Talk:Who is a Jew?/Archive 7

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Audio (again)

I was alerted to this article's audio version by a comment on another page, came here out of curiosity, and deleted it because it seems to be a piss-take. ThuranX has reinstated it (the second time commenting that I "don't get it", though I've no idea what it is I'm not supposed to "get").

I did not realise at the time that this had been discussed before (above). Regardless of what was decided before, ThuranX, and anyone else who supports retaining the audio, need to reconsider. The audio appears to have been recorded in a comedy voice and appears to ridicule its subject. It may not be so clear to a non-British-English speaker, but, trust me, it is a grotesque accent that makes a joke of the whole article. If someone really does naturally speak that way then that's unfortunate, but in any case irrelevant because the appearance is of a piss-take. 86.133.245.40 (talk) 18:21, 22 November 2009 (UTC).

I think it is so hilarious that it should be retained. Is that English? Bus stop (talk) 18:26, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the "hilarious" part. I've listened to the opening a few times now, and every time I hear it I can't help myself laughing out loud. 86.133.245.40 (talk) 18:34, 22 November 2009 (UTC).

As a person involved in a previous discussion on the subject, I still think it should be removed. I'm bringing this to the village pump because Thuranx seems to be the only person who doesn't object to the audio. It's obviously a piss take. And I hope user Bus stop was kidding about his reason for retention. Hilarity does not figure into it. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 18:44, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

To my ears, it has a mocking tone. Unless we're doing satire, it doesn't belong here. That it's some years out of synch with the current text is all the more reason to retire it. Hertz1888 (talk) 19:12, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

For the record, I am from north-west England, and that accent that is apparently "Northern English" according to the file is definitely not a northern accent. --Deskana (talk) 19:51, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

It is funny. Funny unfortunately isn't encyclopedic very often. I'd love to hear a similar article done by someone doing the radio voice of Marvin the Paranoid Android, which is the version I know best. Maybe we could add the link to Wikipedia:Unusual articles, but I'm not sure it really belongs here. John Carter (talk) 19:53, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

The audio version is hilarious. Anyone arguing that it is a benefit to Wikipedia is seriously missing the obvious joke. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.94.164.21 (talk) 20:04, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Someone on the admin noticeboard noted the last 30 seconds are very telling about its true intent. I listened to it and it gets really bad at that point. The reader draws words out and grotesquely over exaggerates the sentences in high and low voices. By the end, he is pretty much spitting on the microphone. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 20:08, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

It sounds like a Monty Python parody, specifically the Piranha Brothers. I expected it to end with "Sorry squire, I've scratched the record". Jayjg ^(talk) 20:14, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes. A good example is the ironic pronunciation of the section title "The controversy" at 5:05. Shortly afterwards there is a ridiculously long rolled r in a Hebrew word. And for the last 30 seconds the voice becomes that of a brain surgeon. Hans Adler 20:30, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Jayjg. It was stupid when it was last discussed, and it was stupid the moment before you axed it. Best, A Sniper (talk) 20:51, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Once again, the entire argument comes down to IDONTLIKEIT. Not one of you arrogant editors has offered to record it properly. Not one of you is a certified linguist, dialect coach, or in any way properly qualified to make any determination about the origins of the speaker or his motives. Its deletion is a serious detriment to the article, unless one of you plans to record a new version to replace it. ThuranX (talk) 04:32, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

The argument doesn't come down to "I don't like it." It is a ridiculous rendition of an earlier version of this article. I think its only value lies its silliness. I'm not one to overlook the importance of silliness. In fact I'm all in favor of silliness. Bus stop (talk) 04:54, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

No the argument comes down to it being offensive and very likely deliberately designed to offend people. I'm not even British and I can tell that it is crap. The fact you are yourself engaging in personal attacks like calling people who disagree a "bunch of bigots" doesn't really help matters and just seems like a gratuitous and mildly ironic personal attack. JoshuaZ (talk) 05:36, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Calling us bigots is the only weak argument I have ever read from the usually great editor ThuranX. Yes, I am a bigot when it comes to a user taking the piss (making a bad joke) in an encyclopaedia article. I am a bigot against a very poor, fake, spurious, untrue, phony, comedic English accent that anyone who lives in GB could detect in the first ten seconds. But besides that it was rubbish, the article has changed considerably since then. Well, now it is gone. Amen. Maybe some clown with a false Russian accent can read it next. A Sniper (talk) 07:55, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I certainly hope a Russian does read it next, so your Ruso-phobic tendencies can follow your Anglophobic ones. No one here hs presented any reliable, conclusive proof, beyond personal armchair analysis, that there's any such "Piss Take" going on. Find a linguist, otherwise, AGF. ThuranX (talk) 05:46, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I have to ask that you be civil. The audio has been deleted. Deal with it. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 05:49, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Is there a reason that the audio was deleted entirely? If it's only truly flat-out ridiculous to Brits, shouldn't it be left up for the sake of blind Americans who don't mind a bit of silliness? And I personally have no objection at all to a bit of silliness and think that if it really is so very bad and useless, it should at least be put on Wikipedia:Best_of_BJAODN.Lullabee05 (talk) 21:21, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I came here to comment on the outrageousness of the audio version, but I can see It has already been discussed. I agree that the article was read in and obvious tongue-in-cheek tone, but I still enjoyed listening to it and found it useful (and funny!)I understand why some people wanted it remover, but still, It kind of saddens me that it´s not available anymore.--Mrfoxtalbot (talk) 13:49, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Section concerning the Juhurim

The section concerning the Juhurim makes a very bold claim. I have found nothing to corroborate the claim that the Juhurim consider themselves Jewish by Patrilineal descent. If someone cares enough about this claim they ought to find a source for it. If not, I feel that it needs to be removed from the article. Rawleary (talk) 00:29, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I have recently removed the portion which says that the Juhurim consider themselves Jewish by patrilineal descent. I have talked to many Jews from the Caucuses region who say they have no knowledge of this rule. I have removed this section before. If someone can cite a legitimate source I will leave it be. Rawleary (talk) 05:55, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

You are obviously correct in removing a statement that has been tagged as unsourced for so long. Debresser (talk) 13:33, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Better Title?

Would not a better title for this be 'Establishing Jewish Identity'? or simply 'Jewish Identification'? "Who is a Jew?" has a weird sort of flavor to it that sounds oddly confrontational and interrogative titles are rather strange on Wikipedia articles. I suppose the fact that it's in Hebrew helps, but couldn't that be clarified in the paragraph? 'The question of who possesses Jewish Identity is sometimes expressed by the Hebrew question (blah), which translates into "Who is a Jew?"' for example. 68.231.208.53 (talk) 06:09, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I think the title should be changed to, or the article merged with, Jewish identity. Bus stop (talk) 08:01, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

This title is the literal translation of the term "מיהו יהודי", which is the term this issue became famous under. Your suggestion is based on the mistaken assumption that the title "Who is a Jew?" is a subject, but it is not; it is a translation of a foreign term. Debresser (talk) 09:54, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Debresser is correct as to the title's provenance, and it is the term under which this concept is best known. -- Avi (talk) 15:02, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Not meaning to be disagreeable, it's a knee-jerk reaction at this point, but I wonder about how well known the term is outside of Judaism. I know that this discussion has been had before, but I'm not myself, as a non-Jew, that familiar with the term. I would however definitely question the use of "Jewish identity" because of the unfortunate, unintentional similarity to Christian Identity. John Carter (talk) 15:53, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I am aware that "Who is a Jew" is a translation from a Hebrew expression closely related to Jewish identity. But for the English Wikipedia the title which represents this need not be a verbatim translation from Hebrew. This article addresses itself, for better or worse, to issues beyond that question.

Were this article only addressing itself to those concerns closely associated with the question, "Mihu Yehudi" (or the English translation thereof), arguably that should be the title. But I don't think this article in its present form confines itself to only a discussion of issues arising in close conjunction with the question, "Who is a Jew." As the content of the article presently stands, this question should legitimately be taken up within the article. Perhaps this question should even be extensively treated. But I don't think it should be its title. Bus stop (talk) 19:08, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok. You may raise this question anywhere you want. I, for one, disagree with you. As usual. Debresser (talk) 20:21, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Hey, at least we are consistent. No one can accuse you or I of waffling on the issues. Bus stop (talk) 20:48, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

We strive to please. :) Debresser (talk) 21:05, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree. The title has been driving me a little nuts. If the article was related to the history of the term "Who is a Jew?" then I wouldn't have an issue. The problem is that the article discusses Jewish identity and not specificly the term "Who is a Jew?". The title should reflect the contents. --ZacBowling ^(user|talk) 05:08, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

The title is correct for the subject matter, and the article should stay here. ThuranX (talk) 04:30, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Article title is clearly innappropriate. This conversation should be picked back up. NickCT (talk) 21:19, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

This article...

Has more twists and turns than the Nuremberg Laws. Post WW2, people lambasted the Nazis for their double standards and loopholes for what constituted a Jew and what didn't. However, after reading this laughingstock of an article, I have to admit that it appears that not even a Jew knows what constitutes a Jew. There's some great standup material to be found here... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.108.29.48 (talk) 19:50, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Article title

A question is a very bad title for an article. It would be much more encyclopaedic to call it "Jewish identity" or "definition of Jewish ethnicity", or something like that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.28.84.180 (talk) 10:53, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

"Jewish identity" is preferable to the present title, in my opinion. Bus stop (talk) 13:45, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Rename definately needed. Current title is grossly unencyclopedic. I think the suggestion of above is acceptable. NickCT (talk) 21:21, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

This issue is called, meaning refered to in the press and in conversation, "Who is a Jew", "מיהו יהודי" in Hebrew. That is the name of the issue. Compare "To be, or not to be", which - even without the question mark - is also a question. Debresser (talk) 16:51, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Debresser — "Who is a Jew?" is cutesy and provocative. It is not the only name for the issue. The subject matter can more suitably be named Jewish identity. There is no reason for using a translation into English, especially not a literal translation. There is no reason (that I know of) why we shouldn't start with English and just give it the best title we can come up with. Would we choose "Who is a Jew?" if we were starting with English? Bus stop (talk) 17:39, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but you seem to be unaware of the facts. This subject was once a major argument in political and religious Israel and many people from around the world were involved in it. That is what gave rise to the subject matter of this article, and that case was refered to by the name "Who is a Jew?". That you consider it provocative is completely irrelevant. Debresser (talk) 21:14, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

But very little of the article concerns itself with an "argument in political and religious Israel." Bus stop (talk) 21:45, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

That aspect is indeed insufficiently stressed in this article, which is not good. Debresser (talk) 22:27, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

So the article should be renamed to bring the title into compliance with what most of the article is about. Bus stop (talk) 22:55, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Wrong. :) The article should stress more of the origin of its subject matter. But, and I have to be honest here, since the article hardly even mentions it, and it has become an article about the various ways to establish legitimate Jewish identity, perhaps that should indeed be the title. Debresser (talk) 00:33, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

From a 1)uninvolved editor and 2) a non-Jew - the title has always bothered me. I would like to see it changed to Jewish Identity as well. Regards. --Manway (talk) 01:35, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

This article is about the legal status, i.e., whether or not a person is legally considered a Jew in various legislative contexts (Israeli, halakhic, Antisemitic), whereas Jewish identity (existing article) is about the "state of perceiving oneself as a Jew and as relating to being Jewish... [and] does not depend on whether or not a person is regarded as a Jew by others, or by an external set of religious, or legal, or sociological norms": two distinct subject matters. Concerning the title, "Who is a Jew" has become the prevalent term denoting the discourses and the corpus concerned with this legal distinction in the Israeli and halakhic contexts, and I believe it sounds "provocative" or "non encyclopaedic" only to people who are unfamiliar with these discourses. Dan ☺ 23:35, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with that. It may not be the best possible name, but it will just have to do, because this is what it is called. Debresser (talk) 22:11, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Debresser — you say above, "…it has become an article about the various ways to establish legitimate Jewish identity, perhaps that should indeed be the title." I understood that to mean that you were conceding that the title should be "Jewish identity." Is your opinion on the matter fluctuating? Bus stop (talk) 04:28, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

What I know to be right is that the issue is called "Who is a Jew", and that such should be its title. At the same time, the article at present is badly referenced to its sources. These two things make for a certain ambiguity, yes. I'd prefer improving the article to renaming it. Debresser (talk) 07:42, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

The subject of the "legal" question in "political and religious Israel" that you and Dan are pointing to is a subcategory of the larger (wider) question of Jewish identity. In reality, most of this—the 'Who is a Jew?' article—does not address the question of the identification of a Jew for Israeli purposes. I think that a sensible article can be created by merging this article with the Jewish identity article. In my opinion both articles could benefit from a logical arranging of merged material. Both article topics are related and the natural variations in subject matter could be addressed by the prudent dividing up and arranging of topics by paragraphs and sections. Bus stop (talk) 08:44, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I oppose merging. The legal definition of "Jewish" and the sense of "Jewish identity" are completely discrete subjects. I wouldn't oppose splitting the content of this article to form a more general review of the subject titled "Jew (legal definition)" and a "main article" with the current title expanding on the Israeli discourse and other material relating to it, or alternatively renaming this article along the lines of "Jew (legal definition)",with "Who is a Jew" a sub section concerned with this more specific aspect. Dan ☺ 22:46, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I completely agree with Dan in his opposition to merging, including the reason he gives. My thoughts precisely. Debresser (talk) 20:40, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the great explanation, Dan. You make lots of sense and I agree with your thoughts on it. Regards, --Manway (talk) 21:03, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Brainstorm for names that don't sound like a title for an essay....

Any suggestions? Weaponbb7 (talk) 00:33, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, to keep the present title. See above! Debresser (talk) 06:13, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

"Who is a Jew?" is a poor title for any article, just about. It is derived from another language. Furthermore, it is a subcategory of a related, and wider topic. The wider topic simply has to do with defining which person is a Jew. Correspondingly, it is defining which person is not a Jew. But we wouldn't name an article, "Which person is a Jew?" Jewish identity is the umbrella topic. Within that we might find legal definitions. We might find legal definitions that pertain to the "law of return" in the country of Israel. We might find legal definitions concerning the British school system. Aside from definitions relating to legality, Jewish identity also has its common usages. These might further breakdown into those common usages found in religious contexts and those common usages found in more secular contexts. This present article (Who is a Jew?) and the Jewish identity article both contain at present a fairly arbitrary assortment of material. Organizing this material is high priority, in my opinion. That should just be done in one article, in my opinion, because there is plenty of space. Neither article is overly long. I don't see the material as being impossibly "discrete" as has been asserted in the section above—there are clear distinctions between one type of definition of Jewishness and another type of Jewishness. But these definitions are not entirely "discrete." In fact they are related. The legal definitions are not at liberty to deviate wildly from the religious definitions. Those drawing up secular law are trying to strike a balance between religious underpinnings and secular exigencies. I think both articles should be merged, under the title of "Jewish identity." Bus stop (talk) 16:27, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Asserting that the title is "a poor title for any article" is not an argument. Nor is the fact that the origin of the term is Hebrew a reason for a rename. Furthermore, the "Who is a Jew?" topic is not a subissue of Jewish identity, but an issue in itself, albeit related. Debresser (talk) 18:36, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

It is a poor title because we need not be using a literal translation from another language. In order to come up with a title for this article we should be starting from scratch—in English.

Is this another of your new rules for Wikipedia? In addition, the term "Who is a Jew" is used in English as well, see e.g. http://countrystudies.us/israel/46.htm Debresser (talk) 19:05, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the phrase "Who is a Jew?" is occasionally used in English as well. In my opinion it is not an ideal title for an article. It is not a "rule" that I am making up. I am suggesting that one would more likely arrive at a title that is appropriate for an English Wikipedia if one started out working with English. I don't assume that a title is correct simply because it is a literal translation from another language. Bus stop (talk) 19:12, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

You say, "Furthermore, the 'Who is a Jew?' topic is not a subissue of Jewish identity, but an issue in itself, albeit related", yet the fist sentence of the article at present reads: "'Who is a Jew?' (Hebrew: מיהו יהודי‎ pronounced [ˈmihu jehuˈdi]) is a basic question about Jewish identity and considerations of Jewish self-identification." Bus stop (talk) 18:58, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

That is because the article at present is not so much about the "Mihu yehudi" issue, but indeed more about general considerations related to Jewish identity. The article in its present form is very bad, I think. It reads like an essay. Debresser (talk) 00:19, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

The current title is fine, apt and on target for the material of this article. This is yet another bite at the apple for Bus Stop to promote the same POV editing which already got him banned from this article. I categorically oppose this on that ground alone, having already argued against it on other grounds ad nauseum every time Bus Stop harps on it. ThuranX (talk) 02:22, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

ThuranX—please articulate your ideas about the article instead of your opinions about me. The article has problems. The title is problematic, at least in my opinion. The article is not even on the topic that the article's title implies. Debresser just said, immediately above your post, "The article in its present form is very bad, I think. It reads like an essay." Debresser also just said, immediately above, "That is because the article at present is not so much about the "Mihu yehudi" issue, but indeed more about general considerations related to Jewish identity." If that is so, then why should it be called "Mihu yehudi," which is a translation of "Who is a Jew?" And, if it is "...more about general considerations related to Jewish identity," then why not just call it Jewish identity? My inclination would be to merge these two articles under the "Jewish identity" title. Bus stop (talk) 03:26, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

No. Every couple months, you bring this up again. Every few months, I have to refute it. It's a game of attrition for you, seeing how many of your opponents you can wear down, in the hopes that eventually , all your opponents will assume that another one will refute you, and eventually none will, because they are tired of it, and you'll slip through a name change. I've done so too often, and frankly, I find your campaign to be tendentious editing which goes against the spirit of your permitted return to this page. I'm beginning to wonder if petitioning for a permanent topic ban for Jewish subjects on the project is in order. ThuranX (talk) 20:11, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't quite go that far, but I agree that Bus stop does not know how to receive "no" for an answer, which I personally find annoying. Debresser (talk) 22:28, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I have a suggestion. Since, apart from Bus stop, all agree that the present title is fine, in this section as well as in the previous, let's call an end to this discussion. Debresser (talk) 08:15, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Debresser—editors other than myself are saying the title is awful. A snippet of terminology can be fine in one language but unacceptable in another. The choice of the present title of this article displays an insensitivity to subtlety or appropriateness in verbal expression. The far more broad topic, as expressed in the English language, is "Jewish identity." Bus stop (talk) 14:07, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

That's another subject, sorry. Debresser (talk) 14:23, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion

This article is often referred to by other Wikipedia editors. It is referred to not for most of the content in the article, but rather as a reference to a definition concerning that which constitutes a Jew. Most of the content of the article does not serve that purpose. Referring to this article does not address squarely the question that prompted the reference to this article. While there can be some variation on what constitutes that basic definition, there should be a fairly confined paragraph addressing just that question. This sort of issue is addressed elsewhere on the Internet with far less fuss. Consider what Judaism 101 has to say on the subject:

"Who is a Jew? A Jew is any person whose mother was a Jew or any person who has gone through the formal process of conversion to Judaism. It is important to note that being a Jew has nothing to do with what you believe or what you do."

The above is by no means intended by me to be the final word. But the variations are variations on that theme. A person—such as a fellow editor—being referred to this article is going to have to slog through a lot of only tangentially related material to get to basic material that is core to this subject.

I'm prompted to suggest this here because this came up recently. I was at another article Talk page and an editor referred us to this article. (I'm referring to this. Admittedly the very point being made by that editor was the "confusing" nature of this issue and, I might add—of this article.) Clicking on the link to this article hardly provided material to shed light on the question at hand, or at least not readily so. Therefore I would suggest that this article have one paragraph in the body of the article with a section heading indicating that it was the basic definition that was being addressed in that paragraph. Such a section should be set aside with the express aim of excluding all but the most essential and commonly encountered situations. Bus stop (talk) 17:26, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Before anyone criticizes me for the example given, from Judaism 101, let me say it is just an example. Obviously it would need to be expanded on—but I am suggesting that it should only be expanded on to a limited degree, and that that limited definition be encapsulated in one paragraph, clearly labeled as the "basic definition". Bus stop (talk) 17:47, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

New Subsection - Genetics

There is plenty of now published material regarding studies which suggest such things as all people carry common ancestry, for instance whether from the area of Israel or from other Arabian states or indeed Australia. Much has been researched with regards to the common ancestry of all people within many parts of the world, some specific to Israeli interests. Now, without being anti Jewish or anti Arab or whatever you may want to be, some serious facts are now becoming apparent - that race and religion can no longer be separated as it seems that all people are actually of the 'chosen' race (or the opposite that none are of the chosen race) and this has some rather large connotation to exactly what entails being a Jewish believer vs being a Jewish person - and quite importantly the citizenship rights.

I suggest a section that presents the current state of genetic research for the "Who is a Jew?" page as its perhaps the most potentially game changing discussions that Humans have been able have in several millennium about the topic and to ignore for the article is quite naive. Reconfirmd (talk) 21:35, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

The section in question was this:

Jews and Arabs are all really children of Abraham," stated Harry Ostrer, M.D., Director of the Human Genetics Program at New York University School of Medicine, an author of a study by an international team of researchers in the United States, Europe, and Israel who found that Jewish men shared a common set of genetic signatures with non-Jews from the Middle East, including Palestinians, Syrians, and Lebanese ^[1] suggesting that all on Earth have a common ancestor.

There are a number of issues with the material, as follows:

It's not clear what genetics has to do with the question of "Who is a Jew", which is an ethno-religious designation.
It's not clear what Jews and Arabs all being "really the children of Abraham" has to do with the topic of "Who is a Jew". Assuming Abraham existed (which itself is debated), the traditional view is that he fathered a number of different peoples, only one of which were Jews.
It's not clear why Harry Ostrer's opinions on "Who is a Jew" would be notable, if he had even commented on the topic, which he doesn't appear to have done. His opinion on the genetics of Jews would likely be notable, but this is not an article on that topic.

While it's true that Jews and Arabs are genetically related, and that all humans are of the same species, this material doesn't really belong here. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:32, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Genetics are very important to "Who is a Jew", primarily as mDNA is maternal and can be directly traced. If you are not a true blood Jewish person, one will never be allowed to the upper echelons of Torah or even considered for teachings. This is why the genetic studies are important as the basis of knowledge is being based on race(genetics) and not anything else.

A good example, would be (orginal post - but gone)^[2] ^[3] the recent suggestion that genetic studies show that some 30 percent of Portugal's population has Jewish blood. This becomes very, very important for instance for the Portuguese who may wish to study or consider themselves Heredi which could now be traced it seems.

Reconfirmd (talk) 21:43, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Please realize that Wikipedia relies on reliable sources that explicitly state things about a specific topic. It does not rely on or allow original research. Please review the links provided. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:43, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

This is very true - however the research is no longer original. For instance, ^[4] ""This study provides new genomic information that can benefit not only those of Jewish ancestry, but the population at large," co-author Dr. Edward Burns, executive dean and professor of pathology and medicine at the Albert Einstein College of Medicine, said in a news release. "By providing a comprehensive genetic fingerprint of various Jewish subpopulations, it can help us understand genetic links to heart disease, cancer, diabetes and other common diseases."

Thus it must be carefully put, but now its known and repeated studies have proven that there is a Jewish gene that can be readily recognised. I state again, that the "Who is a Jew" page ought to include reference to the genetic studies being done. These are serious people putting forward with some very big grants behind them. How explicit does the research need to be? The first real study of 150 Male Jewish fellas was presented in Nature in Jan 1997. Reconfirmd (talk) 20:10, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

This article is not about who shares genealogy with whom, but who may be considered Jewish for the purposes of religiosoty and possibly the right of return in Israel. As such, and especially as Judaism recognizes converts (the Orthodox recognizing Orthodox conversions, etc.), the genetics is really irrelevant. Under Orthodox tradition, as best I understand, we would not consider someone Jewish solely on the virtues of a genetic test. There either needs to be two witnesses that the person was born from a Jewish mother or a Jewish father has to state that the person is their child (a father is given the right to identify his children, and it has both monetary (inheritance) and religious significance). -- Avi (talk) 20:58, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

If there are no witnesses, then a genetic test will answer. Reconfirmd (talk) 21:10, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Incorrect; no bes din would accept a genetic test in lieu of eidus. I don't know where you are getting your information from, but it does not resemble Orthodox Judaism, to say the least. -- Avi (talk) 21:15, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

A relatively small amount of converts will not change the basic genetic make-up of a population's genetic pool. Debresser (talk) 07:51, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Couple of thousand years ago, it would.Reconfirmd (talk) 21:10, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

WP:NOR -- Avi (talk) 21:15, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I think the paragraph is interesting. In how far it is relevant is more of a question to me. But what really strikes me as unscientific is the few last words "suggesting that all on Earth have a common ancestor". Which is in addition surely not relevant to this article. Debresser (talk) 07:51, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

its a logical conclusion if you think about it.Reconfirmd (talk) 21:10, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Halachically, genetic testing is not considered eidus to the best of my, admittedly, limited knowledge. Is there any other branch of Judaism that accepts people as members solely due to a genetic test? If not, this discussion does not belong here. A better place for it is Genetic studies on Jews. -- Avi (talk) 08:33, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

It is the experience of learnings and time, that has taught me that converts are not true Jewish. They may be accepted for right of return, but they will never be accepted for higher learnings of various mystic Kabbalah paths but are considered to be 'stealing' from the 'real' Jewish faith. I won't state here which rabbi recently said this, but it was an accepted speech by the establishment with various people of repute giving it the nod.

^[5]

Papers Read Before the New York Board of Jewish Ministers, 1915,

“The Jews, ancient and modern,” says Dr. Stanton Coit, “have always understood the science of eugenics, and have governed themselves in accordance with it; hence the preservation of the Jewish race.”

The very founder of the Jewish race, the patriarch Abraham, recognized the importance of certain inherited qualities, and insisted that the wife of his “only beloved son” should not come from “the daughters of the Canaanites,” but from the seed of a superior stock.

The aim of eugenics is to encourage the reproduction of the good and "blessed" human protoplasm and the elimination of the impure and "cursed" human protoplasm.

The argument for addition to this article, is that its now know there are specific Jewish 'markers' in our genome which can give a fairly simple yes or no as to the claim of being a 'real' Jew. Converts seem more politically accepted, not necessarily faith based. Modern science is only continuing what was started a long time ago. Reconfirmd (talk) 21:10, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Incorrect yet again. The great Rabbi Akiva was descended from converts. The great Sh'maya and Avtalyon were converts themselves. Among the greatest leaders and scholars in Jewish history! Anyone who tells you that true converts (Geirei Tzedek) are not full Jews is feeding you a line of pure, unadulterated garbage. Then again, most of the "kabbala" preachers have nothing to do with Judaism and everything to do with Capitalism. As I said above, I don't know where you are getting your information from, but it does not resemble Orthodox Judaism, to say the least. -- Avi (talk) 21:15, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Thats not quite true. Syrian Jews ban conversions and thus, a straight genetic lineage with no exceptions. The Orthodox Jewish also place restrictions on current converts so they will never, ever be 'full' Jewish, for instance a marriage between a female convert and a kohen is prohibited. There are many others.

There is this guy who is calling for all Orthodox to stop to all conversions ^[6]

and of course, not forgetting the passage in the Talmud (Yevamot 47b) "Converts are as difficult for Israel as a blight!"

So, in short I state there is a very important and now even more relavant genetic test for 'Jewishness'. There are plenty of articles scattered throughout Wikipedia alredy written on the subject of the tests and research done on Jews. My arguement, is that it needs to be stated on the primary page of 'Who is a Jew?'. The arguments from the Orthodox is that being Jewish is an issue to keep a master race, and not just a chosen religious choice. It would seem anyone can follow the Jewish faith, but not eveyone is eligible to be a full Jew. There is no other religion on Earth which state that its followers have to be of a certain race.

(As a side note to your mention of capitilism, I believe that any reference to money and church is man created for greed or power and not true of any faith, this includes forced tithe etc. Gold is useless in a flood ) You can not purchase true knowledge - ever. Reconfirmd (talk) 01:33, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Um, stuff like this, "The arguments from the Orthodox is that being Jewish is an issue to keep a master race, and not just a chosen religious choice." is not even veiled antisemitism and has no place here, in an article or on a talk page. Geofferic ^T•_C✡ 03:06, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

WP:NOR/WP:SYNTH

Editors have been adding to this article material theoretically based on the following two sources:

Keeping in mind WP:NOR/WP:SYNTH, can those editors explain where these sources discuss the topic of "Who is a Jew"? Jayjg ^(talk) 19:19, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

The subject in that section is conversion, and that is explicitly mentioned in the text. I very much liked your edit summary "per Talk: page and WP:BRD". BRD is not an excuse for edit warring, Jayjg. Debresser (talk) 19:42, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Could you quote the relevant material in question? I couldn't find it. Also, the material and sources were Boldly inserted, then Removed, yet you failed to open any Discussion. Please Discuss now. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:12, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Teacherbrock, can you explain where these sources discuss "Who is a Jew"? Jayjg ^(talk) 22:01, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Please stop removing information which you have decided for reasons understood to no one but yourself to label as original research. Debresser (talk) 22:57, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Could you quote the relevant material in the sources that "explicitly mention" the topic of this article, "Who is a Jew"? I couldn't find it. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:41, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

As I said before, in a later section on this talk page, conversion is one of the sub-issues of the "Who is a Jew" question, by force of the obvious fact that conversion makes for Jews. For this reason, conversion is treated extensively in this article, and it is for this reason that the source is relevant. Debresser (talk) 05:27, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Reform Halacha

some sources of "REFORM HALAKHA"

Halakhah in Reform Judaism

Halakhah is a heritage that belongs to us as it belongs to all Israel. Its continued vitality in Reform Judaism links us to the religious expressions of other Jews, uniting us with them as part of a community whose history spans many countries and many generations.

^[7]

Question 18.4.12: Fallacy: Reform Rabbis do not study Halacha

If you look at the course of study for the Reform Rabbinate, it does include Torah, Talmud, and other aspects of halacha. Of course, the depth of this study is not to the level of traditional Judaism, although some Reform Rabbis out of personal interest do intensive halachic studies.^[8]

the OFFICIAL CCAR Reform Responsa to halachic question^[9] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Teacherbrock (talk • contribs) 13:23, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

The topic of this article is "Who is a Jew", not "Reform Halacha". Please respond to the issues raised in the two sections above. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:59, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

That was a stupid remark, Jayjg. Because the question "Who is a Jew" is discussed in Reform "Halakha" as well. Debresser (talk) 22:57, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Please don't make insulting comments. Halakha covers tens of thousands of topics and ideas; this article is specifically about "Who is a Jew". Please review WP:NOR. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:38, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry, Jayjg, but if you start to edit agressive, you must be willing to see at least some of the same in the ensuing discusion. And again, it is really obvious that part of this article considers conversion (giur) which is one of the sub-issues of the "Who is a Jew" issue, since by conversion one can become a Jew. Debresser (talk) 05:24, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

The Reform Responsa describe the halakhah for the Reform movement. 129.98.153.130 (talk) 03:55, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

You can stop being an ethnic Jew

I decided to post this because I was reading the very old argument over the dead category Category:Former Jews. While I agree with having deleted the category I would have to say most of the arguments there were inprecise and ignored the complexity of any identity that is in dispute between various groups. The fact that Messianic Jews and groups like Jews for Jesus, as well as people such as Daniel Rona openly identify as ethnic and in some cases even religious Jews and as Christians makes the whole matter complexed. The important factors are ethnicity is not race. Race is still a social construct, but one that is assumed to be based on ancestry and genetics. This is not the reality of race, it is a complexed interplay of ancestry, geneetics, self-identiticaction, identification by others and culture. Jewishness is by most people assumed not to be a race, and some will denounce others for refering to it as such. Jewishness is an ethnicity. This means in theory you have to be either born into it or openly incorporate the whole set of practices into your life. The issue becomes more complexed because different Jewish groups have different ideas about the proper set of steps to incorporate oneself into Judaism, debates about which parents must be Jewish to make one Jewish and so on. However by default if someone can incorporate into the Jewish people, one can also act in a way to totally destroy their Jewishness. If someone changes their name, stops acting in any way Jewish and destroys all documents and evidence that every connected them with Judaism and denies any Jewishness they have probably managed to end their enthnic Jewishness. The problem of course is that if someone did this to a level that made their birth to a Jewish mother unknown we would not have evidence that they were ever Jewish to become formerly Jewish. The problem with the category is thus not that there are not former Jews, but that those who are unquestionably former Jews by any and all definitions of being a Jew would have to have disconnected themselves from Judaism and Jewish culture to such an extent that there was no evidence that they had ever been part of it. For this reason it is probably unsurprising that the much easier to enter category Category:Converts from Judaism does exist, despite the fact that this is a category that some have spoken ill against. Of course the debate on Jewishness got so heated in part because some people use ethnicity as a replacement for race with essentially the same meaning race used to have. The very notion that ethnicity is unchanging reprsents such an assumption that ethnicity and race are essentially the same thing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:05, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Were you proposing a change to this article? Jayjg ^(talk) 01:01, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

No, you can't stop being a Jew (either you are or you aren't). --Teacherbrock (talk) 03:40, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Hebrew Terminology

A member has decided to take it into their own hands to remove my "hebrew" terminology because they personally feel it is irrelevant; this is far from the truth. This person has decided to take it upon themselves to remove my relevant hebrew words, yet leaves the rest in the article?

So please Jayjg, can you give us your list of approved Hebrew terms for this article? Because for some reason bet din(jewish court) is a bit too much hebrew while halakha and brit milah are just fine? --Teacherbrock (talk) 14:06, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I think it is better to use Hebrew terms, where specific Hebrew terms exist of course, although we should be careful not to overdo it. I noticed yesterday's edit by Jayjg, but decided not to comment, since this editor is quite an unpleasant fellow when disagreed with. Since this section was opened though, I'd like to lend my support to Teacherbrock in this matter. Debresser (talk) 14:25, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean. My edit removed all sorts of Hebrew terms, including halakha, mikveh, bet din. Perhaps you were looking at a different edit; in any event, I'm glad we were able to clear up this misunderstanding. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:48, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Given what the Manual of Style suggests in regard to foreign terms, I think we should really should assume some readers don't know some of the Hebrew words, like me. I could just look it up myself, but I think the following helps out the lazier readers a bit: in my edit, I wikilinked the term "halakha". This is my proposal: linking the unfamiliar terms where they are used sparsely. This is really just my 2 cents, but I hope it helps! 174.117.248.144 (talk) 01:48, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

These Hebrew words use generally included descriptions and linked to their respective pages. And how can readers learn the hebrew terms for these institutions if they are de-judaized like Jayjg would like. :/ --Teacherbrock (talk) 03:35, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia's readers can "learn", if they wish to, by clicking on the relevant links. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:38, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

This is indeed why we link such terms. Although we should be careful of overlinking, and link them only once in every article, generally speaking. Debresser (talk) 07:47, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Obviously, there are many cases where it is most relevant to use the Hebrew term, whereas the English would just destroy the statement. I think these are good situations to use the non-English terms. Then again, there are some cases where it's sort of a "fielder's choice", so to speak. In these cases, I think we should use the English terms, given it's an English language information source and all. It's really a case-by-case basis. 174.117.248.144 (talk) 15:50, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Legal Definition

Hi,

Are there any other countries other than Israel that legally define who is a Jew? Prsaucer1958 (talk) 21:47, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

That's an interesting question. in fact there is no country, not even Israel, which defines a Jew. As far as I know, the only exception was Nazi Germany which used one to persecute them. Ewawer (talk) 06:26, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Ewawer—why wouldn't it be said that Israel "defines a Jew"? Doesn't the Law of Return constitute defining? Bus stop (talk) 11:18, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

The law of return is precisely that: a law, determining who can come to Israel. That is not the same as asking who is Jewish. Which is why spouses are in the law, with no implication as to their Jewishness. Debresser (talk) 23:25, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

That's right. The law uses the term Jewish (as in "the spouse or child of a Jew") but does not itself defines who is or who is not Jewish. That is left to the rabbinate and the courts.Ewawer (talk) 08:24, 11 July 2012 (UTC) PS. I also realized that even Nazi Germany did not have a definition - it persecuted those whose at least one grandparent was Jewish; but it didn't define what made that grandparent Jewish. Ewawer (talk) 08:29, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

In my opinion the driving force behind Nazism's approach to Jewish identity was antisemitism. The Nazi government was hardly concerned with an enlightened approach to Jewish identity therefore I don't see how any definition emerging from Nazism could have bearing on this question. Bus stop (talk) 14:39, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

That doesn't mean that there wasn't a definition; it just meant the definition was incomplete and recursive (as, BTW, is the halachic one). Some people are unquestioned Jews, known as such, by every test. There are then various competing tests for deciding on the marginal cases, all of which depend on some sort of relation to Jews in the unquestioned group. The common theme in this article, that distinguishes it from "Jewish identity", is that it is about rules for determining the status of individuals. --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) (talk) 09:24, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Sir Myles na Gopaleen—a convert to Judaism is a Jew who is not dependent on some sort of relation to Jews in an unquestioned group yet you are saying: "There are then various competing tests for deciding on the marginal cases, all of which depend on some sort of relation to Jews in the unquestioned group." The Law of Return provides a definition: "Definition. 4B. For the purposes of this Law, 'Jew' means a person who was born of a Jewish mother or has become converted to Judaism and who is not a member of another religion." Bus stop (talk) 14:18, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

This definition also begs the question - what makes the mother Jewish? For example, is a woman converted under liberal processes Jewish?, and recognized as such? Ewawer (talk) 11:43, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Ewawer—I think this article concentrates too much on exceptions to the rule. How commonplace are exceptions to the rule? The Law of Return is for the moment overlooking exceptions to the rule when it states:

"…'Jew' means a person who was born of a Jewish mother or has become converted to Judaism and who is not a member of another religion."

And other sources pretty much corroborate the above:

"A Jew is any person whose mother was a Jew or any person who has gone through the formal process of conversion to Judaism.

"According to Jewish law, a child born to a Jewish mother or an adult who has converted to Judaism is considered a Jew…"

"The original and current Jewish definition of a born Jew is someone whose mother is Jewish."

Expressed above is the general rule rather than exceptions to the rule. Certainly the article can mention unusual situations where applying the above rule(s) can be less than straightforward. But you are asking "…what makes the mother Jewish?" The answer is the same as all of the above: in order for the mother to be Jewish it is assumed that Jewishness was conferred on her by either birth or conversion. This answer may not be satisfying because it puts the origin of Jewishness out of reach. But we are talking about the humanities, therefore I don't think we are seeking a scientific or objective definition. The purpose of the article should be to provide the reader with the applicable guidelines concerning the Jewish identity. I think uncommon circumstances warrant less focus in our article than commonplace circumstances vis-a-vis this question. Bus stop (talk) 22:56, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Bus stop, you are making a mistake. And it seems that this has been your mistake in all discussions on this talkpage. This article is not so much about the question "who is really Jewish and who is not". It is about a political issue which at one time was the subject of heavy discussion in Israeli (and related worldwide) politics. This issue is called after the question it was about: "Who is a Jew". But who is really a Jew is another question. Debresser (talk) 06:43, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Debresser—surely you don't think that the article restricts itself to "…a political issue which at one time was the subject of heavy discussion in Israeli (and related worldwide) politics." I don't think 50% of the material in the article at the present time is restricted to that topic.

Furthermore I am not dogmatically in favor of including only a halachic definition to the exclusion of all other definitions. Other definitions and material related to other definitions might warrant inclusion too. I find the following in a good quality source:

"Nazi ethnocrats were not the first antisemites to encounter cognitive dissonance regarding the definition of "Jewish." In the 1890s, one of twelve Reichstag delegates in the Antisemite Party explained that his party had not proposed a law against Jews because its leaders could not agree on how to define "Jew." Ethnocrats in the Third Reich searched for precedents. According to the April Laws, a citizen with one Jewish grandparent was categorized as Jewish. But military planners favored limiting the definition of Jewish to three or four Jewish grandparents to maximize the pool of draft-age young men. University personnel officers, by contrast, often decided that a non-Jewish professor with a Jewish spouse had been "contaminated" and therefore counted as Jewish. The so-called Jewish question remained without an answer."[1]

Our article already does include mention of Nazism's definition of a Jew. But that is limited to merely one or two sentences in our article at present. I would favor further explanation of the thinking that went into the definition(s) arrived at under Nazism. I think the source above provides a starting point for coverage of definitions that are alternative to halachic definitions. Given the importance of the Holocaust in recent Jewish history this subject perhaps warrants further coverage in our article. Bus stop (talk) 10:47, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

If the article were about more than the Israeli political issue, then I would agree with you completely, that all kinds of views should be represented. Debresser (talk) 17:15, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

You seem to be leaving the question unanswered—what is the article about? I am not making any argument now. I am asking a straightforward question. And more importantly—how would the reader know what this article is about? If it is about "the Israeli political issue" shouldn't that subject be addressed in an article such as the Law of Return article? Or perhaps a different article specifically addressing Israeli social issues? Or perhaps even spread over more than one article? We have semi-related articles such as Status quo (Israel) and Religious relations in Israel. I don't think those articles provide a perfect fit. But nor do I think the present title of this article indicates nearly clearly enough to the reader that this article is about "the Israeli political issue". Bus stop (talk) 17:33, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Stop. Your attitude toward this page is in evidence in abundance. Stop forcing your narrow definitions of Judaism on the article. Your personal religious views are NOT compatible with this page, because this page isn't about appeasing the religious. You were thrown off this page more than once, and your continued actions here are probably worth yet another incident report. I stopped editing Wikipedia regularly because it's so tiring to have to fight your zealotry over and over, but when I stop in, I see you back here, pushing your warped views yet again. I thought that being banned from this article would have helped, or at least made you aware that you aren't welcome to push your personal feelings here like you do, but clearly, that isn't the case. ThuranX (talk) 14:58, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Going back to countries which defined legally who is a Jew, in the former Soviet Union everybody had an id document in which one of the entries was his/her "nationality" (meaning ethnic origin, not citizenship), such as Russian, Ukranian, Tartar, Chechen, Jew, etc. I don't know whether it is still true in Russia and other post-soviet republics. Tsf (talk) 16:31, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Who isn't a Jew?

There is an idea among some Christians and perhaps some Muslims and Jews that all who believe in the God of Israel are "Jews," even though they may not be genetically or tribally connected to Judah. Perhaps there could be a little treatment of this definition/usage of the term. -Stevertigo (t | c) 16:39, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

There're many ideas out there, but this one isn't factual. A person is defined as a Jew either by birth (genetic, though there's a lot of controversy about this) or by proper conversion, and therefore just believing in something regardless of what it may be, isn't sufficient enough. Shalom11111 (talk) 22:52, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

If there is coverage of this in multiple independent reliable sources, I'd say it merits discussion. I'm not seeing there is coverage (I wouldn't know where to look), but if someone comes up with sources, we should include it. cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 13:43, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

A bit late, but I fully agree with the person above. An interesting fact related to this: According to James P. Carroll, Jews accounted for 10% of the total population of the Roman Empire. By that ratio, if other factors had not intervened, there should be 200 million Jews in the world today. (from his book Constantine's Sword). Shalom11111 (talk) 17:25, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

"All Jewish religious movements agree that a person may be a Jew either by birth or through conversion." This is obviously contradictory: a person born form a Jewish ancestor may convert or even become an atheist; according to this definition that person would still be a Jew, which makes little sense. Clearly the only defining quality should be if someone adheres to Judaism (in whatever form). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.170.58.37 (talk) 19:18, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

What makes little sense to you, and is in your layman point of view an "obvious contradiction", is actually the truth. Once a Jew, always a Jew. :)

In addition, the statement that you find so hard to understand addresses the question how one can become a Jew, and does not really address the opposite question, how can one stop being a Jew. So your objections are spiked by a text that doesn't really address the issue. Debresser (talk) 23:40, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

To 82.170.58.37, I agree with Debresser, and add that being Jewish and believing in Christianity (after conversion for example) is a possible thing. Jewishness is also a matter of ethnicity/descent, just like, for instance, being of Hispanic is. If a person is born to Mexican parents in Britain, this man will then be a British of Hispanic descent. -Shalom11111 (talk) 19:48, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

No, it is not. The Chief Rabbinate of Israel don't accept converts to Christianity as Jews anymore. You convert to Christianity - to them you also leave the "Jewish nation", not just the religion.Yuvn86 (talk) 11:43, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

That is a very controversial subject. Debresser (talk) 12:13, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Jews who adopt another religion are excluded from immigration to Israel under the Law of Return, but that's a matter of Israeli law and not a matter of halacha. Has any very senior posek ruled that such converts are actually not Jews? I'm dubious. Zero^talk 12:47, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

I remember a Rashba from the middle ages, who dealt with that question. I don't remember his conclusion. And I don't know how the later poskim apply his rulings in view of the circumstances of our days. I'll try to look into this in the next days. Debresser (talk) 14:14, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

God-fearer

Brigade Piron wants this link in the see also section: [2]. Debresser does not: [3]. Colleagues, let us discuss the issue! I tend to agree with Brigade Piron here; the God-fearers were an early example of people, technically by some standards, not Jewish, who adopted Jewish religious practices and sympathized with Jewish theological ideas. We have in here the Lemba and the "Other claims" subsections. I think that God-fearers are as relevant, if not more so, than those. Let's keep it!— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 17:40, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

I personally agree. -Shalom11111 (talk) 18:14, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

I disagree. These are not Jews, that is one awfully good reason not to have them here. Another reason is that this is not an article about all people who feel connected to Jews. The fact that they are so far back in history is also a minus here, as far as relevancy goes. Debresser (talk) 19:09, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Who said they were Jews? That's not a good reason not to have them in here. Everyone on this list has some people who think they're not Jews. If we adopt your criterion we will have to remove most of the entries. Secondly, your claim that they are "so far back in history is also a minus here" is meaningless, and relative to the length of Jewish history, misleading at best. They're not that "far back in" given that it's 5774 this year. They're quite recent. How do you reconcile your position with the fact that you haven't removed Groups claiming affiliation with Israelites? You are warned!— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 19:28, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this to talk, Alf.laylah.wa.laylah! My reasons for inclusion are pretty much the same as those given. This article, to my mind, is about defining those who claim to be/are viewed as Jewish (evident from the title, right?). "God-fearers" are certainly an interesting group that do not quite fit within a standard definition of "Jewish-ness" given above (rather like Crypto-Jews who are already linked). According to WP:See also, the section's whole purpose is "to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics". Indeed, though it isn't being argued here, "Who is a Muslim/Christian/Buddhist" etc. articles would also belong in the see also. -Brigade Piron (talk) 08:09, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

OK, well given that Debresser hasn't given policy based reasons for wanting it out, and you and I agree that it's appropriate under WP:See also, and Shalom11111 agrees although doesn't say why, I'll go ahead and put it back in, and then if anyone wants it out, maybe they can give reasons as to why WP:See also isn't relevant.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 15:10, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Whether a person practices everything

Regarding this diff: The IP wants to add "* Whether a person practices everything that is written in the text of The Hebrew Bible." This is unsourced, overbroad, wrong, and a personal opinion. I think it should stay out in lieu of extraordinarily reliable sources. Thoughts?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 18:14, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Stop making biased deletions

April 2014[edit] Information icon Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Who is a Jew?. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Please don't edit war over the unsourced material you want to add. Discuss on talk page. You don't have a source for the addition, there is no source for the addition, and if you want to re-add removed unsourced material you must have a source for it or consensus to readd it, and you have neither. — alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 18:12, 5 April 2014 (UTC) If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Response[edit] You are selectively editing that one line. It is not original research. You demonstrate bias by only removing that one line instead of every other bullet as well. None of the other bullets have sources quoted. If you were not biased you would remove that entire section because none of it contains any sources or citations. The entire following section does not have a single citation. Either remove all of it or none of it "According to the simplest definition used by Jews for self-identification, a person is a Jew by birth, or becomes one through religious conversion. However, there are differences of opinion among the various branches of Judaism in the application of this definition, including: The effect of mixed parents: i.e. whether a person of mixed Jewish and non-Jewish parents should be considered Jewish. Conversion: i.e. what processes of conversion should be considered valid. Historical loss of Jewish identity: i.e. whether a person's or group's actions (such as conversion to a different religion) or circumstances in his or her community's life (such as being unaware of Jewish parents) should affect his or her status as Jewish or non-Jewish. Diaspora identity: identity of Jews among themselves, and by non-Jews throughout the Jewish diaspora. Claim to Israeli citizenship: the examination of the previous issues in the context of the Basic Laws of Israel. Whether a person practices everything that is written in the text of The Hebrew Bible." Please stop sabotaging this page with biased edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.159.44.106 (talk) 21:17, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

It's not a "biased deletion." The others don't have sources because they're summaries of sourced material that is discussed in the body of the article. Your addition is not. If you want to put that line in the lead, find some sources which say that there are actually people who determine who is a Jew according to the criterion you propose. Then we add that material to the body of the article with sources. Then we add it to the lead without sources. One would think that if anyone seriously adheres to your proposed criterion, which is quite extreme, we would have heard of it by now. It's surely not halakhic. Who believes your criterion and where are the sources to show that they do?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 00:01, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Article should be renamed

This title of this article violates Wikipedia's naming conventions (See Wikipedia:Article_titles#Article_title_format: Use nouns: Nouns and noun phrases are normally preferred over titles using other parts of speech. An article whose title is a question violates this rule). Off the top of my head, it could be renamed to Definition of who is Jewish or Definition of Jewish people or Definition of Judaic people. Raul654 (talk) 18:07, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Also, since this is not a translation of a title or phrase from another language, the translation in the first line is inappropriate and should be deleted. Raul654 (talk) 18:09, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Since no one has voiced an objection to renaming this article, I'll go ahead and do it soon. Raul654 (talk) 14:22, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

You are mistaken. The law is called "mihu yehudi" (Who is a Jew?). So it is the translation of a name from another language. Debresser (talk) 15:15, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Mark, "Who is a Jew" is a fairly iconic phrase, getting 14.5 million google hits. I don't think anyone would look for this topic under the titles you have suggested, so I don't think it should be renamed yet. Why don't we get wider input on this proposed renaming; while the naming guideline suggests it should be renamed, I can't think of a good alternative name, and this may be one of the reasonable exceptions to the naming guidelines. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:51, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

The concept of "Who is a Jew" is one that is fairly well know and, as Debresser points out, is a translation of the Jewish term. I see no good reason to rename this article and I'm sure it would be swiftly moved back. Peter (talk) 17:38, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Oppose renaming per above arguments. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 18:08, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I am in favor of renaming this article. This article should be merged into the Jewish identity article. "Jewish identity" is the logical name for the subject matter that should be discussed in this article. Bus stop (talk) 18:19, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Oppose renaming -- "Who is a Jew" is the standard heading under which the issues in question are raised. "Jewish identity" is not the same topic. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:58, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Oppose renaming. Also oppose merging. The title reflects a classic question in its own name that should not be obscured. Defining and describing Jewish identity involves a different set of issues. Hertz1888 (talk) 23:39, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

But you are not including material in accordance with the phrase מיהו יהודי/mihu yehudi/who is a Jew. The title is just a figurehead and an especially misleading one when one understands that it is a translation from a well-known and important Hebrew phrase. I find in this article:

"The question was of importance during the rule of the Nazi party in Germany and was addressed by the Nuremberg Laws"[4]

Were the Nazis really concerned with the question of מיהו יהודי? I don't think so.

I read in this article that:

"'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."[5]

Was the above (completely un-sourced) pronouncement ever made in connection with the question מיהו יהודי? I doubt it.

The title should reflect the actual article content. The title and the content should be in accord with one another. The phrase מיהו יהודי has a history of use. Choosing that title should mean adhering to a scope suggested by that title. Bus stop (talk) 03:42, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Rename "Who is a Jew?" is a translation of one particular document. But this article is not just about that document, and is much broader. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 18:20, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Strongly disagree. This article is solely about attempts to formulate a rule for deciding whether a given individual is or is not Jewish. "Jewish identity" is on much wider themes, such as what Jewishness consists of. It is all the difference between "who is a Jew" and "what is a Jew". --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) (talk) 11:23, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Strongly disagree. The theme of the article is to look at the various definitions of who is a Jew. It does not seek to look at Jews in relation to others, which issues of identity would normally also address, nor to consider the differences between one identity and another group.Ewawer (talk) 12:15, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Sir Myles na Gopaleen—you say "This article is solely about attempts to formulate a rule for deciding whether a given individual is or is not Jewish."

We can't really say that the article is addressing the question in the title when answers to that question are provided which are not supported by sources. We read for instance:

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

There is no source for that. The title of the article is misleading. The un-sourced material which ostensibly responds to the title compounds the problem that is the title. This is not a new problem, nor is this a small problem. It seems to me that it represents incorrect procedure to pose a question and then to answer that question in an important way without a source. Bus stop (talk) 12:59, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the opposes above. This article is about an issue in the Israeli and Jewish world at large, and has a very specific name, which is the translation of the Hebrew term for this issue. The three articles should link to each other, but at least this article can not be not merged with either of the two others. Debresser (talk) 22:31, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Why was a conversation which went dormant for months ressurected? That's highly unorthodox, esp. on a non-vote vote like this. Bad form all around. This should be closed as a strong disagree conssensus if only because the extreme gaps in time, which preclude all parties from following it handily and maintaining their train of thought. ThuranX (talk) 14:43, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

This Article's is racist they used the word Jew as a individual when is should be who is a Jewish — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.57.113.23 (talk) 23:36, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

If we don't follow Wikipedia:Article_titles#Article_title_format we might as well name articles Who is an American?, What is a Hamburger?, Is a Tomato a Fruit? While "Who is a Jew?" may be an often-used phrase, the article is not about this phrase. The article is entirely about Jewish identity. At the very least, the introduction of the article should make it clear that "Who is a Jew?" is an important phrase or topic in Jewish culture, and some care should be made to make sure this article and others about Jewish identity, such as Jew and Jewish identity are reconciled, to avoid duplicate or contradictory information. 198.244.99.89 (talk) 10:08, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Agree with Raul654, per Article_title_format. "Who is a Jew?" is an appropriate headline for an opinion piece, or a title for a pamphlet or even a book, but this is an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia entries have titles that are nouns and noun-phrases, unless the article is about a particular work whose title comprises the article title. e.g. an encyclopedia article on the Hendrix album Are You Experienced would probably be Are You Experienced.
For example, we don't have an article called "How can I tell whether I have cancer?". We have an article called "Cancer signs and symptoms". Some of the comments above seem to miss the point: maybe someone on Yahoo Questions would be more likely to key in "How can I tell whether I have cancer?" but this is not the basis on which Wikipedia's title formats were determined. We're not trying to compete with Buzzfeed or Upworthy: we're maintaining an encyclopedic style.
Want to know what it should be called? Current article starts "Who is a Jew is a basic question about Jewish identity and considerations of Jewish self-identification". So the article should be called Jewish identity and self-identification.Ordinary Person (talk) 06:47, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

It think we've been here, no? In any case, the present title is the usual reference to this issue: the "Who is a Jew" issue. Debresser (talk) 20:43, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Is this quotation relevant?

I'm mildly surprised it's not part of the article. Attributed to an Israeli leader, although probably said as a joke.

"Anyone meshugge enough to call himself a Jew, IS a Jew" -Ben-Gurion

It would fit right into a TVTropes article, but this is Wikipedia, which has a greater semblance of professionalism. 96.52.203.161 (talk) 05:01, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Love it! Debresser (talk) 11:34, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

It's in Who is a Jew?#Non-religious definitions, with its source. Debresser (talk) 22:54, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Recently-added section

I've removed the recently added section entitled "The Wansee Definition" as it seems to have been copied directly from elsewhere and added by ArdenHathaway on March 6. It may have been from one of these two sites, both of which contain this text: [6] or [7]. Omnedon (talk) 00:38, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Actually, it appears to have been copied verbatim (but without any of its citations) from the Wannsee Conference article here (see 7th graf under Proceedings), which is where the blogs you linked to probably obtained it. Dwpaul ^Talk 00:57, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

This information does seems relevant to this article. Perhaps somebody could summarize that text and that way we could keep it. We already know the source. Debresser (talk) 10:31, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Lack of neutral POV

user:debresser removes material that is apparently in conflict with his own view of what Judaism is. It overprivileges Orthodox halacha. I'm not talking just about our interchange of today. See his reverts on 14 april 2015, 1 August 2014, 30 April 2014. (That's as far back as I've gotten so far.)

I don't know if he did this, though he reverted a deletion of it. The _first_ link under External Links is to Chabad's article on the topic. Now, some link has to be first. But is this totally random order? If it's not random, what principle has been followed that puts Chabad first?

The following sentence I do not regard as neutral POV:

(However, according to the oral tradition of Orthodox Judaism, the spouses of both Joseph and Moses converted to Judaism prior to marrying them.)

Oral tradition is by definition non-verifiable. deisenbe (talk) 07:27, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

The POV tag was inappropriate. It is for cases when an article represents a POV and does not specify it. In this case, the sentence specifies its point of view. Also notice that you can't tag a whole article just because of one sentence. In such case you should use {{POV-statement}}, but, again, in this case the statement specifies its point of view, so tagging it is not appropriate. There also exists {{POV section}} for sections. Debresser (talk) 08:52, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

I am restoring the POV tag. It is totally in violation of WP principles for you to remove the tag when you are the person, or one of the people, whose lack of neutral POV motivated the tag. If I'm wrong, someone else should remove it. Not you.

I'm not tagging the article because of one sentence. That's ridiculous. It's that the article does represent a POV (privileging halakha) and does not specify it. deisenbe (talk) 09:26, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

I do not understand what you are trying to say. The sentence just says that according to Jewish tradition, they were converted. How is this NPOV ? It would be if the article was saying it as a fact. That's not the case. Benjil (talk) 10:10, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Deisenbe, I am not the writer of this article, or even a major contributor, so there is no reason to accuse me of anything here.

I too don't think there is a POV here. The article mentions many points of view. Debresser (talk) 21:48, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

The article "Jews" is for this question

If you want to know what a tree is, you go the article "tree", not "what are trees?". Likewise, this article is redundant and downright silly. 162.230.96.227 (talk) 23:37, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

We have discussed this before. You can look up the explanations above. Debresser (talk) 09:29, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Hebrew Israelites

Greetings,

After reading the "Who is a Jew" page, and review a long list from 'half-Jew', 'DNA testing', 'Lumba', and even 'chinese iranian jews', im amazed not to hear of the hebrew israelites, or hebres of black american heritage. why is this? Considering they have a community living in Israel Now! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.139.164.72 (talk) 14:54, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

"Hebrews" and "Israelites" are indeed Jews; unrecognized antisemitic black supremacist converts to Judaism ("Black Hebrew Israelites", or "African Hebrew Israelites of Jerusalem") are not Jews. A small community in Israel does not prove any Jewish heritage. Ariel ^✡ 20:00, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

The first part of that is simply false. . "Hebrews" and "Israelites" are definitely not Jews and, as a defined group of people, they never were Jews. . The Jews are a name given to the secessionist tribes of Benjamin and Judah (along with some of the Levites) during the Babylonian captivity. There is no earlier mention of them in the Bible. . God gave the Promised Land to Abraham and to his sons Isaac, the father of Israel, and Ishmael, the father of the Arabs. The two (and a fraction) tribes seceded after their boy Rehoboam was rejected as the next king of Israel after the death of Solomon and Jeroboam was anointed king instead. This was due to some extremely stupid comments Rehoboam made in Shechem. The two tribes, in rebellion against their new king seceded, retreated to Jerusalem and established the Kingdom of Judah. After their leaders were abducted to Babylon, the two tribes adopted a brand new religion called "Judaism," largely based upon the Babylonian model, and came to be called Jews. When Persia conquered Babylon fifty years later, many of them returned to the ruins of Jerusalem where they converted the remainder of their two tribes to their new religion. . The remaining Israelites were honored as the "protectors" of their ancient religion with the title "Samaritan." They were mostly slaughtered by the Assyrians, Jews, Christians, Romans and Muslims and, like the Jews, intermarried with other groups. So, there are Jews who claim to be "Israelites," which is a lie. They claim that the Israelites were all murdered and replaced by a tribe of "Cuthites," which is another lie, and that the "Cuthites" who now called themselves "Samaritans" converted to Judaism, which is a third lie. There are still some 700 Israelites living in the Holy Land today (and most outsiders usually call them Samaritans), and their paternal DNA is indistinguishable from that of the Sephardic Jews. They paid a special tax to their Muslim conquerors for the right to practice their own religion. If they want to participate fully in the Zionist state, they must stop being Israelites and convert to Judaism to become "Israelis." The most famous convert to date is Sofi Tsedaka, who gave up being an Israelite, one of God's Chosen People, to become a Jew.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.38.55.244 (talk • contribs) 01:58, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

[1] ttp://www.pnas.org/content/97/12/6769.full

[2] ttp://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1113807.html

[3] ttp://israelhaiom.com/Portugals-secret-Jews-come-out-of-hiding.html

[4] ttp://health.usnews.com/health-news/diet-fitness/diabetes/articles/2010/06/03/jews-around-the-world-linked-by-common-genetic-ancestry.html

[5] ttp://www.whatwemaybe.org/txt/txt0001/Reichler.Max.1916.Jewish%20Eugenics.htm

[6] ttp://www.thejc.com/judaism/judaism-features/26766/why-orthodox-rabbis-must-stop-conversions

[7] Jewish living by Dr. Mark Washkovsky, Union of Reform Judaism PRESS

[8] ttp://www.shamash.org/lists/scj-faq/HTML/faq/18-index.html

[9] ttp://data.ccarnet.org/resp/tindex.html

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]