Talk:Jews

Older discussions may be found here:

Information about converted Jews

The start of this article is

" This article discusses the term as describing an ethnic group; for a consideration of the religion, please refer to Judaism."

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

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

Zain 21:19, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

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

Well, the list of Jews further down in the article claims Jews as Jews even when they do not consider themselves Jews (Wiggenstein for one). This is an epistemological problem as well as a problem of politics. The epistemological problem is that Christians (I say this because this is most influential on Western ideas about identity) identify themselves through religious belief. Though this article claims to separate between Jews and Judaism, for many Jews, no such division exists. For many Jews, the Jewish identity is inherited along with the religion, with a few converts here and there welcome as a sort of self-validation (see recent NYT article about Japanese American convert to Orthodox Judaism). So if you take the Jewish point of view, anyone who's mother is Jewish is Jewish. If you take the religion as a choice point of view, then Jews ARE the same thing as Judaism, though perhaps there is an identifiable ethnic group of Jews separate from Judaism. Still, even as ethnic identity, it can still be seen as a choice for people to accept their Jewishness (or whiteness, or blackness, etc).

The political problem has a simple analogy--think about The Chapelle Show's Race Draft, where every race tries to claim someone as their race. Think how Tiger Woods is so mixed, calls himselve Cablasian, yet generally perceived to be black. You might think about him being advertising for Buick and the sort of target audience that Buick these days seems to have. I see exactly the same thing going on with these "lists of prominent Jews". [This and the preceding paragraph appear to have been interspersed, without signature, late February 2005]

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

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

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

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

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

This http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/vjw/Afghanistan.html

Zain 21:41, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

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

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

Well you gave the right example. I read it in the article 'who is jew' it says that

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Zain 22:26, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Zain, the Who is a Jew? article at the top of the template and the article covers the issue of Jewish converts, and actually goes through many different points of view on the subject, so the article easily meets the standard you just proposed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Some (may be very minor) people do consider that if any body is of Jewish descend he/she must be considered as Jew.
If some thing is interpreted differently by some (may be minor may be they don't exist now), it deserves a respectful treatment. (as per wikipedia policy which I referenced earlier)

Only thing which remains is that how to incorporate this in the article. So please make a positive approach and give this 'minor' opinion respectful treatment.

Zain 12:13, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

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

You might be right. but there are two problems with it

Many Jews them self consider converted Jews as Jews.
Wikipedia Policy doesn't support the standard of 'Self identification' in 'word ownership'.

Zain 13:36, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Zain, two main points that should end the argument:

The article on who is a Jew mentions the conditions under which some Jews consider converted Jews to be Jewish. It actually talks about this a lot, in detail, under many traditions of Jewish thouht.
The article on who is a Jew mentions other ways of determining Jewish identity (See the end), including genetic approaches, but notes that such determinations have not be considered valid within the Jewish community, and, in fact, have often been tools of people with anti-Jewish agendas

And two additional points to clarify:

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

Converted Jews are considered as jews by some jews

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

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

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

Zain 18:43, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

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

No, I think Zain is talking specifically about converts from Judaism.

Zain, the article does talk about this, quite a few places. We mention several secular Jews (e.g. Marx, Freud) and at least one Christian convert (Disraeli). All of these are excellent examples of people who unequivocally considered themelves (and were/are generally considered by other Jews) as Jews in the ethnic, but not the religious, sense.

Nationality and ethnicity are always tricky concepts. There is certainly a place in Wikipedia for an extensive coverage of these subtleties, but the article on one particular ethnic group is almost certainly not the place to do it. Jewish ethnicity is probably slightly better defined than most (in specific focus on matrilineality), but the rest of these issues apply almost as much to any ethnicity. At some point, if a person is a few generations removed from the Jewish community and makes no active effort to claim to be a Jew, they tend to drift out of the self-defined community. If the continuity is clear and someone chooses to reassert that identity (as a number of Marranos have done in recent years), they are usually accepted without much difficulty. When it is more like millennia, it gets trickier, partly because there is so unlikely to be any continuous tradition. Sometimes entire groups (such as the Ethiopian Jews) have been generally recognized as genuine Jews even at that distance in time, but it is rare. Little of this has any agreed-upon formality. -- Jmabel | Talk 22:16, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Zain 22:52, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

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

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

Zain 23:17, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Zain

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

People who might be considered jews by some jews

Let me quote my friend Goodoldpolonius2 here

"'Yes, according to some stringent Jewish laws, Albright might be considered Jewish'"

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

Zain 00:13, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

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

Zain, ethnicity is a combination of group acceptance and self-definition. As far as group acceptance, quite logically Jews do not define groups with no clear connection to Judiasm, no immediate Jewish ancestry, and no Jewish belief system Jewish. On the side of self-identification, I would imagine that almost every, if not every, Pashtun (or Muslim Arab, or whatever) would reject the idea that they are currently Jews. Thus, I present The Test:

To make an argument that would convince people here that this is a valid minority view, I would ask you to demonstrate that (1) Some significant number of Jews state that the Pashtun (or whatever group) are Jewish (not of Jewish descent, but actually Jewish) and (2) Some significant number of Pashtuns (or whatever group) believe they are Jewish. Sound good? --Goodoldpolonius2 02:21, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Zain 11:48, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

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

Yeah, its very interesting that they think they might be descended from Jews. According to the latest studies, it seems that there are also genetic links between Jews and Palestinians (but not to other neighboring Arabs) and between Jews and Kurds. This is interesting, but does not make these people Jews, nor does it make Jews Kurdish, or even make these significant facts. Again, take a look at the test -- do any Jews claim that the Pashtun (or any of these other groups), are actually Jews? Do any of these groups consider themselves Jews? Saying that they have common ancestry is not the same thing as saying that they are Jews, remember, this is about identity-- show me a source that says any of these things explicitly. It is your burden to prove that this is not a "negligible set;" no more original research.

As to your "ignored points," they were not ignored at all, both jmabel and myself gave you direct responses. Albright is mentioned specifically in the Who is a Jew article, and the articles on Jews further mention Disraeli and others. As I pointed out, there is no discussion anywhere in the main article about who is a Jew, even the wider views on the subject, it is all relegated to the subarticle, so that is the proper place for it. And I do not know what "non-Existing people who viewed their future generations as Jewish" means. Identity is a current thing, you ultimately have no control over your future generations (much to the dismay of many parents and grandparents)Goodoldpolonius2 15:02, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

MPerel. I think he means Madeline Albright, not a group called the Alberites. Also, Zain hasn't shown any sources that any of these groups actually claim to be Jews, or that anyone believes they are Jews. Until he does, it doesn't seem to be a real valid point. Besides, the right place for any such speculation is the article about Jewish ancestry, Who is a Jew?, which already covers Madeline Albright. --Goodoldpolonius2 04:24, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

LOL! ah, I figured maybe Alberites were an ethnic group I didn't know about! Anyway, I agree, the material is probably more appropriate in the Who is a Jew? article. What do you think Zain?

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

How about Albright

In simple. Should I add Albright in famous jews section? Zain 20:24, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Certainly not. We already list the most famous Jewish U.S. Secretary of State, Henry Kissinger, and he is much more clearly Jewish than Albright. To the best of my knowledge, everyone on the list now unambiguously had significant ties to Jewish ethnicity (and, in some cases, religion). None of these people simply incidentally had Jewish ancestry. All of these people either had deeply Jewish roots or had important impacts on the Jewish community or on public perception of the Jewish community; in most cases, all of these apply. None of these apply to Albright. Or to John Kerry, not matrilineally descended, but half Jewish by ancestry, which means that if he wanted to he could claim Israeli citizenship under the Law of Return.

We had a go-round a while back about adding Jesus to the list. I still think he belongs there (profoundly Jewish upbringing, profound effect on public perception of Jewry), but I let the matter drop when it was clear there was no consensus to add him, and suggest you do the same over the much less significant matter of Ms. Albright. -- Jmabel | Talk 20:58, Dec 30, 2004 (UTC)

There seem to be mixed messages here. AFAIK Albright is completely Jewish by Jewish law, having unbroken matrilineal descent, even though she didn't know she was Jewish. But how do you eliminate her and include Kerry? Kerry has no matrilineal descent at all in Judaism, and didn't know he had any "Jewish blood" at all until he was well into adulthood. It seems he only became a "Jew of Convenience" in some people's eyes when it enhanced his political fortunes. Just to put in my 2c on Jesus, he is so Jewish it is ridiculous not to include him, and it would be a counter to the many beliefs of many Christians who were brought up believing Jesus wasn't, or that he had somehow "converted" to Christianity—Jesus didn't even found the religion, his followers did. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 04:49, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Let me clarify: Albright, unlike Kerry, is a Jew under halakha. Albright, like Kerry, would be eligible for Israeli citizenship if either wanted it. And Albright, like Kerry, would be an inappropriate inclusion in this article, for the reasons given above. And I agree wiht you on Jesus, but others objected to the inclusion in short list of famous Jews in this article, and I don't really care enough to fight over it. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:26, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC)

Jesus is iffy because he's possibly mythical; the list sticks to 12th century Jews and later, who are well attested. Jayjg | (Talk) 20:35, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Although...even if he's mythical, he's still a quite famous Jew : ) Anyway, this list is just a random sampling; I'm not sure why any have to be listed here at all, why not just reference the bigger list at List of Jews. --MPerel 20:44, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC)

Moses and David and Solomon are pretty famous too, I don't see them in the article. Jayjg | (Talk) 06:11, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Shoud I add mary?

Mary is obviously famous and she is in mentioned in List of Jews so should I add her in famous jews?

Zain 20:16, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

She's only famous for being the mother of someone famous. Also, she may be mythical. Jayjg | (Talk) 20:33, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I hope that was a rhetorical question. Clearly if one person involved in the origin of Christianity is to be added to the list it would be Jesus himself. -- Jmabel | Talk

Well I didn't ask for Jesus because I thought he was not on the list of jews. (Now checked he was on the list).

Ok now to original issue. Well I think 'reason' of being famous is not an issue here. It is only the result, 'famous' which is relevant. Second if 'mythical' (, a lot of people will disagree on usage of this term here,) is a problem then this article should write some thing like. 'People who are considered mythical by some people are not mentioned in this article'. It will be ok.

Zain 20:48, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

How about Paul of Tarsus

Well he is quite 'non-mythical' Paul of Tarsus.

Please I am not asking to add some/all of them. It will make article difficult to manage. Only thing I am asking for is that this article should clarify that people who might be seen as Jews by few because of their descent are not discussed in this article because they are not see as Jews by majority. Zain 21:10, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Paul is considerably earlier than any of the Jews listed here, and his fame is in converting to/creating Christianity. Jayjg | (Talk) 01:59, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Well that list of Jews includes a lot of non-religious Jews. This is supposedly an ethnic group article. It is noteworthy Jesus of Nazareth is a Jew too.

But the end result is that he is a famous jew!. Zain 20:32, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

On Zain's Points

Zain, on your many points above, I am not accusing you of not operating in good faith, and I am glad that you have used the talk pages. I am saying, however, that there needs to be a reasonable attempt to listen to the many arguments raised by others here, and that your threat to "POV" this article was inappropriate, given that everyone has acted very civily to your suggestions. The situation is simple:

The arguments about who is and is not a Jew are not covered in this article, they are covered in Who is a Jew?. In fact, the Who is a Jew? article covers exactly the cases we discussed, such as Madeline Albright.
Any "disambugation" on this page seems inappropriate, since you have not been able to show that anyone is confused by the fact tht this is the entry they reach when they look up the word "Jew." You have also provided no outside sources that indicate such confusion exists (ie that there is some significant minority of Jews and Pashtun that considers the Pashtun explicitly Jewish (not of Jewish descent), that not listing "possibly mythical" people confuses the list, etc.)
The list of famous Jews is not exhaustive, it focuses primarily on people whose Jewishness was significant in some way. It seems that the appropriate place to discuss Jesus, Paul, etc and their Jewishness (or not) would be the pages for those people. I personally have no problem listing Jesus on this page, but others objected, and it did not seem deeply relevant, that is the way consensus is achieved. Which leads me to...
It is not an NPOV problem if people don't agree with you, it could just mean that your arguments are not convincing or correct. At least four different people have responded in a serious way to your points, and changes were made to Who is a Jew? based on your need for clarification. You are being treated seriously, but you are also not necessarily correct in your assertions, nor are you fully engaging with the various objections to your claims brought by a number of people. Again, just because your points are not accepted does not make an article POV.

I would ask that any future reply respond to each of these four points, thanks. --Goodoldpolonius2 21:20, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

That's positive so here is point 2 point as u asked.

I am not asking for any discussion here that who is Jew.
Well there were earlier problems before I discussed. Like question of Jesus.
I can also tell that a lot of people will reject it. But some people will like to add it. So an easier method is to clarify in article that, people who are affiliated with other religions are not discussed here.
No body disagreed including you that, some 'minor' people might see, Jewish descend as enough of a reason to consider some body as Jew. Only problem is whether this 'minor' claim should be clarified in the article or not. And it is not only my claim. I tried to find other sources and I found some Please see [1] British-Israel-World Federation

Zain 21:49, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Zain:

Your argument about what you want is not entirely clear. The article Who is a Jew? does deal with people who are affiliated with other religions but are ethnically Jewish, and the question of their Judaism. This article does not define who is Jew at all.
The British-Israel-World Federation is generally considered to be anti-Semitic, but it works as an illustration of a long tradition of groups claiming relationship to (or superseding) the Jews via the Lost Ten Tribes -- the Rastafarians are another. These groups are not Jews, and especially not ethnic Jews; the subject of the Jew article. Given the existance of the Lost Ten Tribes article, as well as individual articles on each subject, this seems well covered. And, again, none of these groups are claiming to actually be Jews.
Remember, this article covers Jews as a nation or ethnic group. You would need to show some evidence that there are substantial (not fringe) groups that are considered Jews (by someone other themselves), and don't just consider themselves inherentors of the Jews' religious mantel or something.

Does this address your concern? --Goodoldpolonius2 22:10, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

If this article excludes other claims it should simply say that they are excluded. Doing following two simultaneously will cause problem

We exclude these claims
We don't write that we have excluded them.

It will cause future problems too. Let me try to give example of future problems. These people can claim a place in this article. Unless we clear in this article that these people are not discussed in this article. One example I gave earlier which u said are anti-Semantic. Please note that if a claim is viewed as anti-semantic we can't exclude it. We even have article on 'holocaust denial'. Following is list of additional potential problems unless we clarify.

Zain 22:33, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Zain, we do not need to include anti-Semitic movements (Christian Identity, Anglo-Israelism), Christian movements designed to prostelyze Jews (Jews for Jesus, Messianic Judaism), or clearly Christian (and in some cases extinct) sects (Talmidaism, Judaizing teachers) in an article about Jews. There are articles on these movements in Wikipedia. If you look up Jews in any dictionary, go to the Jew entry in any encyclopedia, or go to the Jewish history section of your local bookstore, these groups are not what you would find. They do not have any connection to traditional Jewish ethnic and religious identity and have not been part of Jewish history, in some cases, they explicitly want to destroy the Jews (look at the article on Christian Identity, which has a quote referring to its "demonic anti-Semitism"). Aside from themselves (and in many of these cases, not even themselves, see Talmidism, Christian Identity, Nazarene) nobody considers these people Jews, except in the cases of individual Jews who convert to these religions. The case of these individual Jewish members of non-Jewish religions is already described in the Who is a Jew? article.

Also, your argument is tautological - you state that if we do not mention these groups as excluded, we have to include them. This is illogical -- not including counterfactual claims is also acceptable. For example, the physics article on Einstein does not have to include or explicitly exclude crank scientists who criticism him with no backing, peer review, or cause.

Zain, I do have to repeat my concerns about the nature of your arguments, which seem less based on real concerns, and more about poking holes in the Jew article. You seem to be attacking the current definition of Jew, moving from position to position as your arguments are rebutted:

First, you argued that people of Jewish descent like Madeline Albright should be included. It was pointed out that this is already covered in the article Who is a Jew?, and you dropped the point.
Next, you argued that groups that might be descended from Jews in the distant past (Pashtuns, etc.) should be included. It was demonstrated that these groups did not claim to be Jewish, among other objections,and you dropped this point.
Third, you argued that figures that converted out of Judaism, or are not associated primarily with Judaism, should be covered. You were told that they were, in both Who is a Jew? and in the list of Jews (Jesus, Disraeli)
- Side issue: I do not believe that Jesus ever "converted out of Judaism". No need to discuss it here at any further length, but I didn't want that remark to stand without comment. -- Jmabel | Talk 03:17, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC) Point taken -Pol.
After that, you argued that groups that claim to descend from the Ten Lost Tribes should be listed. It was pointed out that an article on this topic exists
Now, you are claiming that any group that proclaims itself the "true Jews" should be listed. An argument that (if you look back through Talk) has been addressed many times, and ultimately would damage the article and set a bad precident.

I definitely assume good faith, Zain, but this progression shows a general desire to widen the definition of Jew, rather than actually addressing a perceived confusion. Please demonstrate that others are confused looking up Jew and getting an article on Jews, rather than the Christian Identity Movement--Goodoldpolonius2 23:23, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Zain, this article is about the people known as Jews, not about the many religious groups practicing various faiths and having some Jewish membership, nor about the many groups claiming to be Israelites. There is no confusion here, except the confusion you appear to be trying to create in your attempts to broaden the definition of Jew, and you've already stated on your own user pages why you wish to broaden this definition. Regardless, Wikipedia is not a soapbox, and certainly not the place to promote a political agenda by pretending there is confusion about what a Jew is, when in reality none exists. Jayjg | (Talk) 02:05, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Please note the following.

I have not asked to add any of these in this article.
I personally don't believe that all/any of them should be considered as Jews.

As far as widening of the definition is concerned I only tried to show that if we don't clarify that who are excluded, they have right to claim a place in this article, even if their believe is 'incorrect' or their have 'bad faith'.

As per wikipedia policy.

"Ideas that a lot of people believe or once believed deserve not only mention but respectful treatment"

So I only had to show that people believe in it. Whether those believe is 'correct' or 'incorrect'. Whether these believes are 'good faith' or 'bad faith'. These issues are covered thoroughly in the articles which I referred.

As including all these will make article difficult to manage. We should simply say that they are excluded.

Zain 14:42, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Zain, you have ignored the points I have made:

These people are not Jews, except where they are converts from Judaism (covered in Who is a Jew?).
You are arguing a tautology ("mention them or else you have to mention them!") which is both logically and factually incorrect, as I explained above.
You are misusing "Wikipedia Policy." The same article you sited on NPOV mentions that points of view included should be important and backed up by outside experts, something which you have not done. Also, respectful treatment does not require us to specifically mention points of view that are incorrect, fringe (note wikipedia policy you quoted "a lot of people believe"; do a lot of people believe the Christian Identity movement members are Jews?), or irrelevant to the article in question.

You have not demonstrated that there is any confusion over the concept of Jew, except that which you are attempting to manufacture. --Goodoldpolonius2 16:35, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Zain, you haven't shown anything so far about Jews except your own attempts to broaden the definitionof Jew based on no supporting evidence. Jayjg | (Talk) 16:43, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Some people believe they are Jews (I listed the sources earlier)
Nope my opinion is this. Mention that 'we have excluded them', because we have excluded them.
I don't believe that, any 'expert' believes that interpretation of Sun by ancient Greeks is correct. But wikipedia policy says that even those are required to be mentioned.
These views are already covered in wikipedia. This means that number of 'believers' are enough worth mentioning.

Zain 20:21, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Zain:

You are the only one creating this confusion over which groups are Jews. I have demonstrated (and you have not rebutted) that I think that your effort is part of a personal, POV effort to expand the definition of Jews. This is not a personal attack on you, but rather a request that you demonstrate that this confusion is held by some reasonably significant group of people, rather than just yourself, and is not dealt with in the Who is a Jew? article. Please do so - provide sources outside Wikipedia to confirm this confusion.
Which of these people believe that they are ethnically Jews (outside of the individual cases discussed in Who is a Jew?)? Your article didn't say anything of the sort. You provided one article in which a group claimed that they were Israelites, and, reading it, explicitly said they were not Jews. This is not evidence of anything like what you are claiming.
Existance of a wikipedia entry on a group does not make the group significant -- wikipedia has no editors that ensure significance of articles. There needs to be some preponderency of reputable, outside confirmation that others consider these groups to be Jews. Again, outside sources please.
The Sun example is in the NPOV tutorial project, it is not part of official Wikipedia policy, and, in fact, is (in my opinion) a somewhat misguided and confusing example that has been argued about before. Even if this example was policy, there is a difference between a once-widely held and at one point significant view (the Sun is Apollo) and a view that is fringe, insignificant, and not widely-held. Again, I would ask you to provide outside sources.

Zain, the burden of proof rests with you. Please provide some substantial evidence, or else be willing to let this argument drop. --Goodoldpolonius2 20:42, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC) It would also be helpful in understanding your argument if you let us know exactly what language you would like to insert into the article and where so that we can discuss exactly those changes. Thanks. --Goodoldpolonius2 05:27, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Ethnicity

Cross posted from User talk:MPerel.

Can you tell what you mean by 'ethnic'. Do you mean 'race' ? ethnic here appears to be more of a vessel term. Please use some explicit term. And if ethnic is the only term to describe it, then tell that what ethnic means here?

Zain 01:53, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

In the case of Jews, they are considered an ethnicity or "nationality" -- race is a problematic term, and one that carries a lot of cultural baggage. From the start of the Jew article: "This article discusses the term as describing an ethnic group; for a consideration of the religion, please refer to Judaism. Most Jews regard themselves as a people, members of a nation."

If you don't mind me quoting further, I think Jmabel's response to you earlier addresses exactly this issue: "Nationality and ethnicity are always tricky concepts. There is certainly a place in Wikipedia for an extensive coverage of these subtleties, but the article on one particular ethnic group is almost certainly not the place to do it. Jewish ethnicity is probably slightly better defined than most (in specific focus on matrilineality), but the rest of these issues apply almost as much to any ethnicity. At some point, if a person is a few generations removed from the Jewish community and makes no active effort to claim to be a Jew, they tend to drift out of the self-defined community. If the continuity is clear and someone chooses to reassert that identity (as a number of Marranos have done in recent years), they are usually accepted without much difficulty. When it is more like millennia, it gets trickier, partly because there is so unlikely to be any continuous tradition. Sometimes entire groups (such as the Ethiopian Jews) have been generally recognized as genuine Jews even at that distance in time, but it is rare. Little of this has any agreed-upon formality."

In further response to your point, Jmabel edited the Who is a Jew? article a few days back to discuss how ethnicity fits into Jewish identity. See Social and anthropological approaches to Jewish identity for more information.

Finally, I would like to point out that there have been changes to Alternative Judaism and Who is a Jew? made in response (at least partially) to your concerns, in addition to the article on Lost Ten Tribes, and individual entries on various groups claiming descent from the Israelites. There really seems to be a lot of information on other groups around, you have not proven that any of the groups you name actually think they are Jews as a group (besides those of ethnic Jewish background in the first place). Your points are taken seriously, but you have been recycling the same argument. As I said several times - please provide some evidence (besides Wikipedia links) for your views. Thanks.

--Goodoldpolonius2 03:19, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Well frankly initially my concern was only descend. I know the pushtoon claims, first hand. Most important thing is that they don't use this claim to get any advantage. In fact many pukhtoons see this claim true although they feel it is offensive! Other claims of descend came into my mind when I read articles like Silent Holocaust and mentions of willfully/forcefully conversions in various Jewish articles/sources.

After you asked for additional sources which specifically call them self Jews. I did a small research and found there are many others which specifically use the word Jew. I also discovered that in Bible the word 'Jew' is only used to describe the race. Many like 'Paul' also used the same term. Paul continued to call himself a 'Jew'. After seeing these and many other claims, I felt more stronger that article needs more clarification that, which people this article actually discussed.

'who is jew' article discusses various definitions. But this article doesn't makes clear that which one of these choices is chosen here and which of the choices are rejected. Whole sections of history/Statistics/Famous people depend upon the choice of the definition. So it should be made more clear that which choice(s) are employed in this article. Currently it only says that religion is not the only base chosen in this article.

Zain 12:24, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Zain, please look at my previous post, since I do not think you had a chance to see it and respond. Also, I would again request that you provide some credible, outside links to sources that are about groups that are considered Jews by some significant and contemporary minority, but are not addressed in the Who is a Jew? article (as converted "Messianic Jews" are). You have not done so despite four or five requests, just as you have never responded to my criticisms of the list of Wikipedia articles you keep reproducing at various locations, claiming they are also Jews. If you want to continue to discuss, please (1) be specific in what you want in the article and where, (2) be specific in your outside evidence about why your opinion is accurate, and (3) please respond to the challenges you have received about your evidence to date. Otherwise, there is not much to say. Goodoldpolonius2 15:18, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Sorry it's taken me so long to reply here. First let me say, Zain, that having a non-native-English-speaking contributor like yourself participate on these articles is beneficial since you have fresh eyes to give feedback on points the article may not make clear. I don't think anyone considers you anti-Jewish, however, I can see the communication gap is frustrating on both ends : )

What I observe is that this article only attempts to define “Jew” in a very broad general sense, and is not intended to specifically include or exclude any particular groups. It merely points the reader to more specific articles where finer definitional aspects are further explored.

So lets consider whether it is successful in leaving a broad enough definition to at least leave open for discussion some of the sample groups you’ve mentioned in the sub articles. (Let me mention that I think you have uncovered some problems that DO need to be addressed).

I only see two sentences that actually offer any kind of definition of Jew in this article. The first is found in the first sentence of the first paragraph. The second is found in the last sentence of the second paragraph:

1) “The word Jew is used in a wide number of ways, but generally refers to a follower of the Jewish faith, a child of a Jewish mother, or a member of the Jewish culture or ethnicity and often a combination of these attributes.”

This sentence defines Jew in three ways:

religious (a follower of Judaism)
matrilineal descent (defined by Halacha, Jewish Law)
ethnic group

A qualifying sentence after the first sentence appears to limit further discussion of Jewish definition in this article to “ethnic group” and relegate discussion of who is considered a Jew by religion to the Judaism article. As far as covering Jews who may be considered Jews in the religious sense, this seems to be covered since it does appear that the Judaism article addresses even non-mainstream Jewish religions (e.g., Karaites, Christian groups like Messianic Judaism and “Jews for Jesus”, etc). Do you agree?

2) "Ethnic Jews include both so-called "religious Jews," meaning those who practice Judaism, and so-called "secular Jews," those who, while not practicing Judaism as a religion, still identify themselves as Jews in a cultural or ethnic sense."

This sentence attempts to clarify “ethnic Jew” as

“religious”, one who practices Judaism
“secular”, one who identifies as a Jew in a cultural or ethnic sense

This second sentence attempting to define “ethnic Jew” is problematic. It’s confusing and inconsistent with sentence #1. Your example of Madeline Albright is a perfect example, because by this definition in sentence #2, she would be excluded as an “ethnic” Jew since she is neither a “religious” Jew practicing Judaism, nor is she a “secular” Jew since she is a Catholic. The definition of ethnic Jew here seems to limit the discussion to Jews who either practice Judaism or no religion. You’re right that “ethnic Jews” here does not appear to include people who identify themselves as Jews due to Jewish heritage, perhaps having one or both Jewish parents or Jewish ancestry (perhaps even remote ancestry). I believe the remedy is to expand the second sentence about “ethnic Jews” to include general mention about Jewish heritage, and leave it open enough to allow further discussion in the “Who is a Jew” article. What do you think?

--MPerel 20:56, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)

MPerel, thanks for breaking this down into digestable chunks. I think the issue with the second sentence is the two part catagorization into religious and secular traditions. Perhaps we can say that "Jews include both those Jews actively practicing Judaism, and those Jews who, while not practicing Judaism as a religion, still identify themselves as Jews by virtue of their family's Jewish heritage and their own cultural identification." This excludes individuals that decide they are Jewish without any Jewish parents/grandparents/etc or any formal conversion, which is what you would expect from any nationality - you are either born into it, or you naturalize into it (coversion). You can't simply select it without either of these qualifications

Incidentally, I have a problem with our use of Jew as "ethnic" group, rather than cultural or national group. The soc.culture.jewish FAQ has a really good description that I put out there for people's consideration, although I certainly do not feel a need to push this point (nor do I agree with all of it):

"Judaism can be thought of as being simultaneously a religion, a nationality and a culture.

Throughout the middle ages and into the 20th century, most of the European world agreed that Jews constituted a distinct nation. This concept of nation does not require that a nation have either a territory nor a government, but rather, it identifies, as a nation any distinct group of people with a common language and culture. Only in the 19th century did it become common to assume that each nation should have its own distinct government; this is the political philosophy of nationalism. In fact, Jews had a remarkable degree of self-government until the 19th century. So long as Jews lived in their ghettos, they were allowed to collect their own taxes, run their own courts, and otherwise behave as citizens of a landless and distinctly second-class Jewish nation.

Of course, Judaism is a religion, and it is this religion that forms the central element of the Jewish culture that binds Jews together as a nation. It is the religion that defines foods as being kosher and non-kosher, and this underlies Jewish cuisine. It is the religion that sets the calendar of Jewish feast and fast days, and it is the religion that has preserved the Hebrew language.

Is Judaism an ethnicity? In short, not any more. Although Judaism arose out of a single ethnicity in the Middle East, there have always been conversions into and out of the religion. Thus, there are those who may have been ethnically part of the original group who are no longer part of Judaism, and those of other ethnic groups who have converted into Judaism.

If you are referring to a nation in the sense of race, Judaism is not a nation. People are free to convert into Judaism; once converted, they are considered the same as if they were born Jewish. This is not true for a race" --Goodoldpolonius2 21:23, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Exactly, good points, that as with any nationality - you are either born into it, or you naturalize into it (conversion). Before I saw your suggested sentence, I came up with the following: Ethnic Jews include people who identify themselves as Jews due to ancestral heritage, religion, or culture. It should be noted that not all people who identify as Jews are accepted as Jews under Jewish law, or by the larger Jewish community. For further discussion of this, see "Who is a Jew". Something that mentions the larger group of people who self-identify as Jews, but yet addresses the fact that not everyone who says they're Jewish is considered Jewish by all. --MPerel 22:17, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)

Maybe we should just stick with nationality, and avoid ethnicity altogether? Jayjg | (Talk) 22:25, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yes I agree with both of you and think perhaps we should move away from the term "ethnic" Jew. It gets sounding circular anyway, the first sentence in the article makes it sound like there's a dichotomy between "religious" Jews and "ethnic" Jews, and yet the latter sentence describes ethnic Jews as including "relgious" Jews. So the overlap is confusing to the reader. --MPerel 23:04, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)

I disagree. Etymologically, ethnicity and nationality come from Greek and Latin words, respectively. As far as I know, there is no difference at all in the ancient meanings of these words. However, in the present-day world, "nation" is strongly related to "state". We call the U.S. a "nation". We don't call it an "ethnicity". Conversely, we call African Americans an "ethnicity". We, except for the stray Black Nationalist, don't call them a "nation".

The case is trickier with the Jews, because arguably we constitute multiple ethnic groups (Ashkenazi, Sephardi, etc.). Still I lean towards ethnicity; I think the very common term "ethnic Jew" is an indication of its appropriateness.

As for "Jews constituted a distinct nation" and all that: most of the languages in which this discourse took place would not at that time have had the distinction we make in modern-day English between a "nation" and an "ethnic group". -- Jmabel | Talk 01:14, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)

Avoidance of Weasel word and explaining with Link when no other option

Well I think both terms 'national jew' and 'ethinic jew' are some what 'vessel terms'. But to write a practical encyclopedic article we have to use it. I didn't disagreed with any content of the article. I only asked that more explanation should be offered to avoid potential confusion. Only disagreement was that there is not even slight confusion (except for me of course) worth more explanation.

So here is a practical solution. If we use the term 'ethinic jew', we should make an article Who is ethnic Jew? and give it as a link here. If 'national jew' is chosen we should make an article titled Who is national jew?. So we will get rid of need of explanations in this article.

These reference articles will be very helpful. And if we ever get in dispute again that whether Jesus, merry or paul should be mentioned here. The decision will be very easy. And all that dispute will go in those articles not here.

A personal note: Although I am not anti-jew. I don't believe in hate due to religion or race. But problem is that I am pro-Palestinian. This makes me at odd with others here, on regular basis. Now mostly my interest in this article, is due to my current interest in 'Arab-Israeli conflict'. Ironically my interest 'Arab Israel conflict' developed due to my interest in this article, when I was very new to wikipedia. And just by the way my interest in wikipedia was due to my interest in open source. Now the interest is almost exclusively due to articles with high difference of opinions.

Zain 21:02, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Zain, a few things.

First, I think some of the concern that people (including myself) have had about your opinions is not about your feelings on the the Palestinians, you can be pro-Palestinian, neutral, or anti-Palestinian, that is not relevant to the Jew article. The concern is the fact that you have announced before that you are interested in creating a bridge between this article and your POV on the Arab-Israeli conflict (that all people of possible Jewish descent are all Jews, and therefor all have rights to Israel, etc.), rather than a desire to actually improve the information about Jews in the article. This may not be the case, but it has appeared that way from your statements on other Talk pages.
I don't understand "vessel terms" -- could you explain what you mean?
Judaism is, in some ways, an ethnicity, a nationality, a religion, and a culture. They are not entirely seperable elements. Can you point out explicitly what confusion you have with the Who is a Jew? article that you feel needs to be fixed with multiple articles?
Did the change I made to the article after the discussion above resolve your confusion? And, again, if not, can you provide some evidence of the confusion going beyond your personal view? You still have yet to provide outside sources.

--Goodoldpolonius2 21:29, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Any way although irrelevant to original discussion but these have to be answered. I had no intention to make a 'bridge'. That's why I never asked any of them to be mentioned here. The post which is not even on this page (Although I can have an idea that how that information of that post got into this article), On that 'unrelated' post I mentioned that I am not sure whether it is 'correct' or 'incorrect'. My obvious choice to find relevant information just for sake of encyclopedic context was this article. This article although looked to be most relevant by title, but had nil information about the subject. That was fully acceptable because descent is not accepted as mainstream definition especially among those who are converted to other religions. The other part was that, this article never clear that this article excludes such information. So it gave me the impression that probably this doesn't exist. And my perceived possibility is incorrect. So for sake of curiosity I posted that why they are not mentioned. But alas the answer was not very objective. All answers were very subjective (with few exceptions).

As an encyclopedia, it is for information. The information was not there. And explanation why it is not there was also very clear. But any how if you see my entire posts carefully. I have said repeatedly that I don't want any change in this article. Basically such believes (if exist) are of minor opinion.

Now about the term I misspelled it. It is Weasel word

Let me put some quotes from the article

..weasel terms are statements that are misleading because they lack the normal substantiations of their truthfulness, as well as the background information against which these statements are made.

..words obscures the fact he has omitted vital information ..

..employs the vocabulary that heightens the expectations of his audience without his being in the position of fulfilling these expectations..

Wikipedia policy say to avoid such words. So does the 'ethnic jew' term helps reader to decide whether Jesus, Paul, or marry , or all Israelites are 'ethnic jew'. Whether Albright is 'ethnic jew'. Where to draw the line?

The wording should be such that reader should be very clear that which people this article discusses. And which people this article excludes. If such distinction is not very easy. Just make a separate article of Who is ethnic jew?. And the problem will be exported from this article at least for now. And in this article we will be more comfortable to tell that which person is excluded and which is included and why?

'Who is jew' article is not the solution. It tells about different definitions. While in this article we are sticking with only one definition. (Which is understandable to avoid disputes). Now if we are taking one of the many definitions present. The 'ethnic jew' definition is most difficult to draw the line (At least theoratically). But is the broadest to give a national sense. (which is the most used sense of the term). As this is an objective an factual article. (history, statistics, famous people). It needs a very sharpened definition because many sections in this article require clear distinction between 'ethnic jew' or 'non-ethnic jew'.

Zain 23:32, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Zain, your personal confusion about the articles, whether feigned or real, is not relevant to the article itself, which is quite clear. If you have any other concerns, please state them succinctly, I'm afraid we're going to have to archive this Talk: page again soon. Jayjg | (Talk) 00:53, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Zain, I am getting a bit depressed here. I have written maybe 30 replies to you, rationally and with great consideration, answering every point you have ever brought up. You almost never directly reply to these challenges. Additionally, I have edited the begining of this article in response to your point and Jmabel edited Who is a Jew? similarly. Yet you keep inventing new objections -- most recently the distinction between ethnic and non-ethnic Jews. There is no such thing as ethnic and non-ethnic Jews - there are simply Jews. This article discusses Jews, and leaves the tasks of defining Jews to the Who is a Jew? article, which includes information on the elements that might make someone Jewish under various definitions such as ethnicity, religion, nationhood, etc. For example, the article describes how Mary and Jesus would be considered Jews, and describes the objections of who might disagree with that view. It specifically talks about Albright. Yet you keep raising these issues again and again, without any outside support for your assertions.

The nature of the cases you feel are not covered in the article are not clear. I have asked you a dozen times to provide sources indicating that the Who is a Jew? article is not inclusive enough of the definition of Jew. Yet you keep quoting wiki rules that don't apply without ever stating exactly what changes you would like to make to the article, and what your outside support for those changes are. Please do this now, provide sources outside Wikipedia, or there is no reason to keep considering your objections. Regretfully, --Goodoldpolonius2 01:46, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

In what sense is "ethnic Jew" a weasel term? It is used because "Jew" is a word with several different definitions (as discussed in the lead of this article). It is a term that emphasizes inclusion of people who may not practice Judaism. To draw an analogy: the word "Romanian" can mean either a citizen of Romania, regardless of ethnicity, or an ethnic Romanian -- a person of a particular heritage -- regardless of citizenship. Is the latter category perfectly defined? No. Is it clear enough in most cases to be useful? Yes.

There are other topics where imprecision is inherent. For example, we have articles on Left-wing politics, Right-wing politics, Liberalism, Conservatism etc. It's not always easy to say whether each particular individual or even political viewpoint clearly fits one of these categories, but that doesn't mean that they are not useful in talking about politics. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:21, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)

I think Zain has identified a defect in the Weasel word article, which apparently does not emphasize the important point that the difference between difficulty of definition (or imprecision) and a "weasel word" is the matter of intent. In the case of this article, we have a problem of exactly describing something for which there isn't a good precise term that everyone could agree on. A weasel word on the other hand, is intended to deceive. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 07:04, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Nationality

Found an intersting tidbit on identification as a nationality (or not). According to Michael Riff, The Face of Survival: Jewish Life in Eastern Europe Past and Present, Valentine Mitchell, London, 1992, ISBN 0853032203, page 87–88, the Polish national census in 1931 asked separate questions about religion and nationality. Of about 3.1 million Jews (by religion) in Poland at that time, about three quarters also identified it as their nationality. The remainder, explains Riff, were "either assimilated Jews or ultra-Orthodox and Chassidic Jews who opposed the concept of Jewish nationality for religious reasons." Not sure if there's somewhere this belongs in an article, but it is one of the few statistics I've ever seen polling a large number of Jews on whether they consider Jewishness a "nationality". -- Jmabel | Talk 05:18, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)

I believe the Candian census allows one to enter "Jewish" under both religion and ethnic origin. While the majority of respondents enter Jewish for both, inevitably some people enter Jewish for one, but not the other. Jayjg | (Talk) 05:27, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Cut from article

I cut the following recently added paragraph.

In 1995, a group of Jews of color from the United States and abroad met in Chicago to form the Alliance of Black Jews, estimating black Jews in the United States to number about 200,000, or about three percent of the American Jewish population. The figure, which included "black Hebrew" and "Israelite" congregations not necessarily recognized by mainstream Judaism, and also black Reform, Conservation, Orthodox and Reconstructionist Jews by birth or conversion, was based in part on the Jewish Population Study that gave various figures ranging from 120,000 to 260,000. Some prominent Black Jews are named in the list of Black Jews.

Inclusion of this would give more space to discussion in this article of Jews of color in the United States than we give to Ashkenazim or Sephardim. This may well belong somewhere in Wikipedia (although I'd sure like to see a citation), but not here. -- Jmabel | Talk 22:19, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)

Britain != England

Why does the link 'Britain' under Jewish populations lead to the article History of the Jews in England. Unless this was done for a good reason, the link text should be changed to England, or the article be changed to cover all of Britain.

Ezrahut / leom

My (genuinely) ignorant question: I don't speak Hebrew. I gather that with reference to Jews as citizens in Israel there is an important distinction that is expressed by two Hebrew words, roughly ezrahut and leom. Is this true, if so what is the distinction, and is there some article that should mention this? -- Jmabel | Talk 23:05, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)

Ethnicity (redux)

Goodoldpolonius2 reverted my edit. His/her revert implies it's a fact that Jews are ethnic group when it's not. Marcus2 21:39, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Why do you think Jews are not an ethnic group? Jayjg ^(talk) 21:40, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Because I believe Jews are members of a religious sect and I don't think they can have two ethnicities. They are Russian, Ukrainian, Polish, German, etc. Marcus2 21:50, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

As I remarked at Jewish American, race is a generally discredited concept that mainly reflects 19th century anthropological thinking, and was presumed to have a genetic basis that has now been largely disproved. Ethnicity involves identity, and while Jewish Americans may not constitute an ethnic group in the narrowest sense of the term, they fit it every bit as much as Italian Americans (who include people from Milan as well as Sicily), and far better than Chinese Americans (who include, for example, Hukka who have no particular biological relation to most other Chinese). -- Jmabel | Talk 21:57, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)

Practically no Russian, Ukrainian, Pole, or German, would consider any Jew to be of Russian, Ukrainian, Polish, or German ethnicity. -- Jmabel | Talk 22:00, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)

Responding to your quote, "Practically no Russian, Ukrainian, Pole, or German, would consider any Jew to be of Russian, Ukrainian, Polish, or German ethnicity", that's the way people thought in the past, but not in modern times. Their religion is Jewish, but they're Caucasian or European, aren't they? So why would they not be considered an ethnicity like Russian, Ukrainian, Polish, or German? Marcus2 22:07, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

What do you mean when you say "they're Caucasian or European"? Jayjg ^(talk) 22:16, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Marucs2, it might be worth rereading the discussions with Zain above. In any case, I think that there is a fundamental problem here with the way that you are defining ethnicity, as equivalent to the standard concept of "race." People can be of more than one ethnicity, since it is an affiliative grouping, while, in the old conception of race, they could only be "white" or "black," or some other race, part of why the concept is so bad. This overlapping concept of ethnicity depends on level of analysis -- an ethnic Swede could also be considered an "ethnic European" as well, depending on their affiliation, despite your claim that people only have one ethnic group. Generally, ethnicity is a fuzzy term, but "Jewishness" would almost always be considered to meet the standards of ethnic group, both historically and today. --Goodoldpolonius2 02:15, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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 [[2] 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#Revisionists_and_deniers 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)

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)

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 [3], 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[4], and this site lists 11,200[5]. --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 ([6]), 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): [7] --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 ^(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)

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 ^(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 ^(talk) 03:53, 24 Mar 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)