Talk:American Jews/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

This article is racist

I don't like it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dolphincradle (talk • contribs) 08:06, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Feel free to tag or remove anything you think is objectionable that is not supported by appropriate sources. But a simple fact like "American Jews tend to be older and better-educated than Americans as a whole" is supported by acceptable sources.--Louiedog (talk) 19:57, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Racism is not just melanin based, if darker melanin has power, would it be just as possible for such melanin separation, to also come out with silly melanin based persecution? In fact genes control almost everything that we do, when those behaviors bind to a culture, or reason for mating. All BLIND!!!!! persecution, justified after the fact, should be called racism, all collective punishment, in a fair world, and then even collective vengeance against said 'original' collective racism. Nothing to do with this article, it is about the American Jews, the most persecuted group in human history, most of their persecution even denied.Yan Eggerland (talk) 08:16, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Image has only white people

The composite picture at the top featuring American Jews only shows white people, thus possibly giving the false impression all American Jews are white. Maybe I could add a few non-white Jews - how about Sammy Davis, Jr. and Rashida Jones? Dante8 (talk) 19:44, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Dante - it's a good idea - I think just one would be a reasonable reflection of Black Jews. Who do you think it should be and whom do you think he or she should replace? Zargulon (talk) 21:51, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

We have very limited space, and hundreds of thousands of Jews to choose from. Lengthy negotiations have tried to produce a representative balance of well-known American Jews; if changes should be made, then we at least need to have a wider discussion and get some consensus. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:01, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Very well then - let us discuss. I appreciate that the page has gone through many revisions and difficult negotiations, but I think that having at least one representative of non-white American Jews in the picture is worthwhile. Personally I think one non-white American Jew would do to represent all the rest, preferably someone who is reasonably well-known, of course American, and possibly born into the faith, to counteract the idea that non-whites can only choose to convert to Judaism and are never born into it. And they needn't replace anyone- I think the picture has room for one more. But I'm open to suggestions. What do all you other Wikipedians think? Dante8 (talk) 23:43, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm not an expert mathematician, but I suspect 17 would be difficult to arrange into a grid. Zargulon (talk) 00:48, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Does it have to be a perfect grid? And if so,do you think including a non-white American Jew justifies removing someone, and if so who would you remove and who would you include? Dante8 (talk) 01:30, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean when you ask "Does it have to be". A relatively square grid uses its space efficiently and it is what people are expecting to see. It would be nice to have a black Jew but not at any cost - there are competing concerns as you can see from the talk page history. I would personally remove Stephen Spielberg or Bob Dylan but I imagine it will be impossible for the editors so far involved to agree.

Why does it have to have celebrtities at all? Dolphincradle (talk) 18:30, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Do you really think of the Lubavitcher Rebbe as a "celebrity"? Or Gertrude Stein?? Zargulon (talk) 19:54, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

They are at least notable. In any case, I don't care anymore. Let it be the way it is. Dolphincradle (talk) 08:05, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

I care. I think it is important to have a non-white Jewish person shown, as there are many in America and yet American Jews are often thought of as always white. We could replace Bob Dylan, as we already have Barbra Streisand and she is also a Jewish American popular singer of similar importance. If no one objects in a week, I will therefore replace him with Rashida Jones.Dante8 (talk) 17:29, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

How about Rabbi Capers Funnye. He represents a major African Jewish Congregation and clearly is involved as a Jew. Better than another person in the entertainment industry.Sposer (talk) 02:03, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Sposer is there a suitable pic? Zargulon (talk) 08:47, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

How about Jordan Farmar? —[AlanM1(talk)]— 03:34, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I can't find any pictures of Rabbi Capers Funnye so I'm going with Rashida Jones. Dante8 (talk) 04:06, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

And while we are talking about the pictures, I find (please do your own math, mine is always suspect) that 10 were born in America while 6 were not. I believe that this does not reflect the demographics of Jewish Americans, tho have not found a figure yet. In any case, how about a couple of more American born examples? Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 01:25, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

It might not affect the demographics of the current generation of American Jews, but it probably does when taken throughout history. Zargulon (talk) 11:38, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Pictures

Since we're making requests for pictures, I have dozens. Why does it have to be so static!?!?!? Also why have a controversial figure like Emma Goldman? Seems silly to me does the page Italian Americans have an image of Sacko & Vinzetti? Or, maybe add to the Jewish page Leopold & Loeb, if we are going the looney route? Or, Ethyl and Julius Rosenberg, Roy Cohn or Irv Kaufman? But Wikipedia does have a special way of treating Jews, obviously (anarchist repepresents them for example).

Why not instead of Bernstein, Aaron Copland? Copland had more influence.

Instead of Streisand, Gershwin?

Why not the William Fox, Schenk, Warner or Loew? These people from the Pale of Settlement, had a great effect on American industry.

Why not Jewish Buddhists, some of the most important figures in American Buddhism are Jews, who have found ways to hybridize the 2 systems, creating almost a new form of popular Judaism. Such as Glassman?

Why not one of the members of the Beastie Boys, they all at one time or another "admitted" to being Jews?

Why not Stan Lee, Al Hirschfeld, Mel Blanc?

Why not, of course, Senda Berenson (instead of Emma Goldman maybe!) or Val Ackerman? Sasha Cohen, Sarah Hughes or Aly Raisman?

Why not Fred Lebow?

I have so many others ..... more to come. Can't beat the ones that I mentioned.Yan Eggerland (talk) 08:16, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Please read the talk page archives for an answer to your questions. Zargulon (talk) 08:26, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Weasel answer. I know the types of answers it says, and my response is that Wikipedia is like an insular editor's community, again obviously using Emma Goldman for a people the majority of whom are obsessed with the law (one law or another). Look at statistics for ratio of American Jews who become lawyers for example, they also make up 100% of the rabbis..Yan Eggerland (talk) 08:41, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

By the way I don't care if you listen to what I write, just wanted to throw my 2 cents in there. All of the people who get there say on Wikipedia have advanced ways of gaming the system, that said I never intend to get my way on Wikipedia. I do not have the resources for such advanced secret services "non" sockpuppetry as the ones who get their way. Been observing for a very long time. It's the way Wikipedia weeds out the poor and non-obsessed.Yan Eggerland (talk) 09:06, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Boy do you have a chip on your shoulder. Go see a shrink. Zargulon (talk) 17:41, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Oh, be nice, both of you. The reason the pics up there are what they are is because we can't list every single notable American Jew and so shoot for an representative sample, which is greatly debated and argued over until we achieve some kind of compromise consensus. As far as I know, every ethnic group on wikipedia is done this way. You can propose change, keeping in mind that you must choose someone to remove that is already there, and if you lobby for it convincingly enough, your opinion may prevail. The only point you should really understand is how contested these choices are.--Louiedog (talk) 18:56, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

American Jews and Category:Middle Eastern American

copied from my talk page Hmains (talk) 02:54, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

OK, I'm game. Clear up my supposed misunderstanding as to why the article for American Jews belongs in Category:Middle Eastern American. What is it about categories and world geography that I'm supposedly confused about? Alansohn (talk) 19:08, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

• This is not something I invented; it is already present. American Jews article has within it the Template:Middle Eastern American, which includes American Jews. American Jews is also within Category: American Jews; the category is thus an eponymous category. Category: American Jews is in Category:Middle Eastern American. WP:EPONYMOUS makes clear that the choice can be made to "1.Keep both the eponymous category and the main article in the parent category". This is the consistent choice made throughout the set of categories about fooian Americans--and I see no good reason to change or ignore that. Thanks. Hmains (talk) 00:01, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

• • Hmains is right. If you don't like the category being on this page, the place to have the argument is at Category Talk:Middle Eastern American or Category Talk:American Jews, not here. If you strongly disagree, then start an RFC, but edit-warring and refusing to talk is going to get you nowhere. Zargulon (talk) 00:21, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

All Israeli Americans belong in Category:Middle Eastern Americans; all American Jews do not and, as such, Category:Middle Eastern Americans does not belong in this article. American Jews are not listed (and do not belong) in Template:Middle Eastern American, which was the only argument for including it in the article for American Jews. There might be a tenuous argument that the category belongs in this article if there were some justifiable connection, but none exists. Alansohn (talk) 03:43, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

My initial thought was that Middle Eastern American belonged. since most Jews are descended from the Middle East. However, most American Jews are not from the Middle East at all, and if you include Middle Eastern Americans, you would need to include essentially every place Jews have come to America from, which is nothing short of ridiculous: European Americans, German Americans, Irish Americans, Italian Americans, Chinese Americans, South African Americans, etc. That makes no sense whatsoever. This is not about genetic makeup. Middle Eastern Americans does not belong.Sposer (talk) 10:16, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Middle Eastern origins and a Semitic cultural identity is what all of those diaspora groups have in common. They were not in Europe, China, etc until much later. So logically, you would not have to include anything besides Middle Eastern American.Evildoer187 (talk) 17:53, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Does anyone have any objection to removing this category from the article? Alansohn (talk) 19:40, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Please don't remove the category from the article unless you at the same time also remove the category "American Jews" from the category "Middle Eastern Americans", per Hmains objection. Zargulon (talk) 22:22, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, User:Hmains started an edit war and seems to have walked away from this discussion. There had been a battle raging at Category:American Jews, in which a now-blocked user had been adding Category:American people of Southwest Asian descent, Category:Middle Eastern American and Category:Asian American to Category:American Jews, apparently suffering from the same misunderstanding about how categories work that Hmains is experiencing. With the user now blocked, these categories are gone. The insistence that Hmains had that this article belongs in Category:Middle Eastern American has been definitively rebutted. It's a shame that Hmains won't bother discussing this issue, but I will allow one more opportunity for any objections to be raised before removing this once and for all. Alansohn (talk) 22:50, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Please, by all means take the article and the category out of the Asian and Middle Eastern categories. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:10, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree that they belong in the Middle Eastern American category. Jews are defined as a nation, which originates in the Middle East. The one thing all Jewish groups have in common is a Middle Eastern ethnic origin, and Jews living outside of Israel are referred to as Jewish diaspora (I will find sources if you'd like, but I somehow doubt adding them to the categories themselves would be wise). I'd say the category is appropriate.Evildoer187 (talk) 17:41, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

And in what way am I misunderstanding how categories work? I'd like to know.Evildoer187 (talk) 17:46, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

What exactly would you like to know? It ain't rocket science. The Scythian 17:41, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. I am in no way a Middle Eastern American and few Jews would identify that way. It is entirely likely that some ancestor of mine 2000 years ago originated in the Middle East, but few American Jews come from the Middle East or are within dozens of generations of coming from the Middle East. American Jews are much closer to being European Americans than Middle Eastern Americans. Most Israeli Jews in the U.S. came from Europe after WWII as well and likely are more European than Middle Eastern as well. American Jews are not only ethnic Jews. Many are converted or Jewish by adoption. The vast majority of American Jews are not Middle Eastern in any way, shape or forml. If you use that kind of defintion, half the world is probably Jewish. It is silly.Sposer (talk) 00:24, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I disagree strongly. Jewish is a nationality, and Jewish identity, in its entirety, centers on being an expelled Semitic population from the Middle East, who speak a Semitic language, and adhere primarily to cultural traditions handed down from the Near East. The vast majority of Jews in America (as indicated by polls) maintain a close identification with Israel, as well. In that sense, Jews are not close to being Europeans at all, especially considering many of us are not even Ashkenazi. Further, most Israeli-Americans, much like the Israeli population itself, is of Mizrahi descent.

I know a lot of Mexicans that keep a close affinity for Rome and the Catholic Church...That doesn't make them Italian. ;) The Scythian 17:41, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

How is that, in any way, comparable? Do they define themselves as expelled Romans? Do they keep close cultural, and even linguistic attachment to Rome? Do they refer to Mexicans outside of Rome as "diaspora Romans"? What a silly argument.Evildoer187 (talk) 20:59, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

How would half the world be Jewish, if we used that kind of definition, as you describe? Whatever the case, you can't just ignore these very important and crucial facets of Jewishness when classifying American Jews.Evildoer187 (talk) 08:27, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are trying to say here, since it appears English is perhaps not your first language. You have been edit warring your views on many articles relating to this subject, and it really needs to stop. The Scythian 17:41, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

This is a hypocritical thing to say, since not only have you been edit warring, you've been vandalizing articles as well. In fact, I intend to report you for that as soon as I'm done typing this up.Evildoer187 (talk) 20:59, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

And if we're relying on US Census definitions, and not literal ones, then every Middle Eastern population should be removed from the Asian American category as well.Evildoer187 (talk) 08:33, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Per U.S government policy, people of Middle Eastern and North African origin are not counted as "Asian." If you know so little of this topic, you probably should not be editing related articles. The Scythian 17:41, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that's exactly what I said. If you're not even going to read what I write, then please stop responding to me. Thanks.Evildoer187 (talk) 20:59, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

the Jews were not "expelled" from the Middle East (at least not until the last 50 years anyway). They came to Europe 1000 years ago from various places in Asia and Africa and by far most of those who came to the US came from Europe & spoke German or Yiddish (a form of German) --few spoke Hebrew . Rjensen (talk) 08:35, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

That is not true. The Jews were expelled from the Levant by the Romans around 70-135 AD. Very few came from Africa or Asia. Ashkenazi immigrants very rarely spoke German, and Yiddish is a language built on Hebrew and Aramaic underpinnings. It is inappropriate to classify Americans Jews as European.Evildoer187 (talk) 08:55, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Yiddish is counted as a Germanic language. It is not even remotely Middle Eastern. The Scythian 17:41, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

The majority of American Jews are Ashkenazi, less Sephardim and even less Mizrahi. Many Israelis are Ashkenazi as well, so they are not truly Middle Eastern Israelis, but rather European Israelis. Only Mizrahi have a long-term AND recent connection to the Middle East. The Ashkenazim may have spoken the local language, Yiddush, or other dialects. Hebrew however, was essentially dead as a spoken language until the creation of the modern state of Israel, outside of in prayer books. Nobody is arguing that by decent, the vast majority of Jews come from the Middle East, but when one uses terms like Middle Eastern American or German American, it reflects their latest country of origin, not something back from the sands of time. My statement in saying that half the world would be Jewish was essentially based on the idea that "genetic" Jews have spread all over the world, many as Christians, following Paul/Saul, certainly along the Mediterranean and likely have some genetic Middle Eastern markers. Thus the fact that Jews, Greeks and Italians often have similar appearances. With the Italians having some combination with Eastern Europe too. Mizrahi Jews are Middle Eastern, and probably genetically closer to the Arabs and Persians than they are to Ashkenazim and Sephardim. There is no question that there are Middle Eastern Jews in America, but unless you were directly or almost directly from Israel, Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Iraq, Iran, etc, you are not a Middle Eastern American. I have no national pride for my Russian/Polish heritage and care not that I am Ashkenazi. I have one nationality only: American. My religion is Jewish. I could care less about my genetics as it is irrelvant as it should be to everybody. Ascribing Middle Eastern American to me or anybody that is not recently from the Middle East is a purely genetic and racist description, which I reject. Both my grandmothers had blue eyes and one was blonde. One born in America, but with her older sisters born in Russia, the other born in Germany, but of Polish descent. The hair color and eye color is not Middle Eastern. The last purely Middle Eastern blood for most Jewish Americans was probably more than 1,000 years ago. The Bible says you follow the laws of the land you live in, unless they oppose G-d's laws. That means your nationality is that of the nation you live, not some silly genetic reference.Sposer (talk) 16:03, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

"Many Israelis are Ashkenazi as well, so they are not truly Middle Eastern Israelis, but rather European Israelis."

No. If someone is from Israel, they are Middle Eastern. You are also contradicting your earlier argument that RECENT connection is all that matters. If this is so, then it does not matter whether or not an Israeli-American is of Ashkenazi descent. They are not European.

"The Ashkenazim may have spoken the local language, Yiddush, or other dialects."

Yiddish is a fusion of Hebrew, Aramaic, and German, written with Hebrew letters. It made communication with the indigenous people of Central Europe much easier, but that's about it. Nobody outside of the Jewish community spoke it.

"but when one uses terms like Middle Eastern American or German American, it reflects their latest country of origin, not something back from the sands of time."

Jews are a nationality and ethnoreligious group, like the Druze. And where did that nationality come from? The Middle East, hence they are Middle Eastern American. Ukrainian Jews, for example, are Ukrainian and Jewish, so they are both European and Middle Eastern.

"My statement in saying that half the world would be Jewish was essentially based on the idea that "genetic" Jews have spread all over the world, many as Christians, following Paul/Saul, certainly along the Mediterranean and likely have some genetic Middle Eastern markers."

If they have no memory or even knowledge of their Jewish ancestry, they're not Jewish. Christianity is not defined, by themselves or by others, as a nation.

"Thus the fact that Jews, Greeks and Italians often have similar appearances."

Lebanese, Palestinians, Syrians, Jordanians, Cypriots, etc also have similar appearances to Jews, often to a greater extent than Italians and Greeks. What's your point?

"Mizrahi Jews are Middle Eastern, and probably genetically closer to the Arabs and Persians than they are to Ashkenazim and Sephardim."

Genetic studies place Jewish groups closer to each other than their host populations.

"There is no question that there are Middle Eastern Jews in America, but unless you were directly or almost directly from Israel, Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Iraq, Iran, etc, you are not a Middle Eastern American. I have no national pride for my Russian/Polish heritage and care not that I am Ashkenazi. I have one nationality only: American. My religion is Jewish. I could care less about my genetics as it is irrelvant as it should be to everybody. Ascribing Middle Eastern American to me or anybody that is not recently from the Middle East is a purely genetic and racist description, which I reject."

Did you even read what I wrote? I am talking about nationality and identity. I have made absolutely no reference whatsoever to genetics (until just now, anyway) throughout our entire exchange.

"The Bible says you follow the laws of the land you live in, unless they oppose G-d's laws. That means your nationality is that of the nation you live, not some silly genetic reference."

I don't care what the Bible says. This is Wikipedia, not Bible study.Evildoer187 (talk) 20:59, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

My nationality is American. My religion is Jewish. The last nationality prior to American that any members of my family had were German, Russian and Polish. I am not Middle Eastern in any way, shape or form nor are probably 95% of American Jews. The only way you get there is using genetics, whether you mention it or not. Polish Jews were of Polish nationality, whether the Poles liked it or not. Same for the Germans, British, etc. Israeli Ashkenazi Jews are European Jews in Israel. If they live there for some period (generations?), and they come here, though not Mizrahi, they can be considered, I guess Israeli/Middle Eastern. People that ran from the Holocaust to Israel, often because America would not take them in, and then emigrated to America 10 or 20 years later, are European, not Middle Eastern Americans. Anything else makes no sense.Sposer (talk) 22:22, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

With all due respect, you are contradicting yourself here. You said the only thing that matters is where your ancestors stepped off the boat from (which I don't particularly agree with). As you said, this would be Poland, Germany, and Russia in your case. Following this logic, Israeli Americans could only be classified as Middle Eastern American, regardless of their ethnic background (which you also claim is irrelevant), since Israel is a Middle Eastern country and that is where Israeli Americans immigrated to America from.

In any case, this is about nationality, and Jewish is defined as a nationality and an ethno-religious group. Therefore, it only makes sense to classify Jews as a Middle Eastern group, because that is where the Jewish nationality was forged, in addition to the close cultural ties Jews maintain to Israel even to this day.

And genetics is irrelevant to nationality.Evildoer187 (talk) 14:54, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

I am not contradicting myself. There is a generational impact. I said recent, to most recent. It is also what you consider yourself. Most, but not all Jews may have 2000 year old connections there, but u would need to go back generations to get there. If a European Israeli comes to the US, I suspect most prior generations considered themselves European Jews, but more recent ones Israeli. There is no nationality called Middle Eastern, or European. And you are right, genetics has nothing to do with nationality, but ethnographic religions it does. Your argument to include nationality as Middle Eastern is genetic. That is the only way to reasonably ties all but a tiny share of American Jews to the Middle East. My nationality is American of Russian and Polish descent. The only way I could ever truly know if I have ANY ties to your so called Middle Eastern American idea is through genetic testing. For all I know, my great great great great great grandparents were both converts on both sides and I have no Middle Eastern blood at all. Truly far fetched, but not impossible. But the idea that anything more than a sliver of American Jews can be termed Middle Eastern does not stand up. I am proud to be Jewish and likely Semetic (as are my Arab and Persian cousins), but that does not make me Middle Eastern. The Jews are not a nationality. Some consider them an ethnic group, and Judaism is a religion, but neither requires one to be Middle Eastern. By that logic, if we believe the scientists, we are all African Americans, since that is where they think Homo sapiens started (I could be wrong on location, but I am making a point). Origins lst in ancient history are just not relevant.Sposer (talk) 15:47, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Nationality has everything to do with where the nation, culture, and identity were forged. Nothing more. If someone is part of the Saudi nation, for example, they are Middle Eastern, even if they have no blood ties there. If someone is part of the Jewish nation, they are Semitic, and in turn, Middle Eastern. The comparison with Africans is also weird, as most humans do not identify as a nation from Africa. You know that.

Furthermore, Jews are indeed a nation, and Wikipedia recognizes it as such. See article JewsEvildoer187 (talk) 15:29, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

• All this is very concerning - European Jews and their Middle Eastern counterparts have many different views and have had conflicts over these views for centuries. The history of European, African and Middle Eastern Jews seems to not be understood here by some. So will say "No guess work on socio-racial/ethnic classifications please". Evildoer187 you need to get a mentor or read-up more on this topic. All this is really starting to be disruptive - dont you think its odd so many revert you on more the half your edits? !!!!!!!!!!!! -- Moxy (talk) 15:59, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Alright then, educate me. What is wrong with what I am doing?

Just because many revert me, doesn't mean it's for good reason. After all, this is a sensitive topic, and obtaining consensus for such things is nearly impossible. However, I would strongly object to lumping Jews in as "Europeans". Not only is it historically and conceptually false, it isn't even possible to apply it to all Jews. For instance, I am an Israeli-American Jew, of mixed Ashkenazi/Mizrahi descent. I am not European in any way, shape, or form, and I would never identify as such.Evildoer187 (talk) 15:29, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

And you've just made my point. I am of Russian/Polish (Ashkenazi) Jewish descent. I do not consider myself European, but I consider myself of European Jewish descent, which is a synonym to me for Ashkenazi. I had two grandmothers with blue eyes, and one who was blonde. Probably through rape, but certainly genetically partially European. Bottom line is I do not consider myself to be in any way, shape or form Middle Eastern. I am proud of my roots, but to me, although I know it is controversial too, I consider Judaism a religion. The Jewish nation stuff plays into all the racists' hands IMO. My nation is America. I am a Jewish American. I stand for America above ALL nations.Sposer (talk) 17:30, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't see what point of yours I supposedly "made". You are free to identify yourself however you want, and I am free to do the same. Neither of us is particularly wrong. Jewish identity is complex.

"The Jewish nation stuff plays into all the racists' hands IMO."

I couldn't care less, to be honest. White supremacists will NEVER accept us. Period. That's just reality. And this sounds like something you need to take up with the Jewish community itself, as they are the ones who define us as a nation, as they have been doing for thousands of years.

By the way, do you not think that, by denying Jewish nationhood, you are playing into the hands of Islamist antisemitism?Evildoer187 (talk) 15:24, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

So if you admit that people may define themselves in different ways, and in some cultures it may be complex, then please stop forcing your ideas all over Wikipedia, like you know better and can rule for millions of people what they are. That's what for months I've been trying to tell you. Yuvn86 (talk) 17:04, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Please stop, this discussion is getting really, really weird. Talk pages are not supposed to be forums of opinions of individuals and how they view themselves in real life. Yuvn86 (talk) 18:43, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Apologies. I was just going in to delete my last comment, because I agree with you. Since you asked, I will leave it. There is nothing to add here anyway.Sposer (talk)

Raving lunatic
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Okay. I'm getting sick and tired of these stupid pictures of American Jews. What the hell are these sad , dull pictures? LOL Is this how we Jews are gonna honor our achievements? I'm a Jew from an Ashkenazi mother and Scots-Irish backround from my father. And I gotta say that I'm not proud of the current Wikipedia pictures. So I've already layed down the foundation from some acceptable Jewish figures. I want the American Jewish ethnicity to AMAZE. When I'm gonna go on Wikipedia and see the people we represent -- everybody should be like WOWWW. How can such a small nation REPRESENT SO MUCH GOOD, COLOR, SO MUCH LIGHT, SO MUCH BLESSINGS . I want our achievements to be A SLAP IN THE FACE to all the ignorant people out there. You know what the Talmud says my dear Jews Success is the greatest revenge but I can't do this by myself. Because I don't know how to get the damn authorization for the pictures . I'M PRETTY SURE THAT AT LEAST ONE OF YOU IN HERE HAS THE ABILITY TO DO IT. TAKE YOUR TIME MY FELLOWS. BUT ONE THING FOR SURE , TWO THINGS FOR CERTAIN -- THE CURRENT AMERICAN JEW PICTURES ARE UNACCEPTABLE IN RELEVANCE TO THE AMOUNT OF CONTRIBUTIONS WE REPRESENT IN AMERICA. SO HERE IS MY LIST. = ) (And sorry , I have no Black Jews or Mizrahi in the list. So if you want to put a Black or a Mizrahi go ahead.) File:Picture of 30 known American Jews.jpg Picture of 30 known American Jews	image = File:AMERICAN Jews picture Virtual Library.jpg American Jews 1st row: Haym Salomon • Uriah Levy• Washington Bartlett• Benjamin Cardozo• Emma Lazarus 2nd row: Louis Brandeis • J. Robert Oppenheimer • Sandy Kofax • Joel Engel • Richard Feynman 3rd row: Albert Einstein • Lee Strasberg • Bob Dylan • Emma Lazarus• Gertrude Elion 4th row:Bob Kahn • Ralph Baer • Scarlett Johansson • Hedy Lamarr• Ralph Lauren 5th row:Steven Spielberg • Ted Maiman • Ruth Handler • Michael Dell• Larry Page 6th row:Kat Dennings • Theodore Von Karman • Mark Zuckerberg • Levi Strauss• Cecil B. DeMille I'm not coming back here. So do what you want. If you don't wanna help me-- to hell with you people . But live knowing you haven't given 100 percent and you haven't open up your minds to how awesome JEWS truly are ON WIKIPEDIA. Goodbye — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.169.110.202 (talk) 00:08, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Nonsense

The claim that "Approximately 7.5% to 10% of American Jews are not classified as white, generally a result of interracial parents, adoption, or conversion to Judaism" is nonsense. According to the government about 2.1% of Whites have non-White spouses, meaning that under 1% of Jews would be expected too because half of them intermarry. Most conversion occurs in the context of the(already rare) intermarriage. Adoption I wouldn't think is a big factor. The only way that makes sense is if Sephardim and Persians are counted as "non-White."Winston S Smith (talk) 23:36, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Propaganda

"in America, to be 'white' means to be the beneficiary of the past 500 years of European exploration and exploitation of the rest of the world"

This is a great example of Wikipedia propaganda. Lerner forgets to mention the role of Jews and the slave trade. Wikipedia is bound to be biased because it is written mainly by people like Lerner, by leftists. Leftist authors and leftist opinions will be considered "notable" and "reliable,"(neither of which even has an official definition on Wikipedia, it is up to the "community" to decide) and those of conservatives will not. Don't tell me to Wikipedia:FIXIT myself because liberals will just revert it.Winston S Smith (talk) 23:36, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Proposed deletion: Jewish American actors/actresses

The categories involving Jewish American actors and actresses are being proposed for deletion. If you have an opinion, either way, you can post your comment at: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 September 11#Jewish American actors. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:20, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Statistic on percent of Jews living in top electoral college states

Absent a comparable statistic of what percent of the population in general live in the top electoral college states, this statistic is meaningless. Removed. Zargulon (talk) 19:22, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

An incredibly useful source for the article

The Pew Research Center published an extensive portrait of Jewish Americans (see the sections of the right side). It has pretty much all the information this article may ever need. If anyone feels like updating some of the outdated information in the article, this source is very recommended. Shalom11111 (talk) 19:14, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Politics

The mention of the blackpower movement in the 60s needs citation (for people that don't know what it is), if it isn't already there.

Repeated deletions

Sposer has now, without talkpage discussion, repeatedly deleted from the See Also section "Thanksgivukkah, the convergence of the American holiday of Thanksgiving and the first day of the Jewish holiday of Hanukkah on November 28, 2013." That is precisely what a see also section is for. And it relates to a wp article -- which, until and unless it is deleted, is ipso facto notable. Sposer, in his subjective POV, feels it is not notable. But the Wall Street Journal and Huffington Post and others across three continents that have devoted articles completely to the convergence disagree with Sposer. We don't let editor POV determine notability, and we don't delete references to wp articles on the POV determination that the article is not notable. And, of course, the convergence that is the subject of that article is the same as here -- it affects American Jews. As an RS pointed out.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:06, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

You seem to want to edit war, but I am not going to break the rules here. The article you posted on the meaningless fact that Thanksgiving overlaps with the first day of Chanukah (and not even the first night) is likely to be deleted, based on the counts. I will wait until then. If it is not deleted, I will leave this in. Just because an article is written on the subject (or multiple articles) does not in any way, shape or form, make it noteable, especially given that it is wrong. As I note above, it is the first day, but not the first night, so you would be lighting a second candle on Thanksgiving. Second of all, there have been multiple overlaps -- admittedly uncommon -- between Chanukah and Thanksgiving, with another one not that far off. The only rarity is that this is a first day overlap. No relevance, but I will leave it to see if the related article gets deleted or not. I did not delete until I saw -- at the time of my first deletion -- that most people were voting to delete the orignal article. As an American, and a Jew, I am not sure how it affects us outside of if my kids were younger, I would have to bring the gifts to my sister-in-law's house on Thanksgiving night. The only other relevance is for people taking advantage of the misreporting, and selling Turkey menorahs and dreidels. It does not in any way increase or decrease the importance of either holiday. To many Orthodox Jews, Thanksgiving is irrelevant (they thank G-d everyday), and to the rest, Thanksgiving is probably more important than Chanukah itself.Sposer (talk) 19:54, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

You, in your personal subjective POV, believe it to be non-notable. RSs across three continents believe it notable enough to devote full articles to it. It has a wp article. People may also think that American Jews aren't notable -- they are entitled to their view, but not to -- based on their view and in conflict with RS coverage -- delete material due to their subjective POV. Same here. We care about notability under wp standards, and has an article and is therefore notable under wp standards. We don't defer, in such circumstances, to individual editor views that a wp article subject is meangingless.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:19, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Using the existence of an article YOU WROTE is no evidence. I have contributed to and helped keep the American Jews article relevant for years. The error in the whole silliness is not POV, it is fact. If you are Jewish, you well know the first night is where all the excitement is for the kids (which these days is what Chanukah is centered around). And, you keep saying RS and notable is somehow tied to the number of articles. I can cite zillions of things with numerous articles that are not encyclopedic. But, that discussion is for the delete page, and it looks as if other short sighted types lead, so you will get your wish. Not worth fighting over something irrelevant. I am just trying to prevent the article and Wiki from looking silly.Sposer (talk) 10:19, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

I removed it as well. If others want to chime in, please do. --Malerooster (talk) 02:02, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Sposer -- two things. I didn't write the article. Someone else did. Secondly, it was discussed at AfD, on the issue of notability. And the result was that there was not consensus support for your view. Thus, the article was kept. As to your issues of wp:own -- Wikipedia is a collaboratively edited encyclopedia, and you emphatically do NOT have ownership of the article ... your assertion that it is relevant how much you have edited this article suggests that you are not on board with that core wikipedia concept. Even since you wrote your above missive, other top-line RSs have covered this -- when the RSs across three continents cover something like this by devoting entire articles to it, that matters more than a minority of editors who wanted the article deleted being at odds with the other editors and with highest-level RSs. We reflect RS coverage. Not one or two editors' view.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:36, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Epeefleche -- I did not go far enough back on that article history somehow and apologize for saying you wrote that waste of computer memory. However, I am on board with the community concept, and I am not the person who just deleted the reference here. Wikipedia though does not say that an article in an RS source means that there is need for an article or that the article is relevant. The fact that there were 5, 10 or 500 articles on something that has no religious or social relevance does not make it encyclopedic; it is a human interest story only. That was my point. But, when the community made its incorrect decision to not delete the article, I did not make one further comment on it, nor did I remove the reference from this article, much as it is of no consequence to anybody and despite the fact that Chanukah actually starts the night before Thanksgiving, making the whole concept of Thanksgivukkah completely incorrect from the Jewish perspective anyway.Sposer (talk) 17:10, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi Sposer, I agree with you, it is pretty dumb. Happy Sposerukkah by the way. Zargulon (talk) 10:56, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

If folks really want

this intro in the Crime section, after something like "Jews have a long history of crime in the US" and then goes on to say (this is the part I've removed)

"whether it be in the finance industry, or the murder of innocent children"

please explain why here. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 00:49, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

You see, removing of that I would've agreed with. Fine, that appears biased, remove that. Although, now how do you justify deleting the ENTIRE SECTION OF IT? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.49.101.174 (talk) 17:34, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't think there ever was such a section prior to that series of highly biased edits.Sposer (talk) 18:04, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree with its removal. It appeared to be an attempt at parity with the section on List of American Muslims that has since been removed. It was certainly worded in a bias tone and, to the best of my knowledge, other similar pages do not have sections listing criminals. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:38, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Religion of Jewish Americans

The only listing of the religion of Jewish Americans in this article is "Judaism."

There are significant numbers of ethnic Jews who practice Buddhism, Hinduism, and Christianity, and who are either atheist or agnostic. I understand that these are very controversial. But not liking it doesn't mean those communities don't exist. The article ought to reflect it. aliceinlampyland (talk) 17:36, 28 December 2013 (UTC).

Aliceinlampyland, no one said that this is "controversial" or that they're "not liking it", what are you talking about? If you find a reliable source that supports this information you just wrote, you're welcomed to add it to the article. -Shalom11111 (talk) 20:17, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

The article already addresses the issue of American Jews and religious observance. It also has a paragraph about Jewish American Buddhists. I suspect aliceinlampyland is talking about the infobox. Frankly, I would be opposed to changing the infobox. It's axiomatic that Judaism is the religion of American Jews and belongs (alone) in the infobox. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 23:11, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Then you are only ethnically Jewish. But using that definition, there are probably a billion Jews in the world, although they do not know it. It makes no sense to use that. If you practice Christianity, you are not Jewish, although you may be genetically so. It is just not logical.Sposer (talk) 23:52, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Sposer: Out of confusion and curiousity, I'd like to ask you to please elaborate on this last comment... By what definition on earth would there be "a billion Jews" today? Thanks, Shalom11111 (talk) 22:14, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

If you took every person ever born to a Jewish mother and followed through every female only genetic line, whether they know it or not, according to Jewish law, they are Jewish. And, they are certainly ethnically and genetically Jewish, although I have always rejected personally that evil definition. I was clearly exaggerating, but I would be willing to bet there are several hundred million Moslems and Christians that are Jewish according to the Halachic definition. So, if we start including the lie that you can, for example, believe that Jesus is Messiach, or follow any other religion and still be a Jew, then you need to include all those other non-Jews as Jews.Sposer (talk) 01:06, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

"that resulted in the survival of Israel"

Creating this to discuss the current reverts over the inclusion/exclusion of "that resulted in the survival of Israel" (see [1] for example). As it stands, the statement is not sources, only the following sentence is. I agree that this is a mildly contentious claim that needs to be sourced. We cannot make such a bold claim in Wikipedia's voice without proper citation.EvergreenFir (talk) 19:06, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Inclusion of Rashida Jones for apparently (?) racist reasons

What is the justification for including Rashida Jones, and deleting far more famous substitutes (who were in the infobox far earlier)? The edit summary states that the reasoning is to "show one non-white jew". This seems to be strangely racist. Since when are Jews 'white' (how do you define this term? Most Jewish communities are shown to be of Middle-Eastern origin.) and since when was it agreed to include relatively non-notable people in an infobox on that basis? On her Jewish side, Rashida Jones is not from a different ethnic group than the rest of the infobox (which is entirely Ashkenazi) and doesn't represent any particular diversity.

I think the infobox should include some converts to emphasis the inclusiveness of the category. In which case, perhaps Elizabeth Taylor or Sammy Davis, Jr.. But including Rashida Jones (over much more famous people) simply because of the ethnicity of her father is quite bizarre. Avaya1 (talk) 22:07, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I do not think the reasoning is racist and although I reverted once, it was because I thought I was reverting to the last "approved" version. It is laudable to include a non-white Jew. However, there are far more notable non-white Jews than Rashida Jones, such as Sammy Davis Jr., Drake, Nell Carter, Capers Funnye Jr., Connie Chung, Andre Tippett. Sposer (talk) 16:19, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

The article is not titled Famous American Jews. While it makes sense to put notable/famous people in the infobox, these is no basis for putting in the "most notable/famous". The article is about all American Jews and the infobox should thus reflect that. To suggest that showing a diverse and accurate picture of American Jews is "racist" is absurdity at the highest level. The images in the infobox should represent American Jews proportionally including their skin tones, or at least approach proportionality. Converts and non-Ashkenazi Jews would be appropriate to add to the infobox. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:10, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Ok if we agree that we should have at least one 'non-white' person (or 'not entirely Ashkenazi' people) in the infobox, as well as converts - we can all agree that there are far more notable people than Rashida Jones (who is primarily famous as a result of her famous parents). I would vote for Sammy Davis Jr. Avaya1 (talk) 20:05, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Einstein vs. Feynman in the collage

It may sound crazy at first, but I propose to replace Albert Einstein in the collage by Richard Feynman. For two reasons:

• All important works in physics were made by Einstein before moving to the US. Only the EPR paradox paper and the Einstein–Szilárd letter were written in the USA but before he became an American citizen. His other works done in the USA are not really important. On the contrary, Feynman made his whole career in the USA.
• Einstein is included in the collages on the pages German Jews, Ashkenazy Jews, and Jews. It is in general better to have different people in different collages if they are of comparable prominence.

--Off-shell (talk) 23:56, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

WP:SYNTH in "Jew American groups" section

The material in this new section is cited to four unrelated sources, and seems to be synthesis. I'm not sure what the point of it is. Perhaps Isinbill can explain? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:15, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Synthesis is when source 1 says A, source 2 says B and the editor combines them into a new point C. There is no synthesis here--no new group or new idea. It's just a list. The membership of subgroups A, B, C etc is listed with the appropriate cite for each one. Rjensen (talk) 03:33, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

It is not clear to me

that Emma Goldman (whom I dearly love) should be considered "an American" since her citizenship was revoked. This is about her picture in the collage. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 22:04, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Ms Jones is not notable

I hate discussing image boxes, but you pick Ms Jones to represent American Jews, who is she compared to Sammy Davis Jr? I mean how central is her Jewishness? Because if it is about diversity Sammy is a better pick, if it is about religious rep then he is a convert, so he is ticking the diversity box. African, convert, American, and notability. --Inayity (talk) 06:45, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Request for comment

Are Sergey Brin and Sam Harris notable and famous enough as American Jews so that they can stay in the gallery of the infobox? 182.185.59.70 (talk) 21:38, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Please stop edit-warring over the infobox. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:44, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Religions of American Jews

There are often edits of this section that say that the religion of American Jews include things like Atheism and Buddhism. The religion of a Jew is Judaism. Atheism is not a religion, and Jews may follow precepts of Judaism. Those that follow the idea that Jews are also an ethnic group, which, even though there are some academics that use this terminology, is abhorrent. If that is the case, then ethnic Jews can be of any religion. But, then, you are not a Jew. The two cannot be separated. Although I did not revert the recent changes, I agree with them. There is only one religion for American Jews: Judaism, just as there is only one religion for American Catholics or American Moslems.Sposer (talk) 13:57, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on American Jews. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090510071636/http://meria.idc.ac.il:80/journal/2002/issue1/jv6n1a7.html to http://meria.idc.ac.il/journal/2002/issue1/jv6n1a7.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080723165917/http://allenginsberg.org/bio.php to http://www.allenginsberg.org/bio.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:44, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Confirmed as correct x 2. Thanks, Cyberbot II. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:38, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on American Jews. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20151016053859/http://www.mla.org/census_data_results&state_id=36&place_id=39853 to http://www.mla.org/census_data_results&state_id=36&place_id=39853
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070423172039/http://www.ujc.org:80/content_display.html?ArticleID=60346 to http://ujc.org/content_display.html?ArticleID=60346

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:52, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on American Jews. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110609173411/http://www.libarts.uco.edu/history/faculty/roberson/course/1493/supplements/chp26/26.%20Abba%20Silver.htm to http://www.libarts.uco.edu/history/faculty/roberson/course/1493/supplements/chp26/26.%20Abba%20Silver.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:26, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

No existing archived captures at Wayback or WebCite. Marked for 'cbignore' until alternative source is found. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:38, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

I just cut

this sentence out from the "International affairs" section:

Large number of Jews had an interest in foreign affairs, most notably organizing labour unions, labour rights, civil rights, and feminist causes.:

because it does not seem to me that "organizing labour unions, labour rights, civil rights, and feminist causes" is a particularly "international" activity. If these activities are being done internationally then that needs to be stated and adequately referenced. Also I found the tense, "had" to be confusing. Carptrash (talk) 15:45, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

My new edit

The source Pew cited that the net Jewish population currently in the United States is 5.3 million among them (4.2 million) consider themselves Jewish by religion, While (1.2 million) are secular or cultural Jews – those who say they have no religion but who were raised Jewish or have a Jewish parent and who still consider themselves Jewish aside from religion. According to same study the American Jewish population was estimated at between 5.5 and 8 million, depending on the definition of the term. Which include also 1.6 million Americans who have at least one Jewish parent or were raised Jewish, but they do practice Christianity now, and 0.4 million Americans who have at least one Jewish parent or were raised Jewish practice other religion. Many of them still consider themselves Jewish aside from religion. So we should include Irreligion, Christianity as minority religion 1.2 million or 1.6 million is not a small numbers, and the study do include them as Jewish depending on the definition of the term.--62.10.82.167 (talk) 18:51, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Also according to The Harris Poll® in 2013 only 48% of American Jews do believe in God, and 24% of American Jews said the said they were "absolutely certain" of God's existence. And 19% of American Jews believe God does not exist, Irreligion (atheist or agnostic) are not even a small minority, Accroding to Pew study in 2013 about 62% of Net American Jews say being Jewish is mainly a matter of ancestry or culture, 15% say being Jewish is mainly a matter of religion, and 23% for both. So many atheist or agnostic Jewsih consider themselves Jewish. It should added Irreligion in religion category.--62.10.82.167 (talk) 19:07, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

First, consensus on Wikipedia is that irreligion, atheism, agnosticism, and other religious nonbeliefs don't get added to infoboxes in place of religion. So that question is out.

The real issue is whether American Jews practice Christianity. Pew doesn't address that question. It is much more nuanced: they merely say if one were to count such people as Jews, one would get a figure of X adult American Jews. Abraham Lincoln supposedly once asked a friend how many legs a dog has if you consider its tail a leg. When the friend answered five, Lincoln said, No, only four. You can consider the tail a leg but it's not a leg. A dog only has four legs. The fact is that nearly every Jewish organization in the world considers a Jew who practices Christianity a Christian, not a Jew. The two religions are considered incompatible.

I think footnote 1 in this article—which includes a link to the Pew survey and quotes its smaller figure of 5.3 million Jewish adults—is the appropriate way to deal with the mental exercise Pew takes. Adding Christianity to the infobox is not. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:29, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

If every Jewish organization in the world considers a Jew who practices Christianity a Christian, not a Jew, Then why these people who converted to Christianity as Max Born, Lise Meitner, John von Neumann, Gerty Cori, Fritz Haber, Gustav Mahler, Karl Landsteiner and Boris Pasternak and etc, classified as Jews in Wiki articles (ethnically at least). and why the Jewish Nobel laureates who converted to Christianty, their names are on the List of Jewish Nobel laureates?.

Why this selectivity?? in the case of these people there been debate that since they were born to Jewish mother (even if they conveted to Christianity) they still Jews ethnically, and as you can see all of them are under "Category:Jewish etc" in their articles, while now the 1.6 million Christians of Jewish descent (who have at least one Jewish parent or were raised Jewish) are not considered Jewish. Why? Maybe because they are not celebrities or not Nobel laureates?.

The article itself taking the ranging the numbers of the Jewish depending on the definition of the term from 6,400,00 - 7,400,000 - which include the numbers of Christians of Jewish descent.

By the way most of the article about ethnic group or nations do add irreligion, atheism, agnosticism, and other religious nonbeliefs to infoboxes as Spaniards, French people and Americans, and since only 48% of American Jews do believe in God as pools show, still it is need to be added here the irreligion.--62.10.82.167 (talk) 20:04, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

With respect to the individuals you name, I can't tell you who has argued what. You say there has been debate in the past, but on the articles' talk pages I looked at, I didn't see any evidence of it. I did notice, however, that except for Pasternak, none of their infoboxes mention their religion. If you'd like to argue about why those people are categorized as Jewish, you ought to start by reading the relevant guideline, WP:CATEGRS, in particular the section on religious categorization, WP:CAT/R. My suspicion is that since a convert has lived as both a Jew and a Christian, both categories may apply—but this isn't a discussion about how to categorize people.

You mention figures of 6.4 to 7.4 million American Jews. Yes, footnote 1 mentions that figure and cites six sources that give American Jewish population figures in that range. Which one of them, specifically, includes Jews who practice Christianity? Quotes would be appreciated.

With respect to nonreligions, I can only point you to Template talk:Infobox/Archive 11#RfC: Religion in infoboxes, where the motion "In all infoboxes in all Wikipedia articles, without exception, nonreligions should not be listed in the |Religion= parameter of the infobox." succeeded. Maybe the editors at the articles you mention above didn't get the memo. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:17, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

In the List of Jewish Nobel laureates names as Max Born, Gerty Cori, Fritz Haber and other Jewish who converted to Christianity are included to the article. And as you can see here they refuse to remove the names of Jewish who convrted to Christianity by saying - from some editors - [Jews are an ethnoreligious group - that means (in brief) that they are an ethnic group with a national religion. Becoming agnostic or atheist, or even converting to another faith, doesn't suddenly erase their ancestry and ethnic heritage and culture] and you can see also here here many editors were revert the removing of Jewish who converted to Christianity claiming [A person automatically becomes Jewish either by official convertion (religion) or by being born to a Jewish mother (ethnicity), therefore Wallach is and forever will be Jewish by birth/ethnicity, even if he's an atheist and a convert to Christianity]. And this only one example when the articles is about Nobel laureates and celebrities. In these cases even if they converted to Christianity they been counted as Jewish. And on the past in articles as Ashkenazi Jews see here, They refoused to remove the pictures of Gustav Mahler and John von Neumann and Lise Meitner who converted to Christianity and saying that they still Jews since Jews are also an ethnicity.

You you will find such as this Category:Austrian Jews and etec in all of the articles of Jewish who converted to Christianity, but you will not find Category:English Christians in the article Richard Dawkins (because he been christian), So if Jewish who convert to Christianity are not any more Jewish why we have such of these Category in their articles and why in the List of Jewish Nobel laureates editors refuse to remove the names of the Jewish who converted to Christianity from the list? why here they don't consider any more as Jews while in List of Jewish Nobel laureates consider Jewish as an ethnoreligious group - that means (in brief) that they are an ethnic group with a national religion. Becoming agnostic or atheist, or even converting to another faith, doesn't suddenly erase their ancestry and ethnic heritage and culture.

According to Pew there are 1.6 million in the United States are raised as Jewish or have at leat one Jewish parents, But they do practice Christianity now. We should add it if not on infobox, at least we can add it inside the article (it is been added Jewish who do practice Buddhism, Why not christianity then 1.6 million is not a small number).

Still I see kind of selectivity, In List of Jewish Nobel laureates they include names of Jewish convert to Christianity (and they consider them to be Jews, try to remove the names and your edit will be revert), while here Jewish who convert to Christianity they are not a Jews.--62.10.82.167 (talk) 18:39, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Here what pew cited about the numbers of Jewish in the states baised on the definition of the terming: "Alternatively, one could define Jewish more expansively, to include all Americans who have at least one Jewish parent or were raised Jewish, regardless of whether they now have another religion, such as Christianity. In that case, the survey suggests the total adult Jewish population (including all Jews by religion, Jews of no religion and people of Jewish background) would make up about 3.3% of American adults, or approximately 7.8 million people. If one were to adopt an even broader definition of Jewish identity and include all Americans who say they consider themselves Jewish for any reason – even if they do not have direct Jewish ancestry – the survey indicates the adult Jewish population would be roughly 3.8% of the overall adult population, or about 9.0 million people.". According to the same study Most people in the Jewish background category (70%) are Christians, religiously speaking--62.10.82.167 (talk) 18:54, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

If you wish to argue about the List of Jewish Nobel laureates, the place to do so is Talk:List of Jewish Nobel laureates, not here. Ditto for Ashkenazi Jews and Talk:Ashkenazi Jews.

If you have a specific suggestion about how to improvide this article, please make it. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:47, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

I argued about List of Jewish Nobel laureates, because you said that if Jewish convert to Christianiy it is mean he not Jewish any more, So i said that many of wikipeida articles do treat the Jewish convert to Christianiy as ethnic Jewish, Example (List of Jewish Nobel laureates and other articles, and i can give other talk pages), So why here is different case?.

Agian the numbers of the Jewish Americans in the article rangs from 5,425,000–8,300,000 (These numbers also took form pew study), Pew cited: "Alternatively, one could define Jewish more expansively, to include all Americans who have at least one Jewish parent or were raised Jewish, regardless of whether they now have another religion, such as Christianity. In that case, the survey suggests the total adult Jewish population (including all Jews by religion, Jews of no religion and people of Jewish background) would make up about 3.3% of American adults, or approximately 7.8 million people. If one were to adopt an even broader definition of Jewish identity and include all Americans who say they consider themselves Jewish for any reason – even if they do not have direct Jewish ancestry – the survey indicates the adult Jewish population would be roughly 3.8% of the overall adult population, or about 9.0 million people.". According to the same study Most people in the Jewish background category (70%) are Christians, religiously speaking..

So Pew study include Jewish background in study, and it's cited that most of Jewish background category are Christians (1.6 million), If you include them -according to the study Jewish would make up about 3.3% of American adults, or approximately 7.8 million people.

The artcile have a paragraph about Jewish Buddhist, So can i add a paragraph about the Jewish who's practice Christianity (1.6 million)?.

So, Why i can't add Christianity in infobox or the articles?. When the Pew study include them in the rang numbers.---62.10.82.167 (talk) 22:13, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

You're mixing apples and oranges. This article doesn't cite the Pew survey about Americans "of Jewish background", it cites the 5.3 million net Jewish adults and 1.3 million children "in households with a Jewish adult who are being raised Jewish or partly Jewish" for a total of 6.7 million. See footnote 1, which cites chapter 1 of the Pew survey. You're citing chapter 7, which is titled "People of Jewish Background and Jewish Affinity" (not "Jews") for a wholly unrelated figure. Read that chapter's second paragraph:

As the name suggests, people with a Jewish background were all raised Jewish or had a Jewish parent. But they have not been included among the Jewish population in this report because they all say either that they are not Jewish or that they are affiliated with a religion other than Judaism (e.g., Christianity). (emphasis in original)

So these are people who have some connection with American Jews but who are not Jews. That's clear to the authors of the Pew survey. It's clear to me. Why isn't it clear to you? You jumped ahead and pulled a fragment of a sentence from the eighth paragraph without bothering to read anything else on the page. Please do so, and stop wasting my time. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 23:16, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

The Jewish who convert to Buddhism, they practices Buddhism as their religions, The name that been mentioned in the artciles such as Steven Seagal etec they do practices Buddhism not Judaism anymore, even if they still indefinite themselves as ethnically Jewish, and this paraprah is still in the article (i'm pretty sure that Jewish mainstream do not count Jewish Buddhist as Jewish sect), and in the same time you revert edit about Jewish who convert to Christianity but yet they still indefinite themselves as ethnically Jewish, So or we consider Jewish who convert to other religions not part of this article, or we include also Jewish who practice other religions as Christianity and still indefinite themselves as ethnically Jewish.

I cited the Nobel list, Since i saw most of Wikipedia articles include this one, treat Jewish as ethnic and religious group, Which include irreligious Jewish as this article do, and Jewish who convert to other religions, as this article do - The article include Irreligious Jewish and Jewish who practice other religion as Buddhism - So why when it about Jewish who practice Christianity and still indefinite themselves as ethnically Jewish can't be include?. I saw many discous as i cited before count the Jewish converts as Jewish, Since they born to Jewish mother, and they article here count Jewish who convert to Buddhism as Jewish, but refuse to consider Jewish who convert to Christianity as Jewish even if they themselves as ethnically Jewish.

In the end the article deal here and treat the Jewish Americans as both ethnic and religious group. and if you want to speak about religion point view a Jewish convert to Christianity may still be categorised a Jew according to a strict interpretation of the halakhah.

It is not wikipeida job to evaluation who is a Jewish and who is not real Jewish, if we there is a specific group who practice other religion but still indefinite itselves as ethnically Jewish, It should be include. Have a nice day.--62.10.82.167 (talk) 17:17, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

So the rule here is like this, Jewish who convert to Christianity do not count as Jewish unless he is famouse Scientist or Nobel laureate, then all users will argue that the Jewish is ethnic and if you believe in Jesus as Christ does not mean you are no longer a Jew, strange selective.--62.10.82.167 (talk) 17:20, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

selectively

while you control the article and selectively claims that Jewish who convert to Christianity are not Jewish any more. other articles acutely treat Jewish as ethnic group, and they include Jewish who convert to Christianity, The editr Sposer refouse the ethnic definition, while in the same time the article do treat Jewish as ethnic and religious group (more than half of American Jewish are Irreligion). Messianic Judaism aherent's do identify themselves as Jewish, I do aware that many Jewish refuse that, But still Messianic Judaism aherent's do identify themselves as Jewish. While we have a section about Jewish Buddhist (who believe and buddah but yet still identifying as Jewish), User malik refuse to have a section about Jewish Christians who believe in Jesus but yet still identifying as Jewish. Interesting this selectively when we want to treat Jewish as treat Jewish as ethnic or religious group.7 Many Christians don't consider Mormons as Christians, Yet most of Mormons do indefinite themselves as Christians, and in their article considered as Christian religious movement, Many Muslims don't consider Ahmadiyya as Muslims, Yet most of Ahmadiyya do indefinite themselves as Muslims, and their article considered as Islamic religious movement, I'm not argue here that Messianic Judaism is a Jewish or Christian sect i'm just saying it could be added that the Jewish mainstream do consider Messianic Judaism to be a form of Christianity, But still the adherents of Messianic Judaism do indefinite themselves as ethnically Jewish, and they argue that the movement is a sect of Judaism.--62.10.82.167 (talk) 14:24, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Jews that identify with Buddha, from what I have read, identify as a way of life, not as a religion. Peace, etc. On the ethnic part, the ethnic Jew remains a controversial subject, and I am not an academic, nor am I necessarily in the majority on that. As for the Jews who converted to Christianity, I know that some Orthodox may consider somebody Jewish if they are born Jewish. But, when they say that, it means they do not have to convert again to be considered Jewish. They just need to come back and say they wish to Jewish. Personally, I think it is ridiculous to include those that converted out as a Jew, but I do not really look at that stuff on the Nobel pages. I sure would not include Bonn, or Lenny Kravitz. Just because you say you identify as a Jew, does not make you a Jew. If I said I identify as a Martian, it does not make me a Martian. But, if you follow a different religion, your DNA may be Jewish, but you are not a Jew. The one place where there is a lack of clarity would be the new made-up rules among Reform Jews permitting patrilineal descent. But even there, they would not be considered Jewish if they considered themselves Christian. Sorry, if you believe Jesus' character according to the Christian bible, or you follow an idol as a god, or you believe that Mohammed was anything more than a great man, then you are not a Jew. This does not make those faiths any less valid or important, it just means that it is incompatible to be a Jew and these others at the same time. Mr. Shabazz has been consitent too. He is editing the American Jews page, not the Max Bonn page. If you wish to police all of Wiki, go ahead, but argue on those pages for removing them. If I happened to be following that page, I would support it. If there are any converts away from Judaism in the current pictures of this article, suggest they be removed. I would support that. Sposer (talk) 16:53, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

I'll add that Buddhists don't "believe in Buddha" the way Christians believe in Christ. There are few bright lines in Judaism, but the line between Judaism and Christianity is considered one of the brightest. Look at the multitude of sources in the second paragraph of Messianic Judaism and you'll see -- as I've written before -- the overwhelming majority of the Jewish community does not accept the notion that one can be a Jew who practices Christianity. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 17:09, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

The Jewish who convert to Buddhism, they practices Buddhism as their religions, The name that been mentioned in the artciles such as Steven Seagal etec they do practices Buddhism not Judaism anymore, even if they still indefinite themselves as ethnically Jewish, and this paraprah is still in the article (i'm pretty sure that Jewish mainstream do not count Jewish Buddhist as Jewish sect), and in the same time you revert edit about Jewish who convert to Christianity but yet they still indefinite themselves as ethnically Jewish, So or we consider Jewish who convert to other religions not part of this article, or we include also Jewish who practice other religions as Christianity and still indefinite themselves as ethnically Jewish.

I cited the Nobel list, Since i saw most of Wikipedia articles include this one, treat Jewish as ethnic and religious group, Which include irreligious Jewish as this article do, and Jewish who convert to other religions, as this article do - The article include Irreligious Jewish and Jewish who practice other religion as Buddhism - So why when it about Jewish who practice Christianity and still indefinite themselves as ethnically Jewish can't be include?. I saw many discous as i cited before count the Jewish converts as Jewish, Since they born to Jewish mother, and they article here count Jewish who convert to Buddhism as Jewish, but refuse to consider Jewish who convert to Christianity as Jewish even if they themselves as ethnically Jewish.

In the end the article deal here and treat the Jewish Americans as both ethnic and religious group. and if you want to speak about religion point view a Jewish convert to Christianity may still be categorised a Jew according to a strict interpretation of the halakhah.

It is not wikipeida job to evaluation who is a Jewish and who is not real Jewish, if we there is a specific group who practice other religion but still indefinite itselves as ethnically Jewish, It should be include. Have a nice day.--62.10.82.167 (talk) 17:22, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

So the rule here is like this, Jewish who convert to Christianity do not count as Jewish unless he is famouse Scientist or Nobel laureate, then all users will argue that the Jewish is ethnic and if you believe in Jesus as Christ does not mean you are no longer a Jew, strange selective.--62.10.82.167 (talk) 17:22, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Most of Christian churches don't consider Mormons as Christians, Yet most of Mormons do indefinite themselves as Christians, and in their article considered as Christian religious movement, Most of Muslim sects don't consider Ahmadiyya as Muslims, Yet most of Ahmadiyya do indefinite themselves as Muslims, and their article considered as Islamic religious movement, I'm not argue here that Messianic Judaism is a Jewish or Christian sect i'm just saying it could be added that the Jewish mainstream do consider Messianic Judaism to be a form of Christianity, but still the adherents of Messianic Judaism do indefinite themselves as ethnically Jewish, and they argue that the movement is a sect of Judaism.--62.10.82.167 (talk) 17:23, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

You keep repeating the same thing. It doesn't matter what you or I think. Wikipedia doesn't work by analogy to Mormonism, or by what the subjects of our articles think. It works by what reliable sources say. See WP:Verifiability. As I'm getting tired of writing, the overwhelming majority of reliable sources say that one cannot be a Jew who practices Christianity. I'm sorry if that upsets you, but it's not analogous to Buddhism (please read Jewish Buddhist) -- Christianity is its own unique case and the rules are what they are. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:00, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what you think, it doesn't matter what other think. we have reliable sources show that Messianic Judaism, argue that the movement is a sect of Judaism, and that they indefinite themselves as ethnically Jewish.

It not ture the overwhelming majority of reliable sources say that one cannot be a Jew who practices Christianity, The sources do show that Jewish organizations reject that Messianic Judaism is a jewish sect, and stating that Messianic Judaism is a Christian sect. They don't claims that Messianic Judaism adherent's are not anymore belong or part to Jewish people - ethnically- it just said that Messianic Judaism is not a Jewish sect. which very different of what you cliams. and if you want to speak about religion point view a Jewish convert to Christianity may still be categorised a Jew according to a strict interpretation of the halakhah.

Yes Christianity is an unique case, since editros consider Jewish who convert to Christianity as Jewish when he got Nobel prize and will argue for hours that Jews who convert to Christianity still a Jews, but here editor will argue diffrently hmmm. So I'm going to delet now all the Nobel prize winner who raised Christians or convert to Christianity from the article List of Jewish Nobel laureates as Adolf von Baeyer, Fritz Haber, George de Hevesy, Max Perutz, Gerty Cori, Boris Pasternak, Max Born, Wolfgang Pauli, Otto Wallach, Karl Landsteiner and Paul Greengard and other at least 20 names who been christians but they count them as Jewish at least ethnically - in differet articles -. We will see if Christianity is an unique case, and if Jew who practices Christianity cann't be Jewish.--62.10.82.167 (talk) 18:45, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

The article you mentioned contains people who are Jews or of Jewish descend; using ancestry is common in list articles about ethnic and national groups. According to the rabbinic law, converts from Judaism are still Jews, however most Jews do not practice orthodox Judaism and reject the notion of a Jew who has another religion. (In contract to other approaches to religion such as atheism, agnosticism , deism, pantheism and so on...) I think that a paragraph the states that converts may still hold a Jewish identity and viewed as Jews by other Jews is ok, but should also mention this is highly controversial and unaccepted by most Jews. Infantom (talk) 20:31, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

"but should also mention this is highly controversial and unaccepted by most Jews."

And you know this how, exactly? What is your source?2601:84:4502:61EA:6422:2845:41D2:9BF3 (talk) 23:03, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

60% of U.S. Jews say a person cannot be Jewish if he or she believes Jesus was the messiah. Infantom (talk) 02:07, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

The article here cited: American Jews, also known as Jewish Americans,[5] are American citizens who are Jews, either by religion, ethnicity or nationality.

So Jewish here also include the one who indefinite themselves as ethnically Jewish. Messianic Judaism and some other Jewish who convert to Christianiry indefinite themselves as ethnically Jewish.--62.10.82.167 (talk) 21:25, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

From the sublime to the ridiculous. Messianic Judaism IS Christianity and an attempt to convert Jews to Christianity. If you are a Messianic Jew you are a Christian. If I put a label on a bag of oranges and call them apples, they are still oranges. As for the Buddhist thing, Buddhist Jews practice the Jewish religion or are not connected. They do not practice the Buddhist religion, but follow some of its precepts towards peace, etc. They are not idol worshippers.Sposer (talk) 22:07, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Christians are not idol worshippers!! your view of Christianity is direspected and not neutral and non-academic, and have no place here in the encyclopedia, Just a quick information according to the Encyclopedia Britannica modern scholars have located Christianity in the context of monotheistic religions. So keep it for youself.

I'm not argue if Messianic Judaism IS Christianity or not, sources show that most of the Messianic Judaism are indefinite themselves as ethnically Jewish and Christian by religion (Since they converted from Judaism and raised as Jewish). It is not my work to definite Messianic Judaism as Jewish or as Christian sect, i'm not even argue about that, i'm only citing that they indefinite themselves as ethnically Jewish, the article it self definite American Jewish as religion or ethnic or nationality, more than 50% of American Jewish are Irreligion and don't bielieve i God or Torah, So as there are athiest Jewish who indefinite themselves as ethnically Jewish, there are also Jewish who convert to Christianity who indefinite themselves as ethnically Jewish (and christians by religion). You like that or not, For you these people are Jewish or not, change nothing.--62.10.82.167 (talk) 22:42, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

@Sposer: might well have been referring to buddhist "idols" Also, try reading your postings out loud to yourself, or anyone else around, just as a sort of proofreading exercise. You might be getting too excited. Or something. Carptrash (talk) 22:54, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

I was not referring to Christians as idol worshippers. I was referring to praying to Buddha. As for the Pew surveys, I find those numbers hard to believe -- as far as a belief in G-d -- but it is considered a reliable source, so be that as it may. However, that does not change any of the discussion. Yes, many Jews are not very observant -- if you follow Judaism according to Orthodox tenets, it is daunting. But there is no religion called "not observant" or "atheist". And it remains a simple fact that if you are a Christian, whether you call it Christianity or Messianic Jewish, it is not Judaism and you are not a Jew. Yes, any person that has accepted Jesus and then comes back to the fold would be considered a Jew, as their birth gives them that right. But ethnicity does not define your religion. There are plenty of Jews by choice -- converts who follow the religion. They are Jewish, but those that convert out are not. Period.Sposer (talk) 01:00, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Atheist Jews are still Jews under Halakhah, as are those who adhere to other faiths. Jewishness is not contingent on religious beliefs. While I certainly understand the fear some people have of identifying Jews in ethnic terms (as this has historically led to some very ugly behavior towards Jews), that fear doesn't make the ethnic component of Jewishness any less real.2601:84:4502:61EA:6422:2845:41D2:9BF3 (talk) 22:39, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Atheism is not a religion and does not belong in an Infobox. The number of atheist Jews is covered in the article. Those that convert out are not considered Jewish and so their religion should not be noted. It is very simple. No Jewish group would consider them Jewish. Some Orthodox, who are the most likely to say a person is Halachacally Jewish are even now saying that Jewish born Jews who identify as Jews and even keep Conservative laws are not Jews. There is certainly no way to include Moslems, Christians and Samaratins, or others as Jewish. The only method that could allow it is by ONLY identifying a Jew via DNA, and then, as I've said, there might be 100s of millions of Jews in the world.Sposer (talk) 00:59, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Are these Nobel laureates who converted to christianity or raised and baptised as christians as Boris Pasternak, Adolf von Baeyer, Otto Wallach, George de Hevesy, Fritz Haber, Max Perutz,Karl Landsteiner, Elfriede Jelinek, Otto Heinrich Warburg, Gerty Cori, Paul Greengard, Niels Bohr, Gustav Ludwig Hertz, Wolfgang Ernst Pauli, Max Born, Hans Bethe, Eugene Wigner, and John Harsanyi and etec. count as Jewish?, because editors argue that they still Jewish. Oh i forgot Jewish who convert to Christianity do not count as Jewish unless he is famouse Scientist or Nobel laureate, then all users will argue that the Jewish is ethnic and if you believe in Jesus as Christ does not mean you are no longer a Jew.--62.10.87.20 (talk) 02:22, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

If you wish to argue about the List of Jewish Nobel laureates, please stop posting about it here and start a discussion at Talk:List of Jewish Nobel laureates. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:19, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Please stop! Mr. Shabazz has already told you where to argue those pages. It is not here. I agree with you and said that previously. However, if the articles say they were born to Jewish parents, that is correct, although they should then point out they converted to another religion. I have never edited on those pages and do not intend to now. If there is an infobox, it would be incorrect to say they were Jewish. Nobody here is arguing with you about that. But, that discussion belongs elsewhere as Mr. Shabazz has repeatedly stated. And, please hold your sarcasm and keep this civil.Sposer (talk) 12:03, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Recent Jewish immigration to America

3 nationalities: French, Mexican and South African, have increasingly immigrated to the US in recent years. French Jews from France often settle in and around Miami FL, due to the pharmaceutical industry. Mexican Jews either in San Antonio TX part of the "Mexodus" to middle and upper-middle class Hispanic/Latino sections of the city and also in the Los Angeles metro area, although Mexican immigration to the US declined in the past decade. And South Africans since Apartheid ended in 1994, they either move to Florida or California, they're involved in the pharmaceutical and jewelry business trades. France is currently the largest European Jewish population (outside Russia), while Jewish (Eastern European and Israeli) immigration to Germany and the UK are known, and South Africa once the 10th largest Jewish nation in the world, not far behind Argentina, Brazil, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. Of course, Israel became the only Jewish majority nation after WW2, replaced Poland (from 3-3.5 million in 1939 to estimates from 5,000-50,000 today) as the world's highest number of Jews.

Florida is now thought to have the largest Jewish community in the US and the world outside of Israel (estimated 2 million in the state) surpassing NY state (esp NYC, between 1 to 1.5 million in the city alone) and New Jersey ranks third-NYC metro has 2.5 million. Other states known for large Jewish communities: Conn, Mass, Penn and MD in the Northeast, Chicagoland and Metro Detroit in the Midwest, and increasingly in Atlanta, Las Vegas and Phoenix. Over 1.2 million Jews live in CA (an earlier decline in the 1980s/90s reversed in the 2000s/10s), and Jewish populations are thought to have tripled since 2000 in Colo (Denver), UT, Ore, WA state (Seattle), OK and Tex. 67.49.89.214 (talk) 00:49, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Politics

In the Politics section there's a statement that "As American Jews have progressed economically over time, some commentators have wondered why Jews remain so firmly Democratic and have not shifted political allegiances to the center or right in the way other groups who have advanced economically, such as Hispanics and Arab-Americans, have." While it's true that Jews did not shift political allegiances to the right as economic advancements occurred, the "source" for "some commentators" is one commentator and it's not an article that explains the factors related to this. It's an advocacy piece written in a biased way that questions why Jews stick with the "Democrat Party." In order for that statement to be justifiable, it should have legitimate sources that address "some commentators" discussing the factors related to this rather than the opinion of one person that Jews shouldn't be firmly "Democrat." I suggest that somebody find legitimate citations, since it is a real issue, but in their absence the statement doesn't belong. Hagrinas (talk) 20:25, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on American Jews. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091123122848/http://www.thearda.com/QuickLists/QuickList_195c.asp to http://www.thearda.com/QuickLists/QuickList_195c.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:48, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Felix Frankfurter interviewed Jan Karski

Frankfurter, who worked for FDR, was sceptical.Xx236 (talk) 07:51, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

I give up. What does this comment have to do with improving this article? - SummerPhD^v2.0 03:24, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

American Jewish communities (often urban/metro areas)

Areas other than New York City-Long Island-Westchester (NY), Newark-Jersey City-Patterson (NJ) and Stamford-Norwalk-Greenwich (CT). They have populations of American Jews over 100,000 (Miami-Fort Lauderdale-West Palm Beach, Phoenix and Las Vegas are mainly winter or seasonal residents). The 14 or 15 areas are Miami, Boston, Los Angeles, Philadelphia, Cincinnati, Houston, Chicago, Cleveland, Baltimore-Washington, D.C.,, San Francisco, Detroit, Atlanta (200,000) and Denver (sizable communities in urban counties in Colorado). Maybe included on the list are Phoenix, Arizona and Las Vegas, Nevada. 67.49.89.214 (talk) 20:02, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia is supposed to be based on information published by reliable sources. As I explained in my edit summaries, the long list in the opening section of metropolitan areas with large concentrations of American Jews had no sources and conflicted with information elsewhere in the article (American Jews#Significant Jewish population centers). I changed the opening section to match the body of the article. If you have a reliable source with an updated list of metropolitan areas, please provide a link so we can cite it in the article. Thank you. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:06, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

The article finds Dallas-Fort Worth, Texas metro area should be among the areas on the list, as the states of Texas, Oklahoma, New Mexico and Utah are the nation's fastest growing Jewish populations since the 1980s. There is Jewish history in places like Louisville, Kentucky (the Little Haifa section in southeast downtown), Nashville, Tennessee, New Orleans, Louisiana and St. Louis, Missouri. Varied in the seasons, Florida (650,000-2.5 million) itself should have more American Jews than New York State (1.8-2.5 million or 9-11% of state population) And seasonal migrations of American Jews means Minnesota, Wisconsin, Oregon and the Seattle-Tacoma, Washington metro area should have communities, esp. in the summer months, while many spend the winter in beaches of South Texas (South Padre Island), the US Gulf Coast, the Coachella Valley in California (known for resort towns Palm Springs and Palm Desert) and Tucson, Arizona. 67.49.89.214 (talk) 16:23, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

What article are you referring to? If you wish to change this Wikipedia article, please provide a reliable source that supports your proposed changes. Thank you. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 17:24, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on American Jews. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0%2C9171%2C788721%2C00.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.mla.org/census_data_results%26state_id%3D36%26place_id%3D39853
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.oecd.org/document/51/0%2C3343%2Cen_2825_494553_34063091_1_1_1_1%2C00.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071220000000/http://www.hillel.org/about/news/2006/feb/20060216_top.htm to http://www.hillel.org/about/news/2006/feb/20060216_top.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050203175928/http://jbuff.com/c021501.htm to http://www.jbuff.com/c021501.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:42, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Congress says Jews are Asians in 1910? Not.

We have one anonymous editor who claims Congress in 1910 said all Jews are Asiatics: In 1910, Congress approved a bill that classified Armenians, Assyrians, and Jews as Asiatics No history book listed in our bibliography makes mention of any such dramatic ruling. That's because it is a misreading of a primary source and has no support whatever from any reliable secondary source. Lots of Jews in 1910 lived in the Middle East and Congress said they were NOT to be treated like Asiatics. Likewise Armenians. Rjensen (talk) 08:58, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

"And Mongolians, Malays, and other Asiatics, except Armenians, Assyrians, and Jews, shall not be naturalized in the United States." ( Now-deleted source, p.321 of the scan.) Jews cannot be listed as exceptions from "other Asiatics" in this manner without being considered Asiatic by the document; that is a simple truism of the English language. It is factually correct to say that the document from Congress in 1910 considers them to be Asiatic or words to that effect; whether Congress's view is true or not (Edit for clarification: or for that matter, which organisation's Congress this was), or to the liking of the mentioned groups or not, doesn't change the fact that the document states it. Certainly, if you have as you say reliable secondary sources to suggest that Jews and Armenians contested being identified as Asiatic at the time (and I can imagine that occurring), do add it - presenting nuances based on conflicting sources pertaining to the same event is ideal - but it's best practice not to delete relevant, cited information, especially based on framing assumptions that have no such sources cited, primary or secondary. Benjitheijneb (talk) 00:54, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

the source = anonymous newsletter of the Asiatic Exclusion League 1910 is a white supremacy hate group that in 1910 worked to exclude all Chinese, Japanese, Koreans etc. Trusting it for laws of Congress does not meet Wiki's reliable sources criteria. No reliable secondary sources supports its strange claims. Rjensen (talk) 02:00, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

see WP:RS Wiki only uses RELIABLE sources. Wiki rule WP:QUESTIONABLE states: Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, that are promotional in nature, or that rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Questionable sources are generally unsuitable for citing contentious claims about third parties, which includes claims against institutions, persons living or dead, as well as more ill-defined entities. The proper uses of a questionable source are very limited. an anonymous newsletter from a white supremacy hate group hits all the warning signs when dealing with Jews (= "third party" in the wiki rule) Rjensen (talk) 02:28, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

I added some more sources and revised the text, per the above request. If there is a problem with the existing version, please add more sources or revise the text. Don't just wipe the entire thing clean, because that makes it impossible for anyone interested in this topic to find anything.2601:84:4502:61EA:456F:E528:DD7:CF11 (talk) 02:22, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

For more than 50 years, the United States does not identify its citizens by race by law; they self-identify. As my recent addition shows, the overwhelming majority of American Jews identify themselves as white. A century ago, when "mongoloid" and "negroid" were considered terms of science, it was a different story. But today, when American Jews can identify themselves however they'd like, they choose (for obvious reasons) to identify with the ruling caste. That's the end of the story. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:05, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Not that I don't agree with your point, but I think ,"That's the end of the story" is a pretty dicy claim since any one in the world can keep the story going. In any case I have added the phrase to my list of phrase that mean "in my opinion." Carptrash (talk) 04:10, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Malik Shabazz is quite right. 2601 gets it all wrong -- he falsely states "in 1907, the United States Immigration Commission fought to implement immigration quotas on Jews" No one says that because it's not true. Furthermore 2601 mistakenly thinks there was a law passed by Congress that defines Jews as "Asiatics"--that's the kind of howler one commits when one relies on an anonymous 1910 newsletter from a white nationalist hate group for information. 2601 has been looking but has failed to find a single reliable secondary source that supports his position. His new "sources" say the opposite--the Silver book says Jewish leaders in early 20c strongly believed that Jews were white. That's because he started out with bad information from an unreliable source in the first place. Rjensen (talk) 04:13, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

"No one says that because it's not true." The source I provided, which came directly from the group that tried to implement this policy, says otherwise. I'll deal with the rest later.2601:84:4502:61EA:456F:E528:DD7:CF11 (talk) 07:12, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

The cite quotes a proposed law that did not pass. It's not found in any law book. The US Supreme Court in 1923 said that section 2169 of the Revised Statutes had not been changed since 1875. U.S. v. BHAGAT SINGH THIND, (1923) http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/261/204.html the 1875 law "Section 2169, Revised Statutes (Comp. St. 4358), provides that the provisions of the Naturalization Act 'shall apply to aliens being free white persons and to aliens of af African nativity and to persons of African descent.'" "The succeeding years [after 1790] brought immigrants from Eastern, Southern and Middle Europe, among them the Slavs and the dark-eyed, swarthy people of Alpine and Mediterranean stock, and these were received as unquestionably akin to those already here and readily amalgamated with them. It was the descendants of these, and other immigrants of like origin, who constituted the white population of the country when section 2169, re-enacting the naturalization test of 1790, was adopted, and, there is no reason to doubt, with like intent and meaning." and " When this act was under consideration by Congress efforts were made to strike out the words quoted ["free white persons"], and it was insisted upon the one hand and conceded upon the other, that the effect of their retention was to exclude Asiatics generally from citizenship.' Rjensen (talk) 14:29, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

I re-added one of the deleted RS and put in an expansion template.The Human Trumpet Solo (talk) 23:00, 28 August 2017 (UTC)