Talk:American Jews/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Images in infobox

In an attempt to put an end to the edit-warring, I combined the images into a block of photos.

Here's an explanation of why I put the pictures where I did:

• I included every picture being fought over except Sammy Davis Jr. He was so small in his photo that I couldn't make him "fit" with the others.
• I arranged the photos so the ones on the left face right, the ones in the middle face forward, and the ones on the right face left.
• I arranged the pictures so that each row is roughly the same width. Since the photos aren't all the same dimensions, moving the photos will make some lines noticeably longer than others.

There you have it. Please discuss changes here rather than starting another edit war. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 04:45, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Good work. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:55, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you.— Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 19:58, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Looks really nice. Quick question, how come there a space in-between the first and second row? Validporch (talk) 20:00, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

::::Beats me. I'll see if I can fix it. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 20:27, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I had a line break after each row, and it added that space. It's gone now. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 20:34, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Number of Jews in New York Metropolitan area?

This is somehow confusing: the article states there is about 3750000 Jews in New York metropolitan area, and it says this is 9.3% of NY population. But link provided there to the article "New York metropolitan area" clearly shows us a page where the number of New Yorkers is something above 18800000. That would make the Jews some 20% of NY population. Or, if we use the biggest estimation on this page, which is exactly 21,961,994 inhabitants of NY met. area, still a percentage of the Jews would be much higher than 9.3%, it would be some 17%. Could someone explain, or correct this? Tivran (talk) 04:23, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Jewish American natural scientist?

I noticed there is no photo of as famous Jewish natural scientist although it is considered one of the fields Jewish Americans have made large contributions to. I think it would be appropriate to replace one of the entertainment or jurisdiction personalities by a natural scientist, I think Albert Einstein or Richrad Feynman would be a good choice. 88.77.203.29 (talk) 20:33, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Grouchomarxpromophoto.jpg

The image Image:Grouchomarxpromophoto.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:

• Image:Jack Benny Portrait.jpg

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --07:22, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

demographics of American Jews

I would like to know about demographic data of American Jews like natural increasing rates, fertility rates, divorcing rates and so on...... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.110.111.56 (talk) 07:05, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

"a disproportionate force in American politics"

I've moved the following poorly sourced original research to Talk: for further discussion:

Today, American Jews exert a disproportionate force in American politics, some in the form of Israel lobby groups. Mitchell Bard writes, "Jews have devoted themselves to politics with almost religious fervor," citing that Jews have the highest percentage voter turnout of any ethnic group. While 2.3% of the United States population is Jewish, 94% live in 13 key electoral college states, states which are enough alone to elect the president. American Jews are also major contributors to political causes.

The claim is sourced to these two articles: [1][2] The second is a dead link. The first is a single article from a single source. In addition, the "Israel lobby" is not Jewish by any stretch of the imagination, and the author of the article doesn't reach the same conclusion as the author of this paragraph. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:03, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you Jayjg. Although some of these items may very well be true, they are taken out of context in this article. Jews are not a singular force either. They are no longer just Democrats (think Ari Fleisher, Arlen Specter, Zimmer running for Senate in NJ, and countless others), and Jews do not agree wholeheartedly on anything, including Israel. The quotes, taken out of context, sound more like a modernized preface to Protocols. It does not belong. Sposer (talk) 00:15, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree also, this paragraph should remain out of the article for the reasons stated above. 6SJ7 (talk) 05:07, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

The first is a great length article from a reputable source. And wikipedia only requires one source for anything. The second link is not dead. Click again. It says: "Jews, who are overwhelmingly Democratic, comprise only about 2 percent of voters, according the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life. But they vote in large numbers in swing states.", corroborating the first source wholeheartedly.

The above statement never says that Jews are all Democrats or all vote together. Everything up there is a fact source by the link provided. I don't see the problem.--Loodog (talk) 04:58, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

It's a strong claim, sourced to one source, and the conclusions of that source aren't the ones you've stated. Per WP:REDFLAG, "Exceptional claims require exceptional sources". Also, the second source merely states that Jews vote in swing states, not "American Jews exert a disproportionate force in American politics". Jayjg ^(talk) 05:02, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, you're right that neither source says a "disproportionate force" and if that wording is too strong or objectionable to people, I'm fine with its removal. But it is an obvious implication from the source. If 2% of the population is Jewish and their influence in the political process is more than 2%, it's disproportionate by definition. Name another group in the population so small, yet candidates seem to spend so much time winning over. I always wondered why this is and now I know.

The second source does more than say Jews vote in swing states; more importantly it says they vote in swing states in large numbers, i.e. with remarkable turnout.

Next, the fact that Israel lobby groups exist doesn't imply any sort of unified stance on Israel. Some of the lobby groups are "pro-peace in the middle east", some are "pro Israel", and the majority of Jews aren't even in them, and I've personally known Jews very much across the political spectrum here.

Moving onwardly. Proposal:

1. Remove "disportionate" because of connotational objections and lack of explicit support from a source.
2. Keep "vote with high turnout, highest of any group, and do so mostly in politically important swing states, making them an important bloc in campaigning. Both sources say this and it's non-controversial.

Cheers. --Loodog (talk) 05:14, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

The majority of members of the "Israel lobby" are non-Jews, and the majority of Jews aren't members of the "Israel lobby", so the material on it is misleading at best. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:17, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

"Together, however, they form the Israeli (or pro-Israel) lobby. This is a more accurate label than 'Jewish lobby' because a large proportion of the lobby is made up of non-Jews." Okay, but the Israel lobby is clearly associated with Jews and Jewish voters in article. Oh also, keep the part about Jews being large donors to polical causes. That's said directly in the article also and not controversial.--Loodog (talk) 05:29, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

And also associated with non-Jews. So, we have a lobby comprised of Jews and non-Jews - that would be basically everybody, right? Jayjg ^(talk) 05:36, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

You know what I'm trying to say. The article cited is about the Israel and Arab lobbies, yet the majority of the paragraphs mention the word "Jew" and the second paragraph makes the case that Israel is an influence political caused by citing statistics about Jews.--Loodog (talk) 05:49, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that article sort of makes that point, that a lot of Jews support Israel, except all the Jews that don't. It would make more sense to stick to more meaningful and unique points, like the point that Jews have high voter turnouts. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:00, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

This article makes the meaningful and unique point that the question of Israel and the question of Jewish votes are inextricably intertwined in a way not repeated in other groups.--Loodog (talk) 06:25, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Um, except that it is entwined in the votes of other groups too, such as the Christian right - and, for that matter, Arab and Muslim voters, though they're on the other side. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:28, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Fine, if you're going to pretend to not know what I'm saying, we'll leave it out and only include the other things.--Loodog (talk) 06:30, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, since I haven't seen any objections regarding high voter turnout in key electoral states or major political contributions, I'm going to assume people are OK with them and reinsert them on the article. If I'm wrong, I'll willingly revert.--Loodog (talk) 02:17, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I've cleaned it up a little bit. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:44, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

demographics of American Jews

I would like to know about demographic data of American Jews like natural increasing rates, fertility rates, divorcing rates and so on...... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.110.111.56 (talk) 07:05, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

"a disproportionate force in American politics"

I've moved the following poorly sourced original research to Talk: for further discussion:

Today, American Jews exert a disproportionate force in American politics, some in the form of Israel lobby groups. Mitchell Bard writes, "Jews have devoted themselves to politics with almost religious fervor," citing that Jews have the highest percentage voter turnout of any ethnic group. While 2.3% of the United States population is Jewish, 94% live in 13 key electoral college states, states which are enough alone to elect the president. American Jews are also major contributors to political causes.

The claim is sourced to these two articles: [3][4] The second is a dead link. The first is a single article from a single source. In addition, the "Israel lobby" is not Jewish by any stretch of the imagination, and the author of the article doesn't reach the same conclusion as the author of this paragraph. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:03, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you Jayjg. Although some of these items may very well be true, they are taken out of context in this article. Jews are not a singular force either. They are no longer just Democrats (think Ari Fleisher, Arlen Specter, Zimmer running for Senate in NJ, and countless others), and Jews do not agree wholeheartedly on anything, including Israel. The quotes, taken out of context, sound more like a modernized preface to Protocols. It does not belong. Sposer (talk) 00:15, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree also, this paragraph should remain out of the article for the reasons stated above. 6SJ7 (talk) 05:07, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

The first is a great length article from a reputable source. And wikipedia only requires one source for anything. The second link is not dead. Click again. It says: "Jews, who are overwhelmingly Democratic, comprise only about 2 percent of voters, according the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life. But they vote in large numbers in swing states.", corroborating the first source wholeheartedly.

The above statement never says that Jews are all Democrats or all vote together. Everything up there is a fact source by the link provided. I don't see the problem.--Loodog (talk) 04:58, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

It's a strong claim, sourced to one source, and the conclusions of that source aren't the ones you've stated. Per WP:REDFLAG, "Exceptional claims require exceptional sources". Also, the second source merely states that Jews vote in swing states, not "American Jews exert a disproportionate force in American politics". Jayjg ^(talk) 05:02, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, you're right that neither source says a "disproportionate force" and if that wording is too strong or objectionable to people, I'm fine with its removal. But it is an obvious implication from the source. If 2% of the population is Jewish and their influence in the political process is more than 2%, it's disproportionate by definition. Name another group in the population so small, yet candidates seem to spend so much time winning over. I always wondered why this is and now I know.

The second source does more than say Jews vote in swing states; more importantly it says they vote in swing states in large numbers, i.e. with remarkable turnout.

Next, the fact that Israel lobby groups exist doesn't imply any sort of unified stance on Israel. Some of the lobby groups are "pro-peace in the middle east", some are "pro Israel", and the majority of Jews aren't even in them, and I've personally known Jews very much across the political spectrum here.

Moving onwardly. Proposal:

1. Remove "disportionate" because of connotational objections and lack of explicit support from a source.
2. Keep "vote with high turnout, highest of any group, and do so mostly in politically important swing states, making them an important bloc in campaigning. Both sources say this and it's non-controversial.

Cheers. --Loodog (talk) 05:14, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

The majority of members of the "Israel lobby" are non-Jews, and the majority of Jews aren't members of the "Israel lobby", so the material on it is misleading at best. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:17, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

"Together, however, they form the Israeli (or pro-Israel) lobby. This is a more accurate label than 'Jewish lobby' because a large proportion of the lobby is made up of non-Jews." Okay, but the Israel lobby is clearly associated with Jews and Jewish voters in article. Oh also, keep the part about Jews being large donors to polical causes. That's said directly in the article also and not controversial.--Loodog (talk) 05:29, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

And also associated with non-Jews. So, we have a lobby comprised of Jews and non-Jews - that would be basically everybody, right? Jayjg ^(talk) 05:36, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

You know what I'm trying to say. The article cited is about the Israel and Arab lobbies, yet the majority of the paragraphs mention the word "Jew" and the second paragraph makes the case that Israel is an influence political caused by citing statistics about Jews.--Loodog (talk) 05:49, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that article sort of makes that point, that a lot of Jews support Israel, except all the Jews that don't. It would make more sense to stick to more meaningful and unique points, like the point that Jews have high voter turnouts. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:00, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

This article makes the meaningful and unique point that the question of Israel and the question of Jewish votes are inextricably intertwined in a way not repeated in other groups.--Loodog (talk) 06:25, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Um, except that it is entwined in the votes of other groups too, such as the Christian right - and, for that matter, Arab and Muslim voters, though they're on the other side. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:28, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Fine, if you're going to pretend to not know what I'm saying, we'll leave it out and only include the other things.--Loodog (talk) 06:30, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, since I haven't seen any objections regarding high voter turnout in key electoral states or major political contributions, I'm going to assume people are OK with them and reinsert them on the article. If I'm wrong, I'll willingly revert.--Loodog (talk) 02:17, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I've cleaned it up a little bit. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:44, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

More politics

I've found a fascinating article [5] that explains how the Jewish vote is so influential: political and media power are overestimated, Jews have political importance because they vote in large numbers in swing states and are a swayable bloc because of Israel. Didn't know if anyone would raise objection to adding this since these are, of course, blanket statements about a large group of people. Thoughts?--Loodog (talk) 22:14, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Took a quick look at that site. Seems to be a very right wing political site, so hard to judge. The problem with the whole tact you are taking is that Jews do not vote in a bloc. Yes, if a candidate is perceived as outwardly anti-Israel or anti-Semitic, that can be seen as an issue and may sway some and sometimes many Jewish voters. I would never vote for an anti-Semite, regardless of other politics. But, I would have no problem voting for somebody that disagrees with me on Israel. Israel is not front and center for most Jews as long as the person is not outright antagonistic to Israel. George W. Bush may have been the most pro-Israel President we ever had, but he receives little support among Jews, except among those that are wealthy and like Republican tax views, or are conservative and anti-abortion, etc. Most Jews are still supporting Barrack Obama, despite questions over his support for Israel (I am not expressing a view here, just repeating what I see in the press). Jews tend to vote for more Liberal policies - progressive taxes, pro-abortion, pro-gun control. I remember voting for Anderson, because I thought Carter was a horrible President. I respected Carter greatly (then) as a force for good and peace in the Middle East, and voted for Anderson although I recall some questions as to his "love" for the Jewish people. I did not vote for Carter, because I thought he destroyed the U.S. economy, but at the time thought he was a great friend of Israel. Jews did not vote for McGovern heavily because he was a poor choice, not because he may have been seen as not strongly pro-Israel. Voting for D'Amato is beyond me. I know I never did and I never knew that fact that Abrams polled poorly among Jews. I could care less about his stance on Israel and I don't understand why any Jew would swing on a single senator.

I am not arguing that there aren't some Jews whose vote is influenced by support for Israel, but the numbers are not as strong as this article makes out, unless a candidate is outwardly antagonistic. I doubt few Arabs would vote for a member of Likud in Israel, but many might vote for a member of Labor there. Same logic applies.

You are clearly seeking to "prove" that Jews control the U.S. vote. Any small group -- and Jews aren't the only one -- if you understand game theory, can theoretically swing an election or have greater voting power than their numbers. However, the implication that you make is that Jews do this deliberately, that Jews act in a bloc and have chosen places to live just to sway a vote. I am sorry to disappoint you, but it rare that the vote in any state for President is ever close enough for the Jews to turn that vote. A 30% swing in a state where the Jews are 5% of the vote means that you would need a race separated by less than 2% otherwise. Although 2000 could have been such a case, it rarely ever is (and as the recount showed in Florida, Bush won fair and sqaure). Florida has been consistently Republican in Presidential races, despite the fairly large Jewish vote there. This garbage about Jews having such a great influence on the vote, is just that, pure garbage.Sposer (talk) 03:22, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Not at all. And it goes past good faith to assume so. I've always wondered why candidates spend so much time talking about Israel and there are headlines like, "McCain courts the Jewish vote". I've always thought, why should such a small group matter to them? And counter to conspiracy and Jewish world domination theories, it's not that they are pulling all the strings behind the scenes.

The source says the reason Jews are pandered to is NOT their financial or media influence; it just happens to be how they vote and where they vote. As for Israel, no, I wouldn't change parties because of Israel, nor would something like 80% Jews who consistently vote Democrat or Republican, but the last 20% is what the author is arguing is responsible for the political focus.--Loodog (talk) 14:23, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

But, as I showed you, they do not vote like the author claims, nor does that vote impact anything except in very rare cases. When Jews have (rarely) voted more heavily Republican in Presidential elections, they were landslide elections for the Republicans. I did not say or imply anything about conspiracy. However, you are arguing and implying that Jews vote together on one issue, and they don't. It gives the impression, even though I will assume there is no intent of a POV. The actual voting and NY Times article I wrote helps to make it clear that any single small ethnic group can rarely sway a Presidential election.Sposer (talk) 15:56, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to discuss latest edit, "The largest states: New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Massachusetts, California, and Michigan have voted straight Democrat since 1992 with pluralities almost always larger than the total possible Jewish votes in those states. Florida voted Democrat but once in that period, when Bill Clinton took outpolled Bob Dole by 8.5% nationally, but only by 5.7% in Florida.[28]"

The first sentence does establish that Jews were not a deciding factor in those six states, but only since 1992. That's a set size of four elections, unlike the historical politics section which establishes consistency over a period of time dating back to FDR. Though, the article I read credits Bush's alienation of Jewish voters from his Middle East policy as one of the reasons for Clinton's 1992 electoral victory. Florida was close that year.

Of course, it also doesn't mean Jews had influence in elections before those states went Dem. Reagan won a resounding victory with Jews, but hell, he won just about everyone over too.

As for Florida. Oh, Florida. You didn't give margins in Florida except for in '96, when Jews when along with everybody else. '92 was close. 2000 was absurdly close (and the fair and square thing, the Supreme Court ordered the recount stopped and it was never conclusively decided but that's another issue.) and the article I posted credits Bush's Israel stance for the results there. 2004 was close, though I don't know if close enough to be decided by Jews.--Loodog (talk) 17:22, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I didn't give Florida the other times because it went Republican, and as I recall, fairly heavily so most of those years with Jews still voting for the Democrat. In 2000, it went Republican, despite a very heavy Jewish vote for Gore. I am adding a paper that discusses some of this directly.Sposer (talk) 17:39, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Gotcha. You're saying if it went Republican, it did so against the net effects of the Jews. What I'm trying to tie in here is if enough Jews "defected" to make the difference e.g. if 80% of Jews going Dem became 60% because [Bush/W. Bush/etc...] had enough appeal. I'm claiming Jews can influence a race not only by going solidly Dem, but also by deciding not to. The article I cited states the amount of time candidates spend on Jews is precisely because they (~20% of them) are swayable. That being the case, narrow Republican victories could also be a result of Jewish response to a candidate.

This being the case, 2000 Florida could be a result of Jewish voters if either: (1) enough Jews were attracted to W. Bush to throw the state, (2) the state actually went Democratic by voter intents (again this is possible but contentious), or (3) Jews made the race close enough to require Supreme Court intervention, which is itself a political outcome and has profoundly influenced the voting method there, as well as affected ideas about W. Bush. If any one of these three is possible, we can't discount the effect of the Jewish vote in Florida 2000.--Loodog (talk) 18:48, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

In 2000, Jews did not vote heavily for Bush, though the number increased in 2004. Remember, 15% said they considered Israel important, which led to Bush doing better among those, but still did not have the majority. However, you are talking about pretty small numbers now, and it is rare that a state has a couple thousand plurality, although clearly Florida did in 2000. I am just making the point that the way it looks, it makes it looks as if Jews are special. Other groups have particular focus items that they are swayable on too. That is why I have an issue with this kind of stuff. Let's look at some numbers. Florida had about 7.5 million votes registered in 2004. I think your article said Jews represented 5% of the Fla vote (vs. 3.7% of the population). That approximates to about 375K votes. 15% of those considered Israel paramount, or about 56,000 voters. Bush's 2004 plurality, in what was a fairly close race was almost 400,000 voters, or more than the entire Jewish vote. If of the 56K vote, there was a swing of 20-25%, we are talking 11K - 13K. Going back to 1968, the Florida plurality was less than 150K for one candidate or the other only once. The Jewish population of Fla has grown over the years, so it is unlikely that, outside of 2000, they ever could have had an impact on the vote in that state.Sposer (talk) 19:49, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

It's true that 2000 was close enough to where everyone with the name "Sam" would have thrown it, but I think the point is that the candidates see the Jewish vote as a tangible, swayable bloc in FL enough to be worth chasing with statements like, "We have to make sure there'll never be another Holocaust," -Palin. That statement, by the way, disturbed me as shameless pandering on a sensitive evocation.--Loodog (talk) 20:00, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Also, there was the disturbing Jewish push-polling in Ohio revealed a couple weeks ago.--Loodog (talk) 20:15, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I truly wish my Jewish vote was as important as some people seem to think it is. Not sure what you are referring to in Ohio, but in Ohio, Jews are 1.3% of the population. Hard to see them being a factor unless you have a vote that is almost as close as Florida in 2000. Jews are 2.2% of the U.S. population, but exceed 2% of the population of 11 states. Jewish population (total, not voting) exceeds 100K in 13 states, one of which is Texas, where they are 0.6% of the vote. Figuring about 50-60% of those numbers represent real voters (and that is probably high except for Fla and Arizona, which are elderly and tend to vote more), you are talking about only a couple of states where, even if every Jew voted one way, that they would be able to sway the vote, except in extremely close races. When that happens, almost any group could move the race.Sposer (talk) 21:12, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

[6][7]What I'm talking about in Ohio (and apparently Michigan too) is where people have been push polled like so:

"Hi, we're calling for polling purposes."

"Ok."

"Are you Jewish?"

"Yes."

"Would your support for Obama be affected if you knew Obama had ties to Hamas?"

"Um.. yes."

"Would your support for Obama be affected if you were told his chief foreign advisor accepted bribes from Iran?"

"Oi, meshuganuh! His advisor has done what?!???"

"Oh nothing, just want your opinion."

The caller would hangup if the "polled" person wasn't Jewish. There are these very targeted tactics and soundbites which are specifically geared toward Jews. True, I imagine Jews aren't so large a group that targeting them alone does it, but you see approaches like this and it shows [they/we]'re seen as a highly targetable group, as low-hanging fruit for the grabbing. It wouldn't be so if not for Jewish voting issues, Jewish voter turnout, and the states Jews are found in.--Loodog (talk) 16:56, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. That is disgusting (the practice). Never heard of it. Hard to believe anybody would believe that. Sposer (talk) 20:34, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't know, I didn't think so either until I met some of my uncle's friends from his temple. They're not voting for Obama because their Rabbi gave them a pamphlet with similar smears in it. I guess if it works in something like 1 out of 20 calls, it would be successful enough to be worth the time, but it's a nasty part of the country's political system.--Loodog (talk) 22:43, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I've seen the pro-Arab e-mails, and garbage about him being a Moslem (which is abhorrent as well, since calling somebody a Moslem in and of itself should not be an issue). Whenever I get one of those things in the email, I always write a nasty note back, usually with "REPLY ALL". Never a tie to Hamas though. It almost makes me want to vote for the guy. Instead, I will just have to write-in my wife or something, since I cannot see me voting for either. And, Israel is not the reason for my disdain for either of the candidates.Sposer (talk) 22:54, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Back to the point, 78% of Jews voted for Obama versus 21% for McCain, despite the fact that McCain was considerably more hawkish on Israel. Kind of puts the lie to the claim that it is the issue of Israel that swings the American Jewish electorate. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:33, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

It's of course up for debate, but we have sources so it's fine to stay here. But just to debate that:

Your wording of the claim is a bit strong since the only difference I could find between the candidates on Israel was Obama's "meeting unconditionally" thing with Iran, and Palin's Holocaust remark. Actually, Obama said something McCain didn't: "Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided".[8] Also, voters declaring the Iraq War (Jews were never big on liking the war) the #1 issue broke something like 66-33 for Obama, so there are all sorts of sides to this issue that make this a much weaker assertion than the overly simplistic, "Jews will automatically support you if you affirm Israeli security."--Loodog (talk) 05:59, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Regarding that Obama statement over Jerusalem, he promptly backtracked the next day.[9] Jayjg ^(talk) 06:03, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

That's its own issue that kind of digresses. It wasn't really a backtrack because Obama's position had been the entire time, "Jerusalem should remain the undivided capital, but that's not up to us," but ever the careful speaker, this was not how it was taken when he first said it... Anyway, my point was both sides pandered about the same on the Israel issue. The only overt declaration made I think was when Hillary juxtaposed the words "obliterate" and "Iran", and she did happen to have a pretty nice lead over Obama in the Jew vote in Florida[10].--Loodog (talk) 06:27, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

"Jewish vote", not "Jew vote". Jayjg ^(talk) 06:35, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

RE: Population edit

The addition following the semicolon more fully summarizes the facts presented in the subsequent section paragraphs and is as neutral as I could devise. The previous version was incomplete and avoided noting the reality. I hope it meets and keeps consensus. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 06:56, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Who is a Jew?

The argument about who is a Jew is typically discussed regarding people that are religiously Jewish, but do not identify as such, because they are either atheist or do not follow the religion any longer. It is not correct to consider people Jewish that are not religiously Jewish, even if they identify as socially "Jewish". You are Jewish if your mother is Jewish (although some Reform Jews accept patrilineal descent too, this is not accepted universally by Reform Jews and is not at all accepted by normative Judaism). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sposer (talk • contribs) 21:17, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. This article from a reliable source says that Lenny Kravitz is Jewish. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 21:22, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Malik. We don't have to use the Orthodox standard for Jew inclusion. It should be sufficient for a person to be self-identified, as it would be for any other religion.--Loodog (talk) 21:24, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but Kravitz says he is half-Jewish here: http://www.lenny-kravitz.com/interviewdeepjoy.html, and Gelbwasser has been called before on accuracy. Kravitz is not a Jew, period.Sposer (talk) 21:27, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

He also says he's half Black.

Have you checked the religion of the mothers of all the other people identified as Jews in the article? — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 21:32, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

In fact, I have been fixing the lists, for those that I know, for more than a year (i.e., removed baseball player Ryan Braun). Has nothing to do with him being Black, if that is what you are getting at. I added Lisa Bonet (who wasn't on the list originally) as her mother is Jewish and her father is not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sposer (talk • contribs) 21:35, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

No, I was just asking because there are a lot of names and very few no sources cited. In this instance, there is a source, but you won't accept it because of your judgment that he isn't Jewish. Have you read WP:SYNTH recently? — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 21:45, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Malik - There are multiple sources that say he is not Jewish too. Most say that his father was Jewish and his mother a Bahamian Christian, but state neither way about him directly (probably because that information identifies him as not being Jewish by Jewish law). It is not synthesis to use that to say he isn't Jewish, since relgious Judiasm is defined by matrilineal descent. Beyond that, in my latest revert, I gave a source that says he identifies as Christian. His biographies say he is "half-Jewish", including quotes by him (so, he does not say he is Jewish either). I think I remember seeing an article in one of the Jewish papers coming down on Gelbwasser for having inaccuracies in his articles on who is Jewish, but I am not sure (plus if Glebwasser is Reform, he might consider Kravitz Jewish, but again, that is not normative Judiasm).Sposer (talk) 21:52, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

You are twisting WP:SYNTH to meet your belief. That is your POV, but it is 100% incorrect. Kravitz is not Jewish, period. He says he is half-Jewish in interviews. Half-Jewish is not Jewish. I gave a source that said he identifies as Christian: http://www.interfaithfamily.com/arts_and_entertainment/movies_theater_tv_and_music/Interfaith_Celebrities_New_Projects_By_Bonet_Okonedo_Lumet_and_Paltrow.shtml and here he says he is half-Jewish (which does not = Jewish): http://www.lenny-kravitz.com/interviewdeepjoy.html. Also, the Gelbwasser article gives the halachic definition of Jewish, and then says Kravitz is Jewish, but does not add that only his father is Jewish. It is not synthesis to use two completely true and related statements because the author left out that info, and especially when other sources state it correctly. Sposer (talk) 22:19, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

1) I reverted myself because of the article you linked to that says Kravitz identifies himself as Christian.

2) With respect to WP:SYNTH: Synthesis is taking fact A published by a reliable source (a person has a Jewish father and a non-Jewish mother) and fact B published by a reliable source (according to halakha, Jewish identity is passed matrilineally) and joining A and B to come to conclusion C that isn't in the source (the person isn't Jewish). — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 17:38, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Malik. I do see your point on WP:SYNTH, but sort of disagree with this particular application. Sposer (talk) 20:50, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Let's look at how this would play out were Judaism (a) an ethnicity, (b) a religion:

(a) If a notable person were half Chinese, they would show up in an article about Chinese Americans. This even goes to the extreme for African Americans, since being 1/32 black "makes" you black.

(b) If a notable person were a self-declared Christian, Buddhist, Jain, Sikh, Muslim, etc..., we'd include that person as being that religion.

Either way, I don't see why Judaism is being held up to this standard that only Orthodox Jews austerely follow.--Loodog (talk) 21:15, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you, Loodog, but that's a discussion for another day. The article says that Lenny Kravitz identifies himself as a Christian, so there's no reason to discuss him further. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 21:49, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but I didn't mean to speak in the abstract. I thought that Lenny Kravitz self identified as Jewish or half-Jewish and so should be in this article.--Loodog (talk) 21:55, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Loodog,It isn't just Orthodox Jews. Only Reform Jews accept as Jewish (religiously) somebody whose father (and not mother) are Jewish, absent a Conversion by a Conservative or Orthodox Rabbi. And, I am not sure all Reform Jews accepts patrilineal descent either, although I am not sure on that one. However, you are getting at the ethnic versus religious argument on Judiasm. However, the ethnic part is usually used as a way of eliminating people who are religiously Jewish, but do not consider themselves to be Jewish (at least that is how I have seen it in articles), and not the other way around. So, if Lisa Bonet, and her daughter Zoe Kravitz, who are Jewish because their mothers are Jewish, were to say they don't consider themselves to be Jewish, then who am I to say they are, even if they are technically Jewish according to any rabbinical interpretation. I am not saying it isn't done the other way, but I have not seen it. For example, Madeline Albright can be considered Jewish (since some Rabbis will say you are Jewish even if you convert out), because her mother was Jewish. However, because she was brought up Christian, and practices Christianity, and does not consider herself to be Jewish, she isn't. But, you cannot just say you are Jewish (or Catholic for that matter, for example, without Baptism, right?). You must convert, or be born into it, and most Jews require the mother to be Jewish to be born into it. The argument that Judiasm is an ethnicity in fact depends on the birth requirement.Sposer (talk) 22:05, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I beg to differ. I think the more important measure of Jewishness is self-identification. If someone claims to be Jewish, who are we to hold them up to some minority group's standard when the majority of English speakers (the proper wikipedia standard) would recognize it?--Loodog (talk) 01:18, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Self-identification is important, but not sufficient on its own. For better or worse, Jews are an ethnicity with their own membership rules; the "minority group" in question happens to be the Jews, who actually get to make these decisions. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:33, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Certainly, non-Jews cannot define who Jews are Loodog (though I am guessing you meant Orthodox Jews and not that Jews can't decide the rules). And, as I would interpret the merriam-webster definiton, (3) and (4) are matrilineal (I know that is OR, but any interpretation is OR, including yours I guess). Conversion is religious, and only some reform Jews accept patrilineal, with all others accepting only matrilineal. Definition (1) it is no longer known who is of the tribe of Judah and definition (2) is not relevant.Sposer (talk) 02:37, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

You're definitely *interpretting* number 4. "Someone whose religion is Judaism." There's no interpretation to be made. There's no need to hallucinate details that aren't there.

Christ, look up "religion" if you don't believe me: "commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance". So unless you're accusing a self-identified Jew of lying about his faith and/or observance, you accept that his religion is Judaism. And someone whose religion is Judaism is one of the standard definitions for "Jew".--Loodog (talk) 03:11, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Judaism is an odd mix of religion, culture, and ethnicity. Practicing Judaism does not make one a Jew, though it will likely be a pre-requisite for (or assist in) conversion to Judaism. The waters are further muddied by the fact that almost 100% of "practitioners of Judaism" are "Jews" (though the reverse is not true). That said, if some Basque villager in Elduain suddenly decides to take up Judaism, practicing it in every respect and detail, he still won't be a Jew unless and until he formally converts to the faith. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:27, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

(undent).

1. Practicing and believing the principles of a religion makes it your religion.
2. If your religion is Judaism, you are a Jew by definition. It is not the ONLY way to be a Jew, but it is one way to be defined as a Jew.

1 & 2 -> 3

3. Practicing and believing the principles of Judaism is sufficient but not necessary to be labeled a Jew according to the definition.

You are contesting #3. Is this because you contest #1, #2, or simple logic?--Loodog (talk) 03:37, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Your arguments are interesting, but not particularly relevant: Jews decide who Jews are, not American dictionaries. All sorts of organizations and groups require some sort of formal certification for membership, whether it's a passing a degree program, paying some sort of dues, or a conversion ceremony. Your religion cannot be Judaism unless you formally convert to Judaism. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:42, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Jayjg is right. There is nobody that considers "calling oneself Jewish" enough, even if they practice. You must go through a formal conversion. What you need to understand is that Judaism requires you to show commitment (as per your Merriam Webster definition) to the religion via a ceremonial conversion or via matrilineal descent. Definition 4 outright mentions conversion. Conversion is a formal ceremony, not saying you are a Jew. The definition of religion is fine, but what commitment to the religion is varies by religion. Catholics require Baptism. Moslems require you to state your desire to follow Islam's precepts. Judiasm requires matrilineal descent or formal conversion. You are the one interpreting a general definition and wholly incorrectly applying it to something very specific. It does not make the person a liar that he calls himself Jewish. He can call himself Jewish all he/she wants, but he won't be considered Jewish unless he meets either the matrilineal descent requirement, or he/she undergoes the formal commitment via a conversion.

You are stuck on a definition that completely agrees with what Jayjg and I are saying, but seem to be misinterpreting it, which of course is your right, but it is not commonly accepted among Jews. Jews decide who are Jews, not the dictionary anyway, but the dictionary definition you gave, if you don't misinterpret it, fully meets the Jewish religious requirements anyway. You are Jewish if you commit via conversion or are Jewish by matrilineal descent. The Jew definition does not mention matrilineal, but that is how almost all accept it. And, definition #4 outright states conversion for the Jew definition. As for the religion defintion, I've already gone through that - you commit by converting (or you are by matrilineal descent). Please stop making up your own definitions. Sposer (talk) 03:44, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Jews are an ethnic group, while Judaism is a religion. Lenny Kravitz, to use an example cited earlier, is 50% ethnically Jewish through his father. A book written 2000 years ago by people who thought the world was flat doesn't change the fact 50% of a person's genes come through the father. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CommanderJamesBond (talk • contribs) 09:09, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Religion

"Religion Judaism"

Not all Jews believe in Judaism, some are Christians, Muslims or Atheists as well.

This gets into the whole BS ethnicity of Jews/Judiasm garbage. If you convert to another religion, you are no longer Jewish. Otherwise, you are Jewish, if your mother was Jewish. If you are a convert to Christianity or Islam (or any other religion that is not Judiasm), you are not a Jew, except as defined by Nazis.Sposer (talk) 14:05, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Teenage Jews in Kiryas Joel

I think that the picture of teenage jews in Kiryas Joel is somewhat misleading. It implies that those pictured are typical residents, and that is certainly not the case. The typical resident is Chassidic. Those pictured are undoubtedly tourists, and it is probably just a vanity photograph because some people thought it would be cool to have their picture in Wikipedia. -Ezra Wax (talk) 08:13, 31 December 2008 (UTC

how can we get ride of it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.140.159.202 (talk) 05:44, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Joe Lieberman

Joe Lieberman should be in the infobox. He is the most well known Jewish senator, and the first Jewish VP nominee on a major party. I think he can replace Louis Brandeis. Rockyobody (talk) 01:49, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

He's just a senator. If he'd been elected it might have been different. Feel free to swap him for a Hollywood starlet-du-jour, though. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:49, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

stereotypes

Theres a section in Irish american for stereo types.

Irish Catholics were popular targets for stereotyping. According to historian George Potter, the media often stereotyped the Irish in America as being boss-controlled, violent (both among themselves and with those of other ethnic groups), voting illegally, prone to alcoholism, and dependent on street gangs that were often violent or criminal. Potter quotes contemporary newspaper images:

You will scarcely ever find an Irishman dabbling in counterfeit money, or breaking into houses, or swindling; but if there is any fighting to be done, he is very apt to have a hand in it." Even though Pat might "'meet with a friend and for love knock him down,'" noted a Montreal paper, the fighting usually resulted from a sudden excitement, allowing there was "but little 'malice prepense' in his whole composition." The Catholic Telegraph of Cincinnati in 1853, saying that the "name of 'Irish' has become identified in the minds of many, with almost every species of outlawry," distinguished the Irish vices as "not of a deep malignant nature," arising rather from the "transient burst of undisciplined passion," like "drunk, disorderly, fighting, etc., not like robbery, cheating, swindling, counterfeiting, slandering, calumniating, blasphemy, using obscene language, &c.[11]

The Irish had many humorists of their own, but were scathingly attacked in German American cartoons, especially those in Puck magazine from the 1870s to 1900. In addition, the cartoons of German American Thomas Nast were especially hostile; for example, he depicted the Irish-dominated Tammany Hall machine in New York City as a ferocious tiger.

Pretty sure there is one for italian americans aswell. But I see none for jews....These page needs a little lightening up and a little less accusations of antisemite —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.23.234.194 (talk) 03:06, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

There's already an entire article on Stereotypes of Jews.--MPerel 03:13, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Jon Stewart and Jerry Seinfeld

Jon Stewart and Jerry Seinfeld should be included in the infobox, they are classic examples, of american celebrities who are also jewish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.194.203.128 (talk) 20:33, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

We've already got a very long list of famous Jewish entertainers. This article's purpose is to be useful, not an interminable list.--Loodog (talk) 20:50, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Why "American Jews" and not "Jewish American"?

Do they consider themselves Jews who happen to be Americans instead of Americans who happen to be Jewish? DHN (talk) 03:50, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Why Jew at all since it is a religion, not an ethnicity or race? Why don't they call themselves Germans, Pols or Russians? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.28.93.188 (talk) 23:07, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I concur. I'm a Caucasian who happens to be Jewish. My religion is Judaism. My ethnicity is Scottish and Norwegian. I'm about as "Hebrew" as Ayres Rock. "Jewish" isn't an ethnicity, because one cannot convert to an ethnicity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.59.55.0 (talk) 00:12, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh God, I hate this debate. There's a: (1) religion, (2) culture, and (3) ethnicity that are associated with Judaism. It's all of these and none of these.

It is a religion because it has a set of beliefs. It is not a religion because there are copious atheist or agnostic, and even Christian, people who identify and would be recognized as Jewish.

It is a culture because there are a set of shared traditions. It is not a culture because you can be Jewish without having participated in any of it.

It is an ethnicity because of ethnic groupings such as Ashkenazi Jew, who are so genetically similar to each other as to be at higher risk for certain genetic diseases. It is not an ethnicity because you can convert into it.

Can we stop now?--Loodog (talk) 00:38, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

On the other hand, the "Jewish American" terminology might be considered an assimilationist or ‘universalist’ point of view, while the terminology "American Jews" might be considered a non-assimilationist point of view, and the one favored by Jewish nationalists and the more religiously orthodox. This general difference has deep roots both within the religion and within this particular national group. It is also noted by the difference between American Jewish voting habits (discussed) and lobbying and PAC donation habits [11] (undiscussed). This seems similar to the disconnected logic indicated by innumerable references to Jews and Judaism on Zionist pages, while a linked Zionism reference only rates a 'See also' on the Judaism page. This certainly seems to be a proper page for some discussion of these differences. Regards, CasualObserver'48 (talk) 03:49, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I have always agreed with your above thinking. There is no such thing as a Christian who would be "accepted as a Jew" by any Jew. I know some Rabbis will say that you can never "convert out" of the religion, but based on that, Judiasm is a pretty large religion, since much of the Christian and Islamic world would technically be Jewish. Anybody who converted due to the Inquisition, if you went back in time, would be considered Jewish, so this logic fails. There is certainly an ethnic component to some Jews -- it is a group among the Jews -- but funnily enough, the Ashkenazim are Jews who have mixed with the Europeans. And the Sephardic Jews are as "Arab" or Persian as they are Jewish, ethnically speaking. As far as the atheist or agnostic argument, I know just as many "lapsed/atheist/agnostic Catholics" as I know similarly categorized Jews. These people are Christian, even if they do not actively follow it. If they bring up the next generation without religion, that connection would eventually break, much as it will be most likely for similar Jews. The Jewish version might still tend to eat potato pancakes, and lox, and the formerly Christian families may keep some of their cultural identification, but that does not in any way change the fact that they are no longer Jewish or Christian. So, despite the argument that Jews are an ethnicity, they are no more an ethnicity than New Yorkers are and are no different than Christians. As for the Jewish American versus American Jew, these are two separate things too. My religion is Jewish. I follow many Jewish cultural things, but I am an American first and foremost (I am an American whose religion happens to be Jewish and of mised European ethnicity, not Jewish). However, the incorrect consensus has been reached here, and I am tired of banging my ahead against the wall on it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sposer (talk • contribs) 13:55, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

1. Much of the Christian and Arab world would NOT be Jewish by that definition. Jews have historically been a relatively isolated group and NEVER represented any appreciable fraction of the world's population. Read history. "Jews descend mostly from the ancient Israelites (also known as Hebrews), who settled in the Land of Israel."

2.Your assessment of Ashkenzim and Sephardim only affirms that these are ethnicities, whether or not they're "pure" Jewish (whatever that would mean).

3. When was the last time you heard of a secular Catholic (c.f. secular Jew)?

So Judaism is a culture, religion, and ethnicity, and yet it's none. And I hate rehatchings of the argument insisting on impossible clear delineation.--Loodog (talk) 15:20, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

The Jews descended from the same people as the Persians do, so I guess I should have said it that way, not Arab, if you believe Abraham was a Persian. So, ethnically, they are one and the same (at least the originals). It has nothing to do with the fact that there's never been a lot of Jews. To the degree that there are Pakistani Muslims that tie their ancestry to the Lost Tribes, and the millions murdered by the Inquisition and the Nazis, and those forcibly converted, there would almost certainly be 100s of millions instead of less than 20 million, using the ethnic definition.

As far as secular Catholic, I don't know where you live, but the vast majority of Catholics I know virtually never go to Church, etc. Somehow, there seems to be a different standard for Jews than Christians. There is nothing more ridiculous in my mind that the ethnic Jew. It was made up by people like Henry Ford, the Nazis, etc.

My assessment of the Sephardim and Ashkenazim confirms that they lived in the same place, but they are not the same. The only reason why Christianity is not ethnic is because they proseletyze far more than Judiasm does. Converts to Judiasm are 100% Jewish in ever manner of the word. The ethnic Jew is imaginary. Judiasm is ONLY a religion. Jewish culture, as most people know it, is indistinguishable from peasant Russian and Polish, except without a belief in Jesus. Sephardic Jews are Middle Eastern, eat the same foods as Arabs, Persians, etc. There is no Jewish culture. There are national cultures that the Jews have adopted.Sposer (talk) 16:53, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

You in one sentence: "The only reason why Christianity is not ethnic is because they proseletyze far more than Judiasm does." You in a later sentence: "The ethnic Jew is imaginary." I'm glad you acknowledge the contradictory nature of what it is to be a Jew. That was all I asked.--Loodog (talk) 16:58, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

You misunderstood what I was getting at. I should have written that "the only reason people get away with not considering Christianity ethnic and continuing with the lie that one can ethnically identify a Jew is because the Christians have proselytized." I do not in any way shape or form see anything contradictory about being Jewish. You are Jewish if you convert to Judiasm or are born into it, as long as you don't convert to another religion. However, if you and your family fail to continue in the religious tradition over (as the hidden Jews have), you are not in any way shape or form Jewish, period, end of discussion. Please do not twist my words. Jews hidden and saved during the Holocaust, and who grew up as and converted to Christianity (or were converted to), like Madeline Albright, are Christian and not Jewish. If she desires to return to the fold, then she could be considered Jewish I guess, but that is only because that is how she started out and would not need to go through conversion. I am not going to continue with this, because it is a waste of my time and yours. I consider the ethnic Jew a lie and a fabrication. I know there are Jews that disagree with this, as there are non-Jews, but ethnicity is not religion and Judiasm is a religion and you ain't Jewish unless you convert to Judiasm or are born Jewish and do not convert out. If you disassociate from the religion, then you aren't Jewish anymore.Sposer (talk) 18:29, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Responding to an earlier editor, of course it's an assimilationist point of view -- we don't say American Germans, or American Japanese, why would we say American Jews instead of Jewish American, especially for people whose nationality is American? Banaticus (talk) 23:46, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Bernard Madoff

I say we add Mr.Madoff to the picture listing. Plz add kthnxbai —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.23.227.170 (talk) 17:47, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Given his notoriety, I don't think it'd be appropriate any more than putting Ted Kaczynsky in the Polish Americans article.--Loodog (talk) 18:13, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

~In all seriousness why wouldnt you put Dr.Theodore Kaczynski? He is polish american isnt he? Do we want this encyclopedia to be completely lopsided and only show the "successful and prosperous" people? Shouldnt we show both sides of the spectrum? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.23.234.194 (talk) 03:10, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Bernard Madoff should be included under subsection Popular culture of section Notable American Jews: Jewish_American#Popular_culture. As WP:WELLKNOWN states, "In the case of significant public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable, third-party published sources to take material from, and Wikipedia biographies should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article — even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." To exclude Bernard_Madoff because of the negative publicity violates WP:NPOV . Magemirlen (talk) 15:23, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. Well, I could direct you to WP:NOTNEWS. But instead, I'm gonna say, nah, we're not going to edit the article in accord with the wishes of an editor who has made 200 Wikipedia edits, and is obsessed with pointing out the Jewishness of Madoff.[12][13][14] Jayjg ^(talk) 02:56, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Many articles about ethnic, national and religious groups have these photo arrays showing famous members of these groups. I just looked at Germans, Spanish people, Austrians, English people, Italians and a few others, to see whether they have a mixture of great and notorious people, glorious people and criminals. They do not. I see photos of Claudia Schiffer, Andrea Merkel, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Michelangelo, Picasso, King Juan Carlos, and many many others in a positive vein. I see no Nazis, no Mussolini, no Franco, no thieves, no robbers, no bad guys. I looked at Italian Americans and I see people who played mobsters in movies, directed mob movies, a singer who hung out with mobsters, but I see no actual mobsters. If we are going to start having a mixture of good and bad role models, lets do it uniformly, not just here on this page. As it is, there seems to have been a conscious decision across Wikipedia that these photo arrays are composed of "good guys", and while one could argue that it should not be that way, I think it is a defensible position. Let's not try to change it in one place without a global discussion about all similar situations. That might be a good topic for the Village Pump, but not for here. 6SJ7 (talk) 04:00, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Albert Einstein?

ALbert Einstein's picture is amongst those of American Jews. DO we consider him American because he emigrated to the US? Truly is he not a German Jew? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.188.29.83 (talk) 00:12, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

No. "American Jews, or Jewish Americans, are Jews who are American citizens or resident aliens." Einstein was an American citizen for 15 years. The concept of "American" used here doesn't rule out being born elsewhere, as Einstein was.--Loodog (talk) 07:37, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Michael Bloomberg

I suggest replacing Rahm Emmanuel with Michael Bloomberg on the picture list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.192.97.43 (talk) 14:21, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Sen Ted Kaufman

Not Jewish, edits to the article to reflect this fact have been erased. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.252.78.87 (talk) 07:08, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Jewish American communities

I propose we keep the newly-restored section in the article listing cities or communities with large American Jewish populations, but we need to vote on whether the list is strictly WP:OR or we must find a reliable demographic source. A few of the cities mentioned like New York City, Philadelphia, Los Angeles and Miami are centers of American Jewish culture by word of mouth, except Wikipedia doesn't want edits not originating from word of mouth or cultural perception. Should we contact an independent or Jewish community-run demographic group to get the info. or properly examine the numbers of Jews in these communities or states? + 71.102.2.206 (talk) 06:24, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Why does such a laundry list belong in an encyclopedia article? — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 06:34, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Agree, we don't need this unending list, especially without sources. Let's at least push it off this page into its own article. Right now it's just a list of "Oh, I heard there are a lot of Jews there too!" which contributes nothing except length. Largest 8 metro areas for Jews are already mentioned with sources.--Loodog (talk) 14:03, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Accepted. Similar debates, arguments and decisions took place in Mexican American on whether a list of "Mexican American communities" were needed, the original article was deleted because there was a lack of enough demographical resources. I guess it was a slippery slope to name the communities known for Jewish populations, because as Loodog points out may be held offensive, controversial and hurtful when it comes to antisemitism or stereotyping of certain cities in comedy or parody for being "Jewish". I wonder this is also a huge problem in the "African American neighborhoods" article about cities having "lots of black people". + —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.102.3.86 (talk) 11:50, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Deleting unsourced quote

The similarity between the historic and legal framework of the United States of America and the predominant social and cultural beliefs of European Jews, near the turn of the twentieth century, gave hope and encouraged massive immigration. TomNyj0127 (talk)

Obviously, there's no piece of evidence, source, text or anything to support this. All this is an opinion. While I respect who ever's opinion it is, wide-spread unacknowledged opinions are not valuable without links (especially to start out a section). If you elobarated on this, perhaps it'd make more sense to readers. I just don't see the logic in this statement though. For example, it mentions massive European Jewish immigration. Take a look at Israel for example. Wouldn't have that country been more reflective of their social and cultural values since they were the one's who virtually created the state? Is state and religion separate there? No. Is it in the U.S.? Yes. The U.S. was not the only country large numbers of Jews immigrated too in the late-nineteenth century either (ex. Canada). There's no mentioning of what those social and cultural values are either. If it's religious, it's irrelevant. Educational? I don't see how the Declaration of Independence or Bill of Rights supports that explicitly supports it more than any other historical document. Capitalistic? Says who? Weren't there many Jews in Hollywood a half-century ago who are black balled for associating with communism? What else did the Bill of Rights or Declaration of Independence permit? Slavery? The point is I don't see how this statement is necessary. TomNyj0127 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:11, 16 July 2009 (UTC).

I remember seeing this on a PBS special. If I can find it in the transcript, I will add back, but not 100% sure. Sposer (talk) 22:17, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Madoff

Seems a bit undue weight; there are plenty of Jews in American Finance present and past of far more repute. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 19:46, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion, the whole "Notable American Jews" section is a waste. Everybody puts her or his "pet" Jew in the text or the gallery. It was only a matter of time before somebody wrote about Madoff. In any event, "notable" doesn't have to mean "admirable". — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 05:34, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Agree. Madoff is certainly notable. Is he more or less notable than others? Who is to say. This whole list thing is ridiculous. Personally, I think the whole article is ridiculous. An article on Jewish American culture (note the proper order - Jewish American vs. American Jew - might be of value, but this piece is really wholly useless IMO.Sposer (talk) 14:56, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, fixed. He wasn't in Finance anyway, he ran a mutual fund company. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:27, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Hitchens

Kinda barely qualifies as Jewish; he doesn't actually seem to self-identify as one. Rather a marginal example. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 20:42, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Makes sense, but he's no longer in the infobox, if that's what you were referring to. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:44, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Noam Chomsky

I see no reason to have Noam Chomsky be listed in the pictures of well known American Jews. This man is a obscure person who's jewish-ness (not really a word I know) is often put into question. There are many American Jews who are far more well known. I think that he should be replaced with Alan Dershowitz‎ or Jonathan Pollard.Nekng (talk) 05:04, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Who questions the fact that Chomsky is Jewish? Personally, I despise his sadly ill-informed views, but he is certainly extremely notable. I do think Dershowitz is a better choice, but adding Chomsky at least help dispel the lie that all Jews support Israel.Sposer (talk) 16:00, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree, but perhaps there is a better choice than Chomsky; maybe a Jew who is not necessarily pro-Israel but who on the other hand does not BLP violation removed.Nekng (talk) 07:22, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Dershowitz is okay by me. It is better that this has now been discussed. Chomsky is certainly notable, in a very negative sort of way. It is one thing to not support Israel, but a whole other thing to BLP violation removed. I honestly don't think Chomsky belongs there either. Give it a couple of days. If nobody comes here and says that Chomsky must stay, I would put up Dershowitz.Sposer (talk) 12:13, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Chompers is far more notable than Dershowitz. Ya'll have also forgotten about his contributions in modern linguistics, which he basically founded, and countless debates as a known intellectual. Leave him up.--Louiedog (talk) 12:26, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Haven't forgotten about it at all. You are correct on that front, although at this point, he is far better known for his fringe political views. Academically, Chomsky is more impressive, but I am quite sure, Dershowitz, as a zillion selling author, is far better known. I am not going to argue strongly either way, because both are notable, and the pictures aren't a popularity contest. I prefer Dershowitz, but since Chomsky is Jewish, one can argue he belongs too. I'd rather not, since he is certainly not representative of Jews, or Jewish beliefs and ideas in general, but unless that is a criteria for inclusion, I can't exclude the guy.Sposer (talk) 13:01, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd say his beliefs being unrepresentative of American Jewish beliefs in general would count toward his inclusion as emblematic of diversity.--Louiedog (talk) 14:13, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

On the other hand, I would say that his fringe beliefs and the fact that he is so widely disliked by the Jewish population would mean that he is a bad candidate for inclusion.Nekng (talk) 01:48, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Nekng, WP:BLP applies to Talk pages. Since Chomsky has, to the best of my knowledge, never BLP violation removed, I would advise you to refactor your comments concerning him. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 02:13, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Malik Shabazz, please see Criticism of Noam Chomsky or google BLP violation removed.Nekng (talk) 02:29, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Maybe I'm a little thick today, but I still don't see anything in that article about Chomsky BLP violation removed. And just because something appears in Google (i.e., just because it's been posted in hundreds of blogs and bulletin boards) doesn't mean it can be posted in Wikipedia. As I wrote, please refactor your comments. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 03:14, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Go to the "Faurisson affair" section in the Criticism of Noam Chomsky article and look at many of the sources referenced. It is really easy to find information about this.Nekng (talk) 03:32, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

If it's so easy to get reliable verifiable information on the subject, why isn't it included in any of the multiple Wikipedia articles about Chomsky? Since none of the articles say that he's been accused of BLP violation removed, your saying so here is a WP:BLP violation. If you don't refactor your comments, I will. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 03:36, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:AGF. Anyways, the references definitely do say that he BLP violation removed and that he is also connected with many people who do BLP violation removed additionally many of them do call him BLP violation removed. IMHO, the Criticism of Noam Chomsky article needs a lot of work and should have a section about it, but as the talk page for the article says the articles needs a lot more work than just that. But maybe I am wrong, I am still kind of new at this, would it be better if I replaced the word BLP violation removed?Nekng (talk) 03:47, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I am assuming good faith, but WP:BLP is an important policy. You can comply with it by removing your unfounded comments about Chomsky BLP violation removed or simply writing that Chomsky BLP violation removed. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 04:21, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Let me go on the record as requesting that Chomsky stay, and prominently so. He is by far the most cited Jewish American ever, and is in the top 10 of most cited authors ever (the only one alive, in fact). His contributions and influence (and hence renown) far outstrip Dershowitz's; the latter is known mostly in American legal and some intellectual circles, while Chomsky is known around the world, both in scientific circles (he received the Kyoto prize, for example) and in intellectual/political circles. And while 30 years ago he defended the right to publish of a Holocaust-denier, he himself has never BLP violation removed. (And I'd be very surprised if he hasn't sold more books than Dershowitz as well: don't forget that he writes about one a year.) As a linguist, I also want to stress that Chomsky essentially founded the modern, scientific discipline (whether one agrees with him or not, no-one doubts his stature).Mundart (talk) 20:06, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

My thoughts exactly.--Louiedog (talk) 20:12, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Although I am 100% sure that more people have "heard" of Dershowitz than Chomsky, and since the Dershowitz books are bestsellers, and Chomsky's are not, I am equally sure Dershowitz has sold more books than Chomsky. However, the fact is that I agree that Chomsky is notable for his scientific contributions as well as for his extreme political views. I will not revert.Sposer (talk) 21:51, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Google speaks:

"Alan Dershowitz" 361,000

"Noam Chomsky" 2,790,000

Between 1980 and 1992 Chomsky was cited more than any other living scholar. He is big shit.--Louiedog (talk) 22:00, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Whatever. 1992 is a long time ago. Google hits are meaningless. Chomsky gets more hits than "Alan Greenspan" too (but less than "Greenspan"). Who cares? I am not removing him.Sposer (talk) 22:10, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

per Louiedog Chomsky was the most cited living scholar for over a decade and the founder of modern linguistics. he at least deserves more notability than Dershowitz. Astuishin ^(talk) 05:38, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Try calculating Chomsky's vs Dershowitz's h-index to see how much more influential Chomsky is. And I would be equally sure that more people (in the world, not just the US), have heard of Chomsky. Chomsky has also had bestsellers (though US-based bookselling tracking mechanisms would underreport his worldwide sales; I doubt Dershowitz has many readers in translation, unlike Chomsky). But whatever: we're not going to settle such things here, nor do we need to, as fun as it is to debate them. Mundart (talk) 16:14, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Not trying to. I agreed to keep Chomsky, due to his politics and liguistic contributions. Of course, Dershowitz is not a scientist, so h-index is not relevant.Sposer (talk) 17:21, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Image gallery

I deleted the image gallery because:

1. There are already 12 Jewish American celebrities in the infobox.
2. The gallery was becoming a dumping ground for every editor's favorite Jewish celebrity.
3. I don't think the image gallery added any value to the reader. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 00:17, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

PS: I think we ought to take a weed whacker to Notable American Jews. We already have links to long lists of Jewish Americans; we don't need to repeat their names here too. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 00:22, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Makes sense. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:13, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, on both counts!Sposer (talk) 03:16, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Scale of map is wrong

I don't know whether this is actually in kilometers and labeled "miles", or if the wrong formula was used, but the US is approximately 1,000 miles from north to south, and approx. 3,000 from east coast to west coast. The scale provided with this map shows the U.S. as being twice that size. I have also entered this comment on the discussion page for the image file itself.. Ilyse Kazar (talk) 15:27, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Ethnic Group project tag help

I tried to add the Ethnic Group project tag to Talk:History of the Jews in the United States but was told I needed a reliable source, even though the American Jews article is listed as part of the project. What was the source used to justify including this page as part of the project? I want to use it for the other page. Thanks. Aristophanes68 (talk) 04:29, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

the Jews are considered an ethnic group in the standard source on ethnic groups in the US, Stephan Thernstrom, ed. Harvard encyclopedia of American ethnic groups‎ (1980). -- indeed, according to books.google.com about 100 different pages reference "Jews." Rjensen (talk) 19:22, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Even though Jews are parts of many many many different ethnic groups, and calling Jews an ethnic group is the kind of definition used by those interested in genocide. There are African American Jewish converts who are as Jewish as those that have lived and descended from those living in Jerusalem and the rest of Israel for 3,000+ years. And, the Ashkenazim are a combination of descendants of those Sephardim with a mixture of European. It might be cited, but it is a highly controversial and subjective designation. Many Jews do agree with the idea, and many others abhor it. I am not arguing here for or against (personally I am against), but one should be aware of the issues involved with such designation. I am not going to edit war or remove said designation, but I do want full disclosure of the issues.Sposer (talk) 15:26, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Full disclosure is something I can go along with. But I don't know how it can be implemented. Implementation under some circumstances is easily accomplished, such as when involving wording within an article. But what is being proposed in this instance is the hanging of a tag that is ascribing to Jewishness the quality of ethnicity. I am also in agreement with the above that it is "controversial." I think it has the unfortunate consequence of marginalizing the "religious" component in Jewish identity. I am not referring to religious observance necessarily. Judaism has long held that the nonobservant Jew is as Jewish as the most punctiliously observant Jew. Designating Jewish identity as an ethnicity downplays the ever presence of the religious component in the identity even when it is skipped over by the nonobservant Jew. Bus stop (talk) 15:41, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Bus stop, you have been shown many, many reliable sources that state that Jews are an ethnic group. The source brought by Rjensen above is alone enough to confirm the fact. This is the same topic and POV that got you banned from Wikipedia, as I recall. If you continue trying to impose your personal POV on Wikipedia in opposition to the sources, I will re-open that discussion. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:27, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) Jayjg, we go by reliable sources. Furthermore we try not to give undue weight to little held views. Jews, as an ethnicity, represents only a minority view. In support of that contention, examine these dictionary definitions of the word "Jewish" found here:

American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language: Jewish: Of or relating to the Jews or their culture or religion.

Encarta® World English Dictionary, North American Edition: Jewish: 1. of Judaism: relating to or practicing Judaism; 2. of Jews: relating to or belonging to a people descended from the ancient Hebrews

Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary, 11th Edition: Jewish: of, relating to, or characteristic of the Jews; also : being a Jew

Cambridge International Dictionary of English: Jewish: a member of a race of people whose traditional religion is Judaism

Wiktionary: Jewish: 1. Being a Jew, or relating to Jews, their religion or their culture; 2. Yiddish

Webster's New World College Dictionary, 4th Ed.: Jewish: of or having to do with Jews or Judaism; loosely, Yiddish

The Wordsmyth English Dictionary-Thesaurus: Jewish: 1. of or pertaining to Jews, their customs, or their religion; 2. (informal) Yiddish

Infoplease Dictionary: Jewish: 1. of, pertaining to, or characteristic of the Jews or Judaism: Jewish customs; 2. Informal.Yiddish

Dictionary.com: Jewish: 1. of, pertaining to, or characteristic of the Jews or Judaism: Jewish customs; 2. Informal, Yiddish.

UltraLingua English Dictionary: Jewish: Of or relating to Jews or their culture or religion: “a Jewish wedding”; Also called: Judaic

Cambridge Dictionary of American English: Jewish: Jew, a person whose religion is Judaism, or a person related by birth to the ancient peoples of Israel; Jewish: of or related to Jews

Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia: Jewish: Jew: entire article, too long to quote

Online Plain Text English Dictionary: Jewish: Of or pertaining to the Jews or Hebrews; characteristic of or resembling the Jews or their customs; Israelitish

Webster's Revised Unabridged, 1913 Edition: Jewish: Of or pertaining to the Jews or Hebrews; characteristic of or resembling the Jews or their customs; Israelitish

Rhymezone: Jewish: of or relating to Jews or their culture or religion

AllWords.com Multi-Lingual Dictionary: Jewish: 1. The Yiddish language; 2. Of or relating to Jews, their religion or their culture

Webster's 1828 Dictionary: Jewish: Pertaining to the Jews or Hebrews

Free Dictionary: Jewish: of or relating to Jews or their culture or religion; Of or pertaining to the Jews or Hebrews; characteristic of or resembling the Jews or their customs; Israelitish; Of, pertaining to, or characteristic of Judaism

Mnemonic Dictionary: Jewish: of or relating to Jews or their culture or religion

WordNet 1.7 Vocabulary Helper: Jewish: Jewish, Judaic -- (of or relating to Jews or their culture or religion; Jew, Hebrew, Israelite -- (a person belonging to the worldwide group claiming descent from Jacob (or converted to it) and connected by cultural or religious ties)

LookWAYup Translating Dictionary/Thesaurus: Jewish: Jew Hebrew Israelite; synonym Judaic

Dictionary/thesaurus: Jewish: Of or relating to the Jews or their culture or religion; See Usage Note at Jew: Jew: 1. An adherent of Judaism as a religion or culture; 2. A member of the widely dispersed people originally descended from the ancient Hebrews and sharing an ethnic heritage based on Judaism; 3. A native or inhabitant of the ancient kingdom of Judah

The above are all under the word "Jewish," except where a direct link suggested looking at the word "Jew" in the entry. Here is the same sort of a collection of dictionaries and other sorts of reference matter, in this case relating specifically to the word "Jew." When I get a chance I may try to look through it. But the message from the above entries seems to say that little emphasis is put on "Jewish" as relating to ethnicity. Culture, yes. Religion, yes. Dictionary definitions tend not to ascribe "ethnicity" to Jews. Bus stop (talk) 00:43, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

There are many, many reliable sources that indicate Jews are an ethnicity, not "little held" views. Rather than creating original research about what various dictionaries do not say, you need to find sources stating that Jews are not an ethnic group. That is what you will need to prove. I'm not going to waste time here on anything else, and you need to make some serious decisions how far you want to take this quixotic personal quest. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:59, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Bus stop, Although I truly do not understand why Jayjg supports the lie of Jews being an ethnic group, since Wikipedia promotes this kind of stuff (truth isn't important as long as there is a reliable source), and since there is certainly a large body of work that incorrectly denotes Jews as an ethnic group, there is little one can do about it. According to many sources, Jews are an ethinic group, no matter how ridiculous any simple test of logic is on that thought. At least a few of the definitions you noted refer to Jews and "race", which also supports this lie, which was used by the Nazis to brand people who followed the Jewish religion or considered themselves to be Jewish as a race.

One argument used by pro-ethnicity types is that Jews use matrilineal descent for determining whether one is Jewish, and some rabbis will tell you, "Once a Jew, always a Jew, even if you convert out." Of course, using that definition, there are probably several hundred million Jews in the world, little do they know! And, although I am no fan of it, Reform Judiasm decided pretty much that children of Jewish fathers and non-Jewish mothers can be considered Jewish if they go through a B'nai Mitzvah. If not, they are not Jewish, although the ethnic definition makes them 50% Jew I guess.

The simple fact that Ashkenazim are as much European as they are "Semetic", and that the are truly African Jews, Oriental Jews, and thousands of converts is totally lost on people that want to ascribe Jews to an ethnicity, which does not in reality exist. The first Jews are of the same "race" as the Arabs, for all intents and purposes. Since that time there have been conversions, intermarriage, and at time proselityzing, etc. To call Jews a race is done by people who want to destroy the Jewish religion. I know Jayjg doesn't want that, and I do not understand why he supports this (sometimes academic) misconception. I certainly am not accusing him of anything nefarious.

The bottom line, is that based on any reasonable Wiki way of determination, one cannot argue against an ethnicity tag, no matter how wrong and misguided you or I believe it may truly be. I don't like and you don't either, but it is not worth fighting over. Neither of us are going to change it, until one can cite academic and general research that properly identify Judaism as a religion, and Jews as people that are either religiously or culturally Jewish only.Sposer (talk) 01:22, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm delighted someone is using the dictionary. Let me add the best one (Webster 3rd Unabridged 1960): Jew: "a person belonging to the worldwide group constituting a continuation through descent or conversion of the ancient Jewish people and characterized by a sense of community; especially: one whose religion is Judaism see ASHKENAZI, SEPHARDI". Ethnicity comes in when the keywords "people" and "culture" and "community" are employed. Note that the word "race" in older writings (before the 1930s) had about the same meaning as "ethnicity" today (thus "Irish race", "French race," etc.) Rjensen (talk) 01:36, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Rjensen, "Ethnicity" is not found in your above dictionary definition. You are reading into your dictionary definition. That is called original research. Specifically it is a part of original research called synthesis. You are reaching conclusions not supported by sources. Bus stop (talk) 12:48, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I should add that all this depends on your definition of ethnic group. In the Wiki article, there are essentially countervailing definitions. One has to do with race, and there is really no way that Jew = race, except for Nazi-type definitions. However, Jews=ethnic group fairly well (although it is still multiple ethnic grous as Sephardim are clearly different from Ashkenazim, and American Jews maybe are a new one too, if you use the cultural grouping type definition. I have always equated ethnic with religious, but if in the academic community, it is the cultural version, and that is made clear, ethnic group, although disturbing due to the common racial usage, is reasonable. Sposer (talk) 02:00, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Sposer, please feel free to weigh in here if you get a chance, and if you are so inclined. Bus stop (talk) 02:48, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Bus stop, insisting on having the identical conversation in two different places is also disruptive behavior. There's a phrase for what you're doing: "digging your own grave". Jayjg ^(talk) 03:03, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Jayjg -- assume good faith. I am trying to have the conversation on the Talk page of the History of the Jews in the United States article. Please stop threatening me. I have brought reliable sources. I have not engaged in the disruptive behavior that you've accused me of. Bus stop (talk) 03:17, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Rjensen wrote: Ethnicity comes in when the keywords "people" and "culture" and "community" are employed. I was thinking exactly the same thing when reading Bus Stop's list of definitions. You don't have to use the word ethnicity to demonstrate ethnicity; those keywords often point to it. So Bus Stop's list actually does point us towards ethnicity, even without saying so directly. Also, thanks for pointing us to the Harvard Encyclopedia; I know that the academic organization I work with (MELUS) also includes Jewish Americans as one of its many ethnic subjects, and my graduate school class on Jewish American literature was treated as an ethnic literature course. Aristophanes68 (talk) 03:47, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Aristophanes68, you are engaging in original research. That your "graduate school class on Jewish American literature was treated as an ethnic literature course" is not a valid support for inclusion of material in a Wikipedia article.

You are also engaging in the synthesizing of material from sources to arrive at your own conclusions. The dictionary definitions do not include notions of ethnicity for Jews. Rjensen is in violation of WP:SYNTHESIS and so are you.

"Ethnicity" is not included in most dictionary definitions. 35 mainstream (dictionary definitions) sources fail to support your notion. Vaulting your pet notion into an article on the basis of very little support in sources is a violation of Wikipedia's policy of undue weight.

Multiple basic sources make no mention of an "ethnic" component to the concepts of "Jews" and "Jewish." (The same would probably be found to be the case if we examined dictionary definitions for the term "Judaism.")

Dictionary definitions mention the concepts of "culture" and "religion" as defining characteristics of the words under examination. "Ethnicity" and "ethnic" are virtually absent. That you see these concepts in definitions that do not contain them is fine for your own research. But it is original research, specifically in violation of WP:SYNTHESIS. Bus stop (talk) 12:38, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

• I'd like to point out that I did not cite that fact as being reliable evidence; instead, I accepted Bus Stop's challenge and listed academic sources that support the use of the tag. Yet even after I provide sources, s/he continues to accuse me of OR violations. Aristophanes68 (talk) 23:37, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

• How is it synthesizing sources when I'm simply quoting them as using the term "Jewish ethnicity"? How does quoting an academic source constitute synthesis? It's not my conclusion -- it's what experts are saying. Aristophanes68 (talk) 23:37, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Bus stop, I would point out that a majority of sources used above simply use the word "Jew" in the definition of Jewish, as if it were a well-defined term, which it is not.--Louiedog (talk) 13:54, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Louiedog, what you are saying is that that article is problem-laden, with which I would agree. Why for instance does it have a question for a title? Is its aim to muddy and confuse? If that term is not well-defined, the referred to article is contributing to the problem, on Wikipedia at least.

I think we go by reliable sources. The dictionary definitions do make reference to "religion" and to "culture." Conspicuously absent are references to "ethnicity." Therefore reliable sources, from dictionary definitions anyway, fail to support the much ballyhooed contention that Jews constitute an "ethnic group." Pet perspectives of this sort deserve inclusion in articles only in proportion to their relative weight.

I don't think hanging a tag of the sort proposed conveys the sort of minor position that the notion of Jewish "ethnicity" finds support for in the overwhelming number of basic sources. One has to look to specialized texts to find the idea of "Jewish ethnicity" entertained. Wikipedia shouldn't be promoting minor views as though they were already mainstream views. Bus stop (talk) 15:05, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

No, what I'm saying is that I'm sure many reliable sources (e.g. A history of the Jewish nation: from the earliest times to the present day - Edward Henry Palmer, or Justice Brandeis) would concede the ethnic aspect of being a Jew, as does the introduction in our own article (The Jewish ethnicity, nationality, and religion are strongly interrelated, as Judaism is the traditional faith of the Jewish nation.). Judaism is exactly 38% a religion, 82% a culture, 26% a nationality, and 78% an ethnicity/descendency (with the caviat that there's a large sigma on these numbers).--Louiedog (talk) 16:14, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Louiedog, I don't even find "ethnic" or "ethnicity" in your linked to Justice Brandeis article. Bus stop (talk) 16:43, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

It is kind of simple here. If one considers "ethnicity" race, the Jew is 100% not ethnic. If it is cultural/religious, then it is. The descendancy stuff is pure fantasy, since you do not need to descend from Jews to be Jewish, just as the Nazi race idea. I am not fighting the ethnic tag, because academia uses the cultural identity. I don't like it because many choose to use the race version of it. So, by academic terms, Jews are 100% ethnic. By common usage (as in race), they are 100% not an ethnic group. Since it seems Wiki has gone with the academic version, ethnic is okay, much as it is totally misleading. It shouldn't be in a box, and any mention of it should be noted as ethnic meaning cultural/religious.Sposer (talk) 16:37, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Sposer, of course "…you do not need to descend from Jews to be Jewish…" Anyone can convert to Judaism, and after conversion, that person is Jewish, plain and simple. Obviously that individual did not "convert" ethnicity. Does the process of conversion include a DNA transplant? The three Abrahamic religions are not the three Abrahamic ethnicities. Basic sources do not support that. This is a prime reason Wikipedia is not seen as being trustworthy. Unfortunately Wikipedia is the playground for the promoting of pet views, whether or not those views represent mainstream and presently applicable points of view. Bus stop (talk) 17:03, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Comparison with other Abrahamic religions is appropriate since Islam and Christianity are convert religions, spread across various backgrounds and ethnicities en mass, where conversion is the rule and not the exception.--Louiedog (talk) 18:23, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

With descendancy, I was going along the lines of the fact that ~98-99.5% of Jews belong to Ashkenazi or Sephardic ethnic groups, which, even in common language, are uncontroversially ethnic groups. As for "race", that word is silly putty by any definition:

2 a : a family, tribe, people, or nation belonging to the same stock b : a class or kind of people unified by shared interests, habits, or characteristics

Calling Judaism a descendancy when there are converts is kind of like calling African-American "black" when there are many white people with African roots who live in America (or black people that live in the UK). By strict sense, it's wrong, but then again this is natural language we're dealing with.--Louiedog (talk) 17:05, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

(unindent)Even among Sephardim and Ashkenazim, there are substantial differences. "German" Jews are Ashkenazim I guess, but they are very different from Polish and Russian Jews. Polish and Russian Jews consider themselves to be very different from each other too. Dutch Jews are European, but many are of Sephardic background. Lots of intermarriage, rape, etc., makes great difference. Jews are multi-ethnic. To call them an ethnic group is sort of ridiculous. The only commonality amongst all Jews is the religion. My father was born in Belgium and calls himself a Polish Jew. My mother was born in the U.S. (as was her mother), and considers herself of Russian descent. My father's mother was born in Germany and said she was Polish. As far as I am concerned, I am an American whose religion is Jewish. Just because 98% of Jews can be called Sephardic or Ashkenazi doesn't mean that it represents just two ethnic groups. Moroccan Jews have a very different heritage from Egyptian Jews. Different culture. Different world views. Same is true of Russian vs. German, or Israelis vs. American. I am as Russian as I am African, as far as anything is concerned. I eat much more Korean food, than I eat borscht! My race is Caucasian. My ethnicity is Brooklyn, NY (a little levity). My religion is Jewish. I am willing to accept the broad categorization of ethnic having cultural/religious/heritage ties, but that is solely because of the common religion factor, and nothing else. If I did start seeing the race/descendancy stuff being used as justification, I will change my mind and stand with Bus stop. Jews are 100% not a race or ethnic group on that basis and there is zero justification for it.Sposer (talk) 18:23, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Ashkenazi Jews are a homogeneous enough ethnic group to have genetic similarity.--Louiedog (talk) 18:29, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

They were a population that tended to stay together. That is no longer true and is now invalid. Besides, that is the race/Nazi-type definition, which belongs to the likes of the KKK. The Wiki definition and academic definition of ethnic group belongs to the cultural and religious heritage. Based on that, there are many many different ethnic groupings within the larger Ashkenazi grouping. Very different cultures among different Chasidic sects too. If I do see a definition moving to the race-type lie, I will remove ethnicity from every article related to Jews and Judaism. Jews are no more a race/ethnic group on that basis, than a fire hydrant is a dinosaur. Sposer (talk) 19:19, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Hitler was a vegetarian too so let's get off Nazis for a bit and focus on argument merit. Ashkenazi Jews qualify in every way as an ethnic group, a group that, for example, shares an elevated risk for Tay-Sachs.[15] The existence of finer distinctions does not negate the larger grouping.--Louiedog (talk) 19:32, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I am saying you are using definitions that will fade away and are fading away. You are using a non-accepted or non-acceptable racial definition of ethnic group. See the article here on Wiki. Ethnic group is not racial. If it was, Jews would be 2-3 larger ones, including the so-called Ashkenazi Jew. Yes, there is a biological and evolutionary convergence on non-Dutch Central and Eastern European Jews, but they do not have a common cultural background, so they are multiple ethnic groups (10,20, 500, who knows) based on the none racist definition of ethnic group.Sposer (talk) 20:11, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

The word "glacier" still represents a big hunk of ice today even if tomorrow they will have all melted. You're doing a strange thing of using words based on some future prediction of what they'll mean and not basing definitions on the present. Ashkenazi is commonly and uncontroversially accepted as an ethnic group.--Louiedog (talk) 20:25, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

...really due to the racial/inheritance perspective, which fails utterly and miserably for Jews overall. If that is the only argument for calling Jews an ethnic group, then it does not pass the standard definition, especially as explained by the Wiki article, which focuses on cultural heritage, and absolutely not on racial-type definitions. Regardless, since you are talking about Ashkenazi, and I about Jews overall, and because thankfully your view, if it refers to ethnicity as it relates to Jews, is almost certainly not the commonly accepted academic definition, I have no reason to remove the ethnic tags on American Jews or other such articles. If I got the feeling though that the racial garbage is how we come to the idea of the ethnic Jew, I will seek to remove it in every single article, through proper Wiki discussion.Sposer (talk) 21:11, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

The "argument for calling Jews an ethnic group" is that many, many highly reliable sources do so, including works specifically about ethnic groups. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:33, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Fifty dictionary definitions, found here, of two words: "Jewish" and "Jew" fail to make reference to Jews being an "ethnic group." Conclusion: Judaism as an "ethnicity" is a concept that has not yet reached mainstream acceptance, and of course may never reach mainstream acceptance. Undue weight should not be given to only marginally accepted concepts. Doing so is in violation of neutral point of view. Bus stop (talk) 01:37, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

As has been explained before, original research regarding what a number of dictionaries do not say is irrelevant. We rely, instead, on what multiple highly reliable sources on the specific topic actually do say. WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT is very disruptive. Please stop. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:41, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't advocating for anything particularly, and I jumped in late anyway. I just wanted to point out that the concept of Judaism being intertwined with ethnicity isn't easily dismissed because 98-99% of Jews belong to an ethnically Jewish heritage. The concept of Jewishness is a complex one that includes both aspects of a religion because it concerns certain beliefs and practices, as well as aspects of culture and descended tradition since a number of Jews don't believe (19% believe God does not exist) or practice but still consider themselves Jewish. As the President of Hillel so emphatically delivers to all Birthright kids: "Judaism is not a religion".--Louiedog (talk) 21:23, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Jayjg - Yes, I agree, it is called an ethnic group because of like culture and heritage, not because of race/biology. Like I said, I don't like it, but I understand why and believe it should stand. If it is based on race ideas, that is pure garbage, no matter how many sources say it. My opinion, but a valid one too. Ethnicity and Jewish is, as all well know, a very hot button topic and there is no general agreement, because of the racial overtones. Jews were killed for almost 2,000 years because of their religion, not because of their so-called and non-existent race (until Hitler anyway, who is the exception that makes the rule). I am done.Sposer (talk) 00:14, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Arguing from absence requires a control--when do dictioanries use "ethnic" I checked Webster's 3rd unabridged and it does not include the term "ethnic" when defining Italians, Germans, French, Poles, Japanese, etc. etc. (curiously, it foes include the term for the definition of Russian and Rumanian. But the scholars in for example Journal of American Ethnic History" and American Jewish history certainly use ethnic to characterize Jews. Those are the experts on American Jews that Wikipedia must follow. Rjensen (talk) 04:30, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Bus stop, what has brought on this bout of hysteria? You're throwing around phrases like "original research", "synthesis", "undue weight", and "reliable sources"—and for what? Because you don't like the fact that another editor wants to include History of the Jews in the United States in the scope of WikiProject Ethnic groups.

What are you afraid of? That the presence of the WikiProject Ethnic groups banner will somehow tarnish that article? It hasn't damaged Jew or American Jews, so why the worry? — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 04:32, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

"ethnic group because of like culture and heritage, not because of race/biology." Respectfully (and as a Jew) disagree. The genetics of Jewish descent is one of the most interesting topics in genetic tracing (IMO). Genetics were used to provide evidence for Beta Israel being local converts over being descendants from Israel. The test for the Y-chromosomal Aaron showed the Lembas claim of being descended from Israeli rabbis to be plausible. And because of the historical endogamy of Ashkenazi Jews (though many modern American Jews are assimilating through marriage), all sorts of interesting things are known about the medical genetics, which make the Ashkenazi "over-represented in human genetic literature, particularly in mutation-related contexts."[16]

Again, I'm not advocating for any particular change to any article, but that there's nothing interesting genetically to study about a large number of Jews just doesn't square with my reality.--Louiedog (talk) 16:57, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Gloria Steinem is not a Jew.

Despite the fact that Gloria Steinem is not a Jew, her photo is shown on the header of the page "American Jews." As stated in the article on Gloria Steinem in Wikipedia: Steinem was born in Toledo, Ohio. Her mother, Ruth (née Nuneviller), was of part German descent. Her Jewish father, Leo Steinem, was a traveling antiques dealer (with trailer and family in tow) and the son of immigrants from Germany and Poland.[1] The family split in 1944, when he went to California to find work while Gloria lived with her mother in Toledo.

Her photo should be removed, but by policy it can only be removed after discussion. 69.114.217.217 (talk) 03:25, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, her mother was Christian, her father Jewish, and she was raised in no religion. I've substituted the comparable Betty Friedan, about whom there is no ambiguity, and who isn't under the stricter WP:BLP requirements. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:37, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Pictures

Why isn't there a single religious (Orthodox) person there? How about, I don't know, Michael Medved?84.228.107.45 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:50, 24 October 2009 (UTC).

Editor, welcome to wikipedia. Please post new topics at the bottom of the page and sign your posts with 4 tildas like so ~~~~.

As for your question itself, there are only 12 pictures. This means it mathematically impossible to choose them in such a way as to include all possible attributes of diversity (e.g. at least one secular, reform, conservative, orthodox, liberal, conservative, black, white, male, female, actor, businessman, inventor, etc...) so we can't expect to be perfect.

The pictures chosen were meant to a representative sample of notable and influential figures spanning different fields (we could have just as easily found 12 notable American Jewish economists!) While Michael Medved many be well-known in some areas, I personally have never heard of him and couldn't imagine who in the chosen pictures he could replace; between people Mel Brooks, Isaac Asimov, Albert Einstein, and Steven Spielberg, I don't think Medved would really be the same scale of person. You, however, are free to argue who Medved could replace.--Louiedog (talk) 17:03, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Holocaust section

This section seems to be devoted to the bizarre notion that anti-Zionist attitudes among Jews contributed to the Holocaust. Regardless of personal feelings about Zionism, I think it's pretty clear that this section is both inaccurate and highly biased. Bluemonkee (talk) 06:15, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

utter nonsense. the section summarizes the latest scholarship as published in leading Jewish history journals. Rjensen (talk) 06:41, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Agnosticism, Atheism

There is a constant attempt to add Agnosticism or Atheism to the religion tags of American Jews. American Jews are of the Jewish religion, by definition, whether they practice it or not. I know there seem to be all sorts of polls that say that there are a whole lot of Agnostic or Atheistic American Jews. I know they exist. But, I think that is more a city/coast thing more than Jewish. Growing up in NYC, I know far more none-practicing Catholics than I do Jews. If you took a poll of NYers or Los Angelans, or Chicagoans, I suspect that you'd find high numbers of agnostics and atheists there amongst all religious groups. Judaism is a religion, and there are a few cultural similarities among the world's Jews that allow some to mischaracterize it as an ethnic group too. But the religion of Jews, is Judaism, plain and simple, not Agnostic, not Atheist, not Protestant, etc.Sposer (talk) 21:44, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you, and there are sources that agree with you too. This source says the following:

"Clearly, there is a religion called Judaism, a set of ideas about the world and the way we should live our lives that is called "Judaism." It is studied in Religious Studies courses and taught to Jewish children in Hebrew schools. See What do Jews Believe? for details. There is a lot of flexibility about certain aspects of those beliefs, and a lot of disagreement about specifics, but that flexibility is built into the organized system of belief that is Judaism."

"However, many people who call themselves Jews do not believe in that religion at all! More than half of all Jews in Israel today call themselves "secular," and don't believe in G-d or any of the religious beliefs of Judaism. Half of all Jews in the United States don't belong to any synagogue. They may practice some of the rituals of Judaism and celebrate some of the holidays, but they don't think of these actions as religious activities."

I doubt that an atheistic orientation invalidates identity as a Jew. The religion clearly concerns affirmation of one G-d. But I doubt that identity is ever contingent on mere thoughts such as the belief that G-d in fact does not exist, and the above source seems to affirm this. Bus stop (talk) 22:47, 29 November 2009 (UTC)