Talk:Ethnic Jew

Lack of NPOV in Jew article

This page is created in response to the lack of NPOV on the Jew page. Zestauferov 17:18, 11 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

The Jew page claims to be about the Ethnicity but due to emmotional sensitivity neglects consciously neglects to mention the certain categories of Ethnic Jews, while attempting to give the impression that Reform & Reconstructionist Jews are within the Legitimater Beit Din system. This page should be deleted if sufficient ammendments are made to the Jews page from the information contained herein.

NPOV alert: You and I have no right to define what the "legitimate beit din system" is. That decision is made by the consensus of the entire religious Jewish community. In any case, your claim is wrong on its face; Reform and Reconstructionist Jews do not claim to follow halakha (Jewish law) as normative, and they do not claim to set up halakhic Beit dins, nor do they claim to follow the rulinsg of any Beit Dins as normative. You are arguing against things that no one is claiming! RK 15:01, Jun 23, 2004 (UTC)

What does ethnic Jew exclude?

Does "ethnic Jew" necessarily exclude religious Jews? I have certainly heard the term "ethnic Jew" used in a manner that does not, e.g. "A Romanian citizen but an ethnic Jew..." -- Jmabel 05:30, Jun 10, 2004 (UTC)

Actually you are right Jmabel. But non-religious Jews call themselves American (or whatever) first and describe themselves as ethnic Jews while religious Jews simply call themselves Jews first and American citizens second. Anyway the point is that the current Jew article is still in a terrible state. This one has been re-written to edit out the "Orthodox" bias. And so how was it re-written? With a Reform bias! There really is no hope for objectivity on any of these pages I think. The best thing would be to turn Jew into a disambiguation page with links to Ethnic Jews Legal Jews Reconstructionist Jews Messianic Jews Reform Jews Conservative Jews Orthodox Jews Humanistic Jews Zestauferov 14:11, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I have no idea of what you are ranting about. There is no Reform bias. I merely deleted specious and false claims. You keep on making up stuff off the top of your head, and inserting them as if they were facts. That is not just a violation of NPOV, it is intellectually dishonest. 15:01, Jun 23, 2004 (UTC)

One should realize that there are many jews who are aethiest but they have not been asimilated. They continue to act think see and also navigate through life the jewish way. There are many things that make us jews which were tied to religion or never tied to religion. In israel,where i normally live, there is a multitude of jews who are aethiests but who even sweat the jewish way. In the states too some jews dont bar mitsva ,they are aethiests.For them theres no baruch ata adonoy because adonoy doesnt exist. They still arent assimilated but continue doing things the jewish way. Non religious even aethiest doesnt equate to assimilated.Many jews believe that if you dont believe in god your no longer a jew or you selfdefine as a jew but do nothing that is jewish. Maybe you light the menorah or bury your dead quickly. There are many things one does which are in fact JEWISH.Not all jewish ways are dietary or relate to funerals.Many relate to how one thinks,even how one drives a car or even to how one ties a tie. Im steven marcus levihello@gmail.com (Inserted without sig on anonymous account November 22, 2004)

Sign your comments

Would people please sign their remarks? And if you are making an accusation of NPOV, would you please indicate to whom it is addressed? In this last remark, someone who didn't sign is accusing someone (apparently, but not clearly Zestaurov) of inserting POV. I might add, whoever is making this accusation is doing so without providing even one specific example. -- Jmabel 18:46, Jun 23, 2004 (UTC)

Suggestion to merge with main Jew article

Looking back in time, and the way the main Jew article has evolved in its sophistication, I believe it's time this article should be merged with it (i.e with Jew) because it seems non-scholarly and repetitive. User:Zestauferov's original rationale for creating this article seems dated and was done in pique and adds little to the subject/s discussed, which are all dealt with very extensivley in the main Jew and Judaism articles. IZAK 02:31, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm all for the merge as long as no information is lost. -- Jmabel | Talk 02:56, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge this Zestauferov fork. JFW | T@lk 08:12, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - there's little information to lose, only Zestauferpinion. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:55, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Who is a Jew?

There appears to be a current proposal to merge to Who is a Jew?. Some of the material might belong there; other material might better belong at Jew. I suppose that once we are done refactoring, a redirect to either would be OK, since each one links readily to the other. -- Jmabel | Talk 08:08, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it should be merged, because it would be submerged in the complexity of the "Who is a Jew" article. "Ethnic Jew" is a wide enough used term that I think it deserves an explanation to the non-knowledgeable reader. Cecropia 23:46, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cecropia, I'm coming to think you are right, especially because there seems to be some confusion about this among our own editors. See discussion at Talk:History of the Jews in Russia and the Soviet Union#Jews and Bolshevism. -- Jmabel | Talk 21:35, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]