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