Talk:Who is a Jew?

WP:NOR/WP:SYNTH

Editors have been adding to this article material theoretically based on the following two sources:

• http://www.reformjudaism.org.uk/a-to-z-of-reform-judaism/contemporary-issues/halachah.html
• http://data.ccarnet.org/glgerim7.html

Keeping in mind WP:NOR/WP:SYNTH, can those editors explain where these sources discuss the topic of "Who is a Jew"? Jayjg ^(talk) 19:19, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

The subject in that section is conversion, and that is explicitly mentioned in the text. I very much liked your edit summary "per Talk: page and WP:BRD". BRD is not an excuse for edit warring, Jayjg. Debresser (talk) 19:42, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Could you quote the relevant material in question? I couldn't find it. Also, the material and sources were Boldly inserted, then Removed, yet you failed to open any Discussion. Please Discuss now. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:12, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Teacherbrock, can you explain where these sources discuss "Who is a Jew"? Jayjg ^(talk) 22:01, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Please stop removing information which you have decided for reasons understood to no one but yourself to label as original research. Debresser (talk) 22:57, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Could you quote the relevant material in the sources that "explicitly mention" the topic of this article, "Who is a Jew"? I couldn't find it. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:41, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

As I said before, in a later section on this talk page, conversion is one of the sub-issues of the "Who is a Jew" question, by force of the obvious fact that conversion makes for Jews. For this reason, conversion is treated extensively in this article, and it is for this reason that the source is relevant. Debresser (talk) 05:27, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

See alsos

Editors have been reverting in various "See also" sections that seem essentially unrelated to the topic of this article. Can they explain why they are doing so? Jayjg ^(talk) 19:19, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Some might be unrelated, but perhaps the editor removing the see also's was applying too harsh a standard. Some of the see also's he removed do seem connected. Debresser (talk) 19:45, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Why on earth would you revert in material you admit "might be unrelated"? Enough blind reversions; discuss, without any reversions. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:15, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Teacherbrock, why did you restore these See Alsos? Jayjg ^(talk) 22:00, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

No, if I see indisciminate removal of information, I first revert. Then you reassess your edit, and do it better the next time around. Debresser (talk) 22:52, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Except that the "removal" was quite "discriminate", as specific "See alsos" were removed, and others were left and alphabetized. Now, please respond to the questions. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:39, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I thought the answer was obvious. I deem some of them to be relevant. Debresser (talk) 05:21, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

That said, I agree to keep the see also's as per your last edit. Debresser (talk) 05:28, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Reform Halacha

some sources of "REFORM HALAKHA"

Halakhah in Reform Judaism

Halakhah is a heritage that belongs to us as it belongs to all Israel. Its continued vitality in Reform Judaism links us to the religious expressions of other Jews, uniting us with them as part of a community whose history spans many countries and many generations.

Question 18.4.12: Fallacy: Reform Rabbis do not study Halacha

If you look at the course of study for the Reform Rabbinate, it does include Torah, Talmud, and other aspects of halacha. Of course, the depth of this study is not to the level of traditional Judaism, although some Reform Rabbis out of personal interest do intensive halachic studies.

the OFFICIAL CCAR Reform Responsa to halachic question — Preceding unsigned comment added by Teacherbrock (talk • contribs) 13:23, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

The topic of this article is "Who is a Jew", not "Reform Halacha". Please respond to the issues raised in the two sections above. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:59, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

That was a stupid remark, Jayjg. Because the question "Who is a Jew" is discussed in Reform "Halakha" as well. Debresser (talk) 22:57, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Please don't make insulting comments. Halakha covers tens of thousands of topics and ideas; this article is specifically about "Who is a Jew". Please review WP:NOR. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:38, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry, Jayjg, but if you start to edit agressive, you must be willing to see at least some of the same in the ensuing discusion. And again, it is really obvious that part of this article considers conversion (giur) which is one of the sub-issues of the "Who is a Jew" issue, since by conversion one can become a Jew. Debresser (talk) 05:24, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

You can stop being an ethnic Jew

I decided to post this because I was reading the very old argument over the dead category Category:Former Jews. While I agree with having deleted the category I would have to say most of the arguments there were inprecise and ignored the complexity of any identity that is in dispute between various groups. The fact that Messianic Jews and groups like Jews for Jesus, as well as people such as Daniel Rona openly identify as ethnic and in some cases even religious Jews and as Christians makes the whole matter complexed. The important factors are ethnicity is not race. Race is still a social construct, but one that is assumed to be based on ancestry and genetics. This is not the reality of race, it is a complexed interplay of ancestry, geneetics, self-identiticaction, identification by others and culture. Jewishness is by most people assumed not to be a race, and some will denounce others for refering to it as such. Jewishness is an ethnicity. This means in theory you have to be either born into it or openly incorporate the whole set of practices into your life. The issue becomes more complexed because different Jewish groups have different ideas about the proper set of steps to incorporate oneself into Judaism, debates about which parents must be Jewish to make one Jewish and so on. However by default if someone can incorporate into the Jewish people, one can also act in a way to totally destroy their Jewishness. If someone changes their name, stops acting in any way Jewish and destroys all documents and evidence that every connected them with Judaism and denies any Jewishness they have probably managed to end their enthnic Jewishness. The problem of course is that if someone did this to a level that made their birth to a Jewish mother unknown we would not have evidence that they were ever Jewish to become formerly Jewish. The problem with the category is thus not that there are not former Jews, but that those who are unquestionably former Jews by any and all definitions of being a Jew would have to have disconnected themselves from Judaism and Jewish culture to such an extent that there was no evidence that they had ever been part of it. For this reason it is probably unsurprising that the much easier to enter category Category:Converts from Judaism does exist, despite the fact that this is a category that some have spoken ill against. Of course the debate on Jewishness got so heated in part because some people use ethnicity as a replacement for race with essentially the same meaning race used to have. The very notion that ethnicity is unchanging reprsents such an assumption that ethnicity and race are essentially the same thing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:05, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Were you proposing a change to this article? Jayjg ^(talk) 01:01, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

No, you can't stop being a Jew (either you are or you aren't). --Teacherbrock (talk) 03:40, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Hebrew Terminology

A member has decided to take it into their own hands to remove my "hebrew" terminology because they personally feel it is irrelevant; this is far from the truth. This person has decided to take it upon themselves to remove my relevant hebrew words, yet leaves the rest in the article?

So please Jayjg, can you give us your list of approved Hebrew terms for this article? Because for some reason bet din(jewish court) is a bit too much hebrew while halakha and brit milah are just fine? --Teacherbrock (talk) 14:06, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I think it is better to use Hebrew terms, where specific Hebrew terms exist of course, although we should be careful not to overdo it. I noticed yesterday's edit by Jayjg, but decided not to comment, since this editor is quite an unpleasant fellow when disagreed with. Since this section was opened though, I'd like to lend my support to Teacherbrock in this matter. Debresser (talk) 14:25, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean. My edit removed all sorts of Hebrew terms, including halakha, mikveh, bet din. Perhaps you were looking at a different edit; in any event, I'm glad we were able to clear up this misunderstanding. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:48, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Given what the Manual of Style suggests in regard to foreign terms, I think we should really should assume some readers don't know some of the Hebrew words, like me. I could just look it up myself, but I think the following helps out the lazier readers a bit: in my edit, I wikilinked the term "halakha". This is my proposal: linking the unfamiliar terms where they are used sparsely. This is really just my 2 cents, but I hope it helps! 174.117.248.144 (talk) 01:48, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

These Hebrew words use generally included descriptions and linked to their respective pages. And how can readers learn the hebrew terms for these institutions if they are de-judaized like Jayjg would like. :/ --Teacherbrock (talk) 03:35, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia's readers can "learn", if they wish to, by clicking on the relevant links. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:38, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

This is indeed why we link such terms. Although we should be careful of overlinking, and link them only once in every article, generally speaking. Debresser (talk) 07:47, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Obviously, there are many cases where it is most relevant to use the Hebrew term, whereas the English would just destroy the statement. I think these are good situations to use the non-English terms. Then again, there are some cases where it's sort of a "fielder's choice", so to speak. In these cases, I think we should use the English terms, given it's an English language information source and all. It's really a case-by-case basis. 174.117.248.144 (talk) 15:50, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Article should be renamed

This title of this article violates Wikipedia's naming conventions (See Wikipedia:Article_titles#Article_title_format: Use nouns: Nouns and noun phrases are normally preferred over titles using other parts of speech. An article whose title is a question violates this rule). Off the top of my head, it could be renamed to Definition of who is Jewish or Definition of Jewish people or Definition of Judaic people. Raul654 (talk) 18:07, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Also, since this is not a translation of a title or phrase from another language, the translation in the first line is inappropriate and should be deleted. Raul654 (talk) 18:09, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Since no one has voiced an objection to renaming this article, I'll go ahead and do it soon. Raul654 (talk) 14:22, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

You are mistaken. The law is called "mihu yehudi" (Who is a Jew?). So it is the translation of a name from another language. Debresser (talk) 15:15, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Mark, "Who is a Jew" is a fairly iconic phrase, getting 14.5 million google hits. I don't think anyone would look for this topic under the titles you have suggested, so I don't think it should be renamed yet. Why don't we get wider input on this proposed renaming; while the naming guideline suggests it should be renamed, I can't think of a good alternative name, and this may be one of the reasonable exceptions to the naming guidelines. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:51, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

The concept of "Who is a Jew" is one that is fairly well know and, as Debresser points out, is a translation of the Jewish term. I see no good reason to rename this article and I'm sure it would be swiftly moved back. Peter (talk) 17:38, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose renaming per above arguments. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 18:08, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I am in favor of renaming this article. This article should be merged into the Jewish identity article. "Jewish identity" is the logical name for the subject matter that should be discussed in this article. Bus stop (talk) 18:19, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose renaming -- "Who is a Jew" is the standard heading under which the issues in question are raised. "Jewish identity" is not the same topic. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:58, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose renaming. Also oppose merging. The title reflects a classic question in its own name that should not be obscured. Defining and describing Jewish identity involves a different set of issues. Hertz1888 (talk) 23:39, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

But you are not including material in accordance with the phrase מיהו יהודי/mihu yehudi/who is a Jew. The title is just a figurehead and an especially misleading one when one understands that it is a translation from a well-known and important Hebrew phrase. I find in this article:

"The question was of importance during the rule of the Nazi party in Germany and was addressed by the Nuremberg Laws"[1]

Were the Nazis really concerned with the question of מיהו יהודי? I don't think so.

I read in this article that:

"'Ethnic Jews' include atheists, agnostics, non-denominational deists, Jews with only casual connections to Jewish denominations or converts to other religions, such as Christianity, Buddhism, or Islam."[2]

Was the above (completely un-sourced) pronouncement ever made in connection with the question מיהו יהודי? I doubt it.

The title should reflect the actual article content. The title and the content should be in accord with one another. The phrase מיהו יהודי has a history of use. Choosing that title should mean adhering to a scope suggested by that title. Bus stop (talk) 03:42, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

• Rename "Who is a Jew?" is a translation of one particular document. But this article is not just about that document, and is much broader. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 18:20, 3 January 2012 (UTC)