Talk:Who is a Jew?/Archive 2

Interesting article I just read
I just read quite an interesting article in the Seattle Weekly, which seems to have some bearing on this topic, because it definitely touches in several respects on situations where U.S. states have had to determine who is considered a Jew. This is particularly an issue in the prison systems. George Howland Jr., The 'Jewish' Con, Seattle Weekly, March 1, 2006. I'm not sure exactly what might be worth bringing into our article, but I think possibly something should be. - Jmabel | Talk 03:48, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * That is an interesting article, but I can't see how it could fit here. What it is really about is separation-of-church-and-state issues in the US; i.e., the state has very limited power to rule on a religion, and though this is a good thing, it invites fraud. This is also a fairly recent development. Until fairly recently, accomodations for religion in the US military were minimal. If an observant Jew or Muslim did not want to eat pork, or was worried that their meat was not Kosher or Halal, they had two choices: eat it or not. -- Cecropia 20:19, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Might a paragraph on this type of thing be a useful addition to the paragraph on liberal societies and the possibility of a person misrepresenting him- or herself? - Jmabel | Talk 19:57, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Another interesting case: Max Baer
Max Baer had a Jewish father, but was raised Roman Catholic, like his mother. However, in the course of his prizefighting career, in a period when ethnicity was very prominent in how fighters were promoted, he was usually treated as a "Jewish" fighter (especially important in his fight with Max Schmeling). It would be interesting for someone to do some research into just how his ethnic identity was discussed at the time: it would probably be a good window into the 1930s U.S. understanding of who was and was not considered a Jew. - Jmabel | Talk 03:55, 7 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Extract rom the New York Times, March 30, 1934:


 * "GERMAN FORBIDS MAX BAER'S FILM; Bans 'Prizefighter and Lady' When Propaganda Ministry Objects to Jewish Star. PICTURE HAD RUN 2 WEEKS Boxer Lays Step to Knockout of Schmeling -- Sorry Women Can't See the 'Greatest Lover.'


 * BERLIN, March 29. -- Nazi Germany, having barred German Jews from the screen and sports, today struck out at Jewish athletes and actors in other lands when it suppressed the further showing of the American film, "The Prizefighter and the Lady," in which Max Baer has the leading role.


 * So Max Baer was Jewish enough for Hitler, but how about Halachic Law? Grotesque, just grotesque. -- Cecropia 07:04, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

don't know how interesting max baer really is; i knew his son (of beverly hill billys fame); while not a raging anti semite he came unconfortably close. ag


 * You're blaming the sins of the son on the father? And makes him boring? -- Cecropia 06:58, 19 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Again, potentially of interest in describing the construction of Jewish identity in liberal societies. - Jmabel | Talk 20:20, 19 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Also consider that whether or not he was "genuinely Jewish" by one or another definition, he boxed wearing a big Mogen Duvid on his trunks, which in that era, was really in your face. It's not like now when ethnicity is prized. -- Cecropia 20:52, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Beit Din/Beth Din
can we get a standardization on this?ThuranX 03:32, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I would favour Beth din. The vowel is a tzereh, but most people pronounce it short. The th is a good choice for a tav without a dagesh. JFW | T@lk  03:38, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
 * As far as the vowel, you favor popular usage (though not necessarily common tradition), whereas you favor th for tav, which is perhaps academically preferable but is far from being a common pronunciation. Why? (Perhaps I misunderstand your position.) HKT 18:07, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I would concur with HKT regarding the reasoning for the split, I.E. - Beit is common pronounciation, esp. in America, whereas Beth might be more a academically proper solution. it might be best to find a satisfactory consensus pronounciation guide. Perhaps the Soncino press books might contain a guide most folks can agree upon? I've got a copy, my conservative cousins have copies, and I've seen Soncino in orthodox hoomes too. Just a thought.ThuranX 04:03, 15 March 2006 (UTC)


 * OK, I'm inconsistent, but so is Google: 574,000 for "beth din" vs 274,000 for "beit din". JFW | T@lk  03:49, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I dispute the neutrality!
I dispute the neutrality of the article "Who is a Jew?"!

This article is clearly written from a denominational Orthodox perspective, biased towards other traditions such as Conservative, Reform and Reconstructive Judaism.

The article says:"Sadly, people like reform Jews and conservative Jews rarely if ever learn Jewish law and have no idea the stuff they are taught is made up by people who also have no knowledge of Jewish law."

This is obviously not appropriate for Wikipedia! [unsigned comment by Xerxes78]


 * I agree, that item should be out, it is both unencylopedic to say "sadly," and makes a significant unsupported and unsourced claim about a very large group of people. -- Cecropia 00:30, 24 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes. Words like "Sadly" are clearly making a judgement, and are as such non-neutral. That should be out. Having just read the article (and as a non-jew who has no particular opinon at all on the subject), I get the opinion that it's fairly neutral overall. However I do agree with Jdcooper's opinion above: I got the feeling that there's a lot of repetition/redundancy. The text could be structured better. (I'm also somewhat disappointed with the arrogant reply said user got. Subject matter and presentation are two completely different things.) --BluePlatypus 00:38, 24 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I was most disappointed that, considering the large numbers of editors who are clearly interested in this article, i received just one response. Having said that, the article is rich in information, and as was pointed out to me has received a lot of work. As you said, it is just presentation, maybe a peer review could be the way to proceed? Jdcooper 15:06, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

It seems no one has considered the viewpoint that, as a religion, Christianity is a (major) sect of Judaism. I, as a Christian, believe Jesus of Nazareth fulfilled the promise of a coming Messiah. The omission of Christianity is an obivious example of "lack of neutrality".Dr. Dale 20:21, 30 October 2006 (UTC)δρ. Δαλε


 * Oh, quite arguably Christianity can be viewed as a Jewish heresy, but that doesn't mean that the Gentiles who adopted the religion thereby became (ethnic) Jews. - Jmabel | Talk 00:33, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not a conversion soapbox for proselytizing the infidels, 'dr' dale. Using it as such is objectionable POV pushing. It is absolutely neutral to NOT acknowledge Christian extremist demands to be seen as Jews, especially since most of christianity goes back to romans nad visigoth conversions and so on, and NOT converted jews. You might as well go to the islam page and demand that that article include that all muslims are christians. Good luck there. ThuranX 02:13, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

sect • noun 1 a group of people with different religious beliefs (typically regarded as heretical) from those of a larger group to which they belong. 2 a group with extreme or dangerous philosophical or political ideas.

— ORIGIN Latin secta ‘following, faction’, from sequi ‘follow’. I didn't mean to imply conversion to Christianity, by Gentile or Jew, changed ethnicity. My "POV" has nothing to do with an attempt at proselytizing or converting anyone. I am contending Christianity came from the Jews, just as the (apostate and heretical) Roman Catholics and Jehova's Witnesses did.

As was stated:

"This article is clearly written from a denominational Orthodox perspective, biased towards other traditions such as Conservative, Reform and Reconstructive Judaism"

Ahh, yes, the traditions of men. Dr. Dale 22:18, 4 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Please refrain from ridiculously provcative commentaries like you used above. It's chidlish and detracts from the overall discussion. You may have noticed there were no replies after your comment was made. I know I chose to ignore you for a while, since agitation ws clearly a part of your agenda. Please focus on the salient issues, and not on cheap shots designed to irritate other editors. You'll find you catach more flies with honey, than with vinegar. ThuranX 16:44, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Unsourced correction
This sentence is incorrect --

"The Nazis, for example, ruled that anyone with one Jewish grandparent was either a Jew or a Mischling, and therefore subject to persecution (see Nuremberg Laws)."

In fact, the Nazi's ruled that anyone with THREE Jewish grandparents (or two Jewish grandparents, if practicing) was considered Jewish. This is from my professor, Dr. Thomas Childers, who had a PhD in history from Harvard and is a specialist on Nazi Germany and World War II. I'm currently working on finding a book which states this fact outright.

Wikipedia seriously needs to improve its quality!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.91.128.44 (talk • contribs) 02:40, 26 March 2006


 * Did you actually go and see the Nuremberg Laws article? It makes it pretty clear: A "Jew" in their definition was someone with three or four Jewish grandparents, as you say. But it only took one to be considered a "Mischling" (mixed-race). Both groups were subject to persecution. Since the article explicitly says "Jew or a Mischling", it is correct. --BluePlatypus 01:40, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Suggest Deleting Saudi Policy
I think the sentence on Saudi policy is pretty far off-topic for an entry on Who is a Jew and would suggest deleting it:

In modern Saudi Arabia, a Jew may not enter the country at all except under extraordinary circumstances.

Additionally, it does not appear to be accurate -- the restriction was placed on Saudi tourist visas, not on all visas, and Saudi business visas are still issued to Jews. But whatever the accuracy of the statement, it does not seem to belong here because the Saudis are simply basing their visa decisions on what the tourist writes on their visa application, which has nothing to do with the "Who is a Jew?" issue.


 * If it is accurate that the Saudis block Jews from visiting, then it begs the question that Jews are not allowed to live in Saudi Arabia. Therefore it is in context with the disability connected with being deemed Jewish, which is the subject of the section. And please sign your posts with ~ -- Cecropia 00:19, 30 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Apologies on failing to sign my post before, that was my first try for a discussion comment.
 * First of all, it is not accurate that Saudis block Jews from entering. Please check "Arabs and Anti-Semitism" under the "Saudi Arabia" section.  Second, it is not the subject of this section, nor is the question of whether Jews are allowed to live in Saudi Arabia.  The section is about how societies with race laws answer the "who is a Jew" question, which is why it is in the "Who is a Jew" entry.  Since the Saudis answer this question by using self-identification by the individual, it's not a useful example.  Either way, since it's not accurate, I would suggest removing it. Rikipedia8 03:48, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Disputed Section tag
"A third controversy concerns those who no longer consider themselves Jewish because they no longer practice Judaism, do not accept or follow Halakha, or now adhere to another religion. Nonetheless, all Jewish denominations would still consider such a person to be a Jew if he otherwise met their definitions."

Really? So someone who becomes a Christian is still considered Jewish by all Jewish denominations?  L i g h t  Orlanu Brecker 06:17, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Reform wouldn't, self-identification is key in that movement, I'm almost positive that Reconstructionist and the newly born Renewal movement wouldn't (for the same reasons)...don't know about the Conservatives... Certain strains of Orthodoxy and Mod-Ox will actively proselytise if a friend or family member should call a convert to another religion (or someone born into another religion within the three generations, as was the case with myself) to their attention. Occasionally in the case of persons born into other religions who are still technically halakhically Jewish, the subjects of such pressure, if they agree to abandon their current religious practises to return to Judaism, are encouraged to go through a "just-in-case" conversion process, whereafter they would not be considered converts rather Baalei Teshuva, or at least meet the ritual hurdles that they in most cases did not fulfill throughout their early life (hatafas dam bris, pidyon haben, et cetera where applicable). Perhaps the section could be modified to include some perspective on Orthodox attempts to retrieve 'lost sheep' on one hand, compared to the Reform holding that persons not born into the Jewish religion, or who abandon it for another are not Jewish, as it creates the interesting position of the Orthodox movement considering certain persons to be Jewish and the Reforms denying that person's Yiddishkeit absent a formal conversion: a break from the norm. Mluther 15:15, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * All of Orthodoxy would consider such a person Jewish. And what you describe as "a 'just-in-case' conversion process" is not that at all. If someone is known to possess matrilineal descent, he/she wouldn't require any "process" at all. However, it is considered proper to immerse in a mikvah as part of a repentance process. Also, IIRC, "hatafas dam bris" is only required where a male never underwent that ritual aspect of circumcision (but I'm not sure - perhaps you are correct about this point. Nevertheless, it certainly wouldn't be done as part of a conversion process; if this is done as part of a repentance process, it wouldn't be considered necessary, only proper). HKT 18:19, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I realise that all of Orthodoxy would consider that person Jewish. My point was that according to some Reform doctrines with regard to whether a person has been raised Jewish, it is possible for a person considered Jewish by the Orthodox to be considered not Jewish by the Reforms, absent formal conversion.  What I meant by "just-in-case conversion process" is that essentially, for those of us who were not raised Jewish, but are Halakhically Jewish, the process of Teshuvah we're encouraged to go through and making up for ritual hurdles we did not pass early in life (as I said, where applicable) can be supervised by a beis din, and often generally follows the formal conversion process quite closely.  This is especially true if such a BT wishes to marry. Mluther 20:00, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Eggs and yolks
From "Perspectives - Within the Jewish Community" (placed by an anon):


 * Ultimately, according to Halakha, a Jew is anyone who has the yoke of Torah. That yoke is acquired in two ways; either by being born of a woman who already has the yoke, or by taking on the yoke voluntarily, i.e. conversion. It is for this reason a baby donated as an egg or as an embryo, by a non-Jewish woman, is birthed by a Jewish woman as a Jew and does not require conversion. This clarification dispels the idea that Jewishness is genetic or ethnic. It has its basis in Torah. Therefore it is impossible to reject Torah and continue to define one as a Jew. [my emphasis]

Excuse me, that is sick and though I am not religiously qualified to say it, seems to me to approach blasphemy. Can we back that up with reserch, and if we can, now we have learned sages deciding that Torah specifices that the Biblically-unknown and unnatural medical practice of egg- or fetus-implantation makes the baby automatically Jewish, even if the natural mother was not? Then this is used as "proof" that Jewishness is not "genetic or ethnic." I'm removing this portion without direct attribution. -- Cecropia 20:36, 8 April 2006 (UTC)


 * On second reading, I removed the entire paragraph. No citation for any of it, and the conclusion that "Therefore it is impossible to reject Torah and continue to define one as a Jew" makes every non-practicing Jew a heathen. -- Cecropia 20:40, 8 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Hello, viewpoints have in fact been published by halakhic scholars arguing that Jewishness is established by being born from the womb of a Jewish woman as distinct from having the genes of a Jewish woman where a distinction between the two exists, and have suggested implications for surrogacy etc. I wouldn't think it encyclopedic either to draw sweeping conclusions from the somewhat techical arguments behind these perspectives, nor to characterize them as "sick" etc. Best, --Shirahadasha 04:47, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Lead paragraph
All,

I think we can improve the lead paragraph. Right now, the lead is very generic, basically stating that the debate centers around the definition of a Jew, without going into what is being debated. The first section following the lead, however, is very specific, diving into the details of one of the aspects of the debate and using specialized terminology.

I'll attempt to edit the lead paragraph to:
 * 1) briefly summarize the most important points of the debate, so that the lead could stand on its own as a concise version of the article,
 * 2) avoid using specialized terms such as halakha, to make the text be accessible to a non-specialist.

Please, bear with me - it is not my intention to step on anyone's toes or to ignore anyone's perspectives, Ok?

-- CommonGround 15:18, 11 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Common, Wikipedia style is to make the opening paragraph as short and succinct as possible ("this is what this thing is or this is what we are taking about"). I'm not disagreeing with your idea, but if it is done, it should be put in a subhed immediately under the opening paragraph, like ==Overview of the debate==, and therefore under the TOC. I think a major problem of summarizing the points of the debate are that the question "Who is a Jew?" has too many different perspectives. The major center of the debate might be the Israeli one, because this is where it has both religious and secular legal meaning. But the article is too broad for this. -- Cecropia 15:29, 11 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Cecropia,
 * I actually took the content above from the Wikipedia guide to lead sections. :)
 * -- CommonGround 15:49, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I took a first stab at it. As Cecropia pointed out, there are too many perspectives in this debate to try and cram them into the lead section. So, instead of outlining different perspectives, I attempted to ouline the points of contention. It appears that there are only three major ones (parentage, conversions, and exceptions from the rule), unless I missed some... --CommonGround 15:52, 11 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I like what you did there, but it leaves out one important part of any debate that goes beyond simple religious judgment: outside identification of who a Jew is. Nazi Germany certainly didn't have the right to decide who was a Jew religiously, but then they didn't care either. A Jewish mother or a Jewish father created a half-Jew, as far as they were concerned. This was obviously of more than academic interest. It makes one wonder how the child of a Jewish father and a Gentile mother fleeing Nazi Germany would have been treated under Israel's current law, had Israel existed at the time. Was Karl Marx Jewish? Raised Catholic, a committed atheist, oftened cited as proof that Communism was yet another "Jewish plot." And he was definitely Jewish by Jewish law. And how about Madeline Albright?


 * If we are delinating the argument in the opening paragraph, we need to include this issue in some way. -- Cecropia 16:48, 11 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I think you are right - it needs to be made clear that these questions are tackled not only within the Jewish community, but also by outside parties trying to understand and/or regulate it.
 * As far as the other questions you've raised, I think they all focus on the identified points of contention:
 * Nazi "scientists" focused quite extensively on the "mixed parentage" question, trying to figure out whether a person with one Jewish grandfather on one side and one Jewish great grandfather on the other side should be categorized as Jewish. So, I think we have them covered under those concerned with the mixed parentage debate.
 * Karl Marx / Albright question is the essense of the life circumstances question: does conversion (Karl Marx), or being unaware of Jewish parentage (Albright), or other life choices or circumstances affect ones standing as a Jew? So, I think we have Marx and Albright covered under life circumstances debate.
 * I'll edit the lead to reflect that these are not just religious questions internal to Jewish community, per your advice. --CommonGround 17:30, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Restructuring the article
It looks like there is quite a lot of duplicate content in the article; the halakhic definitions and Reform and Orthodox positions seem to be stated and restated many times, for example. I suggest reorganizing the article by points of contention:
 * 1) Mixed Parentage debate
 * 2) Religious positions
 * 3) Reform
 * 4) Conservative
 * 5) Orthodox
 * 6) etc.
 * 7) Secular positions
 * 8) Conversions debate
 * 9) Life circumstances debate
 * 1) Life circumstances debate
 * 1) Life circumstances debate

Thoughts? --CommonGround 21:50, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
 * it makes more sense to me to order "Religious posistions" orthodox, conservative reform. Moving from the most convervative postions to the most liberal.  ie every step adding who is considered a jew according to some opinion, not excluding people from being jews.  Jon513 13:34, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Sincerity of Belief
I think we really ought to add a section representing the "sincerity of belief" school of thought. This is the standard which the U.S goverment follows with regard to religion. Moreover, it is the standard that is most often applied in the secular world. Hazel Rah 03:17, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't know about the appropriateness of that, because it has no place in most Jewish traditions, and who is qualified to judge sincerity? In the secular world ordinary people being introduced to someone in a context where they would know the person is supposed to be a Jew, or a Muslim, or a Baptist, or whatever, would not worry about the person's sincerity of belief. The U.S. Government has very little power to determine sincerity of belief, largely because the separation of church and state doctrine doesn't empower the government to decide whose religious expression is sincere and whose isn't except in rare cases. There was recently an article which described prisons in which apparently non-Jewish prisoners (by most religious or secular standards) were claiming to be Jewish, thereby receiving Kosher meals and the ability to attend worship together, with some very odd outcomes (especially since some white supremicists formed "Jewish" congregations); but when prison officials used a knowledgeable rabbi who specialized in these things to decide who was a Jew and who was not, it was more often than not knocked down in court. And, to be honest, I think the government has broad latitude to regulate prisoner's behavior and rights, but no power to determine the sincerity of one's religious beliefs. -- Cecropia 04:08, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


 * As for in Jewish religion, as far as I can tell that's basically the standard used by Humanistic Judaism althouth they don't use that exact phrasing. You can check on their website. I never mentioned anything about who is qualified to judge sincerity of belief. You brought that up. But my point is that in the secular world, both among jews and non-jews, most take the a person's claim to jewishness at face value as long as they think the person is being sincere. Hazel Rah 23:22, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I think that's covered in the "In liberal secular societies" section. I'm not really sure what the "sincerity of belief" school thinks or how organized it is. I know you didn't mention "who is qualified to judge sincerity of belief" but this is an article about "Who is a Jew?" so the question of judging a person's sincerity is implicit. -- Cecropia 02:51, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

French Jews in Somerset?
I removed this, posted by an anon:
 * Typically, Jews who denied their racial heritage during the Second World War ([WW2]) were expulsed from France and settled in Somerset, in the south of England. For fear of further persecution, they continued to deny their heritage and any mention of their past was strictly taboo, especially to the next generation. This created a generation of mis-informed youth that remain ignorant to their past, however many clues exist, the most obvious of which are in the lexicographers' historical database of surnames, which includes Rotherman, Schluter, and Goldschmidt as the most common in the period 1943-1952.

This is going to require some direct citation. I can't find this on Google and it doesn't sound, ummm, Kosher. During WWII France expelled Jews who denied they were Jews to England? A country they were technically at war with? How? And the fate of Jews, denied or not, in France during WWII was not to get to go to England. -- Cecropia 16:00, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

A Jew is a Jew is a Jew!
Modern genetics prove beyond any doubt that being Jewish is an ethnicity. If you have Taysachs, you already know this. Your religion may be a matter of choice but not your ethnicity. For example, General Wesley Clark is of Jewish origin as his father was ethnically a Jew.

This is not to deny others who identify themselves as Jewish by virtue of conversion, self-identification, or buying lox at the corner deli (in some cases these folks speak more Yiddish and know more about Judaism than most Americans Jewish by ethnicity only). -- 68.127.168.113 01:10, 13 May 2006


 * So if I speak Latin and carry a scepter, that makes me the pope? --Eliyak 05:40, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Please show me the scientific study that demonstrates how converting to Judaism changes people's genes. What exactly is the biological mechanism that makes this occur? --Shirahadasha 23:05, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Since I don't know the reasons for the comments made, I won't say "what they mean to say is..." since (as I said) I don't really know. The reference to Tay-Sachs is right, however; Bernard Sachs discovered that Ashkenazi Jews have a prevalence to the disorder. Being an Ashkenazi Jew means you carry certain genetic markers I should think (not being a geneticist, I can only speak of the research findings, not their reasons), though an Ashkenazi Jew could convert to Hinduism if he or she wanted, that's not the point. Nor is speaking Latin - Roman Catholicism isn't an "ethnicity" (poorly defined in the article, by the way), though Jewishness is. It is also, however, a chosen religious preference (hence the traditional definition "born of a Jewish mother or a convert to the religion" - though if my Anglo-Saxon-Scots-Irish daughter converts to Judaism, and then has a child, the child's Jewishness, or not, is no longer an "ethnic" matter but one of religion... even if that child grows up and becomes, say, a Jain. Fun, no?) Naturally, converting to Judaism doesn't change genes (I'm pretty sure this wasn't the claim they were making, but who knows, people are crazy). Anyway, the reticence to use language such as "race" or "ethnic" or somesuch is understandable - to use the words "Jewish" and "genetics" in the same sentence is apt to carry harsh associations for many. And of course many would like to be able to somehow "biologically identify" a Jew so as to be able to, ahem, deal with them. Bad stuff. So the debate rages on, Who is Jewish? Can you be "racially" Jewish (is there such a thing? It is better to say "ethnic" which has a different meaning?), or is it just a religion (which version, which observance, etc)? This is why the article is here, after all. I am going to be charitable and suggest that all the OP meant was that of course there is something called being "genetically Jewish" but that the definition and debate is wider than that (since the OP didn't say something like "Why else do you think they all have big noses" I will assume that the comment was made constructively and not hatefully). Anyway, have fun, this isn't a normal article for me to watch, I was clicking around and ended up here (I think I started at the Little Ivies entry - talk about six degrees of separation....) 85.125.231.237 00:31, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Um, I am registered and have a name (and I am signed in), why won't it show up when I type the tildes? Anyway, didn't mean to leave it unsigned... or rather, I did sign it, but it's not there. Sorry. 85.125.231.237 00:31, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm... still doing it, and I am signed in. Anyway, a few clicks brought me to the Chicago Center for Jewish Genetic Disorders, which has this to say about Jews as a racial/ethnic group: "The Jewish genetic disorders are a group of conditions which are unusually common among Jews of eastern European (Ashkenazi) descent. Although these diseases can affect Sephardi Jews and non-Jews, they afflict Ashkenazi Jews more often - as much as 20 to 100 times more frequently. It is estimated that we all carry 6 - 8 disease-producing genes which would be harmful if passed on to our children by both mother and father. Many other racial and ethnic groups have "their own" genetic disorders - disorders which are not unique to the group, but which are more common in the group." They go on to mention that Sephardic Jews also have their own predispositions to genetic disorders (such as Beta-thalassemia), and give conparisons for the genetic carrier frequency for various ancestries: Blacks - Sickle Cell Anemia (1 in 12), Ashkenazi Jews - Tay-Sachs (1 in 30), Greeks and Italians - beta-thalassemia also, though at a different rate (1 in 30), SE Asians and Chinese - alpha-thalassemia (1 in 25), and N. Europeans - Cystic fibrosis (1 in 25). Ok, now I'm going to do something more interesting. 85.125.231.237 00:48, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't disagree that for certain purposes, self-reported Jewish status correlates well enough with genetic variations to be a useful indicator for diagnosing certain genetic situations. But the existence of such a correlation, or its utility in medicine, does not mean that "science" dictates who is a Jew or that other authorities and criteria are somehow made irrelevant. No responsible scientist or doctor would make such a claim. As an illustration, there is a correlation between smoking and lung cancer, but it would be very incorrect to claim that science has "defined" smoking in terms of the presence of lung cancer. The phenomena, while related, remain independently defined. So Judaism the religion/people and its genetic predispositions. --Shirahadasha 03:51, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Unencyclopedic title
Has a move to Jewish identity been discussed before? Borisblue 22:16, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Er Boris: Jewish identity redirects to this article. Your concerns have been discussed many times on this talk page, see earlier discussions. This is a VERY encyclopedic title because of its usage in this exact form within informed Jewish life and communities over the last fifty years. For definition/s and discussions about what an actual Jew is (presumably what you would like), see the Jew article, as well as all the parts of Template:Jews and Judaism sidebar. Thanks. IZAK 23:34, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Whilst I have no racial Jewish history, nor do I practise, I have read some Jewish literature. Certainly in the Bible, Paul and Luke make a distinction between the Jews and 'God-fearing Greeks.' Whilst I don't for a moment doubt the faith of the 'God-fearing Greeks,' Paul, a Jew, and Luke, A Greek, both quite freely make distinctions between the two. This leads me to assume that, certainly in Bible times, being a Jew was a racial phenomenon.

I think there should be a separate word for a religious Jew, because I, being a little simple, when a Jew comes up to me and says "I'm a Jew." Do they mean that they have Jewish parents? Or do they mean that they are religious Jews? Judaism has been a trans-racial religion for centuries. When the Dark Ages came along, like many things, the distinction between Jew (racial) and Jew (religious) became blurred.

I wonder if Judaism was always called Judaism. Without meaning to offend anyone, I think Judaism should change its name to something like Yawehism, and their devotees Yawehites. This would clear up any confusion between racial Jews and religious Jews, and both would still keep their central beliefs. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.138.90.138 (talk • contribs) 8 July 2006.


 * I'm sure you didn't intend this but do you understand that you are suggesting that the name of the religion should be changed to one that observant Jews would be forbidden to speak or write? But we are also getting off topic: the point here, to reverse Karl Marx, is not to change the world but to describe and explain it. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:12, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Israeli Rabbinate's recent refusal to accept the conversions of most Orthodox Rabbis
The following was added by User:Shirahadasha, it is placed here for serious review and discussion as it seeks to break new ground and hence may be POV and premature as to its importnace at this time. IZAK 23:51, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * See the related discussion/s about this issue at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism. Thank you, IZAK 23:55, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

A fourth controversy has arisen around the Israeli Rabbinate's recent refusal to accept the conversions of most Orthodox Rabbis.


 * [T]he rabbinate jettisoned a working arrangement with America's main group of Modern Orthodox rabbis, the Rabbinical Council of America. For several years, the Chief Rabbinate had accepted conversions by rabbis not on its own list, as long as the ceremony was certified valid by the head of the American council's religious court, Rabbi Gedalia Dov Schwartz. Now, Sephardic Chief Rabbi Shlomo Amar, as head of the Israeli religious courts, has ceased accepting such certification. Henceforth, if a Diaspora rabbi wants to get on the list, he will have to come to Israel and be tested by an Israeli rabbinic court.

The Rabbinate's policy includes close and skeptical questioning of conversions. In addition to requiring Jews to live an Orthodox Jewish lifestyle, the Rabbinate has required stricter rules of evidence of such a lifestyle. This has resulted in the Rabbinate's questioning the very possibility of valid conversions in non-majority-Jewish areas:


 * In one well-publicized case in 1997, one Abraham Elhiany of New Orleans came to Israel to marry his Israeli fiancee. Elhiany, the son of a Jewish man and a non-Jewish woman, had undergone Orthodox conversion in his youth and attended an Orthodox day school. The rabbinate, however, refused to accept his conversion. "It's weird that anyone would convert in Louisiana," Yitzhak Ohana, an aide to then-Sephardic chief rabbi Eliyahu Bakshi-Doron, told me at the time. "Can you keep mitzvot in Louisiana? Is there kosher food there?"

Because of the Israeli Rabbinate's decisions not only to tighten standards for conversions but also in adapting rules of evidence resulting in not accepting the word of rbbis not personally known to them, virtually all Diaspora Jews converted by rabbis of any denomination, including Orthodox, are currently not recognized as Jewish by the Israeli Rabbinate.Dateline Jerusalem: As Rabbinate Stiffens Rules, Orthodox Rites Face Scrutiny Forward June 3, 2006

Regardless of whether the Rabbinate's actions are based on genuine religious differences, bureaucratic considerations, or simple snafu, the actions alter, for better or for worse, the de facto nature of the debate. I personally hope that people who see this issue as a temporary phenomenon prove correct. --Shirahadasha 03:19, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Title change
We have Definitions of Palestine and Palestinian, so I suggest Definitions of Jew. Psychomelodic (people think edit) 06:06, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Again—how many times need we state it, and how many people come here without bothering to read the passage in the article? —the question "Who is a Jew?" has historical resonance. We did not just invent it. It is the time-honored phrase designating the debate that is the topic of this article - Jmabel | Talk 06:45, 2 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The question is answered within the article, yes, but should probably be addressed in the very first sentence to avoid further confusion from everyone. What if it were changed to the following:  "Who is a Jew?" (Hebrew: ?מיהו יהודי) is the traditional and accepted phrasing of a religious, social and political debate on the exact definition of which persons can be considered Jewish.  It seems like everyone is getting very worked up about the fact that this is a historically accurate and relevant phrasing, yet surprisingly little has been done to squash incorrect interpretations from the outset.  Please add "is the traditional and accepted phrasing of" to the first sentence, or something like it.  Otherwise, you should not be so surprised to get these comments! Xenkylm 20:23, 2 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Also, in many cases this seems to be addressed with very awkward wording. I would recommend rewording sections that address the historical significance of the term "Who is a Jew" by spending at least one more sentence explaining the origin of the phrase itself.  It's perfectly clear that this issue has been a long-standing debate, but less clear that the debate itself is intended to have a specific phrasing.  For a non-expert (like myself), the title seemed offensive until I read much further.  This should NEVER be the case in such an article. Xenkylm 18:27, 3 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I had a quick look at the Hebrew Wikipedia article, and I find it interesting that there is a discussion over there on the subject of "Should the phrase Mihu Yehudi have a question mark?" The conclusion is no, because:


 * "when we say, for example, 'The question of who is a Jew was much debated in the early decades of the State,' we do not add a question mark, because we are speaking about the question and not actually asking it; this is the case with the article's title. נתנאל‎ 07:16, 12 April 2006 (UTC)"


 * So, essentially, we are forced to add the question mark in English because English grammar does not allow us to do the same things that can be done in Hebrew. The phrase "Mihu Yehudi" could have been translated "Who a Jew is," but that does not sound very nice in English. --Eliyak T · C 02:48, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Xenkylm: While your concerns are well-taken, in effect to do what you are suggesting would go against No original research because what this article essentialy does is take a famous phrase that encapsulates a public debate that has been ongoing since the (mostly) secular governments of Israel have gone head-to-head with their own Orthodox establishment on this issue. Any well-informed student of Israeli and Jewish affairs knows that the phrase "Who is a Jew?" is the name of a major subject that has been around since 1948, and not just some silly title for an article. That you were not familiar with it, and hence took offence, is like saying that someone who likes the country of Turkey took offense when they came across the fact that there is a name for a wild bird in English that has the same name - Turkey (bird). I do hope that you will take careful note of the answers User:Jmabel and user:Eliyak gave you, and before you come up with more complaints, and if you really care about this topic, try to read through all the old Talk pages here for more informative FAQ-type discussions. Thanks. IZAK 10:01, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Generalizations / neutrality and accuracy
This article lacks a certain amount of accuracy when it makes generalizations like, "conservative Judaism says" or, "orthodox Rabbis say". A little cleaning up will clarify it and make it a little more accurate.
 * can you be more specific? Jon513 12:29, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Questions
Why is this article titled like a question? It shouldn't be, see WP:MOS.

Secondly, how is this different, including in principle from the the article Jew? &mdash; Dunc|&#9786; 17:31, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The title is a translation of "Mihu Yehudi?", the classic formulation of this question. The title has been disputed several times and discuss at length. It is a strong consensus that the title is correct.  This article addresses one of many issues related to Jews, as such it can be said to be a subarticle of it (linked with a  template) which is standard wikipedia guideline for such issues.  Jon513 18:09, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Dunc: In answer to the second part of your question: "how is this different, including in principle from the the article Jew?" - well at one time this article (in a very brief form), like many articles relating to Jews, was part of the main Jew article but was subsequently spun-off because the main Jew article became sooooo long that it had to be broken up into sub-articles, and indeed that was why the template Jews and Judaism sidebar was created, to help deal with this phenomenon as more material is added to this encyclopedia. (This happens all the time on Wikiepdia.) So this article should be read in conjunction with the main article and with many others connected to this topic. IZAK 10:10, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Who is a Jew for purposes of Wikipedia articles
This article discusses at length on how to stay or start being a Jew, but now how to stop being a Jew. As long as it would be more clear that we are talking about the POV of the state Israel ("being Jewish enough for immigration") or of different school of Judaism no harm would be done.

Of course presenting the view of liberal secular societies isn't such a difficult and complicated thing, so it may be fine to mention it only in passing.

But I'm getting rather irate when this article is used as argument whether someone, e.g. Georg Cantor should be referred to as a "Jew" in its Wikipedia biography.

Pjacobi 21:44, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd suggest, due to the fact that different governments and different factions inside (and sometimes outside) Judaism hold different criteria, that the general policy, for wikipedia, would be Self-Identification(verbal, written, or otherwise expressed) takes precedence(except in cases where such a statement is made to make a point, not unlike JFK's 'Ich bin ein Berliner' speech). Following that would be the word of contemporary sources, esp. Contemporary Biographers, or relatives who do not have a demonstrable agenda (Like saying a self-avowed atheist is a jew to get 'points' for Jews by claiming the subject as their own). Finally, lacking such, Third choice would be state documents, like census returns, wills, and such, and non-contemporary biographers. I'm not sure this idea is perfect, but I tried to create a hierarchy of sources that works outward from the subject theirself to the most abstract. ThuranX 22:34, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

This is POV and OR. The correct criterion is to study WP:VERIFY and rely on verifiable secondary sources, and what they have to say. What the person thinks they are can be included too in the article and stated as such, but is not definitive. Tyrenius 20:29, 2 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Um, NO. What a person THINKS he is IS his religion. Good luck getting anyone on the planet earth to accept otherwise. FURTHER, I gave thought about which sources take precedence over others. I NEVER said anything violating WP:OR, becuase I said look for where THESE OTHERS HAVE AREADY STATED IT. As for WP:NPOV issues, if what a person self-identifies as is POV< then you'd sure as hell include it, because it's likely to be or have been a controversial part of their history. ThuranX 20:44, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Being a Jew is not just a religion: it is an ethnic background. If there are verifiable sources, then the article can distinguish between his family background and his current affiliations and self-identification. You have chosen to consider the relative importance of sources, and it is commendable that you are giving thought to the matter, but at the moment it remains your opinion and has not gained any consensus.

I should warn you that the whole tone of your post is UNCIVIL. Text in capitals is considered to be shouting. You seem to be feeling a bit emotional about this, and I suggest you back off, take a break and consider things calmly, before you escalate them. Tyrenius 21:23, 2 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not being any more uncivil than you attacking me with 'POV' and 'OR' for giving a suggestion for which WP:RS to trust, and in which order. If you don't lke it, suggest something better. if you want to get uncivil, we can, but right now, you're the one whose actions tend towards 'uncivil'. I just don't bother pointing out such actions in others because I prefer to focus onthe problems, and address the comment of others, no matter how rude they are. As for your backhanded comments, keep them to yourself from now on. Now, I see you haven't actually said a damn thing useful yet. Get to it.(and THAT was me being 'uncivil'. You deserve it.ThuranX 22:17, 2 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, this page hasn't moved at all, since my block for replying. So let's try this AGAIN. My position was quite clear, and quite simple. The original question, as given in the title, is how to identify jews in the context of wiki articles. I repeat. Finding self-identification should be the first and foremost source. As for claims it fails the WP:Verify, it's quite clear that self-identification fully MEETS verification. It calls for a reasonable expert within the subject area. No one can know what a person believes better than the person themselves. So long as they self-identify in a source that others can check that quote at, it should be all that's needed. Any questions or controversy can be addressed within the article, but if Albert Einstein self-Identifies as a Jew, and he has, then it should be in the article. That he also identified as a Zionist should also be in there. That identifier should be balanced with his critiques of the actions of the then-nascent Israeli government, but those critiques do not obviate his self-identification. As for the notion that Judaism is an ethnic background, that's patently false. At best, it's MULTIPLE ethnic backgrounds, encompassing quite a few races of man, caucasian, ethiopian, sudanese, african tribal, arabian, persian, indian, chinese, slav, pole, and so on. To hold to a narrower definition of 'who is a jew' by standards outside a person's own self-identification would be severe POV pushing elitism.
 * As for how one 'stops' being a Jew, again, self-identification is the key. Should someone state that they've left the faith, and converted out, or adopted an atheist stance, this should be considered their religion, and their former choice noted - "although born and raised Jewish, Bob stated in an interview with Fat Red Tire magazine that he's now an atheist, and doesn't pay any attention to Judaism."
 * Finally, within the context of the article, it seems like there might be a need for a chart, table, or, at best, a section fully detailing the 'rules' of In and Out, and how the rules differ sect to sect and ethnicity to ethnicity. Ideally, such a section should also include the objections between groups. An example being the rejection, by Chassidim, of the claims of 'jewishness' of the Lemba and Kai Feng.
 * Ultimately, any other stance on this issue leads rapidly to POV pushing. Starting out with sourcable self-Identifications and then presenting the conflicts related to such claims is the best way to ensure the neophyte reader will get teh most objective picture.ThuranX 01:56, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with this approach. It is not in accord with wiki policy. What people say about themselves is part of the picture, but we don't just go by that. We go by verifiable secondary sources and what they say. See WP:VERIFY. It's non-negotiable. If these sources don't universally agree with the approach of self-identification (and they clearly don't), then neither does wikipedia. Tyrenius 02:03, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Let me be clearer than ever. Any standard short of self-identification is POV pushing. Any Chassid can get on and edit Rodney Dangerfield or Mel Brooks to be NOT JEWS by virtue of quoting Chassidic volumes defining who is and is not a Jew. that editor would have the sources for verifiability, but Common Sense, also a wiki policy, would call for the reversion of such a highly POV set of edits, regardless of the volumes of 'verifiable secondary sources'. Finally, WP:RS states that "When reporting that an opinion is held by a particular individual or group, the best citation will be to a direct quote, citing the source of the quote in full after the sentence, using a Harvard reference, a footnote, or an embedded link. " Well, since you seem to think that me declaring what religion I am is a satatement of opinion, not fact, then Self-Identification still trumps all other sources. Nothing, according to Wkipedia's own policies, can trump a direct quote, which is exactly what sourcable self-identification is. ThuranX 02:33, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


 * The various viewpoints on any issue should be represented proportionately to their general importance. You seem to be looking for a definitive stance, but that is neither necessary nor desirable. The reader needs to know how different people and different segments of society see the same issue, so they have the available information to make their own assessment. The Chassid viewpoint should be stated, if appropriate, as well as any other, including self-identification, which is obviously significant, as is family background. We don't censor any of this stuff. I agree the best source is a direct quote, so if you can get a direct quote from Chassids etc, do so; if not, we use whatever other reliable sources are available. Tyrenius 03:00, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Wow. it seems you just don't understand my simple point. The subject's own viewpoint, in a subject's own biography page, is the primary. Any section dealing with the subject's religion has to start with self-identification. There's no wiggle room in what a person considers their own belifs to be. This is not a matter of 'controvery'. Either a person IS a Jew, or is not. Whether or not they are a Jew is deteremined by how they see themselves. Like I keep saying, if there is controversy in their statements, vs. their behaviors, that can be addressed, but starting with chassidic objections to a person's identity is both libelous, and POV pushing. Imagine, for example, an article that starts' Albert Einstein thought he was a Jew, but we can prove he's not, by examining Chassidic interpretations of Talmud, which show that he was really a satanist.' Such an article is counterproductive, NOT factual, and misleading, as well as legally troublesome. Self identification solves such troubles. For example: "Gene Simmons, born Chaim Witz, is a Jew ... (later in article) ... Simmons' Judaism has been questioned by many Orthodox Jewish groups, who point to the KISS make-up and blood spitting stage antics as satanistic.' Simply put, the FACT of a person's religious beliefs can ONLY be answered by THAT person, so ultimately, any and all sources will go back to self-identification. My suggestion merely structures the self-identification in the normal fashion. Primary sources, such as direct quote, reliable secondary sources, and then tertiary sources, exactly as wikipedia's policies call for. Everything you've brought up goes to questions about that person's religious beliefs in the eyes of other people, which belong in the article, but in a section devoted to that, NOT in such a way as to cast aspersions on a person's religious beliefs. ThuranX 03:26, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not disputing the importance of self-identification, nor am I suggesting starting with Chassidic interpretations, so it would make discussion easier to stick to what I am saying. Your example of Gene Simmons is exactly along the lines I have stated are the right way to do things by representing the different viewpoints, so I'm glad we are in agreement. However, if there is a massive controversy about, e.g. their Jewishness, and that is also significant in their life, then that does need to be brought in at an early stage. However, I think each case has to be judged on its own merits also. Tyrenius 05:04, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

ThuranX, you seem to be pushing Wikipedia to adopt the point of view that being Jewish is strictly a religion and hence strictly a matter of personal belief. The fact that you consider contrary beliefs "highly POV" suggests you may be emotionally attached to this personal judgment. Suggest WP:COOL. Not everybody believes this. Most Israelis don't, including both religious (who for religious reasons regard being Jewish as partly an ethnic/national matter and apply traditional citizenship-type criteria like matrilineal descent) and secular (who for non-religious reasons regard being Jewish as primarily an ethnic/national matter, not a matter of religion or belief). Thus it is not at all clear that even a majority of Jews worldwide take the viewpoint you do. There is no reason for Wikipedia to adopt your opinion and sweep other POVs under the proverbial rug, simply because you don't like them. To do so would be against the WP:NPOV policy. Your viewpoint's central premise, that being Jewish is solely a matter of religion in the sense of personal belief, is in fact hotly contested. Shirahadasha 05:47, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Please do not assume things not in evidence. I never referred to Judaism as solely being a religion. However, since you bring it up, my point in this entire situation is that a person's 'identity', how they percieve themselves, which usually refers to such things as religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation... and so on. I maintain that the best source of such things is Self-Identification. I thought my reasoning was fairly clear. There's no POV pushing in my statement, in fact, my method, which matches Wikipedia policies, as outlined above already, is the most neutral of approaches. By starting with the central premise that a persoon identifies as X but there is controversy because many regard him as Y, one gives a balanced approach. To instead say, Person was Y, but chose to identify as X, you present a person as having to defend their self-identification, and in the case of the dead, that's going to be really difficult. Writing as if the subject is on the defensive is definitely a POV situation. ThuranX 15:26, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Not only religion, also ethnicity is (at least in part, via the aspect of culture) self-assigned. See our article. --Pjacobi 10:30, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Yep, thanks. ThuranX 15:26, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


 * If a white person self-identifies himself as black should we refer to him as black? Jon513 13:06, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


 * As there are no "white people" in any meaningfull, objective sense, yes. But please do your own research, e.g. at Black people and White (people). And IMHO in most cases biographies should neither mention hair color, religion, ethnicity or haplotype. --Pjacobi 13:39, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I am not sure if you missed my point or are deliberatly ignoring it. I will try again. What if a man self-identifies himself as a woman, should we refer to him as as woman? Jon513 15:07, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Short answer? Yes. This is actually the subject of a number of court cases. Results vary, but tend to work out that the further along in a transgender process a person is, or the more evidence that they genuinely self-identify as a woman, the more the courts say 'yes', call the person a woman. Most courts also concur that post-surgery, any genetic male should be called a female. Many female impersonators, crossdressers, transgenders and transsexuals prefer and/or expect to be called 'Miss' and referred to as 'her' or 'she' when in drag/women's clothing. So, it's already happening. Males self-identifying as females being called women. ThuranX 15:37, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

If a person in an immigration dispute self-identifies as an American citizen, or a graduate of Harvard college, or a member of the American Bar Association, should Wikipedia say flatly that the person is an American citizen/Harvard graduate/attorney, and then add later that officials of these organizations say he is not? What about if a person claims to be married to Y, but Y disagrees? There are assumptions here about what things are subject to self-identification and what are not. Surely it would be inappropriate to say that American/university/legal authorities (or the objects of ones unrequited desires, to make the matter plainer) have an "extreme" POV on these matters, which Wikipedia should disregard as "non-neutral." Like American citizenship, university status, professional membership, or being part of a marriage, Jewishness can (and often is) viewed as not primarily a personal characteristic, but as a kind of membership in a group. The question of what characteristics are subject to self-identification and what to group identification in these cases is of course a highly political question, one on which individualists and communitarians will often disagree. This is particularly true in cases where the very question of whether a status is a "purely" personal characteristic, or involves aomething in the nature of community membership, is the very thing in dispute. It seems to me that what you are presenting as the "most neutral" POV is merely the POV you personally prefer. Wikipedia should give both views. It seems to me that by the plain terms of the WP:NPOV policy, writing "X is a Jew, but some people say X isn't", is less neutral than writing "A says X is a Jew, and B says X isn't." I don't see how it's possible to claim that the first form is more neutral than the second. --Shirahadasha 17:57, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, this is a strawman, but I'll address it anyway. Citizenship and Marriage are legal statuses EXTERNAL to a personal's self-identity. You seem to have identity, as used throughout this section as 'how one percieves one's core nature' confused with satatus,'how a person is legally defined in government documents'. Example: A person Identifies themselves as a Fiscal conservative and Social policy liberal. They register with the local board of elections as an independent. The government identifies them as 'independent', they SELF identify as fiscal conservative/social liberal. One speaks to their 'IDENTITY', the other to their 'STATUS'. the two are different. This section is for matters of Identity, not Status. A person born in Cuba, illegally smuggled to Florida, who grows up here may not know his Citizenship status is messy till he turns 18, but that same person may identify himself as an American, even if he knows of his Cuban birth, because he grew up here. Is he wrong to self-identify as American, despite his understanding of our culture, right down to 'brady bunch' jokes? Of course he is not. His sense of self, his definition of WHO HE IS (an american), and the law's status determination, fall into two different categories. In the example, we have to examine 'who is an american', a question which has evolved for over 230 years. As for marriage, again, WHO he is (identity) is a jewish/american/martian. WHAT he is (status) is married to another jewish/martian/plutoinian/republican/whateverian. To the point at hand, it is this schism that is at the heart of the issue. should a person's legal status fall askew of their self-identification, that should be noted in the article. Legal questions of one's Jewish status can be addressed, but self-identification should always be the primary source and consideration. Controversy can be taken from there. ThuranX 18:11, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


 * But of course this is merely your POV, and putting it in capitals does not make it otherwise. We are dealing not with what we personally believe, but how an encyclopedia should present evidence from reliable sources. Some people regard Jewishness as an identity, others as a status. The fact that you personally prefer the former does not make the sources supporting the latter position any less reliable or encyclopedic. We need to follow the sources, not our own personal beliefs and preferences. --Shirahadasha 19:33, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


 * State-identified Jews only? That's an interesting, but flawed viewpoint. The fact is that ANY religion is a part of one's identity, not one's legal status. Same for ethnicity. Many people choose to see themselves as Americans, not as Italio-polish Americans, and would be offended by such generalizations. The most neutral point of view is to report what a person self-identifies as. Finally, there is simply NO OTHER WAY. What do you do about Moses Mendelsohn? Orthodox Jewry does not consider him or his children to be jews at all, because of his separation from Orthodoxy. Does this mean that we should list him as an atheist? Any other action than Self-identification runs right back into this very page, Who is a Jew? and NOTHING ever gets answered. By starting with 'he thought of himself as a Jew' followed by a 'but there was controversy' gives a solid, unwavering basis to create a section around. Otherwise, youv'e got this bizarre, unanswered nebulous 'weeeelllllllll, he was kind of a jew, but he was also kind of an evil satanist bent on destroying all of judaism with his evilnesses.' Yet again, I repeat: I've never said do not follow the sources, what I've said is Self-Identification should always be the Primary source. No other system makes sense. I challenge you to explain a solid, repeateable system that will result in accuracy without edit wars that does NOT start wit hthe self-identification premise.ThuranX 00:46, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * But this POV appears to assume that states are the only entities that concern themselves with questions of status. Perhaps this system is the only one that makes sense to you, but various other systems make sense to other people. As a concrete example consider the question of whether a person is a statistician. Unlike medicine or law, statistics is not defined or regulated by law (with limited exceptions, e.g. if you want to do work for certain government agencies like the FDA). In general, there's no law against anyone calling themselves a statistician. But the statistics community has its own beliefs about what one is and isn't (the sports community, however, has a different set). There are in fact a variety of possible alternatives, the system that makws sense to you is only one of many possible ways of looking at things. Just as an FYI) Orthodox Judaism is one of the groups that regards Jewishness as primarily a matter of status, not a matter of belief. Orthodox Judaism would hold Mendelsohn to be Jewish, and would regard an atheist who met Jewish status requirements (e.g. matrilineal descent) as a Jew, although an imperfect one.  Best, --Shirahadasha 03:11, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Wow, that's not only massively POV pushing, by holding to only the Orthodox standard, but it PERFECTLY illustrates why that system cannot be used. The only options for Non-self-identification are:state determination, which gets rapidly into racist classifciations and errors based on fears thereof, or choosing ONE sect of judaism to be the standard, which is DEFINITELY POV pushing. Which standards should we use? The Chassidic? the Orthodox? The Reform? all three have PLENTY of sources to back them up. Again, an example. A person, 'Bob', has 7 of 8 great grandparents who are Jewish, but one; his mother's mother's mother was not a Jew. Bob's grandmother was raised Jewish, but never there is no citable evidence that she was converted as an infant. She was raised Jewish, raised Bob's mom Jewish, and Bob, in turn was raised Jewish. Bob self-identifies as a Jew. According to halacha, Bob's a dirty (no, literally, he's ritually unclean) faker who can either admit his entire life has been a lie and insult to all Jews and the lord, or he can be cast out and ostracized(The choice Chassids offer to the Jews who wish to be 'recovered'). Is that really the standard that Wikipedia should be pushing? To 99% of the common readership, a guy whose family's been completely Jewish for 3 generations (not for the three before him that the Chassidic 'recovery' requires, though) is a Jew. His genetics are at least 87.5% Jewish, so statistically, he's Jewish. Now, according to YOUR interpretation of Wikipedia's sourcing standards, and your determination that only Orthodox standards should apply, Bob's not a Jew, and instead his article should read 'Although Bob has called himself a Jew, he's not, according to the strict standards of the Orthodox Jews, who refuse to accept his religious affiliations.' According to mine, the article would read, 'Bob is a Jew, although some Orthodox autorities question this, because thre are no records of a formal conversion for his grandmother, as her synagogue was burnt to the ground during WW2, and she doesn't remember the event herself.' Yours, frankly, is grounds for a libel suit. If Jackie Mason's page identified him as a J4J based on the J4J literature out there, he could sue Wikipedia, because he's a self-identified Jew. That's the simple truth of it. Self-identification trumps all else in a libel suit, it serves as a solid basis for a neutral article which gives a fact, then addresses controversy, end of story. Anything else invites POV pushing and libel. (And remember the status of Slander and Libel as sins to a Jew.) ThuranX 03:32, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I appreciate our conversation. A few final comments. The first is that Wikipedia relies on whether a POV is notable, not whether it is "logical" or "makes sense", which sometimes reflects ones own POV-specific characteristics. Second, as you note, there a variety of views, and hence it is important not to be too attached to ones own for WP purposes. When a set of assumptions inexorably lead to "the only option" being ones own viewpoint but others illogically continue to disagree, one possiblility is that some of ones assumptions may be unnecessary and perhaps even constricting. Boxes are sometimes self-created. Third, I would hesitate before making assumptions about how people with POVs different from yours would decide complex cases. Perhaps one shouldn't be too certain one knows what people one disagrees with would say in a given situation. reliable sources are key here and prevent errors of attribution. Fourth (an example of item 3), even assuming the "common readership" shares your views (an unsourced claim), reliably sourced opinion sometimes differs from the readership's. Finally, as these questions are matters of opinion, religion, etc., I seriously question whether citing and sourcing multiple opinions about a person's Jewish status can ever lead to legal difficulty in these situations, and unless you can point to an actual legal case where this even comes close to happening, it seems to me this may be a red herring. I appreciated our conversation, and wish you well. --Shirahadasha 06:05, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I DID use a perfect example, the Jackie Mason reference. that you ignored it, and stsill seek to push POV by holding ONE Jewish Sect's definition above all others, is still POV pushing at a level far beyond my horrible POV pushing towards neutral unbiased sourcing. It seems that you've decided to walk away from this, and perhaps that's good, because your agenda's simply at cross purposes to finding a good solution. the best solution really is to look at how a person reports themselves, and THEN report any controversy, especially since most controversies are already standard to the entry onthe identifications. The lack of recognition by Chassids of any jew with mixed heritage, or, as the Chassids call it 'tainted bloods', can be addressed in the articles on the Chassidim pages, or on the matrilineality pages, and so on. Very few pages will actually require such a 'controversies of jewish identity' page.ThuranX 11:46, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia bases these kinds of things on Wikipedia policy. If reliable sources identify someone as a Jew, then that suffices for Wikipedia's purposes. Jayjg (talk) 18:08, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


 * This debate is about the ordering of sources to be the most neutral and accurate. For example, Many anti-semitic groups have killed people for being Jews. Ove the years, such smallminded knuckleheads have gotten it wrong at times, and killed christians. If Wikipedia put up such an article about the victim, should we Identify the victim as a jew jsut because the same sources the morons used match Wikipedia's RS? Of course not. Editors would rightly cite instead the person's self-identification by good works for his christian church, his self-identification by way of joining the KoC(I think that's the catholic one), her self-identification by wearing a rosary and praying it daily, his daily 5 prayers facing Mecca, and so on. Self-identification can and should trump all external sources. If bad sources can be found, it should be equally easy to find a self-identification to take precedence. ThuranX 18:17, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Self-identification is important, but it doesn't trump everything. I've met Christians with absolutely no Jewish ancestry who self-identify as Jews based on their belief that followers of Jesus are the true Jews. Jayjg (talk) 18:29, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah, Jews 4 Jesus do the same thing. It can be addressed in the article. An Example: 'Joe describes himself as jewish, a philosophy in keeping with his affiliation with the Jews 4 Jesus. however, this is cause for controversy for two reasons. One, Jews for Jesus are usually considered christian. Two, before Joe converted, he was a cannibal who ate his mom, and two of his housecats on his tiny equatorial island.' It's far better to do that than to say 'Joe was a jew for jesus, so he was a christian ,but mistakenly called himself a jew.' I don't personally think of J4J as Jews, but we're tlaking aobut how they see themselves. Fianlly, a lot of those christian groups espousign the thinking you describe do not, in a day to day sense, consider themselves to be actual jews, but rather the 'true jews' who spiritually have inherited the status of being the 'chosen people'. when asked, they still identify as whatever 'baptist' or 'born-again' or other denomination they may be. ThuranX 18:39, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I reject the premise for this question and think it illustrates rather well the folly of the "List of Jewish xxx" articles that are floating around in Wikipedia - all of which should be deleted. Whether someone is Jewish - by whatever criteria - is not what defines them. We'll write that such and such grew up in a Jewish household, or was the daughter of Jewish-Hungarian immigrants, or was subject to antisemitism. Where someone was a rabbi, we should note that. --Leifern 19:40, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


 * This seems to be within range of possible interpretations of "encyclopedia" within the Wikipedia project. On the German Wikipedia (next to) no categorizing or list building based religion or ethnicity is done by unwritten policy (precedent decisions on AfD) -- except for persons known for their religion. The current consensus here seems to be otherwise. --Pjacobi 19:52, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


 * If only English Wikipedia had the same policy. Most of the Lists on Wikipedia are stupid to begin with, and the ethnic/religious lists are particularly egregious. Jayjg (talk) 23:40, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not thrilled with the "list of [fill-in-the-blank] Jews" articles, but it is clear that there is consensus to keep them, so barring divine intervention or something, they are there. The question then becomes how to make them as good as they can be. And it seems to me that the main way to do that is that when the person is a Jew by one reasonable definition, but not by another, we keep them in the list, and mention the qualifications, because that is what is most useful to the reader. - Jmabel | Talk 23:44, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, Joe, the consensus was not to "keep" them, but rather to not delete them out of hand...and one of the, as yet unaddressed points that kept people from voting "outright delete" but not wanting to vote "outright keep" was the fact that the criteria for inclusion were so nebulous...a situation which, sadly, going on a year later, remains unresolved...and, for the most part, unaddressed. IZAK and SlimVirgin have come up with guidelines for addressing the matter, but have, for whatever reason, failed to garner much interest in their proposal.  Ask IZAK for the URL...I'm sure he knows it by heart... :-p  Tom e rtalk  08:01, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, the problem with "consensus" is that it means "a rough majority of those who care enough about the issue to vote on it." These lists - whether of Jewish-Americans/Brits/etc., Norwegian-Americans, Episcopalians, etc. - satisfy people's passing curiousity, which arguably is part of an encyclopedia's purpose; but they also fall prey to those who want to "prove" or reinforce stereotypes. --Leifern 11:55, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry if I was unclear: I didn't mean that a positive, formal consensus had been reached. I simply meant that the effective consensus—including the positive, formal consensus that borderline cases are kept, not deleted—amounts to an effective consensus to keep these pages. Again, clearly we won't be getting rid of them, so we might as well make them as good as they can be. - Jmabel | Talk 04:29, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Village pump (policy):Tagging living people as Jews

 * See Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Tagging living people as Jews for related discussions. IZAK 08:30, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes Tomer, I remember! At any rate, having recently been contacted by User:Bellbird (and so far I am on his/her side in this debate, unless I am not aware of any other invisible agends which I hope he/she does not have), I posted the following:

There was a lengthy earlier debate relating mostly to Lists of Jews that commenced at the end of 2005 and continued into 2006 (and which were basically rejected, see Centralized discussion/Conclusions) at the village pump which has been archived at:


 * Wikipedia talk:Centralized discussion/Lists by religion-ethnicity and profession/Archive -lists by religion-ethnicity and profession debate
 * Wikipedia talk:Centralized discussion/Lists by religion-ethnicity and profession
 * Centralized discussion/Lists by religion-ethnicity and profession
 * Articles for deletion/List of Jewish historians 2 (and a few other articles like this.)

My position is archived and stated for the record at:


 * User:IZAK/Deleting lists and categories of Jews.

My views expressed there earlier have not changed. I would welcome feedback. Thank you. IZAK 08:30, 13 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I come mainly from what you state as: The obsession with the ethnic and religious origins of peoples' ethnic and religious roots and background is a phenomenon inspired predominantly by cultural trends in the United States where pride in one's ethnicity religious or non-religious attitudes is of interest to only a small minority of people. So I'm rather indifferent about your arguments that specifically Lists and Categories of Jews should be deleted.
 * I'd prefer to delete all lists and categories by ethnicity and restrict list and categories by religion to persons, known for their religious standing, etc. Like the German solution or like what User:T. Anthony tried at Category:Christian mathematicians.
 * --Pjacobi 09:20, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Pjacobi: What you read at that time is in the context of an older discussion. My main point, is the last one: "16) Obviously, lists of famous Jewish religious figures, well-known religious Israelis or those from other countries and of course famous rabbis are not included in these concerns because they are KNOWN and identifiable VERY famous people, scholars and leaders, often through their books, achievements and reliable conventional known sources, and are openly part of Judaism, and who thereby clearly qualify per Notability when they are known as Jews and identifiable as famous Jewish people. Therefore my position is that only if famous people are known to be instrinsically known for their role as religious scholars and leaders, or well-known clergy in their religion, is their religion of any significance see Category:Wikipedia notability criteria. Encyclopedias do not need categories for the religion or ethnicity of every last human on Earth. There is ZERO Notability to know the religious status or ethnicity of any important person unless that person has done something significant within his or her religion and is famous for having done something like that. IZAK 09:39, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Some time ago I have written Naming conventions/Ethno-cultural labels in biographies that I did not have not energy to put through. I still think that the ideas there are right. There is an American school of mathematics, Russian School of mathematics, Israeli school of mathematics, etc. There is no special Jewish school of mathematics as there is no university departments, journals, conferences etc. that took only Jewish mathematicians. Thus, a person is an American (or Russian or Israeli) mathematician if he belong to that school, even if by blood he is (Jewish or Chinese or whatever). The ethnicity/religion/culture/race might be important but it should go to the second paragraph, somewhere Karl Marx was born to the Jewish family baptized to Lutheran faith or whatever. If it is unclear, or the person denies been Jewish the material should not go to the article. We do not measure somebody sculls. I do not see much value in the lists like List of Jewish Mathematicians as I suspect Jewish mathematicians does not exist, but if somebody wants to create such lists it is the worry of the list's author to explain is this the List of mathematicians with Jewish surnames, List of mathematicians publicly self-identified as Jews, List of Mathematicians who are Orthodox Jews, etc. abakharev 13:24, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

A community definition
My dad used to say that a definition he had heard in Czechoslovakia was that 'a Jew is somebody about whom people say he is a Jew'. I must agree that this is the very best definition in historical terms and legal terms. It was used (and still is) to orchestrate and administer persecution or privileges and recognition as circumstances vary.

Personally I dislike all labels, especially ethnic ones, and find quite disturbing that in the US I had to prove my non-Aryan ancestry to gain some State contract privileges. Anytime your ethnic background comes into play, things are not quite right. 70.112.50.86 17:07, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, such a definition, in America, is often viewed as a highly bigoted one. Here, your father's standard is akin to the 'one drop' theory of who is 'black' and thus 'not-white', wherein, any ancestor, no matter how far back, who was 'not white' by the judging person's standards, negates the subject's identity of 'white', in exchange for one of 'colored', or more often, 'black'. It's a highly racist attitude which is fortunately passing from our culture, but still remains in some traditionalist mindsets in, or from, the South. (it occurs elsewhere, but I've actually lived it in the south, so I'm saying it's still there.). ThuranX 21:40, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

The very first paragraph.
There is a very odd sentence in the first paragraph. It simply says "Kyle, however, is not a Jew"?

Could this be deleted as it seems to bear no relation to the rest of the article?

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Blissfullyeccentric (talk • contribs) Pjacobi 12:42, 13 September 2006 (UTC).


 * Done. --Pjacobi 12:42, 13 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Whoops, missed that in my revert. Hard to catch all the vandalism. ThuranX 20:52, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

No tagging at all?
Here is a suggestion I have made in SlimVirgin's talk page:

"Might it not be best if Wikipedia simply refrained from attaching the label "Jew" or "Jewish" to any individuals? There are just too many explosive cans of worms attached, and, besides, there is the problem of meaning: there are different sources making different yes-or-no statements, but nobody can agree on what the actual statement ("X is a Jew" or "Y is from a Jewish family") actually mean!

When the information is relevant, it can almost always be rephrased in a proper way. Say: "Spinoza was raised in the Jewish religion, from which he was later excommunicated" or (in the relevant section) "Wittgenstein's siblings were in danger of being classified as Jews by the Nazis" or "Wittgenstein, like Wolfgang Pauli, would not be Jewish under Jewish law" (though that would seem to me to be an odd and slightly irrelevant statement to make in a biographical page!) or "Akiva Rubinstein's early life was marked by his strict religious upbringing" or "Max Born's grandmother's delicious kugel greatly helped his brain development, even though he was later to become a Quaker."

(It seems that the cases in which the information is relevant become quite clear this way.)

The standard work-arounds ("X was of the Jewish faith", "X was of Jewish origins") should probably be strongly discouraged, especially when used as definitions; they are awkward precisely because they are attempts at saying something absolute and seemingly transcendental in the guise of nuanced statements of fact.

As for the categories - well, perhaps it is time to propose the whole lot of them for deletion again?"

See the replies and more under User_talk:SlimVirgin.

Also: saying that "Jew" is a tag not just for a religion, but also for an "ethnic background" amounts to building a Troyan horse. There is such a thing as broadly defined ethnic groups: the Igbo, for example. There was also the habit of referring to immigrants from Italy or the Pale as "ethnics". There are also some very broad categories of language, class and religious affiliation that are very generally true of some first-generation Americans, though they are rarely precise enough to warrant a yes-or-no label. (These categories got homogeneised and fixed in the collective imagination by The Godfather and Woody Allen movies; of course, these are theatrical impressions that bear little relation to most actual individuals from the immigrant generation.)

What we have here is something quite different. We have a yes-or-no label, determined almost exclusively by lines of descent, and unaffected by the individual's opinions, beliefs, or the actual familial background in which he or she grew up. This label is taken by many to be extremely rich in meaning, having many associations that may not belong to the said person at all. It is also worthless as a sociological tool - indeed, it is grossly misleading.

As for categories - well! If we have Jewish anything (other than Jewish religious figures, say) will we have Jewish spies, or Jewish members of the Soviet secret police around 1920? The lists circulated by antisemites on this latter category, by the way, are large and by true and verifiable. The evil resides in such categorisation itself. We ought to be consistent, though, and have all such possible categories or no "X is a Jew" categories at all. (I would prefer the latter solution.) Bellbird 13:48, 13 September 2006 (UTC)


 * The examples Jewish spies and Jewish members of the Soviet secret police around 1920 are complete strawmen. Nor do we have Ethnic Chinese criminals nor Lutheran axe-murderers. These are inappropriate on the face of it. But—I've said this elsewhere, but the discussion seems to keep being re-opened on various pages—as a secular Jew and a committed diasporist, I feel like Bellbird's proposals amount to an effort to erase my ethnicity and culture from Wikipedia. Woody Allen, John Zorn, Philip Roth, or the late Gilda Radner, for example, do not just happen to be from a Jewish background. That cultural background heavily influences and informs their work. - Jmabel | Talk 01:21, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

The article appears to be cut off
Could someone please figure out where the bottom part of the article went and restore it? --Ornil 22:08, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Fixed ThuranX 01:15, 22 September 2006 (UTC)