"

Jayjg, is there any edit to this article you would accept? What are your objections to clarifying ethnic vs. religious definitions of ""Jews""? The article is currently confusing as to which is which, and it would help to clarify that JfJ means ethnic Jews. I think in the case Mackan points out, ""many"" is appropriately used-many Jewish groups do see JfJ that way, but certainly not all (I would imagine there are plenty of Jewish groups without any official position on JfJ.) Also, most religions are rather fluid and change over time, and there is often debate over interpretation. It is, therefore, not quite so easy to state religious principles as fact (Jews don't believe in Jesus as Messiah? What about Messianic Judaism?) Of course, religious faith also tends to be given over to a lot of dogmatism (""my way is the correct one"" type of thinking), so sometimes it's difficult to see debates to that as valid. WP:WEASEL does not object to ever using ""many"" or ""most"" or the like as qualifiers, it advocates against it only in the absence of sourcing. What we have here is a lot of sourcing, which does not, however, show that all Jews object to JfJ (as I explained above, that would be effectively impossible). It does, of course, show that ""many"" do (I wouldn't even object to ""almost all"" or ""most""), but in order to preserve the plausibility requirement of WP:NPOV (JfJ's assertion that it is Jewish must be treated as plausible), it is impossible that all Jewish organizations disagree-as JfJ doesn't!  "