Talk:American Jews/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

"American Jews" or "Jewish Americans?"

I would use "Jewish Americans". That designation implies Americans of Jewish background, not Jews who happen to live in America. I think it's appropriate for the noun to be "Americans" rather than "Jews". I've changed the title of this article several times, only to have it changed back each time. I'd be interested to know how others feel about this.

Consistency would lead one to favor "Jewish Americans" as that is parallel with other types of ethnic identity in the US: Asian American, African American, Polish America, European American. Also, this usage makes "Jewish" an adjective modifying the noun "American," which is thereby presented as the main identity. An article that focused on the Jewish diaspora might, on the other hand, use "American Jews" since the focus would be on Judaism with national identity being an adjectival add-on.

One thing, though, is that the term "Jewish American" is much less common than the other ethnic terms mentioned in the previous paragraph, even less common than "European American." People usually just say, and write, "Jew" or "Jewish," with the "American" part being unstated and understood. However, given that Wikipedia is neither a conversation nor a formal piece of writing whose intended audience is exclusively American, it makes sense to be consistent and use the rather artifical term "Jewish American." Interlingua 16:20, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't object to the term "Jewish American", then to reverse the term to "American Jewish" would make some people content on the issue. They are American citizens, born or raised in the U.S. and you can include those who immigrated here. However, if you want to discuss Jews or Jewish people in America, the term "American Jews" is an excellent choice on the article. --Mike D 26 09:34, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

American Jews connotes: when thinking about Jews in the world, these are the ones you will find in the United States. (c.f. American Muslims, American Poles)

Jewish Americans connotes: when thinking about how to partition Americans, these are the Jewish ones (c.f. Italian Americans, Irish Americans)

The first feels more like a religious or ethnicity designation. The second is more of an origins classification.--Loodog 15:53, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I identify as an "American Jew"; here is one discussion of the matter of the best way to refer to Jews in the US-- http://www.slate.com/id/1005862/ Songflower 23:10, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Proper Characterisation of Haredi end of the spectrum

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)

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)

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)

Jews as an ethnic group

Marcus2, why don't you consider Jews to be an ethnic group? Jews and ethnographers do. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:21, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

That's fine. But I believe that technically, they're not, unless you say that ethnicity has nothing to do with race. I have only reverted 2 or 3 times anyway. Marcus2 21:45, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

What do you mean by "race", and why do you believe they are not? Jayjg ^(talk) 21:51, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

"Ethnicity" almost sounds like "race" to me. Race is a term that distinguishes whites from blacks and Asians. See Talk:Jew for my response to your second question. Marcus2 21:55, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I would say that race is a generally discredited concept that mainly reflects 19th century anthropological thinking, and was presumed to have a genetic basis that has now been largely disproved. Ethnicity involves identity, and while Jewish Americans may not constitute an ethnic group in the narrowest sense of the term, they fit it every bit as much as Italian Americans (who include people from Milan as well as Sicily), and far better than Chinese Americans (who include, for example, Hukka who have no particular biological relation to most other Chinese). -- Jmabel | Talk 21:56, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)

"Race" is an outdated 19th century construct; see the discussion at Talk:Jew. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:08, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I mean no disrespect but isn't Judiaism a religion and can therefore be joined by willful conversion. Ethnicity is your heritage not your religion. A person cannot convert to being of Germanic Ethnicty or Asian Ethnicity. Symmetric Chaos 15:38, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Judiasim is a nationality, With a national religion ( and a language, and a land ). Just like people can apply for citizenship in the US a convert requests Citizenship in the jewish nation. --yisraeldov 14:50, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

To say Jews are a "race" or ethnicity is controversial, but be in mind the Jewish people constitute a religion that one can convert or withdraw from. Also to point out American Jews are of multiple ethnic and national origins, as well a small portion of non-Jews have a Jewish ancestor. For one to identity as being Jewish has to do with personal bonds to Judaism or their background. American Jews have been widely accepted, has enjoyed a high degree of integration and freedom of religion has provided them with safety and security than most parts of the world. However, the forces of assimilation has impacted Jewish identity when it comes in contact with the larger mainstream culture. But, an American Jew can preserve and practice the main core of the Jewish religion that won't interfere with their sense of being a part of American society. This is an example of diversity and multi-culturalism in America, where one is free to decide his ethnic heritage and religious observance. The "race" issue of whether Jews after thousands of years as a separate entity is not pity, but there is a range of some inter-marriage and waves of conversion to Christianity in the case of Spanish Conversos in the 1400s. Today, the majority of American Jews have a non-Jewish spouse and many families are of mixed-faith, but this hasn't yet made the Jewish faith disappear at all. Surely the pressure to fit in has affected Judaism in the U.S, then for one to self-identify with Judaism or any ethnic ties remains the same. --Mike D 26 09:42, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Race and "natural history of Ashkenazi"[1][2][3]

Race has a biological basis. The saying that there is more genetic variance within races than between them and therefore there is 'no such thing as race' is a misunderstanding of majority scientific opinion. There are genetic groupings of homo sapiens that generally fall along cultural definitions of race (which, like genetics, are to some degree based on geographic history), and they contain measurable phenotypic differences. For example, in the medical domain, Caucasians and Asians have higher rates of osteoporosis, Jews: Tay-Sachs, West-Africans: sickle-cell anemia. This genetic difference may even produce phenotypic difference measurable at the cognitive and behavioral level (see race and intelligence). Jews have largely been genetically isolated from other populations for most of their history.[4]--Nectarflowed ^T 00:26, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

First, Jews are not a race, they are an ethnic group, a nation, and a religion, please see Jew. Second, any scientific basis for race is dubious, and it certainly is not mainstream scientific thought, please provide some sources proving otherwise. Finally, the issue of potential intelligence differences among different ethnic groups remains extremely controversal and unproven -- any article covering it should cover both sides of the argument, as the New York Tomes article does. Just as we do not include coverage of dubious theories like those of Kevin McDonald in the main article about American Jews, there seems no compelling reason to include this latest battle in the war about how "different" Jews are from other populations. Feel free to create a Jews and Genetics article, and include it as a related article, but otherwise opening this can of worms seems unneeded in a tangential article - are you going to post it to Jews in France, Jews in Canada, as well? --Goodoldpolonius2 02:44, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Regarding the biological basis of race, yes, the racial categorization scheme only "rougly approximates," as one report (published in the peer-reviewed journal Public Health Reports, puts it, "a classification that would be optimally useful for purposes of public health related to gene-environment interaction in specific populations."[5] The journal is by the U.S. Public Health Service, published (2002) by the Association of Schools of Public Health(ASPH). The big picture in human population genetics, according to the report, is that for most of our genes, there has been little direct selection pressure since the origin of the human species. This is why, for the big structural features of the human genome, racial differences do not exist and race is "not of any biological significance.

The report goes on, though, that "for a particular subset of genes, many with important biomedical function and significance, average allele frequence differences are in fact observed between populations originating in different geographic areas, or with different exposures, diets, or other factors. In many (but by no means all) of these cases, the allele frequency differences segregate with alleles that are responsibile for the surface chracteristics historically used to define race." These racial differences in subsets of genes are responsible for the phenotypic differences we're familiar with, such as lactose-tolerance in adults being found more in Europeans than other races.

My point is that racial genetics is a complex field that can't be reduced only to "not of any biological significance," and I think this point is supported, btw, by the title of this report, which is the Racial Genetics Paradox in Biomedical Research and Public Health. Medicine, which is a field that actually has to do hands on work with the genetic differences between humans, would be impeded if it operated under the principle that ethnic background is not of any biological signifance.

Regarding the "Natural history of Ashkenazi intelligence," I think we probably agree evolutionary anthropology theories regarding the unusual success of Jews is relevant, and in some cases maybe appropriate, for inclusion in summaries of that topic. Similarly, the baldness page includes a section for evolutionary theories regarding that topic. The paper is controversial, but Stephen Pinker defends it, noting the extreme controversiality of any research dealing with cognitive difference among ethnicities. This paper provides an argument against the theory most people are familiar with for the unique diseases among Ashkenazi: a genetic bottleneck in the population's history, combined with taboo against marriage outside the population.[6] The new paper is a big deal,[7]([8]) and future studies are expected to test its hypotheses.

McDonald's theories are considered by many to mainly have anti-semitic applications, where as Cochrane et al.'s paper is evolutionary anthropology that has produced testable hypotheses, and is being reported on by prestigious news sources. In some cases, duplicate content among articles, such as at Ashkenazi and Jewish American, is appropriate, and I don't think this kind of evolutionary anthropology is any less germane to readers doing research on Jewish Americans than it is to research on Ashkenazi. --Best, Nectarflowed ^T 08:38, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The public health report paper you cite (which is an opinion column and not a paper, by the way) starts off by saying that genetics cannot shed any light on issues of race. It then talks about the fact that certain genetic diseases show up in certain groups that don't correspond to race -- sickle cell anemia among Greeks and Italians, etc -- and says that there are three "racial" groups, which would not seem to include Jews. Certainly some groups have higher frequencies of genetic diseases, like Ashkenaz Jews or the Amish, but this is different from saying that they have different genetic levels of intelligence, which is what the paper proposes. In any case, the point is that Jews are not a race in any biological sense, and you have provided no evidence that they are, or even that race is actually a generally used concept in a way that would include Jews as a seperate grouop.

On the new paper, just because a paper is generating buzz in the press does not mean that it is a big deal in a scientific sense -- its hypotheses have not been tested, and there seem to be many reasons given by population geneticists about why it is flawed (for example, from the New York Times article: "The authors "make pretty much all of the classic mistakes in interpreting heritability," said Dr. Andrew Clark, a population geneticist at Cornell University, and the argument that the sphingolipid gene variants are associated with intelligence, he said, is "far-fetched.""). If we include links to unproven hypotheses about Jews, we open it to people like Kevin McDonald as well, who makes an anti-semitic pseudo-biological argument. Lets wait until this paper is actually tested scientifically before posting it everywhere, unlike baldness, this is highly controversal, and we are not listing the objections as well.

Finally, it is not clear to me how this is even related to pages like Jewish American. If European Jews do turn out to have higher average intelligence, that should be listed on the Ashkenazi page -- but not to every page that mentions Jews. The same logic would require the link listed in the History of the Jews in England, History of the Jews in Germany, History of the Jews in Poland, Israel, etc. --Goodoldpolonius2 15:30, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You might find the race article helpful on understanding this topic. The superior performance of Jewish Americans on IQ tests seems relevant to this article because it is in the U.S. where the best data on this topic was generated; and some even seem to argue that it is an American rather than international phenomena. There seems to be concurrent discussion on the Ashkenazi talk page. --Rikurzhen 19:32, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)

So there's evidence on Jews (but Americans of European background) are smarter than "gentiles" or non-Jews? I don't buy it completely, but there is a large representation of American Jews in colleges, universities and business schools. There may be cultural explanations or if the tradition of intellectual or academic success is found in American Jewish families. Not just the Jews, but WASPs, Asian-Americans and Arabs are seen as "gifted" or had an ability to enter top-level colleges or universities than Christian American whites. I believe class and economic status had more to do with the ability to pay for and enter a top-level college or ivy league school. Religion, race and gender are measured to explain why or how come more Jews than catholics, but less Blacks or more Asians, and more women than men are enrolled in the top 100 colleges? There is no "smarter" or "less smart" group of people based on race, ethnicity and religious denomination. The high representation of Ashkenazi Jews than other groups in fields of science, political thought and economic theory are well noted: Albert Einstein, Sigmund Freud, Karl Marx and Jonas Salk are indeed Jews and Ashkenazi. It's been said over 30 Nobel prize awardees for science was Jewish, but where's the evidence on Wikipedia to back it up? It seems only in America, Britain or Germany before Nazism was where the "smart Jew" made their mark. Russian Jews made great inroads like their counterparts of Western Europe, but there was anti-Semitism in the Communist party and many Jewish intellectuals left the USSR. --Mike D 26 10:47, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

A question

Is it true that majority of Jewish American academics is left-leaning ? --Siyac 9 August 2005 19:00 (UTC)

According to one survey, Democrats outnumber Republicans by a margin of roughly eight to one among academics, and I would expect that Jewish American academics are like any other academics as far as political preferences are concerned. --Goodoldpolonius2 17:16, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Jewish Americans in general tend to be more left-leaning than the average in the country, but this has become less pronounced since the Reagan years.--Pharos 22:31, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

A common quip is that American Jews live like Episcopalians but vote like Puerto Ricans. For those not familiar with US society and politics. Episcopalians are the American version of Anglicans (Church of England) and are generally understood to be the highest-income religious group here. Stereotypically, they vote Republican. When this joke became common in the 1950s, Puerto Ricans were the most recent group of immigrants to New York (although they came as US citizens) and tended to be both poor and Democratic.

Not to mention that Episcopalians are commonly regarded as only nominal adherents of their faith. Tomer^talk 19:56, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

The American Jews article has written information on what's the exact percentage of them registered as Democrats. It was removed and re-edited, since some readers took offense and felt this had degraded American Jews. In California, mostly Los Angeles and San Francisco areas (Berkeley has a depiction of harboring far-left groups and historic Jewish populations), some prejudical statements on the state is "falling apart" by not only Liberals, homosexuals and immigrants, but squarely blamed the Jew for "this mess". The state's Black political leadership was accused of blatant anti-Semitism, esp. after the Los Angeles Riots of 1992 and the racially charged O.J. Simpson trial, but the state's Jewish community took a harsh beating over these events. Some low-income Blacks in South Los Angeles on the local T.V. news spout unrational statements on Jews "owned liqour stores", "controls public schools" and "indoctrinated" local Blacks. Most of the interviewed are part of Black militant groups. Meanwhile, far-right wing Whites with ties to Neo-Nazis or the Ku klux klan had charged Jewish voters manipulated state elections to have a "leftist" move and backed Arnold Schwarzenegger in his campaign. Even in the west coast, much like the Northeast, American Jews are seen as "leftist agitators" or moved up the ladder to become the establishment, where the WASPs, Irish Americans and Italian Americans used to primarily represent major city councils and state governments. Whoever did successfully or made up the majority of the establishment gets the blame for "all the problems" and this worries me as a Californian (but not Jewish) that knew the impact of racial and political tensions had on my state. I knew one political figure David Duke had traveled across So. Cal. in recent years to promote anti-Semitic views. --Mike D 26 10:32, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Persian/Farsi

I notice that there have been some reverts back and forth over "Persian" or "Farsi" (language). Our article is at Persian language and I gather that is the term in increasingly common use in English. What is the argument in favor of "Farsi"? -- Jmabel | Talk 04:16, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

The Persian Jews I know describe their language as "Farsi". Jayjg ^(talk) 04:25, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Obviously, that is not the sort of "citation" I can verify. But take a look at Persian_language#Nomenclature: I would think that, for encyclopedic purposes the Academy of Persian Language and Literature would be definitive. -- Jmabel | Talk 03:41, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

As an Iranian, the offical language of Iran is Persian. That is what the Iranian government has declared as the language for all of the world to use. Farsi is a term used by the speakers of Persian to refer to their own language. Most Indians use the term Parsi to denote Persian and the speakers of Persian. Neither Farsi nor Parsi is a name that is typically accepted by other countries or authorites as the offically correct word. I think the correct usage would be the one the government is providing. Marzyeh

On the Persian/Farsi discussion board, there has been a long exchange on this. Persian is the term that has been most common in English for centuries. However, those who favor Farsi point out that "Persian" is confusing as it is easily understood to refer to ancient Peria and its language/culture. In the case of several other cultures, there are pairs of terms the former of which is often associated with older forms of the language or culture, and the latter of which is associated with newer forms: Norse/Norwegian, Israelite/Israeli, Grecian/Greek.

Those who favor "Persian" argue that using "Farsi" is like saying "français." With more commonly studied foreign languages (French, German, Russian, Chinese, Arabic, etc), there has been virtually no debate about what to call them; we use the established English words and not français, Deutsch, Ruski, Putonghua or arabi, respectively. With less commonly studied foreign languages, there has often been a debate about what term to use, with the terms most often being around older terms used in English and newer ones that are closer to the word of the language in the langauge itself. In the Americas, this has often been been a question largely of orthography: Quiché or K'iche', Tsotojil or Tz'tujil. In other cases, completely different terms have been favored: Inuit not Eskimo, Purépecha not Tarascan, Runa Simi not Quechua. Similar debates exist elsewhere: is the language Swahili or kiSwahili, Bahasa Indonesia or Indonesian.

Because of these issues, it's not surprising to find that there are disagreements among official sources on what term to use. The CIA uses Persian. Harvard and most universities in the US use Farsi in their course catalogues. UNESCO uses both. Iranian Embassies seem to use the term "Modern Persian" on their English websites, but some also use "Farsi." Interlingua 16:48, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

It's actually far more likely that neither "Farsi" or "Persian" is correct...the Persian Jewish communties have traditionally spoken Judeo-Persian languages, which are what they are independent of the politically-motivated wranglings over the terms "Farsi" and "Persian"... Tomer^talk 05:13, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Persian, Farsi or Iranian Jews...it depends on whoever felt which one is a culturally sensitive term. Wikipedia policy usually describe language and ethnicity not the same, but some exceptions like French and French language, Cherokee and Cherokee language and Korean and Korean language. Iranian, the ethnicity and language are separate in the Wikipedia database, and there's no actual Belgian, Swiss, Yugoslav or British language if you think of it.

The definition of "Jewish" in Iran and the Middle east is stricter than in Europe and America, sometimes a Jewish person don't adhere to every part of his/her religion still can say he/she is Jewish. The Iranian Jews had closely guarded Judaism in a more conservative society that emphasized a whole traditional set of religious mores and family values.

I don't want to stray away from the subject, but I'm of French paternal and part-Cherokee maternal ancestry, but does it mean I'm French enough to become a dual citizen of France? No. Am I native American enough to join their tribe? No. I have to enlist and proof my national and tribal family records, but have the right to say I'm half-french and had some Amerindian blood. I may as well call myself an American, but a "heinz 57" mix.

Back to my point, for one to be "Jewish" in halakhic law is conversion. But to many in the American Jewish community, it's not always necessary. It's different for Jews in membership rolls to Orthodox, Conservative, Reform or Reconstruction sects...but some Jews may occassionally attend sabbatical services (not every week) or took part in rites on Jewish holidays that follow custom or observance. In other words, a Jew is one who worships and practice any traits associated with Judaism. Same goes to Christians like myself who never went to church, but accepted most important dogmas of my faith, or I won't call myself a Christian.

But the Iranians always strictly use religion for identify those who are Muslim, Christian and Zoroastrian. To be Jewish, but Iranian does not get a separate label. If they speak/read Persian, hold Iranian citizenship and perform its' duties: are they Iranians, including those who believe in Judaism? Yes. But, political crises and religious persecution against them has nearly put an end to Jewish life in Iran. I hope things improve for them under these conditions. --Mike D 26 11:17, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Mike, that's pretty far off-topic for my question. I am trying to work out the correct term for the form of the language spoken by Iranian Jews in America. - Jmabel | Talk 02:30, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Not so far, the difficulty of categorizing a language of Iran is harder than categorizing a group of Jews from Iran. According to Jews article, the Iranian Jews speak Iranian (the official term), also called Farsi and Persian by some without being wrong. Let's go by "Iranian" language for now, but there are several other languages in the country. Farsi and Persian are similar terms, then "Iranian" is what's official in the eyes of the Iranian government. I did discuss the lack of clear identity terms and phrases for all peoples of Iran, especially Jews who long described themselves Iranian and the religious grouping wasn't drastically used, then the recent wave of anti-Israel politics placed a heavy burden on what is a Jew in Iran? --Mike D 26 21:32, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I believe that Marzyeh is correct that the Iranian government, when writing in English, uses Persian, not Iranian. See our article Persian language: "The Academy of Persian Language and Literature has argued in an official pronouncement [9] that the name "Persian" is more appropriate…" So I would think, either "Persian" or (per Tom's remarks) "Judeo-Persian".

"Iranian" being official for the language would surprise me greatly. Do you have a source for that, or was that just off the top of your head? - Jmabel | Talk 04:45, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

List of Major Jewish American Communities

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)

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)

What about Mexican Jews?

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)

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)

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)

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)

Sara Paxton is a Mexican Jew.

This page needs to be renamed

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

You have to give a reason for the change and some hint of what you would like it to be changed to. Symmetric Chaos 15:40, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Question on Bio's

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)

Articles must say asap (eg. the first line) of Bio 'cause people need to decide if they want or not to read the rest of the article even knowing the person is an American Jewish or Jewish American or Juden (in Germany). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 201.21.202.155 (talk • contribs) 20 November 2006.

Detroit

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)

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)

Are Jews White? not on Wikipedia

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)

What makes you think all American Jews are "white"? --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 09:24, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

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)

Citation please. Tomer^talk 16:32, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

There are etheiopian jews now living in the US.--yisraeldov 13:44, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

And Nigerian and Ugandan Jews as well, and probably others from Africa. I also know Vietnamese Jews living in the US, so... Tomer^talk 17:08, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

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)

I've responded here. Tomer^talk 21:17, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Jewish Americans, if of European national origins, are officially "White" or Caucasian. But others may ask what about Indian Jews, notably in the state of Kerala? Tribes of Burmese claim to had Jewish ancestors? And the tribe of Falasha of Ethiopia had practiced Judaism alone for thousands of years? They are of different races, even there is some Hebrew, Caananite or Israelite blood in them. Jews of Brazil, Argentina and Uruguay are mainly from Spanish, Italian and Greek descent. A large Jewish community in Montreal, Quebec was remarkably adaptive to the metropolis' bilingual and French-Canadian culture. And let's not forget South African Jews are classified "White" and have British, German and Russian surnames. It tells me Jews are racially mixed and multi-cultural, including Arabic Jews and Iranian Jews that developed a separate history than of the Ashkenazi and Sefardi were long established in Europe. --Mike D 26 10:12, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

In the United States, "white" does not necessarily mean "European." The U.S. Census Bureau definites people of "white or Caucasian" ancestry as descending from the original peoples of Europe, the Middle East or North Africa. Being of (ancient) Middle Eastern descent, Americans of Jewish ancestry are therefore white. 24.192.17.34 23:03, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

List of places

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)

Population numbers

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

Cultural laundry list

The section Jewish contributions to the United States is formatted as prose, but it is really little more than a comma-separated list. We have the relevant articles elsewhere: if we are going to summarize here, shouldn't we summarize with actual sentences characterizing the nature of Jewish contribution rather than this laundry list? - Jmabel | Talk 03:05, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, there are similar paragraphs in Filipino American, for example, and in similar pages on X-Americans (i.e. noting some of the most prominant members of the X-American group). I think it's useful to note the most important American Jews in each field (as the lists cover everyone). And really, what more can you say in the entertainment/pop culture section? There isn't a particular "Jewish acting style" that's specific to all Jewish actors. Of course, that section can be expanded - i.e. Jewish American comedy (which probably merits its own article). Also, I'm not sure if we need to say that Monroe was a convert. All that matters is that she was Jewish (how her Jewishness came about isn't that important or relevant, or else we should also say that Kirk Douglas' parents were Beluarsian Jews, while Natalie Portman was born in Israel to an Israeli Jewish father and American Jewish mother, etc., etc.). If we had a section on converts to Judaism in the article, she could or should be mentioned there. Does all this seem reasonable? Mad Jack 08:14, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, it could be worse, but I find laundry lists like this to be little but ego-stroking. Larger, more comprehensive lists are elsewhere; I wonder what reader will ever read through these nearly prose-free lists in an article that is not mainly lists.

As for Monroe: this is a cultural matter, and a convert has a different cultural background. So, yes, it matters that she is a convert. As it would if we mentioned Sammy Davis, Jr. - Jmabel | Talk 06:12, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Harold C Urey

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)

The American-born Urey was almost certainly not an exile from the Nazis; nor Kistiakowsky, who, according to [10] was in the U.S. before Hitler came to power. - Jmabel | Talk 05:49, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Why does Wikipedia apply "Jewish-American/British Jew etc" and Jewish hyphenations with nationalities?

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)

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)

This is about religion (which can vary), not ethnicity (which one cannot change). Hasbro 15:48, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

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)

Is there a Protestant category? Hasbro 16:23, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

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)

Wikipedia identifies Jews more as a people and not enough as a transferable religion. Hasbro 16:31, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

There is a difference between a Judean/Israeli/Hebrew and Jewish person, the former being ethnic and the latter spiritual. I can choose to convert to Judaism, but that does not make me an ethnic Israelite. Scarlett Johanssen is Danish and Polish, not Israeli (or Judean). To apply it otherwise is anachronistic. Judea hasn't existed, even if the customs of that people survived, for about 1900 years. Hasbro 16:37, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

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)

I could be Hindu, but that would not make me Indian. I could acculturate to Americanization, but that does not make me American (though I am). You are disinterested, so leave it alone. Ashkenazim means Germans in Hebrew. Johanssen is not Semitic like Saddam Hussein. This Judaic duality is just an example of cultural appropriation. The "African Americans" have Liberia, just as the law of return applies for Israel. Identity politics shouldn't be so grey. Hasbro 16:44, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Hasbro, this is ridiculous. Jewish tradition defines an ethnicity/nation as much as it defines a religion. As a secular diaspora Jew, I do not practice Judaism, I am certainly not Israeli, but I am a Jew. An apikoros is not a goy. - Jmabel | Talk 17:38, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Born to Jewish American parents?

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)

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)

Updated population figures

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)

Christian Jews?

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)

Muslim Jews

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).

Two ways:

1. By orthodox belief, a person who is born Jewish or who converts to Judaism, can never cease to be Jewish.
2. 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)

Page move

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)

Can you give examples? Jayjg ^(talk) 01:31, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Article Title: A Recent and Unfounded Change

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)

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)

And what of all the years before that? --172.161.39.71 23:18, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

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)

American Jews / Jewish Americans

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).

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)

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.--DLand^TALK 02:43, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Please don't lie. There was and is no consensus. Haber 18:15, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

A year and a half at this name is consensus, and please observe WP:CIVIL. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:30, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

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)

WP:CIVIL. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:13, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

It should most certainly be Jewish Americans over American Jews -- if you look at Lists of Jewish Americans nearly ALL of those articles remain from when "Jewish American" the the accepted usage here on Wikipedia, i.e. List of Jewish American poets, List of Jewish American authors, List of Jewish American composers, and so forth: again, this is nearly ALL of them. Also, "Category:American Jews" was deleted in favour of "Category:Jewish Americans," so why the difference in article title vs. category? I'm not sure how this was changed, because it seems that "Jewish American(s)" was correctly the norm until about 1.5 years ago, when it was abruptly changed to "American Jews." However, the people that changed it didn't bother to go back and change all of the references to "Jewish Americans" found everywhere else throughout Wikipedia, including in the actual article itself! --WassermannNYC 13:44, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

Conflicting Entries

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).

The article was recently changed, it originally stated (as it does now after corrections) that populations estimates vary. The article now lists the most recent population surveys. There is no one 100% accepted figure. ---Duhon January 27th 2007

Definition of Jew

In the spirit of AGF, I'm going to give all you Jew-haters out there a chance to explain this definition:

American Jews, also known as Jewish Americans, are Americans of ethnic Jewish descent, or those who have converted to Judaism.

Under this definition two Jews could convert to Catholicism, have their baby baptized, the kid could grow up to become a priest, and still all three of them would be considered Jewish. Haber 15:39, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

In short, yes. Just as a famous example, Jean-Marie Cardinal Lustiger is a high-profile cardinal in the Catholic Church who was born Jewish and as such still considers himself so. However, you have touched upon a longstanding debate that is covered extensively in the article entitled Who is a Jew?. I would suggest reading it, as it is interesting and should answer most of your questions on the issue.

I'm not exactly sure what to make of your first comment about Jew-haters, but if I were you I would avoid such talk that could be seen as offensive or belligerent. --DLand^TALK 16:44, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

It's rather circular to point to another Wikipedia article for a definition, and even less helpful when that article is poorly written and referenced. Your racial determinist definition is not generally accepted and has no place in an encylopedia that claims to be NPOV.

I propose that we rely on one of our published sources, The National Jewish Population Survey 2000-01, conducted by the UJC.

For purposes of this report, a Jew is defined as a person:

• Whose religion is Jewish, OR
• Whose religion is Jewish and something else, OR
• Who has no religion and has at least one Jewish parent or a Jewish upbringing, OR
• Who has a non-monotheistic religion, and has at least one Jewish parent or a Jewish upbringing.

To this I would add "Who is a citizen of the United States." We're not here to think of a definition. We must use what is published by reliable sources. Haber 18:05, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Seems to me that there is no need in this article to address this controversy, or even to define "American Jews," whose meaning is just the intersection of the meanings of "American" and "Jew." The controversy over the meaning of "Jew" should be, and is, discussed in Jew#Who is a Jew?. I suggest removing the first sentence of this article and opening the article with: "Population estimates of American Jews vary..." or "Population estimates of Jews in the United States vary..." Pan Dan 20:18, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

On second thought, that would violate how we're supposed to write articles, which is to explain the title. Haber 20:48, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I've reduced the paragraph in question to a quick one-liner. I hope this is ok for everybody. Haber 21:27, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

There is no consensus on the name of this article

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)

Jews go to 29 prestigious schools

"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."

1. Largest single ethnic group is unsourced.
2. 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)

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)

Sources to be added to the below:

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. FEastman 07:30, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Jewish American category box

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

POV photo collage

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)

Is anyone going to bother responding to my humble request to make the photo collage gender neutral? --Wassermann 02:55, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

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)

Education section

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)

Can we get a non pay site for reference? Also, that section reads like original research. Thanks, --Tom 12:56, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Political Affiliation

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)

Largest Jewish Population in the world

• It is stated on this page that the United States has the 2nd largest population of Jewish people after Israel, but in fact there are more Jews in America than in Israel, this is a well known fact

This isn't true any more --yisraeldov 13:43, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's quite likely that the US does have more people who are halakhically Jewish than does Israel, but the vast majority who aren't counted in the guesstimates for the US Jewish population, don't really care whether they're counted or not, whether they're Jewish or not, what country has the most Jews, etc...while in Israel, politically and religiously, it's a really big deal to know which country has the most Jews, when Israel reaches/d that point, and even more importantly, when Israel will become home to over ½ the world's Jews. Tomer^talk 17:12, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Might be "Likely" but that doesn't mean it is true. There is a large percentage of people in the US who do care "whether they're Jewish or not, what country has the most Jews, etc..." who Al Pi Halcha are not jewish.. I think things balance out.

--yisraeldov 17:41, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Is there a reliable source that can be used for these statistics? -- Dcflyer 19:30, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Probably not because there is no agreed on definition of who is jewish. --yisraeldov 14:46, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

If you use "halakha" as a criterion it will be very confusing. There must be lots of people who are halkhaically Jewish but are intermarried, but can count matrilineal Jewish descent back a generation or two. I had a former neighbor two doors down, whose mother's mother was Jewish, but converted to Presbyterian as a young woman when she married a Protestant. My neighbor laughed when told that according to Jewish law he was considered a Jew since his maternal grandmother was from a Russian Jewish family. Moreover, he didn't care! There may be hundreds of thousands of people like him in the US. However, when the National Jewish Population Survey does its poll, many respondents who are not halakhically Jewish may answer in the affirmative that they are Jewish. This may include converts who were not converted halakhically, people who adhere to the Reform movements acceptance of patrilineal descent or non-Jews who simply "identify" with Judaism and "self-declare" themselves as Jewish, in the same way that many white people have started to call themselves Indian because they think they may have some Cherokee ancestor somewhere in their gene pool.ShmorgelBorgel 21:53, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

It was once stated the Soviet Union (the historic area before the country ceased to exist in 1991) had the world's largest Jewish population. So far, only a million Jews live in Russia and 550,000 in former Soviet republics. Israel has a more centralized version of Judaism than in the U.S. and the Israeli Jews are more a nationality, but the Israel census said to be a Jew carried ethnic and religious meaning. Was there a law passed in the 1990's said the U.S. Census cannot use religion for demographic purposes? The Wikipedia article had a tabulation of how many American Jews there was...or did it went by membership rolls of those in Jewish congregations? --Mike D 26 11:26, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

If they use roles in "Jewish" congregations then the numbers will be skewed. Many congregations allow non-jewish members, and there are also missionary orginizations that classify themselves as jewish when they arent.

The U.S. Census has quite purposefully never asked about religion. This has to do with the spirit behind the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.--Pharos 07:48, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Most countries, plus ones with the freedom of religion can ask a person's religious background. But there's international laws that state this kind of demographic data is dangerous, violates some people's privacy and has no necessary motive in the political function of any country. The U.S. Census does not keep historic census files on religious membership, as much they don't on political affiliation and sexual orientation under legal and ethical grounds. Most demographers may look at religion as a social and cultural phenomenon, but won't care less on if he/she is Jewish, Muslim, Catholic, Buddhist, Baptist or Atheist. That's not what matters, but the numbers in growth or decline may have demographic implications for society and any "new religion" may bring forth cultural change in America. --Mike D 26 08:39, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

The citation for the assertion that the US Jewish population is larger than Israel's (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/jewpop.html#top) is a page that cites its source as Wikipedia. We can't have that kind of circular reference. Nor can Wikipedia have the kind of internal inconsistency that has this page contradicting History_of_the_Jews_in_the_United_States on this subject. How do we resolve these issues? --Jeff Worthington 22:45, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

It seems like it is difficult to estimate the Jewish American population. According to this USA Today article the Jewish American population is 5.2 million, which makes it the second largest. I think it would be fair to say that the Jewish populations in both countries are currently of comparable sizes. In any case the statement in the intro that the Jewish American population is larger than the Israeli by 1 million seems unreasonable. Amirig 02:42, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Change The Article's Title Per Wikipedia Norms -- A Simple Redirect

In order to bring this article in line with the Wikipedia norm, this article should be promptly renamed "Jewish Americans" rather than "American Jews" -- we NEVER speak of the "American French," or the "American Mexicans," or "American Africans," we would always say "French Americans," "Mexican Americans," or "African Americans," and this is the same with the Jews (except in this article); it's obvious that this article's title should be "Jewish Americans." You could make a case for "American Indians," but the default phrase is now "Native Americans." Again, ALL of the other American ethnic/religious group articles on Wikipedia begin with the specific ethno-national prefix (Norwegian, Japanese, Russian, etc.) followed by "American," as in "Norwegian American," "Japanese American," etc. Why is this article's title different from all the rest? There is absolutely no reason that it should be, so I call for a prompt redirect to what the article's name should be, with the very slightly revised head-sentence to reflect the article name change: "Jewish Americans, also commonly American Jews, are Americans who maintain an active connection to the Jewish community in the United States or abroad..." [italics mine; these are the only phrases that need switching]. I know it seems like I'm splitting hairs here, but it's quite obvious that this article's title should be brought in line with the titles of the other articles dealing with ethnic and/or religious groups in the U.S. per Wikipedia norms. Need further proof? There is no "Category:American Jews" -- but there is a "Category:Jewish Americans." --172.135.146.35 13:49, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Where is this "Wikipedia norm" written down? The first sentence must conform with the title, and American Jew is more common than Jewish American. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 14:32, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

In line with what norm? Do not revert again until you show me which norm you're talking about. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 14:41, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Most would beg to differ that "American Jew" is 'more common' than "Jewish American." 'More common' where? Amongst whom? In what time(s)? Anyhow, just a quick glance at "Category:European Americans" or "Category:Ethnic groups in the United States" will show you that, per Wikipedia norms/policy, that the ethnic (and/or religious) prefix comes BEFORE the stated nationality or ethnic group, i.e. "African American" rather than "American African." I already went over this in my above comment, and you know exactly what I mean. Here's a simple comparison if you still do not understand what I am saying:

• Iranian Americans, not American Iranians
• Italian Americans, not American Italians
• German Americans, not American Germans
• Russian Americans, not American Russians
• African Americans, not American Africans
  • One could easily subdivide this further, i.e. it would be Nigerian Americans, not American Nigerians
• Consequently, in line with ALL of the rest, it should obviously be Jewish Americans, not American Jews

Like I said, just browse "Category:European Americans" or "Category:Middle Eastern Americans" and you'll know exactly what I'm talking about. I have a feeling that you already do. Why so stubborn? Not to mention that all of the article titles included on the page List of Jewish Americans are "Jewish American," not "American Jews" such as List of Jewish American poets, List of Jewish American athletes, List of Jewish American economists, and so forth. We have no article entitled List of American Jewish poets, now do we?

This should be no different for Jewish Americans, though for some reason it currently is with this article. We also speak of Jewish American literature, not "American Jewish literature," and so on and so forth. I am just pointing out this glaring error in the hopes that someone will change this article's title to reflect overall Wikipedia article naming norms/policy. If I remember correctly, "Category:American Jews" was even deleted in favor of "Category:Jewish Americans" (per norms/policy, to bring it in line with the other categories), so I'm not sure why this article remains incorrectly titled as it is. Come on now: this is a silly argument 'cause you know I'm right on this!  ;) --172.135.146.35 15:15, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

You are confusing country or continent of origin with ethnicity. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:08, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Not at all -- ethnicity IS still often tied up with national origin, but this is not often the same with Jews because they have failed to ethnically assimilate in whatever societies they have lived in. For instance, Albert Einstein was a German Jew (he was a citizen of Germany that was not an 'ethnic German' but was ethnically Jewish) that eventually became a Swiss citizen and later an American citizen (and almost an Israeli) -- this would have made him a Jewish-German-Swiss-American. Jewish regards his ethnicity; German and Swiss refers to his national origin(s); and American refers to his eventual national origin. For a Gentile it is much simpler; for instance, the German scientist Wernher von Braun was born in Germany; thus, in the modern world, his ethnicity AND national origin (nationality) are regarded as simply German. Von Braun's nationality later changed to "German-American" when he went to the U.S., but his ethnicity (German) did not. --172.162.34.129 00:10, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

What's your user name? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:24, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

"American Jews" gets almost 900,000 Google hits; "Jewish Americans" gets only 220,000. The former is 4 times as common as the latter, and Wikipedia uses the common term. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:07, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

WRONG -- "American Jew" only gets 265,000, while "Jewish American" gets 833,000, about 3.5 times that amount; what a difference an 's' makes. Change the page; you and Slim Virgin are WRONG and you both know it. --172.132.53.161 02:41, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

You are either totally clueless or this was a simple and honest mistake -- you are forgetting about the 'S' at the end of the phrases!

For instance, if you search for "American JewS" (with the S) you do indeed get around 900,000 hits on Google. But if you search for "American Jew" (sans the S) you only get 263,000. However, if you search for "Jewish American" (sans the S) you get about 980,000 hits, which is more than your 900,000. Searching for "Jewish AmericanS" (with the S) you get about 225,000, as you say. So there is no "4 times as common" like you claim when you take in to account the singular PLUS the plural, both of which surely deserve to be counted.

Thus, according to your (flawed) 'Google formula,' if you add up both singular and plural versions, the "Jewish American" duo (singular + plural) has more hits than your "American Jew" duo (singular + plural). Plus, many of the sites that use the "American Jew" duo are highly unofficial and entirely colloquial (many of them are antisemitic as well, since 'Jew' rather than 'Jewish' is more common usage amongst antisemites). The most common, official, academic, and prominent sources almost always use "Jewish Americans" (or "Jewish American") rather than "American Jews" (or "American Jew"). Plus, these search results numbers are constantly fluctuating, they change day to day; but when you add it up, if you are counting both singular and plural versions of the phrase "Jewish American," it has more search results and is the more official usage.

Also, no one can tell me, if "American Jews" is indeed more proper than "Jewish Americans," why do we have "Category:Jewish Americans" rather than "Category:American Jews," and why are virtually all of the lists located at Lists of American Jews (formerly List of Jewish Americans) entitled "List of Jewish American WHATEVER," not "List of American Jewish WHATEVER"? Also, shouldn't this article's title be streamlined with all of the other ethnic/national groups found all over Wikipedia as mentioned above? This is my main reason for asking for the change to be implemented. --172.162.34.129 00:10, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

It looks to me like the overall usages (singular + plural) are fairly similar, then, at least according to the Google search. Perhaps you should get a wider audience for this suggestion. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:08, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't need a 'wider audience,' I need you administrators to bring this article's title in line with Wikipedia norms as it should be. Remember, this was only recently changed to "American Jews" from "Jewish Americans" without any justification for doing so; it's up to you all (the admins.) to put it back like it should be -- I'm only pointing it out. --172.132.53.161 02:45, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean "only recently changed"? It appears to have been at this title for well over a year. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, for ONLY a year and a half or so, if even that. But what about all of the time before that? Wasn't it "Jewish Americans" for the entire time of Wikipedia's early history? Why was this article's title changed? How was this 'consensus' reached? --172.161.39.71 23:11, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

"Only" a year and a half? LOL! That's an eternity in Wikipedia time. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:09, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

And the point of raising this issue is? Or is it just WP:POINT? Let's move on, folks. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:50, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

We have moved on. The last comment before yours was four months ago. --DLand^TALK 03:20, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I have never heard the term "American Jew" used anywhere besides on Wikipedia. However, to me, the term "American Jew" implies an American who is also a Jew, and I find that much better than Jewish American, which to me implies being Jewish is more important than being American. American Jew also implies non-ethnicity, despite the nonsensical decisions throughout Wikipedia to call Jews an ethnic group (I realize that the ethnic Jew is not an uncommon thing elsewhere too, but I am allowed to express my opinion, as there is no global consensus on ethnicity, or even who is a Jew, except by people who really know and care -- and that is a religious definition). A Jew, IMO, is a Jew by religious law only. Anything else is baloney. This include converts, etc. As for the idea of people born Jewish are always Jewish, that is bogus as well. You are Jewish if you are halachically Jewish and have not converted to another religion. A person whose mother's mother was Jewish, and is a practicing Catholic is not Jewish. Madeline Albright is not Jewish, for example, even though she is Jewish by birth. Nancy Lieberman is not Jewish, as she has converted. Calling Jews an ethnic group is as valid as calling George Bush a Liberal Democrat.Sposer (talk) 01:20, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

The State of Israel would beg to differ.--Loodog (talk) 01:35, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but Israel's Law of Return is not fully halachic either. It permits spouses of Jews in too. The Israeli law does not limit return to Jews. It also allows Jews converted - out of Israel - by Reform Rabbis I believe (although that is in flux I thought -- I am not really up on this), although few Jews accept Reform conversions as valid, outside other Reform Jews (many Conservative Jews I know would only convert via an Orthodox Rabbi as well). I understand the reasoning for the law, but that is not meaningful to this discussion. I am discussing my opinion here, and this is probably not the right platform. I am not even arguing for changes. I consider myself an American, period. My religion is Jewish. If I have an ethnic group, it is historically Eastern European ,although I'd rather say I am ethnically Brooklyn or American :-). It is not Jewish. No Orthodox Rabbi would marry a born or converted Jew to another Jew who professes to observe Christianity, unless that person agreed to return to following Jewish laws and was non-messianic (i.e., Jesus was not the Messiah and not the son of G-d as there is no such thing as a Jew who accepts Jesus in any role other than a great man). However, there would be no need for a conversion back to Judiasm, since he/she would merely need to state the desire to return to his (converted or by birth) faith.Sposer (talk) 21:48, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

It gets fuzzy. If you're Ashkenzi (I'm guessing you are) then you have a set of genetic markers in common with all other Ashkenzi Jews, sufficient enough to call it your ethnic group. I've never considered myself Polish or German, even though my ancestors lived there, since they were only there for a few generations and weren't native to there.--Loodog (talk) 22:18, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Jewish-American organized crime

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)

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)

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)

Recent page moves (see also: unresolved discussion above regarding this issue)

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)

• Wasserman: As I pointed out to you on my talk page you are treading into a very complex area and will cause explosions if you create chaos without first consulting and waiting for responses from experienced editors. Yes, there are different ways that articles link up, but that is a result of different editors writing from different perspectives and, for example, redirects are there because an article has not been written yet for that topic so it redirects to another realted. At this point, it is important for me to post here what I stated to you on my talk page recently so that others can understand as well: You have waded into potential controversy and I am not obligated to back you up, as I will explain: There is no over-all consensus on Wikipedia about how all articles about Jews and Judaism should be named. The cases you point out where I created "Jews and Judaism in ____" articles were examples of relatively small articles that essentially had little information (such as writing about the Jews of Norway or smaller countries with a handful of Jews in them) and were of an inclusive nature that could survive such a name, but I have tended to avoid messing with long-established articles about countries with huge Jewish populations at present, such as the USA, the UK, Russia, France and Israel, where other editors have used a certain naming format, and which I have been reluctant to tamper with because it may be part of other articles they have written. Another reason you should avoid messing with well-established articles is that there are essentially three VALID ways of dealing with the topic of "Jews" and "Judaism" based on three major approaches outlined in three key articles that explain these key differences:

1. Using the Jew article as a criterion, articles and lists about Jews mostly as an ethnicity, more or less lead to Category:Jews.
2. Using the Judaism article as a criterion, articles and lists about Judaism mainly as a religion, more or less lead to Category:Judaism.
3. Using the Jewish history article as a criterion, articles and lists that focus mostly on the Jewish history (and politics) aspects of countries or groups, more or less leads to Category:Jewish history.

• Many editors have written articles based on Jewish history but call it "Judaism", while others write articles about the religious practices of Jews in countries and call it "Jewish history" so it can get confusing because so far not every single article has been sorted out and it would be a very tough job to do so. I have been at it for four years and it's not easy, especially as new articles get added and new editors come along and decide to shuffle articles and categories around as you seem intent in doing for unclear reasons. The purpose Category:Jews and Judaism is to serve as a parent category for Category:Jews (based PRIMARILY on ethnicity, as per the Jew article) and Category:Judaism (based PRIMARILY on religion, as per the Judaism article) but it is not meant to serve as a "guideline" to make all articles into "Jews and Judaism in ____" only, on the contrary, the ideal would be for there to be enough information to add to articles about Jews (with emphasis on Jewish history topics for example) and Judaism (with emphasis on religious aspects of Jewish life) as distinct topics, each showing how they are connected yet different subject, and thus creating separate articles about Jews vis a vis Judaism. Thus one can just as easily and correctly create Jews in the United States as well as Judaism in the United States -- which is not what you did. When dealing with a huge article I would suggest getting input on that article' s talk page first, or getting some advice from other more experienced editors at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism where I would be happy to share my experience and knowledge about this subject rather than being handed "ultimatums" from you that I should "back you up" when it seems your intention is to be controversial and cause havoc rather than work in a direction that will help, strengthen, beautify, enhance and magnify all articles relating to Jews and Judaism on Wikipedia. Finally, I have reverted your move because the American Jews article is part of Category:American people by ethnic or national origin and it approaches the subject of American Jews that way, so here again is yet another criterion by which this topic can be handled in terms of ethnicity. Indeed, if you would have bothered to look at the talk page you would see the {{Ethnic groups}} at the top of the page, and when talking of ETHNICITY which is what "Jew" is mainly about, one does not refer to "Judaism" (the religion)! That's why you have to be careful when considering making any serious changes to very important articles. IZAK 08:59, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

Ethnic Jews OR who have converted to Judaism

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)

Deletion proposal

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

cities of jewish population

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)

objection to Bob Dylan as picture

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Re-write of #International affairs

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)

New Image people selection

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)

I've noticed that all those people in the image section are Ashkenazi white Jews. I think that there should be more Jews of Sephardic or Mizrahi descent. Many Jews of those backgrounds are also famous such as Hank Azaria, Paula Abdul, Jacob the Jewlery, etc. 74.73.18.198 (talk) 00:54, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Religion box

For some unwarranted reason, at least some Wikipedian user(s) are insisting that atheism and irreligion not be placed in the religion top box despite its placement in other ethnic groups like the Han Chinese. NPOV tagged Scythian1 (talk) 00:16, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

To begin with, "irreligious and atheist" aren't religions. In addition, the text is meaningless - in every single ethnic group you will find members who are "irreligious" or "atheist", so the text provides no information. And finally, it is not common practice to include these categories in ethnic groups infoboxes, for the very reasons already listed. Yes, there may be one or two that have it, but that can easily be corrected. Which ethnic infoboxes have "irreligious" and "atheist" in them? Please list them. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:17, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Have you established what would constitutes "common practice" concerning info boxes? That it be found in 5 ethno-religious groups? How about 10? or 15? Moreover, the fact that 20% of American Jews hold themselves out to be atheist and another 20-30% declare that there may not be a God distinguishes them from "every single ethnic group" and puts them more in place with the Han Chinese who similarly have a sizeable atheist and irreligious population. Scythian1 (talk) 00:27, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

A quick search yielded several ethno religious groups whose info box have atheist or irreligion on them including Turkish People and Persians whose populations certainly do not consist of having 30-40% of declaring that there is no God or that there may not be a god. I am still baffled as to what constitutes "common practice?" Scythian1 (talk) 00:36, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Turkey and Persia (Iran) are nations and may represent an ethnic group. Judiasm is a religion and not an ethnic group. There are Turkish Jews, Persian Jews, Syrian Jews, European Jews, Chinese Jews, etc. Any argument that points to ethnicity as a reason for mentioning atheism is illogical. If there is that info in Judiasm's equivalents:Christianity, Islam, etc, then it makes sense, otherwise, it should be struck. As for the 20% being atheist, there are few people that have not at one time or another questioned the existence of G-d, but growing up in the NY area, I can tell you that 20% is orders of magnitude too high. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sposer (talk • contribs) 18:41, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Jews include people who practice Judaism and people who are of Jewish ancestry (i.e., ethnic Jews) (see Jew and Who is a Jew?). If large numbers of Jews are atheists and if atheism is appropriate for the infobox (a position on which I offer no opinion), then it would be appropriate to include Jewish atheists, just as atheists are included for Romanians. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 19:56, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Then Christians are an ethnic group too, by that logic since many are Christian by ancestry. The ethnic Jew is a figment of many misguided people's imaginations. Sposer (talk) 22:09, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Christianity isn't something that one inherits from one's mother, is it? Judaism is. That's one of the reasons Jews are considered an ethnic group as well as a religious group. I've given you links to some of the relevant articles. I'm not interested in debating the issue with you. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 00:50, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

It's pathetic how often this debate is resurrected...--Loodog (talk) 00:56, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Last I looked, Christians consider anybody converted into the religion Christian, but also consider anybody born into the religion Christian. Islam I believe as well. The "ethnic" Jew was invented by anti-Semites. A person born to a Jewish mother is Jewish, unless he or she converts to another religion. Then, they are no longer Jewish, unless they choose to return to the religion. Jews are not a distinct ethnic group. It is pathetic that people do not understand the difference. Sposer (talk) 14:42, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I'll bite. Christianity and Judaism are not commensurate examples. If you look at the history of Judaism and how Judaism was spread, the initial population was contained inside a very small geographic area, and as this group of people dispersed thorough the world, there was, until very recently, very little miscegenation with the local people, and so this lead to ethnic Jewish groups such as Ashkenazi, which have certifiably distinct genetic markers (like for example a higher propensity for Alzheimer's. Christianity first mass proliferated under the Roman empire, a very heterogenous set of groups spanning thousands of miles, and the religion spread almost exclusively through proselytization.--Loodog (talk) 15:45, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

There are certainly common markers among the Ashkenazi Jews, but thanks to the friendly rapes of their hosts, there is plenty of mixing there as well. You can possibly make an argument for ethnically Polish Jews and ethnically Russian Jews, but they are not the same people. Nor are the German and Lithuanian Jews. There is certainly a commonality, but not total. Their cultures are quite different too, taking on much of the cultures of the host nations. And the Sephardic Jews are closer genetically to Arabs and Persians than they are to the Ashkenazi Jews. It is reasonable to argue that Jews are part of multiple ethnic groups, but the commonality is religion, which does not make you and ethnic group. There have been Chinese Jews for a millenia, albeit few. There are the Falasha Negro (sp?) Jews of Ethiopia. The argument for Jews being an ethnic group given above is because it is passed on maternally. Jews have not historically proselytized, but through intermarriage over a period of 5,000 years, they are very far from a single ethnic group or culture. Iranian Jews are not Arabs (nor are Iranians), and they are not the same as those that have been in Israel for the last few thousand years, as the Israelis are closer to being Arab, so even among the Sephardic Jews there is some diversity. And the formerly Spanish Jews -- who moved to the Netherlands around the time of the Inquisition -- and are Spehardic -- are certainly not ethnically within light-years of the other Middle Eastern Sephardic Jews. An Ashkenazi Jew would barely recognize a Sepharic synagogue, or Sephardic customs and diets. They even have some different laws about what can be eaten and when.

It is probably reasonable to argue that the Sephardic Jews make up a 2-3 different ethnic groups and that the Ashkenazim make up another few. And now, through intermarriage, and a growing number of conversions into (and out of) the religion, Jews do not even remotely resemble an ethnic group. This idea fails on all counts. That said, I am not going to bother reverting. If the editors here want to remain blind, and put patently incorrect information in this article, I don't have the time to fight a losing battle, which from the comment from yesterday, has obviously been fought before and already won by the wrong group. Sposer (talk) 00:57, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Related ethnic groups

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)