Talk:Who is a Jew?/Archive 3

message: I am a contributor to the Black People article and I am doing a study on something that is irking me about the debate on that article. I took a compromising approach, and using this article as a good example, I created an article called Who is black. Someone changed it to Definitions of black people. I am here asking the contributors here a simple question. What would go through your mind and how would it feel if someone (especially a non-Jew) changed THIS article from Who is a Jew to Definitions of Jewish people. I felt that it would be condescending and offensive to Jews to "define" instead of "asking" them this. It feels to "define" would assume they (Jews) are less than capable of expressing their complexities from their own POV, which obviously must occur for this article to make any sense. Something about "definitions" seems to smack of arrogance (esp. if changed by a non-Jew). It also diminishes the objectivity of the article as such a subject inherently implies there is no cut-and-dry way to define.  What do you think?  --Zaphnathpaaneah 02:28, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Dark skin was obviously noticed throughout history, but the concept of race did not exist before several hundred years ago and so Black as an ethnic idenity did not exist. And the reason the article is not called "Who is Black" like the "Who is Jewish" article, is because this article is better than the "who is Jewish" article because it provides a list of cited and varied definitions from people of different races (plus extensive criticism), and thus can have an encyclopedic title.  "Who is Black?" is a question, not a title for an encyclopedia artice. "Who is Jewish" should also be changed.__Whatdoyou 15:26, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree that it's a silly title, but I think "definitions of Black people" sounds even dumber. As though Black people were not people at all, but someTHING to be defined. Same thing, obviously, with Jews.FlaviaR 17:25, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's cowardly to half-way do something. Someone changed the title to "controversies" of Jewish identity. It's like they don't want to offend Jewish contributors with ignorance, but they have no problem offending Black people with the same ignornace. Bravo to the cowardice! --Zaphnathpaaneah 16:21, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

text: That is an idiotic (I'm sorry) analogy here. "Mihu Yehudi?" which translates into English as "Who is a Jew?" is different than asking "Who is Black?" in English twice. —Ryūlóng (竜龍) 07:03, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  While I agree with you, I have an idea that might satisfy everyone (okay, I'm an optimist): What if this article would be entitled "Jewish Identity" (& therefore the other article as well)??FlaviaR 17:28, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Black people article request 

message: I'm wondering if anyone has come across any serious scholarly research that has examined the fact that Jews tend to be quite overrepresented amongst the gay and lesbian populations in the modern World, particularly in the USA and Western Europe.  I have read about this on certain Jewish websites and in a couple Jewish newsletters/newspapers, but have yet to find any academic research on this matter.  I know that the worldwide Jewish community is generally very gay/lesbian friendly, but I am looking for information/statistics that have has confirmed the noticeably higher incidence of homosexuality/lesbianism in the (mostly secular) Jewish population.  Thank you for any information that you can provide.  --205.188.117.73 16:26, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I have no idea from where comes this idea. Gay and Lesbians are around 2-4% of the population of each country, and there is no indication that the situation is different in Israel, where the population by large is not exactly more friendly to Gays than in Europe or USA. French Jews, as I know, are also usually not very gay friendly. But they are mostly North African Jews and there seems to be a strong difference between Ashkenazim and Sefaradim on the issue, and of course between religious and non or less religious Jews. Benjil 10:05, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Hello. I'm afraid this sort of question is a bit outside the scope of this article. You might want to address this sort of inquery to Wikipedia:WikiProject Judaism. Best, --Shirahadasha 19:28, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

text: At the risk of one more off-topic remark: probably only among non-Orthodox Ashkenazis, and probably not a higher percentage of gays, just a higher percentage who are out. I'm sure you'd find the same among Unitarians and any other relatively open and accepting communities. - Jmabel | Talk 00:00, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Jmabel is probably right. This is an issue of preselection: Jews tend to embrace education, self-knowledge and honesty, and American reform Judaism tends to be more accepting of people who are different (at least in terms of sexual identity), so I don't think there are MORE gay Jews - just more people who are Jewish admit / declare their homosexuality. Moehong 00:43, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Higher Percentage of Gays/Lesbians Found in Modern Jews -- Research 

message: Perhaps it is important to note that Jews have not interbred with their host countries, thus preserving a large part of their original Semitic ethnicity. --Smnioffe 02:05, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Jewish Ethnicity

message: Jews are people whom adhere to the Jewish faith…in another word Judaism is faith like Christianity Buddhism, and Islam  NOT race…. Thanks to this  DNA age  it is found recently most of  Jews don’t have the same DNA .   Ethiopian Jews  for example don’t have similarities with  German Jews  and most of the Jews  are not even Semite…It is actually more proven that Arabs and  especially the Palestinians  have Identical share with their  DNA ..and  most important Haplogroup J1( that Define some one a Semite or not and from priestly lineage of Aaron )  is more  frequent Found  in the Levant, mainly in the Bedouin tribes (62,5%) and Palestinian Arabs (38,4%) than 14.6% of the Ashkenazim and 11.9% of the Sephardic results (Semino et al. 2004) a study that shows that most these so called Jews  are not related to Ethnic 12 tribes of Israel. Only jews from Blood line of Jacob is called Israelite, and not vice versa217.42.216.204 21:40, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Judaism is a faith, but Jewish identity is ethno-religious. I've restored the correct text. ←Humus sapiens ну? 23:45, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

text: My father is Jewish, while I am an agnostic. However I strongly identify myself with the Jewish people, because although I do not practice Judaism, I do share the culture and ethnicity. My father was born in Russia and as a child experienced anti-Semitism. People could tell he was Jewish by his appearance, his hair was darker and curlier than most, his skin was tanner and his nose was larger. Many physical traits people stereotypically attribute to Jews are often true. This is because over many generations, due to religion and discrimination of the Jewish people, intermarriage has historically been very low.  Additionally, historically few people have converted to the religion. Thus, the genetic makeup of the first Semitic Jewish people living in the middle-east has been largely preserved in many modern Jews, whose family comes from a Jewish lineage. However, over the past century intermarriage between Jews and non-Jews has gone up significantly. In a few more hundred years the Jewish ethnicity will probably mostly dissolve. DNA testing has been done and proved thats Jews are ethnically related: http://www.aish.com/societywork/sciencenature/Jewish_Genes.asp --Smnioffe 22:02, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, there were conversions outside of the Sephardic and Ashkenazi Jewish group, however those are rare exceptions. The vast majority of Jewish people are of Sephardic and Ashkenazi descent.  I am not talking about others such as African and Asian Jews especially since they are a minority amongst Jews. But ethnic Sephardic and Ashkenazi Jews are ethnically related to one another and to the original Semitic tribe who were the first to adopt Judaism.  Again, this has been proved by DNA research, and I strongly believe that this should be included in this article.  http://www.aish.com/societywork/sciencenature/Jewish_Genes.asp--Smnioffe 21:40, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

text: That’s just not true. I am a Russian Jew and was born in Russia. My family's ancestors lived in Germany before Russia. Almost all Russian Jews have German or Hebrew last names.  The Khazars have almost fully dissolved, and not necessarily into modern Jews. Even if a portion of the Khazars blood is in modern Jews, it is extremely miniscule.--Smnioffe 02:47, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Does the problem to answer to "is jew a faith or a ethnic group..." comes also from this: in the begining of jew history the word jew was used in the same time to describe a tribe, or a group of people, and their religion? Then century after century a group of jew can somehow still be considered as linked to the first jewish (persecution, way of becoming jewish which for some or many jewish familly meant to get married with another jew...), but lot of other jew are just converted. This is a very hard question and I believe that people will never be agree on this definition according to their own opinion.84.239.219.71 10:11, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If i understand your question correctly, then yes, that IS part of the ongoing discussion. However, we're not trying to answer the question, merely document the debate. (It would be more accurate to understand this page as not being unlike the Talmud, where various rabbis saw a question and recorded their debates trough time as well, though the metaphor isn't a perfect comparitive.) ThuranX 23:41, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Judaism is faith not RACE 

message: After defining Jews as race not Faith, Zionism like Nazism Calling for a PURE Jewish state just like Nazis calling for PURE..ARAYAN State. But it is openly obvious that Jews are not one race but races. Recent DNA test shows that Palestinians Lebanese Syrians have genetically more blood related to Ancients Israelites...that if they are not the Israelites. Zionism is making Judaism Race not Faith so to establish an ethno-cratic Secular not Religious state of Israel based on Race that Contradict the Laws of YHWH. Zionism definition of Judaism is Not Kosher81.153.69.171 10:28, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  It is Zionism Not YHWH   that define Judaism  Race Not Faith 

message: Why is there no mention of the idea that everyone is a Jew, though obviously to differing extents.
: Probably for the same reason that there is no mention of the idea that no one is a Jew, or that everyone is a Martian. - Jmabel | Talk 19:36, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lack of representation for the "inclusive" view...? 

message: Please do distinguish between Jew and Israelite Every one can be a Jew  because Judaism is a faith, but not any one is Israelite, because Israelite is a definition of race. Israelites were 12 ethnic tribes coming from man Jacob. 
And Only the Israelites are the ones whom the bible is taking about.
Therefore any one not Israelite even being a Jew (believer in Judaism ) is considered to be a  Gentile. 
when we talk about Israelite we talk about Race , tribes (12 tribes) Ethnics of the DNA shared from Jacob.
Any one being Hindu ,Muslim, Buddahist, Christian, Shinto, jew, Satanist and even Atheist come from the man Named Jacob ( Israel) he or she then named Israelite regarding of his or her Faith.
Therefore I suggest to fetch and check the DNA of any one who think is from the man named  Jacob (Israel) to Validate his/ her Claim. how about that?.81.153.67.74 21:55, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello, the section involved is called Divine revelation in Judaism. The point of view you are describing may be your personal point of view, but you would need reliable sources that it is a recognized viewpoint on the subject of Divine revelation in Judaism. Wikipedia describes viewpoints published in reliable sources whether or not editors personally think them correct. See our verification policy. Best, --Shirahadasha 23:38, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Unfortunately, in this situation, the bible is not considered a reliable source. Although that section MIGHT be useful as the premise opening a section, and then addressing the dichotomoies of the two labels, and the construance thereof in the modern era, the bible cannot function as a WP:RS for answering the question. ThuranX 01:19, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we can answer this question without having to get into a debate on the religious authority of the Bible. The current article is based on a contemporary dispute. The Bible doesn't tell us about what people today do; many people don't follow it. We need contemporary sources to tell us what is happening today. In addition, you appear to have a particular interpretation of the Bible on this subject. Not everyone interprets the Bible this way. Best, --Shirahadasha 18:10, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Please read the introducory policies for Wikipedia. This is an encyclopedia, and relies upon reliable sources and citation to create neutral articles documenting worthy topics. Wikipedia is not designed nor purposed for proselytizing, pushign agendas, or looking for fights online. ThuranX 01:56, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Distinguish between  the term Jew and Israelite, they are not the same. 

message: While a small number things are sourced in this article (9 things), the majority of this article is still unsourced. The  has been added because of the lack of sources in most of the article.--Sefringle 04:57, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: lack of sources

message: A recent edit tot he page suggested it was a 'genetic debate'. Here's the diff for the revert:  . While I agre that this is poor phrasing, I do wonder if the genetic debate couldn't be characterized as either a 'scientific' or 'anthropological' debate, as there are definitely genetic roots oriented aspects of the debate. Opinons? ThuranX 22:03, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think that there is any point of view (and certainly not one notable enough to be mentioned in the first sentence) about a genetic debate.  Since everyone accepts converts as full Jews it is impossible for there to be a genetic component. Jon513 12:26, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was more interested in referring to the ashkenazi/sephardim shared genetics, as seen in incidence levels of Tay-sachs, as well as debates abotu the Khazar conversion and so on. There are sections of this page, and in the debates out there about it, and so it seemed of interest. In addition, there is talk of using genetics to determine if some of the distant peoples claiming jewishness are actually connected, like the Lemba, the Kai-feng, and so on. This is just a question about how to characterize the searches for jewishness through genetic mapping and testing and related stuff. Nothing too sserious, but the edit prompted the question in my mind. ThuranX 22:25, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  'genetic debate'... 

message: Until 2005 the Israeli Identity card stated not only the 'citizenship' but also the 'nationality' of its bearer (i.e. Jew or Arab).
The article says under the heading of "Israeli rules for aliyah creates Israelis but not Jews" that:
<Until recently, the Israeli identity card had an indication of nationality, and anyone who made an alya as "4A", had NOT been marked as a Jew. Instead of that, there was an empty field.>
Block quote
</blockquote>
However, if the date of birth is giving in the Gregorian calender only, the bearer is a non-Jew and if it is given in the Hebrew Calendar too, the bearer is a Jew (according to whatever the definition of "Who is a Jew" of the issuing authority is). So this bit is only "half correct".--84.145.239.247 20:10, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Israeli Identity Card and the Question of "Who is a Jew"

message: Let's say that a young woman learns that her father's family is of Sephardi Jew ancestry, the last practicing Jew in her family being her paternal grandfather. Her father is born to a Catholic woman, but also of Sephardi Jew ancestry. The child (the young woman's father) is given up for adoption and is raised by a non-practicing Catholic. Does that make the young woman Jewish if she begins to practice Judaism because she learns that her family is of Sephardi Jew ancestry? Or will she have to be a convert? To me she would be, but halakka has such strict rules. The young woman is of Jewish blood, her paternal grandfather being a practicing Jew and the rest of her family being of Jewish descent. It's like being of Irish ancestry but since your family settled in America in the late 1800's your not a "full-blooded" Irish lad. Anyway, would the young girl have to convert to Judaism, or can she just take the religion up (on her own) and call herself "Jewish"?
: It's very easy. Her mother is not Jewish so she is not Jewish at all. She needs to convert. If you had the same story from the side of the mother, it could be interesting - the question being if the Catholic grand-mother of Jewish ancestry was in fact halakhicly Jewish. She would probably have to convert also. Benjil 06:28, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A reminder. Wikipedia is not a forum, nor is it a substitute for actual advice from a religious authority. Finally, as the article makes clear, there are numerous interpretations of Jewish identity. Strict matrilineality (as proscribed in Halacha) eliminates tens of thousands of self-identifying and praticing Jews from being seen as Jews by White european Jews, which leads to the numerous ideas presented in the article. ThuranX 04:27, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  You show with your comments about "White European Jews" rejecting the Jewishness of others, presumably neither "white" nor European, that you are seriously confused about more than one thing. First off, no one has ever been denied Jewish status on the basis of color. Secondly, since the only status of "non-white" Jews which has ever come into question has been in Israel, then your statement about "European" is definitely wrong. The Ethiopian Jews - and the more recent Indian Jews - have been asked to undergo official conversions for the sole reason that they have been so cut-off from the body of normative Judaism for generations that no one - themselves included, because they agreed to the ritual - can be sure they are actually Jews. Nothing about racism, and absolutely everything to do with halakha, or, Jewish law.FlaviaR 05:43, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

text:  "White European Jews" ??? What are you speaking about or implying ? The Halacha is the same for all Jews, mizrahim, ashkenazim, sefaradim, italkim, white, brown, black, europeans or not. Benjil 05:19, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, it's not. The same halacha can be applied to all those 'colored folk', nice use of racism, by the way, but it's only applied to their situation to define them as 'not jew', despite their self-identifications.  Read the article, in it's pre-gutted form, and you'll see that. There's a wider debate about this issue than 'Halacha says yes, Halacha says no'. This article explains that debate. read it. ThuranX 16:25, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Who are you answering to ? And who spoke of "colored folk" ? The Halacha has nothing to do with these race issues and nothing to do with "White European Jews" - it was mostly written by "Brown Middle Eastern Jews". I know fully well what is the debate. That some people decided suddenly that they are Jews does not make them Jews. There is a Law that defines who is and who is not. They can become Jews if they want, they just have to follow convert accordingly. Benjil 17:13, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "White" has nothing to do with being Jewish. A person of any race may be Jewish. Bus stop 16:36, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ThuranX -- Please don't imply that anyone is a racist in this discussion. What you refer to as self-identification has little bearing on whether a person is Jewish or not. Bus stop 17:21, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, then we don't need this article, do we? This article is about all of the things we're discussing here. My initial reply was for the IPs to consult a religious authority, and that this site is NOT a Q&A session, nor a forum. As for Benjil's obvious racism, he's the one who used colors to describe races, an obvious racist tactic. Nothing to debate. Someone comes into this sensitive discussion and uses racist terminology, as well as disregards the entire purpose of the article, there's nothing more to debate here and I won't be returning to this section. It's clear that Bus Stop and Benjil adhere only to the most stringent of Ashkenzi Orthodox halacha interpretations, and for them, the question Mihu Yehudi ends with the 'Mi'. They don't understand the debate and how it affects millions of others, nor do they want to. Such closeminded attitudes towards people who have lived with a jewish identity for centuries, but not in the same exact tradition as they live, shows they prefer the exclusivity of Judaism to be as absolute and iron-clad as possible. I ask both to leave the article for that reason. If the only reply they can give to anythign is "Halacha says no", then they insult, in the most colonial and racist of ways, the nature of the Kaifeng and Lemba, to name two cultures disenfranchised by that exact attitude; two cultures for whom the ongoing debate behind Mihu Yehudi matters most. I'm done arguing with racists. I'll continue to work on this article and other sections, but hope never to see such bald-faced hate on here again. It will reappear, I know, sadly. ThuranX 19:04, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are obviously disturbed. I never said here anything racist, unless you do not know how to read I can't even understand how you can interpret what I said as racist. Furthermore, YOU are the one who spoke of "White European Jews". And you seem to have a serious hostility towards Ashkenazim. You are unlucky, I am Sefaradi - and we have, as all Jews, the exact same definition - you see, it was not the Ashkenazim who invented it, because this distinction did not even existed until a thousand years ago. In a very characteristic way, you have no arguments but insults and unfounded accusation of racism to people who do not agree with you. Very sad. Benjil 19:13, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ThuranX -- Please don't imply that I harbor racist sentiments, because I do not. It is you who introduced race to this discussion with your, "White european Jews" comment above. Bus stop 19:53, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who Is a Jew? 

message: The section about the halakhic understanding of matrilineal descent is just that, and explanation of what it is. If you want to get into a long debate about the origins of the law, it belongs in some other article. Jayjg (talk) 04:52, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Jayjg, I'd argue that issues about the origin definitely factor into the discussions about Halakha and who is and isn't Jewish. The evolution of the concept matters, esp. as there are , for simplicity, 'splinter groups' of Jews, tribes whose departure from the region precluded the 'discovery' of Deuteronomy, and whose beliefs thus may be based on a four book Torah. Are they still Jews or not in part is based on this reality, that earlier accepted forms of Torah included Patrilineal descent. The information belongs in the article if it's taken as a purely academic article. To eliminate it in favor of the 'Halakha now defines Jews and if you're not Halakha you're not a Jew' party line is a POV direction for the article. This article should present both sides. That Torah contains examples of Patrilineal Descent, despite also endorsing a matrilineal rule, is definitely worthy of inclusion. Lately, I've noticed a lot of pushign for the Party Line, which I see as POV. This is a big question in modern Judaism, and it's full complexity should be discussed. If it weren't so important, if it were so settled, then there wouldn't be so great, lengthy, and widely considered a body of literature and debate on the topic. ThuranX 05:01, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I'm sure it can be discussed, but the section in question is one that is supposed to be about the traditional halakhic view. The information hasn't been "eliminated in favor of the halakha", there are plenty of sections that discuss alternative or opposing views, but that opposing view cannot be stated in every single section, even the one that is supposed to be devoted to the halakhic view. Once you go down that road then every single section becomes a morass of claims and counter-claims, and there's no end to it. Jayjg (talk) 05:18, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then let's find a place it CAN go. This sort of thing goes to the heart of the debate, and is a fairly basic point of it, that the source material (Torah, not just D'varim) is, in this manner, self-contradictory. I agree not every place needs to be perfectly balanced, so long as the article is, but unlike lots of arguments that can be dismissed as specious, Torah saying 'A', then saying 'Not A', is certainly a legitimate point for inclusion. I'm willing to work together on this, so long as we're both committed to finding a good place in the article for it. I'll let you find a couple suggestions, since you're trying to tighten the Halakha section up. Then we can discuss them. I don't think this will be a tough point to hammer out. regards. ThuranX 05:24, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There actually is a lengthy discussion of this already, in Matrilineality#Other views. Regarding the source material, of course the traditional view is that it is not self-contradictory at all; there are lengthy explanations of each supposed contradiction, but that would just make the back and forth debate even longer. Jayjg (talk) 05:45, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, that link doesn't contain the specific examples of the source contradicting itself. The existence of the explanations for the Source's self-conflict can be addressed in the section, with something like 'These internal contradictions have long since been debated in the Talmud (or whereever they appear), and the explanations accepted as a part of the thinking behind Halacha.' or something to that effect, that the explanations have long since been settled among the orthodoxy. I remain firm that drawing attention to the conflict belongs in this article. Finally, what you call 'the traditional view' is the Post-D'varim culture, esp. those parts which are familiar with Talmudic scholarship. The essential point is that the Lemba, the Kaifeng, and others who are theorized to have broken off at some point before the end of Talmud, or even the finding of Deuteronomy, couldn't know of it, and may have, as their cultures, in fact do, accepted patrilineality. This is, as I said above, one of the cores of the issue. Cultures who don't know, and never HAVE known, Talmudic and cultural acceptance of Matrilineal Judiac identity, cannot be held accountable to it. To further exclude this part of the debate about Mihu Yehudi is to continue to deprive readers of a fuller understanding of the scope of this problem(problem like math, not like rabble-rousers). ThuranX 05:57, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Either I misread it the last time or someone fixed it, and beautifully!FlaviaR 05:19, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section about halakha 

message: Please work things out here on talk. DurovaCharge! 22:41, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that is unnecessary, only Bus stop wants to change the article and has failed to explain how or why (a very impressive feat considering how much he has written).  The community is quickly losing patience and, if doesn't start talking sense,  will be dismissed as a troll.  Jon513 19:12, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Jon513 -- You've been responded to 3 times by me. Please see above. Bus stop 14:11, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Yesterday I put this up for discussion at WP:AN#Impartial_evaluation_requested.  The responses supported my decision.  If no topical discussion is forthcoming here and more editors ask for unprotection I suppose I could lift the protection early. DurovaCharge! 22:49, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  1 week page protection 

message: The editor who caused the need for protection has been sitebanned.  If problems return, request semiprotection via WP:RFPP. DurovaCharge! 04:40, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Full editing restored