Talk:Who is a Jew?

This article is overly detailed for a general audience

While I can appreciate the amount of work supporting the intricacies of the subject, for a wikipedia article it is simply too long and too detailed for the general reader. It needs some significant paring and I added the overly detailed tag to get it going. Mr Debresser do you concur? Lexlex (talk) 13:58, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree there is much detail in this article, but I don't think overly much. The article reviews the question from several distinct points of view, historically and modern, religious and sociological, as well as according to the laws of the State of Israel. That is not detail, that is points of view.

I do think that the Israelite identity loss claims section should be split from here, and that could partially amend the problem you noticed. Debresser (talk) 16:51, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

In retropspect, this article is written from the POV of the religion and while very detailed, from a secular point of view, a Jew is merely anyone who chooses to be one. Attempting to resolve various conflicting religious beliefs within Judaism to determine religious "truth" seems well beyond the scope of Wikipedia. I would argue that it really doesn't belong here. Other than religious scholars, who would read this? I see no such articles on other religious questions and wonder what audience this article is intended to reach. Can anyone help clarify? Lexlex (talk) 22:38, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

The article is not written from the POV of the religion since it presents Jewish identity in various ways that are not accepted by the religion, and furthermore, the religion itself does not consider Jewish identity to be (solely) religious but (also) national/ ethnic /cultural. Anyway the definition of who is a Jew is not subjective as the definition of who is a Christian is not or who is a French is not. However you define Jewish identity, there are rules and laws to determine who is a Jew. Benjil (talk) 04:17, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

The rules and laws you speak of are religious, not secular—therefore it is most certainly POV from the religion. There is no secular equivalent. The whole concept of membership in the religion is based on various interpretations of these religious rules. My point is: why is it being covered so extensively here in a secular encyclopaedia? The associated quasi-socratic talk pages will just keep growing. Combined with the large number of pages on various points, It's starting to feel like a WP:Forum for religious chit chat and discussion. That's not what Wikipedia is. Lexlex (talk) 07:09, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Secular Jews also agree, mostly, that the religious rules determine who is Jewish. In any case, that is just another point of view. Debresser (talk) 10:59, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

These are not "religious" rules but that's not even the issue. I also do not know what you mean by "secular encyclopedia". There are rules to be defined as a Jew, as there are for a French, an English, a Chinese, a Muslim or a Christian, even a member of a football club. That's not "whoever feels like it". Benjil (talk) 14:19, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Please forgive the comparison, but an extensive article on who is a Boy Scout or who is eligible to play dungeons & dragons would be severely pared down or removed from Wikipedia using longstanding guidelines. Why then is such extensive and intricate religious reference provided here? It really belongs in a site dedicated to the pursuit of that religion for religious scholars to review. If you disagree, please help me understand what you are using to "top out" your religious articles—there are quite a few revolving around this subject. What are you using to determine when it's too much? Lexlex (talk) 20:31, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I have proposed merging this article. Discussion can be found here. Ergo Sum 02:58, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

DNA bunk

"The modern genealogical DNA test of ethnicity is certainly a non-religious definition of 'who is a Jew?'". This is certainly not supported by the cited article. The so-called "Jewish genes" are widespread in the Mideast. They be more frequent among Jews but only a minority of Jews have them. Keith McClary (talk) 21:55, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Importance to non-Jews, citation needed

"The question 'who is a Jew?' is also sometimes of importance to non-Jews. ... The definition can impact on whether a person may have a certain job, live in certain locations, receive a free education, live or continue to live in the country, be imprisoned, or executed."

Obviously this is of importance to Christians and Muslims under Jewish occupation, but citation needed. Keith McClary (talk) 05:42, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Society for Humanistic Judaism, fringe belief

The Society for Humanistic Judaism has a staff of four and claims a membership of 10,000. Even if true, this would be 1/1000 of the "Jewish" population. Isn't that a fringe belief that should not even be mentioned according to WP policies? Keith McClary (talk) 06:01, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Traditional interpretation and variations - section

The introduction was to long and muddied. A new section created with authoritative sources. I hope for additional suggestions for improvements or an alternative name for the section. Thank you. Regards, RudiLefkowitz (talk) 13:53, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

DNA as it corresponds to Nuremberg Law and the Laws of Return

If three out of four Jewish Grandparents made one a "Jew" for the purposes of prosecution under the Nuremberg Laws; including property forfeiture, forced labor and possibly death, then would more than fifty percent Jewish DNA mean Jewishness for the same purposes? It is assumed that two fully Jewish grandparents would create a grandchild of fifty percent Jewish DNA. Of course, there was no DNA science at the time, but many people would accept the Nuremburg definition of Jewishness, today, and so this line of thinking should not be discarded. Furthermore, the Laws of Return correspond roughly to persecution of the Jews in Europe before and during WWII, and so they should be also made to correspond to the conclusion, or answer to this question.

If, on the other hand, the Laws of Return correspond to the eviction of the Jews from Judea-Samaria by Trajan's edict, then that should be made clear and could readily be supported by DNA evidence, and the to-my-mind artificial or linguistic distinction between Sephardic and Ashekazi Jews might be dispensed with, as well. Historically, both groups came from the same place, at the same time, sometimes by the same conveyances. In the case of the people who would be come the Sephardi, it appears Greek and Roman ships transported them to Greece, Italy and Spain. These then, if they made the trip north, became Ashkenazi upon adopting Germanic language and customs.

Alternatively, if they walked or rode from the Middle East up the Danube and down the Rhine, settling along the way (Moldavia was fifty percent Jewish when the Nazis arrived) they eventually became the ones known as Ashkenazi in many quarters. Correct me if I'm wrong.

I carry 68 percent Ashkenazi DNA, an impossibility if my mother alone was fully Jewish, as she was (I, and everyone, takes fifty percent of their DNA from each parent). However, my father was strictly Sicilian, albeit from a family that followed the "Jewish" occupation (at least in Italy) of blacksmith or iron-working, and now it appears the balance of my Jewish blood, nearly that of one fully-Jewish grandparent, came from him. Thus, the distinction between Sephardi and Ashkenazi seems artificial to my way of thinking. Both, came from the same place at the same time. I suspect that the Sephardi were more likely to arrive in their new homes as slaves to the Romans, but within a few hundred years, they were almost all considered free people. The point at which many of these became Catholics and the circumstances of their conversion is also a very important point to consider, and is dealt with at length elsewhere in Wikipedia (Inquisitions, Early Christianity, etc). Jagtig (talk) 18:08, 7 August 2017 (UTC)