Talk:Jews/Archive 13

Alleged Holocaust
I have recently been replacing the word holocaust with "alleged holocaust", which seems to have resulted in this page being protected from further editing. For the sake of the other wikipedians I will refrain from making anymore changes now to this page even if the protection is lifted.

I believe there is still far too much uncertainty over the holocaust as it's being presented. The Institute for Historical Review has presented plenty of information that debunks the holocaust theory. Please see [ Institute of Historical Review website].

In my opinion there is not enough evidence to prove it one way or the other. That being the case, it should not be refered to without some question. NSM88 10:55, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * The rules of neutral point of view states that minority views are represented according to their prevalence. The_Holocaust discusses holocaust revisionism and denial. David.Monniaux 11:09, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Major recent anonymous additions and changes
There have been some major recent anonymous additions and changes. They offhand don't look all good or all bad. I'd be a lot more comfortable if some known reasonably expert individual would look through these, revert (or bring to talk) anything they think is wrong, and endorse the rest. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:19, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)


 * I started trying to do just that, but more keeps getting added. Most of the changes are so-so, a few are good, and a few are mediocre.  In general, in my opinion nothing critical would be lost by a revert, but someone should go through in detail instead, as you suggested.  If nobody will, it might be better to revert and then re-add as needed.  I also left a message on the talk page of the anonymous user, though I don't expect a reply.  --Goodoldpolonius2 04:13, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree with polonius; some good, some bad, and ideally should be gone through in detail. I'm highly skeptical of the etymology changes. Jayjg (talk)  16:33, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Usage of the word "Jew"
Goodoldpolonius added this usage note to the page:
 * Usage note: In English, the word "Jew" has been used often enough in a disparaging manner by anti-Semites that even today some people are wary of its use. In many contexts the word "Jewish" is preferred when appropriate; thus "She is Jewish" rather than "She is a Jew."  When used as an adjective (e.g. "Jew lawyer") or verb (e.g. "to Jew someone"), the term "Jew" is always considered offensive.

However, the Usage Note at Jew of The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition, 2000, says something different:
 * It is widely recognized that the attributive use of the noun Jew, in phrases such as Jew lawyer or Jew ethics, is both vulgar and highly offensive. In such contexts Jewish is the only acceptable possibility. Some people, however, have become so wary of this construction that they have extended the stigma to any use of Jew as a noun, a practice that carries risks of its own. In a sentence such as There are now several Jews on the council, which is unobjectionable, the substitution of a circumlocution like Jewish people or persons of Jewish background may in itself cause offense for seeming to imply that Jew has a negative connotation when used as a noun.

I think the note by Goodoldpolonius2 strays, in fact, into this territory, of implying that any use of the word "Jew" is offensive, and that therefore people should use circumlocutions like "Jewish person", which is in itself offensive. Jayjg (talk) 03:06, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. I still think a usage note is useful though - I saw a lot of Talk messages misusing "Jew" and causing offense -- "Jew politics".  If you think of a better way to do it (maybe just the adjective or verb warning?), we should include it.  --Goodoldpolonius2 03:44, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * How about The word "Jew" is a noun. Its use as an adjective (e.g. "Jew lawyer") or verb (e.g. "to Jew someone") is offensive, and there "Jewish" is the only acceptable possibility.  However, when used as a noun (e.g. "He is a Jew"), circumlocutions like "Jewish person" can be seen as offensive, and "Jew" is preferred. Jayjg (talk)  23:41, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Good, I like it. --Goodoldpolonius2 22:12, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * O.K., trying it out. Jayjg (talk) 15:52, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

In my (non-Jewish) experience, it still seems to me that "Jewish" is preferred to "Jew" where no circumlocutions are necessary. Observe, for instance, the common question, "Are you Jewish?", never "Are you a Jew?", which I think might very well be considered offensive. "Are you a Jewish person?" would be odd usage indeed. NTK 14:16, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I think few Jews would take offense at "Are you a Jew?", unless it were asked as an accusation rather than as an innocent inquiry. That said, I have heard "Are you a Jewish person?", and while I don't find it offensive, I find it unspeakably ridiculous.  Tomer TALK  06:11, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

I agree with NTK. You can't have your cake and eat it too. If you're going to be offended by a phrase like "jew politics," then it's hypocritical to be offended by circumlocutions that imply you would be offended by the word "jew." Anyway, people are typically more offended by "jew" then circumlocutions. So in my everday speach, I always avoid the word "jew." I also avoid the world "black." I would prefer "people of jewish descent" and "people of color/african descent," to "jew" or "black." So far no one has gotten offended by the almost fanatical political correctness all American's must hold to. Except of course the people that are forced do use it, but we're talking about offending those the circumlocutions refer to of course. And that would be people of jewish or african descent, since political correctness doesn't seem to apply to us "yellows." (anon, 9 Apr 05)
 * Perhaps I depart a bit from the educated hypersensitive norm in this area...I call black people "black" on the rare occasion that it is for some reason necessary to specify a person's color. I also call, in such rare instances as it is necessary to refer to "yellows", which I assume are Chinese, Japanese, Koreans, Thai, Vietnamese, Shinlung, etc., basically Old World peoples w/ epicanthic folds, as "orientals", instead of the ridiculous newspeak "Asians".  As for political correctness not seeming to apply to orientals, that's just as untrue as saying that it doesn't apply to Jews.  Personally, I'd like to see anyone who adheres to PC-speak banished to France, but that's not likely to happen anytime soon.  Meanwhile, I think that if you let common decency and common sense serve as your guideline for what is acceptable to say, you'll do alright, even if you inadvertently offend someone in the process.  That's one reason God gave us the ability to apologize--sometimes we screw up.  Tomer TALK  06:11, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)


 * Um, I don't know where you live, but "Oriental" is very offensive, at least as offensive and retrograde as "Negro" or "Hebrew." What the heck is "newspeak" about "Asian"?  It's the continent of a person's ancestry, just as Africa is the content that African (with or without the appropriate hyphenation) people of color are from.  If you can't tell whether someone is Chinese/Japanese/Korean from their name and appearance, then "Asian" is the appropriate delineator for that person's ethnicity. NTK 06:29, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * None of which has anything to do with the subject at hand. Let's try to stick with the subject matter of this particular article on its talk page.  Tomer TALK  13:30, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

Hasdrubal's changes
Hasdrubal, why not discuss changes here first? Jayjg (talk) 23:37, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Oh, and if you're offended by unsourced claims, you shouldn't make your own (regarding many converts to Reform Judaism, for example). Jayjg (talk) 23:44, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree with your deletion of that comment (I said "substantial", rather than "many", but still) - it came out of a somewhat clumsy reformulation of something else.

I disagree with the bulk of Hasdrubal's changes. I suggest that we discuss them one by one. In particular, I notice that there in no longer anything in the article to indicate that Jewish ethnic identity is traditional based on matrilineal descent, which seems to me like a stunning omission. -- 03:40, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * I see that this last issue has been remedied by a recent edit. I still think we should look at these one by one, though. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:04, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree, but I really wanted to make the revert to the begining since there was no good reason for removing matrilineal descent of the term nation -- both critically important. Lets go through the other changes step by step.  Any thoughts.  --Goodoldpolonius2 04:13, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Jmabel -- I agree that this is an important issue; note, though, that (a) it is treated in full in the Who is a Jew? article, as well as the article on matrilineal descent; (b) my objection was to have it be part of the definition. In my view, a definition should state *what* is a Jew, not *who* is a Jew.
 * The issue of what criteria there are to determine membership belongs later. Note also that (1) the statement that "Jew" can be used to

refer either to the adherents of a religion or to members of an ethnic group does not run counter to anything in any branch of Judaism, and, in fact, coincides with the traditional distinction between an Israelite and a Jew; (2) the statement that a Jew is a child of a Jewish mother is an incomplete description of the traditional Rabbinic criterion, as it omits converts as well as, so to speak, the base case for recursion (namely, that the first Jews were those who accepted the covenant at Sinai). Hasdrubal 01:16, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Talmud Eretz Israel - Sephardim
The claim about the supposed descent of Sephardim from followers of the Palestinian Talmud is completely new to me, and very surprising. For one thing, halakha follows the Bavli in Sephardic communities. Could whoever made that claim please give some sources. Otherwise, I feel the claim ought to be deleted. Hasdrubal 23:58, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * If you read the section, you would have seen the claim was the exact opposite, that Ashkenazi traditions descended in part from the Yerushalmi. Jayjg (talk) 00:35, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Awful sentence
Who is going to do something about the sentence "Many empires and rulers have sought to "liquidate" the Jews through wars of destruction, extinction, genocide, expulsions, exiles, and torture."? It sounds really stupid. You can't "liquidate" a people by torture. "Extinction" is a symptom, not an action. And only the Holocaust matches "sought to liquidate the Jews" amongst the events listed afterwards. --Zero 23:47, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm with Zero here. Can someone propose an alternative? -- Jmabel | Talk 00:57, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)


 * "Throughout history, many rulers, empires and nations have sought to either eliminate their Jewish population or diminish its influence. Methods employed have ranged from expulsion to outright genocide; within nations, often the threat of these extreme methods was sufficient to silence dissent."  Just an idea; feel free to edit or change.  Antandrus 01:07, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm not keen on "diminish its influence", that's treading awfully close to "Protocol" territory. How about "Throughout history, many rulers, empires and nations have oppressed their Jewish populations, or sought to eliminate them entirely.  Methods employed have ranged from expulsion to outright genocide; within nations, often the threat of these extreme methods was sufficient to silence dissent." Jayjg (talk)  17:09, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * That's an improvement over my version. Put it in? Antandrus 17:13, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, it's fine with me, obviously. :-) Jayjg (talk) 17:19, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Personally, I think "oppress" has been dimished as a word through overuse almost to a point of cliche.  People even find it a little whine-y.  I recommend "suppress." (anon 9 April 2005)

Michael Howard
Does Michael Howard really deserve a mention? Not exactly a household word outside of the UK. -- Jmabel | Talk 16:49, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)

Iran
The newly added claim of 25,000 Jews in Iran should have a citation. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:17, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)


 * I see it here, though I have no idea how accurate these figures are. The link on the page to the alleged source (the World Jewish Congress site in Israel) fails to resolve. Antandrus 23:26, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Elsewhere on the JVL, it lists 11,000, and this site lists 11,200. --Goodoldpolonius2 23:40, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * The higher estimate is significantly older than the lower one. I think the number should be changed to 11,000. Jayjg (talk)  04:09, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * I think that's reasonable. I changed it; considering what the current situation in Iran is like, I doubt the Jewish population has more than doubled since 2003. Antandrus 04:26, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * The anon changed it back again to 25,000. I left a note on his/her talk page  ( User_talk:134.130.54.14 ) to come here and give the source.  Antandrus 15:52, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * I've changed it back, pending a source. Jayjg (talk) 17:03, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Usage note
The last sentence (Conversely, when used as a noun (e.g. "He is a Jew"), circumlocutions like "Jewish person" can be seen as offensive, and "Jew" is preferred.)is confusing because the example given does not require circumlocution -- "He is Jewish" is neither wordy or akward. (anon 14 March 2005)
 * But "he is a Jewish person" rather than "He is a Jew" is awkward. Yes, "He is Jewish" is equally acceptable. That's not the example given as being awkward. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:03, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)


 * Can I suggest just deleting that sentence? Since when is "Jewish person" offensive anyway?  It gets over 60,000 Google hits including thousands on Jewish websites.   A (very) quick search for websites claiming that "Jewish person" is offensive only managed to find the opposite (which is just as wrong):   --Zero 07:11, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Aside from being needlessly over-wordy, "Jewish person" is offensive because it implies that the noun "Jew" is somehow an insult or bad thing. I'll repeat the point I brought up in the "Usage of the word Jew" section of the Talk: page, a few sections before this:
 * The Usage Note at Jew of The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition, 2000, says:
 * It is widely recognized that the attributive use of the noun Jew, in phrases such as Jew lawyer or Jew ethics, is both vulgar and highly offensive. In such contexts Jewish is the only acceptable possibility. Some people, however, have become so wary of this construction that they have extended the stigma to any use of Jew as a noun, a practice that carries risks of its own. In a sentence such as There are now several Jews on the council, which is unobjectionable, the substitution of a circumlocution like Jewish people or persons of Jewish background may in itself cause offense for seeming to imply that Jew has a negative connotation when used as a noun.
 * Many Jews find attempts to turn the word "Jew" into a "bad word" offensive. Jayjg (talk) 16:11, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * I think it's ridiculous. It seems like some people spend all their spare time thinking up excuses for being offended.  "Jewish person" is a perfectly ordinary and innocuous English phrase that is no more offensive than "British person".  A look around the web proves overwhelmingly that most people agree. It does not imply anything at all about the word "Jew".   At a minimum, this article should mark the opinion as marginal.  I still think it should get deleted. --Zero 23:54, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * I find your comments highly offensive, and it took me all my spare time to think up that excuse for being offended! ;-) Anyway, I understand your viewpoint, but obviously others disagree, and the American Heritage Dictionary is not a crank source. If arguably not offensive, "Jewish person" is certainly a circumlocution. Jayjg (talk)  00:30, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * It's all a matter of context. "I don't know if there are any Jewish people in that neighborhood" is fine. "The letter was signed by two Protestants, a Catholic, a Jewish person, and a Muslim" sounds like someone has a problem with the word "Jew", and there are a lot of people who would take that as a slight. I'd let it slide myself, but I'd understand why someone was offended. I do think the dictionary's remark that it can be offensive is worthy of mention, and should be cited explicitly. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:04, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)


 * Ok, how about this: Some sources, such as the American Heritage Dictionary, suggest that phrases like "Jewish person" may be offensive if pointedly used to avoid the word "Jew". ? --Zero 10:45, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Fine by me. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:21, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)
 * I like your wording, but the whole reason the section was inserted in the first place by GoodOldPolonius, if I'm not mistaken, was to point out the use of "Jew" as a verb or an adjective is definitely offensive. Shouldn't that part be retained? Jayjg <sup style="color:darkgreen;">(talk)  14:41, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * But of course. I'm only complaining about the sentence that refers to "Jewish people". --Zero 15:31, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * So we keep the first three sentences and change the last? That works for me, and seems less awkward. Good job, Zero.   --Goodoldpolonius2 16:36, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I fail to understand the argument either way for italics or not with the usage note. Personally, I only find the use of "Jew" as an adjective to be offensive if used by someone who is using it in a way that's openly hostile toward Jews. But, that's me. The sniping about putting this paragraph in parentheses as "shrill" however, is equally offensive. To put it in non-italic face would be grand in the wiktionary, but since the definition of a word rarely includes delimiting what the word does not mean, nor notes on its use as other parts of speech, this is an important point that (a) given the frequency with which this article is viewed on a daily basis, should appear early on in the article, unfortunately it probably (b) should be the final part of the opening of the article and (c) should be noticibly set apart from the definition itself, e.g., by italicizing it. Tomer <sup style="color:#129DBC;">TALK 03:20, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree that the italics are the standard way to go. Pcpcpc makes a pointed argument that they sound obnoxious when I put the question to him on his Talk Pages.  Is he the only one who holds this opinion? --Goodoldpolonius2 15:33, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * I reread my statement, and today it sounds ridiculous...I started saying one thing, and then changed it, but neglected to change the whole thing. :-)  Oh well.  What I was originally going to say yesterday was that I fail to understand why italics are "shrill", and propose that perhaps people who oppose the usage note as part of the opening, or who oppose its italicization, would be happier with an opening sentence or two (what now comprises the first paragraph of the article), and then making a new first section to the article, Meaning of the word "Jew" or Meaning and Usage of the word "Jew", which includes the brief discussion of peoplehood/nationness and concludes with a non-italicized and unintroduced paragraph containing what is now the "Usage note"...or perhaps retaining the first two paragraphs where they are, and making a new initial section Usage of the word "Jew".  I get awfully sick of non-Jews (and this is also coming from rereading some of the other sections of this Talk page, as well as real-life experience) who insist that Jews have a persecution complex (which some do, but that's not the point), and cite that as a reason for their own dislike of Jews, without bothering to think about the fact that their own stupidity, i.e., in making such statements, validate and perpetuate the persecution complex they belittle Jews for having.  Tomer <sup style="color:#129DBC;">TALK  21:38, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)

Question about the term
I read this article and I still have a question about the term. Now, as I always understood it, "Jew" can be used to describe someone who is part of the Jewish ethnic group, or a follower of the Jewish faith (or both). Now, I understand that the according to whatever religious writings there are, matrilineal descent is required for you to be a Jew. However, that seems to me to be a religious "rule" about Jewish descent. Ethnically and genetically speaking, wouldn't a person who had a Jewish father but a Jewish mother be "half Jewish" since part of his "blood" comes from Jewish ethnicity? Or does the father's ethnicity get disreguarded in that case? Is it term "Jew" mean what it means because originally the religion was so intertwined with the culture and identity that it's not really considered an ethnicity per se, but a religious based ethnicity?

I was thinking about the question because I know someone who has a Jewish father and a Russian mother. Does that make that person 100% Russian?
 * According to Jewish law, it makes the person 100% not Jewish. Jayjg <sup style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 01:31, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, that's what I was wondering about. According to Jewish law, the person is 100% not Jewish. But what about from a purely non-religious, genetic perspective? Wouldn't it be incorrect to say the person is not Jewish at all? Or can the term "Jew" not be used when dealing with a non-religious perspective? 65.161.65.104 02:34, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * You're perhaps confusing race, ethnicity, and religion. Someone born to a Jewish mother is a Jew, regardless of whether they practise or not, according to Jewish law. What that says is that this person is connected to a collective past: a set of traditions, a culture, and a nation. People of many different racial categories are Jews. SlimVirgin 02:49, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)


 * Alternately, you could say the person is, according to Conservative and Orthodox traditions, non-Jewish. According to Reform traditions, he would be Jewish.  In a general secular sense, he would have the right to claim he was Jewish if he had some sort of active connection to the Jewish people and traditions, secular or religious.  The genetic perspective doesn't make a lot of sense because Jewish is not a religious or genetic trait, it is an ethnic and religious identity.  --Goodoldpolonius2 03:08, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * More accurately, according to the Reform view ("tradition" is a bit too strong a word for a view that new), he "might" be Jewish, depending on whether on not he was "raised as a Jew". Jayjg <sup style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 03:53, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Of course, Conservatism is newer than Reform, so "Conservative traditions" might also be too strong a term (not that you used it). As for the comment below - "half Jewish" is not necessarily a modern European concept alone; for Philo of Alexandria, the child of a Jewish or a non-Jewish parent (whichever way) is a nothos, or half-breed. Hasdrubal 23:38, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Colloquially, in terms having nothing to do with Jewish law but with the traditions of European culture, the person in question is "half Jewish". Many people identify this way, and most people with no Jewish background are utterly unconcerned with Jewish law and consider them so.


 * Halakha, of course, doesn't recognize such a concept: it says you are either Jewish or your not. Thus a particular female relative of mine, whose father is Norwegian and whose maternal grandfather is Scottish, is considered Jewish because her matrilineal descent is Jewish. And, under Halakha, her children will necessarily be Jewish as well! Conversely, a particular friend with a Jewish father and an Italian mother had to formally go through conversion to be considered a Jew.


 * Another ethnic group with similar rules are the Pashtun, who consider only patrilineal descent. Unlike Jews, they have no established method of conversion to join their ethnicity.


 * You may find further relevant discussion in Who is a Jew? -- Jmabel | Talk 06:11, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the information, I'll try to read over it and make sense of it. Maybe I got confused because of the way the Soviet Union classified Jews. I believe I read that on Soviet passports, Jew was treated like an ethnicity. Under the "Ethnicity" section, you could have anything like "Russian", "Ukrainian", "Latvian", or "Jewish". So it was my belief that the term "Jew" could be used to describe an ethnicity like any other ethnicity, and that the term was used completely outside of the religious realm (and thus, "blood" could be passed down so you could be 1/2 or 1/4 Jewish). In fact, I believe I've heard some Russians refer to themselves as being half-Russian/half-Jewish, perhaps for the reason I mentioned before. This CNN review uses that terminology, for example.


 * So I guess that's where my confusion came in, I've heard it described simply as an ethnicity in addition to a "ethnic and religious identity" 65.161.65.104 06:45, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Pretty much the same in countries such as the U.S. where it isn't a legal issue. Again, Halakha is reasonably clear, but we are not living in societies run by Halakha. A much more modern model of ethnicity tends to supersede it in common parlance. -- Jmabel | Talk 18:47, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)


 * I think someone who knows about this aspect should add this information to the "Jew" and "Who is a Jew" pages. I think the use of Jew in that way is significant enough to have something about it written in those pages. 65.161.65.104 21:32, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * It's pretty much there at Who_is_a_Jew?. If you feel something is missing, feel free to add it; if you're not sure quite what should be added, but can explain what you think is missing, I suggest taking it to the talk page of that article: it's beyond the scope of this one. -- Jmabel | Talk 22:28, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)

Incidentally - I may have made this point before and not have got a reply - it seems to me that descent rules belong entirely in the Who is a Jew? section, rather than in the first sentence of this article. First of all, What is a Jew? and Who is a Jew? are two different questions; in the first sentence, it seems, we are trying to answer the first one. The answers given sometimes overlap because they have to (a follower of the Jewish faith may also be a member of the Jewish ethnicity, and generally is) but, in the case of this issue, they overlap because they address different issues: a child of a Jewish mother is, for the Orthodox and the Conservative, automatically a member of the Jewish people (or "ethnicity"). Note that a simple sentence stating that "Jew" refers either to a follower of the Jewish faith or a member of the Jewish ethnicity (or "a member of the Jewish people", or, as in the current version, "someone of Jewish descent with a connection to Jewish culture or ethnicity") would fit in neatly, not just with the current usage of the term, but also with a dichotomy drawn traditionally (between an Israelite and a Jew proper: an apostate is still an Israelite, but no longer a Jew).

Note also that if we are including descent criteria in the definition (as opposed to a separate article and/or a separate section), we should probably include all descent criteria of all subgroups of importance in history (including not only today's Reform and Reconstructionist Jews, but also Karaites, Hellenistic Jews, ancient Israelites,...). That would get a little long, at that place.

Lastly, the phrase included in the definition is not even an accurate and full representation of the Orthodox position. By halakha, as we all know, somebody is a Jew either if his/her mother is Jewish *or* if he/she underwent a halakhic conversion; we would have to include the full criterion - especially given that a backsliding convert, though no longer a follower of the Jewish faith, is still, according to halakha, an Israelite, or member of the Jewish people. Note, moreover, that this is a *criterion* for membership, not a definition of what the person in question is or is not a member of: this is what makes it different from, let us say, a criterion for being or not being an Antartican or an alien entity. Even if we wanted a purely formal definition, the given criterion (as stated above or in the current text) would by itself be insufficient, and indeed meaningless as a definition: we would have induction (or recursion) without a base case. The full answer of "Who is a Jew?" according to halakha is as follows: a Jew is someone who stood at Sinai, or a matrilineal descendant thereof, or a convert to halakhic Judaism. If there is no reference to Sinai, there is no formal definition.

In conclusion: it seems to me to be best to have the definition say simply that "Jew" is a label sometimes used to refer to followers of a religion, or (with a large overlap) to members of a people/members of an ethnic group/participants in a culture/what have you. I think the current first sentence would do nicely, if the phrase on descent were moved to a point later in the article (or left entirely to "Who is a Jew?", though on that I have no preference) and if, perhaps, "people" were added to ethnicity or culture, so as to match more closely with the traditional dichotomy drawn above.

As I have learned (and should have guessed), this is a controversial topic here, so I won't make any changes to the first sentence myself now (or on the matter). What is your opinion? Hasdrubal 23:38, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * It seems to me that a specific tradition of matrilineality is unusual enough that it deserves prominent mention in an article on an ethnicity. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:53, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)


 * We are hardly speaking of the only matrilineal descent rule in the world. If a comparison between cultures is the main point, that is best taken care of by a link to Matrilineality. In any case, there are places in the article other than the definition; there are other ways of giving something "prominent mention". Hasdrubal 19:46, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't have a good sense of whether many of the main contributors agree with what I've said above, or disagree and would revert a change, and if so, for what reasons. Please state your opinions below. (It would perhaps be better if somebody else took care of the editing, if any - I will be quite busy this week.) Hasdrubal 15:47, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Matrilineality is unusual, and Judaism is noted for it; I would object to removal of its mention. Jayjg <sup style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 17:13, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Holocaust
Seems to me like we have an awful lot of links to the Holocaust in this article. I count five. I can see an argument for there being more than one, but this seems excessive. Other opinions solicited. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:02, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)
 * O.K., what exactly is the rule for links; I thought you put links in each new section, is that wrong? Jayjg <sup style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 22:44, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * (As I understand it, and someone may correct me if they know just where rules are laid out) there isn't a full set of hard and fast rules, but some are:
 * One doesn't link in titles and headings.
 * Other than that, one links on first mention.
 * Links in tables and picture captions are a separate issue from first mention.


 * Generally one doesn't link twice in the same section, although occasionally that's needed where a link is intended as a disambiguation (e.g. which of two books by the same title or two cities with the same name). Other than that, we may link on first mention in a new section if the term hasn't been used in the last few paragraphs; this is especially valuable for something obscure, where many readers will not know the reference. I don't think the Holocaust is an example of this last; I would certainly link on first mention, but after that only if it is really the focus of the passage in question. No individual link in this article is objectionable; I just think five is a bit much. -- Jmabel | Talk 02:39, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)