Talk:American Jews/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Archive 1 Archive 2 →

Contents

"American Jews" or "Jewish Americans?"

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

Consistency would lead one to favor "Jewish Americans" as that is parallel with other types of ethnic identity in the US: Asian American, African American, Polish America, European American. Also, this usage makes "Jewish" an adjective modifying the noun "American," which is thereby presented as the main identity. An article that focused on the Jewish diaspora might, on the other hand, use "American Jews" since the focus would be on Judaism with national identity being an adjectival add-on.
One thing, though, is that the term "Jewish American" is much less common than the other ethnic terms mentioned in the previous paragraph, even less common than "European American." People usually just say, and write, "Jew" or "Jewish," with the "American" part being unstated and understood. However, given that Wikipedia is neither a conversation nor a formal piece of writing whose intended audience is exclusively American, it makes sense to be consistent and use the rather artifical term "Jewish American." Interlingua 16:20, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
I don't object to the term "Jewish American", then to reverse the term to "American Jewish" would make some people content on the issue. They are American citizens, born or raised in the U.S. and you can include those who immigrated here. However, if you want to discuss Jews or Jewish people in America, the term "American Jews" is an excellent choice on the article. --Mike D 26 09:34, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
American Jews connotes: when thinking about Jews in the world, these are the ones you will find in the United States. (c.f. American Muslims, American Poles)
Jewish Americans connotes: when thinking about how to partition Americans, these are the Jewish ones (c.f. Italian Americans, Irish Americans)
The first feels more like a religious or ethnicity designation. The second is more of an origins classification.--Loodog 15:53, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
I identify as an "American Jew"; here is one discussion of the matter of the best way to refer to Jews in the US-- http://www.slate.com/id/1005862/ Songflower 23:10, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Proper Characterisation of Haredi end of the spectrum

Without getting into a revert war, I'd like to replace "extremely religious" as being a loaded, POV term. Ttownfeen's point in reverting from my "extremely zealous" edit is well taken -- it is somewhat loaded -- but to characterise the Haredim as the most religious Jews simply because they have the most restrictive take on proper Jewish behaviour seems unconscionable POV. What would be a fair term to use? "Extremely Orthodox" seems prejudiced against a Modern Orthodox perspective (which is why "Haredi" is to be preferred to "Ultra-Orthodox"). In the absence of a consensus on the issue, I'm just going to delete "extremely religious" as I think it's prejudice outweighs its informative value. Savant1984 06:40, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Please don't take my feelings or ego into account. I know next to nothing about the various sects of Judaism (which is why I was perusing articles on Judaism and the Jewish race/people/nation/err...thing). I just thought the word "zealous" gave the connotation that the group in question's religious conservatism was a negative thing. So, what about using the word "conservative"? Ttownfeen 22:37, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
No problem Ttownfeen, and I'd be happy to talk about Judaism/Israel with you. :) There're two problems with "extremely conservative" as I see it, though: 1) "Conservative" is also the name of a non-Orthodox Jewish movement. 2) Haredi Judaism is arguably reactionary in its approach to Jewish law and observance, and some groups (especially among the Chasidim) are radical philosophically. Nevertheless, it seems to me that there IS a spectrum on which the Haredim are at one end and Secular Jews at another, and that it's appropriate for the beginning of this article to note that. I just can't figure out an NPOV term. Savant1984 23:17, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Jews as an ethnic group

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

That's fine. But I believe that technically, they're not, unless you say that ethnicity has nothing to do with race. I have only reverted 2 or 3 times anyway. Marcus2 21:45, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
What do you mean by "race", and why do you believe they are not? Jayjg (talk) 21:51, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
"Ethnicity" almost sounds like "race" to me. Race is a term that distinguishes whites from blacks and Asians. See Talk:Jew for my response to your second question. Marcus2 21:55, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I would say that race is a generally discredited concept that mainly reflects 19th century anthropological thinking, and was presumed to have a genetic basis that has now been largely disproved. Ethnicity involves identity, and while Jewish Americans may not constitute an ethnic group in the narrowest sense of the term, they fit it every bit as much as Italian Americans (who include people from Milan as well as Sicily), and far better than Chinese Americans (who include, for example, Hukka who have no particular biological relation to most other Chinese). -- Jmabel | Talk 21:56, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)
"Race" is an outdated 19th century construct; see the discussion at Talk:Jew. Jayjg (talk) 00:08, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

Judiasim is a nationality, With a national religion ( and a language, and a land ). Just like people can apply for citizenship in the US a convert requests Citizenship in the jewish nation. --yisraeldov 14:50, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
To say Jews are a "race" or ethnicity is controversial, but be in mind the Jewish people constitute a religion that one can convert or withdraw from. Also to point out American Jews are of multiple ethnic and national origins, as well a small portion of non-Jews have a Jewish ancestor. For one to identity as being Jewish has to do with personal bonds to Judaism or their background. American Jews have been widely accepted, has enjoyed a high degree of integration and freedom of religion has provided them with safety and security than most parts of the world. However, the forces of assimilation has impacted Jewish identity when it comes in contact with the larger mainstream culture. But, an American Jew can preserve and practice the main core of the Jewish religion that won't interfere with their sense of being a part of American society. This is an example of diversity and multi-culturalism in America, where one is free to decide his ethnic heritage and religious observance. The "race" issue of whether Jews after thousands of years as a separate entity is not pity, but there is a range of some inter-marriage and waves of conversion to Christianity in the case of Spanish Conversos in the 1400s. Today, the majority of American Jews have a non-Jewish spouse and many families are of mixed-faith, but this hasn't yet made the Jewish faith disappear at all. Surely the pressure to fit in has affected Judaism in the U.S, then for one to self-identify with Judaism or any ethnic ties remains the same. --Mike D 26 09:42, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

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

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

First, Jews are not a race, they are an ethnic group, a nation, and a religion, please see Jew. Second, any scientific basis for race is dubious, and it certainly is not mainstream scientific thought, please provide some sources proving otherwise. Finally, the issue of potential intelligence differences among different ethnic groups remains extremely controversal and unproven -- any article covering it should cover both sides of the argument, as the New York Tomes article does. Just as we do not include coverage of dubious theories like those of Kevin McDonald in the main article about American Jews, there seems no compelling reason to include this latest battle in the war about how "different" Jews are from other populations. Feel free to create a Jews and Genetics article, and include it as a related article, but otherwise opening this can of worms seems unneeded in a tangential article - are you going to post it to Jews in France, Jews in Canada, as well? --Goodoldpolonius2 02:44, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Regarding the biological basis of race, yes, the racial categorization scheme only "rougly approximates," as one report (published in the peer-reviewed journal Public Health Reports, puts it, "a classification that would be optimally useful for purposes of public health related to gene-environment interaction in specific populations."[5] The journal is by the U.S. Public Health Service, published (2002) by the Association of Schools of Public Health(ASPH). The big picture in human population genetics, according to the report, is that for most of our genes, there has been little direct selection pressure since the origin of the human species. This is why, for the big structural features of the human genome, racial differences do not exist and race is "not of any biological significance.
The report goes on, though, that "for a particular subset of genes, many with important biomedical function and significance, average allele frequence differences are in fact observed between populations originating in different geographic areas, or with different exposures, diets, or other factors. In many (but by no means all) of these cases, the allele frequency differences segregate with alleles that are responsibile for the surface chracteristics historically used to define race." These racial differences in subsets of genes are responsible for the phenotypic differences we're familiar with, such as lactose-tolerance in adults being found more in Europeans than other races.
My point is that racial genetics is a complex field that can't be reduced only to "not of any biological significance," and I think this point is supported, btw, by the title of this report, which is the Racial Genetics Paradox in Biomedical Research and Public Health. Medicine, which is a field that actually has to do hands on work with the genetic differences between humans, would be impeded if it operated under the principle that ethnic background is not of any biological signifance.


Regarding the "Natural history of Ashkenazi intelligence," I think we probably agree evolutionary anthropology theories regarding the unusual success of Jews is relevant, and in some cases maybe appropriate, for inclusion in summaries of that topic. Similarly, the baldness page includes a section for evolutionary theories regarding that topic. The paper is controversial, but Stephen Pinker defends it, noting the extreme controversiality of any research dealing with cognitive difference among ethnicities. This paper provides an argument against the theory most people are familiar with for the unique diseases among Ashkenazi: a genetic bottleneck in the population's history, combined with taboo against marriage outside the population.[6] The new paper is a big deal,[7]([8]) and future studies are expected to test its hypotheses.
McDonald's theories are considered by many to mainly have anti-semitic applications, where as Cochrane et al.'s paper is evolutionary anthropology that has produced testable hypotheses, and is being reported on by prestigious news sources. In some cases, duplicate content among articles, such as at Ashkenazi and Jewish American, is appropriate, and I don't think this kind of evolutionary anthropology is any less germane to readers doing research on Jewish Americans than it is to research on Ashkenazi. --Best, Nectarflowed T 08:38, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The public health report paper you cite (which is an opinion column and not a paper, by the way) starts off by saying that genetics cannot shed any light on issues of race. It then talks about the fact that certain genetic diseases show up in certain groups that don't correspond to race -- sickle cell anemia among Greeks and Italians, etc -- and says that there are three "racial" groups, which would not seem to include Jews. Certainly some groups have higher frequencies of genetic diseases, like Ashkenaz Jews or the Amish, but this is different from saying that they have different genetic levels of intelligence, which is what the paper proposes. In any case, the point is that Jews are not a race in any biological sense, and you have provided no evidence that they are, or even that race is actually a generally used concept in a way that would include Jews as a seperate grouop.
On the new paper, just because a paper is generating buzz in the press does not mean that it is a big deal in a scientific sense -- its hypotheses have not been tested, and there seem to be many reasons given by population geneticists about why it is flawed (for example, from the New York Times article: "The authors "make pretty much all of the classic mistakes in interpreting heritability," said Dr. Andrew Clark, a population geneticist at Cornell University, and the argument that the sphingolipid gene variants are associated with intelligence, he said, is "far-fetched.""). If we include links to unproven hypotheses about Jews, we open it to people like Kevin McDonald as well, who makes an anti-semitic pseudo-biological argument. Lets wait until this paper is actually tested scientifically before posting it everywhere, unlike baldness, this is highly controversal, and we are not listing the objections as well.
Finally, it is not clear to me how this is even related to pages like Jewish American. If European Jews do turn out to have higher average intelligence, that should be listed on the Ashkenazi page -- but not to every page that mentions Jews. The same logic would require the link listed in the History of the Jews in England, History of the Jews in Germany, History of the Jews in Poland, Israel, etc. --Goodoldpolonius2 15:30, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

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

A question

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

According to one survey, Democrats outnumber Republicans by a margin of roughly eight to one among academics, and I would expect that Jewish American academics are like any other academics as far as political preferences are concerned. --Goodoldpolonius2 17:16, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
Jewish Americans in general tend to be more left-leaning than the average in the country, but this has become less pronounced since the Reagan years.--Pharos 22:31, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
A common quip is that American Jews live like Episcopalians but vote like Puerto Ricans. For those not familiar with US society and politics. Episcopalians are the American version of Anglicans (Church of England) and are generally understood to be the highest-income religious group here. Stereotypically, they vote Republican. When this joke became common in the 1950s, Puerto Ricans were the most recent group of immigrants to New York (although they came as US citizens) and tended to be both poor and Democratic.
Not to mention that Episcopalians are commonly regarded as only nominal adherents of their faith. Tomertalk 19:56, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
The American Jews article has written information on what's the exact percentage of them registered as Democrats. It was removed and re-edited, since some readers took offense and felt this had degraded American Jews. In California, mostly Los Angeles and San Francisco areas (Berkeley has a depiction of harboring far-left groups and historic Jewish populations), some prejudical statements on the state is "falling apart" by not only Liberals, homosexuals and immigrants, but squarely blamed the Jew for "this mess". The state's Black political leadership was accused of blatant anti-Semitism, esp. after the Los Angeles Riots of 1992 and the racially charged O.J. Simpson trial, but the state's Jewish community took a harsh beating over these events. Some low-income Blacks in South Los Angeles on the local T.V. news spout unrational statements on Jews "owned liqour stores", "controls public schools" and "indoctrinated" local Blacks. Most of the interviewed are part of Black militant groups. Meanwhile, far-right wing Whites with ties to Neo-Nazis or the Ku klux klan had charged Jewish voters manipulated state elections to have a "leftist" move and backed Arnold Schwarzenegger in his campaign. Even in the west coast, much like the Northeast, American Jews are seen as "leftist agitators" or moved up the ladder to become the establishment, where the WASPs, Irish Americans and Italian Americans used to primarily represent major city councils and state governments. Whoever did successfully or made up the majority of the establishment gets the blame for "all the problems" and this worries me as a Californian (but not Jewish) that knew the impact of racial and political tensions had on my state. I knew one political figure David Duke had traveled across So. Cal. in recent years to promote anti-Semitic views. --Mike D 26 10:32, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Persian/Farsi

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

The Persian Jews I know describe their language as "Farsi". Jayjg (talk) 04:25, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
Obviously, that is not the sort of "citation" I can verify. But take a look at Persian_language#Nomenclature: I would think that, for encyclopedic purposes the Academy of Persian Language and Literature would be definitive. -- Jmabel | Talk 03:41, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
As an Iranian, the offical language of Iran is Persian. That is what the Iranian government has declared as the language for all of the world to use. Farsi is a term used by the speakers of Persian to refer to their own language. Most Indians use the term Parsi to denote Persian and the speakers of Persian. Neither Farsi nor Parsi is a name that is typically accepted by other countries or authorites as the offically correct word. I think the correct usage would be the one the government is providing. Marzyeh
On the Persian/Farsi discussion board, there has been a long exchange on this. Persian is the term that has been most common in English for centuries. However, those who favor Farsi point out that "Persian" is confusing as it is easily understood to refer to ancient Peria and its language/culture. In the case of several other cultures, there are pairs of terms the former of which is often associated with older forms of the language or culture, and the latter of which is associated with newer forms: Norse/Norwegian, Israelite/Israeli, Grecian/Greek.
Those who favor "Persian" argue that using "Farsi" is like saying "français." With more commonly studied foreign languages (French, German, Russian, Chinese, Arabic, etc), there has been virtually no debate about what to call them; we use the established English words and not français, Deutsch, Ruski, Putonghua or arabi, respectively. With less commonly studied foreign languages, there has often been a debate about what term to use, with the terms most often being around older terms used in English and newer ones that are closer to the word of the language in the langauge itself. In the Americas, this has often been been a question largely of orthography: Quiché or K'iche', Tsotojil or Tz'tujil. In other cases, completely different terms have been favored: Inuit not Eskimo, Purépecha not Tarascan, Runa Simi not Quechua. Similar debates exist elsewhere: is the language Swahili or kiSwahili, Bahasa Indonesia or Indonesian.
Because of these issues, it's not surprising to find that there are disagreements among official sources on what term to use. The CIA uses Persian. Harvard and most universities in the US use Farsi in their course catalogues. UNESCO uses both. Iranian Embassies seem to use the term "Modern Persian" on their English websites, but some also use "Farsi." Interlingua 16:48, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
It's actually far more likely that neither "Farsi" or "Persian" is correct...the Persian Jewish communties have traditionally spoken Judeo-Persian languages, which are what they are independent of the politically-motivated wranglings over the terms "Farsi" and "Persian"... Tomertalk 05:13, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Persian, Farsi or Iranian Jews...it depends on whoever felt which one is a culturally sensitive term. Wikipedia policy usually describe language and ethnicity not the same, but some exceptions like French and French language, Cherokee and Cherokee language and Korean and Korean language. Iranian, the ethnicity and language are separate in the Wikipedia database, and there's no actual Belgian, Swiss, Yugoslav or British language if you think of it.

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

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

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

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

Mike, that's pretty far off-topic for my question. I am trying to work out the correct term for the form of the language spoken by Iranian Jews in America. - Jmabel | Talk 02:30, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Not so far, the difficulty of categorizing a language of Iran is harder than categorizing a group of Jews from Iran. According to Jews article, the Iranian Jews speak Iranian (the official term), also called Farsi and Persian by some without being wrong. Let's go by "Iranian" language for now, but there are several other languages in the country. Farsi and Persian are similar terms, then "Iranian" is what's official in the eyes of the Iranian government. I did discuss the lack of clear identity terms and phrases for all peoples of Iran, especially Jews who long described themselves Iranian and the religious grouping wasn't drastically used, then the recent wave of anti-Israel politics placed a heavy burden on what is a Jew in Iran? --Mike D 26 21:32, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
I believe that Marzyeh is correct that the Iranian government, when writing in English, uses Persian, not Iranian. See our article Persian language: "The Academy of Persian Language and Literature has argued in an official pronouncement [9] that the name "Persian" is more appropriate…" So I would think, either "Persian" or (per Tom's remarks) "Judeo-Persian".
"Iranian" being official for the language would surprise me greatly. Do you have a source for that, or was that just off the top of your head? - Jmabel | Talk 04:45, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

List of Major Jewish American Communities

Woodbury, Plainview, and Great Neck are THE major Jewish communities in Long Island? Why even bother writing this section if even I know that there's also Roslyn, West Hempstead, Long Beach, the Five Towns, South Merrick and South Bellmore? I am not in anyway an expert.

Also, I can't believe that Westchester, New Jersey, and California don't have any listed. And what about all of the other states in the USA?

This is like the most random sparse sampling of Jewish American communities.

Are there statistics to substantiate these listings? It's not that I dispute them, but we don't want it to seem arbitrary. --Leifern 20:08, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Tulsa, Oklahoma? There is a sizable community of Jews who live in the notably bible belt city. [[The Sherwin Miller Museum of Jewish Art] is based there with a wide collection of cultural and religious artifacts. I don't have the statistics on how many Jews live in Tulsa, but has 5 synagogues to serve a small, yet influential community. --Mike D 26 10:00, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

What about Mexican Jews?

Or canadians, or other Jews of the americas? This article seems to either be poorly named, or limited in cultural scope. Sam Spade 23:43, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Other Jewish groups don't consider themselves "American", and they have their own articles. See, for example, Canadian Jews and History of the Jews in Latin America. These groups do not share a common history or identity. Jayjg (talk) 23:56, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
In the English language, the adjective "American" is almost invariably used to refer to the United States in particular, and not the hemisphere as a whole, so this name is appropriate. In other languages, the situation may be more complex. 141.211.173.121 03:49, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Good question, there are Jewish communities worldwide and some are large, others are generally small. There's a constant issue alike what the Jewish Americans deal with: race/ethnic identity. Hispanics or Latinos in the U.S. have the same enigma on racial classification, but most Census demographers say Latinos aren't a race, but a culture based on language, national origin and the Spanish legacy in Latin America. The majority of Hispanics are of European-American Indian-African descent, though some Asian (Sinitic or Malay) and Moroccan Arab genes in the historic Spanish empire. Now the Jewish imprint in Mexico and Latin America is a part of the polyglot diversity of ethnic origins in these countries. Each national Jewish group has a somewhat different history and their cultures aren't entirely uniform. It's been said the American Jewish community had good relations with Mexican Americans, Puerto Ricans in the U.S. and in Florida, the Cuban refugees. However, there is considerable friction between Jewish and Hispanic communities does not get well publicized in the media. Some of these stereotypical claims of American Jews are "Liberal, Multi-cultural, urbanite, third world allies" that aid and defend African-Americans (i.e the Anti-Defamation League and the B'Nai Brith), Women's rights or feminist groups, and the P.C. left activism of homosexual/gay rights "have many Jewish members" are exaggerations of American Jews wanted to ignite rebellion among minorities. Is it because those claims come from the fact Jewish Americans are self-defensive or at one time, Jewish people in most countries except for Israel, are political minorities? --Mike D 26 09:56, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Sara Paxton is a Mexican Jew.

This page needs to be renamed

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

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

Question on Bio's

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

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

Detroit

From the article:

However, it is much more common for intermarried families to raise their children as Jewish in areas with high Jewish populations, like New York City/Long Island/New Jersey/Westchester County, New York, Los Angeles, Detroit, Philadelphia, Baltimore-Washington, Chicago, and Cleveland (which has the highest Jewish-American population per capita for smaller, major U.S. cities). Detroit stands out in particular, because the Jewish population is particularly concentrated in suburban Oakland County.

What exactly makes Detroit different in this regard? Are the Jewish populations of the other metropolitan areas more dispersed? Are intermarried families in the Detroit area particularly likely to raise their kids as Jewish?

141.211.173.121 03:45, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

What about Orthodox Jewish families or the "Hasidic" Chabad-Luvitsch of Williamsburg, Brooklyn in New York? You may talk about Reformed and some Conservatives lean to a type of secularism. If they married outside their faith, the parents emphasize a mixed faith or sometimes the spouses convert to Judaism (or another religion). A matter of choice for what's good for the family or based on traditional principles. I wonder how's the issue in California and the west U.S. the same like back East or different? --Mike D 26 11:21, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Are Jews White? not on Wikipedia

We have some folks over at Template:White American who are trying to remove "American Jews" -- this article-- from the category "White Americans." They seem to believe American Jews are not white. People who have an opinion are advised to make it known over there, and at the talk page Template talk:White American Rjensen 04:12, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

What makes you think all American Jews are "white"? --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 09:24, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
People of Jewish descent (who account for the large majority of adherents of the Jewish faith) are considered white in the United States. 69.137.220.179 06:27, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Citation please. Tomertalk 16:32, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
There are etheiopian jews now living in the US.--yisraeldov 13:44, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

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

The U.S. Census Bureau (http://www.census.gov/) classifies Jews of European descent as White. Also, the Template:White American included Arab-Americans, another Semitic people. -- Dcflyer 19:38, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

Happily, the template in question is gone. - Jmabel | Talk 02:32, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

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

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

List of places

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

Population numbers

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

Cultural laundry list

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

Well, there are similar paragraphs in Filipino American, for example, and in similar pages on X-Americans (i.e. noting some of the most prominant members of the X-American group). I think it's useful to note the most important American Jews in each field (as the lists cover everyone). And really, what more can you say in the entertainment/pop culture section? There isn't a particular "Jewish acting style" that's specific to all Jewish actors. Of course, that section can be expanded - i.e. Jewish American comedy (which probably merits its own article). Also, I'm not sure if we need to say that Monroe was a convert. All that matters is that she was Jewish (how her Jewishness came about isn't that important or relevant, or else we should also say that Kirk Douglas' parents were Beluarsian Jews, while Natalie Portman was born in Israel to an Israeli Jewish father and American Jewish mother, etc., etc.). If we had a section on converts to Judaism in the article, she could or should be mentioned there. Does all this seem reasonable? Mad Jack 08:14, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, it could be worse, but I find laundry lists like this to be little but ego-stroking. Larger, more comprehensive lists are elsewhere; I wonder what reader will ever read through these nearly prose-free lists in an article that is not mainly lists.
As for Monroe: this is a cultural matter, and a convert has a different cultural background. So, yes, it matters that she is a convert. As it would if we mentioned Sammy Davis, Jr. - Jmabel | Talk 06:12, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Harold C Urey

Why is he listed on here? I have removed him unless he has some relevance. Kistiakowsky? Evidence? 141.213.210.108 00:56, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

Well, I know! Why don't we delete every single "Jewish-X" category, but keep every single other ethnicity and religion category that we have for every single other ethnicity/religion out there! (sorry, note the sarcasm, but we do have categories for everyeone else, so until and unless you plan to delete those...) Mad Jack 15:46, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Born to Jewish American parents?

I have seen as this as a description of Jews throughout Wikepedia. Why do we say this instead of point saying they're Jewish? Is it because whether or not they practice is unknown? caz | speak 05:13, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

More or less. As far as I can tell, it's often because a handful or people who are ready to fight over the matter are downright anal about "no original research" and apparently will not consider a citation that says, for example, "raised in a Jewish family" or "descended from a long line of rabbis", etc. as an assertion that the person is a Jew. - Jmabel | Talk 02:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Updated population figures

Should we include the new survey conducted by the American Jewish Committee? http://sev.prnewswire.com/publishing-information-services/20061222/UNTH01421122006-1.html It estimates the Jewish population of the US is currently at 6.4 million and most significantly it means the Jewish population of the united states still surpasses that of israel. ---Duhon December 23rd 2006

My, that's quite high. Yes, we should mention it, but it is enough higher than other estimates that certainly should not present it as the sole number. - Jmabel | Talk 19:23, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Christian Jews?

I have some friends who are both jewish and christian, how is that possible, i mean, is it ok to go and profess both faiths, rare, but right!

Yes, see my comment below.--Loodog 03:56, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Muslim Jews

Really? I have some friends who said they are of jewish ethnicity and Islam by religion. How is that possible? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.15.122.35 (talk) 22:40, 20 March 2007 (UTC).

Two ways:
  1. By orthodox belief, a person who is born Jewish or who converts to Judaism, can never cease to be Jewish.
  2. Parents are descended from long line of ethinically Jewish people (e.g. Ashkenazi, Sephardi). By anyone's belief, changing religions doesn't change your ancestry.--Loodog 03:55, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Page move

Page should be moved to Jews and Judaism in the United States per virtually every other Jews in X country page. Thoughts? KazakhPol 01:46, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Can you give examples? Jayjg (talk) 01:31, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Did you read my above response? Per your Google-test, "Jewish American" has more Google hits than "American Jews" -- therefore this article's title should be changed. --172.166.173.72 02:18, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
As of Jan. 20th, "Jewish American" = 901,000 Google hits. "American Jew" = 263,000 Google hits. You're wrong. Please change this article's title. --172.129.142.172 21:36, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
I was hoping for a response from KazakhPol regarding "virtually every other Jews in X country page"; maybe I'm just missing the pages. Jayjg (talk) 01:09, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
So you admit that you and others are incorrect? There are more Google hits for "Jewish American" -- so change the article's title to bring it in line with the others. --172.132.53.161 02:37, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
No, I was asking what KazakhPol was referring to. Also, as has been pointed out, the total for "American Jew" + "American Jews" is about the same as the total for "Jewish American" + "Jewish Americans"; I'm not sure why you're trying to misrepresent that fact. Jayjg (talk) 22:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
You that that it is "about the same," yet Jewish American(S)" has more hits. The 'Google formula' is what you used not too long ago to justify keeping this article title, yet now that it has been refuted you still cling to ridiculous notions. All I am saying is that, if you take in to account ALL of the factors against the current title of this article, it's obvious that it should be changed back to what it was. Again, this article's title was only recently changed, "Jewish American(s)" is the preferred usage amongst scholars and in the mainstream, and it should be streamlined with all of the other articles representing various ethnicities, religions, and nationalities (which is "WHATEVER American," not "American WHATEVER"). --172.161.39.71 23:17, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Again, you claim that "this article's title was only recently changed". As you know, it has been "American Jews" for over a year and a half. That is not a "recent change", and your continued insistence on this claim indicates to me that you are not using the Talk: pages in good faith. Jayjg (talk) 20:49, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Though I disagree with Kazakhpol's suggestion, I think it would be an excellent idea to have a Judaism in the United States article. There would be plenty of material for it.--Pharos 23:30, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Article Title: A Recent and Unfounded Change

It seems that throughout this article's history, the title was ALWAYS "Jewish Americans" and was only recently changed to "American Jews" even though "Jewish Americans" is the preferred mainstream usage. Even while reading this article, since most of it has yet to be changed, it still speaks of "Jewish Americans" as opposed to "American Jews" throughout. I want to know who initiated these changes? Was it put to a vote? Was the information analyzed in the spirit of NPOV, or were a few baseless Google searches employed to change this article's title? --172.162.34.129 00:36, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I believe the article has been at this title since October 2005; that's not really a recent change. Jayjg (talk) 22:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
And what of all the years before that? --172.161.39.71 23:18, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Also notice the article Hyphenated American -- it is standard Wikipedia policy to have the group's ethnicity, nationality, and/or religion BEFORE the word "American," for instance 'Muslim American' (religion), 'Korean American' (nationality), and 'Hispanic American' (ethnicity). This is the way that it is and has been with ALL of the other ethnic, nationality, and religious group related articles on Wikipedia, so why should this one be any different? --172.147.51.173 21:31, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

American Jews / Jewish Americans

To be Jewish could mean either from a religious POV, Italic textorItalic textfrom an ethnic POV.

My opinion is this: JEWISH AMERICANS. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pwt898 (talk • contribs) 09:13, 25 January 2007 (UTC).

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

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

Thanks for your input. I agree the history of this move stinks. Please help me get the article back where it belongs. Haber 18:20, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
There are actually good reasons why the adjectives applied to individuals are different from the collective name for the group. It makes most sense to talk about American Jews as a group in terms of the Jewish diaspora, but for the great majority of Jewish Americans it makes most sense to speak of them in the national context.--Pharos 20:58, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Conflicting Entries

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

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

Definition of Jew

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

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

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

In short, yes. Just as a famous example, Jean-Marie Cardinal Lustiger is a high-profile cardinal in the Catholic Church who was born Jewish and as such still considers himself so. However, you have touched upon a longstanding debate that is covered extensively in the article entitled Who is a Jew?. I would suggest reading it, as it is interesting and should answer most of your questions on the issue.
I'm not exactly sure what to make of your first comment about Jew-haters, but if I were you I would avoid such talk that could be seen as offensive or belligerent. --DLandTALK 16:44, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
It's rather circular to point to another Wikipedia article for a definition, and even less helpful when that article is poorly written and referenced. Your racial determinist definition is not generally accepted and has no place in an encylopedia that claims to be NPOV.
I propose that we rely on one of our published sources, The National Jewish Population Survey 2000-01, conducted by the UJC.
For purposes of this report, a Jew is defined as a person:
  • Whose religion is Jewish, OR
  • Whose religion is Jewish and something else, OR
  • Who has no religion and has at least one Jewish parent or a Jewish upbringing, OR
  • Who has a non-monotheistic religion, and has at least one Jewish parent or a Jewish upbringing.
To this I would add "Who is a citizen of the United States." We're not here to think of a definition. We must use what is published by reliable sources. Haber 18:05, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Seems to me that there is no need in this article to address this controversy, or even to define "American Jews," whose meaning is just the intersection of the meanings of "American" and "Jew." The controversy over the meaning of "Jew" should be, and is, discussed in Jew#Who is a Jew?. I suggest removing the first sentence of this article and opening the article with: "Population estimates of American Jews vary..." or "Population estimates of Jews in the United States vary..." Pan Dan 20:18, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
On second thought, that would violate how we're supposed to write articles, which is to explain the title. Haber 20:48, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
I've reduced the paragraph in question to a quick one-liner. I hope this is ok for everybody. Haber 21:27, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

There is no consensus on the name of this article

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

Jews go to 29 prestigious schools

"Today, American Jews form the largest single ethnic group attending many of the most prestigious U.S. colleges and universities, including Harvard, Yale, Princeton University, Stanford University, Columbia University, the University of Pennsylvania, Dartmouth College, Williams College, New York University (NYU), Duke University, Brown University, Cornell University, University of Wisconsin, MIT, Brandeis University, CalTech, the University of Chicago, Johns Hopkins University, Northwestern University, Tufts University, the George Washington University, Yeshiva University, Bowdoin College, Amherst College, Swarthmore College, Bryn Mawr College, Middlebury College, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, and Carnegie Mellon University."

  1. Largest single ethnic group is unsourced.
  2. Do we really need a list of 29 schools just to say how educated Jews are? Just because black people go to all of these schools doesn't mean we write in the African-American article that black people go to [Harvard]], Yale, Princeton University, Stanford University, Columbia University, the University of Pennsylvania, Dartmouth College, Williams College, New York University (NYU), Duke University, Brown University, Cornell University, University of Wisconsin, MIT, Brandeis University, CalTech, the University of Chicago, Johns Hopkins University, Northwestern University, Tufts University, the George Washington University, Yeshiva University, Bowdoin College, Amherst College, Swarthmore College, Bryn Mawr College, Middlebury College, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, and Carnegie Mellon University. Same is true of asians, etc...

--Loodog 19:56, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree. It's obviously not sourced, and its validity depends on your definition of "ethnic group" (does German background count?) A fact tag, as someone suggested, is an inadequate substitute for verifiable sources. I'm sure this list was created with the best of intentions, but it seems kind of ominous to me like someone is keeping track of Jewish penetration into the higher ed system. Either way it comes off as either unfriendly ethnic boasting, or as antisemitic surveillance. I don't like it. Haber 20:21, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Sources to be added to the below:

Today, American Jews form the largest single ethnic group attending many of the most prestigious U.S. colleges and universities, including Harvard, Yale, Princeton University, Stanford University, Columbia University, the University of Pennsylvania, Dartmouth College, Williams College, New York University (NYU), Duke University, Brown University, Cornell University, University of Wisconsin, MIT, Brandeis University, CalTech, the University of Chicago, Johns Hopkins University, Northwestern University, Tufts University, the George Washington University, Yeshiva University, Bowdoin College, Amherst College, Swarthmore College, Bryn Mawr College, Middlebury College, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, and Carnegie Mellon University. FEastman 07:30, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Jewish American category box

I've noticed on the right hand corner the recent jewish-american box that's been added. what is your opininon of this? the box format is mainly used on wiki, when dealing with specific ethnic groups in america i.e black,asian,irish. I don't beleive any other american religious group has this (although if considering jews to be an ethnic group its somewhat understandable). do you think the religion section of the box seems confusing? when it lists "jewish religions" muslim ,hindu ,budhism etc. by having the box here it seems to be making the statement that american jews are as much a pure ethnic group as a religion, is that a fair assesment? Duhon 06:20, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

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

POV photo collage

Please balance the photo collage by gender, representing men and women equally (2 men & 2 women). Also, make sure to alphabetize the pictures by last name in order to avoid undue preference and bias. Finally, while Einstein was technically a Jewish-American, wouldn't it be better to pic a Jew who was/is American-born? Thank you. --WassermannNYC 15:35, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Is anyone going to bother responding to my humble request to make the photo collage gender neutral? --Wassermann 02:55, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Do it yourself. If your changes are good, they'll stick. Personally I have nothing against the box as it stands. Quotas do not make for fairness, and one does not need to be American-born to become as American as the next guy. If anything I'd replace Dillon with a Stooge (better entertainers). Haber 11:55, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Education section

I removed some unsourced/original research material from that section. Can we get better/any sources and work on that section? Thanks,--Tom 13:57, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

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