Talk:Who is a Jew?

Jubus, etc.

Jewish Buddhists and others should get a mention. How does Reform regard a Jew who practices yoga or Zen, joins the Hare Krishna, etc.? Are the standards different than for Christianity or Islam? Has this sort of issue ever been litigated in Israel? Thanks--Dawud — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.37.203.46 (talk) 01:07, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Comment from Daveout

@Daveout: you wrote "What a bunch of POV-pushing bullshit. Anyone can convert to Judaism. That's not why or how they justify their presence in the holly land. Rather, it's bc they were there far before the arab invasion. thus they are the indigenous ppl of the land. (among other reasons like seeking safety from persecution, etc)"

Since "Anyone can convert to Judaism" what do you mean by "they are the indigenous ppl of the land" – i.e. how can a person convert to indigeneity?!

Onceinawhile (talk) 21:46, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

oh oh, i guess someone is (deliberately) conflating "citizenship and religion" with "ethnicity". 🤭🤭🤭. No white person can convert into black. (except Rachel Dolezal). That's ethnicity.

But black, white and even ginger ppl can convert to Judaism and become Israeli jews. "oH rAcE iS sO iMporTanT tO rAcIst jEws aND tHeiR nAzi eTHnoStaTe😭😭😭" –Daveout(talk) 22:20, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

I don’t understand what you just wrote. Perhaps let’s pause this conversation until things are less heated. Onceinawhile (talk) 23:00, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

How about a riddle? Does a Palestinian refugee like linda Sarsour lose her "Palestinian indigeneity" claim bc she was born in the US? And what about her offspring? And if a Frenchman converts to islam and becomes a Palestinian citizen, does it mean that all Palestinians lose their right to claim indigeneity? hhhmmm🤔 –Daveout(talk) 00:21, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

No and no. But the Frenchman has not become an “indigenous Palestinian”, just a Palestinian citizen, so he has no “right to return”. Onceinawhile (talk) 10:08, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Last paragraph in Lead

I undid last paragraph in lead since it is not neutral and reflects POV. Furthermore, badly and hastily written. If you wish to include this, then its best suited to a body.

This sentence: " by which those on the right-wing look for "a way of proving the occupation is legitimate, of authenticating the ethnos as a natural fact, and of defending Zionism as a return"." Is supported only by one scholar. For one thing it's clearly wrong in the essence that the Right of Return is advocated by the Left Wing and Right wing in Israel, as well as broadly supported in Jewish Communities. Furthermore, the Jewish People are a group that identify with each other. The writing here that there is need to "authenticate" is in my opinion rather manipulative. Another matter is in reference to the genetic studies and its proving of Jewish origin in the South Western Levant. But that is a different page (Zionism). And not the classification of who can become or who is a Jew, which is of a religious nature and unrelated to the occupation but controlled by the Chief Rabbinate in the Orthodox Stream and by other Rabbinic councils in others streams of Judaism, not on legitimizing the occupation.

I think therefore the sentence ought to be altered or removed. Homerethegreat (talk) 12:51, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

The question of “who is a Jew” is centrally important within Zionism as a logical requirement of the Jewish claim to land in Israel-Palestine, and thus supporters of Zionism have been deeply involved in defining the answer to this question over the last hundred years or so. I am sure we can both agree on this fact.

I agree we can and should improve the wording, but we must not hide it. Onceinawhile (talk) 12:59, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

This is an article about religion, not Zionism , occupation, or the Arab/Palestinian conflict. The lead should summarize the most significant aspects of the topic, and the controversial insertion, seemingly conflating religious identity with political issues, distracts from the article's core subject and is not at all justified per WP:DUE / WP:LEDE. It is entirely off-topic. Marokwitz (talk) 13:51, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Please read the article. A good half of the article is under the following headings:

Ethnic definitions (Public opinion, Historical European definitions, DNA, "Half-Jewish"), Other non-religious definitions, Legal structure in Israel (Judaism test, Law of Return, Israeli laws governing marriage and divorce, Israeli definition of nationality, Outside Israel), Other definitions (Sociology and anthropology, The Inquisition, Secular philosophy, Antisemitic definitions, Nazism).

The suggestion that the article is only about religion is clearly incorrect.

The lede text under discussion refers explicitly to numerous topics within the above. Onceinawhile (talk) 20:14, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Yet the lead talks about none of those important topics. The lead should consist of 4 paragraphs that represent a succint summary the content of the article. Edit warring to keep the sentence those on the right-wing look for "a way of proving the occupation is legitimate, of authenticating the ethnos as a natural fact, and of defending Zionism as a return" in the lead, is one of the most blatant cases of political POV that I have seen on Wikipedia. Please remove it . This is not policy compliant and the consensus in this talk page is to remove. Marokwitz (talk) 21:44, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

@Homerethegreat - unless a good policy-based explanation is given to include this paragraph in the lead in accordance with WP:DUE / WP:LEDE , you have consensus to remove it. Marokwitz (talk) 22:01, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, was offline. The Lead seems more satisfactory now. Homerethegreat (talk) 09:43, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

@John Yunshire, I'm sorry I forgot to include your name in the talk. (I was wondering why you didn't answer :) ). Homerethegreat (talk) 18:08, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

The last sentence in the lede isn’t remotely appropriate for this section, and is also severely not NPOV. It should be relegated to the appropriate section.

Mistamystery (talk) 22:08, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

“ which those on the right-wing look for "a way of proving the occupation is legitimate, of authenticating the ethnos as a natural fact, and of defending Zionism as a return".”

This is pure opinion, and is absolutely inappropriate for an article lede. Needs to go (at least from the section) now.

Mistamystery (talk) 22:09, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree that this sentence makes absolutely no sense in the lead. The lead is for summarizing the article, not for SOAPBOXing about Zionism. Even if there was reason to add it to the article (which is arguable and WP:UNDUE as far as I understand), it wouldn't belong in the lead. AlexEng^(TALK) 07:14, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 February 2024

I think we should add to the first paragraph that Humanistic Judaism accepts patrilineal descent, matrilineal descent and conversion (called adoption into Judaism by humanistic Judaism). Maybe after the part where it mentions that Recounstructionist Judaism is similar

This change would go after

source: https://shj.org/organize/social-justice-issues-and-resolutions/who-is-a-jew/ Flowingblaze (talk) 00:21, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. - FlightTime (open channel) 00:23, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Why out religious definitions first when the ethnic definition is what gets citizenship and what the majority of Jewish people consider relevant.

Just y'know seems odd to put religion first given all of that. 2604:3D09:D78:1000:C149:7FD0:EC31:824E (talk) 10:33, 30 April 2024 (UTC)