Talk:American Jews/Archive 7

Undue weight to Ashkenazi Jews being non-white
I don't understand why we don't note that virtually every Ashkenazi Jew identifies as nonwhite.

Race is a social construct; human populations vary genetically, but you can't break those populations down into discrete races. Thus, the definitions of the races can change from generation to generation. Anti-slavism was a systemic racism in early 20th century Europe; in WWII the Nazis had plans to exterminate or expel Slavs from Russia, see General Plan Ost. But the fact that the Nazis (and many other Europeans in the early 20th century) regarded Slavs as a discrete race from Western Europeans, and attributed their economic underdevelopment to racial inferiority, does not mean that Polish or Russian Americans are racial minorities in 2017.

Right now--despite their ancient Middle Eastern ancestry--basically all Ashkenazi American Jews identify as white. That's probably because the current construction of race is based almost entirely on skin color, whereas it was more theoretical/pseudo-genetic a few generations ago. Ashkenazi Jews are less-melenated than their Levantine ancestors because they've evolved in Europe for thousands of years, and didn't need those genes anymore.

The 2013 Pew poll cited in the article show that virtually every American Jew other than Jews of sub-Saharan African and Hispanic descent says s/he's white (I'm betting the 2% who said they're "Some other race" are North African Jews.)

I think we should note that virtually every Ashkenazi Jew identifies as white, based on the polling data. We're giving way too much weigh to the nonwhite identities of a negligible share of Ashkenazi Jews.

Of course, whether and to what extent they are white could change if the alt right (neo-Nazi Americans) comes to power.

Steeletrap (talk) 05:15, 16 November 2017 (UTC)


 * It's certainly true that anti-semitism is a form of racism that goes well-beyond religious prejudice to stereotype about Jews as people; anti-semites implicitly view jews as nonwhite. But anti-semites are not the majority, and their racial typology should not inform this article. Steeletrap (talk) 05:28, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Perhaps--in the spirit of compromise, though this would be a good addition on the merits--we could note that many racist groups in the US regard Jews as nonwhite, and persecute them as such. But we should note the identity of basically all of the Ashkenazi Jews (white). Steeletrap (talk) 05:30, 16 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Steeletrap, I am an American Ashkenazi Jew, with roots from Poland, and I have to disagree with most of what you're saying. I recognize that in many ways I benefit from "white privilege" but does that make me or us white, and I don't identify as white. Hila Hershkovitz sums up my views pretty well, and I'm far from the only one, as my parents and family feel the same way []. Most of Ashkenazi Jewish history has consisted of Europeans doing all sorts of terrible things to us specifically because we weren't white, i.e. Euro-Christian (see also: Adolf Hitler, pogroms, Russia using us as cannon fodder in the army...). The recent "racialization" of Islamophobia proves the point further-- if (non-Christian) Arabs who could easily pass as Italians cannot be white, then neither can we, and neither should we want to be, for that is the worst way of spitting on one's ancestors and all the struggles they went through. Well, it is true some specific Ashkenazim in the US are indeed white-- because they are children of mixed marriages with Irish people, WASPs etc, or adoption I suppose. There are many of these especially the younger generations. This is just the same as the fact that some American Ashkenazis are Black or Asian, also because of mixed marriages and adoption etc. A black Jew of Ashkenazi upbringing is no less Ashkenazi than a "white" one. All of this doesn't make us as a group "white" or "black" or any of these funny non-Judaic and non-scientific racial concepts, we are first and foremost Jews and Americans. I don't speak for everyone, I'm sure there are Ashkenazim who think of themselves as white (census doesn't mean much because Arabs and Indians are also white on that), but it's a controversial issue so please don't try to impose your opinion.--2601:547:901:37D8:E497:F040:46D:B23F (talk) 02:05, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * OK just read this above and it seems to be what we are saying in the article.....so what is the problem?

--Moxy (talk) 19:31, 14 January 2018 (UTC)--Moxy (talk) 19:31, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * And yet as a Polish/Russian Ashkenazi Jew who grew up in Brooklyn, I never met a single one of that descent who did not consider themselves to be white. What I find contentious is that any such Jew considers themselves to be anything but white. By accepting what others lied about, you are promoting the BS of the Nazis. For that mater, most Moslems are white too as are Italians. To suggest otherwise is ludicrous. It is just some nutty academic BS that says otherwise. That said, we went through this already, and it is not worth the fight.Sposer (talk) 14:09, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Moxy: I'm terribly sorry, I thought the original post by Steeletrap was posted more recently than it was. My bad. I know that this page at one point had stuff going on and on about how "white" we are which just looked... weird... Looked like someone had an axe to grind, honestly it just didn't look good no matter what your point of view is to just assert that one group is white on its page, like you're trying to convince people who don't already believe it. I don't think an encyclopedia should be making a controversial statement either way-- I wouldn't want my views reflected on the page at the expense of others either.
 * Sposer: and yet, I really doubt how you could know exactly how everyone else identified. Did you ask each of them whether they personally identified as white? Did you do a statistically sound polling operation on them? Of course not. I especially doubt you would know how they identified given how taboo this topic is, and all the emotions invovled. To be entirely fair you're right in that I also don't know many Ashkenazim who would call themselves a "color" other than "white". But as a personal identity, not at all, and the word "white" conjures up the image of a "WASP" (though of course we are far "whiter" than some other groups -- i.e. in a conversation about white privilege vis-a-vis blacks of course we count as "white"). Honestly my personal Pennsylvania experience seems quite different from your Wall Street Brooklyn one. For example, here in Pennsylvania, Arabs maybe were once considered white, and indeed they are hard to tell from Sicilians, but not anymore -- there is a religious aspect here as "whiteness" has to do with "Europeanness" which equals European Christianity. Actually many people around here are incredibly racist against Arabs. I've also interacted with people outside of Pittsburgh who aren't like KKK/Neo-nazi types, just rural, and they definitely view us as something not quite "bread-and-butter white American". Everyone has their own experiences and their own opinions, but you can't just dismiss those of others as "academic" especially when your profile page it says you work on Wall Street so idk if you're the one to be accusing others of living in ivory towers, no offense. And lastly, I know I did mention the Shoah and all, but I'd appreciate if you didn't compare my views to those of Nazis-- it's a special sort of insensitive when one Jew does that to another :(. Of course one could mention what Americans thought of us during the Shoah-- they were afraid tens of thousands of Jewish children would grow into "ugly Jewish adults" so they sent them back to die in Europe, source: https://qz.com/553393/a-survey-of-americans-on-jewish-refugees-in-the-1930s-shows-history-is-repeating-itself/
 * Sorry for posting this whole shpiel here. Ultimately I think its interesting and relevant but if this has to get deleted for this "FORUM" rule, I accept that, but you gotta be consistent-- Sposer's post was not about the page either, it was all responding to mine and accusing my views of being those of Nazis, which as I said, is a very special kind of insensitive, and hurtful. I was just writing this in response to past attempts to move the page back to what it was when there was a Haaretz article written about it for asserting in a "factual" encyclopedia that Jews are "white". Sorry again for the shpiel and thanks for the time of whoever took the time to read this. All of you have a nice day. --2601:547:901:37D8:6DAE:FF62:CAE7:8BFC (talk)
 * Given that most of my father's family was killed in the Holocaust, I think I know something about it too. I never said I did a scientific survey, but I have asked around after this article came up, and I have as yet to find a Jew -- not just Ashkenazim -- that do not consider themselves to be White (excluding a Black Jewish acquaintance of mine whom I did not ask). Your point regarding what others think we are is not what this piece was about. It is what Ashkenazi Jews think they are, and the idea that anything but a tiny percentage of those that are not mixed race, or Black or from East Asia, consider themselves anything but White, unless they are agreeing with racists, is nothing short of ridiculous. It is when we allow other people to categorize what we are by our religion or race or so-called ethnicity that bad things happen. Not sure how Brooklyn and Wall Street are related either. I grew up lower middle class and faced lots of prejudice -- although nobody ever called me a non-white. :-) Plus, there are lots more Brooklyn Jews than there are Western PA Jews, so I think the views of those, polling wise, are more relevant. To be honest, I do not care whether I am black, white, yellow or orange. Sociesty should not care either. But if they do, they can take a long walk on a short pier. As far as the Nazi comments, you are clearly having a comprehension issue on my point. The Nazis said we were less human, and not white (along with gypsies and others). If you want to buy into that, then it is sad on your part, not mine. That is a special kind of insensitive to me. I consider my humanity equal to any other religious or racial group and I honestly don't are what others are categorized as or what others try to categorize me as.Sposer (talk) 19:26, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Sposer: One thing I agree very strongly with in your response is that we shouldn't let non-Jews tell us what we are. For me that includes nonwhite and also white categories-- it includes the entire paradigm, which has nothing to do with traditional Ashkenazi or wider Jewish culture, not in the slightest. It was a paradigm imposed on us by a Western European origin society. As I told you, I also wrote "white" on the college apps and would on the census, but the important point is that I do not have a white internal identity. Ironically the only Jew I've ever known to outwardly proclaim a "white" identity without prompting (which the page was doing for American Jews at the time the article was published) was someone I knew from high school, who is now involved in racist "alt-right" movements, which to me is a disgusting betrayal of his heritage (well, actually, his mother is a goy and he doesn't go to temple, but he's still culturally Jewish in many ways so his "alt-right" racist activism is vexing nevertheless...).::
 * Sposer (2): My point is that while we may say we are white in reference to external society, I cannot be sure of others but I do not internalize "being white". I brought this up at Shabbat yesterday and while it is true that I likely have a different social circle from you (younger, college, not in NY city), there were indeed people who said they write "white" on forms but felt "icky" about "white identity" and one guy pointed out that the way we have view race has always been different from how WASPs see it, and another brought up the proposal to change the definition of white on the census and wondered whether if the Middle East was excluded, would we still call ourselves white (and there was disagreement among the people I was asking on this point because people were unsure whether we should be "Eastern European" or "Israelite"). To be fair to your point, there were also people who were shocked to have a debate about our race. Anyhow, the definition of "white" is changing to include religious factors that, although Muslims are the current target, may result in us being once again publically excluded from it, but for me this is not the main problem while you are more averse. For me the problem is only that the paradigm of "races" exists and is imposed on us without our consent, not whatever we are categorized as (in fact letting oneself be categorized as one race, any race, is a surrender to this paradigm).
 * Sposer (3): Why horrible tragedies like the Shoah happened was not because the victims were "nonwhite", it was because there was this ridiculous idea, originally invented to subjugate people, that "races" exist and that being non-"white" was bad. As long as people believe in races and think non"white" is bad, then there is always a risk of those things happening, whether it is us on the receiving end or not. And on the other side, assimilation could be an existential threat too : in this case into "white American culture", a process that to be fair is sadly well underway for large parts of the Jewish population, which thought Jewishness was only a religion and now have non-Jewish identities with no room for Jewishness like David Silverman, despite how culturally Jewish he still is. The process is much more subtle, the result could be the same -- no more Jews in many places where there were once Jews. I don't want the page to reflect my view-- it's good for all that its neutral. I think we agree on more than we disagree with each other. Sorry again for the huge shpiel. I hope you have a good day. Thanks --2601:547:901:37D8:391B:5E75:7858:6166 (talk) 18:01, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * One much more easily can distinguish between black and white than between Jewish and not Jewish. This dictates how we use the word white. White refers to appearance. Can you tell that a Jew is a Jew? Often not. Can you tell if a person is white or not white? Often you can. White is a reference to appearance. Bus stop (talk) 18:32, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I actually can often tell other Jews by appearance. Yes, obviously, it is much easier to tell a black from a white although there are some borderline cases and some cases where blacks of mixed ancestry "pass". But many people are increasingly considering Arabs and even Turks as non-white, and I can't tell them apart from many Southern Europeans. And while I'm, like most Ashkenazis, pretty pale except in the summer, but my grandfather is very dark (darker than David Silverman, since I already brought him up) and has gotten mistaken for Mexican (even though his facial features are nothing like most Mexicans), and one time as an Arab too. But as I said, race isn't actually about anything biological anyways, it's completely social hogwash.--2601:547:901:37D8:391B:5E75:7858:6166 (talk) 19:18, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * How can you tell "Jews by appearance"? Bus stop (talk) 20:48, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Did you do a statistically sound polling operation on them? Of course not. Actually, a poll was done, and more than 90% of American Jews identified themselves as white. A Portrait of Jewish Americans: Findings from a Pew Research Center Survey of U.S. Jews, page 46 Feel free to believe that you're green with yellow polka dots if you'd like, but the overwhelming majority of American Jews look white and identify as white, and most white people in the United States think American Jews are white. I have news for you: in the United States, that means they're white. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:19, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * That is, pending a decision on the Middle-East and North Africa census question, which may reopen the issue again. Newimpartial (talk) 18:42, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Table Sort Technical Issue
Under "Location" in this article, there is a table following the sentence "According to a study published by demographers and sociologists Ira Sheskin and Arnold Dashefsky, the distribution of the Jewish population in 2015 is as follows:[65]"

(Table is about what % of American Jews live in each state.)

I sorted the table using the arrows in the table to read highest -to-lowest (vs alphabetical in original form) ... Just wanted to point out to (whoever edits) that when you sort it, the "Total" row is sorted into the middle of the results based on the fact that it lists 2.14% (i.e., of the entire US population*) instead of leaving it at the bottom as per usual table function. This probably happens in more than just one table.


 * Second, "2.14%" on the total row is not distinguished as being 2.14% of the entire US Population (all people.)

Thanks, 45.47.73.1 (talk) 20:47, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Jews as a race in the United States
(cross-posted to Talk:Definitions of whiteness in the United States) This issue comes up periodically, so I wanted to bring to editors' attention a recent news item: last week, in what is being described as an "unprecedented" legal decision, a U.S. magistrate ruled in a civil rights lawsuit that for purposes of federal anti-discrimination laws, Jews can be considered a race (not just a religious group) and therefore a protected racial class. It remains to be seen whether the ruling, which was the basis for declining a defendant's motion to dismiss a case, will be appealed, or whether the defendant will win the case and have no need to appeal, but in the meantime, for the first time, a court has ruled that Jews are protected by laws against racial discrimination. Details are available in this article in The Washington Post. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:39, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Race, Class, & Gender: An Anthology by Margaret L. Andersen and Patricia Hill Collins
—thank you for the addition of the source "Race, Class, & Gender: An Anthology by Margaret L. Andersen and Patricia Hill Collins". Can I ask you what wording in that source supports the sentence before it? I don't have ready access to that source and if you do, perhaps you can provide a brief excerpt from that source. Thanks. Bus stop (talk) 01:00, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I will copy and paste sometext in a bit.. its an in-depth analysis of the situation by a professor. You don't have access to the Google books? This would explain a lot about the references for the other debate......was wondering why you're arguing a point that is clearly cited by academic publishers in multiple books.

--Moxy (talk) 01:38, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Moxy—if you could just present the text here that supports the article assertion that would be great. Thanks. Bus stop (talk) 01:55, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The whole time I though you were pulling my leg because you know I have MS and it's hard to type. here's a copy of the page.--Moxy (talk) 02:29, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

No, I had no idea you had MS although I noticed the number of "errors". I have mixed feelings about "errors". On the one hand I genuinely think they don't matter but on the other hand I know people judge you by such unimportant things as punctuation, spacing, indentation—the whole gamut of "rights" and "wrongs". You expressed your opinion of me. You wrote "The problem is you don't have a reputation of getting it." That was my understanding of the underlying problem. And by the way I read the sources you presented in our last dispute and I did not find support for your argument. In fact in one of the sources you presented I found support for my argument. Concerning the present situation I concede the source you are presenting is good. I've taken the time to type up the relevant wording from your source.

"Contemporary white supremacists define Jews as non-white: 'not a religion, they are an Asiatic race, locked in a mortal conflict with Aryan man,' according to The New Order. In fact, throughout white-supremacist tracts, Jews are described not merely as a separate race, but as an impure race, the product of mongrelization. Jews, who pose the ultimate threat to racial boundaries, are themselves imagined as the product of mixed-race unions."

By the way I'm not a good typist but if I can ever be of assistance in typing up support in sources of the approximate length as the above, please don't hesitate to ask me. Bus stop (talk) 06:31, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Understanding vs. Belief
Consult a dictionary if you don't understand the difference. 2600:1:F179:C70C:70AE:91C9:71D4:689F (talk) 18:42, 12 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Let us look at our sources.

"'White supremacists see Jews as threats to racial purity, the villains responsible for desegregation, integration, the civil-rights movement, the women's movement, and affirmative action—each depicted as eventually leading white women into the beds of black men'" "'Contemporary white supremacists define Jews as non-white: 'not a religion, they are an Asiatic race, locked in a mortal conflict with Aryan man,' according to The New Order. In fact, throughout white-supremacist tracts, Jews are described not merely as a separate race, but as an impure race, the product of mongrelization. Jews, who pose the ultimate threat to racial boundaries, are themselves imagined as the product of mixed-race unions.'"


 * This is not simple "belief". This is well-reasoned "understanding". Please bring dictionary definitions if you feel they support your preferred wording. I think the sources are reflecting an "understanding" rather than a "belief". Bus stop (talk) 19:10, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Misunderstanding would make more sense..... "rhetoric" would be better word.--Moxy (talk) 19:23, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Rhetoric is not a bad term. How about expanding the text to read as follows:

American white nationalists feel that Jews are non-white and they employ rhetoric which for instance excludes Jews from their organizations. "White supremacists see Jews as threats to racial purity, the villains responsible for desegregation, integration, the civil-rights movement, the women's movement, and affirmative action—each depicted as eventually leading white women into the beds of black men".

The sourced quote provides reasoning behind the conclusions reached. Bus stop (talk) 20:04, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Or simply "American white nationalists view Jews as non-white." Bus stop (talk) 21:31, 12 August 2018 (UTC)


 * The shorter formulation is fine. Flat Earthers share an "understanding" that the world is flat, not round, and we can cite sources to that effect 'til the end of time, but that doesn't mean an encyclopedia article should describe their meshuggener belief as an "understanding". (And as much as I like "misunderstanding", I think NPOV argues against its use.) 2600:1:F179:C70C:C11E:9645:8A03:FC40 (talk) 23:30, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
 * If the shorter formulation is fine we will go with that. Done. Bus stop (talk) 23:50, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

American Jews and race
This edit does not take us closer to the source but it takes us further away from the source. My preferred wording—"Some American Jews identify as white but other American Jews solely identify as Jewish"—is more succinct and simple and in closer adherence to the source, which reads in part "While many Jews self-identify and are identified as White, many actively resist self-identification as White and choose to solely identify as Jewish". Bus stop (talk) 22:59, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * You removed the one part all agreed should be added last talk. Got no problem with changing many to some....but why not use the term used in the source is what most would ask.--Moxy (talk) 04:30, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * We are paraphrasing. "why not use the term used in the source" It is not one term that we are focussing on. The source doesn't use the word "contentious". It would be OK for us to use the term "contentious" if our overall wording conveyed the general idea expressed by the source. You are saying that I "removed the one part all agreed should be added last talk". I didn't remove it. The same general idea is still there. I said it in fewer words and actually more clearly, and I avoided the unsupported notion of contention. "Contentious" is a characterization that I don't think is apt. And the source doesn't use that term. The closest thing the source says to "contentious" is when the source says that some American Jews "actively resist self-identification as White". But I am retaining a semblance of that meaning by simply saying that "other American Jews solely identify as Jewish." It is slightly gratuitous of us to call it "somewhat contentious". Another thing I didn't like was the term "label". This too is a characterization and this too is not found in the source. "Labels" are things found on clothing. To call an "identity" a "label" is dismissive and condescending. Bus stop (talk) 07:07, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * pls look at what YOU agreed to last time this came up....why are you now changing your mind? Do we have to go over this again with you?

.--Moxy (talk) 13:47, 5 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Moxy—that is found in this section. Please search for "I'm content to leave the article as it is" within that section. As a general statement I will say that we should not be taking a simplistic approach to anything. It is not as if I am "changing [my] mind". I have recognized all along that Jews will take exception to being lumped together with all other white people even though most Jews are white. We are on a slippery slope in this stupid discussion. One minute we are speaking of being phenotypically white and the next moment we are talking about "white", the "social construct". My edit is actually very clear: "Some American Jews identify as white but other American Jews solely identify as Jewish." I challenge you to improve upon it. And if you do, we will use your wording. We are here to improve the article. That is what a Talk page is for. Do you think the previous wording was better? It read: "Many American Jews identify as white, a label which is somewhat contentious within the community, with many instead choosing to identify simply as Jewish." Is "white" a "label"? It is not because it has significance for people. "Labels" are unimportant. But identity has significance. Is the notion of Jews being white "contentious"? I don't think it is and the source is not saying that it is. It is an overstatement to say that it is "somewhat contentious within the community". It would be more correct to say that the notion that Jews are not white barely creates a ripple within the community. "Contentious" is the wrong word. This is anything but "contentious". And the source does not use that word. It is not like I am changing my mind. I haven't looked at this article in months. I certainly recall the amount of discussion that transpired over this point. But in looking just yesterday at the sentence resulting from all that discussion it occurred to me that the sentence could be improved. Bus stop (talk) 14:56, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Simply not convinced that watering down of the line is helpful. .....why do some not identify as white?...... because it's a contentious label.... as indicated by the multiple sources in the last talk. Why do you want to water it down?.... I take it you agree that some people have a problem with the label.--Moxy (talk) 12:52, 6 August 2018 (UTC)


 * We are merely writing a sentence to alert the reader to a phenomenon. What is that phenomenon? That occasionally some phenotypically white Jewish people make a distinction between themselves and other phenotypically white people. You say "why do some not identify as white?...... because it's a contentious label" Saying that there is contention does not answer or even address why some phenotypically white Jewish people make a distinction between themselves and other phenotypically white people. The previous wording did not address why some phenotypically white Jews might feel this way. Here is the previous wording: "Many American Jews identify as white, a label which is somewhat contentious within the community, with many instead choosing to identify simply as Jewish." Does that sentence tell us why some phenotypically white Jewish people do not identify as white? It does not. Bus stop (talk) 14:27, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * it's very obvious the following sentences explain the first sentence. if you're not aware about racial labeling I'm not sure this is the article for you. Best get others involved as this lack of understanding what's going on is bothersome.--Moxy (talk) 14:35, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * You apparently like the term "contentious" as evidence by this recent edit. The word "contentious" does not describe the phenomenon under consideration. Here is Mike Wallace responding to Morgan Freeman. Morgan Freeman asks Mike Wallace "Which month is White History month?" Mike Wallace simply responds "I'm Jewish." Where is the contention? Have you looked at the definition of "contentious"? It means "involving heated argument". The word "contentious" is too strong for this use. We try to follow sources even though we paraphrase. This is the source presently being used in the article. Does that source support the notion that the phenomenon under consideration constitutes a "contentious" issue? Bus stop (talk) 14:57, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Can you pls review the sources from the last talk that got us to the wording.....just odd you seem to have forgotten all about the talk and how we got to the wording and the sources used. Perhaps we should add all those sources to the article?--Moxy (talk) 15:18, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * "White" is not a "contentious" term for Jews, and the source does not say that "white" is a contentious term for Jews. You are adding language that says "Many American Jews identify as white, a label which is somewhat contentious within the community, with many instead choosing to identify simply as Jewish" but the source in the article does not say that white is a "label" that is somewhat "contentious" among Jews. This is the source presently in the article. Bus stop (talk) 15:36, 6 August 2018 (UTC)


 * The term "label" is also a problem, in addition to the term "contentious", which is unsupported by a source. A "label" is something found on a jar of pickles. It is of secondary importance because the pickles inside are of primary importance. Does a white supremacist consider their whiteness to be of secondary importance? We don't use terms like "label" to refer to identities as it is dismissive of that identity. We should not be using language that is dismissive of anyone's identity, and that includes referring the white identity as a "label". Bus stop (talk) 15:54, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Ok lets start all over for you......I will pretend we did not talk about this before and you have no clue about the topic or terms used.


 * "racial labeling" is an ongoing debate all over the world ....its a term used not just for jars but in the context of people and their origins - pls review some basic papers on the topic to see the wording they use as seen here.
 * "contentious" is a term used in the academic community when there is a long standing debate most recently outlined here.....we can use another term if you like... any suggestions?
 * As for sources for the content lets list a few.....
 * Here is a source that uses the word contentious
 * Here another sources that also used the word contentious washingtonpost
 * Here Marcus quotes Goldstien on  how the debate over whiteness and Jewishness is still on going and gives a few examples
 * Here Goldstien explains how the community its-self debate the labeling of whiteness vs race.
 * --Moxy (talk) 16:51, 6 August 2018 (UTC)


 * You are providing a source that argues against the use of the term "contentious". You refer to a source which reads: "The notion that Jews 'became white' like other ethnic groups during the twentieth century ignores the relative ambivalence with which Jews have accepted and been accepted into the boundaries of cultural whiteness." Do you notice the term "relative ambivalence"? Does that sound like contentiousness to you? To me it sounds like they couldn't care less about being accepted as being "culturally white" or not. Bus stop (talk) 18:26, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Good to see you read a source ....just need to read all of it. Should I get some other people to explain the sources? Are you contesting the other sources?  The problem is you don't have a reputation of getting it.  So to be clear before I ask others to chim in ....you're saying there is no debate over Jewish whitenes in the community after reading the sources.... you believe all is hunky-dory right?  --Moxy (talk) 18:40, 6 August 2018 (UTC)--Moxy (talk) 18:40, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Moxy—we should simply be using evenhanded language. And that is what I have been trying to do. My edit has not changed the general import of what was there before it. It has simply toned it down a notch. Rather than saying "Many American Jews identify as white, a label which is somewhat contentious within the community, with many instead choosing to identify simply as Jewish" I favor saying "Some American Jews identify as white but other American Jews solely identify as Jewish." The general thrust of the assertion is largely the same, but I am placing less emphasis on the phenomenon and my wording is more succinct, which I think also reduces the emphasis placed on the phenomenon of some Jews taking exception to being grouped with other people who are phenotypically white. Bus stop (talk) 18:47, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * You have completely changed the sentence. ...."some" from "many"  despite it being clear that the majority do...... and left out the fact that it's a debate within the community.  Really don't understand how you think this is better and more informative for our readers..... in my view you're going out of your way to tone it down well blatantly omiting information.--Moxy (talk) 18:54, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Moxy—the onus is on you to provide support in one or more sources for material you wish to put in the article. At WP:V we read "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution" and "The cited source must clearly support the material as presented in the article" and "Use sources that directly support the material presented in an article and are appropriate to the claims made." Note the language directly support. I have read the sources you have provided on this Talk page (or I was familiar with them already) but the burden is not on me to find support in the seven lengthy tracts of potential source material for the language you prefer to use in the article. If you feel a source supports your preferred language please cut and paste to this Talk page a quote from that source so that we can discuss it. You cannot realistically expect me to comb through your seven general links of lengthy source material to figure out what you feel is of importance. Just because something is said on a general subject does not mean that it automatically supports your argument, as I have shown with the one general link that I chose to address, above. We do not consider "relative ambivalence" the equivalence of "contentiousness", do we? You have not responded to that point. Bus stop (talk) 19:08, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * OMG wall of text to distract from to the point  we've already talked about this with sources. So  your claiming all the sources from the old talk that you agreed to and the new ones  don't support the claim.  How many more sources did you want me to produce?  Really sneaky looking to come back a year later and bring it up  and make it seem like it's out of the blue.  Back to the point at hand do you agree with this refs or do you still contend that it's all hunky-dory.  The fact is you have changed the worder many to some  despite asserting we should follow the sources. My confidence in you is wavering....you're not even willing to read the sources....you want me to quote for you? I really think you're pulling my leg for no reason......thus page is off my watchlist.....will let Americans whitewash there articles at will  --Moxy (talk) 19:28, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * There is no "whitewashing" being perpetrated by me. And I am actually assuming good faith, not that you have accused me of failing to assume good faith. But your argument and your preferred wording makes a "mountain out of a molehill". It overemphasizes the phenomenon. And sources do not support the "contentiousness" which you feel is applicable to the phenomenon under consideration. The burden is on you to support your argument with sources. Don't just throw seven lengthy tracts of material at me and tell me to find somewhere within that mass of material support for whatever argument you are trying to make. Any editor must show a reasonable degree of direct support in one or more sources for any material they wish to put in the article. Is it so hard for you to cut-and-paste or quote an excerpt from a source that you feel supports the argument you are making? Bus stop (talk) 19:50, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Let's quote "The racial status of Jews has continued to engender debate, with some commentators, and far-right leaders such as David Duke, arguing that all Jews are people of color. In 2013, more than 90% of U.S. Jews described themselves as white. "
 * --Moxy (talk) 20:00, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Is David Duke Jewish? The wording presently in our article reads "Some American Jews identify as white but other American Jews solely identify as Jewish" and the wording previously in our article read "Many American Jews identify as white, a label which is somewhat contentious within the community, with many instead choosing to identify simply as Jewish." That is a sentence about how Jews see themselves. You have also cited a source which says "Jews will not replace us." That is not a reflection of how Jews see themselves. Bus stop (talk) 20:25, 6 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment. I'm not going to dive into this mess ... except to ask whether or not the entire discussion above implicitly assumes an Ashkenazi world. Is anybody thinking about Jews—let's describe it this way, to avoid further fights—whose relatively immediate relatives come from the Middle East and North Africa? (Or, for that matter, from Ethiopia, India or China?) StevenJ81 (talk) 14:49, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * You say "I'm not going to dive into this mess ... except to ask whether or not the entire discussion above implicitly assumes an Ashkenazi world." To the best of my knowledge the discussion itself does not "implicitly assume[s] an Ashkenazi world" but it is possible that one of the participants maintains such an assumption. To which of the two participants in the above discussion are you speaking? Bus stop (talk) 15:03, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * No one in particular; the discussion here just seems pretty monolithic to me. StevenJ81 (talk) 16:51, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I cannot be sure what you mean by "monolithic". Bus stop (talk) 17:12, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Maybe it's the sources being used. I don't know. I'm thinking this whole section feels like it's addressing the question of how (mostly-Ashkenazi) American Jews (of mostly European ancestry, at least in recent generations) address their racial identity. Maybe I'm over-interpreting. Maybe I'm projecting. I don't know.
 * From my perspective, part of the issue here is that many Jews think of themselves as distinctive from their ambient population for a variety of reasons. Many think of themselves as having a Middle East aspect to their racial heritage—not realizing, BTW, that as of today (if not as of 2020) the US Government would consider that ancestry "White" anyway. In general, I just think that the discussion probably needs a little more information identifying just what part of the Jewish community was addressed (by the sources or this exposition). And if it's mainly the population I described above—and if the next section is mostly about African Americans descended of fairly recent converts, something about the Sephardi-Mizrachi-Persian-etc. part of the community ought to be worked in. That's all. You're making it a bigger deal than it needs to be. StevenJ81 (talk) 18:29, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Is it a big deal to change a sentence from "Many American Jews identify as white, a label which is somewhat contentious within the community, with many instead choosing to identify simply as Jewish" to "Some American Jews identify as white but other American Jews solely identify as Jewish"? Bus stop (talk) 18:54, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * No, that's not a big deal. StevenJ81 (talk) 22:17, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * But that is the basis for the wall of text above. I made the edit that brought about that change, I was reverted, and I have since been trying to defend my edit. The change I made isn't a big deal but I think it represents an improvement to that sentence. One of the arguments against my edit is that much discussion some time ago which I participated in resulted in the wording that I now changed. That is not entirely the case but even if it was, the new edit could represent an improvement, and I think it does. Bus stop (talk) 22:33, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Undue weight?
Does this article give undue weight to the fringe concept that white-skinned Americans Jews are something other than white? Instead of mumbo jumbo about how "some" American Jews (how many are "some"? five? fifty? 10%? 25%?) don't consider themselves white (although more than 90% tell pollsters that they're white), why not summarize some facts about Jews and race in the United States? See, among other sources, "Are Jews White?" (from The Atlantic, December 2016). — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 20:47, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is undue weight. I agree. It matters that white nationalists view white Jews as non-white. White Jews by-and-large are not white nationalists, unsurprisingly. When a white Jew occasionally articulates something that has the effect of distancing themselves from the quality of whiteness, that is a minor thing and barely noteworthy. Bus stop (talk) 21:27, 13 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I consider all this to be undue:

"Karen Brodkin explains this ambivalence as rooted in anxieties about the potential loss of Jewish identity, especially outside of intellectual elites.[93] Similarly, Kenneth Marcus observes a number of ambivalent cultural phenomena noted by other scholars, and concludes that 'the veneer of whiteness has not established conclusively the racial construction of American Jews'.[94] The relationship between American Jews and white majority identity continues to be described as 'complicated'.[95]"


 * This all falls under the heading of just because a reliable source says something doesn't mean it has to find its way into our article. It is mumbo jumbo, alternatively known as mumbo jumbo. These are basically 3 meaningless sentences despite the fact that they all have citations. What are "intellectual elites"? This means nothing. Perhaps in its context it meant something but it doesn't mean anything in our article. The phrase "the racial construction of American Jews" means nothing. Maybe in its context it meant something but in our article it is indecipherable. "[C]omplicated" is a reference to what? What complication is being referenced? Bus stop (talk) 02:56, 14 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Not having read Brodkin, I don't know what she means about anxieties regarding loss of Jewish identity figuring into whether American Jews are white. The United States was established with three racial castes, white (i.e., free), black (i.e., slave), and Indian (i.e., outside civilization), and Jews were white (unless there were some pockets of enslaved Jews in colonial America who have escaped historians' attention). Things grew more nuanced in the mid-19th century, as Asian and non-Anglo European immigration picked up and slavery ended.
 * What's "complicated", I think, is that there are two stories here, one of how American Jews were and are categorized by others, both white and non-white (as white, by and large), and the other about how American Jews view themselves (as a minority group of vulnerable outsiders, absolutely, but not necessarily as non-white). The notion that some American Jews' discomfort with a simplistic white/black/Asian/Hispanic racial classification system implies a widespread non-white identity among American Jews has no empirical support (witness the Pew survey, in which more than 90% of the respondents identified themselves as white).
 * When I have a chance, I'll try to summarize the sources I can muster to do justice to both parts of the story without embracing the fringe, which is what I think the article currently does. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 03:39, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

no source
the source for the 8-10M estimation says there are 6-8M where is the source for the 10M?

Map showing the distribution of American Jews and Canadian Jews
Can someone explain why is my map being removed? It is based on American Jewish Year Book 2016, a reliable source. I made similar maps also for Native Americans, German Americans, etc. Domen von Wielkopolska (talk) 10:06, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Needs a fix
Under "Distribution of American Jews" the percentage column is partially cut off. I don't know how to fix this. Perhaps someone who knows WP formatting more than I do can fix it. American In Brazil (talk) 15:50, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Languages
There is a tussle over Hebrew writing accompanying "American Jews". I think it serves no constructive purpose. The counterargument seems to be other articles contain similar information. Bus stop (talk) 15:48, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

New York City Real Estate moguls
I've moved this material here for discussion: "In New York real estate, 18 of the top 20 richest real estate moguls based in New York City are of Jewish extraction." There are a number of issues with the material: Do other editors feel the material should be restored to the article? Please assist in making this decision. Jayjg (talk) 15:35, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Jewish Insider is not a particularly strong source; it's an emailed newsletter that states it has two journalists; this is what it has to say about the credentials of one of them.
 * The material is out-of-date and ephemeral; it claims that in one specific year (2013) various New York Jews owned a lot of real estate or were wealthy.
 * It is about specific economic activity in one city. Yes, New York is an important city in the United States, and an important city for American Jews, but America is very big and has lots of real estate, American Jews live everywhere in the U.S., and American Jews do all sorts of things besides own real estate. This isn't the New York City Jews article, or the Real estate ownership in New York City article, it's the American Jews article.
 * a) the newsletter accurately reported a reliable source with explicit detail--you obviously did not check out the main source Wealth-X which uses data on 100,000 rich people worldwide; b) the real estate industry changes by the decade or slower -- eg Trump (#4 on the list) has been important for decades--not as you seem to think by the month--2013 data is more recent than average in this article, which includes lots of history c) NYC is by far the #1 Jewish city and #1 real estate market in USA. d) Jews do ALL SORTS of things besides own real estate--says who?  what sorts of businesses will you permit to be included here? what reliable sources are you using? You have not provided any sources about real estate in NYS --and yourt argument can be used to include just about all businesses. Rjensen (talk) 15:49, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I'll try to keep it brief: since this is an overview article of 400 years of history of American Jews, we should be briefly citing respected historical books giving an overall view of the subject "American Jews" and "business", not dubious email newsletters making a very narrow claim about Jewish New York City real estate owners in 2013. See WP:RS, WP:UNDUE. Jayjg (talk) 16:37, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The new reasons are no more convincing than the old ones. you would start with the list of basketball owners if you were serious. Real estate/hotels = #1 or #2 in Wiki's list of Jewish businessmen--who get very short shrift here. Rjensen (talk) 17:18, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
 * There aren't "new reasons" and "old ones"; they are the same reasons. The list of basketball owners is slightly better, because it's not restricted to New York City, and the source is better, but it should also go, because it's just a random factoid from a newspaper article. The "board seats" sentence in the paragraph is also problematic, for similar reasons; in particular, the statistics are over 20 years old, and undoubtedly incorrect now. Jayjg (talk) 18:06, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Science, business, and academia NEEDS FIXING
While reading through this page, I stumbled across the sentence in the "Science, business, and academia" subsection that begins "Jewish culture has a strong tradition, emphasis and respect for money and a deep emphasis on financial acumen". It does not. This statement is an antisemitic generalization. The main Jewish value relating to money learned during upbringing is tzedakah, which is giving to charity. Writing that Jewish culture puts an emphasis on money on a public page that is supposed to inform the world about American Jews is rather problematic. Instead, maybe an author wants to find primary literature discussing the very real Jewish emphasis on scholarship to explain Jewish success in science, business, and academia? My suggestion would be to remove this phrase from the article, and any other false generalizations like it. Sammm10r (talk) 02:39, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

American Jews and race
I think that this section needs a rewrite. There seems to be an underlying implicit conflation of American Jewishness with white-skinned European-descent Jewishness. The sentence "Some American Jews identify as white, while some American Jews solely identify as Jewish" is problematic. I changed the first word "some" to "most", since all the available polls I have seen indicate that the majority of American Jews identify as white. However, there is a subtle erasure of Jews of color going on. There needs to be clarification that the Jews who are being discussed, the Jews who do not identify as white or who distance/problematize their identification with whiteness, in this particular context are (probably?) mostly white-skinned Ashkenazi Jews of European descent. Many Jews are Jews of color so they don't have an "ambivalent" relationship to whiteness. Because they aren't white, period.

EDIT - I also changed this sentence: "The relationship between American Jews and white majority identity continues to be described as "complicated"."

to this: "The relationship between white-skinned American Jews of European descent and white majority identity continues to be described as "complicated"."

As I said, many Jews are black or brown or otherwise visibly non-white. It's not complicated for them. This particular complexity is mostly something going on with white-skinned Jews, many of whom are of European Ashkenazi descent. This might not be the best wording, of course. White-skinned, white, European, European descent, and Ashkenazi are all different things. We need to acknowledge the complexities. For example: not all white-skinned people are of European descent, not all white people are of European descent, not all Europeans/Euro-descent people are white, not all Ashkenazim are white or white-skinned, some Ashkenazim are converts and so may be Ashkenazi by minhag but not Ashkenazi by ancestry, etc. There are many, many complexities.

EDIT 2 - It's also interesting that this particular racial complexity of Euro-descent American Jews in relation to whiteness is addressed in the main section of "American Jews and race", while the issues of Black Jews are placed into a sub-category. Non-black Jews of color are barely mentioned at all, something we should work on correcting. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 12:56, 14 August 2019 (UTC)


 * I think you make some valid points, Bohemian Baltimore. I think this sentence is problematic: "Most American Jews identify as white, while some American Jews solely identify as Jewish." It should be broken into two sentences: "Some American Jews are white. Some American Jews do not identify solely as Jewish." Another option I think worth considering is simply removing the assertion that "Most American Jews identify as white". I don't think that highly subjective assertion is adequately supported by the source provided. I think such an assertion requires good-quality sourcing. The source provided is a footnote from a book called "Sustaining Faith Traditions—Race, Ethnicity, and Religion among the Latino and Asian American Second Generation". I realize I should not judge a book by its title but that book does not seem to be primarily about Jews or American Jews. Bus stop (talk) 14:07, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Fair enough objections. I think splitting that sentence is a good idea. I do think there should be some sort of specification of which Jews are being discussed as having a complicated relationship to whiteness, because I think it should be more plainly presented that many American Jews have no such relationship to whiteness (due to being visibly black or brown, for example). I might have been overly specific referencing European heritage, since a complicated relationship to whiteness could be an issue for any white-passing/white-looking (or whatever) Jewish person, regardless of whether they have European heritage of not. Thank you for taking the time to add your perspective. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 10:57, 15 August 2019 (UTC)


 * You've substantially changed the meaning of material in front of existing citations, which you cannot do. Moreover, some of your insertions are factually (or at least arguably) incorrect; is a Jew from Morocco or Syria "white-skinned" or "of European descent"? Definitely not the latter, possibly not the former; yet many are not particularly dark-skinned, and also identify as "white". Your attempt to "fix" the problem of conflation of American Jewishness with white-skinned European-descent Jewishness creates another problem of conflation of most north-African or Middle Eastern Jews with European Jews. Jayjg (talk) 15:59, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * That would entirely depend on the person. There are Moroccan and Syrian Jews (and other MENA Jews) from a variety of backgrounds. Many are light-skinned, many are not. Many Moroccan Jews are of Iberian descent, many are not. Many MENA Jews identify as white, many do not. MENA Jews can identify as Mizrahi, Sephardi, Ashkenazi, Berber, none of the above, or some combination. In the US, MENA people are classified by the census as white. So that's another complication. The literature that discusses "Jewish whiteness" in America that I have seen seems to be Ashkenormative and centers on European-descended Jews, so that is what I addressed. You have offered criticism. What is your suggestion for better wording or a better rewriting of the section to be more inclusive? Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 10:46, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The suggestion would almost always be the same; start with excellent sources, read what they say, and summarize that. So, what sources do you propose using for this? Jayjg (talk) 13:53, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

The vast majority of US Jews are Ashkenazi, Sephardi, or Mizrahi, all of whom are counted as "White-American". A section on African-American Jews already exists. There is no need for a substantial rewrite of a section that clearly does not pertain to Jews of color.

EDIT: As a side note, I would also interject that, from an ethnological standpoint, Ashkenazim are not European either. Categorizing them as such could be seen as a form of erasure in itself, since many (from my experience), including myself, do not identify with Europe at all. You also incorrectly assume that all Ashkenazim have white skin. Many do not. Lastly, many European Jews are actually Sephardic.The Human Trumpet Solo (talk) 01:22, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
 * "a section that clearly does not pertain to Jews of color". Exactly the problem. The article is racist by excluding Jews of color. The fact that the section, about race of all things, is written in a way as to "not pertain" to Jews of color is in and of itself white supremacist. Plenty of American Jews aren't "Ashkenazi, Sephardi, or Mizrahi". And plenty of American Jews of color are non-black. The whole section is racially skewed and needs a re-write.
 * "from an ethnological standpoint, Ashkenazim are not European either" - This is your own, extremely tendentious, race-science view of Ashkenazim. I never claimed that all Ashkenazim "identify with Europe" (whatever that may entail, and it could entail many things). Obviously, I know that there are certain Euro-origin Ashkenazi Jews with racialist viewpoints who consider themselves non-European. I'm also aware that there are Euro-origin Zionist Ashkenazim who consider themselves non-European for ideological reasons. It's also true that "identification with Europe" can operate on a spectrum or with ambivalence. I never claimed that all Ashkenazim have white skin. Black Ashkenazim obviously do not have white skin. I never claimed that all European Jews are Ashkenazi. I'm well aware that European Sephardim exist (as well as European Jews who are Italkim, Romaniotes, etc.). Even if we accepted this Nazi-style definition of "ethnic" Jews as being a "racially Levantine" population, many Jewish converts from white gentile backgrounds wouldn't count as "real ethnic Jews" or whatever. Are white Euro-descent Jewish converts who are Ashkenazi by minhag non-European/"Levantine"? Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 09:32, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Also white also goes by Caucasian which includes SWANA so I can make an argument 95% of jews are either European Middle Eastern/North African 24.252.57.99 (talk) 00:20, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Infobox seems confused about Canada/America
Is the article about Canada as well as the United States? Because the infobox map implies it is. But the content in the article is strictly about the U.S. - Bri.public (talk) 20:04, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Should the map be changed to just the United States?
This article is about American Jews, not American and Canadian Jews, but all the other maps of the Jewish American population on Commons are from before the current image was uploaded. Is it worth changing it to an older image, or should the current one remain? Geminin667 (talk) 09:42, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Unclear introductory sentence
The first sentence reads as follows:

"American Jews or Jewish Americans are Americans who are Jewish, whether by religion, ethnicity, culture, or nationality."

The meaning of the word "nationality" here is totally unclear.

Normally, the word "nationality" in English refers to citizenship.

Since there is no such thing as "Jewish citizenship", the word needs to be either defined or (even better) removed from the sentence.

The fact that the sentence comes from a referenced source makes no difference. Statements in Wikipedia need to make sense, and the appearance of a word with no clear definition is meaningless. 2601:200:C000:1A0:353C:B79B:EAEA:DE11 (talk) 01:07, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Problem: An editor is deleting text on Non-Ashkenazi American Jews
Not all American Jews are Ashkenazi, although they are the majority, other Jewish ethnic divisions still exist within the boarders of the United States. Not all Jews or American Jews are White Ashkenazi while the majority of American Jews are. Substantial Mizrahi, Sephardi, and Ethiopian Jewish populations exists within the United States. 129.174.182.61 (talk) 22:20, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 September 2021
In the counties listing, Baltimore County Maryland is listed twice (with identical hyperlink to Baltimore County wiki page), with two different population numbers. A correct version should distinguish between Baltimore County and Baltimore City, which has county status (county equivalent - politically independent) separate from Baltimore County. The smaller population number is probably the number for Baltimore City, but that should be double checked with original source.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baltimore_County,_Maryland 71.121.149.133 (talk) 20:04, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Semi-protection-unlocked.svg Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:22, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Proposed SPLIT of Demographics
I am considering splitting the American_Jews section into a separate article. This would reduce some of the bloat in that section that is not relevant to this article, allow for additional detail where it would not be relevant here, and reduce the overall page length though better summary style.

I am mentioning this because this is a fairly popular article, to make sure that I am not missing anything about the following questions:
 * 1) Is this a good idea? Is there opposition?
 * 2) If a good idea, are there any preferences about the resulting article name? I am considering "Demographics of American Jews", "Demography of American Jews", "Demography of Jews in America", or something like that. Are there similar articles for other religions or countries with a pattern that could be mimicked?
 * 3) Does this article already exist? Some related articles include Jewish ethnic divisions, Judaism by country, Historical Jewish population comparisons, and Jewish population by country, but these do not fulfill the same purpose as a specific demography article imo

Freelance-frank (talk) 15:06, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Categories_for_discussion/Log/2022_January_11
I started this discussion, and it led to the following interesting question:

Should categories like Category:African-American novels and Category:Jewish American novels be based on the background of the author or the content of the work? If you have an opinion, please share at the Cfd-page. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:37, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Hscullin.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 14:02, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

2020 Pew survey additions by sock
Paragraphs were recently added by an editor later sockbanned. These edits were removed by and then mostly re-added by.

I am reverting to the original article for now. I will later re-integrate some of this content with greater reliance on secondary coverage. Here is why:
 * 1) This is a primary source, and this is quite a lot of coverage to include for a primary study without direction from secondary sources.
 * 2) It is unclear why some details were included and some weren't. For instance, why add the detail about income added based on the summary bullet points? And conversely (just for instance), why is the adjacent bullet point about Chabad involvement not added?
 * 3) Exacerbating these general points, these additions were performed by a sock. This should probably increase sensitivity to inclusion concerns

Here is secondary coverage of the study that will help guide inclusion:.

Freelance-frank (talk) 14:13, 1 June 2022 (UTC)


 * I don't think it particularly matters that the contributions were from a sockpuppet, given that there is no evidence of the negative behavior typically associated with sockpuppets (at least in this particular article) and that the edits appeared to contribute to the article. That said, incorporating information from the 2020 Pew survey via preferable secondary sources would be most welcome. Thanks for the links to such sources. CAVincent (talk) 05:57, 2 June 2022 (UTC)