Talk:Jews/Archive 11

Information about converted Jews
The start of this article is
 * " This article discusses the term as describing an ethnic group; for a consideration of the religion, please refer to Judaism."

So it gives the impression that this article will also cover all people of jewish descent. Regardless of whether they were converted to other religions or not.

So why there isn't any information about jews who converted to other religions in this article.

Zain 21:19, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Such as? Jayjg |  (Talk)  21:22, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Well, the list of Jews further down in the article claims Jews as Jews even when they do not consider themselves Jews (Wiggenstein for one). This is an epistemological problem as well as a problem of politics, not to mention the sheer stigma such an association connotes.  Hamas, the conservative right and Iran all justify the assumption of such an ideology.  And what about Scotty?  There's only so much a simple engineer can do, CAPtehn. The epistemological problem is that Christians (I say this because this is most influential on Western ideas about identity) identify themselves through religious belief.  Though this article claims to separate between Jews and Judaism, for many Jews, no such division exists.  For many Jews, the Jewish identity is inherited along with the religion, with a few converts here and there welcome as a sort of self-validation (see recent NYT article about Japanese American convert to Orthodox Judaism).  So if you take the Jewish point of view, anyone who's mother is Jewish is Jewish.  If you take the religion as a choice point of view, then Jews ARE the same thing as Judaism, though perhaps there is an identifiable ethnic group of Jews separate from Judaism.  Still, even as ethnic identity, it can still be seen as a choice for people to accept their Jewishness (or whiteness, or blackness, etc).
 * The political problem has a simple analogy--think about The Chapelle Show's Race Draft, where every race tries to claim someone as their race. Think how Tiger Woods is so mixed, calls himselve Cablasian, yet generally perceived to be black.  You might think about him being advertising for Buick and the sort of target audience that Buick these days seems to have.  I see exactly the same thing going on with these "lists of prominent Jews". [This and the preceding paragraph appear to have been interspersed, without signature, late February 2005]


 * Certainly Wittgenstein, and his family, continued to be generally perceived in Germany as Jews rather than Germans. He (along with the atheistic Karl Marx and Sigmund Freud) seem to me to be perfect examples of the difference here between ethnicity and religion. In none of these cases do issues of mixed ethnicity arise. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:40, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure Wittgenstein was Jewish. As I understand it, his father's parents or grandparents were Jewish, and W's mother was a Roman Catholic, though her father, I believe, was Jewish (or her father's father was Jewish; I forget which). Wittgenstein was also baptized a Catholic. Therefore, in terms of his mother's ethnicity, and in terms of the faith he was raised in, he would not be regarded as Jewish. SlimVirgin 01:18, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)


 * Definitely baptised a Catholic, and all that. Perhaps we should remove him from this page, hard to say: he did consider his Jewish descent important, and both German and English society considered it so as well; on the other hand, he was not a Jew by religion, nor (as SlimVirgin points out) by matrilineal descent. This one is right at the margins. I'd be interested in what others have to say: no small number of essays have been written on whether to consider Wittgenstein a Jew. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:13, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)


 * His "Jewishness" is tenuous enough that I think he should not be on this page, but rather listed on the List of Jews page with the various caveats (mother not Jewish, baptized Catholic) given there. Jayjg (talk) 15:36, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * I can go with that. -- Jmabel | Talk 02:57, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)


 * This http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/vjw/Afghanistan.html
 * Zain 21:41, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Zain, your article doesn't really clear up what you mean: are you referring to forced conversions of Jews to Islam, as the article mentioned happened in Persia, or are you talking about Jews who converted to Islam voluntarily, like the Bani Israel referred to in the Pashtun legend dating back to the 7th century? In any case, you seem to have a persistant belief (across many of your comments) that Judaism is somehow "passed on" via bloodline, rather than it being a historical/national/religious identity.  If there are no longer any real connections to a person's Jewish identity, then they are probably no longer Jewish in any meaningful way.  The Marranos of Spain, for example, like the (possibly) Pashtun, maintain some Jewish traditions after being forced to convert over 500 years ago, but they are not considered Jews.  Similarly, few people would claim Madeline Albright is Jewish.  Still, Jews who converted, if they had some recent Jewish connection, like Benjamin Disraeli, might be meaningfully be considered Jewish, but Disraeli's children would probably not be considered Jewish. Genetic makeup does not act as the determining factor of Jewish identity, see Who is a Jew? for more information. --Goodoldpolonius2 21:54, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Regarding anusim (often coined, pejoratively, "marranos") of Iberian Sephardic origin, there are differing views on their Jewishness. No lesser authority than Rabbi Aaron Soloveitchik writes: "... the people in the Americas who claim to be descendants of the Marranos of Spain and Portugal [...] must be treated like full Jews in every way (counted for a minyan, given aliyot, etc.)." (from a teshubah dated 1 Nisan 5754 (13 March 1994)) The teshubah goes on to describe a modified conversion ritual that is require only in cases when the person in question is to marry a [full] Jew. The determining factors here, as well as in a similar teshubah by Rishon leZion Mordechai Eliyahu, former Sephardic chief Rabbi of Israel (dated 1 Elul 5758(?) (23 August 1998?) - the year is a bit blurry on my digital copy), are the combination of (mostly or entirely) maternal ancestry in combination with the keeping of customs and a sense of identity. -- Olve 05:52, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Well you gave the right example. I read it in the article 'who is jew' it says that
 * " traditional view is that any child born to a Jewish mother is Jewish, whether or not he/she is raised Jewish, or even whether the mother considers herself Jewish. As a result, the grandchildren of Madeline Albright (who was raised Catholic and unaware of her Jewish heritage) will all be Jews according to halakha (Dr. Albright has only daughters), since their mother's mother's mother's mother's mother was a Jew."

So people who converted willfully or forcefully can still be considered Jews. This information belongs somewhere in the article. Zain 22:04, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * It is in the article, in the link to "Who is a Jew". That information used to be directly in the article itself, but the article was too long, so it was moved to a sub-article, as per Wikipedia standard. Jayjg  |  (Talk)  22:09, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Zain, go back to your quote at the beginning. This article refers to Judaism as a nationality or ethnic group, not a religious groups.  Yes, according to some stringent Jewish laws, Albright might be considered Jewish (read the whole article)  - but under any reasonable measure of ethnic identity she is not. Many Russians are descended from Mongols, or from Viking colonizers of the original Rus, that does not make them Mongols or Vikings ethnically.  Besides, as you requested, this material is already mentioned in the article, under "Who is a Jew" which is right in the template. This is really otherwise of very little direct relevance --Goodoldpolonius2 22:11, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

At least we here agree that some will agree that they are jews. Now the only point that is left that does these some ideas have any right in the article.

Let me quote from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NPOV_tutorial. Section under heading  Word ownership says

A common source of obstinacy in NPOV disputes is the belief that one group "owns" a word and has sole authority to define it:


 * "The word sun is from the science of astronomy. Astronomers are the experts on the sun, and not one of them alive today believes the sun is Helios and his chariot."

In fact, many words have multiple meanings. And it's not just that one person sometimes uses "sun" to refer to the bright ball in the sky and sometimes the yellow circle in a child's drawing. Sometimes it means that different people mean different things when they say the same word.

Ancient Greek ideas about the sun aren't covered by any senses of the word provided in the dictionary. Neither are the traditional ideas of contemporary indigenous people. But in an encyclopedia, ideas that a lot of people believe or once believed deserve not only mention but respectful treatment.

So even if it is considered by some as jew still it has a place on wikipedia in relation to this word.

Zain 22:26, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Zain, the Who is a Jew? article at the top of the template and the article covers the issue of Jewish converts, and actually goes through many different points of view on the subject, so the article easily meets the standard you just proposed.
 * On a related note, I do have to wonder about the general thrust of some of your calculations about Jewish identity, both in this and in other articles (see this discussion for example). You seem to really be pushing for a much expanded definition of Jewish identity, and have implied that you believe that all people of any Jewish descent (and especially Muslims of ancient Jewish descent, see your above reference) should be considered Jews.  This really doesn't fit with any standard definition of Jewish nationality and ethnicity, anymore than everyone is considered African just because we all descend from a common genetic ancestor in Kenya.  I suspect that you have an agenda with this approach, since your post I referenced above includes the following quote from you: "So looking at a 4000 years phenomenon I doubt (the Jews) will have 'pure blood'. So they don't have any more right (if not less) then palestenians on 'Tel Aviv'."*  If you do have an agenda, it would be better to make that clear, so that we can work to incorporate your views in an NPOV fashion, rather than taking a lot of peoples' time to debate straw-man arguments that underlie some other point you want to make.  Also, it would be best if we could keep the constantly NPOV-battled Israeli-Palestinian conflict out of this article as much as possible.  I mentioned this last time you brought up related issues on Jewish populations in Israel, and I worry that this series of articles on Jews will be pulled into that debate.    --Goodoldpolonius2 02:06, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * (*) As a side note, there is no standard of Jewish "pure bloodedness" under any view of Jewish identity -- Judaism is not passed on through the genes or the blood. See here on the tradition of using "Jewish blood" in the definition of the Jew, and the dangers this approach carries.


 * I think Zain's agenda is clear, he has stated it himself on his webpage. He is trying to use "Jewish blood" to prove that "arabs have better claim (as they make majority of 'actual jews') on the israel then jews!" Jayjg  |  (Talk)  03:20, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I waited a lot for response earlier but there was no response so I went out.

Now about my discussion this discussion. If you see it was simply done by assumption, which usually Muslims don't like. I never said that I believe this work. I simply said if it is assumed. If you read that discussion carefully, I never issued a statement which endorses my point of views!. Even if the statement which you copied from my discussion, that also uses the world 'doubt'. Frankly speaking I don't know the statistics. I will like to know if there is any information regarding this.

About the agenda, I am not sure how to put it. I have sympathizes with Palestinian and Arabs. I am myself neither a Palestinian nor an Arab. May be from that 'extended' definition I might be considered a Jew, with a lot of Jewish blood!. If you see my contributions from very early days, they were not at all related to this conflict. I believe the first ever contribution which was to this topic is well known to you. Frankly speaking I even didn't know how to spell Israel or Palestine before that discussion. After that I started to do research among various sources various claims. It appeared to me that there are many possible flaws in Israeli claim to land. (Please note I am not stressing that these flaws are ought be there, they are simply my interpretations). Most of these apparent flaws become evident to me from reading pro-Israeli sources rather then reading pro-Palestinian sources. I don't think it is relevant here even if I have an 'agenda'. What matters is that, as long as I ask for something within the policy of wikipedia, my ideas ought to be considered. Please even if you see my discussion this discussion., I never insisted any where that this material should be placed 'anywhere' in the wikipedia as it is not according to the policy of wikipedia. So even when I believe some thing is probably true in my view, I don't insist putting it in the articles. Unless they are according to the policy. Please these two paragraphs I only wrote to clear your mind about my actions. This was not required in the context of this discussion. As suspicions of 'agenda' have nothing to do with what material needs to be mentioned in the article.

Now to the original issue. I think following two points are agreed and are NPOV.

Only thing which remains is that how to incorporate this in the article. So please make a positive approach and give this 'minor' opinion respectful treatment.
 * 1) Some (may be very minor) people do consider that if any body is of Jewish descend he/she must be considered as Jew.
 * 2) If some thing is interpreted differently by some (may be minor may be they don't exist now), it deserves a respectful treatment. (as per wikipedia policy which I referenced earlier)

Zain 12:13, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * The issue is treated in the article. Jews, like all peoples, define who they are and who they are not.  They have done so, and these definitions are well explained in the Who is a Jew article, which is linked to from here. Jayjg  |  (Talk)  13:28, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * You might be right. but there are two problems with it
 * Many Jews them self consider converted Jews as Jews.
 * Wikipedia Policy doesn't support the standard of 'Self identification' in 'word ownership'.


 * Zain 13:36, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Zain, two main points that should end the argument: And two additional points to clarify:
 * The article on who is a Jew mentions the conditions under which some Jews consider converted Jews to be Jewish. It actually talks about this a lot, in detail, under many traditions of Jewish thouht.
 * The article on who is a Jew mentions other ways of determining Jewish identity (See the end), including genetic approaches, but notes that such determinations have not be considered valid within the Jewish community, and, in fact, have often been tools of people with anti-Jewish agendas
 * In fact, self-identification is a key feature of any group, as groups do make the rules of membership. I could declare that I am Zoastrian, my friends could agree, and I even may have some Zoastrian blood, but I would not be accepted by Zoastrians as one of them.  It would therefore be silly to write in an article that "some people think GoodOldPolonius is Zoastrian," since there is no weight behind that view.  This is not ownership of words, this is about groups setting rules for entry.  Declaring something does not make it so -- if you said you were a doctor, that does not make you a doctor.
 * Before you push your arguments further, there are massive amounts of scholarly research on identity that you should be familiar with, at least in passing. Forget religion and culture, for a moment, even national identity is a constructed norm forced by group identity. Nations such as Pakistan emerged only recently, but there was almost immediately a clear concept of what it is to be Pakistani. This is a subject of much interest to political theorists and sociologists, and though this is not directly related to Judaism, you might want to look at the Nationalism Project
 * And, most importantly, you should realize that when people outside of a group attempt to impose definitions on a group, they almost always do it for the purposes of exerting control. Some people say that there is no such group as Palestinians, but this is just an attempt to use language in a way to change reality, of course there are Palestinians, even if the specific sense of national identity among Palestinians is recent in origin.  Some people might similarly say that "the modern Jews are not the real Jewish people," but this is similar nonsense that flies in the face of several thousand years of continuous Jewish history, and is an attempt to use language and catagories to impose a reality that is not the case.  Your statements lead me to believe that  you are trying to change or modify the nature of Jewish identity by playing definitional games, when there is a clear concept of Jewish ethnic nationhood that clearly exists.  This argument might be convincing to you, but is ultimately destructive and arrives at reducto-ad-absurdum, just as arguments that Palestinians are actually Jordanians are only used to deligitimize the Palestinians.  That is why your agenda is relevant, and why you should be careful that you are really being NPOV, and not just trying to enact your agenda with many small claims   --Goodoldpolonius2 16:47, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Converted Jews are considered as jews by some jews
Well it is very good that you gave example of Pakistan. Behari who were left in 'East Pakistan' are not considered as Pakistani by Pakistan, but they are considered Pakistani by Bangladesh!. It is an example where people outside the group impose the definition which is very accepted by a lot of people except the group itself.

Anyhow this is not relevant here because some jews consider people of jewish descend as jews even if they convert. And even if very few people believe in some thing wikipedia policy says it is worth respectful treatment. I am also not saying that this article should mention that who is Jew or who is not Jew. Only that people who might be considered as jew in 'who is jew' article, need some mentioning here. For example as history/stats of non-convert jews are given, converted jews might also be given some reasonable treatment.

May be you are taking me wrong. I am not asking for some major change in the article. I am just asking for some respectful mentioning of information about converted Jews too. Because this article does not say that it excludes converted-jews. By 'respectful treatment' I don't mean multi-paragraph detail but minor and respectful treatment.

Zain 18:43, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Converts to Judaism are discussed in Ger tzedek. Jayjg |  (Talk)  20:51, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * No, I think Zain is talking specifically about converts from Judaism.
 * Zain, the article does talk about this, quite a few places. We mention several secular Jews (e.g. Marx, Freud) and at least one Christian convert (Disraeli). All of these are excellent examples of people who unequivocally considered themelves (and were/are generally considered by other Jews) as Jews in the ethnic, but not the religious, sense.
 * Nationality and ethnicity are always tricky concepts. There is certainly a place in Wikipedia for an extensive coverage of these subtleties, but the article on one particular ethnic group is almost certainly not the place to do it. Jewish ethnicity is probably slightly better defined than most (in specific focus on matrilineality), but the rest of these issues apply almost as much to any ethnicity. At some point, if a person is a few generations removed from the Jewish community and makes no active effort to claim to be a Jew, they tend to drift out of the self-defined community. If the continuity is clear and someone chooses to reassert that identity (as a number of Marranos have done in recent years), they are usually accepted without much difficulty. When it is more like millennia, it gets trickier, partly because there is so unlikely to be any continuous tradition. Sometimes entire groups (such as the Ethiopian Jews) have been generally recognized as genuine Jews even at that distance in time, but it is rare. Little of this has any agreed-upon formality. -- Jmabel | Talk 22:16, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks Jmabel to understand my position. Some people here misinterpretting that I want the whole article upside down or some thing like this. I don't intend this.

Following are our agreements (me and others who are on this article)


 * 1) For most scenarios the Jews statistics/history given here is acceptable by all. Definition of Jew might be disagreed by some jews.
 * 2) Major difference among the definitions is whether to use religion or ethnicity or some mix.
 * 3) This major difference is cleared by one of the starting statements in the article.

Now following are the agreements which are there but are accepted rather reluctantly.


 * 1) Some (may be very very few) Jews consider people of Jewish descend as Jews regardless of whether they are aware of it or accept it.
 * 2) If some small (but visible) minority has some different opinion wikipedia policy requires to give it a respectful treatment.

Now I am talking about jews who might not consider them self jew or might not even know that they are of jewish descend. But they are considered by some jews as jews. I am not saying that they should be given a lot of coverage in this article as this view is considered by very minor segment.

What I am saying is this, as this article clears that this article is about jews, either who are jewish by descend or by religion. Similar clarification should be done about jews who are converted. That this article is not about those Jews who are converted and might be considered Jews by very small minority. (not this exact statement but any statement which you might chose with similar meaning).

Zain 22:52, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Well put, Jmabel, I tried to say the same thing as well at the begining of the discussion. Zain, I think there is some confusion over the idea of respectful treatment.  Minority opinions should be treated with respect, but they do not all need to be acknowledged as as valid as any other approach - otherwise every encyclopedia article would simply start off with a long list of "But some very small minority thinks..." statements.  Now, the good thing about the Jew article from your perspective is that it actually includes a long list of these sorts of statements about the debate who is a Jew, in the Who is a Jew? article.  So the problem is solved.  There is only need to create disambiguation ("This article is not about those Jews who converted...") if you really believe people will be confused. I would ask that you provide some sources that state that a common conception of Jewish ethnic identity would include, say, the Pashtun, before we consider whether such a disambuguation is needed -- do any Pashtun sources declare themselves Jews?  Show that there is a problem before we decide how to fix it. --Goodoldpolonius2 23:11, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I think discussion is going overly hot. well problem is not how many pushtun think they are jews. problem is that how many jews think pushtuns are jews. These minorities were enough to be given a full paragraph in 'who is jew' article So they are worth a line here. I think we should stop posting. think in cool mind and then decide what should be done.

Zain 23:17, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Zain, sorry if you are hot - I am not, and I don't think Jmabel is - people are spending a lot of time trying to help you answer this question, you are not being blown off in any sense. As for your point, there are a huge number of important points about Jews that are not in the main article, but that are accessible through the template.  In fact, there is no mention of any of the much larger issues around Jewish identity (the Israeli Law of Return, Orthodox vs. Reform conceptions, Jewish identity in intermarriage); these are all relegated to the subarticle, some without so much as a sentence in the main article.  There seems to be no compelling reason why we need to include this particular point, which, as you said, is a "very small minority" opinion, in the main article, when it is discussed in a whole article on Jewish identity.  If you continue to insist, let us know what sentence you would like and where you would like it --Goodoldpolonius2 23:23, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I am not asking that in this article we should mention 'who is jew' and 'who is not jew' I said it earlier too. Only thing that I am asking that if that 'minor' definition is accepted. The statistics of population and other will change substantially. Other discussions don't impact the statistics and history that much. But this assumption makes a considerable impact. so the article should clear that it doesn't consider such 'minor' assumptions.

Please see we here are not disagreeing on facts or figures. Only disagreement is that whether that 'minor' claim has its place. Wikipedia policy is clear. It should have some place. Whether it is Paragraph/Sentence/Footnote or any other. Statistics and history in result of that opinion have their place. may be not in this article. But they do have their place. Problem is that some people might view that those statistics are part of this article. Because they see only descend as the definition of jew.

That minor claim has some place on wikipedia that is agreed. Now where is that place is only problem.

Zain

As far as how many [of the people who are generally accepted as] Jews consider Pashtuns Jews, the answer is "almost none". Ditto for quite a few Gentile nations in the Caucasus who also have traditions claiming descent from the lost tribes. Is is possible that there is some common ancestry 2000+ years ago? Yes, though far from proven. But by that standard, the English are Germans, all Slavs are one nation, and --taking it one step further -- all of us are African, anyway. As far as I know, we don't take up these matters in any detail in the articles on any ethnicity. Like all other ethnicities, being Jewish is largely (but not exclusively) a combination of self-identification and acceptance by the group. Like a few other ethnicities, Jews have some general (but not universal) agreement on how the ethnicity is defined. Speaking of the Pashtun, because their definition is almost entirely patrilineal, even granting the "lost tribe" premise and then using a strict Halakhic accounting that says the only way you cease to be a Jew is excommunication, there would be no reason to think that any particular Pushtun traced back matrilineally to the lost tribes. But this is getting into hairsplitting. No, almost no Jews consider the Pashtuns to be Jews. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:02, Dec 30, 2004 (UTC)

People who might be considered jews by some jews
Let me quote my friend Goodoldpolonius2 here
 * "'Yes, according to some stringent Jewish laws, Albright might be considered Jewish'"

So why it won't apply on pushtuns? http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/vjw/Afghanistan.html Second it is not only about pushtuns. There actual number is unknown. They might now call them self arabs etc etc. Actually I was intrested in finding statistics but I was not able to find authentic statistics, only bits and pieces of information. So I came back to this article. And my initial post was not to include it but was why it is not included. As u can see from this discussion. That mentioning other is not matter of right or wrong. it is matter that how many jews consider how many converted jews as jews. And where should we mention it.

Zain 00:13, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * "So why it won't apply on pushtuns?" Because it is the difference between 2 generations with clear matrilineal descent and 2000 years with no such record. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:44, Dec 30, 2004 (UTC)


 * Zain, ethnicity is a combination of group acceptance and self-definition. As far as group acceptance, quite logically Jews do not define groups with no clear connection to Judiasm, no immediate Jewish ancestry, and no Jewish belief system Jewish. On the side of self-identification, I would imagine that almost every, if not every, Pashtun (or Muslim Arab, or whatever) would reject the idea that they are currently Jews.  Thus, I present The Test:
 * To make an argument that would convince people here that this is a valid minority view, I would ask you to demonstrate that (1) Some significant number of Jews state that the Pashtun (or whatever group) are Jewish (not of Jewish descent, but actually Jewish) and (2) Some significant number of Pashtuns (or whatever group) believe they are Jewish. Sound good? --Goodoldpolonius2 02:21, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Well let me give you some interesting information. The most accepted descent among pushtons is Jewish Descent! I know it even personally. So I have reached some what at the bottom of the problem. So here are some agreed information.


 * 1) Some jews and non-jews including some pushtoons believe that they are of jewish descent.
 * 2) There are other people of jewish descent in addition to pushtoons who are no longer considered as jews by most of the jews. (Alberite and many others)
 * 3) Some jews think that descent, whether it is immediate or distant, is enough to consider some body a jew.
 * 4) If some thing is considered by a minor (even if the claimers no longer exist) is worth a respectful treatment.
 * 5) Many of the pushtoon/alberite ancestors considered their future generations as jews!

The problem I have seen that the 'intersection set' between people who consider only descent (whether immediate or far) as condition of jew. And the people who consider pushtoon as descended of jews, is a negligible set.

Do you agree this is the point put but you? (which I explained in above paragraph)

This result in following problems. Is this 'negligible' 'intersection set' or 'common set' is worth any mention?

But following points were generally ignored by the responses I received.


 * 1) What about other converted jews whose descend has little doubts like Alberite.
 * 2) What about the non-Existing people who viewed their future generations as jews.

Zain 11:48, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Do you have a source in which Pashtuns claim to be Jews? Jayjg |  (Talk)  14:23, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Yeah, its very interesting that they think they might be descended from Jews. According to the latest studies, it seems that there are also genetic links between Jews and Palestinians (but not to other neighboring Arabs) and between Jews and Kurds.  This is interesting, but does not make these people Jews, nor does it make Jews Kurdish, or even make these significant facts.  Again, take a look at the test -- do any Jews claim that the Pashtun (or any of these other groups), are actually Jews?  Do any of these groups consider themselves Jews? Saying that they have common ancestry is not the same thing as saying that they are Jews, remember, this is about identity-- show me a source that says any of these things explicitly.  It is your burden to prove that this is not a "negligible set;" no more original research.
 * As to your "ignored points," they were not ignored at all, both jmabel and myself gave you direct responses.  Albright is mentioned specifically in the Who is a Jew article, and the articles on Jews further mention Disraeli and others.  As I pointed out, there is no discussion anywhere in the main article about who is a Jew, even the wider views on the subject, it is all relegated to the subarticle, so that is the proper place for it.  And I do not know what "non-Existing people who viewed their future generations as Jewish" means.  Identity is a current thing, you ultimately have no control over your future generations (much to the dismay of many parents and grandparents)Goodoldpolonius2 15:02, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Zain, there are a lot of groups who claim or may have some Jewish ancestry, but 1) they are too numerous to include in this general article, and 2) merely having "some" ancestry doesn't necessarily classify a whole group as "Jews". Meanwhile, the information you brought up is very interesting, and you asked where it should be mentioned.  It is somewhat addressed already in the Pashtun article.  That's probably the best place to describe the theory in detail.  --MPerel 17:53, Dec 30, 2004 (UTC)


 * One additional note, if the link you gave was actually implying the Pashtun are considered Jews, it would not have said at the end of the article that there are only two known Jews in Afghanistan today, Zebulon Simentov and Isaac Levy. --MPerel 18:56, Dec 30, 2004 (UTC)

MPerel You joined discussion a little late if you see my earlier posts. I tried to clear my self that I don't want any of pushtuns or alberite in this article. Only thing which I want that this article should tell they are not included. Simple. because as u pointed out they are very minor claims (both in the sense of ancestry and the claim that only ancestory is enought to call some body jew as stated in 'who is jew' article) In addition they are two numerous and difficult to confirm. I agree these are minor claims. Only condition when they should be mentioned is when this article doesn't clearify that this minor opinion is excluded in this article.


 * Are you saying you would like a line in the article that says something like this: While there are numerous claims of Jewish ancestry by or about various ethnic groups (e.g., Pushtun, Alberite), they are not addressed in this article? --MPerel 04:07, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC)


 * MPerel. I think he means Madeline Albright, not a group called the Alberites.  Also, Zain hasn't shown any sources that any of these groups actually claim to be Jews, or that anyone believes they are Jews.  Until he does, it doesn't seem to be a real valid point.  Besides, the right place for any such speculation is the article about Jewish ancestry, Who is a Jew?, which already covers Madeline Albright.  --Goodoldpolonius2 04:24, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * LOL! ah, I figured maybe Alberites were an ethnic group I didn't know about! Anyway, I agree, the material is probably more appropriate in the Who is a Jew? article.  What do you think Zain?


 * Jmabel made some modifications to Who is a Jew? that address some of these issues about Jewish identity, and the fact that the Jewish ethnicity/nationhood is more than just genetic descent. I think that this matter has been successfully addressed. --Goodoldpolonius2 16:57, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

How about Albright
In simple. Should I add Albright in famous jews section? Zain 20:24, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Certainly not. We already list the most famous Jewish U.S. Secretary of State, Henry Kissinger, and he is much more clearly Jewish than Albright. To the best of my knowledge, everyone on the list now unambiguously had significant ties to Jewish ethnicity (and, in some cases, religion). None of these people simply incidentally had Jewish ancestry. All of these people either had deeply Jewish roots or had important impacts on the Jewish community or on public perception of the Jewish community; in most cases, all of these apply. None of these apply to Albright. Or to John Kerry, not matrilineally descended, but half Jewish by ancestry, which means that if he wanted to he could claim Israeli citizenship under the Law of Return.
 * We had a go-round a while back about adding Jesus to the list. I still think he belongs there (profoundly Jewish upbringing, profound effect on public perception of Jewry), but I let the matter drop when it was clear there was no consensus to add him, and suggest you do the same over the much less significant matter of Ms. Albright. -- Jmabel | Talk 20:58, Dec 30, 2004 (UTC)
 * There seem to be mixed messages here. AFAIK Albright is completely Jewish by Jewish law, having unbroken matrilineal descent, even though she didn't know she was Jewish. But how do you eliminate her and include Kerry? Kerry has no matrilineal descent at all in Judaism, and didn't know he had any "Jewish blood" at all until he was well into adulthood. It seems he only became a "Jew of Convenience" in some people's eyes when it enhanced his political fortunes. Just to put in my 2c on Jesus, he is so Jewish it is ridiculous not to include him, and it would be a counter to the many beliefs of many Christians who were brought up believing Jesus wasn't, or that he had somehow "converted" to Christianity&mdash;Jesus didn't even found the religion, his followers did. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 04:49, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Let me clarify: Albright, unlike Kerry, is a Jew under halakha. Albright, like Kerry, would be eligible for Israeli citizenship if either wanted it. And Albright, like Kerry, would be an inappropriate inclusion in this article, for the reasons given above. And I agree wiht you on Jesus, but others objected to the inclusion in short list of famous Jews in this article, and I don't really care enough to fight over it. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:26, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC)
 * Jesus is iffy because he's possibly mythical; the list sticks to 12th century Jews and later, who are well attested. Jayjg |  (Talk)  20:35, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Although...even if he's mythical, he's still a quite famous Jew : ) Anyway, this list is just a random sampling; I'm not sure why any have to be listed here at all, why not just reference the bigger list at List of Jews.  --MPerel 20:44, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC)
 * Moses and David and Solomon are pretty famous too, I don't see them in the article. Jayjg |  (Talk)  06:11, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

And this is not all. The link to 'main article' in famous jews, refers to List of Jews which includes Albright! This article should clearly mention that, people who might have jewish descent but are affiliated with religions other then judism, are not discussed in this article or this article may get POV banner. Zain 20:16, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * POV banner? Seriously? Zain, people have spent a lot of time answering your questions and trying to explain the reasoning behind Jewish ethnicity being related to more than blood and descent.  The only reason I see you continuing to push this point so hard is because you really want to link non-Jewish Jews to your theory that all Middle Easterners are related to the Jews, and therefore Jewish by matrilinial descent, and therefore all have equal claim to Israel.  You are welcome to your opinions, but I don't think any credible source supports this approach to ethnicity, and really would like to avoid having this article politicized as part of the Middle Eastern debate.  Besides, "non-Jewish Jews" are discussed, in the article Who is a Jew?, so your objection doesn't even make sense - note that the main article does not even talk about any definition of Jewishness, it is all relegated to the Who is a Jew? article. Goodoldpolonius2 00:10, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I can't understand why my 'good faith' is again and again rejected here. I didn't even made a single edit! For further clarification please note that


 * 1) I have not asked for mentioning pushtoons.
 * 2) Even on this talk page. I have not even mentioned any relation between Palestinian or Jews.
 * 3) In any place else where I mentioned. I added that it is my very personal theory and I don't think that it deserves any place in any article of wikipedia.

I have only asked that this article should mention that, these people are not listed in this article and why (mary, christ etc). Zain 20:39, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)