflects that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.110.123.236 (talk) 19:53, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

On Venus, Have We Got a Rabbi!

It is an absolutely amusing and amazing novelette by William Tenn (readable online) playing with "A Jew is a one who is born by a Jewish mother". I am wondering in which article it can be mentioned. "A science fiction comedy, which takes place in the future during a “Neo-Zionist” Congress on the planet Venus. It is essentially about the “Who is a Jew?” question; in this case, a member of the tribe who much resembles a potato! " The author listed the story at his 6 favourites. Loew Galitz (talk) 06:55, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

​A brief search for sources suggests that the story (which I agree is amazing) is likely notable enough for its own article, if you wanted to start there: On Venus, Have We Got a Rabbi! ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 07:30, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 April 2023

Add section under Ethnic Definition --> Historical European Definition

Add a section that references or discusses "Nuremberg Race Laws". This is an important piece of history. While this standard didn't originate from Jewish people, it was still a very influential standard at the time that dictated many people's lives. Cuulcat151 (talk) 17:13, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. M.Bitton (talk) 21:29, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Adoption

There does not seem to be a discussion of the status of adopted kids - these, as I know from my wife’s experience, sit in a difficult space identity-wise 159.2.21.255 (talk) 11:52, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 July 2023

The part under 'nazism' contains an error, when saying that people were classified as jews based on their parents, grandparents etc religious community, being part of a jewish congregation. The 'Nazi' definition is solely based on race, not religion. Identification could be made by names only, without any membership to any congregation. It was the absurd idea of 'jewish blood/race' that was bad. The part presented here is not correct in this respect.

There is a huge amount of references to this. https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/N%C3%BCrnberger_Gesetze RamonWyss (talk) 13:47, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: for several reasons:

  • Your request is not in change from X to Y format. It's fine to raise general issues about an article as you have done here to start a discussion about possible changes, but unless you specify exactly what text you want to change and how, it is not appropriate to open an edit request.
  • The change you're requesting is potentially controversial, and you should probably seek consensus before having it made.
  • Wikipedia is not a reliable source. The article you linked may contain reliable sources supporting your arguments, but it is asking way too much of other editors to grind through them on your behalf.

If you resolve the above issues and no other editors are able to make the change, feel free to set the answered flag to "no" to reopen the request--this is preferable to opening a fresh request. Xan747 (talk) 18:31, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

nazism

The Nazi regime instituted laws which discriminated against Jews, declared a race by the Nazis, and thus needed a working definition of who is a Jew as to its law-defined race system. These definitions almost completely categorised persons through the religions followed by each individual's ancestors, according to membership registries. Thus, personal faith or individual observance, as well as the religious definitions of Judaism as given by the Halacha, were mostly ignored.

Suggested change: These definitions almost completely categorised persons through the identity of each individual's ancestors, according to either their religious membership as or through a family name that was jewish. Thus, personal faith or individual observance, as well as the religious definitions of Judaism as given by the Halacha, were mostly ignored.

In Germany itself, the Ahnenpass and the Nuremberg Laws classified people as being of the Jewish race if they were descended from three or four grandparents enrolled in Jewish congregations.

change to-> In Germany itself, the Ahnenpass and the Nuremberg Laws classified people as being of the Jewish race if they were descended from three or four grandparents enrolled in Jewish congregations or their grndparents could be identified as Jewish through their last name. The Nazi regime differentiated between the Jews by faith 'Geltungsjuden' and Jews that did not belong to a Jewish congregation, but were of Jewish race 'Volljuden', see also https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volksz%C3%A4hlung_im_Deutschen_Reich_1939 RamonWyss (talk) 10:48, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Who_is_a_Jew%3F/Archive_8&oldid=1210744059"