Jump to content

Talk:Who is a Jew?

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by AlexEng (talk | contribs) at 07:15, 5 November 2023 (→‎Last paragraph in Lead: This does not belong in the lead). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
To not merge, given no consensus with stale discussion and apply status quo; some supported arguments that the topics are distinct and can be differentiates as the articles develop: "distinction between the halachic/secular question of Who is a Jew and the broader concept of association of the self with Jewish identity" for example. Klbrain (talk) 15:22, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I propose merging Who is a Jew? into Jewish identity. These appear to be two article covering much the same thing, one substantial but inappropriately named and the other appropriately named but insubstantial. There seems to be no basis in reliable sourcing for the title of "Who is a Jew?". The only pages titled as questions on Wikipedia are ones that repeat verbatim the title of a work or media form (in italics), such as Who Is Ayn Rand? or Who Is America? That is not the case here, where, instead, it just appears to be a distinctly unencyclopedic and non-descript naming format has been chosen for material on identity that would be better hosted at "Jewish identity", which remains impoverished as a page presumably because the relevant information is instead sitting under the odd question title instead. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:20, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would support this merge; the current title is very unencyclopedic, and I am surprised it has managed to last as long as it has. QueenofBithynia (talk) 22:16, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support the merge as well. The question form is catchier but doesn't really fit with Wikipedia's article title style as you have said. --Dan Carkner (talk) 00:45, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I also support. I came here just after seeing this title. Jewish identity makes far more sense. Captchacatcher (talk) 16:06, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I can only say that the question in the form it is asked in the main article here is indeed a question that is discussed and debated often among living Jews, both in the diaspora and in Israel. I am pretty sure that it is also part of the title of several books and studies on the issue of contemporary Jewish identity. Thank you, warshy (¥¥) 19:11, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It seems prevalent in the external links (including a bunch of religious websites and blog-ish posts), presumably by cherrypicked design, but almost absent from the actual sources - except for a handful of generally unreliable sources such as the Jewish Virtual Library and Judaism 101, which would ideally not be referenced in the first place, and should go. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:52, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Iskandar323: There are plenty of titles which would be suitable and I don't strongly object to a merger. However, I support warshy about the prevalence of the phrase in good sources. I found many on my computer without help from Google. Ben-Rafael, Jewish Identities, uses it more than 30 times in question form (and that book is on precisely the topic of this article). Mintz, The Relationship of Orthodox Jews with Believing Jews of Other Religious Ideologies and Non-Believing Jews has several uses ("The 'Who is a Jew?' debate is a classical example of this question", etc). Waxman, The Pursuit of Peace and the Crisis of Israeli Identity: "the perennial question of 'who is a Jew'", etc. Walzer (ed.), The Jewish Political Tradition: "Who is a Jew? isn’t only a contemporary question; it has been a central issue in Jewish life since the Babylonian exile...". Encyclopaedia Judaica uses it more than 30 times across many articles (about half with a question mark), including as a subsection heading and frequently as a topic indicator in quotes (such as "his party’s attitude on the question of 'Who is a Jew?'"). Multiple journal articles use it as a topic indicator, such as Frydman-Kohl, "Covenant, conversion and chosenness: Maimonides and Halevi on 'who is a Jew?'", Judaism 41/1, 1992, 64–79 and Reiss, "Who Is a Jew? The Rhetoric of Religion," Hamevaser (May 1988). Overall I think the existing title has a good case for being the COMMONNAME for the topic. Zerotalk 23:30, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The point remains that Wikipedia/encyclopedia titles (or even section headers) are not typically phrased as questions unless repeating verbatim the title of a work that is phrased thusly. I don't deny that the question has been raised or repeated, merely that it does not rise to the bar necessary to overturn the standing precepts on page titles. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:04, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support merging "Who is a Jew" into "Jewish Identity", since both articles refer to nearly the same thing. The halachic question of "Who is a Jew?" can be given a section of its own with all the sources relating to this important topic.Davidbena (talk) 00:26, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    As a secular American Jew, I wholeheartedly agree. In my opinion, posing people's identities as a question is inherently bigoted; for example, the so called "debate" about transgender/homosexual/non-heteronormative identities. People's existence, experience, & self-identification is not a 'question' up for debate; this is the lived experience of many of us. Practice compassion while discussing these subjects. 209.150.231.44 (talk) 01:31, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I am not Jewish, but I believe that this page should not be an anomaly when it comes to page titles. "Who is a Jew?" differs from the other page titles with question marks in them because it is not about a single work with a question mark in its title, so I feel that a question mark title should not be used here. Instead of merging this page completely with Jewish identity, could we instead use "Definitions of Jewish identity" or something similar? SnappyDragonPennyroyal (talk) 01:55, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not Support Likewise I am not Jewish, but I found the article by itself to be useful. That said, I do take the point that the title as it stands can be viewed as unencyclopedic. Perhaps the solution is to rename the article, as suggested above by Zero and Snappydragon. I especially like the suggestion by Snappydragon, namely, a title "Definitions of Jewish identity". HistoryEditor3 (talk) 18:06, 24 November 2022 (UTC).[reply]
  • Oppose because the topics are not the same. A check on Scholar for "Jewish identity" shows that this topic is broad and multifaceted, including what it meant to be Jewish in ancient Rome or in the Hellenistic diaspora, right on through history from the Middle Ages to the Renaissance to the evolution of the modern Jew, questions of assimilation in Europe, philosophical, sociological, psychological, and religious analyses, and studies of Jewish identity by country. The topic of who is a Jew, is much narrower and and accordingly has far fewer results (6,980) of which about half (3,480) don't mention 'Jewish identity' at all. Examining the results, they seem to be a mix of religious and legal articles, with many of them related to the question of immigration to Israel, in which the title question is crucial in determining whether or not someone claiming to be Jewish can gain Israeli citizenship more rapidly (e.g., wrt the Law of Return). Finally, per this ngrams chart, the two topics were once similar in frequency, but "who is a Jew" has remained relatively stable over time, whereas studies of "Jewish identity" have taken off dramatically; if they were the same topic, there wouldn't be this consistent difference year after year and decade after decade. The two topics are related, but have vastly different aspects of time, place, and focus, and should remain separate articles. Mathglot (talk) 00:24, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I find this argument convincing, and strongly oppose the proposal. I get that most Wikipedia articles aren't titled after questions, but there's no policy that says they can't be. Titling policies are at WP:CRITERIA, and I believe this question-form is the common term for the topic. The two topics are fundamentally distinct: one is about, well, "Who is a Jew?", and the other is about what it means to be a Jew, or what it's like to be one (Tikkun olam should definitely be mentioned in the latter, if someone has the time to look for sources!) They're just not the same thing. I'll note that I'm Jewish, and feel pretty strongly about this: I can envision what each article would look like if expanded to two FA-class ~80kB articles, and they would have very little redundancy, if any, and would not qualify for any of the WP:MERGEREASONs.
    Describing "Who is a Jew" as bigoted is IMO completely out of line with sources. It's a notable subject matter of interesting scholarly and rabbinical debate. This article doesn't advocate anything; it just reflects historical and current debates among Jews, and differences between various traditions of issues that matter to conversions, marriage, ancestry, and more. DFlhb (talk) 13:54, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I believe there is enough distinction between the halachic/secular question of Who is a Jew and the broader concept of association of the self with Jewish identity to justify two pages. One refers to the various opinions of who is Jewish among Jews and in regards to legal definitions and the other refers to how people who consider themselves Jews have lived their lives throughout history. I also think the notion of the question mark being "unencyclopedic" is an extremely strange nitpick and irrelevant to the discussion of a merge. Paragon Deku (talk) 19:51, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support They cover the same topic and a title like "Jewish identity" is more encyclopedic in tone than "Who is a Jew?". ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:47, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

nazism

The Nazi regime instituted laws which discriminated against Jews, declared a race by the Nazis, and thus needed a working definition of who is a Jew as to its law-defined race system. These definitions almost completely categorised persons through the religions followed by each individual's ancestors, according to membership registries. Thus, personal faith or individual observance, as well as the religious definitions of Judaism as given by the Halacha, were mostly ignored.

Suggested change: These definitions almost completely categorised persons through the identity of each individual's ancestors, according to either their religious membership as or through a family name that was jewish. Thus, personal faith or individual observance, as well as the religious definitions of Judaism as given by the Halacha, were mostly ignored.

In Germany itself, the Ahnenpass and the Nuremberg Laws classified people as being of the Jewish race if they were descended from three or four grandparents enrolled in Jewish congregations.

change to-> In Germany itself, the Ahnenpass and the Nuremberg Laws classified people as being of the Jewish race if they were descended from three or four grandparents enrolled in Jewish congregations or their grndparents could be identified as Jewish through their last name. The Nazi regime differentiated between the Jews by faith 'Geltungsjuden' and Jews that did not belong to a Jewish congregation, but were of Jewish race 'Volljuden', see also https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volksz%C3%A4hlung_im_Deutschen_Reich_1939 RamonWyss (talk) 10:48, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jubus, etc.

Jewish Buddhists and others should get a mention. How does Reform regard a Jew who practices yoga or Zen, joins the Hare Krishna, etc.? Are the standards different than for Christianity or Islam? Has this sort of issue ever been litigated in Israel? Thanks--Dawud — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.37.203.46 (talk) 01:07, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Daveout

@Daveout: you wrote "What a bunch of POV-pushing bullshit. Anyone can convert to Judaism. That's not why or how they justify their presence in the holly land. Rather, it's bc they were there far before the arab invasion. thus they are the indigenous ppl of the land. (among other reasons like seeking safety from persecution, etc)"

Since "Anyone can convert to Judaism" what do you mean by "they are the indigenous ppl of the land" – i.e. how can a person convert to indigeneity?!

Onceinawhile (talk) 21:46, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

oh oh, i guess someone is (deliberately) conflating "citizenship and religion" with "ethnicity". 🤭🤭🤭. No white person can convert into black. (except Rachel Dolezal). That's ethnicity.
But black, white and even ginger ppl can convert to Judaism and become Israeli jews. "oH rAcE iS sO iMporTanT tO rAcIst jEws aND tHeiR nAzi eTHnoStaTe😭😭😭" –Daveout(talk) 22:20, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t understand what you just wrote. Perhaps let’s pause this conversation until things are less heated. Onceinawhile (talk) 23:00, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How about a riddle? Does a Palestinian refugee like linda Sarsour lose her "Palestinian indigeneity" claim bc she was born in the US? And what about her offspring? And if a Frenchman converts to islam and becomes a Palestinian citizen, does it mean that all Palestinians lose their right to claim indigeneity? hhhmmm🤔 –Daveout(talk) 00:21, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No and no. But the Frenchman has not become an “indigenous Palestinian”, just a Palestinian citizen, so he has no “right to return”. Onceinawhile (talk) 10:08, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Last paragraph in Lead

I undid last paragraph in lead since it is not neutral and reflects POV. Furthermore, badly and hastily written. If you wish to include this, then its best suited to a body.

This sentence: " by which those on the right-wing look for "a way of proving the occupation is legitimate, of authenticating the ethnos as a natural fact, and of defending Zionism as a return"." Is supported only by one scholar. For one thing it's clearly wrong in the essence that the Right of Return is advocated by the Left Wing and Right wing in Israel, as well as broadly supported in Jewish Communities. Furthermore, the Jewish People are a group that identify with each other. The writing here that there is need to "authenticate" is in my opinion rather manipulative. Another matter is in reference to the genetic studies and its proving of Jewish origin in the South Western Levant. But that is a different page (Zionism). And not the classification of who can become or who is a Jew, which is of a religious nature and unrelated to the occupation but controlled by the Chief Rabbinate in the Orthodox Stream and by other Rabbinic councils in others streams of Judaism, not on legitimizing the occupation.

I think therefore the sentence ought to be altered or removed. Homerethegreat (talk) 12:51, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The question of “who is a Jew” is centrally important within Zionism as a logical requirement of the Jewish claim to land in Israel-Palestine, and thus supporters of Zionism have been deeply involved in defining the answer to this question over the last hundred years or so. I am sure we can both agree on this fact.
I agree we can and should improve the wording, but we must not hide it. Onceinawhile (talk) 12:59, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is an article about religion, not Zionism , occupation, or the Arab/Palestinian conflict. The lead should summarize the most significant aspects of the topic, and the controversial insertion, seemingly conflating religious identity with political issues, distracts from the article's core subject and is not at all justified per WP:DUE / WP:LEDE. It is entirely off-topic. Marokwitz (talk) 13:51, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please read the article. A good half of the article is under the following headings:
Ethnic definitions (Public opinion, Historical European definitions, DNA, "Half-Jewish"), Other non-religious definitions, Legal structure in Israel (Judaism test, Law of Return, Israeli laws governing marriage and divorce, Israeli definition of nationality, Outside Israel), Other definitions (Sociology and anthropology, The Inquisition, Secular philosophy, Antisemitic definitions, Nazism).
The suggestion that the article is only about religion is clearly incorrect.
The lede text under discussion refers explicitly to numerous topics within the above. Onceinawhile (talk) 20:14, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yet the lead talks about none of those important topics. The lead should consist of 4 paragraphs that represent a succint summary the content of the article. Edit warring to keep the sentence those on the right-wing look for "a way of proving the occupation is legitimate, of authenticating the ethnos as a natural fact, and of defending Zionism as a return" in the lead, is one of the most blatant cases of political POV that I have seen on Wikipedia. Please remove it . This is not policy compliant and the consensus in this talk page is to remove. Marokwitz (talk) 21:44, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Homerethegreat - unless a good policy-based explanation is given to include this paragraph in the lead in accordance with WP:DUE / WP:LEDE , you have consensus to remove it. Marokwitz (talk) 22:01, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@John Yunshire, I'm sorry I forgot to include your name in the talk. (I was wondering why you didn't answer :) ). Homerethegreat (talk) 18:08, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The last sentence in the lede isn’t remotely appropriate for this section, and is also severely not NPOV. It should be relegated to the appropriate section.
Mistamystery (talk) 22:08, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
“ which those on the right-wing look for "a way of proving the occupation is legitimate, of authenticating the ethnos as a natural fact, and of defending Zionism as a return".”
This is pure opinion, and is absolutely inappropriate for an article lede. Needs to go (at least from the section) now.
Mistamystery (talk) 22:09, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that this sentence makes absolutely no sense in the lead. The lead is for summarizing the article, not for SOAPBOXing about Zionism. Even if there was reason to add it to the article (which is arguable and WP:UNDUE as far as I understand), it wouldn't belong in the lead. AlexEng(TALK) 07:14, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Who_is_a_Jew%3F&oldid=1183586458"