Talk:American Jews

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

--hay 12:40, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

↓    Skip to table of contents    ↓

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the American Jews article.
Article policies
Archives: 1
Zuni girl; photograph by Edward S. Curtis, 1903 This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Ethnic groups, a WikiProject interested in improving the encyclopaedic coverage and content of articles relating to ethnic groups, nationalities, and other cultural identities. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by the project page and/or leave a query at the project's talk page.
NB: Assessment ratings and other indicators given below are used by the Project in prioritizing and managing its workload.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
High This article has been rated as high-importance on the Project's importance scale.
After rating the article, please provide a short summary on the article's ratings summary page to explain your ratings and/or identify the strengths and weaknesses.
WikiProject Ethnic groups open tasks:
Archive
Archives
1


Contents

[edit] Political Affiliation

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

--87.171.120.135 17:58, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Largest Jewish Population in the world

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

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

Well, it's quite likely that the US does have more people who are halakhically Jewish than does Israel, but the vast majority who aren't counted in the guesstimates for the US Jewish population, don't really care whether they're counted or not, whether they're Jewish or not, what country has the most Jews, etc...while in Israel, politically and religiously, it's a really big deal to know which country has the most Jews, when Israel reaches/d that point, and even more importantly, when Israel will become home to over ½ the world's Jews. Tomertalk 17:12, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Might be "Likely" but that doesn't mean it is true. There is a large percentage of people in the US who do care "whether they're Jewish or not, what country has the most Jews, etc..." who Al Pi Halcha are not jewish.. I think things balance out.

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

Is there a reliable source that can be used for these statistics? -- Dcflyer 19:30, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Probably not because there is no agreed on definition of who is jewish. --yisraeldov 14:46, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
If you use "halakha" as a criterion it will be very confusing. There must be lots of people who are halkhaically Jewish but are intermarried, but can count matrilineal Jewish descent back a generation or two. I had a former neighbor two doors down, whose mother's mother was Jewish, but converted to Presbyterian as a young woman when she married a Protestant. My neighbor laughed when told that according to Jewish law he was considered a Jew since his maternal grandmother was from a Russian Jewish family. Moreover, he didn't care! There may be hundreds of thousands of people like him in the US. However, when the National Jewish Population Survey does its poll, many respondents who are not halakhically Jewish may answer in the affirmative that they are Jewish. This may include converts who were not converted halakhically, people who adhere to the Reform movements acceptance of patrilineal descent or non-Jews who simply "identify" with Judaism and "self-declare" themselves as Jewish, in the same way that many white people have started to call themselves Indian because they think they may have some Cherokee ancestor somewhere in their gene pool.ShmorgelBorgel 21:53, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

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

If they use roles in "Jewish" congregations then the numbers will be skewed. Many congregations allow non-jewish members, and there are also missionary orginizations that classify themselves as jewish when they arent.
The U.S. Census has quite purposefully never asked about religion. This has to do with the spirit behind the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.--Pharos 07:48, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Most countries, plus ones with the freedom of religion can ask a person's religious background. But there's international laws that state this kind of demographic data is dangerous, violates some people's privacy and has no necessary motive in the political function of any country. The U.S. Census does not keep historic census files on religious membership, as much they don't on political affiliation and sexual orientation under legal and ethical grounds. Most demographers may look at religion as a social and cultural phenomenon, but won't care less on if he/she is Jewish, Muslim, Catholic, Buddhist, Baptist or Atheist. That's not what matters, but the numbers in growth or decline may have demographic implications for society and any "new religion" may bring forth cultural change in America. --Mike D 26 08:39, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


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

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

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

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

Where is this "Wikipedia norm" written down? The first sentence must conform with the title, and American Jew is more common than Jewish American. SlimVirgin (talk) 14:32, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
In line with what norm? Do not revert again until you show me which norm you're talking about. SlimVirgin (talk) 14:41, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


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

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

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

You are confusing country or continent of origin with ethnicity. Jayjg (talk) 01:08, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Not at all -- ethnicity IS still often tied up with national origin, but this is not often the same with Jews because they have failed to ethnically assimilate in whatever societies they have lived in. For instance, Albert Einstein was a German Jew (he was a citizen of Germany that was not an 'ethnic German' but was ethnically Jewish) that eventually became a Swiss citizen and later an American citizen (and almost an Israeli) -- this would have made him a Jewish-German-Swiss-American. Jewish regards his ethnicity; German and Swiss refers to his national origin(s); and American refers to his eventual national origin. For a Gentile it is much simpler; for instance, the German scientist Wernher von Braun was born in Germany; thus, in the modern world, his ethnicity AND national origin (nationality) are regarded as simply German. Von Braun's nationality later changed to "German-American" when he went to the U.S., but his ethnicity (German) did not. --172.162.34.129 00:10, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
What's your user name? SlimVirgin (talk) 15:24, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
"American Jews" gets almost 900,000 Google hits; "Jewish Americans" gets only 220,000. The former is 4 times as common as the latter, and Wikipedia uses the common term. Jayjg (talk) 01:07, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
WRONG -- "American Jew" only gets 265,000, while "Jewish American" gets 833,000, about 3.5 times that amount; what a difference an 's' makes. Change the page; you and Slim Virgin are WRONG and you both know it. --172.132.53.161 02:41, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
You are either totally clueless or this was a simple and honest mistake -- you are forgetting about the 'S' at the end of the phrases!
For instance, if you search for "American JewS" (with the S) you do indeed get around 900,000 hits on Google. But if you search for "American Jew" (sans the S) you only get 263,000. However, if you search for "Jewish American" (sans the S) you get about 980,000 hits, which is more than your 900,000. Searching for "Jewish AmericanS" (with the S) you get about 225,000, as you say. So there is no "4 times as common" like you claim when you take in to account the singular PLUS the plural, both of which surely deserve to be counted.
Thus, according to your (flawed) 'Google formula,' if you add up both singular and plural versions, the "Jewish American" duo (singular + plural) has more hits than your "American Jew" duo (singular + plural). Plus, many of the sites that use the "American Jew" duo are highly unofficial and entirely colloquial (many of them are antisemitic as well, since 'Jew' rather than 'Jewish' is more common usage amongst antisemites). The most common, official, academic, and prominent sources almost always use "Jewish Americans" (or "Jewish American") rather than "American Jews" (or "American Jew"). Plus, these search results numbers are constantly fluctuating, they change day to day; but when you add it up, if you are counting both singular and plural versions of the phrase "Jewish American," it has more search results and is the more official usage.
Also, no one can tell me, if "American Jews" is indeed more proper than "Jewish Americans," why do we have "Category:Jewish Americans" rather than "Category:American Jews," and why are virtually all of the lists located at Lists of American Jews (formerly List of Jewish Americans) entitled "List of Jewish American WHATEVER," not "List of American Jewish WHATEVER"? Also, shouldn't this article's title be streamlined with all of the other ethnic/national groups found all over Wikipedia as mentioned above? This is my main reason for asking for the change to be implemented. --172.162.34.129 00:10, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

We have moved on. The last comment before yours was four months ago. --DLandTALK 03:20, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
I have never heard the term "American Jew" used anywhere besides on Wikipedia. However, to me, the term "American Jew" implies an American who is also a Jew, and I find that much better than Jewish American, which to me implies being Jewish is more important than being American. American Jew also implies non-ethnicity, despite the nonsensical decisions throughout Wikipedia to call Jews an ethnic group (I realize that the ethnic Jew is not an uncommon thing elsewhere too, but I am allowed to express my opinion, as there is no global consensus on ethnicity, or even who is a Jew, except by people who really know and care -- and that is a religious definition). A Jew, IMO, is a Jew by religious law only. Anything else is baloney. This include converts, etc. As for the idea of people born Jewish are always Jewish, that is bogus as well. You are Jewish if you are halachically Jewish and have not converted to another religion. A person whose mother's mother was Jewish, and is a practicing Catholic is not Jewish. Madeline Albright is not Jewish, for example, even though she is Jewish by birth. Nancy Lieberman is not Jewish, as she has converted. Calling Jews an ethnic group is as valid as calling George Bush a Liberal Democrat.Sposer (talk) 01:20, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
The State of Israel would beg to differ.--Loodog (talk) 01:35, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, but Israel's Law of Return is not fully halachic either. It permits spouses of Jews in too. The Israeli law does not limit return to Jews. It also allows Jews converted - out of Israel - by Reform Rabbis I believe (although that is in flux I thought -- I am not really up on this), although few Jews accept Reform conversions as valid, outside other Reform Jews (many Conservative Jews I know would only convert via an Orthodox Rabbi as well). I understand the reasoning for the law, but that is not meaningful to this discussion. I am discussing my opinion here, and this is probably not the right platform. I am not even arguing for changes. I consider myself an American, period. My religion is Jewish. If I have an ethnic group, it is historically Eastern European ,although I'd rather say I am ethnically Brooklyn or American :-). It is not Jewish. No Orthodox Rabbi would marry a born or converted Jew to another Jew who professes to observe Christianity, unless that person agreed to return to following Jewish laws and was non-messianic (i.e., Jesus was not the Messiah and not the son of G-d as there is no such thing as a Jew who accepts Jesus in any role other than a great man). However, there would be no need for a conversion back to Judiasm, since he/she would merely need to state the desire to return to his (converted or by birth) faith.Sposer (talk) 21:48, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
It gets fuzzy. If you're Ashkenzi (I'm guessing you are) then you have a set of genetic markers in common with all other Ashkenzi Jews, sufficient enough to call it your ethnic group. I've never considered myself Polish or German, even though my ancestors lived there, since they were only there for a few generations and weren't native to there.--Loodog (talk) 22:18, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jewish-American organized crime

Please take a look at Jewish-American organized crime. The problem with the title is that it is ambiguous, it appears to link Jewish Americans with the notion of "organized crime" implying guilt by association. I tried changing it to American Jews and organized crime (perhaps someone can come up with a bettter title) but I was reverted, see Talk:Jewish-American organized crime#Recent page move. (Similarly, African-American organized crime could be changed to African Americans and organized crime or some other more neutral heading.) Only three articles in Category:Organized crime groups have this kind of "title": African-American organized crime; Greek-American organized crime and Jewish-American organized crime. So will there be 134 articles in the future about "Foo organized crime" for all 134 categories in Category:American people by ethnic or national origin and indeed for every class of human on Earth without hypocrisy??? Note how there is no article for Italian American organized crime as it's simply and correctly called Mafia. African Americans and Jewish Americans are not connected with organized crime as "representatives" or "symbols" of their race or religion. Every group has its criminals. So what else is new. Sure there are "gangs" just as there are Category:Mafia gangs in Category:Mafia groups (and by the way, if there are such African American or Jewish American gangs or groups then name them, but let's not leave it as if "guilt" is being laid at the door of all African Americans or Jewish Americans etc), but the titles African-American organized crime or Jewish-American organized crime makes it sound, way, way bigger than it is in reality, and could easily slip into racism and antisemitism if not handled in a scrupulously WP:NPOV manner 100% of the time! The job of Wikipedia should not be to magnify the problem which is called POV editing, but to depict things accurately as they are. Please add your views. Thank you, IZAK 00:54, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

There is no problem as I see it because "Jewish-American" is the preferred term. Also, I'd like to ask: according to you, does "[handling articles] in a scrupulously WP:NPOV manner 100% of the time" include placing the pic of a random public execution at the VERY TOP of the Taliban article? --Wassermann 12:37, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
The Taliban are no friends of the Jews or of Americans, they are bloodthirsty killers no different to the Nazis. Indeed they are Islamofascists and you should be ashamed to bring up such a horrid subject here. Jews have been the victims of such terrors in history and I would support putting up as many pictures of Jews being killed to show the cruelty that has been inflicted upon them by antisemtic tyrants and groups. IZAK 04:10, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

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

OK -- I don't understand why this is an issue, unless you all figure that this article deserves some sort-of 'special exception' to Wikipedia's rules of article naming and precedent. If so inclined, click: French Jews, German Jews, Russian Jews, and so forth on in to perpetuity. ALL of these names REDIRECT to the "History of the Jews in [country]" articles, i.e. they DO NOT have their own special article on this topic (even though, for whatever reason, THIS page on "Jews and Judaism in the United States" IS indeed a separate entity from the "History of the Jews in the United States" page, not to mention separate from the Lists of American Jews [also wrong titled, differs from category name], and separate from Category:Jewish Americans [correct category name]). DO YOU ALL NOW SEE WHAT A COMPLETE AND UTTER MESS YOU HAVE MADE OF THESE JEWS AND JUDAISM RELATED AMERICAN ARTICLES AND CATEGORIES because of all of the wayward and entirely unneeded article/category moves and counter-moves, renames and counter-renames? I merely seek to fix (standardize) all of this, nothing more. Please help me to do this, and please stop engaging in these senseless/childish edit wars and continuing to revert and/or disregard my good moves and valid information.

There are many article/category naming irregularities still out there (found in Judaism by country [maybe we start there?] such as Italian Jews, but I'm about to fix that), but we need to stick to ONE naming scheme for ALL Jewish articles, and so far the category naming scheme "Jews and Judaism in [country]" (as opposed to "History of the Jews in [country]") is the most widespread and used, thus it can be regarded as a precedent (or is one used for the category, one for the actual article?). The confusing part is that, like I just hinted at, in some cases we have "History of the Jews in [country]" pages, along with "Jews and Judaism in [country]" pages (plus tons of categories with same name, which User:IZAK has been standardizing to some extent), along with the list articles like List of German Jews, List of British Jews, and so forth. So, maybe we need to start a discussion and approve a policy of article name STANDARDIZATION and PRECEDENT than can be followed in the future as they relate to ALL of these disparate yet related pages (Jews/Judaism in [country], History of Jews in [country], List of [national] Jews, all related to the standard category naming scheme "Jews and Judaism in [country]"). Per User:IZAK's recent moves involving the Swiss and Norwegian Jew articles I thought that this was and has been the accepted norm/precedent, but now I am being reverted for moving this article to its similar name, yet of course no one objects to IZAK's moves at all. If I am doing something wrong here, by all means please let me know -- however, I am just trying to improve the overall naming and organizational scheme of this article and indeed all of the Category:Jews and Judaism by country (Judaism by country) articles/categories as a whole.

Also...Jayjg, why do you keep reverting the List of Jewish Americans to List of American Jews even though ALL of the actual lists found in that master list are still named "List of Jewish American [profession]" as they should be, a hold-over from the olden days when these article/category names weren't in such a state of disorganization and disarray?

So, lets figure this out... --Wassermann 08:02, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Wasserman: As I pointed out to you on my talk page you are treading into a very complex area and will cause explosions if you create chaos without first consulting and waiting for responses from experienced editors. Yes, there are different ways that articles link up, but that is a result of different editors writing from different perspectives and, for example, redirects are there because an article has not been written yet for that topic so it redirects to another realted. At this point, it is important for me to post here what I stated to you on my talk page recently so that others can understand as well: You have waded into potential controversy and I am not obligated to back you up, as I will explain: There is no over-all consensus on Wikipedia about how all articles about Jews and Judaism should be named. The cases you point out where I created "Jews and Judaism in ____" articles were examples of relatively small articles that essentially had little information (such as writing about the Jews of Norway or smaller countries with a handful of Jews in them) and were of an inclusive nature that could survive such a name, but I have tended to avoid messing with long-established articles about countries with huge Jewish populations at present, such as the USA, the UK, Russia, France and Israel, where other editors have used a certain naming format, and which I have been reluctant to tamper with because it may be part of other articles they have written. Another reason you should avoid messing with well-established articles is that there are essentially three VALID ways of dealing with the topic of "Jews" and "Judaism" based on three major approaches outlined in three key articles that explain these key differences:
  1. Using the Jew article as a criterion, articles and lists about Jews mostly as an ethnicity, more or less lead to Category:Jews.
  2. Using the Judaism article as a criterion, articles and lists about Judaism mainly as a religion, more or less lead to Category:Judaism.
  3. Using the Jewish history article as a criterion, articles and lists that focus mostly on the Jewish history (and politics) aspects of countries or groups, more or less leads to Category:Jewish history.
  • Many editors have written articles based on Jewish history but call it "Judaism", while others write articles about the religious practices of Jews in countries and call it "Jewish history" so it can get confusing because so far not every single article has been sorted out and it would be a very tough job to do so. I have been at it for four years and it's not easy, especially as new articles get added and new editors come along and decide to shuffle articles and categories around as you seem intent in doing for unclear reasons. The purpose Category:Jews and Judaism is to serve as a parent category for Category:Jews (based PRIMARILY on ethnicity, as per the Jew article) and Category:Judaism (based PRIMARILY on religion, as per the Judaism article) but it is not meant to serve as a "guideline" to make all articles into "Jews and Judaism in ____" only, on the contrary, the ideal would be for there to be enough information to add to articles about Jews (with emphasis on Jewish history topics for example) and Judaism (with emphasis on religious aspects of Jewish life) as distinct topics, each showing how they are connected yet different subject, and thus creating separate articles about Jews vis a vis Judaism. Thus one can just as easily and correctly create Jews in the United States as well as Judaism in the United States -- which is not what you did. When dealing with a huge article I would suggest getting input on that article' s talk page first, or getting some advice from other more experienced editors at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism where I would be happy to share my experience and knowledge about this subject rather than being handed "ultimatums" from you that I should "back you up" when it seems your intention is to be controversial and cause havoc rather than work in a direction that will help, strengthen, beautify, enhance and magnify all articles relating to Jews and Judaism on Wikipedia. Finally, I have reverted your move because the American Jews article is part of Category:American people by ethnic or national origin and it approaches the subject of American Jews that way, so here again is yet another criterion by which this topic can be handled in terms of ethnicity. Indeed, if you would have bothered to look at the talk page you would see the {{Ethnic groups}} at the top of the page, and when talking of ETHNICITY which is what "Jew" is mainly about, one does not refer to "Judaism" (the religion)! That's why you have to be careful when considering making any serious changes to very important articles. IZAK 08:59, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
I will "cause explosions [and] create chaos" if I try to improve Wikipedia? WOW, I guess that I am fairly hated around here, huh? Seems like I'm more welcome in Saudi Arabia than on Wikipedia at this point, even if they don't take too kindly to the Yehudi over there... --Wassermann 11:00, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
To begin with, it is false to claim that the standard for article names is "Jews and Judaism in x", since, as far as I can tell, not one article uses that naming convention. Second, the now long-gone Goodoldpolonious2 unilaterally moved all of these kinds of articles to the incredibly awkward "History of Jews in X" naming scheme a long time ago, rather than the shorter and clearer "X Jews" naming scheme, and then vigorously defended it. Third, as you point out, many of these articles are not about History anyway - the clearer "x Jews" naming scheme gets around that issue. Fourth, I've fixed your unilateral move of Italian Jews. Fifth, the clearer and shorter naming scheme should extend to the other lists, such as List of American Jews - it is unclear why you insist on moving it to "List of Jewish Americans", when most or perhaps all other Jews lists that follow this more sensible scheme (e.g. List of British Jews, List of German Jews, List of French Jews). Jayjg (talk) 13:00, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ethnic Jews OR who have converted to Judaism

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

[edit] Deletion proposal

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

[edit] cities of jewish population

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

[edit] objection to Bob Dylan as picture

As much as i understand that he = very famous person and that If your born Jewish you are Jewish the rest of your life but he did convert out of Judaism and that sets a tone of assimilation for the article and that is a negative message for Judaism. Could i suggest that may be we should change it to a popular jew who hasnt assimilated. I suggest Greenspan because of his impact to America. But if we want to go for a more fun or popular person use someone from hollywood or try sienfeld. Its just that Bob Dylan made a definate choice to be Christian and leave Judaism it seems dumb to go and put him as the face of Jewish life in America. --Eshay 12:40, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

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


[edit] Re-write of #International affairs

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

[edit] Headline text

[edit] New Image people selection

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

[edit] Religion box

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

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

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

A quick search yielded several ethno religious groups whose info box have atheist or irreligion on them including Turkish People and Persians whose populations certainly do not consist of having 30-40% of declaring that there is no God or that there may not be a god. I am still baffled as to what constitutes "common practice?" Scythian1 (talk) 00:36, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Turkey and Persia (Iran) are nations and may represent an ethnic group. Judiasm is a religion and not an ethnic group. There are Turkish Jews, Persian Jews, Syrian Jews, European Jews, Chinese Jews, etc. Any argument that points to ethnicity as a reason for mentioning atheism is illogical. If there is that info in Judiasm's equivalents:Christianity, Islam, etc, then it makes sense, otherwise, it should be struck. As for the 20% being atheist, there are few people that have not at one time or another questioned the existence of G-d, but growing up in the NY area, I can tell you that 20% is orders of magnitude too high. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sposer (talk • contribs) 18:41, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Jews include people who practice Judaism and people who are of Jewish ancestry (i.e., ethnic Jews) (see Jew and Who is a Jew?). If large numbers of Jews are atheists and if atheism is appropriate for the infobox (a position on which I offer no opinion), then it would be appropriate to include Jewish atheists, just as atheists are included for Romanians. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 19:56, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Then Christians are an ethnic group too, by that logic since many are Christian by ancestry. The ethnic Jew is a figment of many misguided people's imaginations. Sposer (talk) 22:09, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Christianity isn't something that one inherits from one's mother, is it? Judaism is. That's one of the reasons Jews are considered an ethnic group as well as a religious group. I've given you links to some of the relevant articles. I'm not interested in debating the issue with you. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 00:50, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
It's pathetic how often this debate is resurrected...--Loodog (talk) 00:56, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Last I looked, Christians consider anybody converted into the religion Christian, but also consider anybody born into the religion Christian. Islam I believe as well. The "ethnic" Jew was invented by anti-Semites. A person born to a Jewish mother is Jewish, unless he or she converts to another religion. Then, they are no longer Jewish, unless they choose to return to the religion. Jews are not a distinct ethnic group. It is pathetic that people do not understand the difference. Sposer (talk) 14:42, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I'll bite. Christianity and Judaism are not commensurate examples. If you look at the history of Judaism and how Judaism was spread, the initial population was contained inside a very small geographic area, and as this group of people dispersed thorough the world, there was, until very recently, very little miscegenation with the local people, and so this lead to ethnic Jewish groups such as Ashkenazi, which have certifiably distinct genetic markers (like for example a higher propensity for Alzheimer's. Christianity first mass proliferated under the Roman empire, a very heterogenous set of groups spanning thousands of miles, and the religion spread almost exclusively through proselytization.--Loodog (talk) 15:45, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
There are certainly common markers among the Ashkenazi Jews, but thanks to the friendly rapes of their hosts, there is plenty of mixing there as well. You can possibly make an argument for ethnically Polish Jews and ethnically Russian Jews, but they are not the same people. Nor are the German and Lithuanian Jews. There is certainly a commonality, but not total. Their cultures are quite different too, taking on much of the cultures of the host nations. And the Sephardic Jews are closer genetically to Arabs and Persians than they are to the Ashkenazi Jews. It is reasonable to argue that Jews are part of multiple ethnic groups, but the commonality is religion, which does not make you and ethnic group. There have been Chinese Jews for a millenia, albeit few. There are the Falasha Negro (sp?) Jews of Ethiopia. The argument for Jews being an ethnic group given above is because it is passed on maternally. Jews have not historically proselytized, but through intermarriage over a period of 5,000 years, they are very far from a single ethnic group or culture. Iranian Jews are not Arabs (nor are Iranians), and they are not the same as those that have been in Israel for the last few thousand years, as the Israelis are closer to being Arab, so even among the Sephardic Jews there is some diversity. And the formerly Spanish Jews -- who moved to the Netherlands around the time of the Inquisition -- and are Spehardic -- are certainly not ethnically within light-years of the other Middle Eastern Sephardic Jews. An Ashkenazi Jew would barely recognize a Sepharic synagogue, or Sephardic customs and diets. They even have some different laws about what can be eaten and when.
It is probably reasonable to argue that the Sephardic Jews make up a 2-3 different ethnic groups and that the Ashkenazim make up another few. And now, through intermarriage, and a growing number of conversions into (and out of) the religion, Jews do not even remotely resemble an ethnic group. This idea fails on all counts. That said, I am not going to bother reverting. If the editors here want to remain blind, and put patently incorrect information in this article, I don't have the time to fight a losing battle, which from the comment from yesterday, has obviously been fought before and already won by the wrong group. Sposer (talk) 00:57, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Related ethnic groups

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