Talk:American Jews/Archive 1

message: Without getting into a revert war, I'd like to replace "extremely religious" as being a loaded, POV term.  Ttownfeen's point in reverting from my "extremely zealous" edit is well taken -- it is somewhat loaded -- but to characterise the Haredim as the most religious Jews simply because they have the most restrictive take on proper Jewish behaviour seems unconscionable POV.  What would be a fair term to use?  "Extremely Orthodox" seems prejudiced against a Modern Orthodox perspective (which is why "Haredi" is to be preferred to "Ultra-Orthodox").  In the absence of a consensus on the issue, I'm just going to delete "extremely religious" as I think it's prejudice outweighs its informative value.  Savant1984 06:40, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Please don't take my feelings or ego into account.  I know next to nothing about the various sects of Judaism (which is why I was perusing articles on Judaism and the Jewish race/people/nation/err...thing).  I just thought the word "zealous" gave the connotation that the group in question's religious conservatism was a negative thing.  So, what about using the word "conservative"? Ttownfeen 22:37, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem Ttownfeen, and I'd be happy to talk about Judaism/Israel with you. :)  There're two problems with "extremely conservative" as I see it, though: 1) "Conservative" is also the name of a non-Orthodox Jewish movement.  2) Haredi Judaism is arguably reactionary in its approach to Jewish law and observance, and some groups (especially among the Chasidim) are radical philosophically.  Nevertheless, it seems to me that there IS a spectrum on which the Haredim are at one end and Secular Jews at another, and that it's appropriate for the beginning of this article to note that.  I just can't figure out an NPOV term. Savant1984 23:17, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proper Characterisation of Haredi end of the spectrum 

message: Woodbury, Plainview, and Great Neck are THE major Jewish communities in Long Island?  Why even bother writing this section if even I know that there's also Roslyn, West Hempstead, Long Beach, the Five Towns, South Merrick and South Bellmore?  I am not in anyway an expert.
Also, I can't believe that Westchester, New Jersey, and California don't have any listed.  And what about all of the other states in the USA?
This is like the most random sparse sampling of Jewish American communities.
:Are there statistics to substantiate these listings? It's not that I dispute them, but we don't want it to seem arbitrary. --Leifern 20:08, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Tulsa, Oklahoma? There is a sizable community of Jews who live in the notably bible belt city. [[The Sherwin Miller Museum of Jewish Art] is based there with a wide collection of cultural and religious artifacts. I don't have the statistics on how many Jews live in Tulsa, but has 5 synagogues to serve a small, yet influential community. --Mike D 26 10:00, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of Major Jewish American Communities 

message: Or canadians, or other Jews of the americas? This article seems to either be poorly named, or limited in cultural scope. Sam Spade 23:43, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Other Jewish groups don't consider themselves "American", and they have their own articles.  See, for example, Canadian Jews and History of the Jews in Latin America. These groups do not share a common history or identity. Jayjg (talk) 23:56, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

text: In the English language, the adjective "American" is almost invariably used to refer to the United States in particular, and not the hemisphere as a whole, so this name is appropriate.  In other languages, the situation may be more complex.  141.211.173.121 03:49, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Good question, there are Jewish communities worldwide and some are large, others are generally small. There's a constant issue alike what the Jewish Americans deal with: race/ethnic identity. Hispanics or Latinos in the U.S. have the same enigma on racial classification, but most Census demographers say Latinos aren't a race, but a culture based on language, national origin and the Spanish legacy in Latin America. The majority of Hispanics are of European-American Indian-African descent, though some Asian (Sinitic or Malay) and Moroccan Arab genes in the historic Spanish empire. Now the Jewish imprint in Mexico and Latin America is a part of the polyglot diversity of ethnic origins in these countries. Each national Jewish group has a somewhat different history and their cultures aren't entirely uniform. It's been said the American Jewish community had good relations with Mexican Americans, Puerto Ricans in the U.S. and in Florida, the Cuban refugees. However, there is considerable friction between Jewish and Hispanic communities does not get well publicized in the media. Some of these stereotypical claims of American Jews are "Liberal, Multi-cultural, urbanite, third world allies" that aid and defend African-Americans (i.e the Anti-Defamation League and the B'Nai Brith), Women's rights or feminist groups, and the P.C. left activism of homosexual/gay rights "have many Jewish members" are exaggerations of American Jews wanted to ignite rebellion among minorities. Is it because those claims come from the fact Jewish Americans are self-defensive or at one time, Jewish people in most countries except for Israel, are political minorities? --Mike D 26 09:56, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What about Mexican Jews? 

message: This page needs to be renamed. And fast. --Mb1000 02:22, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This page needs to be renamed 

message: I see that 80% (my own research/observation) of Bio's on Wikipedia DON'T use the term "Jewish American" in the first line of the bio. It seems that is a standard since is that really the MOST defining attribute of the individual? Jewish decent/parents is fine to mention further into the article but I would like comment. I have edited a few famous Jewish Bios and would like to hear more on the subject. The few articles that do use the term in the first line seem to have been started that way. Any links on stand biographical usage of ethnicity would be appriciated.Thanks and YES, I am of Jewish decent :)  198.176.188.201 04:32, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question on Bio's 

message: From the article:
However, it is much more common for intermarried families to raise their children as Jewish in areas with high Jewish populations, like New York City/Long Island/New Jersey/Westchester County, New York, Los Angeles, Detroit, Philadelphia, Baltimore-Washington, Chicago, and Cleveland (which has the highest Jewish-American population per capita for smaller, major U.S. cities). Detroit stands out in particular, because the Jewish population is particularly concentrated in suburban Oakland County.
What exactly makes Detroit different in this regard?  Are the Jewish populations of the other metropolitan areas more dispersed?  Are intermarried families in the Detroit area particularly likely to raise their kids as Jewish?
141.211.173.121 03:45, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What about Orthodox Jewish families or the "Hasidic" Chabad-Luvitsch of Williamsburg, Brooklyn in New York? You may talk about Reformed and some Conservatives lean to a type of secularism. If they married outside their faith, the parents emphasize a mixed faith or sometimes the spouses convert to Judaism (or another religion). A matter of choice for what's good for the family or based on traditional principles. I wonder how's the issue in California and the west U.S. the same like back East or different? --Mike D 26 11:21, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Detroit 

message: We have some folks over at Template:White American who are trying to remove "American Jews" -- this article-- from the category "White Americans." They seem to believe American Jews are not white. People who have an opinion are advised to make it known over there, and at the talk page Template talk:White American Rjensen 04:12, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What makes you think all American Jews are "white"? --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 09:24, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: People of Jewish descent (who account for the large majority of adherents of the Jewish faith) are considered white in the United States. 69.137.220.179 06:27, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Citation please.  Tomertalk 16:32, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are etheiopian jews now living in the US.--yisraeldov 13:44, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The U.S. Census Bureau (http://www.census.gov/) classifies Jews of European descent as White.  Also, the Template:White American  included Arab-Americans, another Semitic people.  -- Dcflyer 19:38, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Mike D commented: " Jews of Brazil, Argentina and Uruguay are mainly from Spanish, Italian and Greek descent." Actually,  only about 40% of the Jewish populations of those 3 aforementioned Latin American countries have Sephardic backgrounds-I don't think many Argentine/Uruguayan/Brazilian/Uruguayan Jews have ancestors who lived in Italy right before immigrating to those countries-although many are of Greek- and Turkish- Jewish backgrounds with more remote Spanish-Jewish ancestry and came from Ladino-speaking families before migrating to South America. ALso, there are many Syrian-Jews (as well as other countries from the Arab world). However, I think majority of the Jews in Argentinia, Brazil, Uruguay, etc. come from Ashkenazi backgrounds, many Polish and Russian Jews (as well as German-Jewish refugees migrated to those countries). In any case, the Sephardic Jews in Latin America perceive themselves and are perceievd by the majority of the local population to be "white"
Happily, the template in question is gone. - Jmabel | Talk 02:32, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Isn't it "off topic" as well? Again, we're discussing the Jewish people, their religion and their communities, especially in the United States. The majority of world "Jewry" (sometimes a term can be used, but it's archaic and not P.C. to some) are white or European, because the major concentration of Jews and Judaism was in Europe for 2,000 years. Then the Jews of Arabia, Iran and Africa became a different ethnic group and the historical pattern is not alike European Jews. There are Jews across the middle east longer than the diaspora in Europe and in Israel, the European Jewish residents used to view them a different "race" or not the same culture. Don't forget one convert to Judaism has mainly a different ethnic background, then the term "Jewish" will apply to all persons whom practice the Jewish faith, no matter what race or color they are. --Mike D 26 21:37, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Are Jews White? not on Wikipedia 

message: Is the long list of places at the end of the article really necessary?  I can see it being in a seperate "list article", but I really don't think it adds enough to justify taking up all that space..  TastyCakes 20:50, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of places 

message: How can population numbers be revised upward with no new citations? - Jmabel | Talk 05:06, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Population numbers 

message: Why is he listed on here? I have removed him unless he has some relevance. Kistiakowsky? Evidence? 141.213.210.108 00:56, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The American-born Urey was almost certainly not an exile from the Nazis; nor Kistiakowsky, who, according to  was in the U.S. before Hitler came to power. - Jmabel | Talk 05:49, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Harold C Urey 

message: I don't understand this.  That's like putting Irish Catholic and Irish Protestant categories.  I am of the mind that religion transcends ethnicity, even in Jewish cases (Barry Goldwater & Madeleine Albright were/are both of Ashkenazi/German Jewish origins, but became Episcopalians/English Protestant Christians).  Israeli hyphenations should be the only categories (Natalie Portman is a good example), otherwise I think this is some sort of Jewish identification thing for paranoid anti-Semites to look up and confirm their suspicions or something.  I think it would be ridiculous to have categories for Christians and Muslims (or any non-Abrahamic faith) as well, even if NNDB does it.  I think that the religious component belongs merely with the biographic articles, in detailing the religious orientation of individuals.  BTW, I am religious and not trying to secularize this or anything.  I'm a Christian Gentile and recall the New Testament says there is no difference between Jew or Gentile in Christ.  Obviously, that was about Judeans/Israelites/Hebrews (Semites, as contrasted with Greek or Roman Japhetites) and not about Jews or Judaism as a religious community in this day and age or as it has been from the Expulsion to the creation of Israel.  I think it is patently unfair to Jews to have them scrutinized with categorizes like this.  Hasbro 11:09, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I know! Why don't we delete every single "Jewish-X" category, but keep every single other ethnicity and religion category that we have for every single other ethnicity/religion out there! (sorry, note the sarcasm, but we do have categories for everyeone else, so until and unless you plan to delete those...) Mad Jack 15:46, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Oh great, so let's delete the Jewish categories but keep the African, Irish and Italian-American ones (and by the way, we have categories for every other religion, too). Jewish ethnicity/culture is just as category-worthy as the African, Italian, etc. ones (especially in the increasingly secular world of 2006). It's not their fault that no one came up with separate words for the Jewish religion and the Jewish ethnicity, and personally it always annoys me when people say that the Jewish religion and ethnicity are inseparable. That's kind of unfair. You certainly don't have to be Catholic to be Italian-American. Mad Jack 15:54, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Check out :Category:Christians by denomination. From there, there are a whole batch of sub-categories, like "Baptists from the United States" (under "Baptists") and "Roman Catholic Entertainers", and so on Mad Jack 16:28, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't know if that's true or not, but I don't see what's wrong with the Jews being a people. Mad Jack 16:33, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: By the way, "Baptists from the United States" should probably be renamed to "American Baptists" or something, but never mind Mad Jack 16:34, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I really have zero to no interest in getting into this discussion, although the term "Jewish" unquestionably refers to both an ethnic people and a religion, at least in mainstream academia, and as such just as worth categorizing as African-Americans (who haven't been in their "nation" for centuries as well). As for Ms. Johansson, I kind of doubt that her ancestors would categorize themselves as simply "Polish" Mad Jack 16:40, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why does Wikipedia apply "Jewish-American/British Jew etc" and Jewish hyphenations with nationalities? 

message: I have seen as this as a description of Jews throughout Wikepedia. Why do we say this instead of point saying they're Jewish? Is it because whether or not they practice is unknown? caz | speak 05:13, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: More or less. As far as I can tell, it's often because a handful or people who are ready to fight over the matter are downright anal about "no original research" and apparently will not consider a citation that says, for example, "raised in a Jewish family" or "descended from a long line of rabbis", etc. as an assertion that the person is a Jew. - Jmabel | Talk 02:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Born to Jewish American parents? 

message: Should we include the new survey conducted by the  American Jewish Committee? http://sev.prnewswire.com/publishing-information-services/20061222/UNTH01421122006-1.html
It estimates the Jewish population of the US is currently at 6.4 million and most significantly it means the Jewish population of the united states still surpasses that of israel.
---Duhon December 23rd 2006
: My, that's quite high. Yes, we should mention it, but it is enough higher than other estimates that certainly should not present it as the sole number. - Jmabel | Talk 19:23, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Updated population figures 

message: I have some friends who are both jewish and christian, how is that possible, i mean, is it ok to go and profess both faiths, rare, but right!  
:Yes, see my comment below.--Loodog 03:56, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Christian Jews? 

message: Really? I have some friends who said they are of jewish ethnicity and Islam by religion. How is that possible? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.15.122.35 (talk) 22:40, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Two ways: 
#By orthodox belief, a person who is born Jewish or who converts to Judaism, can never cease to be Jewish.
#Parents are descended from long line of ethinically Jewish people (e.g. Ashkenazi, Sephardi).  By anyone's belief, changing religions doesn't change your ancestry.--Loodog 03:55, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Muslim Jews 

message: Page should be moved to Jews and Judaism in the United States per virtually every other Jews in X country page. Thoughts? KazakhPol 01:46, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you give examples? Jayjg (talk) 01:31, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Did you read my above response?  Per your Google-test, "Jewish American" has more Google hits than "American Jews" -- therefore this article's title should be changed.  --172.166.173.72 02:18, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As of Jan. 20th, "Jewish American" = 901,000 Google hits. "American Jew" = 263,000 Google hits. You're wrong.  Please change this article's title.  --172.129.142.172 21:36, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was hoping for a response from KazakhPol regarding "virtually every other Jews in X country page"; maybe I'm just missing the pages. Jayjg (talk) 01:09, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So you admit that you and others are incorrect?  There are more Google hits for "Jewish American" -- so change the article's title to bring it in line with the others.  --172.132.53.161 02:37, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I was asking what KazakhPol was referring to. Also, as has been pointed out, the total for "American Jew" + "American Jews" is about the same as the total for "Jewish American" + "Jewish Americans"; I'm not sure why you're trying to misrepresent that fact. Jayjg (talk) 22:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You that that it is "about the same," yet Jewish American(S)" has more hits. The 'Google formula' is what you used not too long ago to justify keeping this article title, yet now that it has been refuted you still cling to ridiculous notions. All I am saying is that, if you take in to account ALL of the factors against the current title of this article, it's obvious that it should be changed back to what it was. Again, this article's title was only recently changed, "Jewish American(s)" is the preferred usage amongst scholars and in the mainstream, and it should be streamlined with all of the other articles representing various ethnicities, religions, and nationalities (which is "WHATEVER American," not "American WHATEVER").  --172.161.39.71 23:17, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, you claim that "this article's title was only recently changed". As you know, it has been "American Jews" for over a year and a half. That is not a "recent change", and your continued insistence on this claim indicates to me that you are not using the Talk: pages in good faith. Jayjg (talk) 20:49, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Though I disagree with Kazakhpol's suggestion, I think it would be an excellent idea to have a Judaism in the United States article.  There would be plenty of material for it.--Pharos 23:30, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page move 

message: It seems that throughout this article's history, the title was ALWAYS "Jewish Americans" and was only recently changed to "American Jews" even though "Jewish Americans" is the preferred mainstream usage.  Even while reading this article, since  most of it has yet to be changed, it still speaks of "Jewish Americans" as opposed to "American Jews" throughout.  I want to know who initiated these changes?  Was it put to a vote?  Was the information analyzed in the spirit of NPOV, or were a few baseless Google searches employed to change this article's title?  --172.162.34.129 00:36, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe the article has been at this title since October 2005; that's not really a recent change. Jayjg (talk) 22:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And what of all the years before that?  --172.161.39.71 23:18, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also notice the article Hyphenated American -- it is standard Wikipedia policy to have the group's ethnicity, nationality, and/or religion BEFORE the word "American," for instance 'Muslim American' (religion), 'Korean American' (nationality), and 'Hispanic American' (ethnicity). This is the way that it is and has been with ALL of the other ethnic, nationality, and religious group related articles on Wikipedia, so why should this one be any different?  --172.147.51.173 21:31, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Title: A Recent and Unfounded Change 

message: To be Jewish could mean either from a religious POV, Italic textorItalic textfrom an ethnic POV.
My opinion is this: JEWISH AMERICANS. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pwt898 (talk • contribs) 09:13, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This looks like it has been talked about and talked about, but a small group of owners keeps chasing away anyone interested in changing it to Jewish Americans.  I'm going to try again, for the reasons stated by countless passersby Haber 14:50, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Consensus has already been established a few paragraphs up, at Talk:American Jews#Change The Article's Title Per Wikipedia Norms -- A Simple Redirect. Please don't move pages without establishing consensus.--DLandTALK 02:43, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please don't lie.  There was and is no consensus. Haber 18:15, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A year and a half at this name is consensus, and please observe WP:CIVIL. Jayjg (talk) 16:30, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read what your friends write before backing their false statements.  "Consensus has already been established a few paragraphs up, at Talk:American Jews#Change The Article's Title Per Wikipedia Norms -- A Simple Redirect.".  Absolutely, 100% untrue.  And a year and a half of a small clique of people hijacking an article, bullying, and refusing to listen to many other people does not constitute a consensus either.  It just means that you have been successful up until now.  Civil yourself. Haber 17:51, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:CIVIL. Jayjg (talk) 21:13, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks for your input.  I agree the history of this move stinks.  Please help me get the article back where it belongs. Haber 18:20, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

text: There are actually good reasons why the adjectives applied to individuals are different from the collective name for the group.  It makes most sense to talk about American Jews as a group in terms of the Jewish diaspora, but for the great majority of Jewish Americans it makes most sense to speak of them in the national context.--Pharos 20:58, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  American Jews / Jewish Americans 

message: This article ("American Jews") claims that the number of jews living in the United States is 6.4 million. The article, "Jew", claims that the number of jews in the United States is between 5,300,000 and 5,671,000. Furthermore, "Jewish population" claims the number to be 5,914,682. In the interest of consistency, at least two of these articles should be changed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 137.99.174.125 (talk) 22:58, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conflicting Entries 

message: I've decided that starting a move war over the word order of the title of this article is probably not the best use of our time right now.  However, I'd like this discussion page to show that there is absolutely no consensus on the name of this article.  The next time someone suggests changing the name from "American Jews" to "Jewish Americans", please do not point to some imaginary, long-standing consensus, because even if you honestly think there was one, surely you cannot think there is one anymore.  At least three people have recently spoken up in favor of the change. Haber 17:06, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  There is no consensus on the name of this article 

message: "Today, American Jews form the largest single ethnic group attending many of the most prestigious U.S. colleges and universities, including Harvard, Yale, Princeton University, Stanford University, Columbia University, the University of Pennsylvania, Dartmouth College, Williams College, New York University (NYU), Duke University, Brown University, Cornell University, University of Wisconsin, MIT, Brandeis University, CalTech, the University of Chicago, Johns Hopkins University, Northwestern University, Tufts University, the George Washington University, Yeshiva University, Bowdoin College, Amherst College, Swarthmore College, Bryn Mawr College, Middlebury College, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, and Carnegie Mellon University."
#Largest single ethnic group is unsourced.
#Do we really need a list of 29 schools just to say how educated Jews are?  Just because black people go to all of these schools doesn't mean we write in the African-American article that black people go to [Harvard]], Yale, Princeton University, Stanford University, Columbia University, the University of Pennsylvania, Dartmouth College, Williams College, New York University (NYU), Duke University, Brown University, Cornell University, University of Wisconsin, MIT, Brandeis University, CalTech, the University of Chicago, Johns Hopkins University, Northwestern University, Tufts University, the George Washington University, Yeshiva University, Bowdoin College, Amherst College, Swarthmore College, Bryn Mawr College, Middlebury College, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, and Carnegie Mellon University.  Same is true of asians, etc...  
--Loodog 19:56, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  It's obviously not sourced, and its validity depends on your definition of "ethnic group" (does German background count?)  A fact tag, as someone suggested, is an inadequate substitute for verifiable sources.  I'm sure this list was created with the best of intentions, but it seems kind of ominous to me like someone is keeping track of Jewish penetration into the higher ed system.  Either way it comes off as either unfriendly ethnic boasting, or as antisemitic surveillance.  I don't like it. Haber 20:21, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jews go to 29 prestigious schools 

message: I've noticed on the right hand corner the recent jewish-american box that's been added. what is your opininon of this? the box format is mainly used on wiki, when dealing with specific ethnic groups in america i.e black,asian,irish. I don't beleive any other american religious group has this (although if considering jews to be an ethnic group its somewhat understandable). do you think the religion section of the box seems confusing? when it lists "jewish religions"  muslim ,hindu ,budhism etc. by having the box here it seems to be making the statement that american jews are as much a pure ethnic group as a religion, is that a fair assesment? Duhon 06:20, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Jews as a whole are an ethnic group, but in my opinion American Jews are not, and the same goes for most other hyphenated American groups.  The reason is that they don't really have a specific culture of their own; they're just defined as all people of X ethnicity living in a country.  I don't think groups like that should have an ethnic infobox.  Of course, some American groups do have a specific culture: African Americans, Cajuns, Native American groups, etc.--Pharos 08:39, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good catch.  There are those who think that whose crotch the doctor rips you out of makes you Jewish or non-Jewish, end of story.   I'm going to remove the field from the box, hopefully so the edit warring stays confined to Who is a Jew?, and we can keep the box which makes the page nicer to look at and more informative. I would disagree that American Jews don't have their own specific culture, and could direct you to any number of books or movies if you're interested in finding out more. Haber 12:12, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, there is a New York-centric Yiddish-derived culture that many American Jews are identified with — but this is not a definition of American Jews and very many Jews in the US have different origins.  Interestingly, there seems to be a common term for this cultural milieu in French, "juif new-yorkais", but not in English.--Pharos 21:24, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course regional variation happens.  Why do you think that American Jews don't have a specific culture? Haber 21:53, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For the same reason I think most other hyphenated American groups don't really have a specific culture — because the definition of the group is not cultural per se, it's geographic.  A new immigrant to the US can be fully considered to belong to the category American Jews, without having any broader connection to specific Jewish traditions in the country.  I realize of course this is sort of a broad point applicable to many articles, that many shades of gray in definition exist, and indeed that this discussion really belongs on Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups.  Still, it does seem very strange to me to see Americans Jews and similar groups with ethnic group infoboxes, when they're not really about "an ethnic group", but about an ethnic group in a particular geography.--Pharos 23:37, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You don't have to worry because the infobox doesn't actually say that American Jews are an "ethnic group".  This can still be a nice article without worrying about all these questions. Haber 00:03, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't no that the box would cause this reaction I don't believe that Jewish Americans and a sub ethnic group, I just noticed that other groups such as Irish Americans and Polish Americans, and Asian Americans had a similar box so I thought that Jewish Americans should have a similar box. I don't oppose any changes in the pictures, I tried to balance the pictures in the box with the government official, an entertainers, a writer, and scientist, but I always thought that should simply by a starting point.`- thank you  Astuishin 04:12, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jewish American category box 

message: Please balance the photo collage by gender, representing men and women equally (2 men & 2 women). Also, make sure to alphabetize the pictures by last name in order to avoid undue preference and bias. Finally, while Einstein was technically a Jewish-American, wouldn't it be better to pic a Jew who was/is American-born?  Thank you.  --WassermannNYC 15:35, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is anyone going to bother responding to my humble request to make the photo collage gender neutral?  --Wassermann 02:55, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do it yourself.  If your changes are good, they'll stick.  Personally I have nothing against the box as it stands.  Quotas do not make for fairness, and one does not need to be American-born to become as American as the next guy.  If anything I'd replace Dillon with a Stooge (better entertainers). Haber 11:55, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV photo collage 

message: I removed some unsourced/original research material from that section. Can we get better/any sources and work on that section? Thanks,--Tom 13:57, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can we get a non pay site for reference? Also, that section reads like original research. Thanks, --Tom 12:56, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Education section 

message: i don't understand the first two sentences under the paragraph 'politics and civil rights'. 
--The German Jews were primarily Republicans. However the Yiddish speakers were either Socialists (especially if they were connected with the garment industry), or nonpolitical until the 1930s.
firstly there doesn't seem to be a reference to these statements, and secondly: what does this paragraph want to say? to me it seems to be redundant to project a current debate (i.e. the polarized debate about dems vs. repubs) to a whole different era. it seems to overemphasize the role of ethnicity in its relation to politics.
--87.171.120.135 17:58, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Political Affiliation 

message: Please take a look at Jewish-American organized crime. The problem with the title is that it is ambiguous, it appears to link Jewish Americans with the notion of "organized crime" implying guilt by association. I tried changing it to American Jews and organized crime (perhaps someone can come up with a bettter title) but I was reverted, see Talk:Jewish-American organized crime#Recent page move. (Similarly, African-American organized crime could be changed to African Americans and organized crime or some other more neutral heading.) Only three articles in :Category:Organized crime groups have this kind of "title": African-American organized crime; Greek-American organized crime and Jewish-American organized crime. So will there be 134 articles in the future about "Foo organized crime" for all 134 categories in :Category:American people by ethnic or national origin and indeed for every class of human on Earth without hypocrisy??? Note how there is no article for Italian American organized crime as it's simply and correctly called Mafia. African Americans and Jewish Americans are not connected with organized crime as "representatives" or "symbols" of their race or religion. Every group has its criminals. So what else is new. Sure there are "gangs" just as there are :Category:Mafia gangs in :Category:Mafia groups (and by the way, if there are such African American or Jewish American gangs or groups then name them, but let's not leave it as if "guilt" is being laid at the door of all African Americans or Jewish Americans etc), but the titles African-American organized crime or Jewish-American organized crime makes it sound, way, way bigger than it is in reality, and could easily slip into racism and antisemitism if not handled in a scrupulously WP:NPOV manner 100% of the time! The job of Wikipedia should not be to magnify the problem which is called POV editing, but to depict things accurately as they are. Please add your views. Thank you, IZAK 00:54, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no problem as I see it because "Jewish-American" is the preferred term. Also, I'd like to ask: according to you, does "[handling articles] in a scrupulously WP:NPOV manner 100% of the time" include placing the pic of a random public execution at the VERY TOP of the Taliban article?  --Wassermann 12:37, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Taliban are no friends of the Jews or of Americans, they are bloodthirsty killers no different to the Nazis. Indeed they are Islamofascists and you should be ashamed to bring up such a horrid subject here. Jews have been the victims of such terrors in history and I would support putting up as many pictures of Jews being killed to show the cruelty that has been inflicted upon them by antisemtic tyrants and groups. IZAK 04:10, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jewish-American organized crime 

message: OK -- I don't understand why this is an issue, unless you all figure that this article deserves some sort-of 'special exception' to Wikipedia's rules of article naming and precedent. If so inclined, click: French Jews, German Jews, Russian Jews, and so forth on in to perpetuity. ALL of these names REDIRECT to the "History of the Jews in [country]" articles, i.e. they DO NOT have their own special article on this topic (even though, for whatever reason, THIS page on "Jews and Judaism in the United States" IS indeed a separate entity from the "History of the Jews in the United States" page, not to mention separate from the Lists of American Jews [also wrong titled, differs from category name], and separate from :Category:Jewish Americans [correct category name]). DO YOU ALL NOW SEE WHAT A COMPLETE AND UTTER MESS YOU HAVE MADE OF THESE JEWS AND JUDAISM RELATED AMERICAN ARTICLES AND CATEGORIES because of all of the wayward and entirely unneeded article/category moves and counter-moves, renames and counter-renames?  I merely seek to fix (standardize) all of this, nothing more.  Please help me to do this, and please stop engaging in these senseless/childish edit wars and continuing to revert and/or disregard my good moves and valid information.
There are many article/category naming irregularities still out there (found in Judaism by country [maybe we start there?] such as Italian Jews, but I'm about to fix that), but we need to stick to ONE naming scheme for ALL Jewish articles, and so far the category naming scheme "Jews and Judaism in [country]" (as opposed to "History of the Jews in [country]") is the most widespread and used, thus it can be regarded as a precedent (or is one used for the category, one for the actual article?). The confusing part is that, like I just hinted at, in some cases we have "History of the Jews in [country]" pages, along with "Jews and Judaism in [country]" pages (plus tons of categories with same name, which User:IZAK has been standardizing to some extent), along with the list articles like List of German Jews, List of British Jews, and so forth. So, maybe we need to start a discussion and approve a policy of article name STANDARDIZATION and PRECEDENT than can be followed in the future as they relate to ALL of these disparate yet related pages (Jews/Judaism in [country], History of Jews in [country], List of [national] Jews, all related to the standard category naming scheme "Jews and Judaism in [country]"). Per User:IZAK's recent moves involving the Swiss and Norwegian Jew articles I thought that this was and has been the accepted norm/precedent, but now I am being reverted for moving this article to its similar name, yet of course no one objects to IZAK's moves at all. If I am doing something wrong here, by all means please let me know -- however, I am just trying to improve the overall naming and organizational scheme of this article and indeed all of the :Category:Jews and Judaism by country (Judaism by country) articles/categories as a whole.
Also...Jayjg, why do you keep reverting the List of Jewish Americans to List of American Jews even though ALL of the actual lists found in that master list are still named "List of Jewish American [profession]" as they should be, a hold-over from the olden days when these article/category names weren't in such a state of disorganization and disarray?
  
So, lets figure this out... --Wassermann 08:02, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I will "cause explosions [and] create chaos" if I try to improve Wikipedia?  WOW, I guess that I am fairly hated around here, huh? Seems like I'm more welcome in Saudi Arabia than on Wikipedia at this point, even if they don't take too kindly to the Yehudi over there...  --Wassermann 11:00, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To begin with, it is false to claim that the standard for article names is "Jews and Judaism in x", since, as far as I can tell, not one article uses that naming convention. Second, the now long-gone Goodoldpolonious2 unilaterally moved all of these kinds of articles to the incredibly awkward "History of Jews in X" naming scheme a long time ago, rather than the shorter and clearer "X Jews" naming scheme, and then vigorously defended it. Third, as you point out, many of these articles are not about History anyway - the clearer "x Jews" naming scheme gets around that issue. Fourth, I've fixed your unilateral move of Italian Jews. Fifth, the clearer and shorter naming scheme should extend to the other lists, such as List of American Jews - it is unclear why you insist on moving it to "List of Jewish Americans", when most or perhaps all other Jews lists that follow this more sensible scheme (e.g. List of British Jews, List of German Jews, List of French Jews). Jayjg (talk) 13:00, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent page moves (see also: unresolved discussion above regarding this issue) 

message: I am changing the opening sentence to this article to remove the implication that converts to Judaism are not ethnic Jews.  This is, in the first place, offensive, and therefore inappropriate under Wikipedia style guidelines even if it does track common usage.  (See why we do not use "Mormon Church" even though it is the common style of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.)  Second, Jewish proselytes are clearly ethnic Jews by the definition of our own article on ethnicity.  Proselytes belong to a population (Jews) who identify with each other on the basis of a common genealogy or ancestry (as a matter of law), and as members of a distinct group, and by cultural, linguistic, religious, and territorial traits.  Savant1984 22:13, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ethnic Jews OR who have converted to Judaism 

message: Please see the discussion here -- this needs more input from editors who actually work in this area. Badagnani 16:49, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion proposal 

message: Why are Washington Heights, Manhattan and Flatbush, Brooklyn not listed in New York?  Inwood, Manhattan is a bit imprecise. DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 21:51, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  cities of jewish population 

message: As much as i understand that he = very famous person and that If your born Jewish you are Jewish the rest of your life but he did convert out of Judaism and that sets a tone of assimilation for the article and that is a negative message for Judaism. Could i suggest that may be we should change it to a popular jew who hasnt assimilated. I suggest Greenspan because of his impact to America. But if we want to go for a more fun or popular person use someone from hollywood or try sienfeld. Its just that Bob Dylan made a definate choice to be Christian and leave Judaism it seems dumb to go and put him as the face of Jewish life in America. --Eshay 12:40, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Only on Wikipedia and in Nazi Germany is it true that if you are born Jewish you are immutably Jewish for the rest of your life.  Real nice place, this. Duke o Puke 14:42, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a hungry sleeping tiger you really ought not to poke.  There are absolutely no axioms a majority of people would agree to regarding the "Does being born Jewish make you Jewish for life?" issue.--Loodog 20:41, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Bob Dylan briefly became a Christian in the 1970s or 1980s, but then returned to Judaism. Don't you know that lyric from Adam Sandler's The Chanukah Song ("Bob Dylan was born a Jew Then he wasn't but now he's back")? Also, why is the fact that if you're born Jewish you are Jewish for life so controversial? No one seems to have a problem with the fact that if you are born Black, Chinese, Italian, or Irish, you are Black, Chinese, Italian, or Irish for life. All Hallow's Wraith 20:58, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Uh oh.  Somebody bit the bait....  Ahem...  The counter argument one would offer would be that the groups you have mentioned are all races or nationalities.  Then you would counter counter argue that Judaism is a race/nationality.  Then I would say but you can't convert into a race or nationality, Judaism is just a religion.  You don't inherit your parent's beliefs.  Then you would say that the people who aren't converts have genetic similarity that puts that higher risk for things like Alzheimer's Disease and Bloom Syndrome.  Then I would say that that's a genetic group whose history and occurence is highly correlated to followers of the Jewish religion of Ashkenazi descent but has no bearing on the Mizrahi or the Sepharic.  NO ONE CAN EVER WIN THIS.--Loodog 21:13, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ashkenazi, Sephardic, and Mizrahi are the three Jewish ethnic groups. I didn't think there was any debate on that, since there's an article entitled Jewish ethnic divisions and the article Ashkenazi Jews goes over stuff like DNA analysis. Maybe the proper wording is "if you're born Ashkenazi/Sephardic/Mizrahi you are Ashkenazi/Sephardic/Mizrahi for life"? All Hallow's Wraith 21:19, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Right, that's fine, but people get testy about Judaism as a whole being a kind of descendancy because they'll draw all sorts of inapplicable comparisons to Christianity, since no one seems to make the same claims about it.  Then you say that's different.  They say, "What?  It's just a religion too."  And then you spend an hour explaining why Judaism is not a religion like Christianity, Islam, Wicca, Buddhism, etc... as it is a close-knit ethnic group whereas these other relgions were adventitiously spread far beyond their origins in a time of increased communication among larger disparate societies.  They still don't believe you, at which point you want to tell them to suck your circumsized dick.--Loodog 21:36, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd be happy to leave this to the Who is a Jew article, simply defining American Jews as Jews who are American citizens or resident aliens. Duke o Puke 23:07, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  objection to Bob Dylan as picture 

message: I performed a rewrite of the section #International affairs. My rewrite consisted of the addition of facts that were not previously presented, and to the largest extent possible, leaving the existing content.  It seems to fit quite well. Please look at it.  My initial response to reading the article was to slap an {incomplete} tag on it, but adding facts and a reference seemed more of a collaborative method.  CasualObserver'48 (talk) 09:07, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re-write of #International affairs 

message: The previous selection, sorry, was cheap. People should be entered if they are not famous on glamour journals for a month, but those who were made greater by histoy. Brin, Einstein, Taylor, and Dylan, is a respectful selection. Shpakovich (talk) 20:50, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Image people selection 

message: Hey how come American Arabs aren't included as a related ethnic group? And for that matter how come Wikipedia calls them Arab Americans? Duck of Luke (talk) 03:52, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Related ethnic groups