Talk:Who is a Jew?/Archive 4

Using this page as a summary/link page and having more pages on sub-sections of interest

this page is actually quite long.

many people in talk have wanted to add further information but been disueded from doing so.

also the other page on jewish identity whilst on a similar sounding topic is quite different, but does contain a lot of links

so i suggest that all the information on wikipedia relating to the definitions of jewishness should be placed in a well organised summary form on one over-arching page to be called i suggest "definitions of jewish" or something similar. and the sections of this article mostly spread out to separate articles on e.g. the different religious definitions, includimg the patrilineality v matrilineality debate; the laws of the state of israel; different communities and tribes and also linking to the article Jewish identity also the sections about the nazi definitions and sections on any other historical definitions could become separate linked articles, perhaps definitions by outsiders, hostiles, and by host communities of the diaspora could be considered as (a) separate topic/topics, however organised but still refferred to in the summary and then linked to and also included in the category. And many if not all of the headings referred to in the merger debate could become linked articles with a short intro in the summary article. all of the articles could be grouped in a wikipedia category "jewish" or something like that.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.27.221.233 (talk) 18:00, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

the links from the Jewish identity page could also be included on the summarising page.

after the fall of nazi germany

(roughly) how many jewish people have there been(that fit most standards stated in this article)?

That question falls outside the scope of this article, but is tough to answer in relation to this article, because this article talks about different standards which conflict, not one standard against which all jews measure all other jews. By the most halachic definiton, you might get an answer of 25 million, but against a standard based on some DNA component, or based on self-identification which includes children of jewish fathers but not mothers, and the tribes not recognized by halacha, you might get up to 40 or 50 million, maybe more. The answer varies by the standard applied, and htis articles' about the debates about the standards applied. Sorry there's no easy answer, and the numbers I used are examples, not facts in and of themselves. ThuranX 06:52, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

No idea where you get your numbers from. The number of Jews in the world is between 13 and 14 millions. DNA is not a criteria for Jewish identity. If you include the non-Halachic self-identifying Jews (people with a Jewish father or converted by Reforms etc...) you may add a few millions - mostly in the USA. Benjil 09:30, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

So... you missed where I said the number are examples, not facts, right? ThuranX 22:00, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

"By the most halachic definiton, you might get an answer of 25 million" - why exactly did you find the need to make up this number when you can find the actual known number anywhere, including wikipedia ? Why did you answer the question if you had no idea what you are talking about ? Benjil 06:17, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

No thanks, not gonna let you troll me. I gave example numbers and specifically disclaimed them as fact, using different sets of numbers to illustrate how the various ideas in the article generate different answers, and told him to look elsewhere. Any more discussion on this issue is not worth it to me. You're looking to generate conflict, I'm not interested in that. I probably could've looked it up, but I'm also not interested in promoting Wikipedia as an answer board for kids who need answers for summer school. ThuranX 16:30, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

"I want to generate conflict" says the guy who wrote about a conspiracy of "White European Jews" and then accused me of racism with no reason ? Wikipedia is a serious encyclopedia, not a forum for you strange propaganda. Please refrain from participating if you do not intend to contribute to the improvement of the article according to academic criteria. Benjil 17:19, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Halakhically speaking, there are probably several hundred million Jews...the vast majority of them, however, don't know it, and most couldn't care less. Tomer^talk 22:37, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

They are Halakhically Jews who are not aware of it, and nobody knows how much exactly but certainly not "several hundred million", more certainly "several hundred thousands" mostly in former Eastern Europe and Russia. Benjil 08:53, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Jewish history is far longer than the past century of government-sponsored apostasy in Eastern Europe and Russia. Tomer^talk 14:31, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes it is. Jews have left the Jewish people willingly or not over the centuries. I doubt many if any of their descendants can show a full line of Jewish mothers since then. And unless they could prove it, they would not be recognized as Jews by a Bet Din, so they won't be Jews (and even proving it is not always enough, but this is debatable). So no, there are no hundred millions halakhically Jews out. Benjil 15:05, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

There is no such requirement of proof. Halakhically, they are still Jews, irrespective of whether they know it, much less can prove it. This is an exercise in hypothesis, not demonstration. The original question was not "how many people can prove they're Jews to a beth din?" The answer to that is, "Probably less than the majority of the commonly cited 13-14 million Jews"... Rather the actual question was "how many Jews have there been...?" (emphasis mine). The answer to that is impossible afaik to determine, but it's deeply entangled in the question I was answering, which was "How many Jews would there be [were epikorsim not so prevalent]?" Tomer^talk 15:25, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

No Halakhically they are not until a Bet Din says so. If someone has been separated from the Jewish people for generations, he MUST prove that he is Jewish or convert. But that's not the problem, that's theoretical as you said. As I wrote, after generations of intermarriage, there is not even a slight statistically measurable chance that they can be halakhically jewish. Benjil 15:57, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

All of this is pointless, as it's entirely speculative, and belongs on a forum, not on Wikipedia. This discussion can't add to the article, as it's already been admitted, even by TShilo, that this is hypothesis. Please find a good off wiki-forum, or at least use your talk pages for this. I gave hypothetical numbers, because Wikipedia's article talk pages arent' here to do other people's homework, and because I didn't want to spend the time doing all the cited lookups for current numbers. To continue speculation into the numbers now, without extensive sociopolitical information on all regions inhabited by jews, cross referenced with plagues, migrations, and so on and on, makes it all useless guesswork. Good luck arguing it out, and have fun, but take it elsewhere, thank you. ThuranX 16:28, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

No, halakha only requires that they have a Jewish mother, which requires that she have a Jewish mother, which requires that she have a Jewish mother, etc. ad historiam. A beth din is only required when such a person whose status is in doubt wishes to assert their Jewishness for some purpose, say marriage to a Jew, etc. I don't have to prove to a beth din that my great great great grandmother was Jewish in order to say "I'm a Jew", nor am I required to prove to a beth din that I am, in fact, Jewish, in order to halakhically be Jewish. The "hundreds of millions", for what it's worth, comes from a purely hypothetical statement here (note that even then at least as many Jews lived in Mesopotamia and surrounding regions, as lived in the Roman Empire), it's not some fanciful thing I, in my boundless insanity, just invented out of thin air. That said, as ThoranX astutely points out, this discussion is quickly becoming utterly irrelevant to the article. Tomer^talk 18:54, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Exactly - discussing who is a Jew is totally irrelevant to the article "Who is a Jew?"... I think anyway you misunderstood what your source said, it is saying "if the percentage of Jews was the same today as it was in the Roman Empire there would be 200 millions Jews". It's different and yes totally speculative and this is irrelevant to the article indeed. Benjil 19:30, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

damn it, Jim, I'm a doctor, not a vet! but even so, this horse looks dead, jim, dead. ThuranX 09:48, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

removed comments

I have removed comments by Ferju (talk · contribs). Anyone who cares to read them can look here. I would like to remind the community not to bite or feed.Jon513 18:41, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Fake Jews?

How can someone be a fake Jew? What are these two verses referring to? Revelation 2:9 I know thy works, and tribulation, and poverty, (but thou art rich) and I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan. Revelation 3:9 Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie; behold, I will make them to come and worship before thy feet, and to know that I have loved thee. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.57.26.44 (talk) 04:35, August 24, 2007 (UTC)

I suppose that would be be answered by a Christian theologist. There's an entire branch of that discipline dealing with the apocalypse. I'm not sure that there's any value to that in this article, though. ThuranX 04:38, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Quoting the New Testament, especially the Book of Revelations, has no bearing whatsoever to an article titled "Who is a Jew?" Eddy23 (talk) 05:44, 29 December 2007 (UTC)Eddy23

Are Neo-Nazis with one Jewish grandparent Jewish?

Those were among the folks that Israel allowed onto its turf as per the Law of Return. — Rickyrab | Talk 17:06, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

People with Jewish mothers are Jewish. If the "one Jewish grandparent" to which you refer is the mother's mother, you have a Jew with a Jewish mother. Any other grandparent does not count, nor do any political beliefs. The situation to which you refer is one which clearly demonstrates how the Law of Return is not merely an application of Jewish Law.FlaviaR 21:53, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Questions from FlaviaR

(FlaviaR left replies all over the talk page, some to sections long settled. I am reposting those sections which have bearing on current issues on the page, and NOT reposting those sections where she tries talking to trolls, or Bus Stop, or in threads over 12 months old.)ThuranX 21:09, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

a) Someone asked me to help out, I didn't realize stuff was old b) if I have hard time telling the difference between trolls & people who are just wrong, that says something, too.FlaviaR 02:22, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

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

No, it would not. Your comment on this issue is absolutist, and ignores the very controversy presented by this article. The issue of ethnicity has been discussed at length, using both internal definitions, halakhic and cultural, and external, by governments and other religions. There is a variety of responses to the question, this article attempts to address the question, the debate, and various answers; it does not try to 'answer' the question. ThuranX 21:17, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

So, IOW, you people are going to do whatever the hell you want without regard for the facts. So much for me bothering to help. You winFlaviaR 02:22, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

No, you seem to feel this entire article should answer the question "who is a jew?". It doesn't do that. It discusses the numerous answers which Jewish thinking and world societies have evinced over the years, and the current state of the discussion. There are some editors who feel that the entire article should give the halakha definition, and ignore or summarily dismiss all other aspects of the discussion. ethnicity has been discussed at length here, consensus is that there are enough facts to support inclusion of the Ethnicity component here, not least among them the fact that there are still jews alive whose forearms demonstrate that their Jewish Identity was considered an ethnicity in an incredibly notable recent event. I know that there are some folks who want it to be only religious, and only Halakha, but again, that would be omitting massive areas of the debate on Jewish identity. This is a complex issue, and editors who claim to 'know the truth/facts/real jewish rules of identity' find this a tough article to deal with. Please remember to see this as the explanation of how groups answer the question, not an absolutist 'halakha is the only way'. ThuranX 02:52, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

IOW, let Jew-haters define Judaism. Unless you clearly state that abberant definitions of Judaism are just that, you are letting people who are either ignorant or who actvely hate Jews get to define *equally with Jewish law* "Who is a Jew." That's just sick. FlaviaR 15:00, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

First and foremost, stsop with the insults and personal attacks. I am NOT a jew-hater, and I am not actively nor tacitly 'letting people who are either ignorant or who actvely hate Jews get to define *equally with Jewish law* "Who is a Jew."'. Nor am I sick. I am a Jew. I am writing an encyclopedia. There is MORE than one answer to the question. This article addresses the question. There is a lot of cultural debate about it. The other views are not aberrant, unless you consider all of Reform Judaism, Conservative Judaism, Liberal Judaism, and so on, all but Orthodox Judiasm 'aberrant'. IF that's the case, I will say this only once, leave this article, you will NEVER be happy here. If that's not the case, then you need to accept there are multiple answers. There are scholarly debates. There are civil definitions in Israel, and by other governments. All of these aspects of the debate should be, and most of these are, addressed here. That is right for an encyclopedia. If you can't accept that there are multiple answers, you really do need to move on. This article can not, and will not be reduced to 'Jews are only defined by halakha" Such a view ignores major issues about the identity of the Kai Feng Jews, the Lemba, and so on. Major groups of Self-identifying jews, some of whom migrated before Deuteronomy was written, and thus, like the lemba, don't know Chanukah, but know Pesach and Yom Kippur. Are they Jews? according to a four book Torah, yes. According to a five book Torah, no. This article includes the debates there. Unless yoiu can provide some amazingly transcendant reasons why such aspects of the question MUST NOT be addressed here, please, please, re-read, reevaluate your thinking, and if needed, move on. Thank you. ThuranX 21:18, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

First & foremost, stop assuming them. I said what you were doing, and it is what you are doing

And I never said you were - reread what I wrote.

No, there isn't, that's the problem.FlaviaR 02:16, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

You are if you insist that it can be answered any other way than the way Jewish law defines it. It's one thing to say "people think otherwise", but it's wrong to say their answers are just as valid.

Except, of course, that even those religions you discuss also agree with the answer. Reform Jews actually insist on an even mor ereligious content than other Jews do.FlaviaR 02:16, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, which I have been at pains to point out applies only in Israel, because it's Israeli law.FlaviaR 02:16, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

And that's not true, either.FlaviaR 02:16, 18 September 2007 (UTC)::::There are only major issues if you insist on interpreting "WHo is a Jew" any way you feel ike interpreting it.FlaviaR 02:16, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Since it is clear that Wikipedia really isn't about the truth, I guess I will have to agree with all those who have sneered at its usefulness. Until this minute, I have been defending it to everyone who insists that it's highly suspectFlaviaR 02:16, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

It looks like you must've misread it, I don't see a major edit changing things. ThuranX 21:17, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Let's reduce the heat a little. The purpose of the article is to give a factual and historical account of the "Who is a Jew?" debate. It is not to answer "who is a Jew?". Still less should it address "what is Jewishness?". --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) 11:33, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I've been trying to explain that, to little avail, but thanks. ThuranX 03:30, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Maybe that's because

a) you didn't exactly say that but rather told me that everything I was saying was incorect b) I couldn't believe that Wikipedia would then be trying to have such an incredibly POINTLESS article! I'd mark it for deletion if I didn't know you guys would drag it right back out again.FlaviaR 06:00, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Not pointless at all. The "Who is a Jew" debate is a significant part of modern Israeli politics. Maybe the part setting out the different views could be shortened a bit, and there should be a longer section setting out the political history, with the various court rulings, attempts to change the law etc. And if you look at some of the replies to previous postings, I (and others) have explained many, many times that "we are just trying to set out the different views, it is not the place of an encyclopaedia to say which is right". --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) 07:50, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly concur with you about this being an Israeli political question; the religious implications are definitely a separate matter & should be covered under the Judaism article - which brings us back to the point about this entry being superfluous. However, the whole "not the place to say which is right" thing is definitely being treated very cavalierly all over Wikipedia. I am not about to sit idly by while it is abused to muddy the waters in this particular instance. There is no way all views on this subject deserve "equal time" - some of them are downright crackpot (e.g., the "Khazar theory").FlaviaR 13:20, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I am not the only saying this to you repeatedly. This is an encyclopedia. This is not AskMoses.com, and it it not 'Chasidicansersaretheonlytrueanswers.com' We are engaged in a full reporting of the many approaches to the question, the many interpretations of the debate, and the many opinions as to the answer. We already accept that to YOU personally, the only answer is 'a person born of a jewish mother, or a person who undergoes a Chassidic conversion.'. However, this is not a FAQ site either. If you cannot 'get' that this is an article ABOUT the questsion, not an article answering the question, then this really is an article you should leave alone. there are over two million articles, I'm sure you can find others of interest to you. I recommend trying some where your world-view won't conflict with the objective factual reporting. ThuranX 21:12, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

For someone who claims to be objective & factual you have put words in my mouth no less than 3 times in the above statement, and all as an acceleration of other false characterizations- in which you also claim to be joined by others who have made no such false characterizations - you have stated before. You have shown by your insults and bullying behavior - both on and off this page - show far more about you than you have tried to say about me. Another point I find interesting is that people who have been making some of the same observations I have about Jewish law have gone unremarked upon by you.FlaviaR 13:20, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Seeing this discussion fill up my watchlist makes me wonder why there is so much arguing going on and on about an article which seems to present everything in a fairly well and neutral manner. I've known that every once and a while, single-minded editors such as Bus stop (with whom I have much experience) will come around and push their own POV, but the article as a whole seems to present the major views in a manner which does justice to the different perspectives. That being said, what in the world is the burning issue?--C.Logan 18:07, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

While I disagree with your description of the article, I can see by the way my views are being so horribly distorted shows that the "burning" sensation is not all on one side.FlaviaR 19:14, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

In a nutshell, then, present me "FlaviaR's views for Dummies". I've dealt with an editor who had later become problematic in this article for a (seemingly) similar argument, although you seem far and above more willing to discuss things rather than to edit war as he did.--C.Logan 19:52, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I present them further down in my answer to Thuranx who has insisted on answering for me. And no, I was not going to edit anything, because I knew it would be futile, and I certainly didn't want ThuranX to tattle on me to any other administrator.FlaviaR 21:20, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

She has made her view on the subject clear above. "People with Jewish mothers are Jews." All else are not, all other interpretations are lies, perpetrated by neo-nazis, anti-semites, or Jew-haters, including myself. She believes that there is ONE answer to the question, and this article should be an ANSWER to the question, not an investigatino of the question and the responses. it's simple, and she should either learn how to act on Wikipedia, or move on. ThuranX 20:10, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

This is a complete & total lie. I did NOT say people without Jewish mothers cannot be Jewish - at least you were honest enough not to put that into quotes and pretend it represented the whole of my views. But at least you are actually quoting me with cites, as opposed to making up false quotes and pretending I said them, even if you are only partially quoting me to make your false case. I specifically said that Jewish law - as defined by Jews, all Jews, not Hitler or Kevin MacDonald or any other Jew-hater - allows for conversion. It is your own fault that you give equal credence to non-Jewish interpretations of Judaism, not mine.FlaviaR 21:20, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

At this point, I invoke Godwin's Law. FlaviaR has just, in effect, for the SECOND TIME, called ME a Nazi for giving credence to Nazis, Hitler, Kevin MacDonald (who knew the Kids in the Hall's 'hole in the sheet' skit would offend so many?) and 'any other Jew-hater. I see no reason to respond to her behavior here further. ThuranX 21:47, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

IOW, ThuranX has just come up with a way to get out of the acknowledging the fact that he has completely and constantly falsified my statements. Well done!FlaviaR 02:05, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

No, ThuranX has realized that you will keep calling him a jew-hater, and he's not interested in that. ThuranX 02:28, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Gee, must be why ThuranX has STILL REFUSED to explain why he's CONSISTENTLY MISREPRESENTED my views, and has changed his mind about talking to me, only to still avoid that point.FlaviaR 05:01, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

NO, I have NOT misrepresented anything. Your opening premise was that in this article, there's Halakha, and then there are a lot of other untrue facts added by jew-hating folks like myself. Since then, you've done nothign but repeat your bigoted narrowminded extremist view that anyone not accepting that Halakha provides the only relevant definition for Jewish identity is a nazi extremist, christian liar, or jew hater in general. I've seen nothing from you that isn't essentially hate speech. There has been nothing to respond to. You do not understand Wikipedia, and you probably never will. I simply see no reason to continue to humor your bigoted mindset. Wikipedia's about creating informative articles, not providing a platform for various religious agendas. ThuranX 00:32, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you absolutely did, because you keep insisting that I said "Orthodox Jewish Law" when I never said any such thing. YOU have said it. Several times. And you ratcheted it up to "Chassidic" in one attempt when the previous one didn't work. The only bigot & hate speaker here is you - and you insistence on falsely applying to me now, several times over the page, is only proving my point: that you are lying about me & trying to bully me off Wikipedia. It's not going to work. For someone who keeps pretending he's not going to talk to me anymore, you sure find ways to tell even bigger lies about me - is it because not only does no one else believe what you are saying, but because someone else has flat-out told you you are wrong?.FlaviaR 23:22, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Please, ThuranX. I know exactly what you are saying, and agree with a lot of it. But just when I had presented it in a non-inflammatory way so as to allow FlaviaR and us to find a common way forward (for example by renaming the article "The 'Who is a Jew' debate", or giving more political history), you had to weigh in with invective again! That is not the way to win friends and influence people.

FlaviaR, presenting more than one view does not mean giving equal weight to every crackpot theory. Reform Judaism is a substantial social reality, whatever you think of it religiously, and cannot be dismissed as equivalent to someone who says that Jews come from outer space. And for the life of me, I cannot see that the purely social and organisational fact that "Reform Jewish movements operate a set of rules X" is not encyclopedically relevant, or that stating that fact in any way amounts to condoning those rules as religiously valid.

For what it is worth, my own view is that the question is meaningless. The social facts on the ground, which alone are encyclopedically relevant, are: Orthodox operate one set of rules of recognition. Other movements operate different rules. Israeli law has various shifting definitions. Some people on the penumbra feel a looser sentimental attachment to Jewish identity, without necessarily qualifying under any of these rules. But all this affects is who is treated as a Jew by the respective authorities for their different purposes, and that is the only relevant question: "who is a Jew" means, and only means, "who is treated as a Jew for a given purpose". As the late great Yeshayahu Leibowitz said, I know what I mean by a Jew, for all I care the Israeli authorities could pass a law saying that a Jew means anyone who puts green paint on his nose. It is meaningless to go on to ask which of these sets of rules best represents who is really a Jew, as if there were some underlying metaphysical and ontological reality beyond the rules. This would mean (e.g.) that something "happens" in the course of an Orthodox conversion which fails to happen in the course of a conversion by another movement. That is transubstantiation, which is Catholic not Jewish (even according to the Kabbalah, conversion does not cause something metaphysical to happen, it merely recognises a Jewish soul that is already there). In other words, it is wrong to speak of Orthodox and Reform VIEWS (i.e. beliefs reflecting, or failing to reflect, a spiritual reality). There are Orthodox and Reform RULES (creating, rather than reflecting, a social reality). For more on this distinction, see Menachem Kellner, "Maimonides' Confrontation with Mysticism".

Accordingly, I think the balance of the article is about right. However, the structure is awful. To be consistent, it should either have main divisions into Orthodox/Reform/Conservative/other, and then within each movement, the respective views and practices on birth/conversion/apostacy/repentance, or else the other way round. As it is, it has nest within nest within nest, and thus keeps jogging back and forth between the different movements and the different issues. I'll have a go sometime when I have the time. --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) 11:26, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I am seriously upset that you have bought ThuranX's falsified version of my views. I said NOTHING about any type of Jew - it was HE who introduced the term "Orthodox" when he tried to shut me up, and, when that didn't work, ratcheted it up to "Chasidic." I made absolutely no such claims in any way. What I am saying is that the religious aspects of the question belong under "Judaism", and the political aspects under Israeli law. This entire page is redundant at best and insulting at worst. Do we have pages giving air to those who believe Xianity is paganism? Do we allow Islamic fundamentalists to define all other religions as blasphemy? No. Why should we then give voice to Jew-haters, with a white-wash of their views as "controversial"? (Note: I stopped reading your answer after I noticed that you were fooled into thinking I had said anything about the Reform, or, indeed,any specific type of Jew at all - a quick glance showed that it was nothing that was relevant to what I was saying - I explain this so you know that I meant no disrespect, but only that I was discussing other things)FlaviaR 21:20, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Do we have pages giving air to those who believe Xianity is paganism?

Actually, a great many pages dealing with this subject specifically or peripherally do in fact "give air" to these notions. That being said, I don't mind at all, because of WP's basic notion of non-censorship and NPOV. It doesn't matter if I think that these views are wrong- the assertions have been made, and therefore it is valid to include them within Wikipedia, while giving proper context.--C.Logan 21:56, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Then I will have to look for myself to see if the "proper context" is as weak as it is when certain horrendous "theories" are merely called "controversial", as they are on this page.FlaviaR 01:59, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Haven't found them, yetFlaviaR 05:01, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I also think that some of the material in "other approaches" and "secular views" is not about "who is a Jew" but about "what is a Jew", and should be removed to the article on Jewish identity. --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) 11:37, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, just one more clarification. I think, FlaviaR, that you find difficulty with the notion that "we are here to present competing views, not to decide which is right" because Wikipedia is surely about facts rather than opinions, and would otherwise descend into a bog of total relativism (e.g. on Holocaust denial).

I have great sympathy with that. On the other hand, there are facts and facts. That certain people hold a given opinion is a fact in itself, independent of the truth of the underlying issue. Sometimes, especially in the case of religion, it is only the debate, and not the answer, that is capable of being a "fact" within encyclopedic limits.

Let me give you an example to make it a bit clearer. I think, and presumably you think, that many of the beliefs of Christianity are untrue; and if we are right, the falsity of Christianity is a fact like any other. On the other hand, it is not a fact that an encyclopedia can possibly address: it can only talk about the existence of Jewish and Christian beliefs as social and historical phenomena, and not about their validity. Surely you would not want to edit an article on "religions of the world" to say "Judaism is right, and the rest are forms of avodah zarah", even if you think that this is factually true?

So I am only asking you to observe the same limitation in the present article. Does that make sense now? --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) 12:03, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I thank you for pointing this out - it is exactly my views on the subject.FlaviaR 05:01, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your politeness, but you have also taken ThuranX's misrepresentation of my views are accurate. FlaviaR 21:20, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi! I believe the Jewish identity article deals with an individual's personal subjective perception of being Jewish (independent of any external norms or other validators), while this article deals with external norms, which may disagree with what an individual subjectively thinks. To the extent "secular views" etc. can contain normative approaches to how a Jew is externally defined , I think they belong here. Secular thought tends to let self-perceptions influence norms, and since those who define being a Jew by whether the individual subjectively perceives he or she is a Jew, agree with them or not, are numerous enough to be notable, this definition should be included in this article. (Similarly, people's self-perceptions are often influenced by what other people think, and to that exent some information about norms is relevant to the Jewish identity article). Best, --Shirahadasha 16:17, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

And this is where the whole thing is insulting. Are articles on other religions bogged down with how outsiders define them?FlaviaR 21:20, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

It wouldn't seem to be the case. However, Judaism seems to have a special case scenario, given its own self-conflicting definitions of "Who is a Jew?", amongst other things. Even within the major divisions of Judaism, the requirements for terming one as a 'Jew' are not interchangeable, and as Judaism is considered to be both a religious and a cultural (or even racial) state of being, it complicates the issue further. Therefore, the fact of the matter is that there are many different sources, some of them "outsiders", which have made an attempt to define what a 'Jew' happens to be. Per WP:NPOV, we cannot shun certain assertions simply because they disagree with personal sentiment.--C.Logan 21:56, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

So when feminists disagree with what feminism is, we let men decide what it is for them? Judaism "seems to have a special case scenario" because Judaism defines itself differently than Western Xian people are used to. It doesn't mean non-Jews should ever get to define it. The requirements for terming oneself a Jew are, in fact, the same throughout Judaism - as I said, it consists of either being born a Jew, or joining Judaism. It's *there* that the details come in, and *there* that it differs between Jews, both as groups and as individuals. However, none of this leaves room for interpretation from *outsiders*, especially if they have an agenda concerning it. I have heard plenty of disagreements between various branches of Xianity as to who is/not a Xian, and they don't appreciate non-Xians telling them who is/not a Xian - and, as you said, it's not on Wikipedia. There is a double standard at work, and cloaking it is NPOV is pretty indefensible. FlaviaR 01:55, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Again, this is not the first time I've joined a discussion concerning this topic. I know that at least some of the people here remember Bus stop's contributions, and how I somehow argued with him for over 60 days about the fact that an individual can be considered "Jewish" and "Christian" simultaneously, given the definition. He refused to acknowledge this scenario, despite that fact that hundreds of thousands of individuals self-identify as such- and as "Jewish atheists", "Jewish Buddhists", etc.

All these terms are in-and-of themselves a little confusing. If one is a Jewish Christian, does this make them a person born to a Jewish cultural (racial?) background who practices Catholicism? Or does it refer to an individual who has joined a 'Jewish Christian' sect? If one is a Jewish Buddhist, are they Buddhists of Jewish background? Or are have they syncretized the two belief systems by taking the philosophies of atheistic Buddhism and applying it to their theistic beliefs? That's where confusion happens to arise. How many of the previous examples would be considered "Jewish", and by whose definition?

That's the point of this article, and that's why we should acknowledge that this question has uncovered many different answers over the years, and outside sources have themselves arrived at the same problem, and attempted to provide an answer (if even for the most regrettable of reasons). If such "outside" definitions were in existence for Christianity, I wouldn't have an issue with such views being included (and to some extent, they are, as Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses are considered "Christian" by various statistical and analytical sources, although those within other denominations might not think so- I have no problem on a wide scale with these individuals being considered "Christians", whether or not I agree... anyone who gets riled up about that simple categorization has a maturity problem).

Again, there's not so much a problem in defining a "Christian" in the first place- it's just a religion, and therefore individuals of certain common beliefs are grouped under that banner. Judaism is more than that, and that's the purpose of this very article, and what has also led to the progressive development of 'outsider' definitions. So if the views exist, note them. No one is claiming they're correct- just that they've been claimed.--C.Logan 04:47, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

From everything I've read of his, I think he was more worried about people then thinking you can practice both simultaneously. AFAIK, he believes in Orthodox Jewish law, which says that no matter what a Jew believes/practices, s/he is still a Jew. FlaviaR 05:01, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

FlaviaR, I apologize for misunderstanding your views, I now appreciate that you weren't trying to exclude or marginalise Reform or Israeli-law definitions, but only categorisations by non-Jews (such as the Marxist view that Jews are an economic class, or Sartre's (earlier) view that they are defined by the existence of anti-Semitism, or the various crackpot racialist theories). I also consider that these do not belong in the article, but for a different reason: they concern, not "who is a Jew" but "what is a Jew". So far, I think we are in agreement. However, these views must belong somewhere, though probably in a different article.

The difficulty comes with Jewish identity as perceived by secular Jews. Most people would consider that a born Jew who has abandoned Judaism is still a Jew in some sense, and for once this agrees with halachah: whether we call this "ethnic" is playing with words. (Jews for Jesus, and formal converts to mainstream Christianity, are another issue: by halachah they are technically Jewish but their right to exercise their status is in abeyance.) But what about those patrilineal Jews who consider themselves "Jewish" or "half-Jewish" in a sentimental or cultural sense, but who are not religious and therefore do not choose to affiliate with a Reform or Liberal congregation where this status is recognised? There is nothing rigorous or scientific about this, but the sentiment is a powerful one and needs to be mentioned and documented somehow.

People do get very hot under the collar about purely verbal issues, don't they? My long rant earlier could be summed up very simply by saying that proponents of the different views do not differ on any question of fact, but are simply using the word "Jew" in different senses. Can we be friends? --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) 09:12, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I can understand your misunderstanding - you would have had to have read everything I wrote in order to have gotten it; I'm sure it never occurred to you that someone might make a mistake, or whatever, in writing what I wrote. And yes, you did get it - your examples are ones I didn't bother quoting, but they are also to what I was referring. I suppose it would be too much to ask that views of Jews that are outside of Judaism (such as the ones you & I mentioned), be labeled strictly as such, and I suppose we do need a page where misconceptions can be addressed. I suppose it's too much to ask to leave wrong things out & let people wonder why they aren't included when they go looking for those things (-:. Your 2nd paragraph to me is one that seems wholly covered by Jewish law, as in "should simply be included in the section of Judaism", but if we're going to have a page for misconceptions, so be it. I just wish they could be more clearly marked as such. I am also glad that someone is getting what I am saying, and that I had a chance to clear my name/views. Friends? Ok!FlaviaR 05:01, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

ThuranX, you're at it again! Let me try, once more, to lower the temperature. If you read the correspondence carefully, you will see that FlaviaR was NOT trying to exclude Reform, Israeli or secular definitions, but ONLY non-Jewish perceptions by e.g. Kevin MacDonald. And by "why include views of Jew-haters" she meant that Hitler, MacDonald etc. themselves were Jew-haters (so why include them); not that everyone who wanted the views of such people included in the article must also be Jew-haters. The Wikipedia rule "Assume good faith" applies here.

For myself, I WOULD be in favour of including such perceptions to the extent that they were reflected in rules with practical application: e.g. it is entirely relevant to say "Nazi Germany had rules against Jews, and for the purposes of those rules a Jew was defined as X". On the other hand, I think we should exclude explanations (such as MacDonald's) which attempt to address what Jewishness is, rather than providing a rule for identifying Jewish individuals.

FlaviaR, I still don't think we're quite in agreement. Leaving aside the racialist views as inflammatory, I do not think we can address e.g. the Marxist view as simply a "misconception", as if the Marxist were addressing the same issue as the various religious definitions but was making a factual mistake which a bit more information would put right. The Marxist is not trying to compete with the halachist, or to provide a handy test for "who is a Jew". Rather, he regards the whole package, halachah and all, as an epiphenomenon of which the economic structure is the underlying reality. In other words, he is committing exactly the same logical error as the spiritual "essentialist" who believes that there is an ontological "Jewish soul" which the various proposed rules are attempting to reflect: funny how extremes meet, isn't it? But the issue is philosophical rather than practical, and cannot be listed under "popular errors about Judaism". --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) 09:05, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I don't need to AGF. She's made her attitude quite clear, repeatedly: Anyone supporting the inclusion of the facts she disagrees with is automatically a jew-hater. Once she established that, there's no need to AGF, She's makign Personal Attacks. Desppite that, I invested a lot of time in trying to explain to her what the situation on Wikipedia is. She doesn't give a damn about facts, she wants 'Halakha is all' as the entirity of the page, and it's simply NOT going to happen. She's an elitist, with an agenda, plain and simple. ThuranX 22:33, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

How many people is it going to take for you to stop putting words in my mouth? This one is actually worse than the previous attempts, and not just because other people are beginning to point it out to you in addition to my own repeated requests for you to stop doing so. Is your inability to make others believe these lies the reason you are threatening me on my user page?FlaviaR 03:05, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

that wasn't a threat, it was a warning about your disruptive behavior on this talk page. Others have asked you to stop. You continue to interrupt other editors' comments. I told you, YET AGAIN, to stop doing that, or else I'll have an administrator explain it to you,. possibly with a block. You'er becoming the new Bus Stop, another editor committed to a religious agenda, and frankly, your biased perspective is unwelcome here, as this is about neutral presentation of fact, and you seek an angeda pushing POV version of the page, one which eliminates any perspective which doesn't agree with yours. You can spin your initial comments any way you want, but they speak quite clearly about your intents here, and I'm not going to drop it, and I'm not going to let you do that. This article, for the umpteenth time, is about The Question, not about giving ONE answer. You refuse to accept that. There's nothign to debate any more, you have an agenda, and I'm bored of it. You called me a Jew-hater, accused me of supporting jew hating agendas, and on and on. You've done nothign to change that view, nor my opinion of you. ThuranX 03:16, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Your wishful thinking & exaggerations aside, I do not want you to change my opinion of me - you are free to be as wrong as you please - but I want you to stop lying about me, and what I've said, and projecting your own faults onto me. And no, I am not about to become the new Bus Stop - you aren't going to bully me off Wikipedia (And not only have I not interrupted anyone's comments after you whines about it, I have been informed that you do it, yourself - not that I'm surprised.)FlaviaR 23:16, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Dear ThuranX. Bus Stop was awful, because he kept trying to change the actual article to reflect his a priori definitions of "religion" and "ethnicity" (though NB he was not trying to exclude Reform definitions, any more than FlaviaR, as at least Reform counted as "religious"). Even so, I was not entirely happy about banning him from the page. FlaviaR has not been guilty of this kind of behaviour, whatever you think of her views.

Let me repeat once more. She was NOT calling YOU a Jew-hater: she was only saying "why do you want to include the VIEWS of Jew-haters", meaning MacDonald and Co. Nor did she want to exclude all non-halachic definitions. Take a deep breath, clear your mind, read her posts again, and you will see that I am right.

So, let's stop the name-calling and go back to the article. We have:

1. Orthodox views. We all agree to retain these.
2. Newer Jewish religious movements. You and I want to retain these, and FlaviaR has not said anything about removing them.
3. Israeli citizenship laws. We all agree to retain them.
4. Views of other Jewish groups (Karaites, Ethiopians, Lemba etc.). You and I want them in, FlaviaR has said nothing one way or the other.
5. Views from outside ideologies (Marxist, racialist, evolutionary, existentialist etc.). You want them in. FlaviaR wants them out, and this has been her main point throughout the discussion. I want them in when they address "who is a Jew" but not when they address "what is a Jew".
6. Views of people who regard themselves as "secular Jews", "ethnic Jews", "half-Jews" etc. You want them in. I want them in. Bus Stop wanted them out. FlaviaR has not spoken yet, and this is where we are waiting to know what she thinks.

The issues dividing the three of us are thus fairly limited. Can we now have a measured debate about what to do with the last two categories, without any more abuse or imputing of agendas. And NB I agree that all replies should go at the end, and not after the remarks they are trying to answer (if it is necessary to link them, either quote them or use footnoting marks like asterisks). --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) 09:59, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I have absolutely no problems with putting in stuff that disagrees with Jewish law (MacDonald, Marx, Sartre, Hitler, half-Jew, etc.) as long as it is marked such. This is what I meant by not giving them "equal time" - I am sorry if I didn't make that clear (I really thought I did make it clear). It is helpful to have incorrect things marked as such, even if Wikipedia will refuse to come out & say "this is wrong", Wikipedia does have to (or, at the very least, should have to) say "these are not in accordance with Jewish Law (even if Jewish groups differ as to what that is)".FlaviaR 23:16, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

response

"Unless you clearly state that abberant definitions of Judaism are just that, you are letting people who are either ignorant or who actvely hate Jews get to define *equally with Jewish law* "Who is a Jew." That's just sick."

"you people are going to do whatever the hell you want without regard for the facts." Those two clearly show her attitude that I am both in the wrong and actively working against 'the truth'.

"You are if you insist that it can be answered any other way than the way Jewish law defines it. It's one thing to say "people think otherwise", but it's wrong to say their answers are just as valid." Here she makes clear that ONLY Halakha counts in her mind.

That's clear enough for me. She wants all outside views eliminated, she wants what she percieves to be incorrect fact (all non-halakha approaches) out, and so on. She's a bigoted editor with a superiority complex. She believes her way (either J4J or Orthodox, based on her contrib list) is the only way, and all other jews are getting it wrong.

As for "who" vs "What", there's no difference. That the Nazis considered Jews subhuman and used a 'what' based thinking is irrelevant, as their approach to determining who went to camps and who could go free was another approach to the 'who' question. Grammar isn't the point. As for the ACTUAL 'what is a jew' you suggest, that would be a question far more about the ethics and beliefs of self-identifying jews and how widely the miss or closely they hit the mark, in terms of keeping within Jewish attitudes and such, which is probably an even harder question to try to explore in a Wiki article.

That said, I've got little patience for FlaviaR's attitudes and behavior. Her backpedalling and denials are lousy, her point and meanings in the beginning were crystal clear. ThuranX 11:42, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

All I'm saying is can we forget about the ad hominem stuff and decide what we are going to do with the article. Nobody is going to delete the material about Reform and other Jewish groups, and I am still waiting to hear whether anybody has more sources for the secular-Jewish attitudes. For example, I regretted it when someone deleted the bit about Zionists who believe that the person who identifies with the Jewish people, lives in Israel and works for "ingathering" is "the real Jew", and would be glad to see hard evidence of such attitudes (which doesn't mean I agree with them). In general I'm an "inclusionist": I'd rather see articles going slightly beyond their proper bounds and leading to overlaps than interesting topics going unrecorded because they fall through the cracks.

The only live issue is the non-Jewish, and especially the hostile, perceptions (NB I do not equate the two!). The distinction between "who" and "what" is not merely grammatical: by "what is a Jew" I meant not "who is a Jew" dehumanised, but "what is the explanation for there being any Jews at all". Kevin MacDonald says that Jewishness is an evolutionary survival strategy; and Sartre seems to say that it is a stigma inflicted by anti-Semitism, in the same way as untouchability in India. True or not, these views have nothing to do with the question of how to decide whether a given individual is Jewish, so they do not belong here. On the other hand, if Nazi legislation had rules identifying its targets by the numbers of grandparents who practised the Jewish faith, or by measuring the length of people's noses, then however absurd it is it is highly relevant here. --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) 14:33, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi! I just want to mention that Wikipedia's Neutral point of view policy expressly requires inclusion of all notable points of view. This is not a negotiable matter. It's a core Wikipedia policy. Editing priveleges require abiding by Wikipedia's policies, including this. I hope this ends this discussion. Best, --Shirahadasha 14:47, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Two things: Wikipedia seems to be awfully loose on this when it wants to be. Such as with Fred Phelps. His group is openly & clearly called a hate group & no opposition (such as the group's definition of itself) is allowed to get in the way. Interesting, hmmm? And this is also not going to end while your friend is lying about me. FlaviaR 23:08, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Shirahadasha and I aren't associated in any manner, but your increasing hostility and implications of conspiracy against you do nothing good for yoru argument. As for Fred Phelps' group, the Westboro Baptist Church page specifically states "considered by many to be a hate group", which is perfectly acceptable in wikipedia's standards. As for the group's definition of itself, "While its members identify themselves as Baptists, the church is an independent church not affiliated with any known Baptist conventions or associations. " The second and third paragraphs of the lead go on further, as does the rest of the article. I hope that clearly deflates your argument that the group's own identification has been excised. Similarly, this article, which far more specifically focuses on the topic of Identification, provides discussion of both Halakha and other views. Since your example alone serves to deflate your argument, can we drop this? you can move on to other articles. There are over two million here, surely there are others you can work on? ThuranX 23:24, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. You're so unassociated that she is allowing you to bad-mouth me on her user pages more than once without telling you that your behavior is far worse, while having given me a warning for my behavior. Fascinating. But it's nice to see that ihe Wikipedia entry finally changed for Phelp's group (not that I ever said their own definition had been "excised" - once again, you put word in my mouth to try to bolster your own arguments) - even though the talk pages clearly outline a strong general wish to totally ignore the NPOV for that article. And as for moving on, you are just as free to do so.FlaviaR 09:18, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Amazing how you can sit there & lie about everything I've said, even when it's staring you in the face. YOU are the one who mentioned specific branches of Judaism, not me. EVERY BRANCH has it's own version of Jewish law, and any pretense that I only meant one specific one came from you, not me. There is no backpedaling going on - just my insistence on the truth: that you are lying about everything I have said - not to mention cherry-picking quotes (or in some cases, parts of quotes) in order to pretend you aren't lying, or when you give your own special inteperetation to them. And all the while saying that you aren't going to bother to answer me. Fascinating.FlaviaR 23:08, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Look, if you don't like what you said, and how it reflects who you are, consider changing yourself before you try to force your singular viewpoint on this page. There's no mistaking what you said, and, frankly, what you continue to want for this article. That you now try to say it's all in my head, when your words are right there, demonstrates your attempts to deflect criticism back on those who oppose you. That I discuss the various approaches isn't something to reflect back at me in the manner you do; if anything, such a reflection to avoid facing the facts is a sign that you know that your way isn't compatible with Wikipedia. (as a final note, though it will fall on deaf ears, please respect talk pages.)ThuranX 23:24, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

You would be funny if you weren't serious. I have no problems with what I said & none of it reflects badly on me. I have a problem with the additional interpretations you are giving everything that I said, & it all reflects horrendously on you. That's painfully clear, given that the quotes don't say what you say they do, because you keep having to add to them even after you quote them. It is not your discussion of various approaches, it's your giving them equal status when they clearly do not deserve it. There is definitely a refusal to face facts going on here, & it's all coming from you. It is your behavior that is dead against everything Wikipedia is supposed to stand for, such as the idea that if someone says you have misinterpreted/misunderstood what they've said, you should back off (That's a bonus to having been so unrelentingly attacked - it gives one an impetus to look up a few things). And I see you are now adding more fore false charges to your list of behavior complaints. Go ahead, I'll just wait. FlaviaR 09:08, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

The article already puts Halakha first, thus, giving it more value and emphasis than the other interpretations, thus all are already NOT equal. You keep screaming and yelling about things that already are in the article that you want put into the article. You also scream and yell that most of the article is a dirty lie written by Jew-haters, but you stil haven't backed that up with anything but personal insults. You have yet to write a concise explanation of any substantial changes to the article you want to see, choosing instead to continue to insult me as a jew-hater, and most of wikipedia as ignorant morons for not doing it all your way. Try writing up a simple, SHORT list of what should be changed and why. I don't think you're capable of it without writing out 'Halakha is the only way that matters, all other ways should be deleted', since that's been your implied goal all along. ThuranX 14:22, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

My real mistake was assuming you were rational, literate or honest. I'll just keep discussing this with the others, instead. FlaviaR 18:44, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I am all three, in fact. Can you provide such a list, one which explicitly cites section of the article and states 'I have this problem with this section, and I propose xyz solution?' ThuranX 20:52, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I believe ThuranX's proposal directly above is precisely the best way to proceed in this matter, so that specifics can be discussed. I also would call to mind to FlaviaR that we cannot make any judgements about what is "correct" or "incorrect" here, as you have specifically done above. Such statements are inherently POV and strictly disallowed as per WP:NPOV, and very definitely convey to any reader a clear sense that the party in question is primarily interested in seeing their own POV represented, which is explicitly not allowed in wikipedia. John Carter 21:08, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

If only for "Who is a Jew?" do we allow people outside said group to define said group equally w/those inside the group, then Wikipedia has a bigger problem than just this article. And I have made my suggestions - any pretense to the contrary is just more flame-baiting.

well i think there is a lot here to support my idea of having a category and a summary article for this topic, basically at least that would allow there to be an article on "outside definitions of jewishness" which by its very title makes one obviously see that the definition is most likely very inaccurate in terms of religion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.27.221.233 (talk) 19:06, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

first Jews

I removed the paragraph:

Who the first Jews were is a matter of some controversy. Some maintain that it was those who were present, bodily, at the revelation of the Ten Commandments at Mount Sinai; others maintain that Abraham and Sarah were the first Jews.

because this is an article about the debate of who is a Jew. The question of whether there were "jews" before the revelation is not relevant to that debate. Sirmylesnagopaleentheda (talk · contribs) put it back in with the comment "It's entirely relevant, If Jewishness comes by descent, who were the first Jews is crucial". This is simply not true. It is well known that many decedents of Abraham and Sarah were not Jewish. There question of their Jewishness NEVER related to whether they are the start of Jewish descent. In any event, there is no one who can prove that they are a decedent of Jacob, but not of the group of people that were at Mount Sinai. There question is entirely academic and outside of the scope of this article. Jon513 09:33, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I reverted its' reinsertion because in addition, it's speculative and without direct relevance to the question of who is a Jew, which addresses the world and Judaism post-Torah, not during, and finally, it lacks any sources tying the debate about when did the peoples of Genesis and Exodus become 'Jews' to the debates about Who is a Jew?. ThuranX 22:29, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree the comment is not relevant to the article which is strictly about modern times and I support keeping this content out. Note that Wikipedia cannot accept an editor's own original research, including an editor's own opinion about whether a subject is notable or relevant. --Shirahadasha 17:27, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Khazars

Why Khazars are not mentioned at all? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.193.233.66 (talk) 03:09, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Mentioned in the History of Jews article, not relevant to the current article. There's about zero controversy about whether or not any descendants of the Khazar conversion are Jews or not. If you can find non-crank, non-extremist sites that actually claim that mainstream jewish thought questions this, please provide them here. ThuranX 03:13, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

how 'bout Krymchaks and Crimean Karaites, who consider themselves as descendants of Khazars?

Sounds like someone is very confused - and I think the actual point of confusion is mistaking Judaism for a race. I could be wrong, and, if so, I would welcome a chance to be enlightened.FlaviaR 01:36, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Plese don't troll other editors like that. You've had yourlengthy, long-winded say about such things, and had consensus go against you. Move on. ThuranX 02:05, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Please stop lying about me, as well as "consensus" and take your own advice.FlaviaR 14:30, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

You stated above that you think it is a mistake to think of Judaism as a race. To an extant, I agree with you, that religious Judaism is not identical with what might be called ethnic Judaism. However, the tone of this article seems to be about those people who have been called Jews at least partially on the basis of their biological or ethnic background. On that basis, it seems to me that this article actually is about the people who might be called "ethnic" Jews primarily. If that is true, then the person making the mistake would be you. And please note that WP:CONCENSUS is an official policy of wikipedia, and one of the primary ways in which these matters are decided. To suggest that we ignore this official policy is less than productive. As consensus does seem to have been achieved on this subject, it might be more productive to move on. Also please note that consensus does not require universal agreement, as per that page. John Carter 14:39, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say that consencsus isn't a policy; I said that consensus did not go against where he said it did.FlaviaR 21:29, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Jews are both a religious group and a national group -- not a "race" or ethnic group (which is essentially a euphemism for "race"). The article is about the method of determining membership in "the Jewish people" -- not about a listing or grouping of membership. The Jewish people have intermarried with members of other national/religious backgrounds, and to list all the groups with which the Jewish people have intermarried seems unreasonable. Furthermore, listing one group with which Jews may or may not have intermarried -- especially without listing all the other groups with which it is known that Jews intermarried -- seems to violate WP:NOR, WP:VERIFY, and WP:NPOV. ← Michael Safyan 08:04, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Your 2nd sentence encapsulates it perfectly: "determining membership". Bringing up groups related to Khazars & insisting that they are somehow Jewish is - let's just say wrong. ThuranX answered that person perfectly well, too, but he didn't seem to get it, hence that question., & hence my suggesting he had to be confused. And before I am once again accused of "feeding the trolls" I will state: ignorant people and trolls can sound identical.FlaviaR 21:28, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

• ThuranX why did you delete wihout any disccusiion? what's wrong?

Khazars and their descendants

Hebrew sing. "Kuzari" כוזרי plur. "Kuzarim" כוזרים;

Following their conversion to Judaism, the Khazars themselves traced their origins to Kozar, a son of Togarmah. Togarmah is mentioned in Genesis in the Hebrew scriptures as a grandson of Japheth.

Nowadays Krymchaks and Crimean Karaites call themselves as descendants of Khazars. So they avoided of anti-semitic pogroms in Russia. Later during Holocaust, Crimean Karaites successfully avoided it (according paragraph 2, point 2 of the First Regulation to the Reich Citizenship Law), however 75% of Krymchaks were murdered.

Please stop adding your theories to the Who is a Jew? article. The history of the Khazars is interesting, but already covered in their article. What you'er adding had no bearing on the question. If their identity does have bearing on the subject of the article, please find sources, and add based on those sources, which need to be cited. ThuranX 04:25, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

1. first of all they are not covered in this article, even more thay are not mentioned at all!
2. it's not my theories all info copeiud from Khazars, Krymchaks and Crimean Karaites
3. read the article Who is a Jew? carefully, there is written: "A Jew is either born a Jew or converts to Judaism" isn't it enough for mentionig?

You apparently don't understand about the Khazars that they did not convert to Judaism, only some of them did, and how many of them did so is a matter of some dispute. Some sources say as many as 1/3 of the Khazars' subjects were Jews (which does not mean by any far stretch of the imagination that 1/3 of the Khazars' subjects were converts, it simply means they were Jews), others say that the converts were predominantly among the ruling class. Most of what we know of the Jewishness of Khazaria comes to us from a text widely believed to be a little bit of truth interspersed with a lot of fantasy, meant to serve a dual purpose: (1) encourage the horribly oppressed European and north African Jewish communities who were the books main targets, and (2) embarrass the rulers, who were so horribly oppressing their Jewish [non]citizens, into treating "their Jews" better...after all, "their Jews" were but small outposts of a people who ruled a fabulous and mighty empire in the East. In any case, as ThuranX has said, the subject of the Khazars, and speculation about their Jewishness, and what Jewish communities might be descended from them, whether in fantasy or reality, really doesn't have anything whatsoever to do with this article. Tomer^talk 05:49, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

well... how 'bout Krymchaks and Crimean Karaites, who consider themselves as descendants of Khazars? whether they considered as Jews? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.193.233.66 (talk) 05:55, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

PS Tomer^talk, I think that the point of view that you told, should be explained in the article in order to avoid further missunderstandings —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.193.233.66 (talk) 05:59, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

• This article is called who is, so if someone is either born a Jew or converts to Judaism, but is not a Jew (like Crimean Karaites during the Third Reih), it should be exaplained in this article "why?", so {{neutrality}} of this article is disputed

The Krymchaks never claimed to not be Jews, only some communities of the Karaim (not be confused with Karaites in general), especially in Lithuania. The basis for their claim to the Nazis was that they had been recognized as non-Jews by the Tzars. The basis for their claim to the Tsars was pure fabrication: they made up fake history in order to avoid the oppressive anti-Jewish laws imposed by the Romanovs. They were not the only ones who made stuff up to ameliorate their oppression--many Jews gave different family names to their second, third, fourth, etc. sons, so that when the Tsar's men came around looking for 14-year-old 2nd sons (eldest sons were exempt) to conscript (and forcibly "Christianize" in the process) into the Tsar's army, they would say "he's not our son", and there would be papers to prove that the kid didn't even have the same family name. (This makes for quite a mess when trying to do genealogies.)

All of that aside, however, the question of whether the Krymchaks and Crimean Karaites consider themselves, correctly or incorrectly, to be descendants of the Khazars is, in a word, at least with respect to this article, irrelevant. The Syrian Jews and Moroccan Jews are mostly descendants of Spanish Jews who were expelled from Spain in 1492. Interesting, perhaps, but it has no bearing whatsoever on their status as Jews, nor does it have any impact on the larger question of "Who is a Jew?" Tomer^talk 15:08, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree. The question about Khazars would be relevant to this article if, and only if, there were currently individuals certainly identifiable as descendants of the Khazars, and there was a difference of opinion about whether or not to class them as Jews. The current controversy is completely the other way: there are individuals certainly classed as Jews, and a difference of opinion about whether or not they are descended from the Khazars. If you want an article on "Who was a Khazar", go ahead! But not here. --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) 16:54, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Krymchaks and Crimean Karaites claim that they are descendants of Khazars. Even thow your are not going to mention Khazars at least you should mention Krymchaks and Crimean Karaites —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.115.54.225 (talk) 01:11, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Why? You still haven't shown any reason to include them here. You've yet to establish a context for their inclusion. Why would we include them in an article about the question "Who is a Jew?". I remind you, the purpose of this article is to discuss the approaches and academic debates about the question. not to provide specific answers in the form of A is a jew, but B is not, where the variables are lists of groups of people. ThuranX 02:11, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Perhaps the problem here is that the anonymous editor doesn't understand that the article's name is not a question begging for editors to provide an answer, but rather, as the first sentence of the article makes clear, the article is about the question itself. The article does not seek to answer the question, merely to describe how the question has played a rôle in Jewish history. Tomer^talk 03:58, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

the question how the question has played a rôle in Jewish history? is exactly 'bout Crimean Karaites during Holoucast and pogroms! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.193.233.66 (talk) 04:06, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

No, it's not. Tomer^talk 04:13, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I disagree. If the editor got an account, this would be easier, first off. Second, now you have a premise we can respond to. In what ways did the Question of 'who is a jew?' affect them? While 'exactly about them' isn't legit, as it's also exactly about many others, and thus, not exactly about any one of those many groups, but all jews, you have a solid concept we can build up back here. Please expand, here on Talk only ,in what ways the question applies to the Karaites, and their treatment. ThuranX 05:13, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I disagree. There is a mildly-interesting sidebar in the history of some communities of the Crimean Karaites, whereby they lied, telling the Nazis they weren't Jews, and backed up their claim by presenting documents given them by the Tsars to that effect. Their documents were based on the fabrication of a false history to present to the tsars, as described above, to avoid the harsh oppression the Romanovs subjected the Jews to. Their claim to not be Jews, and subsequent obscene betrayal of their fellow Jews is well-documented (as are the efforts various Jewish community leaders, who perished themselves, went through, conversely, to help prevent the extinction of the Karaims). A number of these Karaim even joined forces with the Nazis and tormented their fellow Jews, some of them writing (in a massive chillul Hashem, theological disputes aside) about how, in doing so, they were demonstrating the superiority of Qara'ism over Rabbanism. (An interesting twist, methinks, for people who supposèdly aren't Jews to begin with, eh?) The story is interesting, horrifying, disheartening, and even sound fodder for Wikipedia articles...just not this one. Without bothering to check, I'm pretty sure it's already documented in Crimean Karaites. Tomer^talk 06:47, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Now I've bothered myself to check, and yes, it is covered there. Tomer^talk 07:38, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

If covering is enogh, why there is no mentioning 'em in "see also" section? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.193.233.66 (talk) 08:22, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Why should it be mentioned in the "see also" section of this article? The coverage remains irrelevant to the subject matter of this article. Tomer^talk 08:59, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

• as I see the story 'bout Karaims is so dishearting for your, that you've decided to never mention in jewsih articles - just to forgot 'bout 'em, and don't allow to other to ever mention 'em. http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?offset=&limit=50&target=Crimean_Karaites&title=Special%3AWhatlinkshere&namespace=0 shows that non of jewsih articles mentioened 'em as they never been existed! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.193.233.66 (talk) 08:37, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

  What are you mumbling about now? How can you possibly justify a statement to the effect that Wikipedia pretends that they don't exist? Of course they exist. There are a great many far darker chapters in Jewish history than the betrayal of the Karaim during WW2, and these are also covered in Wikipedia. Nothing I've said can, even through the most tortured illogic, be construed to be a desire to "forget 'bout 'em", so your remarks are truly befuddling. Were you trying to say something vaguely relevant to the discussion at hand? Or were you simply stringing random words together and adding punctuation? If there was something remotely constructive in your post, it's been completely lost on me... Tomer^talk 08:59, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

  For the record, from your search, the following Jewish-related articles all refer to the Crimean Karaites, none pretending they don't exist:

  • Tallit
  • Karaite Judaism
  • Krymchaks
  • Abraham Harkavy (a man much hated by the Karaim for exposing the forgeries that went into their claims to not be Jews...in direct contradiction of what appears to be your assertion here...)
  • Berdychiv
  • List of Karaite Jews
  • Payot
  • History of the Jews in Romania
  • Karaim language

  Tomer^talk 09:06, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Alright. HAving read his version of a 'premise' and the subsequent agreement from the IP about this, there's nothing worth including here. That they self-identify as jews when it suits them, and as non-jews when it suits them, si nothign that isn't covered inthe sections on self-identification. This could only serve as a 'for example, here's yet another group who hid via self-identification'. If we need that though, Marranos would probably be a far better link. ThuranX 11:43, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

"they self-identify as jews when it suits them, and as non-jews when it suits them" so they are special case that MUST be mentioned in this article, even they shame or dishearting —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.193.233.66 (talk) 11:53, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

No, they need not be mentioned. They are not a special case. They're one example of many groups, none of which need be mentioned in this article. Tomer^talk 18:24, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

If there many groups they are special case that MUST be mentioned, 'coz article 'bout people wha call 'emselves as Jews, if some call some Jews or not as Jews when it suit 'em - it's a sepecial case that MUST be mentioned, 'coz other people ALWAYS call 'emselves either as Jew or not Jew, but not both one day Jew, another day not Jew, and so on.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.115.54.9 (talk) 01:31, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

This is such a mess of complete illogic that by now I think it's painfully clear to anyone reading this that if you have anything of substance to contribute to the discussion, you're doing a miserable job of clarifying what you bring to the table. Tomer^talk 04:21, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm having a hard time with this editor's style of response and writing. He goes from stilted half-english to prefect imitation of slang as written out in American English, and back again. It's a rather suspicious style of writing. That said, They are not so special that they need mention, and your repeated advocacy in the face of multiple opposing editors is becoming tendentious. You have yet to establish a good reason to include them in this article, even when given the chance o support your contention. It seems there's no application of 'who is a jew' to them. They converted, and hid. We don't discuss the Marranos in such a context here, why should we do so for this other group? ThuranX 02:05, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to Tomer and Myles for stepping in on this one, I didn't even see this talk section start up... but I removed it as uncited, original research which was not put into the context of this article, but again, sought to list a group as 'the answer'. ThuranX 20:48, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

fly-by-night {{neutrality}} tagging.

Done here. I'm removing the tag until the tagger comes to talk to talk about it. Tomer^talk 17:50, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Probably the same editor pushing Karaite content above. ThuranX 20:46, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Title change

Why does the article title have to be in the form of a question? Can't it simply be called "Jewish identity"?

Peter ^Isotalo 13:11, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

This has been brought up many times before, please see the archives: [1], [2], [3], and [4]. Daniel^C/_T+ 13:28, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

The title is a translation of "Mihu Yehudi?", the classic formulation of this question. The title has been disputed several times and discuss at length. There is a strong consensus that the title is correct. Nevertheless, we can still talk about it more. Jon513 14:44, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

While the title may well be correctly translated, traditional and well established, it can hardly be called "encyclopedic". You would never find an entry with this title (except in quotes) in a well-established encyclopedia.Geira (talk) 15:29, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Per the archives, I feel confident that a lasting explanation is available, and that solid repeated consensus has been demonstrated. Lest we seem to all be biting you, peter, we aren't, it's just an often asked question, and we're getting better at answering with swiftness and accuracy. Hope the links above help you understand why the article is titled this way. Further, for your own interest, you may want to read Jewish_identity here at wikipedia, and see how the two articles differ in content and subject. (short version, cause that already exists and we like this one this way, thenkewveddymush)ThuranX 01:00, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to play devil's advocate and point out that the Hebrew article does not treat the phrase as a question, but a topic (which is possible in Hebrew grammar). In English, this would come to "Who a Jew is." That's obviously not a good title, but I think Jewish identity or Questions of Jewish identity would be fine titles. --Eliyak T·C 09:04, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Have you read all the archived sections on this? ThuranX 11:15, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I see far more hairsplitting over Hebrew translations and non sequitur arguments over Jewish scholarly minutia than genuine consensus in the linked discussions. That the issue keeps being raised is in itself an argument against the current title. The crux is that the article is trying to cover ethnicity and cultural/religious identity, not literary history. If the article wishes to be about a phrase, fine, because it's not unheard of on Wikipedia. But if that is the case, then it should limit itself to the history of that phrase and not the detailed definition of Jewish identity, because that is rather obviously a different, though closely related, topic.

A suggestion that might not require two seperate articles would be to have a section in a joint article that could bear the heading "Who is a Jew?" along with the history of the term. However, cramming the answer to a historical question-term in the article about the term is needlessly confusing and gratuitous. Whatever the case, it would be a great boon to readers if Jewish identity wasn't treated in like a shunned stepchild by the main contributors of this article. Angr got it just right when he commented the naming: the content here is vastly superiour, but so is the naming of the other article.

Peter ^Isotalo 16:47, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

And yet, three editors here, and more in the archived sections, show that consensus is to use this title for this article, and that title for that other article. ThuranX 04:19, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

So why do people keep questioning this title and why is Jewish identity being redirected here all of a sudden? From what I can tell, the current title is a matter of taste and a sort of appeal to Jewish scholarly history, not an intuitive choice of a title that anyone can understand.

That you choose to argue my points here simply by counting editors isn't strengthening your case either.

Peter ^Isotalo 06:46, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Merge proposal

I propose that the articles Jewish identity and Who is a Jew? be merged, due to a great deal of overlap between the two subjects. Both Who is a Jew? and Jewish identity deal with individuals who identify themselves as Jewish religiously, nationaly, and/or culturally. The Jewish identity article places more focus on internal perceptions of "Jewish-ness" whereas the Who is a Jew? places greater emphasis on external perceptions of "Jewish-ness." I believe that a single article addressing the entire topic would present a more complete, balanced, and accurate portrait of "Jewish-ness." ← Michael Safyan 03:17, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I object. As you yourself admit, on focuses on the internal, the other on the external. Both have significant amounts of material, and represent two opposite sides of a greater topic. What would be better served would be to create links to the other in each article's lead, so that those seekign the other can find it. ThuranX 03:26, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

ThuranX, what you're proposing here appears to be rather obvious case of forkíng. Keeping these two articles separate is not the appropiate way to deal with two sides of the same issue. Just about any article that has to include lengthy excuses for its existance in contrast to another article is better off merged.

Peter ^Isotalo 12:56, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

This isn't lengthy excuses, and perhaps I was unclear. The wider topic of Identification of jews includes multipel subtopics. It's like saying The American Republican party should all be on one page. There is the relighious and philosophical question 'Mihu Yehudi', which this page addresses, external and community standards, the changes, debates and controversies. There is self-identification, the internal experiences of identification, assimilation, distinguishment, and so on, which is one's own Jewish Identity. They are distinct and different, addressing different topics. The phrase 'opposite sides' seems to have given you the idea that this is one coin, when perhaps I should have presented that it is more a case of being Ultraviolet and Infrared, both are on the spectrum but at different ends, and deserving of separate articles. ThuranX 21:41, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

ThuranX, I would agree with you if the Jewish identity article dealt with the implications of identifying oneself as Jewish. However, Who is a Jew? and Jewish identity both address what makes one Jewish, with Jewish identity placing undue emphasis on cultural and psychological (i.e. saying "I'm Jewish" out of the blue) Jewish self-identification while Who is a Jew? documents religious, national, and cultural forms of Jewish self-identification. ← Michael Safyan 23:12, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Even were Jewish identity to cover the implications of Jewish self-identification, it should be renamed Jewish culture, Jewish cultural expression, or Jewish experience. Jewish identity should be redirected to this article, because the topic of this article is likely of more relevance to those searching for the phrase "Jewish identity" than an article on Jewish culture. ← Michael Safyan 23:12, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

First, let me thank you for being civil enough to not call my opinion a call for forking; a review of the histories of both pages shows this isn't a case of a few editors forking. Second, it sounds like what you're saying is that the subject matter of the two ought to be rearranged, not merged. Finally, 'jewish culture'? that's an entirely different article, one guaranteed to have numerous sub-articles... Jewish Humor (on which topic are literal dozens of books), jewish art (from Ketubah to Marc Chagall), Jewish food, Jewish song, Jewish wardrobe, and so on and on and on. Given that Jewish cultural participation is an expression of Jewish Identity, and the adherence to it is, arguably, the implementation of Halakha approaches to determining who is and isn't a jew, you wind up going in circles. The two articles cover distinct and separate areas, which complement each other. Perhaps we should consider a set of parameters for each, with 'Who is a Jew' distinctly covering Halakha and non Halakha aproaches to determining Judaism, and Jewish Identity covering aspects of self-awareness as a jew, things like Noam Chomsky and Martin Buber's writings on the relationship of self-aware judaism to zionism, Israel, and their philosophical roots, and Seinfeld or Lenny Bruce's comedic influences via their identity. merging the two would devastate the vvalid sourced content; reapportioning would reorganize into a more... cohesive? ... there's a word i can't think of... manner.ThuranX 00:26, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Did you perhaps mean "coherent"? Here is what I recommend... There should be the following pages:

• Jewish identity, with synonyms:
  • Who is a Jew?
  • Jewishness
  • Jewish-ness
  • Jew
  • Jews
• Jewish religious identity, with synonyms:
  • Adherents of Judaism
  • Sects of Judaism
  • Jewish tradition
• Jewish national identity, with synonyms:
  • The Jewish people
  • Jewish people
  • Jewish nation
  • The Jewish nation
  • Jewish nationality
  • Am Yisrael
  • Am Israel
  • Nation of Israel
  • The Nation of Israel
  • Bnei Israel
  • B'nei Israel
  • Children of Israel
  • The Children of Israel
• Jewish cultural identity
  • Jewish Secularism
  • Jewish culture
  • Jewish heritage

The article Jewish identity/Who is a Jew? should explain that there are many forms of Jewish identity, including religious, national, and cultural. The article should contain very brief descriptions of each and should use the {{main}} tag to refer to the other articles. Jewish religious identity should expound upon "Jews" as adherents of Judaism and should explain how the various Jewish movements define "Jewish-ness". Jewish national identity should expound upon "Jews" as a nation (i.e an imagined community of individuals who consider themselves to be Jewish and who recognize each other as Jewish OR as a group of people sharing a common past, a common culture, common religion, common values, and a common project for the future). Jewish national identity should expound upon Jewish perceptions of nationhood as "B'nei Israel" or "Am Israel" from Biblical times and should also discuss contemporary expressions of Jewish national identity in the State of Israel. Jewish cultural identity should expound upon "Jewish-ness" as a cultural heritage (e.g. customs, foods, values) or as a connection to the Jewish community. Alternatively, the contents of these articles could be placed in a single article (Jewish identity/Who is a Jew?). ← Michael Safyan 02:41, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, that's a ridiculously long list, and you're definitely pushing a POV here. YOu clearly have a significant set of views about Judaism, and youre' creating pages that match that POV to redirect as you see fit. Further, you re only editing Jewish and Palestinian conflict pages. A quick google demonstrates your highly POV view of this topic, and I think you're pushing it here as well. Please stop now. ThuranX 03:45, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I am editing this article for accuracy, based on my knowledge of "Jewishness" and Judaism. I am in a position to edit this article, because:

• I affiliate traditionally observant Conservative.
• I am an active member of the Hillel at Washington University in St. Louis and attend both Conservative and Orthodox services.
• I personally know members of the Reform, Reconstructionist, Conservative, and Orthodox movements.
• I personally know three people who have converted to Judaism.
• I personally know many unaffiliated Jewish individuals.
• I attended a Solomon Schecter school from Kindergarten through eighth grade.
• I attended Jewish camps at the JCC, Camp Ramah, and Camp Stone.
• I come from an actively Jewish family with diverse affiliations:
  • My grandfather is Rabbi David Lieber, a professor at the University of Judaism and the senior editor of the Etz Hayim Humash.[5]
  • My relatives on my father's side affiliate Reform, Reconstructionist, and Conservative.
  • My relatives on my mother's side affiliate Conservative and Orthodox.
  • My Aunt, Ilene Safyan, has published Jewish songs professionally.[6]
  • Most of my relatives have been to Camp Ramah.
  • My family affiliated Conservative when I was growing up and now affiliate Modern Orthodox.

My position on the Palestinian-Israeli conflict (which, I daresay, you have inaccurately grasped) has nothing to do with my proposed edits. I suspect that you have misinterpreted my proposal. I am proposing:

• That the contents of Jewish identity and Who is a Jew? be divided among three pages:
  • Jewish religious identity.
  • Jewish national identity.
  • Jewish cultural identity.
• That Jewish identity redirect to Who is a Jew? or Who is a Jew? redirect to Jewish identity.
• That Jewish identity/Who is a Jew? serve as an introductory article on the topic, and refer to these three pages.

The other articles were nothing more than redirection candidates -- that is, pages which might redirect to those three pages (Jewish religious identity, Jewish national identity, and Jewish cultural identity). I think that you misconstrued Jewish national identity as "Israel" (when I was, in fact, thinking "Jewish community"), and that you perceived my edits as an attempt to legitimate Israel rather than as an attempt to improve the accuracy, readability, and overall quality of the article (which was, in fact, my purpose). ← Michael Safyan 00:35, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I both agree & disagree with you - but I'm not going to list my credentials. I'll simply say that the question is actually 2 questions - a Jewish one (because, as you should know, the Law of return is not Jewish Law) & an Israeli one. I've already suggested breaking the article up/down/into the other 2 articles (Judaism/Israel) & got pretty much the same rection you did. Good luck. FlaviaR (talk) 09:25, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Ooh. An Argument from Authority and from Special Knowledge combined with a personal attack, that the rest of us aren't qualified to edit here. If incivil logical fallacies is the best you can do, I'm not interested in hearing any more from you. I'm opposed to merges or POV forking. I accept reasonable amounts of re-sorting of the information. My position is clearly stated, and I'm done being insulted here by a kid with a holier-than-thou attitude. ThuranX 03:23, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I am quite frankly surprised by your reaction. I listed the information to show that I have a reason (other than the one implied by your post) to edit the article, and that I am just as (not more) qualified to edit the article as anyone else, and that -- therefore -- my contributions should not be dismissed as mere "POV pushing." As for personal attacks, your first post impugned the integrity of my edits and attacked me for my participation in WikiProject Israel. What personal attacks against you have I made? Please respond on my user talk page. ← Michael Safyan 09:39, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

The current approach has had a lot of thought put into it and I think addresses a lot of issues. I would note that American citizenship has its own article separate and distinct from American identity, and for very similar reasons. The United States has an arguably similar issue of a large group of people who regard themselves as having American identity but who are regarded as not meeting the technical requirements of American citizenship by folks who determine the technicalities of "citizenship" rules, and many people regard these folks as authorities relevant to the question of American identity. Of course there are people who regard such technicalities as irrelevant. Here too, the external technicalities of citizenship and internal concepts of self-identity are regarded as legitimately seperate subjects, one a question of law and politics, the other a question of sociology and culture. Best, --Shirahadasha 02:50, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Additional comment To see how the two can be regarded as different subjects, it might help to think about renaming the American citizenship article to American legal identity, or, even more to the point, to think of American law (the parent article of which American citizenship is a spinoff) as merely a POVFORK of American culture. (The article to which American identity belongs). Best, --Shirahadasha 03:11, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I think Shirahadasha makes a good point; however, I note that there is no distinct American identity article, rather it redirects to Culture of the United States. Right now the content of what's in Jewish identity does seem to overlap Who is a Jew?. I'm inclined toward merging or renaming. --MPerel 03:33, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Shirahadasha's comments are spot on. Further, I don't see all the overlap. I admit there are elements there that belong here, and vice versa, and I would support a bit of migration, but I do oppose the merge. They are NOT the same thing. One's an article about a cultural debate, the other's about how peopel see themselves. How are those identical? How many people walk around saying 'what makes me a jew?', and how many walk around saying 'this makes me jewish'? Two totally different questions. ThuranX 03:45, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, because:

• The articles currently overlap and do not answer these distinct questions.
• The article TITLES do not properly reflect this distinction. (Perhaps you want Personal conceptions of Jewish identity vs. Religious conceptions of Jewish identity ?).
• These questions, though distinct, are so intertwined that:
  • The distinction is lost without the contrast of having the questions answered in the same article.
  • Without answering both questions in the same article, the reader is likely to remain ignorant of the existence of the second question.

← Michael Safyan 00:46, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

There is a point to the above. While I acknowledge that the matters are different, there does seem to be a significant amount of both overlap and possible misplacement of content. Also, even combined, this article would only be about 10% longer, based on the existing length of the Jewish identity article. Combinging the two would help eliminate some confusion, while at the same time ensuring that a reader interested in the subject would quickly find the content he was looking for, if all the alternate titles were turned into redirects. It would also probably help resolve some of the POV disputes, by having all the content combined in one article, and maybe even help the one, final article have a better chance of achieveing GA or even FA status. John Carter 00:55, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I am grateful that you state that you see the two as different but overlapping. It seems then, that sorting out the information, and taking Jewish Identity towards a foccus on the ramifications of Identification, and perhaps into how self-identity and lifestyle creates conflicts with the various traditional jewish attitudes, might be a proper solution. I see zero, absolutely zero, value in creatign ridiculous multiple POV forks as Michael Safyan suggests. He sees clearly to split the article into three under his explicitly stated guidance, a clear violation of core policies such as NPOV and OWN. His stated 'qualifications' make his biases clear, as does, as I mentioned, a quick googling. His attitude that Wikipedia's readers are too stupid to follow links, and that editors are incapable of writing an article which draws readers to other related topics, is, while not 'incivil', certainly huaghty and arrogant. I'm not interested in talking to him about this any more, especially after his latest slanders, in which he stated I started out with insult and personal attacks, when all I did was disagree and call for a reworking of the links. My next post tried to explain more, and called for some sorting, as did my third, clarification post. that he calls all this an attack and demands I speak to him privately is absurd, and frankly, it's a bad faith way to conduct this entire discussion. I've been clear and rational, I pointed out problems, offered solutions and compromises for discussion, and in response, I got accused of things I'm innocent of, and dismissed as lacking "knowledge of "Jewishness" and Judaism", showing that I am not "in a position to edit this article", claims MS uses to arrogate authority beyond WP:POLICY. ThuranX 23:48, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

• I share the same opinion as MPerel above. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 01:16, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

My two penn'orth: this is an encyclopaedia, so our first priority should be about presenting the information in a fashion which will make sense (both logic and convenience) to a first-time browser. I know very little about jewishness, but suggest that the distinction between the two articles is not great enough to be understood by most people, therefore merge per john Carter above. Magnate (talk) 15:11, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

• I say merge Jewish identity into this article, and perhaps afterwards move this article to the title Jewish identity. — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 05:24, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

i have written about the organisation of this article above, please read above:- #Organisation and i hope that the framework i have outlined could accommodate the majority of michael safyans topics, although i feel that perhaps having separate articles for jewishness and jewish-ness is tending to the excessive! i must assure thuranx that i have no axe to grind on this topic (neutral POV) except that i wish to see the information presented clearly and logically in an easily accesible and organised way... ie in the best way to facilitate use of the wiki to obtain knowledge. actually i did not read michaels comments before forming my own idea of a framework to cover this topic. Thuranx, as you so plainly say the two articles debate do cover different ends of a spectrum of approaches, but it would seem to me best to have an overarching summary of that spectrum including not two articles but the "in betweens" as well. perhaps the wiki concept of categories is helpful in organising this?

Audio File

It's taking the piss right? - Sab Cav (talk) 04:06, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely not, as far as I can tell. The reader was reading the then current version seen here. Although the reader's accent is strong to a Citizen of the USA, such as myself, and I suspect, strong even in England, The reader was certainly trying their best for at least the first four minutes of the article, which is as much as I listened to to assure myself that there wasn't some egregious and obvious situation going on. ThuranX (talk) 05:19, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, well the reader seems to stutter a few times. I can't even tell if the accent is legitimate to be honest. Sab Cav (talk) 06:19, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, he stutters and stumbles a few times. This is a volunteer effort, and he took it on. If you think it's not legit, go tell it to him. I"m not going to reply anymore, as your tone is rapidly approaching overt, not veiled, insults, and i won't feed the trolls. ThuranX (talk) 06:21, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually personally I would have to agree with Sab Cav here that he is probably taking the piss. Given that his original description describes the accent as 'drunk retard' [7] and he says the audio is by his gypsy mate I think he was at least putting it on a bit. However it's what we have and it's understandable and he should be commended for at least doing something Nil Einne (talk) 15:46, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

How can you be a Jew?

How can you be a Jew if you're not related to Jacob and you don't practice the religion. Because many people who are neither are being accused of somehow magically being "ethnically Jewish". 65.102.200.239 (talk) 17:32, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Read the article. Thank you. ThuranX (talk) 17:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism & Page Protection

The article page is frequently vandalized. Although some of the vandalisms come from named users, the majority of these vandalisms come from anonymous, IP users. If the article page were semi-protected, then only named-users would be allowed to edit the page, thereby preventing vandalism by anonymous users and reducing vandalism altogether. Do you support or oppose semi-protection? ← Michael Safyan ^(talk) 04:18, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Support, totally. The article evidently acts as a magnet for vandals. Too much editorial talent, time & energy are given over to repairing damage & writing warnings. Semi-protection (the sooner the better) would not only provide needed relief but also preserve the integrity of the article a higher proportion of the time. Hertz1888 (talk) 04:51, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok. I've submitted a request for semi-protection. ← Michael Safyan ^(talk) 03:31, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

(The request was declined) ← Michael Safyan ^(talk) 21:25, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Maria DiFranco has been a member for three days, and has reverted a dozen or more edits, including in this article. She is also threatening to block contributors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.254.240.118 (talk) 02:06, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

discussion of discussion

there seems to be a huge amount of discussion here much of which concerns some fairly determined efforts to restrict the scope of the article. whilst the article is not that small, might it not save a lot of effort in discussion to allow a broader scope for the article ie to allow contributors more leeway in what to add and then follow on from that by re-organising and editing the additional information so that it is easier for readers to access the parts of it that they wish to, without getting bogged down in parts that are permitted to be present but may be of debateable relevance unless they wish to.... even if it is only to mention some issue and link to another article which presents the information in its relevent context for example only i mention the issues as to whether khazars or karaites were/are jewish ... whether that is by their own definition, by others or by some sort of historical "judgement" ... and whether that jewishness is racial, religious or simply a loyalty group (tribe?) could that not be for example alluded to in some section perhaps the "others" section of Non-religious ethnic and cultural definitions.. or whatever with links to the relevant articles.. karaites, karaim, khazar, etc etc??? just mentioning this particular issue by way of example not wishing to press for it in particular although it is interesting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.27.221.233 (talk) 15:57, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

The difficulty here is that the article subject is a term of art, with a specific scope and meaning. By way of analogy, Due process of law is a legal term of art whose meaning is discussed among scholars of the United States Constitution but also in other legal systems. It would be off-topic for editors to insert opinions about general concepts of fairness or to add material linking the legal topic to discussions outside the scope of the legal debate without citing a reliable scholar who actually made such a link. Similarly, this article topic is a translation of a Hebrew legal term involving a contemporary political and legal debate centered on the State of Israel (where the outcomes of the debate have the force of law) but involving contemporary Jewish religious authorities and community leaders worldwide. Because the subject is a legal term of art, it would similarly be off-topic for editors to insert opinions about subjects that are not connected to it. There are other articles, such as Jewish identity, that discuss Jewishness in a more general, subjective sense. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 17:04, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

discussion of discussion

there seems to be a huge amount of discussion here much of which concerns some fairly determined efforts to restrict the scope of the article. whilst the article is not that small, might it not save a lot of effort in discussion to allow a broader scope for the article ie to allow contributors more leeway in what to add and then follow on from that by re-organising and editing the additional information so that it is easier for readers to access the parts of it that they wish to, without getting bogged down in parts that are permitted to be present but may be of debateable relevance unless they wish to.... even if it is only to mention some issue and link to another article which presents the information in its relevent context for example only i mention the issues as to whether khazars or karaites were/are jewish ... whether that is by their own definition, by others or by some sort of historical "judgement" ... and whether that jewishness is racial, religious or simply a loyalty group (tribe?) could that not be for example alluded to in some section perhaps the "others" section of Non-religious ethnic and cultural definitions.. or whatever with links to the relevant articles.. karaites, karaim, khazar, etc etc??? just mentioning this particular issue by way of example not wishing to press for it in particular although it is interesting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.27.221.233 (talk) 17:11, 2 April 2008 (UTC) see below for my thoughts on organisation, and also at the end of the merger section

Organisation

in fact i wrote a bit more than that and the server didnt accept it. the articles from Jew and Judaism link to this article as the main article on the definition of jewishness. the article on Jewish identity is personal philosophical and of a general nature about identity, it could be an identity template..

therefore this information here is regarded as being on wikipedia the main information on jewishness. i believe that it should be re-written, it is not bad, but the organisation could be improved. the first section, "perspectives" should be abolished and the information in there distributed as follows. Wikipedia:Notability information to the introduction, religious points to section 2 and points relating to the law and society of the state of israel to section 3.

really it needs to be re-organised by someone with a greater knowledge of the different religious, cultural and "tribal" distinctions in judaism than me, but that section mentioned above seems to too narrowly define the question whereas this article is actually the main article on on wikipedia definitionS of jewishness.. so needs to be broader. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.27.221.233 (talk) 17:40, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Messianic Jewish perspective

I know it might be a sore spot, but I do believe the viewpoint is relevant to the article, and I did my best to present it in a very NPOV way. Please discuss here before deleting it outright, and if you want it deleted, please explain why it is not a valid perspective to include in the article, for unbiased readers. inigmatus (talk) 19:25, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

This issue has been dealt with previously, by consensus, and thus it has already been deleted by another editor. Cheers, A Sniper 19:53, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Did consensus include a Messianic Jewish opinion? Do you have the references for where it was decided by consensus, if not, I can re-add it and we can then discuss if consensus agrees for its total removal. inigmatus (talk) 20:34, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Since no one has responded to request for proof of consensus, and the change has reverted twice without response to the objection, this issue has been submitted for an unbiased third opinion. inigmatus (talk) 21:49, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Not-for-nothin', but other editors are not obliged to provide you with proof that this has been dealt with previously. Please feel free to read through the archives. Thanks. --Woland (talk) 22:00, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't have posted asking for proof of consensus if I hadn't already searched the archives in-depth. inigmatus (talk) 02:30, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

The viewpoint is not relevant. This perspective belongs in this article no more than a Jewish perspective would belong in an article titled "Who is a Christian?". While Jewish belief may be fairly nebulous and Jews tend to define themselves according to practice rather than belief, there are certain modes of thought which clearly depart from the accepted realm of Jewish belief. Inigmatus, if you go to the Chicago Rabbinical Council, the Jewish Theological Seminary, Yeshivat Chovevei Torah, the Rabbinical Assembly, the University of Judaism, the Committee on Jewish Law and Standards, the Orthodox Union, and any other mainstream Jewish seminary or accepted body of law, you will find that they will give the same answer: so-called "Messianic Jews" or "Jews for Jesus" are not Jewish. There are certain beliefs which are simply incompatible with Judaism, such as believing in more than one God or believing that God has/had a physical form. The perspective which you would like to include belongs in an article on "Messianic Jews" or "Jews for Jesus", not in this article. Sorry. ← 21:55, 2 April 2008 (UTC)Michael Safyan ^(talk)

I searched all three talk archives for "messianic jewish perspective" and didn't find even one instance of the single word "messianic." If this issue was so thoroughly thrashed out in earlier discussions, what were the terms used in those discussions? — Athaenara ✉ 23:15, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

On many of the pages dealing with Jews and Judaism, including the project, the issue of Messianic Jews has indeed been discussed. As already pointed out, the consensus (backed by all credible sources on Judaism, both academic & religious) is that it belongs within the Christianity pages. Best, A Sniper 00:29, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I applaud the "consensus" among "credible sources on Judaism" for determining who is a Jew from their perspective. The point is, this article is about what various groups claiming to be Jewish, define who is Jewish. As such, a Messianic Jewish perspective would greatly add to value of information in the article since it is one such group that claims to be Jewish, and has a definition that seems to be in line with even Orthodox halachic standards, minus their insistence that anyone who believes in Jesus is all of a sudden no longer Jewish. At the very least, the fact that the term is debated by Messianic Jews should at least be found in this article, if in fact the article is truly NPOV on the matter. inigmatus (talk) 02:43, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

The header of this article states:

As the Jewish identity shares some of the characteristics of an ethnicity and a religion, the definitions of a Jew may vary, depending on whether a religious, sociological, or ethnic approach to identity is used. Throughout Jewish history, Jews have been characterized in many different lights. According to most definitions, a Jew is either born into the Jewish people, or becomes one through religious conversion. The debate centers around some of the following questions:

• Mixed parentage debate: tries to identify when people with mixed parentage should be considered Jewish, and when they should not be.
• Conversion debate: centers around the process of religious conversion in an attempt to specify which conversions to Judaism should be considered valid, and which should not.
• Life circumstances debate: focuses on whether people's actions (such as conversion to a different religion) or circumstances in their lives (such as being unaware of Jewish parentage) affect their status as a Jew.

Just from the header alone it seems clear that Messianic Jewish perspective should get a section. Mmyotis (talk) 01:26, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

No more than any other Christian sect. Satlubav (talk) 01:33, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I am not aware of any Christian sects which claims to also be Jewish. Perhaps you could point out one out? Most Messianic Jews I know, and several credible sources from the Messianic Jewish perspective seem to prove that a majority of Messianic Jews consider themselves Jewish and not Christian. inigmatus (talk) 02:43, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

It is not relevant what other Christian sects claim to also be Jewish. The fact remains that Messianic "Judaism" is in no way, shape, or form a part of Judaism. They believe in j*sus chr*st/y*shua ham*shiach....whether using English, Greek, or Hebrew terminology, they are completely outside of Judaism and thus have no place in an article that defines "Who is a Jew". Born Jews who fall for the J-man heresy continue to be Jews (and are already covered in the section on Jews who practice another religion) but the Gentiles in your movement are not Jews at all so none of it belongs here. Satlubav (talk) 03:24, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

From the discussion warning above, this Talk page is not the place to debate whether or not a specific group is Jewish. This includes your well-sourced traditional Jewish "proof" that Messianic Jews are not Jews, and thus is irrelevant for the discussion at hand. The article, I believe, is quite clear in that it provides a perspective from major religious groups claiming to be Jewish, on defining who is a Jew. This should includes Messianic Judaism, no matter how other Jewish religious groups see Messianic Jews. A case can just as easily be made that they are not Christians, but this article nor this talk page is the place for such a discussion. inigmatus (talk) 02:43, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

From the messianic Judaism lead:

Messianic Jews practice their faith in a way they consider to be authentically Torah-observant and culturally Jewish. However, Jews[5] of all denominations[6] and many Christians[7] do not consider Messianic Judaism to be a form of Judaism, but a form of Christianity, though there are exceptions.[8]

As long as the section on the messiannic judaism includes the statement that "Jews of all denominations do not consider Messianic Judaism to be a form of Judaism", I see no objection to including a paragraph on their perspective in this article and I think this should be considered as a way of resolving this debate. Mmyotis (talk) 09:23, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Mmyotis, I don't understand you. Because all denominations think that Messianic Judaism is not Judaism its perspective should be mentioned. Did you forget a "not" somewhere in there?

I strongly object to any mentioning of Messianic Judaism. It would be giving undo weight to say even a sentence on the subject. I find this comparable to fringe scientific theory wanting article on science to be "balanced".

This subject has be dealt with before on many other Judaism related pages including The Third Temple, Shekhina, and Template:Judaism among many other. I see no reason to restate this argument on every Judaism related page. Jon513 (talk) 14:08, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I highly agree. As you say, it is already mentioned on the Messianic Judaism page what Messianics think of themselves. That is all well and good. But exactly because it is not Judaism and all Jewish denominations agree that it is not Judaism, it has no place on the Jewish article that discusses "Who is a Jew". It is puzzling why Messianics are trying to push themselves off as Jewish, but that doesn't matter here. What matters is that, as Jon513 said, the issue has been dealt before. As for this article, those Messianics who were born Jews are dealt with under the heading "Jews who have practiced another faith" and those Messianics who are Gentile are not Jewish in any form. So why keep pushing the issue? Satlubav (talk) 14:24, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Again this talk page isn't to decide who is or isn't Jewish. It's to decide the qualifications of what items fit the article. This also isn't just "any Judaism related page." This is an article dealing with various religious perspectives by groups claiming to be Jewish, and their definitions on who is a Jew. Messianic Jews clearly fit into this article's requirements for inclusion. And I wouldn't call 150,000 people "fringe." There are far more Messianic Jews than Karaite Jews, yet the Karaites are mentioned in this article. The following section on this page is proposed:

Messianic Jewish perspective

Messianic perspectives on "Who is a Jew" vary. The Jerusalem Council, a global Messianic halakhic body, defines a Jew as one who is born of a Jewish mother or father, or who is a convert to Judaism. It should be noted that the Jerusalem Council recognizes as a convert to Judaism, in addition to Orthodox halacha, anyone who is a follower of Jesus who has gone through a mikvah of conversion to Messianic Judaism. Circumcision is seen by the Jerusalem Council not as a means by which one is recognized as a Jew, but rather as a measure of continued obedience the Torah after conversion.

The Messianic Jewish Rabbinical Council, a Messianic halakhic body submitted to the Union of Messianic Jewish Congregations, disagrees, and instead promotes developing a process of conversion by which "Non-Jews" may be circumcised and then only afterwards be recognized as Jewish.

inigmatus (talk) 15:08, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect, the above paragraph has no relation whatsoever to either this talk page or to the article. I can see from your own talk page inigmatus that you are involved in this movement. I would therefore take a guess that you already knew the reaction you would receive on trying to foist the above paragraph into the article in the first place. This would make your attempt disingenuous. For the purposes of an encyclopedia, you must be prepared to accept that folks who believe that Jesus was the Messiah are considered Christians, and not considered Jewish by anyone other than themselves (and a segment of evangelical Christianity), and that doesn't qualify. The above descriptions and examples by other editors are appropriate. Unfortunately hoping & wanting are not the same as achieving, and your attempts simply won't go anywhere. Best, A Sniper 16:59, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Please assume good faith. Calling this an "attempt" and "disingenuous" is not conducive to deciding by true consensus the merits of adding the Messianic Jewish perspective on "Who is a Jew" to the article. I could just as easily claim that this article is WP:OWNed by traditional Jewish editors holding the viewpoint that Messianic Judaism is not Jewish, but that is not the discussion, nor should it be. The discussion is on the qualifications of what groups are represented in this article. I ask you, in all good faith, are the qualifications for this article based on "specific religious groups claiming to be Jewish, and their own definitions of who is a Jew?" Or are the qualifications based on "specific religious groups recognized by traditional Judaism?" - please clarify. If the first definition, then why is Messianic Judaism excluded? If the second definition, then how does this article not fit the qualification of an article that is WP:OWNed? inigmatus (talk) 17:22, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

This article's topic is the legal debate, primarily in the State of Israel, on who is defined as a Jew for various purposes such as entry and citizenship under the Law of Return, marriage, and other matters, including significant proposals to change existing law and tension between traditional religious, non-traditional religious, and secular views involved in this debate. Is there a reliable source that the Messianic Jewish perspective is a significant viewpoint in this debate? I'll point out that although religious and other viewpoint-based sources are acceptable for many kinds of information about a viewpoint once it has been independently established that the viewpoint is significant, independent sources are needed to initially establish the significance of a viewpoint as a "get in the door" threshold. Sources within the viewpoint are generally not reliable to establish the viewpoint's own significance in comparison with other views. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 17:28, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the question of Messianic Jews being able to make aliyah was a high profile case that was ultimately rejected by the Israeli Supreme Court. At the very least, mention of this should be in the article, with even some of the sources provided in the example above as proving the Messianic Jewish perspective on the matter in spite of the court's decision. It is credible, and relevant to the article. inigmatus (talk) 17:38, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

A good half of the article is about definitions other than the State of Israel's. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:36, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

The current State of Israel view is simply one particular compromise at one moment in time in a debate. The debate has a number of significant players and voices, many of whom are easily identifiable through reliable sources. Since the significance of this particular voice has been challenged, do we have reliable sources to establish it? I'm not intending to ask more than Wikipedia requires. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 17:43, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

It's hard for me to know whether you're referring to Notability or Undue weight. This [8] article from the Israel National News, while apparently clearly POV, might be enough to establish notability, and maybe the references to Religion in Israel#Messianic Judaism in Israel would help there. I don't know whether they would qualify underWP:Undue weight, though.

From the previously quoted part of the lead, regarding the "Life circumstances debate: focuses on whether people's actions (such as conversion to a different religion) or circumstances in their lives (such as being unaware of Jewish parentage) affect their status as a Jew.", I would tend to think that at least some content regarding the subject should be added, as there is a definite at least arguable question here whether a Jew who converts to Messianic Judaism converted to a different religion. I would think at the least that a passing reference to the subject should be made, probably regarding at least whether such a conversion is a conversion to a different religion. John Carter (talk) 17:55, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Part of the header to the Messianic Judaism page is quite appropriate: "However, Jews[5] of all denominations[6] and many Christians[7] do not consider Messianic Judaism to be a form of Judaism, but a form of Christianity". I would also note that the Random House Unabridged Dictionary states that a Christian is one "who believes in Jesus Christ; adherent of Christianity" and "of, pertaining to, believing in, or belonging to the religion based on the teachings of Jesus Christ". So, on the one hand, all forms of Judaism consider Messianic Judaism to be Christianity, and on the other the established definitions of a Christian pertain to Messianic Jews. I would suggest that this answers the question of whether or not a "Jew who converts to Messianic Judaism converted to a different religion". This general subject of Jews who have converted to another religion (such as Christianity) is already covered in the article. Best, A Sniper 18:43, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

The fact that the claim that "Messianic Jews are not Jewish and are in fact Christian," is disputed by Messianic Jews who claim they are Jewish. That fact alone merits mention in this article on "Who is a Jew" in the section concerning various religious perspectives from religions claiming to be Jewish, on who is a Jew. Do you agree? inigmatus (talk) 19:31, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Not at all. The whole premise is absurd and the epitome of chutzpah. Satlubav (talk) 19:38, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Terms like "absurd" and "epitome of chutzpah" are distinctively POV. Can you provide a NPOV comment useful to the discussion, Satlubav? inigmatus (talk) 19:46, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Please do not attempt to use Wikipedia policy to include misleading and inaccurate material in this article. Please also keep in mind that there is one rule to rule them all, and that is "ignore all rules" if necessary in order to improve the article. Also keep in mind that Wikipedia respects verifiability, and you will find that there are numerous sources which will point out that "Jews for Jesus" or "Messianic Jews" are not considered to be Jewish by any of the Jewish movements. See: [9][10][11][12][13][14]. ← Michael Safyan ^(talk) 23:29, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Isn't it already the case that the article at least mentions opinions of who is a Jew from non-Jewish perspectives? If some Christians consider Messianic Jews "Jews", as apparently at least a few do, that would probably be sufficient to add at least a little reference to them, probably in a summary section and a link elsewhere, as there evidently is at least some discussion on the matter. Also, if the Israeli courts made some sort of ruling on MJs, which they haven't made on Roman Catholics, Sikhs, or any other clearly divergent religious groups, that would seem to indicate that there at least was at some point some question about their status. I'm not necessarily saying more than a sentence or two should be included, but there apparently is or at least was some question regarding the status of members of this group. John Carter (talk) 23:38, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Unlike "Messianic Jews", Roman Catholics, Sikhs, and other non-Jewish religious groups have never claimed to be Jewish. It is for that reason that the issue came up in Israel's court; not because "Messianic Jews" were ever considered to be Jewish. It is also important to note that the ruling had to do with the right-of-return, for which the issue is not "is so-and-so Jewish" but rather "would this person have been persecuted for being Jewish". In either case, this is irrelevant. Who "Messianic Jews" consider to be "Messianic Jews" belongs in an article on "Messianic Jews", not in an article about Jews. ← Michael Safyan ^(talk) 00:11, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

John Carter, the header of the article is quite specific - this article doesn't attempt to answer the question of 'who is a Jew' but instead focuses on the question itself - the Hebrew phrase Mihu Yehudi ("?מיהו יהודי"‎) - and the answers Jewish thinking and society, both in the historical and contemporary setting, have demonstrated. Including even a casual reference to Messianic Judaism would open the floodgates of all of those groups claiming to be Jewish or descended from Jews (Nation of Yahweh, Church of God and Saints of Christ, etc.) who would wish to also take a stab at the question. A Sniper 00:16, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

The "Other" section which includes the Juhurim and Lemba, both of whom make claims to being Jewish, would seem to serve as a precedent that there is room in the article for those who claim to be Jewish but had been of questionable status before. Also, the introduction specifically states that the "conversion debate" is a concern of the article. On that basis, the prior controversy regarding whether these individuals qualify as converts might seem to be relevant, particularly as there does seem to have been a question regarding this raised in the Israeli courts. I don't know one way or another, but were similar claims made for any of the other groups you mentioned? If not, then there could be cause to include only those groups whose status as religious Jews had to be determined. That would seem to be in accord with the lead. Perhaps there could be (or is, I don't know) an article about those whose religious Judaism has been questioned, and a summary section with a link to that article. Something like that would probably resolve the matter permanently. John Carter (talk) 01:04, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Messianic Judaism is considered by Jews of all denominations to be Christian. I would suggest a new article called 'who is a Messianic Jew', at which time all relevant, credible references could be gathered that supports whatever it is that they believe to answer the question. What would solve the matter permanently is any evidence that a) Messianic Judaism does NOT equal Christianity, b) Messianic Jews are NOT Christian, and c) any Jewish organization, denomination, society or rabbinical college that has EVER stated that Messianic Judaism is a part of contemporary Judaism. Best, A Sniper 01:13, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Safyan, when Messianic Judaism itself claims to be a Jewish movement, made up of people claiming to be Jews, and they even promote their own definition of who is a Jew, then that should be sufficient for inclusion in an article on "Who is a Jew?" I value article development processes, and in controversial articles, ignoring all rules is not helpful to consensus building. Again, I think it's great that you can pull verified sources from other groups claiming to be Jewish, and use their definitions for "Who is a Jew?" to the exclusion of Messianic Jews, however when it comes to such a group labeled "Messianic Jews" making the same claim, and having their own definition for who is a Jew, that somehow they fail the distinction of a "group claiming to be Jewish who also have a definition for who is a Jew." A truly NPOV article would make mention of the perspective of Messianic Jews in regards to the question of "Who is a Jew?" because the debate between major Jewish denominations and Messianic Judaism, is notable, verified, and well-known; even in non-Messianic Jewish sources. In fact, you will find many non-Messianic Jewish sources go to well-documented, in-the-public's-interest great lengths to prove otherwise. As such the Jewish status of Messianic Jews is certainly noteworthy of a distinct mention in this article. With this in mind, do you agree? If no, can you provide an NPOV reason as to why not? inigmatus (talk) 23:54, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Inigmatus, that "Messianic Judaism" claims to be a Jewish movement is irrelevant. The fact is that the notable institutions of Jewish practice, education, and ordination -- the Rabbinical Council of America, the Orthodox Union, the Rabbinical Assembly, the United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism, the Committee on Jewish Law and Standards, the Chicago Rabbinical Council, the Jewish Theological Seminary, the University of Judaism, the Hebrew Union College, and Yeshivat Chovevei Torah -- all are adamant that "Jews for Jesus" and "Messianic Jews" are not Jewish. If you can find a public policy position from any of these insitutions claiming to the contrary, then by all means, include the position of "Messianic Jews" in the article. ← Michael Safyan ^(talk) 00:11, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I must agree with Michael Safyan - if Inigmatus can offer references that demonstrate that any Jewish organization, publication, rabbincal college or association has ever stated that Jews for Jesus or Messianic Judaism is considered 'Jewish', it would be an entirely different matter. Instead, only a couple of Jewish academics (such as Daniel Cohn-Sherbok) have made even a suggestion that Messianic Jews be accepted into the fold of contemporary Judaism - this hardly qualifies. Best, A Sniper 00:30, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Editors of Wikipedia should not be censoring content based on the religious orientation of the source. Mmyotis (talk) 00:34, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

what are you referring to exactly, Mmyotis? Best, A Sniper 00:40, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

The suggestion that references be provided in order to demonstrate the "jewish" credentials before a passage on the Messianic Jewish perspective be considered for inclusion in the Who is a Jew article. Mmyotis (talk) 00:51, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

This whole issue is re: the appropriateness of mentioning Messianic Judaism in this article. Many editors have pointed out that the article is not intended to seek answers to the question of 'who is a Jew' but instead to ponder all of the answers that have been given throughout history within Jewish thought. The very name of the article comes from a Hebrew quote that received a lot of attention within the Israeli media and abroad. On the other hand, editors have also pointed out that the Messianic Judaism perspective isn't relevant to the article since adherents to Messianic Judaism are not considered Jewish by any branch whatsoever of Judaism. If Messianic Judaism is included, so must all groups who claim to be 'Jewish'. The sources of references are indeed important. If Jewish credentials aren't necessary in an article called 'Who is a Jew', I give up. A Sniper 00:56, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I would support a sentence or two in the existing 'conversion out of Judaism' section stating that 'messianic Jews who started as Jews are often considered Jews, but gentiles who directly convert to J4J are never recognized by established Jewish authorities as being Jews of any sort', with appropriate references. Unfortunately, J4J works on the principle that by accepting Jesus, you also get membership in a second club for free. Unfortunately, their thinking is also circular logic, dogmatic and well, biased in their favor, it's hardly grounds for inclusion. Their perspective, while slightly greater than 'fringe', is a minority perspective, and one easily incorporated into the existing framework of the article. The attempts to add a section as large as the major theological branches of Judaism is an agenda push standing knee deep in POV. two sentences would do fine. ThuranX (talk) 01:07, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

...and following on from that suggestion, Reform Judaism doesn't even consider Jews who have converted to any other religion to be Jewish any longer. A Sniper 01:17, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

A Sniper, my point is that Messaianic Jews claim to have a valid perspective on Who is a Jew and some of the editors appear to be using their own view regarding Who is a Jew to keep that particular perspective out. There is no NPOV argument that can be made to support censoring the claim of the Messianic Jews out of the article. Mmyotis (talk) 01:36, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit conflict] That is precisely my view as well, Mmyotis.

This is a general encyclopedia, not a religious encyclopedia. The neutral point of view policy is not a "rule" to ignore. — Athaenara ✉ 02:16, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

...and there is no encyclopedia on Judaica that lists Messianic Judaism therein... A Sniper 02:26, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, this has nothing to do with my views or the views of the other, regular contributing editors to this article. The only views that matter are those of international Jewry: namely, that Messianic Judaism is Christian, hence another religion (and not Judaism). The offer is on the table: if any editor can add to the encyclopedia by offering any evidence to the contrary. Conscientious wikipedians do not censor but instead edit based on available references and accepted knowledge on a given subject. What is being attempted here in terms of foisting Messianic Judaism into the article appears to be, at worst, based on agenda or, at best, a lack of knowledge on the subject. Best, A Sniper 02:14, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

The relevant NPOV argument is WP:NPOV#Undue weight, which requires viewpoints represented in the encyclopedia to be significant. It's been part of the NPOV policy for some time. Although the WP:FRINGE guideline is grounded in an arbcom ruling on scientific subjects and uses examples involving mainstream vs. non-mainstream science, the significance requirement in WP:NPOV#Undue weight applies to any subjct. Significance is based on sources, not what editors personally think. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 04:01, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Name change

I always thought the title "Who is a Jew" reads kinda funny. Wouldn't it be more appropriate to name this article "Who is Jewish"? I know we don't necessarily have to follow google results, but the term "who is jewish" outnumbers "who is a jew" by a large amount.[15][16]. The last phrase however might be used in a different way more often, I don't know. I'm just going by the sound of it. Thoughts on renaming? - PietervHuis (talk) 02:29, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

No. Please read the talk page archives. "Who is a jew?" refers to a specific set of discussions and identity related issues, framed around a traditional question, Mihu Yehudi. ThuranX (talk) 04:52, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Aren't both phrases neologisms per WP:Neo? (Someone keeps claiming Jewish Lobby is and that phrase has been around a lot longer.) In any case, it would seem that "identity" is the more typical phrase used to discuss these issues and that "who is a Jew?" actually is very parochial and not very encyclopedic. I think this article should be merged into Jewish identity. Carol Moore 12:15, 15 April 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

It isn't a neologism. This phrase has been around for centuries. However, as you pointed out, "Jewish identity" is a more natural title for this article than "Who is a Jew?". That said, since this article is longer (and, in my opinion, much better than) the "Jewish identity" article, it would be more practical to verify that everything in "Jewish identity" is already included in "Who is a Jew?", and then either redirect "Jewish identity" to "Who is a Jew?" or move "Who is a Jew?" to "Jewish identity" (overwriting the current "Jewish identity" article) and redirect "Who is a Jew?" to the new location. ← Michael Safyan ^(talk) 15:00, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

But again wikipedia is for a larger audience and narrowing it to a phrase which many gentiles might not think of using or would not feel comfortable using (because of fears of accusations of antisemitism) makes the article and subject look parochial and unencyclopedic. I think it would be best to keep both articles - a short one on the phrase "Who is a Jew?" and its history and a longer one with most of the identity issues transferred over to Jewish identity. Carol Moore 16:40, 15 April 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

There's simply nothing "parochial" about specialized vocabulary. Non-lawyers may think a suit refers to clothes, non-physicists and non-Christians may think that charm and charisma involve personal popularity, but that doesn't make articles that use words as terms of art in their specialized settings unencyclopedic. Nobody calls law or physics or numerous other subjects' use of specialized vocabularies "parochial"? What makes this subject different? Historically, Jewish identity refers to a cultural and social discussion, Who is a Jew to a legal one. There are many parallels. See for example American identity and American citizenship. One subject reflects personal and cultural matters, another is a legal subject. The two overlap, but they are not the same. Same here. Who is a Jew is a question of particular import to Israeli law. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 18:42, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

• So we agree keep articles separate? Again, I think both article should exist. And editors can decide which has what content.
• This is especially true if the distinctions you make between articles are that dramatic.
• Specialized language only becomes parochial (too narrow in scope) when there is a suggestion that more inclusive language like Jewish identity be deleted, which is what this thread discusses.
• From the standpoint of what's best for wikipedia, I think most wiki editors would find Jewish Identity to be more encyclopedic if forced to choose between one or the other. But better not to force that choice :-)

Carol Moore 20:08, 15 April 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

As always I think that Shirahadasha's argument is a sound one. The two should remain distinct articles. Best, A Sniper (talk) 20:57, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

They are two distinct articles. This comes up regularly, always from people too lazy to read the full talk apge, where this topic already appears, and the archives, where it appears over and over, and the banners at the top, and so on, and then go, 'hey, i've got a brand new idea you'll all love!'. But we don't. One covers a speific debate in the Jewish community, one refers to a larger sense of jewish identity, a cultural trend. THey aren't the same. ThuranX (talk) 20:59, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Amen. Hopefully this can now close the discussion. Best, A Sniper (talk) 21:04, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Maria DiFranco has been a member for three days, and has reverted a dozen or more edits, including in this article. She is also threatening to block contributors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.254.240.118 (talk) 02:03, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

She removed an unsourced addition to this page - what's the problem? Anyway, "newness" is hardly the sort of thing an IP user can legitimately complain about. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:26, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't see a strong consensus to keep this title at all. I see a lot of editors arguing that the title is unencyclopedic and a a parade of the same three or four editors repeating the same non-argument in favour of keeping it. The fact that it is a translation of mihu yehudi does not mean that it is an appropriate title for an encyclopedic entry. I have seen good arguments above that the legal definition of jewishness in Israeli law is not the same as jewish identity, but I still don't see how this justifies such an unencyclopedic title. A better solution in my view would be either to merge them into a jewish identity article that treats the legalist and the self-identifications issues separately or to simply move it to a title such as The question of Jewish identity in Israeli law.·Maunus·ƛ· 11:24, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

This is a stale thread; and there are about a dozen iterations of the discussion throughout the archives. I suggest reading all of them before continuing this. there's no good reason for a merge into a different article, nor to a title no one will find. ThuranX (talk) 21:08, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

The thread is stale because like half of the other discussions they tend to end because they are brushed of with some arrogant remark about "having had the discussion before" like the one you just made. The fact that this discussion surges every three months is exactly an argument for actually taking the concern seriously. I have not seen any good arguments used in any of the threads that "mihu yehudi" or a translation thereof is the best or only way to name this article.·Maunus·ƛ· 04:51, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

The reason this arises every few months is actually because people stumble upon this without knowing anything about the subject and think they're doing good. Which is fine (I've blundered into my share of articles like that). The fact is that there is a reasonable consensus about this.--Woland (talk) 16:56, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Name change to "Jewish Identity". A wikipedia article should not be titled with a question unless the name of a book etc. Maltalia (talk) 17:17, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

So setup a RfC or some junk.--Woland (talk) 20:50, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Strongly oppose. "Jewish identity" means "what does it mean to be a Jew?". "Who is a Jew?" means "how do you identify who is Jewish and who isn't?" They are quite different questions. As an article title, "Who is a Jew?" is short for "The 'who is a Jew?' debate", and therefore is analogous to book titles etc. --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) (talk) 09:09, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Law of Return - Messianic Jews Ruling

Not sure where it would go or how best to truncate it, if its even possible. Certainly though the ruling is relevant to the article and should be mentioned, at least in a reference somewhere. Feel free to modify the presentation of the ruling, unless you believe the ruling has no place at all as a reference in this article. inigmatus (talk) 20:10, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I fear that this is still not appropriate for the article, for the same logical arguments that were made the last time you tried. This is significant only in the context of Israeli legal issues, and illiustrates that Israeli laws and the faith of traditional/progressive Judaism are independent entities. To date, NO branches of Judaism accept Messianic Jews as being Jewish, and this is a fact you'll have to grapple with. A Sniper (talk) 20:22, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

"Who is a Jew?" (Hebrew: ?מיהו יהודי‎) is a commonly considered question about Jewish identity. The Hebrew phrase Mihu Yehudi (Hebrew: "?מיהו יהודי"‎, "Who is a Jew?") came into widespread use when several high profile legal cases in Israel grappled with this subject after the founding of the Jewish state in 1948. As the Jewish identity shares some of the characteristics of an ethnicity and a religion, the definitions of a Jew may vary, depending on whether a religious, sociological, or ethnic approach to identity is used. Throughout Jewish history, Jews have been characterized in many different lights. According to most definitions, a Jew is either born into the Jewish people, or becomes one through religious conversion. The debate centers around some of the following questions:

• Mixed parentage debate: tries to identify when people with mixed parentage should be considered Jewish, and when they should not be.
• Conversion debate: centers around the process of religious conversion in an attempt to specify which conversions to Judaism should be considered valid, and which should not.
• Life circumstances debate: focuses on whether people's actions (such as conversion to a different religion) or circumstances in their lives (such as being unaware of Jewish parentage) affect their status as a Jew.

When I read the above description of this article, it seems clear that the Messainic Jewish perspective merits inclusion. This does not mean that I think their claim is legitimate, it simply means that there is sufficient controversy around the claim that it merits inclusion in an article that purports to document the controversy surrounding the question of "Who is a Jew".

Because this article does not claim to answer the question of "Who is a Jew", but only to report on the contraversy, the fact that no other branches of Judaism acknowledge the religious validity of the claims of the Messianic Jew is irrelevant. Mmyotis (talk) 22:22, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

While I am deeply sympathetic to the Messianics, I strongly disagree that the decision merits inclusion here. Please re-read what it says: The High Court ruled that if a person has patrilineal Jewish descent, the fact that the person is a Messianic does not exclude her or him from the benefits of the Law of Return or the Law of Citizenship. Both of those laws were written to include Jews by a very broad definition (similar to the Nazis' Nuremberg Laws), and the High Court's ruling merely affirmed the right of a person of Jewish descent to be considered Jewish under those laws. It is important to note that the High Court did not say that a Messianic who has no Jewish ancestry is eligible for any benefits under the Law of Return or the Law of Citizenship, because the ruling has nothing to do with whether Messianics are considered Jews. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 23:09, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Rulings of law, rulings of religious leaders, none of that matters except as it proves its relevancy. The Messianic Jew perspective is a part of the controversy and that’s why it merits inclusion in an encyclopedic article on the subject. Mmyotis (talk) 00:24, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

THis has been discussed, ad nauseum above. A single sentence or two is enough. There is a POV push here to add ridiculously inflated amounts of pro-messianic materials here which would 'validate', to the POV pushers, the rights of all Messianics,to self-identify as Jews, and to be recognized widely as such. I can self-identify as Martian, but I'm not. Same applies here. As to the ruling,. what is states has NO bearing on messianic beliefs, but it speaks instead to one's blood relation to the religion. Note that the decision says NOTHING about converted MJs, only those who started as Jews and converted to the form of Christianity knowns as MJ, and only speaks to their Jewish birth origins. As such, it's irrelevant in this article, but may merit some mention in the MJ article. In this article, all we need is a couple of sentences stating that while born Jews who become MJs are still considered Jews, those MJs who have no Jewish descent aren't ever recognized as Jews by any Jewish body. ThuranX (talk) 00:28, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

There certainly exists a controversy over whether or not Messianic Jews are Jewish. The Law of Return decision merits inclusion in the article as at least some acknowledgment of this fact concerning Messianic Jews, especially for an article detailing controversies over who is a Jew or not. If the conditions for inclusion in this article for controversies about Jewish identity as decided by "Jewish denominations" and is not at all related to the decisions of the Israel Supreme Court; then either all references to Israel Supreme Court decisions and the Law of Return should be stricken from the article, or the article renamed to Who is a Jew According to Jewish Religious Authorities. If there is a section in this article about the Law of Return, or Israel Supreme Court decisions, or both; then surely decisions affecting Messianic Jews according to the Law of Return, or the Israel Supreme Court, would merits inclusion, if only but a brief mention.

I believe you are aware that if you Google 'Israel', 'Supreme Court', 'Messianic' and the date in April that the only hits you'll get are at CBN and Messianic sites. Why? Because nothing has changed. Messianic Jews are no different than any other son/daughter or grandson/daughter of a Jew who seeks to make Aliyah to Israel - the Israeli government allows them to immigrate under the Law of Return. That does not make them Jewish under Israeli or Jewish law...merely allows a human of any religious/ethnic background to find Israel as a sanctuary based on parentage and grandparentage. The fact still remains that a Messianic Jew is not considered Jewish by all of the branches of Judaism. This has already been discussed many times on this page, I would think you are aware of this because you've previously taken part in those talks. Respectfully, A Sniper (talk) 09:16, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a place where we get to decide who is right on a particular subject, it is a place where all views having sufficient weight are documented so that an individual researching a subject can get a complete view of the relevant aspects of that subject. Individual editors need to be open to introducing information into an article that they do not necessarily agree with. The Messianic Jew perspective is appropriate to this article and the only appropriate argument you can make against its inclusion will address the weight that it holds within the article. Mmyotis ^{^^o^^} 10:23, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

In other words, you don't care about the views of other editors, because you have a POV to push. Thanks for being clear about that. Your statements that the only arguments you'll listen to are those discussion how LONG, not how short, the section on messianics can be, shows you no longer want the rest of us to assume goof faith, or that you respect the agreed thoughts of others, and are simply here to push your attitutdes on us. ThuranX (talk) 11:45, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Merge

Jewish identity These two articles cover virtually the same territory and the other is pretty short, so incorporating them makes sense. I would be inclined to name the merged article Jewish identity, as that is more encyclopedic than "Who is a Jew?" —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:46, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

So you disregarded all the above established consensus and discussion? This comes up every few months, it's constantly refuted and not supported. I'm reverting your merge tag on the article, as well. Please read all the above discussion. ThuranX (talk) 22:42, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Keeps coming up? I read it - that doesn't mean that I disregarded it. What I see directly above here in #Merger proposal is a pretty weak consensus and a lot of back-and-forth. If this comes up every few months, there is probably a reason why. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:01, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Addendum You also undid the formatting errors that I fixed on the page; if you're going to remove the tag, why would you do that as well? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:03, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

This time I just removed the merge tag. There's consensus against the merge. Stop pushing for it, and read all that stuff. It shows plenty of good reasons for leaving them separate, and they've been enumerated above. Read it through, and work on improving the article, instead of making us rehash this shit again and again. ThuranX (talk) 04:09, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

ThuranX is 100% right. Without going into the reasons, because it is well documented,the question "who is a Jew" in Hebrew is not the same thing as an article about Jewish identity - they are simply two separate ideas and presentations. Best, A Sniper (talk) 04:39, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Big Citation Problems with the article

First of all, I just got here through Special: Recent Changes, and as such, before placing an WP:OR and a WP:V tag on it, and put a lot of fact tags all around the article, since it is a disputed topic, I decided to post on the talk page first.

This article suffers badly from a lack of citations and sources. I'm no except on Judaism, or on the subject itself, so asking me to add the sources myself would be a terrible idea =D. But anyway, about the most egregarious (sp?) problems I see:

On the Perspectives heading, only the first paragraph has any citation, therefore I read it as completely original research.

On Religious definitions, Traditional Rabbinic Halakhic perspective has no citations, and the same goes to Conservative Judaism, Perspective of Reform, Reconstructionist, Liberal, and Karaite Judaism. The other sections have too few citations, and parts of it read.

The Definitions in the State of Israel heading has the best coverage as far as I can see, although there is still some problems. Israeli rules for aliyah creates Israelis but not Jews needs some more citations as it is 6 paragraph long with only 1 citation on it. As of Israeli definition of nationality is totally WP:OR as I see it now.

On Other approaches to Jewish identity we come back to almost total lack of citation. Only the last topics of Sociological and anthropological approaches can be verified, the rest has no citation at all.

There is a whole mess on Ethnic Jews with no citations at all. Same goes for everything under Other and the lost tribes section.

Anyway, it needs a serious work to be whipped on shape. Samuel Sol (talk) 01:49, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Structure of article

Can User:Ewawer and User:ThuranX please stop this revert duel?

On either version, there is an unresolved problem with the structure of the article. That is, it lists the different issues (birth, conversion etc.) and the different viewpoints (Orthodox, Reform etc.) at the same level, and keeps jogging back and forth within each. We should be consistent. Either list the issues on the higher level, and within each issue have lower level sections "Orthodox think this, Reform think that etc.", or list the movements at the higher level and within each movement have lower level sections "Orthodox think this about birth and that about conversion".

I'll have a go some time if I get the time; it'll probably need some sandbox work. In the meantime, which of the two suggested structures do we prefer? Movement first, or issue first? --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) (talk) 09:54, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Looking at both of them I think that Ewawer's version is better. According to the edit summaries it seems that ThuranX hasn't even read Ewawer's version, but simply reverted because it is 5K smaller. I think that is highly inappropriate; if you think an edit is bad but can't take the time to read it leave the work for someone else. Also I don't think that losing 5K is necessarily bad; I have felt for some time that this article was getting bloated. If some bit and pieces were accidentally missed they can be put back in. Jon513 (talk) 11:48, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I did read it. Not only does he move stuff around but rewrites it, making comparisons damn near impossible. NONE of it is reasonably edit summarized, so I can't even see what his goals and purposes were. As far as I can see, he's a big fan of marginalizing non-matrilineal cultres while amping up orthodoxy. I've reverted so that he can REDO the series of edits, explaining them as he goes. If an editor can't be bothered to explain as he restructures a page, he can expect resistance. ThuranX (talk) 17:52, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) is right; the article is poorly organized. But ThuranX is also right; the changes made by Ewawer (and not only in this instance) seem to advance an agenda, and Ewawer's edit summaries are deceptive ("tidy up text").

Surely the article can be reorganized without being rewritten to push a POV. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 18:39, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I would be perfectly accepting of a revert to before Ewawer's edits of the last week to the page, and using that earlier version as the version from which we rebuild the page as per Myles' note above. ThuranX (talk) 18:50, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

As for Myles' suggestion, I'd say go by topic, and within each topic, by grouping of jews, in the following order: Orthodox Ashkenazi and Sephardic(alphabetical), Reform, Conservative (IN keeping with chronological splits), then, where needed, reconstructionist and newer movements, the outliers (the patrilineal ancient cultures, then patrilineal modern groups), then the secular and cultural jews.

I think that it's unlikely that we'll hit that order over and over and over for all suptopics; in palces where multiple groups agree, they can be "as well as group xy and z" with the highest order group of a view determining their order in the section. ThuranX (talk) 18:48, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Compromise. For the mainstream religious groups, go by topic (descent, conversion, defection), saying within each "orthodox say ... Reform say ..." etc.; though that may make it hard to find a place for the pre-history of the rules. But secular and far-flung groups should go separately, as they do now, as they will not generally have specific views on, e.g., the validity of conversions. One important caveat: we should not speak of Orthodox and Reform VIEWS, which implies that there is an underlying reality which they may be right or wrong about, but of Orthodox and Reform RULES, meaning the actual way each movement operates. --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) (talk) 09:02, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

As the person who started this issue, I should defend my action by stressing that object to the allegation that I was pushing my own point of view. It was never the intention. I agree however that I should have broken down the reorganisation into smaller mouthfuls, and that the wholesale movements of sections is hard to track, and I regret having done this inadvertantly. However, I am convinced that the changes are worthwhile, follow a more logical structure (ie putting the issues together) and eliminate a lot of repetition. I am sure that no material and detail has been lost, but if I am wrong on that score, it was not intentional. Anyway, whether my changes are accepted or not, the article in the previous form needed a lot of work to clean up. Before all my effort is sent down the drain, I suggest people look at it again with an open mind.Ewawer (talk) 11:00, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I have tried. But after about 8 to 10 minues of scrolling up and down multiple tabs and windows, I get sick of it. Next time, use edit summaries, real ones, and people can understand what you're doing. 'Tidying up' over and over is deceptive. ThuranX (talk) 13:05, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Point taken. But I still maintain, the edits are appropriate, though with too much enthusiam.Ewawer (talk) 00:25, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Ewawer has certainly been trying harder lately, and I appreciate that. However, he is still blanking out information. The most recent edit was to remove a section on karaite judaism, asserting that it's all covered elsewhere. regrettably, it wasn't. Tomorrow I will again review the entire set of changes Ewawer has done. If I find that again, he's blanking stuff out, I will have to seek wider opinions on the matter, through RfC, 3O, or some other method. This is becoming a very frustrating situation. ThuranX (talk) 05:10, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I assume that, since there have not been any reversions, that the changes are acceptable.

It is time for others to take an active role in improving the article. It should not be my role alone. There is room to remove a lot of repetition (how many different ways can one say "Jewish mother and convert"), and restructuring by issues to improve readability. The subject of the article is very important and of general interest, and therefor should be first-rate.Ewawer (talk) 08:44, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I JUST posted about a reversion. You're again dropping out info and marginalizing branches of Judaism which aren't Orthodox. In light of your comment that no one objects, when I clearly just did, I think it's time for you to leave the article for a while. I'm not sure why you insist on writing in an 'Ashkenazi Orthodoxy is right, all others aren't' style, but it's getting old, and I'm tired of digging through dozens of edits to catch it over and over. ThuranX (talk) 14:14, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

RE: the sentence In mainstream Judaism, a Jew is...

I have just reverted Ewawer who expanded upon this sentence that has remained in the article for some time. This has followed a lot of back & forth edits and one user (whom I cannot recall) making a logical statement: the sentence as it stood was correct in that all Jewish denominations agreed that a Jew was the child of a Jewish mother or a convert to Judaism - but that, for Reform Jews (as an example), this also included MORE, namely a Jew could be the child of a Jewish father. Therefore, the sentence stood. However, to expand it the way this user has done is to make a claim that mainstream (as opposed to traditional) also has strict rules, etc., and these rules appear to be traditional ones. Sorry - that is simply not the case. Mainstream denotes most of/the majority of/virtually all/etc. of Judaism, and not just the traditional. If you want to speak about the additional rules, stick that in the traditional section, the same way the progressive ideals of Reform are placed appropriately. Best, A Sniper (talk) 08:49, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

A more neutral way of putting it would be something like: "All denominations agree that a person may be a Jew either by birth or through conversion. However, they differ on what these requirements consist of. The traditional view is that only the child of a Jewish mother is Jewish by birth; some denominations now also allow the child of a Jewish father and non-Jewish mother in certain circumstances. Denominations also differ on (i) their conversion processes and (ii) whether to recognise conversions performed by other denominations." This is not a draft, just an outline. --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) (talk) 09:11, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for that, Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da). As Ewawer made virtually the same traditional expansion on the sentence, I have merely inserted a new paragraph which is essentially your outline. This I hope to alter (or trust others will work with as a starting point), but in any case it is a great start. Best, A Sniper (talk) 14:47, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Recent edits

Every time I check this article it has more of a traditional bent. This is especially true when looking at references to Reform. I find that the whole article is now a mess - points of view are all over the place, there are very few citations (especially when going on & on about Jewish law), and paragraphs meander from one subject to another and then back again, within a single section. Casual references to primary sources (i.e. religious books) are used without any regard for secondary, scholarly ones. Is anyone out there checking this out? Sorry for the mini-rant. Best, A Sniper (talk) 09:46, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

User:ThuranX seems to have been trying and I keep meaning to do something myself but I'm kind of swamped with real life right now. Some of the issues seem to be with Ewawer (talk)and their edits, from what I can tell. Ciao.--Woland (talk) 13:19, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, I sort of gave up on it. I don't have the hours a day to spend fighting Ewawer's hours of edits each day. he's been spoken to about his 'orthodox are right' attitude, as have numerous other Jewish editors here over the past few years. If it's not anti-semites seeking to destroy the page or fold it into Jewish Identity, small minded people who think reporting about the internal philosophical stuff is biased inherently, idiot vandals, then it's Ultra Orthodox, seeking to push Ashkenazi Orthodoxy as the only right Jewry, and all others as inferior or outright liars. I simply am tired of fighting to keep this article a neutral essay. Ewawer returned to his vague summaries like 'improving the article' and 'expanding section' without being at all clear. He knows this forces anyone else to read through dozens of edits and figure out exactly where he's inserting and or dropping a word while 'moving' things. I fought it above, and there was a brief indication that things would change, they haven't. The quality of this article has fallen severely, and the biases increased. I fought for neutrality on this article, often alone or as a central figure for two years, and I'm tired of it. I'll try to keep looking in, but we did one wholesale revert, and it was quickly put back to ewawer's version, because he used slightly better summaries. Since summaries aren't policy, we can't do much more than edit war about it, so there's not much that can be done unless we force Ewawer to bring everything here for consensus. I have little doubt that if we choose that course, no one will be happy with it, so I'm mostly ignoring this page. ThuranX (talk) 20:46, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I really do not see what the problem is here. I have not, as far as I can see, made any substantive changes to the text. I merely rearranged the material on an issue basis, and in a logical sequence. If there are no citations, there weren't any previously; if there is an Orthodox bias (which I agree there is), it was also there before. If anybody can add references to sources, feel free to add them. As for the Orthodox leaning, I tried to remove some repetition, but was not able to achieve anything.Ewawer (talk) 03:14, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you're truly not aware that many of your edits - and I do mean many - make it appear as if traditional Judaism is the yardstick, and other denominations (namely Reform) are to be held up to the traditional standard. Some of the edits do this in a subtle manner, adding a word here or there that change the meaning, or could appear condescending. Regardless of who is responsible, the article as it stands is really a gigantic mess - with many sections void of references. I think everyone has to remember that the title of the article isn't Who is an Orthodox Jew - sometimes, when reading how Reform simply don't live up to the rigid standards of the traditional Jews, feel like writing in "and so what?". The Reform movement doesn't sit around worried about traditional Judaism or what Orthodox Jews think of them or their children; in the Reform view, it is the Orthodox who are losing out, not the other way around. A Sniper (talk) 03:39, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I hear you, but repeat that the problem was there before I start to rearrange material. Any "editing" was not intentional. Now it's time for me to step back a bit, and let others have a turn.Ewawer (talk) 03:57, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

That is probably a good idea. Best, A Sniper (talk) 06:23, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Most modern Israelis don't think a Christian can be a Jew with right of return.

The rabbinic view that a Jew can be a Christian and still a Jew is contrary to the normal understanding of Jewishness at the time of the drafting of the constitution of Israel. By the rabbis, a Christian friar was a Jew, and entitled to return. But the Court ruled that the Constitution was drafted by modern Jews, and by them, a Christian is not a Jew. That was controlling for the law of return, because it was modern Jews who drafted it, and when they said "Jew" they didn't mean to include a Friar. So the friar (a heroic champion of Jewish rights in Europe) couldn't enter using the right of return -- though other means were likely available to him.

One of the Court's concurring opinions expressly points out how the common conception of Jewishness as including not being a practicing member of another religion, is at odds with the understanding of the letter of the rabbinic interpretation.

So if one is talking about what Israelis were thinking when they said "Jew" in the law of return, or what the law actually said (according to that one decision that I've read) then the following perhaps needs qualification.

This draft Sept 16, 2008, states that:

"... those born Jewish do not lose that status because they cease to be observant Jews, even if they adopt the practices of another religion." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.166.205.207 (talk) 19:15, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Draft of what? Citation for that friar's tale? We need sources as well, though it sounds like we're hearing some SYNTH going on here as well. ThuranX (talk) 20:15, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean, "By the rabbis, a Christian friar was a Jew, and entitled to return"? The rabbis have nothing to do with the right of return, and would never express an opinion on it.

For the last time (I hope), let's get this straight. In the rabbinic view, a Jew converted to Christianity remains a Jew as a matter of status, i.e. lineage. That is, if he or she, or her descendants in the female line, desire to revert to Judaism, they do not require conversion. However, the right to exercise that status is in abeyance, and in that sense it is sometimes said that such a person "is not a Jew", i.e. has not got the rights of a Jew. It is this second definition that is reflected in the popular understanding, as found in decisions like the Brother Daniel case. --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) (talk) 09:02, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

The question of "Who is a Jew?" has historically been of great significance in regards to the legal question of the right of return. While the question can also be viewed as halachic, it would be a mistaken to dismiss the legal aspect of the question especially as the right of return has been a great focal point of the debate on this issue in the past 60 years. Jon513 (talk) 21:44, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I absolutely agree. I'm just saying don't confuse the two questions, by interpreting rabbinic views on status as if they related to the right of return. --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) (talk) 09:01, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Link Farm

I just went through and tried to clean up the external links section. There was a lot of redundancy and links that were pretty much irrelevant. Anyway, I think it looks better now. Let me know if I went too far. Ciao. --Woland (talk) 16:35, 20 September 2008 (UTC)