Talk:Who is a Jew?

Why out religious definitions first when the ethnic definition is what gets citizenship and what the majority of Jewish people consider relevant.

Just y'know seems odd to put religion first given all of that. 2604:3D09:D78:1000:C149:7FD0:EC31:824E (talk) 10:33, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

As the article outlines, there's a lot of intrafaith debate amongst sects about what constitutes Jewish Identity or a "real Jew" in the State of Israel.

Jewish identity combines religion, culture, and ancestry into a recognized “peoplehood.” However, Israel is a secular state and it is difficult to prove membership of this peoplehood objectively. The historical evidence does not demonstrate ethnic continuity of Jews; in fact there's genetic discontinuity. You cannot, for example, prove your Jewishness through secular science or genetic testing; it's largely a religious belief.

There's very little that unites Judiasm if you strip away the foundation of the religious narrative. Valepio (talk) 23:22, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

This article addresses only religious law, not science. The "ethnic definition" is pure religion: matrilineal descent. While DNA markers may indicate ancestral geography, they don't prove religious practice or override individual choice, it's just religious doctrine dressed up in scientific-sounding language.

Consider: if Scientology declared that patrilineal descent made you a Scientologist regardless of personal belief, would that claim carry weight? Similarly, conflating religious identity with a country's citizenship may serve politicians seeking larger constituencies, but it doesn't hold logically either.

Ultimately, this article's framework rests on religious rules and various editors' opinions, not scientific principles. That's fine for believers. But if you don't subscribe to the ideology and are trying to reconcile it with empirical science, you face an impossible choice: which religious doctrine wins? Consider that some believe all Holocaust survivors are now technically Mormon through posthumous baptism, and the religious-choice problem becomes quite clear. Who wins? Lexlex (talk) 17:28, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Mishnah

No reference is given in the article for the Mishnah stating that Jewishness is matrilineal. Does it? The discussion of this subject by Donald Harman Akenson in his book Some People (pp.158ff) needs to be taken into account. 2407:7000:AE2E:CE00:FD40:50B9:A0F:C219 (talk) 03:24, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Should the title and term be italicized?

MOS:WORDSASWORDS says that discussion of words qua words should have the words italicized, and it gives examples that are more than one word long. Should this article’s title be italicized, since the subject is a question? ꧁Zanahary꧂ 05:00, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

I say "no", because this is not an article about the phrase. Very little of the article refers specifically to this question as a way of raising the issue. Zero^talk 01:59, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

I agree with User:Zero000 that this article's title should not be Italicised.Davidbena (talk) 02:11, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

Clarify origin of the title in the lede

Having to go through talk page archives to get an explanation about this article's title is not practical, and I believe the introductory sentences as they have existed for years don't properly cover this aspect. I acknowledge previous concerns that the article is not about the way the question is formulated, but how it is resolved, yet I believe a clarification would be relevant for this topic. I suggest changing the start of the second sentence: “The question is traditionally asked in literature discussing these topics, and pertains to ideas about […]”. 2A01:CB08:8B3E:6B00:18DA:782C:F5B1:19CB (talk) 00:09, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Proposed hatnote - Theology context

I propose adding the following hatnote to the beginning of this article:

"The definitions discussed in this article are based on religious law and institutional policy, not scientific criteria. Membership in a religious tradition is ultimately a matter of individual belief and practice."

Rationale: The article documents various religious, legal, and institutional definitions of Jewish identity: Orthodox, Conservative, Reform, Karaite, Israeli law, etc. These are theological and policy positions, not empirical findings. However, readers unfamiliar with the subject may arrive at the article expecting an objective answer to the title's question. A hatnote clarifies the epistemological status of the content: these are interpretive frameworks that themselves require acceptance of particular theological premises, not scientific determinations of identity. This is consistent with how identity works in all religious traditions. While one may be descended from practitioners of a particular religion, membership requires adopting that religion's beliefs and practices. This addition does not challenge any content in the article; it simply contextualizes the nature of the definitions being discussed as being within the context of theology. Lexlex (talk) 16:07, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

With no response I'm proposing a shorter and more strictly factual:

"The definitions discussed in this article reflect religious law and institutional policy rather than scientific criteria. Religious affiliation is defined differently across traditions." Lexlex (talk) 02:41, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for this input. However I think it does not reflect the content of the article. Notably, it presents the question as a primarily religious issue, rather than a cultural one. Of course there are religious considerations, but there are not the only ones. In terms of presentation, I think the proposed hatnote uselessly duplicates, and sometimes contradict, the article's opening paragraph, whose role is to introduce the scope and main ideas of the article. As it currently stands:

"Who is a Jew?" (Hebrew: מיהו יהודי, romanized: mihu yehudi, pronounced [ˈmi(h)u je(h)uˈdi]) is a basic question about Jewish identity and considerations of Jewish self-identification. The question pertains to ideas about Jewish personhood, which have cultural, ethnic, religious, political, genealogical, and personal dimensions. Orthodox Judaism and Conservative Judaism follow Jewish law (halakha), deeming people to be Jewish if their mothers are Jewish or if they underwent a halakhic conversion. Reform Judaism and Reconstructionist Judaism accept both matrilineal and patrilineal descent as well as conversion. Karaite Judaism predominantly follows patrilineal descent as well as conversion.

This lede introduces the notions of self-identification, culture, genealogy etc. as as important as religion in determining Jewish identity, and associates "Jewish law" as a source of identification primarily within Orthodox and Conservative Judaism, which is not all of Judaism. All in all, I think it is a better wording. For these reasons, I will revert your hatnote as it currently stands, until there is more discussion. Place Clichy (talk) 15:11, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. I would note that the "cultural, ethnic, and genealogical" dimensions you reference all derive from religious premises. The genealogical rules (matrilineal or patrilineal descent) are explicitly religious law. The ethnic dimension exists because religious rules about endogamy created distinct population clusters over centuries. The cultural dimension consists of practices originating in religious observance.

The logical problem is this: if lineage-based definitions are treated as something other than religious rules, we start encountering conflicts. For example, The LDS Church has performed posthumous baptisms of Holocaust victims, which by LDS theology makes those individuals Mormon. If institutional claims define identity independent of individual belief, we have to pick which institution wins. Why do claims from one religious group supersede another? This cannot be resolved without choosing a theological lens, as antiquity does not necessarily establish validity.

The hatnote does not claim religion is the only consideration. It merely clarifies that the definitions documented here use a specific institution's framework rather than scientific criteria, which neatly resolves the above logical conflicts and declares these arguments are simply under the lens of Judaism. I am open to revised wording. Lexlex (talk) 20:04, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

But the religious/theological lens is there as early as the word Jew is cited. Being Jewish is a religious identity to begin with. And then, it is more than that. Place Clichy (talk) 07:34, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

We appear to agree that Jewish identity is fundamentally a religious identity. The "more than that" you reference (cultural, ethnic, genealogical dimensions) still derives from religious premises, as I outlined above. Any dimension that does not derive from religious premises would be ideological, which is also a matter of individual choice rather than scientific criteria.

Either way, the hatnote remains accurate: these are institutional frameworks, not empirical determinations of identity. Is there specific wording you would find acceptable? Lexlex (talk) 14:20, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

But the "religious" premises are no less ideological. None of the present religious traditions within Judaism practices anything that looks like the ancient Israelite religion of the Hebrews. There are civil courts who also weight on the question, especially the Supreme Court of Israel when asked to interpret the Law of Return, think of decisions about Beta Israel or the Samaritans, or regarding conversion. These dimensions are just as legitimate as any rabbi's opinion. The wording I would find acceptable is pretty much the current wording of the article's lede sentence, in fact I do not feel that a hatnote is necessary at all. Place Clichy (talk) 00:01, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

I have to agree with Place Clichy; the lead section does a perfectly fine job of describing the scope of Jewish identity without being overly reductive or restrictive, and it's not particularly long.. Teflawn (talk) 02:12, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

I'm thinking it might be better to have a general ideology category or hatnote. The purpose would be to help readers distinguish when an article is based on ideological rules versus empirical frameworks, as this seems to be a continual source of confusion. I'll post back here if I get a proposal going. Thanks for the insight. Lexlex (talk) 17:35, 30 January 2026 (UTC)