Talk:Jews

To discuss the infobox in the top right corner of the article, please visit Template talk:Infobox Jews.

Math

The table in Jews#Population_centres is all cocked up. There is a line for “Europe” (1,506,000) and separate lines for nine European countries (totalling 1,351,400), then a “Total” line at the bottom which appears to sum them all (although the figure isn't a correct total of all lines). Likewise, “Asia (excl. Israel)” includes two or three other countries which may, or may not, be represented in the sum. —Michael Z. 2011-03-25 03:36 z

Law of Return

User:Mark K. Jensen has added this paragraph to the article, which I've moved here for discussion:

When the United Nations voted to establish a “Jewish state” in 1947, it did not define “Jewish.” In 1948, the Israeli Declaration of Independence was ambivalent, affirming “complete equality of social and political rights to all its inhabitants” but also “the right of the Jewish people to national rebirth in its own country.” In the first years of Israel’s existence, there was ambiguity about how one’s status as a Jew was determined. In 1962 Romuald Jakub Weksler-Waszkinel, a Jew who had converted to Catholicism and become a priest but who claimed he was a Jew by “nationality,” was denied citizenship by the High Court of Justice.

I've removed it for discussion here, because, as I point out in my edit summaries, the Law of Return doesn't define who is a Jew, and (as is obvious) is open to a much broader class of individuals than Jews. It is therefore tangential at best to the topic of this article. Furthermore, the entire insertion is based on a blog entry on The Forward website, a single article about documentary film about a single individual. It's obviously WP:UNDUE for this overview article. If it belonged anywhere (which is highly unlikely), it would be in Who is a Jew?#Law of Return, but it's WP:UNDUE even for there. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:48, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Jay kindly referred me here from his talk page, where I've made these remarks to him: How can material on "how one’s status as a Jew [is] determined" be irrelevant to a section entitled "Who Is a Jew?" Also, it's not the case, as you assert that the only source is an article about a documentary film. Their are links to other Wikipedia articles. The second paragraph of the article states that "The modern State of Israel defines itself as a Jewish state in its Basic Laws, and is the only country where Jews are a majority of the population," so the question of definition is pertinent. The same paragraph states that "Except in Israel, Jews are a minority in every country in which they live, and they have frequently experienced persecution throughout history, resulting in a population that fluctuated both in numbers and distribution over the centuries," so how can the Law of Return be irrelevant to this article? (I removed any reference to the Law of Return in response to your first objection, though frankly I still don't understand it.) Should I post the material to the second paragraph? As for your reference to "UNDUE," I can't see how this applies. "UNDUE" this refers to the "proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint" and the principle that "articles should not give minority views as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views." But my slight addition does not present any "viewpoint," it simply states a a few pertinent facts. Or am I obtusely missing something here. Mark K. Jensen (talk) 18:56, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Here's material about two more cases similar to the one I referred to and that is related to it, written up in 2009 in the Jerusalem Post: "Father Gregorcz Pawlowski believes he can be both a Roman Catholic priest and a Jew. The 78-year-old Holocaust survivor says Mass and tends to the other spiritual needs of the small Polish-speaking community in Jaffa. He also fasts on Yom Kippur and plans to be buried in a Jewish cemetery in his native Poland. He has asked the chief rabbi of Poland to say Kaddish at his funeral. His gravestone is already in the cemetery in Izbica where his mother and sisters were murdered. Pawlowski was born a Jew. He is not the only priest in Israel who continues to draw on his Jewish past to enrich his religious life. Jesuit David Neuhaus was born a Jew in South Africa and became interested in converting to Catholicism while studying in Jerusalem. He is the head of the Hebrew-speaking Catholic community here and attends a Reform synagogue in Jerusalem on a regular basis. His congregants observe many Jewish holidays. Father Romuald-Jakub Weksler-Waszkinel, born during the Holocaust, embraces his dual identity as a Jew and Catholic. He was not told he was born Jewish until 12 years after he became a priest. Now he wants to move to Israel. All three of these priests are proud of their Jewish origins and say that being Jewish anchors their Christianity. . . . The 1962 decision has embroiled the Jewish world in controversy over the question of 'Who is a Jew?' Subsequent court decisions have muddied the issue further. . . ." [1] Mark K. Jensen (talk) 19:08, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Mark, regarding the sources used, Wikipedia articles are not considered reliable sources, so they don't count. In addition I don't think you've really addressed the two main issues raised, so I will repeat them here in greater detail.

1. The Law of Return doesn't define "Who is a Jew", and those eligible under the Law of Return include many non-Jews. For example, a non-Jewish individual with a Jewish spouse, or even a Jewish ancestor, could be eligible to emigrate to Israel under the Law of Return, and become a citizen under that law, even though the State would not designate him/her as a Jew. As such, it is obvious that while the Law of Return is affected by the question of "Who is a Jew", it in no way attempts to define "Who is a Jew".
2. This article (Jews) is a broad overview of the topic. As such, it can only deal with the most important information about Jews, and even then, generally only at a superficial level. Sub-articles are where one would (and does) see more in-depth treatment of a subject. The minutia of a tiny number of cases where an individual had a Jewish parent or parents, yet was not eligible for citizenship under the Law of Return, may well belong in the Law of Return article, but certainly don't belong here, where they are tangential at best to the main topic, and undoubtedly WP:UNDUE weight. Your addition devoted as much space to the case of a Christian who wasn't able to immigrate to Israel as the article devotes to the entire topic of Judaism.

I hope this better explains my concerns. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:05, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Jayjg here. One question we often have with content regarding broad subjects, like this one, as well as others on countries, religions, specific sciences, and so on, is that some material presented for inclusion is obviously relevant to the topic, but so is any number of other possible additions. If all that material were added, the article would quickly become so huge as to be both unmanagable and unreadable. It seems to me that the material in question is obviously relevant to the subject, but including it to any particular degree in this specific article might wind up giving the material undue weight and thus violate WP:WEIGHT. Perhaps, in this case, finding another article, with perhaps a more clearly focused topic, and adding the material there might be the preferable option. John Carter (talk) 21:40, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Jay, you say that "The Law of Return doesn't define 'Who is a Jew.'" In fact, the Law of Return (Amendment No. 2) 5730-1970* states: "Definition. 4B. For the purposes of this Law, 'Jew' means a person who was born of a Jewish mother or has become converted to Judaism and who is not a member of another religion."[2] Mark K. Jensen (talk) 21:54, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I believe the most relevant material from that quote is the phrasing "for the purposes of this law," which is not necessarily supposed to be taken as a general, uniform definition. John Carter (talk) 21:57, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree it is not a 'general' definition. It is how the worlds only Jewish state qualifies what a Jew is for gaining citizenship in its nation. Because of this, it certainly carries a great deal of weight and authority. Gsonnenf (talk) 22:51, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

WP:STALK much, Gsonnenf? Your opinion carries no weight here, as it is merely a tit-for-tat opposition to me based on an unrelated dispute you have with me elsewhere. Don't try this at any other articles. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:54, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Mark, you are right that the Law of Return does provide a definition of who is considered a Jew - but, as pointed out by John Carter, that is only "for the purposes of this law". In any event, the other objections I've raised still hold. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:55, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Jayjg, this is a Wikipedia article where my opinion counts fully on the strength of my argument. This isn't a user page, where you've been stalking my personal conversations with people. Its silly that you would cry foul when I address your record in other articles, but you do personal attacks here. Gsonnenf (talk) 05:24, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Jews

In the first sentence, the word "nation" should be corrected to "national," since Jews are not a nation as such but a "national," "religious" and "ethnocultural" group. 12.26.37.208 (talk) 02:12, 27 January 2012 12.26.37.208 (talk) 02:17, 27 January 2012 (UTC)Beagle

P.S. I am a Jew.

Grammar fixed, "nation" left in (rather than "national group"), in accord with the terminology of the cited sources. Hertz1888 (talk) 03:29, 27 January 2012 (UTC)