Talk:Who is a Jew?/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 9

Bootstrapping

I'm from a totally non-Jewish background, so let me offer some state-the-obvious feedback. The "someone born to a Jewish mother or who has converted to Judaism" definition is recursive, and it seems to have some problems bottoming out. To wit:

• You're Jewish if your mother is. But how does your mother know she's Jewish? How many generations back do you have to go? Clearly a lot of people will not find a matrilineal convert in the known generations of their family tree.
• Who validates your conversion, and how do you know they're Jewish? Mainstream Jews reject Messianic Jews for being Christian, not Jewish; but they regard themselves as Jewish. Does it happen that, say, some Orthodox Jewish group refuses to recognise some Reform group as Jewish?

There seems to be some agreed core group of definite Jews; the harder cases are then worked out with reference to that core. In trying to make sense of this, some relevant quotes are:

• Talk:Who is a Jew?/Archive 4#first Jews: "the question of who is a Jew, which addresses the world and Judaism post-Torah, not during" -- so the matrilineal descent isn't as crucial as the apostolic succession is for Catholic priests, you don't need to trace your foremothers back to the Israelites
• Who is a Jew?#Beta Israel: "They have a long history of practicing such Jewish traditions as kashrut, Sabbath and Passover, and for this reason their claim of Jewishness was accepted by the Chief Rabbinate of Israel and the Israeli government" -- even though they never formally converted, and the Jewishness of their mothers is begging the question of their own Jewishness (unless they really are the lost tribe of Dan, which I infer was not the crux of the decision)

So I'm guessing that, even if you're not an explicit convert, and even if you can't prove your mother was a Jew,

• you are Jewish if you were raised in a practising Jewish community,
  • and that community was Jewish if it observed the universally-acknowledged Jewish religious practices, even if the community was isolated in Ethiopia.
• Suppose it turns out your parents were born Lutheran, adopted Jewish practices without ever undergoing formal conversion, everyone assumed they were kosher. You were brought up as Jewish as all your Jewish friends. If the community finds out your parents' secret, are they Jewish? If not, are you Jewish? Do you need a formal conversion, or will your brit milah and bar mizvah suffice, or are they retrospectively annulled?
  • if you've lived all your life as a practising Jew, that would be taken as equivalent to a conversion?

jnestorius^(talk) 04:09, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Nope, on all presumptions. the Beta Israeli were a unique case. Traditionally, you're Jewish if you mother's line is Jewish for three generations back. Thus, at birth, your mother is Jewish, and her mother, and they can vouch for the great-grandmother if she's dead. This is supported by the records of the family and community. With the exception of the last couple hundred years of relatively massive migration, it was fairly easy for folks to prove via old records and a steady chain thereof that a person was Jewish. Your Birth, Marriage, Death records in Poland, for example, had the word 'Starrokony' (Or something similar, I'm not getting out the old records tonight) on them if you were Jewish, and that was the civil records. the congregation records would be similar, without the obvious labeling of the persons as Jews. People who came over to America often brought letters of introduction, and/or copies of their records. Often the civil emigration papers gave religion, and such a document was enough for the new congregation. As well, remember, anyone faking it would have to have some modicum of knowledge of the language, customs, and theology. Being raised in some neighborhoods in Brooklyn doesn't make you Jewish any more than being raised in Nigeria makes you black. Your Ethiopia example leads to a perfect refutation - the Lemba, a tribe who act newish in many ways, but arent' recognized as Jewish.

A formal conversion is required if you cannot prove Jewish heritage. ThuranX (talk) 02:24, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Jewishood and Holocaust Theology?

Hello, humble and amateur scholar working with the University of Toronto to research this question... I am wondering if there may be any possibly relationship between the question of Jewishood, Israel-state definition of Jewishness, Rabbinical Judaism, Secular Judaism, Feminist Judaism, Jewish paganism, Finkelstein's concept of the "Holocaust Industry", Chomsky's own criticisms of Manufactured consent, the economic pivot of the Gold Standard, and the question of the self-hating Jew, especially in relationss to other cultures... Perhaps this is worthy of inquiry? Michael Sarfati (talk) 06:16, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Your 'question' lacks a premise. YOu listed a long group of Jewish topics, then asked if they are connected? they're all related to Judaism, so yes. Beyond that, you need to specify what you're asking, AND how it relates to this article. ThuranX (talk) 06:45, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Ah, all right, my bad. I can be quite slow sometimes, thanks for pointing that out.66.241.140.111 (talk) 02:19, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

The link between most of those questions is that they relate to "What is Jewishness?" That is a totally different question from "Who is a Jew?", i.e. "How does one identify a given individual as being, or not being, Jewish?" --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) (talk) 11:37, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Why a question?

I have first noticed this article some years ago, and ever since then I have been wondering why it has to be formulated as a question. This looks terribly didactic and even condescending - it does not look like an encyclopedic definition, but more like a FAQ. It also implies an editorializing voice (and this is a terrible faux pas, not to say POV). After all, we don't start articles about other vague concepts with a question, let alone title them after a question. I also noticed that a rather sound and purely descriptive term, "Jewishness" redirects here. So what's the deal?

If this was discussed before, I apologize - I did not go through the archives, but I wouldn't mind if such were pointed out to me. Dahn (talk) 16:23, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

This comes up once a month or so as people stumble into this article. See here and here. Similar responses are also archived elsewhere. --Woland (talk) 18:00, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Jews converting to another faith

I don't understand ThuranX reverts. There is nothing vague in what I wrote. If the State does not know you converted to another religion, it still counts you as Jew. This is stating the obvious but needs to be said because in practice almost nobody lost its Jewish nationality in Israel for changing religion - including new immigrants, they just need not to say that they converted to something else. Benjil (talk) 14:07, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I keep revertign because that's not what your edit says. It's as lot of vague handwaving abotu government monitoring of personal religion, and it needs citation. ThuranX (talk) 15:25, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

What ??? Please read again what I wrote there is nothing "alarmist" nor any claim about "monitoring" and I don't need citation to say that if the government does not know... it does not know !Benjil (talk) 15:56, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

That may be self-evident to you, but any claims you have drawn as conclusions based on that need citation for inclusion.ThuranX (talk) 18:23, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

The article audio

I don't know if anyone has listened to the audio version of the article lately, but it sounds like someone is purposely doing a horrible British accent. I think it really undermines the quality of the article. It either needs to be redone or removed altogether. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 20:32, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Just because some editors decided to keep the audio track early last year doesn't mean the consensus is permanent. Two of those involved even believed that the reader was "taking the piss." Even if the accent is real, the reader obviously does not have the necessary level of diction. This is an encyclopedia, not a stand up routine where a guy is puking out a fake British accent. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 10:37, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

So what? It's better to have the read version than not; and the consensus was that last time as well. I see no reason to remove it unless you're planning to re-record it properly. ThuranX (talk) 14:52, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

• So you are telling me that you would rather have a read version where the guy is obviously making fun of the article than not have one at all? That makes no sense. It's rather irresponsible in my opinion. It needs to be removed until someone else records it. I can't do it because I have work and school. Since you think it's imperative to have a read version, why don't you do it? --Ghostexorcist (talk) 02:56, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I always agree with ThuranX, but not this time. The audio is obviously a piss take. It is like having Dick Van Dyke doing the character Bert from Mary Poppins reading the article, which diminishes the credibility. Clearly it is a joke - clue: it claims to be a Northern England accent which it clearly is not. Although it could be worse - say, Al Pacino as Shylock reading the article in faux Yiddish twang - knowing it is a jokester leaves me uneasy about keeping it. Best, A Sniper (talk) 01:03, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm gonna stick with AGF when it comes to someone reading a 21 minute long piece for others to listen to. The content he read was not mangled nor altered from the state of the article at the time of his recording, and it's hard for me to believe that that's someone's idea of an insulting gag. I get that some thing his accent's funny, but it sounds like an English guy with a cold to me. Given how many different accents England squeezes out, I'm left thinking it's more about accent over accent preferences. Record the current state of the article with your preferred accent. ThuranX (talk) 03:22, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I couldn't care less what accent the reader has unless it is obviously a put-on. In all my years living in the UK, I have never heard a 'Northern England' accent like that...because it isn't - it is a fake mockney, if anything. It is like if an English actor did an exaggerated 'American' accent and read through the article, clearly attempting to be humorous in the reading. You really don't get that and why it wouldn't work for an encyclopedia? I therefore state for the record that, during the week, I will make a wave file of me reading the article in the best German accent I can come up with and see if it makes AGF. Best, A Sniper (talk) 03:52, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Apologism?

The following info was recently removed:

However, a person with precisely two Jewish grandparents --a Mischling of the first degree-- would be "deemed" a Jew if he or she either was a practicing Jew or was married to a Jew. (Footnote: Before the promulgation of the Nuremberg Laws (and their associated implementing decrees) in the fall of 1935, the generally used definition of the Nazi regime was the "one-grandparent" rule: any person having one Jewish grandparent (or more) was considered to be Jewish. This standard had been applied in pre-Nazi Germany through the operation of the Aryan Paragraph, which was adopted in various non-governmental contexts, such as social clubs. See Mischling Test for more details. The actual rules on "who was a Jew" were set out in the implementing (or supplementary) decrees to those laws (i.e. statutes) that were actually enacted at Nuremberg.)... (Conversely, only people with all four of their grandparents of "German or kindred blood" were classified as "pure" Germans under the Nuremberg Laws.) (Footnote: While Mischlinge of the first degree --those persons with precisely two Jewish grandparents who were neither practicing Jews nor married to Jews-- and of the second degree --those with precisely one Jewish grandparent-- were not considered to be "German" or "Aryan," their German citizenship was not automatically revoked under the Nuremberg "citizenship" law. The notorious and automatic revocation of citizenship -- which in one fell swoop transformed German Jews into merely "German subjects" who were therefore no longer "German citizens" with the rights and privileges of citizenship -- only applied against Jews, and not against Mischlinge. See discussion at Nuremberg Laws.)

(Footnote: Nazi persecution was not uniform in the sense of having a "standard" definition of "who was a Jew" that applied everywhere across Europe. In Germany proper, after the fall of 1935, Jewishness was defined by the Nuremberg Laws and their implementing decrees, but these laws only applied within the territory of the Reich, and not in occupied or conquered territory. In Germany proper, a person with precisely one Jewish grandparent was not "Jewish" but rather a Mischling of the second degree, and these Mischlinge generally avoided persecution. In Poland, other (and more encompassing) tests were applied. See Mischling Test, Jewish ethnic divisions.)

Most of this is useful information for anyone who wants to understand the finer details of the Holocaust. The main problem with it is that it's in footnotes. It certainly addresses the title of this page.

Maybe some of it is too specific and would be more appropriate for the Nuremberg Laws and Mischling Test pages but that's no reason to to call it apologism. Perhaps we should require a reference for the claim that In Germany proper, a person with precisely one Jewish grandparent was not "Jewish" but rather a Mischling of the second degree, and these Mischlinge generally avoided persecution. Apart from that, maybe ThuranX would like to point out what else in the text specifically excuses the Nazis (they sound just as bad, the way I read it). Nick (talk) 20:37, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Merge with "Jew"

Jew article also talks about who is a Jew, and there is no need of this article. "Who is a Jew?" is not an appropriate title according to wikipedia naming rules > wp:naming. --Wayiran (talk) 13:25, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

This has been discussed at length on numerous occasions. This comes up once a month or so as people stumble into this article without understanding what the article is actually about. See here and here. Similar responses are also archived elsewhere. --Woland (talk) 18:00, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

The reason that "this comes up once a month or so as people stumble into this article without understanding what the article is actually about" is that it has not been clarified well in article itself that what the article is actually about. To avoid this, I suggest to add this sentence in Italic at the top of the article:

This article is about a historical question about the Jewish identity. To know who is a Jew, please see Jew.

By adding this not only we have followed the wiki conventions, but also the readers can understand better that what the article is about, and also there will be no more or at least less such discussions in future. --Wayiran (talk) 19:59, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreed.--Woland (talk) 20:12, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

disagree. it's clear that instead, you have NOT read what this article is about - Jewish approaches to the identification of Jews, beginning with an ancient question for which this article is named. This article, not Jew, discusses who is, and is not, a Jew. ThuranX (talk) 20:19, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the wording could be improved but a short statement that explains why this article is separate from Jew would be helpful and may help to lower the occurrence of discussions such as this.--Woland (talk) 20:33, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with ThuranX that the article is crystal clear already and doesn't need an addition, especially not the one Wayiran has cobbled together. A Sniper (talk) 20:36, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Do not merge. This is a sizable article with useful information, not duplicated in Jew. Merging them would produce a huge and unwieldy article. DJ Clayworth (talk) 20:21, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreeing with DJC; do not merge. Besides, if they were combined, this specialized area would be a good candidate for spin-off into a separate article, which is what we already have here. Hertz1888 (talk) 21:01, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

To ThuranX: If this article, discusses who is and is not a Jew, this article should be merged to Jew or Jewish identity. But if it is not discussing "who is, and is not, a Jew" and is discussing about the historical question of 'who is a Jew?' then by placing that sentence in italic at the top of the article, it should be clarified that this article is about the historical question of 'who is a Jew?' and to know who is a Jew they should see Jew article. So which one is the case? --Wayiran (talk) 21:15, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Neither is the case. This article discusses who is and is not a Jew, both historically and contemporally. There is no need for any clarification, and no need for a merge. DJ Clayworth (talk) 21:19, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Let's end this discussion now because it is getting tiring. An editor has made a proposal and several editors have responded. Now let's move on... Best, A Sniper (talk) 22:10, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

To DJ Clayworth: My friend, the question "who is a Jew?" is different from the article which explains who is a Jew. "Who is a Jew?" is an article in which the QUESTION itself is the subject of the article. This article talks about the past, present, and probably the future condition, and theories of the QUESTION. These are all about this historical QUESTION "מיהו יהודי?" and not about who is really a Jew, but about the QUESTION. Let me give you an example, lets consider Cyropaedia which is a book about the Cyrus. The article "Cyropedia" is about a BOOK by Xenophon, however it may have some information about the Cyrus too, but the subject of article is the BOOK, and not Cyrus. Similarly in 'who is a Jew?' article also the QUESTION is the subject of article, and to know really who is a Jew, we should refer to Jewish identity or some other articles. --Wayiran (talk) 22:13, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

With respect, several editors have now noted that there is no need for further clarification and no need for any merging. The lede is clear so that there is no confusion. Best, A Sniper (talk) 22:20, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Problems with clarity, accuracy, and Reform Judaism

The Religious definitions section does not even mention non-Halakhic definitions or Reform Judaism at all.

Additionally, the Perspectives section has a few problems in this paragraph:

All denominations of Judaism 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 a Jew is a person born to a Jewish mother or who is a convert to Judaism. No other way to recognition is allowed for. However, some other denominations now also accept the child of a Jewish father and non-Jewish mother as Jewish when the child is raised as a Jew.

Firstly, the sentence, No other way to recognition is allow for. is confusing, as it somewhat implies that this is universally true (e.g., "there is no definition other than this one") as opposed to being true within the Halakhic definition, specifically. It seems redundant, anyway, as the sentence which precedes it clarifies the matter well enough.

Secondly, the sentence, However, some other denominations now also accept the child of a Jewish father and non-Jewish mother as Jewish when the child is raised as a Jew. implies that matrilineality is universally accepted, and that patrilineality is just an alternative. Rather, it should say that some denominations of Judaism do not differentiate between which parent is Jewish if there is an intermixed relationship, and one does not inherit Jewish status from *just* the mother or *just* the father (i.e., someone born to a Jewish parent is Jewish if he or she is raised under certain criteria, and non-Jewish if he or she is not raised under those criteria).

I made the changes I felt necessary, but they were reverted by the user "ThuranX":

http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Who_is_a_Jew%3F&diff=297145173&oldid=297105506

So, if someone could help rewrite the sections in question, I'd appreciate it. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.34.190.114 (talk) 05:30, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I reverted them becuase the version you contributed was clumsy, awkwardly written, the intent was so muddy that I couldn't 'fix' it, and what I could understand seemed wrong. As for the 'no other way', that refers to the traditional view. ThuranX (talk) 11:44, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Terminology

"Ethnic Jew" is by no means the only terminology for this phenomenon. It is not even the most commonly used terminology. A Google search will show that it has less currency than several other terms, some of which I've suggested in # 7 Ethnic and cultural definitions.

The following terms are commonly used to describe Jews who are not religious: "non-observant Jew," "non-religious Jew," "non-practicing Jew," "secular Jew" and "assimilated Jew." Bus stop (talk) 23:01, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

"Assimilated" has many meanings with respect to Jews, some of which don't have to do with whether one practices Jewish ritual. For example, a Jew who leaves Orthodoxy for the Conservative movement is often referred to as "assimilated", even though the person may carefully observe Conservative halakha. A Jew who anglicizes his name is also frequently referred to as "assimilating", regardless of whether he practices Judaism. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 23:09, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Nevertheless it carries a similar meaning to the other terms. For sure, one is chosen or another in any instance. If two were identical we might expect one of the two to fade from use. I won't wax eloquent over fine shades of meaning as I see it. Suffice to say any speaker (or writer) would find his/her own reasons for choosing a particular term. Language is like that. Bus stop (talk) 23:32, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Didn't we go through this, to extreme lengths and dramas with you a year or two ago? Weeren't you told to drop it then? ThuranX (talk) 23:15, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

ThuranX, some of the things you are saying convey a bit of incivility. I didn't appreciate the implication that I was biased in this edit summary. For what it is worth, I don't think I am biased at all. Collegiality is called for here. I'm aware that we may disagree on a variety of points. The article benefits from multiple inputs. Bus stop (talk) 00:23, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

NO, you're biased against Ethnic Jews. You made that clear years ago,m when your edit history sought to disenfranchise the concept of self-identifying Ethnic Jews, and you're back to the old softshoe here and now, and it's still a tiresome, offensive attitude. Weren't you topic banned and community banned for all that? How did you get back in, much less right back to the same articles that caused this problem the first time? ThuranX (talk) 00:53, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't even know what it means to be biased against ethnic Jews. It is a term. It is terminology. And I have not sought to eliminate your preferred terminology from this article. I will admit, that I do not find that term particularly applicable to Jews. My reason, in a nutshell, is that "ethnicity" includes far more than just religion. But that term holds some currency with some. Do you think it should be the sole designating term for those Jews who are not religious? If so, I would clearly disagree with that. I have introduced other terms. I believe they have at least as good standing in the English language as the term you are so vehemently arguing for. Bus stop (talk) 01:35, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't like the term "Ethnic Jew" very much neither, because Jews are not an ethnicity but a people, a nation. I also never heard this term before seeing this wikipedia article. Non-religious Jews are Jews exactly like religious Jews. Assimilated conveys a different meaning - it's not just that they are not religious, it means their Jewish identity is secondary or negligible for themselves. Usually we speak about assimilation in the context of intermarriage. Benjil (talk) 06:15, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

It appears that not unlike years ago, Bus Stop is choosing to pursue his anti-Jewish agenda here yet again. He was under a number of extensive blocks and bans for this, and since they've expired, he's returned to pursue the same 'There are no ethnic Jews, no cultural Jews' agenda as before. As before, he persists in the use of the perjorative 'assimilated Jews', a clear insult against non-Orthodox Jews, and especially against Reform and Reconstructionist Jews. He was rebuked roundly back then, and nothing has changed. ThuranX (talk) 03:47, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

ThuranX, what was the purpose for this edit? Bus stop (talk) 08:02, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

The purpose of that reversion was given in the edit summary, and I explained my opposition to your edits of the style reverted just above. You've got a history with this article, and should you opt to repeat your behaviors, yet again, you will again be blocked and banned from this article. ThuranX (talk) 11:56, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

What is "insulting" in the terms "assimilated Jew" ? Assimilated Jews are Jews who assimilated to the culture of the country where they live. This is purely descriptive and in the past it was even seen as positive by many Jews and non-Jews alike. Benjil (talk) 13:09, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

ThuranX, your edit summary for your above edit is as follows: "cite that the first four are equivalent to 'ethnic', the last one's just plain insulting.," I never claimed that the terms that I have suggested are "equivalent" in any way to your favored term, "ethnic Jew," but I would say that they are similar in meaning to that term and therefore belong in the article. Also, I don't see how you perceive the phrase "assimilated Jew" to be "pejorative" or "insulting." Bus stop (talk) 16:24, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

YOu edits equate them, and none of those additional terms are sourced either as to their specific meanings, nor the equivalancies between each term and any of the others. Further, your insistence that all are denotative of lack of observance is bunk, plain and simple. 'Assimilated Jew' is an insult used by Chassidim against Reform Jews and Reconstructionists, one I've experienced first hand. Unless you can source every bit of that material, both as to meaning and to equivalency of each term to every other on the list, and to the non-derogatory nature of assimilated, or alternately, sourcing the perjorative nature of assimilated, none of it belongs in the article. ThuranX (talk) 01:31, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with ThuranX 100%. Best, A Sniper (talk) 01:45, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Centrally consolidating discussion here from User Talk pages

As the following discussion concerns this article, I would like to consolidate it here from the two User Talk pages where it was spread out:

"Assimilated Jew doesn't imply nonreligious Jew?" (From here.)

Why this edit? You consider it WP:OR to include the term "assimilated Jew" in a list of several other terms that are used to refer to Jewish people who are not particularly religious? Can you explain this to me, either here or on the article Talk page? Bus stop (talk) 02:54, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

"Assimilated Jew and WP:OR" (From here.)

There's a discussion on the article's Talk page about the term "assimilated Jew".

The OR is in the final sentences you added: "These are all normal and standard terms of description for Jews who are not particularly religious. All have slightly different meaning, but they are somewhat similar." — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 02:58, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

A dictionary would provide each term's definition. These terms are hardly a mystery to anyone. These are commonly used terms.

As far as "assimilated" is concerned, your comment on the Talk page as well as Benjil's comment on the Talk page both convey the notion of a term that suggests a movement away from religious observance, which is consistent, I think, with my comment that the terms have "slightly different meaning, but they are somewhat similar." I can only assume you feel "assimilated" suggests too little movement in the direction away from strict religious observance to warrant being grouped with the others. Benjil merely says that "assimilated" is usually used in the context of marriage.

Of course these terms are not identical. But I think they are all useful terms for expressing degrees and shades of nonobservance. It probably would not have occurred to me to collect these terms together were it not for the article's insistence on the use of only one term — ethnic Jew — to designate Jews who are not particularly religiously observant. Bus stop (talk) 03:45, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I also don't understand this use of "ethnic Jew" whatever this is supposed to mean - this is not clear, sometimes it refers to people with a Jewish father and a non-Jewish mother, sometimes to secular Jews. Regarding assimilated Jews, indeed they are not religious usually, but this is different from secular, as a secular Jew is not by definition assimilated. Assimilated really means taking a distance (willingly or not) from Jewish identity (in all its forms). Benjil (talk) 13:53, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion it is not particularly important to arrive at a definition for any of the terms that I have suggested. What matters is that the terms are used to indicate a degree and a type of lack of observance of religion, as pertains to Jewish people, and also that these terms are in common use. Exactly how they are used is up to the speaker or writer. It is important to note that these terms are commonly encountered. Any literate person is likely to utilize one of them to serve the purpose of indicating a Jew who is not particularly religious. Some of them are very similar in meaning; some have particular implications, but they all are somewhat similar. None of them are inherently offensive. They are neutral terms. Their implication depends on the speaker, the person being referred to, and the context in which they are used. Bus stop (talk) 14:56, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

My only disagreement here is that "assimilated Jews" is not a way of speaking about "secular Jews". Maybe in the Haredim eyes, but that's their very own POV. Assimilated Jews are usually seculars (depending on the context, individual cases, the meaning you give to assimilation) but their secularism is not the purpose of this term and the reason is it used. So it's not a different way to say the same thing as "secular Jew", it means something else. Benjil (talk) 08:20, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

"Assimilated" implies a degree of departure from the perfect adherence to principles and practice of Torah-observant Judaism. From a perspective such as that it is in the same ball park, so-to-speak, as terms such as "secular," "nonobservant," "non-practicing," and "nonreligious." I think the difference is slight. And obviously different terms are going to have different shades of meaning. Obviously the term "assimilated" is placing emphasis on the blending in to the surrounding and hitherto different community. But is the overall implication all that different from the other terms?

I also have to say that the Haredi viewpoint should be represented here too. I don't think we can so simply dismiss them as being "POV." The terminology is there for anyone to use, including the Haredi. As I see it, all that this tempest in a teapot is about is available terminology. The article previously almost exclusively emphasized one term ("ethnic Jews"). My contention is that there are a variety of similar terms. We owe it to the reader to apprise them of those terms. The difference in shades of meaning of the various terms I think is beyond the scope of this article. And I don't think it matters a whole lot. It would take an essay to explore the implications of all of the above terms. I don't think wiki is a place for teasing apart distinctions so fine. Bus stop (talk) 14:30, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I must ask who determines the "perfect adherence to principles and practice of Torah-observant Judaism"? You are implying that a religious member of the Reform denomination, who is at Temple several times during the week, is "assimilated"? Secular Jew is not offensive whereas Assimilated Jew is. Imagine referring to the Haredi as Ghetto Jews, or Backwards Jews, or...well, my point being that this could indeed be what progressive Jews think about the Haredi, but the term wouldn't be used in an encyclopaedia. Best, A Sniper (talk)

You are getting bogged down in the making of value judgements. The terminology is out there for anyone to use. This isn't an article to promote Judaism, nor to promote any subsection of Judaism. We editors here at this article don't favor the "Reform" or the "Haredim," nor any viewpoints associated with either of them. There is nothing inherently offensive about the term "assimilated Jew," unless you are sensitive about it. It is a relative term, as are all of the other terms that I have suggested. There is little that is absolute about any of the terms being bandied about, including the much ballyhooed term, "ethnic Jew." No one is forcing you to use "assimilated" when you would prefer to use "secular." But nor should the reader be deprived of at least being made aware of a term that has standard use, and that they may choose to use themselves, for any expressive purpose. Bear in mind, this is a listing of terms. These terms are not even used in a sentence in this article. We are not contesting which term should serve a particular usage. "Assimilated Jew" is nowhere used in the article. It is listed in a sentence along with four other terms standardly employed to refer to one degree or another of variance from core Jewish religious practice or observance.

I would agree with you that one of the most value-neutral terms mentioned is "secular Jew," along with "nonobservant Jew." "Nonreligious" is not far behind those two, for its clarity of definition, which is self-contained within the word. Bus stop (talk) 04:37, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

You tipped your hand, Bus stop, when you wrote that "'Assimilated' implies a degree of departure from the perfect adherence to principles and practice of Torah-observant Judaism." By that definition, Conservative, Reform, and Reconstructionist Jews—as well as cultural or ethnic Jews—are considered "assimilated Jews". That's not the sense in which the section under discussion uses the phrase "ethnic Jew", so writing that "assimilated Jew" is a similar term is untrue. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 04:47, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

(EC)IT is YOU who are pushing a POV here - You admit that the term is not used in the article, nor defined well, but you insist it be included, without sources, as an equally legitimate term to 'Secular Jew' or 'Ethnic Jew'. It seems that you don't get that this is the same as saying 'Spook' is the same as 'African-American' or 'Black'. It's a bigoted statement, made from holding a particular POV, and it's a POV that has been repeatedly rejected on this page, no matter how often you bring it up. You were told, roundly and resoundingly, 'NO' on this matter. You continue to bring it up, and are repeatedly thrown down about it. We get it, we just don't want it. STOP. Move to a new article and new topics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ThuranX (talk • contribs) 04:57, September 17, 2009 (UTC)

You don't want it but this is not your father's article I think. I don't want "Ethnic Jew", a term out of nowhere designing nothing, that nobody uses and that most people never heard of, but here it is. Assimilated Jew is a very common term, not insulting (why would it be insulting is anyone guess), used in many other wikipedia articles. I don't agree with Bus Stop about the meaning of assimilated Jew. It is not synonymous to secular Jew or even close in meaning. Assimilated Jews are usually secular (but not always) but secular Jews are not necessarily assimilated at all. So I do agree that "assimilated Jew" should not be related to secular Jew and "Ethnic Jew", but maybe we should erase all this Ethnic Jew nonsense anyway. This section does not have even one source to support it. It looks like personal research and not something serious. Benjil (talk) 06:14, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

It is not a term 'out of nowhere' - here's an easily found link http://www.springerlink.com/content/j922j63808233t4l/ to a journal article on the matter. THere are plenty more out there look here - http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&safe=off&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&hs=2ou&q=%22ethnic%20jew%22&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wp - plenty of books on the matter. Unless of course, it's all just another Jewish conspiracy to put an idea into the world! ThuranX (talk) 11:23, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

The link you gave does not speak of "Ethnic Jews" but of course we can only see the first page of the article. The section of this wikipedia article relates to a main article, Secular Jewish Culture, that never uses the words "Ethnic Jews". So I must ask again: where does this come from and what does it mean ? What is the difference between a secular and an ethnic Jew ? If there is none, there is no reason to use that strange term. Benjil (talk) 11:38, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I am not responsible for teaching you, nor will I attempt to do so in the face of your plain refusal to examine those links. You asserted that the term is conjured whole for this article and not used elsewhere, I provided links to disprove that. That you refuse to examine those links is not something I can change, nor something I intend to try to change. ThuranX (talk) 11:46, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

You provided no source about what this term is, just a list of books where the term is used, this meaning nothing. I still ask you what this term is supposed to mean. By the way, according to your own logics, how can you refuse the use of "assimilated Jew" when your same source, Google Books, gives me more quotes with it than "ethnic Jew" - http://books.google.com/books?client=firefox-a&um=1&lr=&q=%22assimilated+jew%22&btnG=Search+Books. And it does not change the facts that: 1- this section is unsourced. 2- It differs from the main article linked to it. So please, you or anybody else, correct this or this section will be deleted. Benjil (talk) 12:08, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I've recently noticed this discussion and I have to agree with Thuranx. The link to the google book search turns up some very respectable publications that refer to and expain ethnic jews. Take for example the book The Cambridge Companion to American Judaism (p. 141 ): http://books.google.com/books?id=bHtMyBlCdZMC&pg=PA141&dq=%22ethnic+jew%22&ei=UiKySr-VKZeIyQTe49zmAg&client=firefox-a#v=onepage&q=%22ethnic%20jew%22&f=false . --Ghostexorcist (talk) 11:54, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

So this is an American thing ? If so that needs to be sourced and explained in the text. This is not an article about American Judaism. Benjil (talk) 12:08, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I think its obvious based on the reliability of the sources provided and your quick, flimsy objections to them all show that nothing will ever satisfy your needs. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 12:16, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I am Israeli, lived many years in France and other parts of Western Europe, has always been involved in the Jewish community, and never *heard* this term. There is no יהודי אתני in Hebrew, no "Juif ethnique" in French or "ebreo etnico" in Italian. This article may be in English but does not deal with American Jewry, it deals with Jewish identity for all Jews. So a specific term existing in one community, as big as it is, is not relevant here or only if specified to be part of the US context.Benjil (talk) 12:25, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

No one suggested using "assimilated Jew" in the article. Please don't make a mountain out of a molehill. Please don't create a smokescreen to divert attention from the problem that "ethnic Jew" is un-sourced, and virtually being promoted in this article. It has scarce use elsewhere. No one has suggested that "ethnic Jew" be replaced by "assimilated Jew." They both represent equally bad choices for uses throughout this article. But nor do we see the agreed upon value-neutral terms "secular," "nonobservant," and nonreligious" appearing in this article, and in particular in the section of the article under discussion at this time. If "secular" is acceptable to all, and I have so far heard no objections raised to "secular," then why haven't we changed the term "ethnic Jews" to "secular Jews?" Why don't we do that now? "Ethnic Jews" is not as standard in usage as "secular," "nonobservant," and nonreligious" — not by a long shot. This article should not be promoting unusual terms. Even aside from religious promotion, it is bad English. If it were used sparingly where called for that might be acceptable — all words have proper places. But what this paragraph amounts to is the promotion of a concept that the general English language does not reflect yet. Commonly spoken English does not elevate the concept of Judaism as an "ethnicity" as the use of the term "ethnic Jew" in this article suggests. It is my contention that "ethnic Jew" is still a strange term to most people's ears. The same can not be said for the similar-in-meaning, and non-value laden term "secular Jew." (Or nonreligious Jew, or nonobservant Jew.) The most standard newspapers, for instance, would not use a term like "ethnic Jew" in order to indicate that a person was Jewish and not religious. A standard newspaper, in English, targeting a large and diverse audience, would surely use one of the other three terms: "secular Jew," "nonobservant Jew," and nonreligious Jew." This article should be doing likewise. Bus stop (talk) 13:05, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

You yourself edited to include 'assimilated Jew'. Do not say no one did when you did. You then proceed to build a strawman and tear it down, followed by your own conclusion, 'surely a paper would use myterms.' This is all original research. While I agree that the section on Ethnic Jews does not have the linked citations it ought to, this is due to a lack of edits to include the citations, not due to a lack of reliable sources using the term, as I have shown; two other editors concur that they are RS. All of the things you say, Bus Stop, are your personal feelings on this topic. This is the exact same set of 'arguments' you continually present here. You edited to include all these terms as of interchangeable meaning, and though there have been multiple editors in opposition, and citations to support the incorrect nature of your edits and assertions, you continue to keep this debate in a holding pattern, rather than acquiesce and move on. Because I am tired of running in circles, I will not be replying to further 'arguments' of this nature. Either show us the evidence you insist is surely out there equating all these terms to each other, or drop it. In case you are unclear, there are about 5 words you wish to use - I will substitute the letters a, b, c, d, and e. You need proof, then of: a=b, a=c, a=d, a=e, b=c, b=d, b=e, c=d, c=e, and d=e. Without those, that entire list can be broken down into what each independently means. Sounds like a great deal of work, to me. Good luck with it. ThuranX (talk) 20:34, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

BusStop, the reason why the term ethnic Jew may sound strange for some ears is because Jewish people are the only people in history who crystalized to an ethnic group to the light of a religion (Judaism). The Jewish religion do not accept the idea of deserters-once Jew always Jew is the principle. But only by that we would expect that the term "ethnical Jew" would be available in Hebrew, and indeed it exist in Hebrew : זרע ישראל or in translation to English "Israels' seed" (for instance this term may apply for one who were born to Jewish parents who converted to other religion well before his/her birth). On the other hand, Judaism did always accept to different extents new members who converted from other religions-those people couldn't be considerd as ethnical Jews (even they are considerd as Jewish for life, the same as one who was born Jewish) as they were not born ones. So, even if most Jewish people are ethnically Jewish still this term may sound sometimes problematic than it realy is. I think that in Israel it wouldn't hear so wierd and anyway the term "ethnicity" itself is relatively new. I think that among all other options "ethnically Jewish" is the best we have --Gilisa (talk) 21:09, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Here is a New York Times article. Please note that the term of reference here happens to be "non-observant" Jew. It occurs about 3 times in the article. Bus stop (talk) 02:25, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

There is an interesting sentence in this New York Times article, contrasting the concept of the religious Jew with that of the "secular Jew". It reads: "But within the western, predominantly Jewish, section of the city, the cultural fault lines between religious and secular Jews run deep." Please read it in the context of the article. Bus stop (talk) 02:41, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Here we have the Wall Street Journal using the term "secular Jew." Bus stop (talk) 02:51, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Those are three impressive scarecrows. Please address the issue of proving the edits you seek to implement. ThuranX (talk) 03:13, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

ThuranX, "Ethnic Jew" is not used by standard sources. Bus stop (talk) 03:19, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Here we see the McClatchy news source making reference to a "secular Jew." Bus stop (talk) 03:26, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) Here we have the San Antonio Express making reference to a "secular Jew." The sentence reads: "One can only speculate how that message, delivered by an unapologetically secular Jew, would have played in a campaign that featured the melodrama of Barack Obama’s flamboyant minister one moment, and lengthy interviews of both Obama and John McCain by an evangelical preacher the next." Note that mainstream news reports do not use the term "ethnic Jew." Bus stop (talk) 03:38, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Are you this incapable of honest debate? We object to your edits for inclusion of MORE terms as all equivalent to each other; you respond we made one up. We disprove that, and insist you provide references for the edit you want to make, so you prove that ONE of those terms is used at all. Your disingenuous actions are pushing the ends of Good Faith. Either provide citation supporting the assertions made in your edit, or leave. I will not respond to any more strawmen, not even to point out that they are such, I will just revert you until you can provide citations. ThuranX (talk) 03:47, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

ThuranX, "Ethnic Jew" is nonstandard. Bus stop (talk) 03:57, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

This isn't a very good example, but here we have Comic Book Resources using the term "secular Jew." The complete sentence reads: "She's a complete secular Jew, rejecting her family's religion and immersing herself in the Gentile world." Comic Book Resources is not the sort of publication I had in mind. I think we are looking to see how the mainstream news organizations phrase themselves. I do not think you will find the Washington Post using a term like "ethnic Jew." That might happen if they were covering a story in which faithfulness to terminology used in a context necessitated that they used a term that they would not normally use. Major news publishing organizations try to adhere to manuals of style which tend to recommend language that they feel reflects currently standard usage. You are not likely to find the International Herald Tribune just choosing one day to use the term "ethnic Jews." It is nonstandard. Bus stop (talk) 03:59, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Bus Stop, I realy found your standing against the term "ethnical Jew" to be odd, I must say that it look like you have a POV on this matter. Personally I heard native English speakers use this term, for example Matt Stone. It sounds like you are against the idea of Jewish people as an ethnic group and thats truely your own unconvincing original research. Because you see, it mean nothing whether the New York Times use or use not this term, whats matter is whether it's logicaly valid, and it's.

If you insist that Jewishness have nothing to do with ethnicity, which is false view, you have to source it well. Your strange view is that Jewishness is merely a religion, but it includes even those who were born Jewish but are present atheists --Gilisa (talk) 06:32, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Gilisa, I do think that Jews are a people and a Nation, and not an "ethnicity" and I am against this use of this odd expression "Ethnic Jews" mostly because its meaning is unclear (you think it means non -halakhically people of Jewish origins, but here it means mostly "secular Jews") and it implies the existence of "non-ethnic Jews", a group I also have never heard of. People converted to Judaism are 100% Jews and Jewish tradition even forbids to remind the conversion. I don't know what Bus Stop believes and what he wants but I agree here against the use of this term without a clear definition and *serious* sources. There is no equivalent in Hebrew to it - זרע ישראל is not only totally unused by anybody, it does not mean the same thing. I am still waiting for the section of the article to be sourced because for the moment this is just a bunch of original research. Benjil (talk) 06:59, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Benjil, one who convert to Judaism is 100% Jewish but he/she is called Gior (גיור) or Gioret (גיורת) (i.e., one who converted) respectively. And these are very widely used terms. The Talmud rules that you are forbiddend to speak against the people which the Gior/t came from for 10 generations, because only then his/her offsprings are assimilated enough to forget their non Jewish past. However, if the Gior/t married ethnical Jew than it's not valid for their offspring even if they are Jewish by their Gior/t father/mother for only one generation.

You confuse between the willingness of Halacha to accept new members who were not born Jewish to how the Halacha view Jewishness and there is also a strong blood componenet. For instance, many orthodox Rabbis spoke out that genetile whose father is/was Jewish should be converted more easily and with less special tests of his/her sincerety as he/she considerd as one who "return to his ancestors pathways" (שב לדרכי אבותיו). Your view seem to fit with some minor ultra orthodox groups and not to represnt the wide scope of orthodox Judaism. "Israels' seed" is specifically refered to the ethnical component of Jewish people (i.e., one whose parents are Jewish) and you are the one who miss use it and giving it additional unneeded commentrary which borderd with original research. It's not matter that it's not widely used: it's an Halaachatic term, Halaachtic terms are not used or known to most Jewish people, but if you pretend to represent the Halaacha view than you have to use its jargon

BTW, for one of your previous comments: There is not as term as "ethnisch Jude" in German language (even if there is other term "Person judischer abstammung" (Person of Jewish origin)) but still much before Hitler Germans saw Judaism as having ethnical component as well. There is not such term in Spanish but there is the term "Marranos" which referd to Jews who converted to chirstiniay even after few generation and literaly means "pigs". And why would they call people of the same religion as they are "pigs" if not the ethnical component. Judaism is open for people from other ethnic groups, it doesn't mean that it gave up of its being ethnicity by doing so.

Wrong. Jews who converted to Christianity weren't called "Marranos". Only "crypto-jews", who still practiced in secret Judaism were called like that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.73.18.43 (talk) 21:50, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Taking the "ethnicall Jew" out of the article would noteably lessen its quality and objectivness. There are enough articles who say the obvious that Jewish people are ethnic group. The ones who claim the other way around are mostly radicall anti Zionists who try to claim that Jewish people don't have rights on Israel as they are not the same people who lived there before exile. Shlomo Zend is one of this new historians and he was refuted by many response articles -so it wouldn't be hard to find them. For the moment all of your arguments are not any better than the orginal research you are complaining about --Gilisa (talk) 07:38, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

What the hell are you talking about ? This is not a halakhic debate (and you are wrong about it too by the way but I won't enter it - your view is that of extreme haredi groups). And Jewish identity is not and has never been ethnical. Jews are a people and a Nation, this is something slightly different and you seem to confuse the two. As I already told you, try to understand what you are answering to. I never said that Jews are just a religion and I am the first to fight the stupid lies of Shlomo Zand. You are fighting the wrong fight, nobody speaks about that here. The question is what is an ethnic Jew that is different from a secular Jew, is the use of this term standard and common (apparently no), and where are the sources for the section of the article where it appears.Benjil (talk) 11:43, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Benjil, you must take responsbility for what you wrote, you can't blame me for missunderstanding what you wrote yourself. You wrote that the term "ethnic Jew" is odd and then told that according to the Halacha it's like that and like this and I reply it, now you are telling me that the discussion is not halachatic-so what other reason you can use to show that the term ethnical Jew is groundless?! . What more that I'm very, very far, from being a Haredi or to have in any instance their world view. Any way, may you have a great sweet year and חתימה טובה (may you inscribed in the book of life).--Gilisa (talk) 12:37, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) Benjil, If you are wondering what I believe, let me assure you that I agree that a person who converts to Judaism is "100%" Jewish. But I think much of this discussion is largely besides the point. I am also in agreement that this section of the article is all (or mostly all) original research. And to compound that problem it is using the term "ethnic Jew" to to make the series of un-sourced assertions that it makes in that article section. Even if those assertions had validity (which we can't know, since they are un-sourced), those assertions would be made using standard terminology. It is my contention that we should be looking to standard, mainstream, large circulation journalistic sources to find out what the preferred term or terms are to be used to make reference to Jews who are not particularly religiously observant. The terms used range. But they tend to settle around the few terms that I had been suggesting. (No surprise — I am a native English speaker. I read English newspapers. I am not unaware of normal English usage.) But no one has to take my word for it. Simply search under "Google News" for instances of the variety of terms we are discussing. I have not found one instance of the largest and presumably the most responsible news source outlets employing the term "ethnic Jew." It is not impossible that they could do so. There is a context for everything. But standard usage does not employ that term. Users here have cited what I think were sociology textbooks for legitimization of that term. But I don't think that is what we should be looking for. We should be looking for standard usage. That is "predigested" for us by the standard news outlets. They have presumably taken into account the sociology textbooks before deciding upon the terms that they wish to use to indicate those Jews who are not to any great degree religious. One should bear in mind that probably all sociology textbooks to not speak with one voice; it is perfectly possible that some eschew a term that others embrace. But I don't think that we here at Wikipedia, for this article, should be taking our cue, for article-writing style, from what may amount to no more than a handful of books treating specialized areas of study such as sociology, or sub-areas within that field of study. This article should instead be written for the general reader. It is my contention that language for that is found in the major publishers of all variety of news stories, to be consumed by the largest possible audience Bus stop (talk) 11:50, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

In brief and after I read only the first line (time is short here, I've a flight), a true Gior/t (one who convert to Judaism) is also accepted as 100% Jewish by me. I admire this people who tied their future and present with us. However, the definition of ethnicity is secular one and as such if I argue that they also Jewish by the ethnic definition than I must accept that a Jew who convert to other religion or an atheist is ethnically not Jewish any longer and it's realy unaccepted by me. I do think that one who bound his destiny with this of the Jewish people is very very close to be an Ethnicall Jew as it's not similar in any essence to any other kind of convertion: here he is obligated that his offsprings will be Jewish, consider himslef one, taking on himself 613 commands, having circumcision ceremony and may be considerd as Jewish for life by non Jews as well. But as this issue is problematic I prefer to refer to converts to Judaism as Jews of other ethnicity. For instance, German who convert to Judaism is Jewish of German ethnicity.--Gilisa (talk) 13:48, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Bus Stop, you are making a storm in a cup of tea. I don't get what is your problem with the term "Ethnicall Jew" and I found your original research and you presistence peculiar.--Gilisa (talk) 14:50, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) Gilisa, the article shouldn't be promoting nonstandard language. Where "nonobservant Jew" is standard usage, the article shouldn't be substituting "ethnic Jew." That is a big problem, clearly found in this section of the article. I don't think this article should be breaking new ground, linguistically. I don't think that this article should be promoting a term that is unusual — relative to other far more commonly encountered terms, by standard, large, mainstream sources, specifically the editorial staff of the world's largest news organizations. Language serves a purpose related to the definitions of words. One should not be writing an article, or a section of an article, using any but the most widely and clearly understood terminology available to us. Manuals of usage are compiled by news organizations to guide them in the choice of language to be employed in a variety of situations. These are designed to help writers choose the correct language. You are unlikely to find a responsible news organization employing a term such as "ethnic Jew." It is for that reason that we should not be using that term either. Those journalistic enterprises use terms such as "non religious Jew." A term such as that is clearly descriptive, self-explanatory, widely used, widely understood. It is not for me to second-guess the newsrooms of the major news organizations of the world. They do not use "ethnic Jew" in order to refer to Jews who are not religious — so why should we? Furthermore assertions made using the term "ethnic Jew" are un-sourced. This paragraph is problematic and I am pointing out why: it is largely original research, and it is using creative terminology that is demonstrably at odds with standard journalistic terminology. Please do the searches yourself using "Google News" for each of the variety of terms being discussed here and I think you will see my cause for concern. Bus stop (talk) 15:48, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

The Jewish Daily Forward may be a Jewish news source, but it is of fairly prominent standing. They use the terminology "nonobservant Jew" twice in this article. These are the sentences in which "nonobservant Jew" is used:

"Loeb posited: “Why would a nonobservant Jew from New York City have spent 12 years and a significant sum [$12 million] to build a small visitors center on the campus of an Orthodox Jewish synagogue [founded in 1658] where only Hebrew was spoken in the liturgy, and the ritual observance originated in the Sephardic tradition?"

"I have never been [a] bar mitzvah and had never even been to a synagogue until my late teens, when I attended the funeral of my great-uncle Herbert Lehman, a nonobservant Jew who had once been governor of New York and later a U.S. Senator.”"

Clearly in the above two sentences the term "nonobservant Jew" is used in order to refer to a Jewish person who is not religious. Bus stop (talk) 16:27, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone doubt the authority of The Economist? Here we see The Economist referring to "secular Jews." This is the sentence in which that terminology is used:

"Nightlife is lively, and undisturbed. But the threat to their lifestyles, say many secular Jews, is more insidious and much more pervasive."

The Economist happens to be one of the most well-written newspapers I am aware of. From our article on The Economist, I quote "It targets highly educated readers and claims an audience containing many influential executives and policy-makers.[7]" Isn't that the sort of source that should be guiding our writing style? Bus stop (talk) 16:40, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Here we have someone describing himself as an "assimilated Jew." This is from the Brisbane Times of Australia. The sentence is as follows:

"Having been born, circumcised, bar mitzvah and raised an assimilated Jew, educated by an Anglican school and having performed in Catholic choir, married (and amazingly not been divorced from) a woman whose parents were elders of the Uniting Church, I am surrounded by a farrago of faiths."

Obviously at least this one individual does not consider the term "assimilated Jew" pejorative or insulting, as some have described that term above, or he would not choose to describe himself that way. Bus stop (talk) 20:00, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

The Buffalo News (New York State) apparently feels, in this instance at least, that the term "nonpracticing Jew" serves their usage best. This is the sentence they have constructed:

"Even though he was a nonpracticing Jew, he became head of the American Zionist movement and worked to build a Jewish nation in Palestine."

I have also searched "Google News" for instances in which "ethnic Jew" or "ethnically Jewish" occurs. There are very few such instances. They tend to be from what in my humble opinion are lower quality news sources. And the subject matter is also sometimes specifically suited to that locution. So far I have not found "ethnic Jew" or "ethnically Jewish" being used by any large news organizations. Bus stop (talk) 20:23, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

It is easy enough to find reliable sources saying that there is an ethnic component to Jewish identity. However, the term ethnic Jew does not appear to be a commonly used term. The section in question is largely a collection of unsupported assertions about a variety of such terms. It could use a drastic trimming of all unsourced assertions. Nick Graves (talk) 03:32, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Aghh, please not this again. In any case, not gonna to get into this--being there done that have the t-shirt and days are only 24 hours long :) though going to interject (because that claim is not playing fair): it does not take more than 10 seconds of googling to get this: http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=%22ethnic+jews%22&btnG=Search&hl=en&ned=us&um=1&scoring=a. If I google "ethnically jewish" I get a whole bunch more. Just from a cursory glance one sees [NY Times], Washington Post, SF Chronicle, BBC, numerous Russian papers such as [this one], and even the [Jerusalem Post]. That is not to say Bus Stop's point about sourcing isn't valid however. I think both sides could play fairer: if one's against the term "ethnic jew" one should be able to make the case without ignoring the plethora of readily available WP:RS sources that does use the term. On the other hand if one favors the term, why not just source them properly per Bus Stop's request, which's quite reasonable. I do think the other terms also have merit and have their place in the article, which in turn as Nick Graves stated can use a drastic trimming of all unsourced WP:OR...unless both sides are just saying "no I don't want *their* term in the article" (which's a diff can of worms), maybe just everyone source what they want appropriately, add the ref, and get it over with? I mean it's just adding refs which's never a bad thing unless you WP:SYNTHESIS stuff, one doesn't need to debate (or delete the other's stuff from the article) to go ahead and just add it... Tendancer (talk) 04:30, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the entire matter of Ethnic Jew being sourced is a vast strawman - the ACTUAL matter is Bus Stop's edits equating a list of terms for Jews as all being equal, which citations here on the talk page have demonstrated to be false. This whole 'Ethnic Jew' thing is a pet peeve of Bus Stop's one he was topic banned for long ago, and which he keeps bringing up, not because of any real content issue but because he's got a personal agenda and POV here to push. If sourcing the use of Ethnic Jew would fix it, it would be done fast. I'd do it, wouldn't take long. But that was tried years ago, and no source was good enough, because his POV precludes him from participating reasonably. ThuranX (talk) 04:43, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

ThuranX, what kind of an edit summary is this? I think the subject is not me, but terminology under discussion. If you take this personally, or view me as not worthy of editing the same article that you are editing, then whose problem is that? Isn't part of what wiki is about the ability of people to work together? Bus stop (talk) 11:23, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Bus stop, you are realy sweeping away this all discussion. The evidence you provide here are highly inadequated, newspapers and Journals are not a valuable or neutral source for language and I realy don't need to tell it, what more that you didn't read all the words were used in these journals for the last 5 years, didn't you? Ethnical Jew is very standard language and idea, I know it well even English is not my native tounge as I heard it many times in the past from people whose mother tongue is the same as yours. Lets cut straight to the point, this is not a serious discussion, you preformed original research here for your own reasons. Compromise would be the best solution: you may add a note or a paragraph on the attitude of reform and conservative movements toward Judaism as ethnicity, but not to bound the entire article for their point of view. --Gilisa (talk) 20:30, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

(Response only to avoid potential future wiki-lawyering) Bus Stop, I told you I would not be responding to you here anymore until you provide the citations I asked for to support the edits you want. Thus, when other editors reply here, I reply to them. ThuranX (talk) 03:49, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Disability?

"If either parent is subject to a disability (eg is a mamzer) then the child is also subject to that disability" As a non Jew I first took this to mean that the child of a disabled person will also be disabled. There needs to be a definition of what "a disability" is in this context. I've tried to find a link for it but neither disability nor Disabilities (Jewish) cast any light on the term. I suspect the Disabilities (Jewish) article needs to be expanded and link made to it from this one. Richerman (talk) 10:55, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

So, you can convert to an ethnic group?

There were times when large groups of people converted to Judaism, the Subbotniks for example (http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Subbotniks), many of them moved to Israel.

Examples like these prove that the term "ethnic jew" is off, because there is no guarantee at all that a jew has an unbroken line to the ancient israelites or that his ancestry is, ehm.. "unpolluted". Some people say there is a "jewish" look (Spielberg, Streisand...) which speaks for an ethnicity, but for every Streisand, there are tons of jewish people, who can't be told apart from gentile white people. Take for example Alyson Hannigan, Zac Efron, Gwyneth Paltrow and many many others. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.73.3.212 (talk) 22:58, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Ethnicity can't mean only proved and "unpolluted" descent from a particular couple, or from a particular group living thousands of years ago, or there would be no such thing as an ethnicity in the world. It means membership of a cultural group with a PERCEPTION of common descent. If someone comes to England and is naturalized, he does not immediately become "ethnically" English. But if he or his descendants take no special pains to preserve a separate identity, and they are open to intermarriage with other English stocks, in a few generations they will be "ethnically" English. So with Jews. Judaism accepts converts. Their descendants will be "ethnically" Jewish, whether or not they are religiously so, for as long as they feel some identification with the Jewish people.

Judaism is peculiar, because it is at once an ethnicity that depends on a religion, and a religion that depends on an ethnicity. The "religious" definition of a Jew is someone whose mother was a Jew or who converted, which is at least partly ethnic. The "ethnic" definition of a Jew is someone who remembers their grandparents practising Judaism, which is religious. --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) (talk) 08:43, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

For more background on the above it might be useful to read the article on ethnoreligious groups. Hertz1888 (talk) 09:02, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Additionally, Conversion is often seen as converting someone entirely, that is, not only does your religious faith change, but your cultural identity among Jews, who at least ideally, see you as a jew first, and anything else second - a Chinese Jew, an Ethiopean Jew, a japanese Jew - the adjective may change, but the noun remains 'Jew'. Lest this seem like an opportunity to drive a wedge, remember, even among Jews, there are subcultural divisions, or ethnics subdivisions - Ashkenazi, Sephardic, and so on, for example. ThuranX (talk) 05:34, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Well yes, that's what the religion tells you ought to be the case; and since most converts are either married to Jews or of partially Jewish descent, assimilation usually happens quite quickly. I was speaking of what "ethnicity" in general means, in answer to the user who thought it depended on unbroken descent. --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) (talk) 08:57, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

From where do you get that "most converts are either married to Jews or of partially Jewish descent?" Bus stop (talk) 11:49, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Probably because those are the most familiar, and likely, most common reasons. In fact, Ba'al Teshuva refers explicitly to those who come from Jewish heritages and return to the religion, esp. Orthodox versions thereof. There are other reasons, like Sammy Davis, Jr., or Alysa Stanton cited, but the marriage and return are common. I don't posit, unlike SirMyles, that that makes the 'ethnic component less of an obstacle'. Instead, to mix religions, it's almost more of a transsubstaniation - in the conversion, not just the faith in your heart, but your very nature, or soul, becomes Jewish. ThuranX (talk) 23:25, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

That begs the question, what is Jewish? This article was supposed to shed light on that. Instead I think this article to a fair extent muddies that issue. In the final analysis, according to this article, just about anyone is a Jew, and just about anything is "Jewish." The article fails to make distinctions that might bring into focus many of the factors that someone might come to an article such as this to find out about. I think the reader comes away from this article as though having consumed pabulum. (Needless to say sources are severely lacking. This paragraph, which we both have worked on, is a good example of that.) I have tried to insert definition and in so doing I have probably tended to exclude some categories of people from being considered Jewish. It remains my contention that this article needs more definition and less wishy-washiness. Bus stop (talk) 16:56, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Baloney. The article's quite clear on the different interpretations. We are all aware that to you, only those who meet your personal standards are Jews, and the rest shouldn't get any space in this article. Luckily, we also don't care about your personal views. We care about coverage of all non-fringe viewpoints which can be supported by reliable sources, which is what this article has. We are all aware that if you wrote the article, it would be something like 'only a few families in the middle east are Jews, the rest are all heathen idolater liars', and we're glad it doesn't say that, that wouldn't inform anyone. You really need to be banned from this set of topics again, cause all you do is agitate your fringe viewpoints ad nauseum on Wikipedia, with all the stress that causes others. ThuranX (talk) 20:01, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

ThuranX, Reliable sources are what matters. This is all un-sourced. Banning me would not get this sourced. As a Wikipedian, you should see that as a problem. Almost the entire paragraph is original research. And it is wishy-washy, as I said earlier. A reader comes to an article such as this to find out not only who is a Jew, but who is not a Jew. That un-sourced material concerning "ethnic Jews" conveys that there is no such thing as anyone failing to meet the definition of being a Jew. That does the reader a disservice. It may be what you wish to say, for whatever reason, but it doesn't follow Wikipedia guidelines for writing an article. Sources are needed if those assertions are what you wish to make.

The article says:

Ethnic Jew is a term generally used to describe a person of Jewish parentage and background who does not necessarily actively practice Judaism but still identifies with Judaism and/or other Jews culturally and fraternally.

According to who? Who says that? From where are you getting that information?

The article says:

The term "ethnic Jew" does not specifically exclude practicing Jews, but they are usually simply referred to as "Jews" without the qualifying adjective "ethnic".

Really? According to what reliable source?

That paragraph has in it this sentence:

"Ethnic Jews" include atheists, agnostics, non-denominational deists, Jews with only casual connections to Jewish denominations or converts to other religions, such as Christianity, Buddhism, or Islam.

An assertion like that cannot be made without a source.

That paragraph says this:

In the case of some Hasidic denominations (eg. Chabad-Lubavitch) this outreach extends to active proselytizing.

Who says? I thought "proselytizing" was when a member of a religion tried to get a person who was not a member of that religion to convert to it. Have you found an esoteric source that says that when one Jew who is more observant tries to entice another Jewish person into becoming more observant, that that is termed "proselytizing?" There certainly isn't a source cited for that. How silly of me to be thinking in such basic and uncreative ways. Bus stop (talk) 21:13, 18 October 2009 (UTC)Bus stop (talk) 21:05, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Bus stop, the majority of the article is unsourced. Instead of obsessing about one section, why don't you help find sources for the rest of the article? — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 21:29, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Malik Shabazz, I probably spent a week trying to fix up that one paragraph (here and here). The "consensus" insists that un-sourced material should stand. I brought sources from mainstream journalistic outlets to try to impress upon people that "ethnic" Jew is not the term used most of the time for the meanings attributed to it in that paragraph. By a ten-to-one ratio such terms as "nonobservant Jew," "secular Jew," "nonreligious Jew," "non-practicing Jew," and "assimilated Jew," are the terms of choice in many of the instances described in the referred to paragraph. "Ethnic Jew" does have a use. In fact it has more than one use. It is a term that has meaning. It is relatively infrequently used. But you have to cite sources if you are going to show how the term "ethnic Jew" is used. It is not for the editors of this article to spin the tale that they wish to tell, independent of published, and reliable sources. Bus stop (talk) 21:43, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

90% of the article is unsourced. Since you seem to be on a crusade to find sources, why don't you look for sources for other parts of the article? Your obsession with the subject of Jewish ethnicity across many Talk pages is becoming disruptive. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 22:09, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Malik Shabazz, one does not "source" something if it is incorrect. One should start out with sourced information and work it into the article. I can't do the impossible. What makes you think I can find sources for material that may have been put into the article arbitrarily? Can you suggest a reason why nobody else has been able to find sources for much of this material? Bus stop (talk) 22:50, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Bus stop, the entire article has a problem with insufficient sources. What is your obsession with this particular section? I understand that you've been blocked several times for disruptive editing concerning this very subject. Why don't you give it a rest? — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 23:03, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Bus stop, it's not a matter of unsourced, it's as matter of the fact that you have resolutely opposed the inclusion of Ethnic Jew in any form, at all, ever. I'm not sure of the reason, but I don't even care anymore. You oppose it because of your personal religious beliefs, that's clear, and beyond that, it doesn't matter. We showed you numerous sources for use of the term, and, just as you do every single time, you start a new section, ignore previous comments, conversations, citations and consensus, and get right back to your starting point, and start over, leaving the rest of us scrambling to find more and more arguments against your zealotry. It is high time we get you topic banned, because it's incredibly clear that you are a perfect example of 'You cannot reason a person out of a position they did not reason themselves into.' ThuranX (talk) 02:01, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

If I may venture to make a point, the source of the term 'ethnicity' is directly related to this article in that Defining ethnicity says,

The terms "ethnicity" and "ethnic group" are derived from the Greek word ethnos, normally translated as "nation". The term "ethnic" and related forms were used in English in the meaning of "pagan/ heathen" from the 14th century through the middle of the 19th century. This practice was derived from New Testament Greek, which used the plural ethne to render the Hebrew goyim (or non-Jew)."

This is the stance adopted by the normative, or orthodox identity of Jews.

Where non-normative definition is used based on the more modern definition of people with distinct cultural identities, one would have to struggle to find distinction between Jews and any other monotheist since virtually everything else can be termed "cultural". Clearly therefore one has to draw the line somewhere.

As the above article says, today the meaning of "ethnic group" refers to a minority within a larger population. Anything that significantly differentiates the group from that larger population is the cultural difference, and a ready identifier. Therefore one has to look at what it is that Jews do which no one else does which makes them a minority outside of Israel where they are defined in the classic Greek sense of "nation".--Meieimatai? 06:57, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Consistency

I'm not sure why my edits were reverted. In the first place I added a common sense logical statement that a mother knows who she is, and therefore who her children are. A father may not, since he didn't give birth, and since sometimes he is not even known. The fact that I added an online link to a relevant article on the discussion of the logic of this statement is what the revert objection is based on, but there are very many such cited sources all over the Wikipedia where the site contributes information otherwise unencyclopaedic, such as a discussion.

The second issue is even more basic. In the first instance I added a link to the article that introduces the reader to the concept of religious denominations. Where is the 'malice' in that?

In the second instance I clarified that the Jewish by birth is not a 'tradition', but in fact a halakhic ruling. It says so further down the article "Reform (in America) and Liberal Judaism do not accept the halakhic rules as binding...", so it is logical that in the previous section it talks about a halakhic ruling, and not a tradition, unless the Reform Movement disagrees with a tradition. But of course since it is something written down for what, about 3,300 years, it is clearly not a tradition.

Denominations also differ on their conversion processes and whether to recognize conversions performed by other Jewish denominations. The traditional view is that the mere acceptance of the principles and practices of Judaism does not make a person a Jew. But, conversely, those born Jewish do not lose that status because they cease to be observant Jews, even if they adopt the practices of another religion.

vs

Religious denomination also differ on their conversion processes, and whether to recognize conversions performed by other Jewish groups. The halakhic ruling is that the mere acceptance of the principles and practices of Judaism does not make a person a Jew. However, those born halakhicly Jewish do not lose that status because they cease to be observant Jews, even if they adopt the practices of another religion.

The fact that other Jewish groups accept halakhic ruling has nothing to do with my edits! One has to start the discussion of Jewish by Birth somewhere, and the halakhic ruling was that point of departure for the section. There was a point when it was the only definition, bar that held by the Karaite sect after approximately 7th to 9th centuries. So what is the issue with reverts?--Meieimatai? 06:32, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

No, I reverted because your assertions of what are logic are first, flawed, and second ,violate out WP:SYNTH and WP:OR policies. For example, you point to one place where its says Reform doesn't accept Halakhic rules', and assert then that Reform doesn't follow any of those rules, anywhere, ever. YOu do this though you later admit the Reform hold this, in the form of a tradition, then say that since it's not a hard rule, it's not a tradition, and no rule ever became a tradition, which is, of course, inane. By your own assertion, the rules were established 3300 years ago. Do you assert that no one builds a traditional cultural rule on 3100 years of a written rule? Likewise, do you assert that no rule comes FROM a tradition? Why then do men hold doors for women?

How is the logic flawed?

What's WP:SYNTH and WP:OR about that logical statement?

I did not take Reform out of anything because it was not mentioned. Instead 'denominations' were mentioned. By linking to religious denominations article I allowed the reader the choice of learning about various Jewish groups. Reform practice is still in the fourth paragraph.

It didn't say Reform follow anything in those sentences which were only general in reference to Jewish groups.

However, Reform can not hold something that is law for orthodox to be a tradition for themselves. Its like saying that murder is prohibited by British law, but only prohibited in Australia by tradition, which is obviously not true. It seems to me you need to read tradition article, but it seems to me you know enough judging by your comments to know that halakha is normative Jewish law, in some cases incorporated into the modern Israeli legal system, and there is no way it can be called tradition.

Yes, normative rules in halakha are asserted by the orthodox to have been put in place 3300 years ago. Yes, over that time traditions came into being, disappeared and were replaced by other traditions, usually within specific geographic groups. Since Reform have only been around since 1820s, I would guess that their traditions are not as well established or plentiful, but if you wish to add what they are, please do so. However, and this is not my opinion, rules can not come from traditions. If you disagree with this, please provide specific examples.

So far as I know holding doors open for women is not a Jewish halakhic requirement, or a tradition, though it may be a Reform one based on recent (19th century?) Western etiquette.

Further, you removed 'conversely', a well placed and correct word for highlighting the consistencies between in and out of the religion based on variances within tradition and rules. If adopting a culture didn't make you a jew, then adopting a different culture doesn't stop you from being a jew. Conversely frames this better than 'however', which indicates a contrast, when one doesn't exist.

The contrast is artificial. The two identifications are mutually exclusive, so why suggest to the reader that they are somehow hypocritical?

You end with "The fact that other Jewish groups accept halakhic ruling has nothing to do with my edits!" You are wrong. Your edits specifically exclude other Jewish groups from the same content and ideas they actually share with Halakha, and asserting that once upon a time, over a thousand years ago, you were right for a while, so you;'re right now, is mind-bogglingly elitist and smacks of deliberate ignoring of fact - we are in a later time with other groups who hold similar mores, whether or not codified into a written rule. Wikipedia is written for the present day, and in an article wherein the content applies to the modern time, we write for that as well. Had this been 'the history if Jewish Identity in Halakha', we could handily stop any discussion in about 1650, with the last of the post-Talmudic era scholars' responses to Halakha and Talmud. But, this isn't such an article, and so we include reasonable modern perspectives. ThuranX (talk) 12:03, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

No. As I'm sure you know, one either accepts halakha, or one does not. All non-orthodox Jewish groups do accept halakha but selectively, and do not accept the core tenets that establish halakhic rulings as a normative religious system. They are therefore self-exclusionary. In other words, you can't have one's cake and eat it too.

Wikipedia is written for the present day, but in this case it reflects the historical relationships that eventuated in present day practice.

I am not aware that anyone questioned halakhic definitions of who is a Jew c.1650.

Please refrain from editwaring while a discussion is in progress.

Please feel free to add sources to any statements you add to the article--Meieimatai? 15:08, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

structural duplications?

It seems to me that the article has strayed off the subject somewhat due to the repetitive nature of editing that has taken place.

The question is that of who is a Jew, and not a discussion of ethnicity or historicity of claims of Jewishness. Those are dealt with elsewhere.

As I see it the issue was well defined in the introduction where the birth, conversion and loss of identity are the primary, and disputed sources of answer to the question.

• Perspectives

In reality there are only three perspectives:

A. the one used since inception of Judaism

B. that used during the Karaite schism (heresy)

C. that which emerged as a result of 19th century liberalism which encompasses the conversion 'issue' (second heresy from perspective of A.)

The political implications of the Law of Return in Israel are really expressions of atheist Jews against halakhic norms, and therefore their desire for freedom of non-belief, therefore still a religious perspective, or to put it another way, the freedom not to have a religious perspective.

Most modern groups in Judaism that emerged since the 19th century are either basing themselves on rejection of halakhic absolutism in Jewish life, or the superseding of it by humanistic value sets, so again, a religious perspective.

The Karaite schism is obviously religious in that until liberalisation in other Western religions was deemed to be a heretical sect within Judaism. It continues to be regarded as such by the most other Jewish groups, which are themselves considered heretical by the Orthodox, but has been accepted by the Israeli government based on liberal philosophy. It therefore transcends the religious and political perspectives.

The section titled In Israel is in fact dealing with neither religious, nor political issues, but those of constitutional law as it would be seen in other states. Laws of return are implied, and are often explicit in the citizenship of other nations, but do not make the news because few had their Diasporas for as long as the Jews. The only difference is that Israel does not have the clause which separates state and faith given the faith/religion is the basis of claim to statehood. Israeli constitutional law is therefore a political suplantation of that which exists within halakha, had a halakhic state been possible (in my understanding).

The sixth part of the article is really a religious issue since claims of Israelite/Jewish ancestry are usually presented with some form of religious observance, and to these groups conversion is an option by all groups in Judaism. Ultimately their claims stem from faith-based and not cultural or ethnic affiliations within the Jewish Diaspora or the state of Israel. (for the most part?)

Ethnic and cultural definitions are those that had been imposed on Jews within the experience of the long Diaspora history. For example being an Ashkenazi Jew makes a difference only in the order of liturgy as a means of identity. In this Jews are not different to other similar experiences, and are predominantly based on religion, which for Jews defines the less definable 'culture'. I can not think how a Jew would be culturally distinct from any other member of a hosting Diaspora society if stripped of the religion-based attributes of the Jewish life-cycle, and the proof is in the Marrano ancestry that succeeded in large numbers to retain their beliefs secret for centuries.

The only other section that fails to fit the niches proposed by the article's three introductory perspectives for answering the question are those listed in the fourth section. This can be divided again into perspectives based on religion-based ethnicity, science, and quasi-science of Nazi selection, and philosophy even if scientific such as that used in anthropology.

The sub-section titled "Half-Jewish" I would consider insulting since I'm sure, and in my experience, people who have one parent who is not Jewish, or who are not halakhically Jewish never the less usually have a fairly good idea of self-identity, and this self-identity would only be questioned within a community environment. This again brings us to the religious debate.

I will continue to try and find sources to cite in backing up the statements made in this article, and would welcome a discussion on restructuring the article.--Meieimatai? 07:04, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Your rambling narrative illustrates your POV. This is why you are being reverted. If you have a problem with your POV being countered through reversion, go grab an Admin. Best, A Sniper (talk) 17:52, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

A Sniper, your criticism is not specific. What are you seeing as "POV?" Meieimatai is providing sources. Shouldn't you use the Talk page before removing material that is supported by sources? I think you should explain in specific terms what you are objecting to. Where for instance do you see a "rambling narrative?" Bus stop (talk) 18:09, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Let the editor add sources. Instead there were a quick-fire series of complete re-writes of sections, many without sources, pushing a pro-Orthodox interpretive agenda. I have merely asked the editor to take the controversial edits to the talk page first - if the editor wants to merely add bona fide references, fantastic. However, wholesale POV-driven purging isn't cool. Best, A Sniper (talk) 20:37, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

A Sniper, I would only 'grab' and administrator if I want to deal with vandalism. As an editor you are supposed to be able to deal with discussion, EDITING, and communicating. If you are not able to do so without resorting to 'police action', I would suggest you stop vandalism.

If you disagree with my edits, please voice your objections specificity and in a civil manner, rather than threatening me with admins or suggesting bias without illustrating it.

As for being "rambling", if you lack the attention span to read and comment of what I wrote, don't. However, maybe, just maybe I had written so much because it had to be said. Questioning article structuring is not a new phenomena in Wikipedia where articles often become rambling due to 'pet' edits by various editors that fail to consolidate layers of essentially similar or identical information.--Meieimatai? 20:44, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

If you continue to edit in such a pro-Orthodox, biased manner, then there will most certainly be admins involved. As for attention spans, now you are wandering into the realm of WP:Civil. Some of us do not have hours and hours to scroll through endless edits, all done in a concentrated period of time without taking your time through talk page means. Best, A Sniper (talk) 21:53, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

The only lack of civility is on your behalf in reverting edits without so much as bothering to read them because they were added too quickly for your taste. If you do not have the time to pay attention to my editing, leave it to others. I edit when I have the spare time.

For example you have restated my supposed Orthodox bias in the edits. However, you do not actually state what made you decide this aside from your assumptions about my user page. Its very hard to defend oneself against unstated personal agendas which you seem to hold close to your chest! And why should I have to defend myself?

A civil thing would be to thank me for the editing, and query this or that point I made rather than start wholesale reversion of the material I had spent MY time and not yours adding to the article.

I will continue to edit in the manner I see fit until further constructive discussion takes place. No admin worth his RFA is going to listen to you seriously when you have exhibited 0 willingness to engage in discussion, but simply stated your opinion. Wikipedia does not work, or at least should not work, based who requests an admin first. It works on merit of the editing and sources provided.

I started a sandbox since to go on in the article without major restructuring and lacking in constructive comments from other editors would be unwise. You may want to comment on the discussion page there....in a more civil tone of voice--Meieimatai? 11:44, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

No, I concur with Sniper. You seek to reframe the entire article into 'Halakha and heathens', showing an abundance of distaste for Jews who do not abide the strictures of post-Talmudic Ashkenazi Jews. It's a viewpoint on this multifacted topic which has been widely rebuked in the past. This article is about far more than Halakha - It's about the debate about this question from the Pre-Talmudic era through the modern, as addressed and interpreted through Jewish cultures, Cultures interacting with Jews, Jews who must form a political state, and more. To assert that there was, is, and ever shall be only Halakha is to ignore a great deal - Halakha, for example, forgets the patriarchal era of lineage, ignores the debates about how to handle other cultures 'of Jewish descent who believe themselves to be Jews', such as the Kai Feng, the Ethiopeans, the Lemba, and other groups. All of these discussions of the jewish identity of these groups and how to resolve them are all factors in this topic, as well as how to address the issues of Jews and Self-identification. We all get that you'd like to sweep all this aside, and say 'Halakha says only those born of Jewish mothers are Jews, or if you convert by Ultra-Orthodox conversions, though no one ever wants that, end of story.' We just don't ever intend to let that happen. ThuranX (talk) 03:55, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

ThuranX, you make reference to "an abundance of distaste." Where might I find in the article something that displays this distaste for others that you refer to? You seem to be saying that the article is suggesting some people are "heathens." Where in the article might I find the suggestion that some people are "heathens?" Please quote these things with appropriate specificity. Bus stop (talk) 12:40, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I think the reference to 'heathens' is derived from here. However, its application to my edits puzzles me also--Meieimatai? 20:29, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

No, my use of both phrases refers to the comment both of you have, and continue to make, about the inherent superiority of Orthodox Ashkenazi Judaism over all other forms of the religion, both those pre- and post-dating the era which Chassidim seek to institutionalize. It's tiresome, repetitive, and never progresses this article to a greater state. ThuranX (talk) 05:17, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

(dab) Er...in the first place the article did not, and still does not reflect what you say it should be.

In the second place, what's there is inadequately referenced.

Now, where do you see that I "seek to reframe the entire article into 'Halakha and heathens', showing an abundance of distaste for Jews who do not abide the strictures of post-Talmudic Ashkenazi Jews."?

According to dating of the text by Orthodox rabbis the revelation of the Torah to Moses occurred in 1380 BCE.(Seder Olam Rabbah?) The Reform movement only dates from 1820 CE, and Progressive movement from 1932(?). In other words the 189 years since the former's inception represent 5.6% of the 3389 year history of Judaism. For some reason this has been ignored in the article. For example the very important identity of Jews living in Babylonia at the time of the formulation of much of the halakha in the Talmudic reduction which forbid Jews to settle outside of Israel has been ignored entirely. Another example is that the holiday of Purim, which as I understand is celebrated by all modern Jewish denominations, but is one of the earliest expressions of anti-Semitism in the Jewish Diaspora, has also been entirely left out.

So what is it that you want? Its unreasonable to expect an article to offer 50% content coverage to an aspect which represents only a small percentage of the entire subject. I am quite happy to collaborate and listen, if you have constructive suggestions, but all you do is criticise what is in my POV a very much unfinished article to say the least.

As for your "We all get that you'd like to sweep all this aside", so far the 'we' represents two editors, and you have offered no specific illustrations of my 'sweeping'. I look forward to engaging in fruitful discussion with more editors, and less critics, while you become more specific by cutting and pasting to here the parts of my edits which illustrate your accusations.--Meieimatai? 06:42, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Meieimatai, for adding sources that this article sorely needed.

Regardless of whether modern religious movements in Judaism represent 5% of Jewish history, I think they need to be presented in rough proportion to their relevance to the controversy surrounding the issue of who is considered Jewish. Thus they will make up considerably more than 5% of the article.

I also echo A Sniper's concern that the article is being written from your POV that Orthodox Judaism is normative Judaism and any other perspective is a heresy (your word, not mine). Wikipedia is supposed to be written from a neutral point of view, not one that privileges one Jewish religious viewpoint over others. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:46, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

That halakhic Judaism is the normative practice is a point made by early founders of the Reform Movement, and still held by the Reform and other Progressive movements, so its not my POV. However, this is neither stated nor referenced, and hence it seems like its my invention and expressed bias.

That the majority of modern movements in Judaism represent heretical attitudes is the Orthodox POV and not one I invented. That plays a significant role in the controversies surrounding conversion, etc. that were in the article before I started editing.

I didn't say that I intend to allocate 6% of article content to the modern Jewish movements' POV on the question. I have no idea how it will end up. However, it seems to me that some historical perspective is helpful.--Meieimatai? 23:37, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Halakha is NOT 'normative' in the eyes of the Reform Judaism movement, it was archaic, self-isolating, and had lost all sense of adaptation, all of which led Mendelsohn and others to break from it, adopting Enlighenment era ideas and developments. I have never heard a Reform, or Conservative speaker hold up Orthodoxy as normative, and Reform and Conservative as weaker, lesser forms. What a condescending statement, wholly embodying exactly the biases I keep pointing out that you keep denying you demonstrate. ThuranX (talk) 05:17, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Everything you expressed is what the Reform Movement took as the basis of the schism from orthodoxy. However, they never denied that halakha was the norm, then or now. In any case, just think about it yourself logically. How can a reform exist where no normative, or as you would probably say 'traditional', base for it exists to reform? Every reform movement in any discipline of study has had similar schism (which is what got me interested in Talmudic philosophy), but why do you have to be defensive about it is quite puzzling.

"The Enlightenment was less a set of ideas than it was a set of values. At its core was a critical questioning of traditional institutions, customs, and morals." It is hardly applicable to the Reform Movement which did not abandon Jewish institutions (the synagogue), or moral values (which now form the core of its philosophy), and customs were always a transient value in Jewish communities as evidenced by the reform in early chassidic communities. Halakha was the only thing that was holding back Enlightenment philosophical assimilation for the Reform leadership since it dealt with ideas and more importantly, assimilation that many perceived as the next logical step in Jews living among the gentiles. The question was not of what to discard, but what to keep. Many halakhic practices are retained by the Reform even today.

Maybe rather than attacking me, you could expand and improve this article?--Meieimatai? 07:02, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

If anyone's defensive, it's you, about your idea that everything non-orthodox is simply the debris of a schism. It's not going to fit here.

By your standard, Slavery is the normative mode of operation for the USA, and the civil war simply represents a schism. Can I start owning me some slaves now? Your pathetic counter-argument only holds if there's no concept of time passing, or if 'normative' is absolutely permanent, no matter what elese happens to 'normative' after it's established. Heck ,the establishment of 'normative' is subjective, since 'normative to Orthodox Ashkenazi' never happened. We had Torah, then Haftarah, then Mishna, Gemara, Talmud, Post-talmudics... a nearly continuous series of arguments and contentions regarding the interpretations and execution of the commandments. Each time someone called for an end to such a movement of debate, a new one arose. There is NO fixed point to point to as a solid, stable normative. As such, it's clear that you simply hold a distaste for non-orthodox viewpoints, and editing towards your biased POV is not going to work here. ThuranX (talk) 17:38, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Your logic is astounding me, but I'll play along - how is me being defensive reflected in my editing of this article?

(Insert answer here please)

"idea that everything non-orthodox is simply the debris of a schism" - I said that, or are you putting words into my mouth as it were?

(Insert answer here please)

Yes, slavery was the normative source of relatively free labour in the World for a very long time before the American Civil War, which did not end it around the World.

If you are Jewish, then, as I understand it, you can start owning slaves now :) This question was put to the visiting orthodox rabbi in the course, and by the time he was through explaining the ramifications of this I doubt anyone in the class was interested in the slave ownership according to halakha :)

I will ignore your insult, and remind you that my 'counter-argument' was not, since you had not offered an argument in the first place, but only criticism.

It is my understanding that the Jews hold the Torah to be given for eternity, so in that sense you are correct; there's no concept of time passing, or 'normative' is absolutely permanent, no matter what else happens to 'normative' after it's established. The first attempt at reform is mentioned in the Torah itself with the event of Korah as I understand it, though (and more on the subject) his descendants retained Jewish identity. You see that mentioned anywhere in the article?

(Insert answer here please)

Do you even know what you are talking about? It is one of the principles of Talmudic and post-Talmudic discourse that the later generations do not argue with the former. From memory, it was something taught in either the first or second lecture on Talmudic philosophy (3rd year of my degree).

In terms of halakhic discourse Orthodoxy was a by-product term of late 19th century schism, and Ashkenazi has nothing to do with it, there was never a reform that drastically altered interpretation of the Written or Oral Torah. Even the early Medieval European tradition stems from the story of the four redeemed prisoners that established the European schools of teaching, so ultimately Ashkenazi is at best a later (Renaissance/Enlightenment) school of thought that developed due to severing of links between communities as a result of the Crusades and the Ottoman emergence.

You confuse dogma ("There is NO fixed point to point to as a solid, stable normative.") with stability. Because Judaism had existed in the Diaspora for so long, it had to adopt to coexistence not only with other cultures, but with changing social and technological environments, and so this process of adaptation created a dynamic within its formulation, which is stable since its rooted in several core texts, not the least the Written Torah that is immutable. This was not doubt in the validity of halakh on the part of the Jews, but the questioning of how new reality could be integrated with that of extant practice. Also, there was an evolving process of insight into the knowledge lost. However, neither of these processes affected the core observances and practices enshrined in the mitzvoth, and indeed in much of the halakha since the publication of the Shulkhan Arukh (not Ashkenazi btw). It is therefore an undeniable statement of fact that until the liberalisation of the Western European society in the late 18th century, the orthodox observance of the halakh was the norm for most Jewish communities around the World, Karaites excluding.

I think this will be the third time I am asking for specific examples of how "it's clear that you simply hold a distaste for non-orthodox viewpoints, and editing towards your biased POV". Feel free to supply these, but I think I will desist from asking again. --Meieimatai? 11:49, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

We're going in circles. You say there's no such thing as an orthodoxy till recently, then say it's always been the normative later on. You aren't internally consistent, whichc leads me to the following: THis is a case of 'you cannot reasons someone out of a position they did not reason themselves into.' SO I make the following summary: Any attempts to edit this article to marginalize all other forms as less than Orthodox Judaism, which is your clear POV, will be rejected. ThuranX (talk) 14:47, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Please speak only for yourself, and not use 'we'.

'Orthodox' is a modern label to call the normative practice in Judaism in the desire to differentiate when other new forms of practice appeared. And what was Judaism before 'Orthodox'?

So far you have not reasoned very much at all, but engaged in persistent, and rather unimaginative criticism without substantiation.

Er...I don't have a position. I just came to edit here, and begun adding sources for the most part. It is you, and A Sniper, that decided I had a "pro-'orthodox' bias POV" for which I am still waiting to see a proof.

Make whatever summaries you want, but if you choose to make threats, you will need to do so within the context of Wikipedia policies.

It is your own proposal that I marginalise some groups, not mine. All other forms of practice ARE less than Orthodox Judaism because, if you read the Wikipedia articles alone, they practice considerably less in the entire scope of the mitzvoth than was the norm before they emerged. And, they freely acknowledge it. Every text I had read says so.

I suggest you do not persist with your narrow group defensive view of Judaism, and look at the larger picture on the subject--Meieimatai? 20:52, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

No, they are not less than Orthodox Judaism. They are different. It is YOUR value-assignment that says less. All the books YOU may have read must've been written by orthodox jews. Those written by Reform do not make themselves secondary citizens, as you suggest. You are clearly stating your biases now, which I thank you for, but again, they will not go into the article. ThuranX (talk) 00:41, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

• Listen ThuranX, put up, or go elsewhere to preach. You don't know me, or my values, so don't think you can point fingers any-time you please. And, you don't know what I read bar the sources I added to requested references in this very article. Where are your sources? What do you read? I have not clearly done anything BUT stated biases according to you, so they must be sooooo easy to highlight. Point them out, or you will be reported for trolling and, in case of reversions, for disruptive editing. Consider me officially annoyed.--Meieimatai? 03:27, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Then express their differences, ThuranX. Find sourced material describing what you perceive as those characteristics that distinguish the current liberal branches of Judaism. Those current liberal branches of Judaism have whittled Judaism down somewhat. You probably won't want to cite halacha because there is little halacha to mention as belonging to the current liberal branches of Judaism. But you can cite what little there is. And you can cite that the current liberal branches of Judaism promote equality of the genders within a religious context. Of course at the same time you will want to cite that this is contrary to centuries old Jewish practice which separates the sexes and places a high value on gender differentiation and modesty — both in men and women. But why are you not bringing your own sourced material to the article to support what you think is a yawning gap in the representation of the current liberal branches of Judaism? Even I am surprised that you can't find anything. Can you not, for instance, develop a case that gender equality represents the "new Judaism," and represents it well? Can you not make an argument, based on sources of course, that this adaptive technique keeps Judaism "relevant?" Bus stop (talk) 01:30, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

(With ECs, this replies to your earlier version.)I'm not your monkey, bus stop. You seek to change the article to push a POV that your orthodox should be seen as superior, and all other forms heathen and inferior violations of Halakha. You're inside the fishbowl, and so you cannot see your own POV. Find someone else to give strawman homework assignments to. ThuranX (talk) 01:46, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Nowhere does it say "orthodox should be seen as superior, and all other forms heathen and inferior violations of Halakha". You are trawling for reaction while being borderline uncivil with comments like "You're inside the fishbowl, and so you cannot see your own POV."--Meieimatai? 03:27, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

It's OK. Fishbowls are fine with me. Will somebody please sprinkle some fish food on the surface of the water? Bus stop (talk) 04:02, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

You yourself said "All other forms of practice ARE less than Orthodox Judaism". That's a POV statement, absolutely. That's all I need to point to to demonstrate that you have a POV incompatible with this article,. I can point to the objections of A Sniper and Malik Shabazz as well, as evidenced by their reverts, and to numerous sections on this talk page and archives thereof objecting to Orthodoxy as the only right form pov pushes. ThuranX (talk) 03:36, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) To anyone that may find this usefull: Here is a CNN article on what it terms the New Jews. I am of course not endorsing anything in the CNN article. But I thought some might be interested in it. It contains many links to decidedly liberal web sites and organizations, all of which I think have some Jewish affiliation. For instance, Jumpstart's mission is "...to develop, strengthen, and learn from emerging Jewish organizations that build community at the nexus of spirituality, learning, social activism, and culture." This and several other sites referenced in the CNN article I think can be used to flesh out the aspect of Judaism that some have expressed is underrepresented in the article at this moment. I think it has the potential of providing sourced information that can be used in our article to represent a particularly liberal interpretation of Judaism. I have a "point of view," and I tend to look askance at some of the attitudes expressed in some of the linked to web sites in this CNN article. But I don't try to work my point of view into our article at the expense of other viewpoints. I don't try to exclude information. This, as all articles on Wikipedia, should represent all valid points of view. Bus stop (talk) 14:34, 3 November 2009 (UTC)