This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive.
Similar situation to the above rfd: two senses ("An adherent of Judaism." and "A person who claims a cultural or ancestral connection to the Jewish people") which appear to be the same sense, but there is dispute over what falls into the category. --Yair rand (talk) 22:29, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
Hasn't this come up in discussion before? That Jewish can refer to the Jewish faith, but also an ethnic group. Therefore (if true) there are at least two definitions, as someone of Jewish descent might not be of the Jewish religion. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:55, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
It's a lot more complicated than that, see w:Who is a Jew? for some information. There are many opinions on what makes someone a Jew, but it does not make them separate senses. --Yair rand (talk) 22:59, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
Well, if someone who doesn't practice Judaism can be called a Jew and that sense is citable, I can't see how to delete it. Or, just have one rather long definition with the word or appearing in it a lot. Mglovesfun (talk) 23:10, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
We can't (and shouldn't) document every opinion, one of usage, or figurative use of every word. The problem comes on deciding how similar to two sense have to be before we merge them, and decide that they're really just two sides of the same definition. That's why we need an RFD page (one reason among many). I still think we should keep this. No doubt Msh210 and Ruakh will be much more informed than I am. Mglovesfun (talk) 23:15, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
These are clearly distinct senses from a simple reading. Religion is rarely exactly equal to cultural or ethnic identity and the word is used to cover both. We can and should consider every sense in other comprehensive dictionaries as candidates for inclusion here. MWOnline has 4 senses, one with 2 subsenses. Deletion of clearly different senses has not been supported by any argument except an unsupported assertion that the two are the same in this case. DCDuringTALK 23:50, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
I’m reminded of an Irish joke: A man walks through the streets of Belfast late at night, when he feels a barrel of a gun at his back. The gunman’s voice snarls, “All right, mister, what are you, Catholic or Protestant?” The man replies, “Neither, I’m an atheist.” The terrorist snaps back, “Yeah, yeah, yeah, but are you a Catholic atheist or a Protestant atheist?” — Robin 04:15, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Keep. The two senses in question are Jew (“one whose relationship to Judaism is that of a Christian to Christianity”) and Jew (“one whose relationship to the Jews is that of an Italian to the Italians”). Obviously they're closely related, and not always distinguished; but that does not make them a single sense. —RuakhTALK 01:50, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
And what of what is probably the most common usage, one whose relationship to those who have the relation to Judaism like that of a Christian to Christianity is that of an Italian to the Italians, i.e. one who is (matrilineally) descended from one who holds the religion of Judaism? --Yair rand (talk) 02:23, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
That is the second sense. If I were to move to Italy today, and in two generations my grandchildren were to come back to the U.S., they would be Italians and their children would be Italian-Americans, even if they didn't have a single Italian great-grandparent. Ethnic groups are not rigid. —RuakhTALK 02:53, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Which comes back to one of the senses being redundant. If the second sense is entirely inclusive of the first sense, how can they both be independent senses? --Yair rand (talk) 04:39, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
The fact that the definitions of ethnic groups are negotiable does not make someone who is a practicing Jew necessarily an ethnic Jew. Nor would the fact that senses overlap, or even that one is entirely inclusive of another, mean that they are not distinct senses. By definition all "Americans" (people from the United States) are also "Americans" (people from the Americas), but there is still an important distinction. Even if a Jew is a Jew according to both senses of the word, it does not mean that the word is always meant that when used in reference to them. Consider the sentence "He is a good Jew," where the intended meaning is that he is a conscientious practitioner of the religion, and the referent's ethnicity or identity is not being invoked at all. Dominic·t 06:44, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Kept, bit of an odd nomination. As far as I can see the nominator could have tagged either or even both of the senses with rfd-redundant. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:40, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Since almost all jews are atheist (Albert Einstein, Woody Allen and so on) to give the definition of jews based on religion is at least odd. —This unsigned comment was added by Aufels (talk • contribs).
Doesn’t the second definition cover that? — Ungoliant(Falai) 18:18, 9 December 2012 (UTC)