Talk:American Jews/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Jews and whiteness

The subsection "American Jews and race" is quite one-sided.

First, it offers only one point of view, namely that Jews are not "white". However, there are criticisms of this, from reliable sources. See, for example, this Washington Post article. This is a controversial topic, since the notion of "race" itself is questionable. Indeed, an ethnically European individual can convert to Judaism and become a member of the Jewish people: does he cease being white after conversion? There needs to be a more wholistic discussion. In addition, most censuses in the United States, both currently and historically, have identified Jews as white, and I would wager that a significant portion, if not a clear majority, of Jews self-identify as white. Jews are also phenotypically white in the sense that differentiating between Jews and ethnic Europeans visually is, in practice, impossible.

Secondly, the discussion of Jews' Middle Eastern lineage is a bit of a red herring. It's not of any significance that a portion of many Jews' lineage can be partially traced to the Middle East, which is what the cited study suggests. This notion that race is a biological construct and that the only "white" people are those that possess exclusively European ancestry is not, to my knowledge, an opinion expressed in the scholarly literature. Moreover, the "genetic research" cited is also rather lopsided. Although it is true that Jews likely have origins in the Middle East, there has been substantial genetic admixture between ethnic Europeans and Ashkenazi Jews.

Thirdly, it's unclear to me why nearly half of that section is devoted to the opinion of Cornel West, a non-Jewish individual without any credentials in genetics or anthropology.

I would encourage my fellow Wikipedia users to improve this section, or give me permission to do so. In my opinion, the section comes off as a screed from either a white supremacist, or a Jewish nationalist. CompactSpacez (talk) 03:44, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

I examined all of the history citations. only Michael Lerner uses white in a racial sense--he does not say that ANY American Jews are ambivalent about being of the white race. the others never use race in a racial or ethnic sense (they talk of "a black and white argument" "White House"). CompactSpacez has dealt with the false use of genetics. So it's an unsupported section & I erased it. Rjensen (talk) 05:54, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

User:CompactSpacez 1. The Census identifies Middle Easterners as white, and that is why Jews were moved to that category (they were previously considered 'Asiatic').

2. "and I would wager that a significant portion, if not a clear majority, of Jews self-identify as white. Jews are also phenotypically white in the sense that differentiating between Jews and ethnic Europeans visually is, in practice, impossible. " Both of these claims are conjecture/guesswork, not provable facts. The second statement in particular is pretty ignorant.

3. European admixture is irrelevant. Many non-European peoples have European admixture, not just Jews.2601:84:4502:61EA:456F:E528:DD7:CF11

4. To my knowledge, opinion pieces at WashingtonPost do not fall under WP:RS.(talk) 00:48, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

1. They are still identified as white, which is what matters.

2. Here is a source for that claim. Only 19% of Jewish millenials self-identify as other than white. The numbers are lower for older Jews. This flies in the face of the claims made in that section. The second statement is effectively common sense. There's no conceivable way one would be able to tell that Sarah Silverman or Bill Maher have Jewish ancestry, for example, simply by looking at them. Conversely, one can immediately deduce visually that someone like Al Sharpton is African-American. That said, I agree with you that common sense is not a reliable source, at least according to Wikipedia. However, the sources that were cited in that section were not particularly reliable either.

3. What is a "people"? Does a "people" constitute a "race"? Is being "white" equivalent to simply being a member of a European "people" in a strictly cultural context? Or does it involve having European ancestry? These are certainly debatable and complex topics. If they are to be explored in this article, they need to be explored in a more objective manner. One should keep in mind that a "race" isn't usually considered something one can convert to, whereas one can become a member of the Jewish people by simply converting. In any case, if genetics and ancestry are even tangentially relevant to what constitutes a "people", then the European admixture is relevant. If genetics are not relevant at all, then we shouldn't discuss Jewish genes whatsoever.

4. You are allowed to use opinion pieces from reputable sources so long as the views are attributed to the author rather than presented as statements of fact. See WP:NEWSORG. CompactSpacez (talk) 13:31, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Jews considered "Asiatic" that was never true of official US government / census policy. Rjensen (talk) 19:25, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

When the only options on the census for race are white and black, or white, black, and Asian, most Jews will pick white as the least misleading of two or three choices, none of which fits correctly. Similarly, when the ethnicity section allows only the choices of Hispanic or non-Hispanic, most Jews in the US do not identify as Hispanic. That does not mean that Jews think of themselves as truly part of the white, non-Hispanic majority; it means that the census, and similar information forms elsewhere, do not contain an appropriate category, and so Jews check off the one they find least inappropriate. PA Math Prof (talk) 01:13, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

The US Census doesn't ask about religion, so there's no way to know how American Jews describe their race in the census. In the Pew survey cited in the article, participants were asked "Which of the following describes your race? You may select as many as apply. White, Black or African American, Asian or Asian American or some other race." If the response was "mixed" or "biracial", the participant was asked a follow-up question: "What race or races is that?"

If, as many on the fringe insist, most white-skinned Jews consider themselves Semitic/Asiatic and not white, why did they volunteer that they were white instead of Asian or "some other race"? (Hint: Because they know that they're white.) — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:40, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Please note that the deleted section that I restored does not suggest in any way that "most white-skinned Jews consider themselves Semitic/Asiatic and not white" - it states that "many American Jews retain an ambivalence about whiteness". The relevance of the latter statement should be painfully obvious, and many, many other sources exist to document it. Whether or not this ambivalence represents a majority of American Jews (which the section does not claim), it is absurd to regard this observation as "fringe". Newimpartial (talk) 01:55, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

I would not use the term "fringe". Under discussion here is the difference between "figurative" and "literal". Jews (aside from those that are not white) are literally white. But figuratively-speaking they may not be white. When it comes right down to it, 90% of Jews are white. How might we know this? Good examples abound. Consider as an example a police lineup. If suspects matching a description were lined up, would white Jews be included or excluded depending on whether they are white or not? Of course not. A white Jewish person is largely indistinguishable from a white non-Jewish person. If we are using the language literally, we call 90% of Jews white. But figuratively-speaking, a white Jew can be considered non-white. Bus stop (talk) 02:15, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

This "literal" versus "figurative" notion is absurdly reductionist. To give an example that is not about Judaism, between 1909 and 2014, people of Middle Eastern and Arab origin in the United States have been defined as "white" legally and for census purposes [1]. Meanwhile, in Canada, people of the same origin - the same people - are defined as a visible minority group of Arab or West Asian origin, and have been since at least 1961 [2]. Does that mean that a person of Arab ancestry who crossed the Canada-U.S. border before 2014 changed from being "literally" non-white to being "figuratively" non-white upon crossing the border? They were "literally white" in the U.S. but only "figuratively white" in Canada? Or "literally non-white" in Canada and "figuratively non-white" in the U.S.? Surely "literal whiteness" and "figurative whiteness" do not fully capture the reality of the situation on either side of the border. Newimpartial (talk) 02:30, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Newimpartial—"white" is meaningless except under meaningful circumstances. A police lineup is a meaningful circumstance. If you don't like the "literal" versus "figurative" method of explanation, that is fine. But you must bear in mind that there is no definition of whiteness that applies in all frames of reference. Bus stop (talk) 02:38, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, the concept "white" is of course purely contextual. And I wouldn't support any inclusion in the present article claiming that the 95% of American Jews under discussion "are not white". But the subjective ambivalence about whiteness felt by many American Jews is well-documented, has a real historical basis, and is by no means a "fringe" observation. Newimpartial (talk) 02:43, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

PA Math Prof says "...it means that the census, and similar information forms elsewhere, do not contain an appropriate category, and so Jews check off the one they find least inappropriate."[3] What would be an appropriate category? What category is missing from the form? Bus stop (talk) 02:29, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Many people find the racial categorization on the Census inappropriate in general. Witness the meandering definitions surrounding "hispanic origin". Newimpartial (talk) 02:34, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

What is a "Census"? A Census has purposes. Our purpose is not the same purpose as a US Census. We are talking about frames of reference. This is not complicated. 90% of Jews are white. Do they identify with White Anglo-Saxon Protestants? Probably not. Bus stop (talk) 02:43, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Bus stop, I do not understand how you can recognize that frames of reference exist, and then insist that there is only one frame of reference that applies to American Jews and whiteness in this wikipedia article. It is, for example, as though the whole of world history before 1947 were irrelevant to questions of "American Jews and whiteness" even though, per reliable sources, many American Jews feel an ambivalence about whiteness which is rooted in their own (historical and cultural) frames of reference. Newimpartial (talk) 02:47, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Newimpartial, the material you restored misspells the name of the author and quotes his paper out of context. That verges on vandalism in the first instance and misrepresenting the source in the second -- and you've restored it twice -- essentially taking responsibility for adding it to the encyclopedia. I hope you're proud of yourself. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:00, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Spelling corrected. Before I replace Rosenwaike with another source, though, what is it that you feel is "misrepresented" in the quotation I restored? Newimpartial (talk) 03:10, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

After further edit warring editing in article space, I have replaced Rosenwaike with two other sources in this edit [4]. I would appreciate if contributors could discuss this peer-reviewed, mainstream source material rather than continuing an edit war. Newimpartial (talk) 12:41, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

WP:NPOV concerns under American Jews and race section

User:Malik Shabazz is insistent on including the following line: "The overwhelming majority of American Jews view themselves as white."

I don't believe this line is necessary, given that the following one (and the source itself) both say the same thing. In addition, the above quoted line treads very close to violating WP:NPOV, and comes off as an attempt to make a "point" about Jews. The aggressive tone in Malik's reverts are also of concern.The Human Trumpet Solo (talk) 02:54, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Which part of NPOV does it allegedly violate? And what is your concern about my tone? That I won't put up with your outrageous abuses of the editing process and lying about sources? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:02, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Which sources did I lie about, and where did I "outrageously" abuse the editing process? Show me, please.

As to your second question, perhaps it's just me but your reverts were quite hostile and accusatory. Especially the last one, which left me with the impression that you are, in fact, trying to make a point by including that line. And that is a problem because, as you yourself said to another editor, Wikipedia is not a soapbox.

I answered the first question in my original post.The Human Trumpet Solo (talk) 04:53, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

User:Malik Shabazz's last revert included this message: "since you and your friend are still peddling the "Jews aren't white" line, it's very necessary"

In other words, he feels the line is necessary not because it improves the article (it doesn't), but because I mentioned in passing, on another talk page, that I do not personally identify as white.The Human Trumpet Solo (talk) 05:13, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

I would like my original, cited phrasing/statement restored to the edit I made today. Jeffgr9 (talk) 05:42, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

The Human Trumpet Solo—no one is interested in how you "personally identify". If you are an editor we do not care that you "do not personally identify as white." Bus stop (talk) 12:35, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

It was an off-hand comment. The only reason I even brought it up here is because it is the chief motivating factor behind Malik's constant reverts, by his own admission.The Human Trumpet Solo (talk) 13:03, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

This entire paragraph should be subsumed into the paragraph that presently follows it. Bus stop (talk) 13:16, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Then bring it up in another section and stop derailing this one.The Human Trumpet Solo (talk) 13:18, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

There is no sense in rearranging the deck chairs on the sinking Titanic. Some Jews are black. Some Jews are white. That some white Jews have said that they are not white does not provide us with justification (in the American Jews article) for writing a paragraph about those white Jews who say that they are not white and then following that paragraph with a paragraph about those Jews who actually are black. The logical placement for any material pertaining to white Jews who say that they are not white is at the end of the paragraph on that minority of Jews who are black—not in a freestanding paragraph—and not in a paragraph that precedes the paragraph on Jews who actually are black. Bus stop (talk) 13:50, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

That belongs in a new section. Please stop derailing this one. Moreover, no one is interested in your opinion on whether or not Jews are white.The Human Trumpet Solo (talk) 14:02, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Jews are a Semitic Tribe, and Jews may indeed be a mix of Black and Jewish, and in fact, Jews, including Asheknazim, have a significant amount of African ancestry from Early Migrations. So, the connection does not only intersect when self-identified (or otherwise) Jews and self-identified (or otherwise) Black people mix in modern times (or notably with Beta Israel or the Lemba, but is also inherently intertwined.

Furthermore, because Jews are a Tribe, an Ethnoreligious group, a Jewish "atheist" is different from a "non-Jewish atheist" through both ethnicity and Tribal designation. Jews remain ethnic Jews even if they may choose to leave the Tribe like conversos and crypto-Jews, and "Jews by Choice" do in fact add an ethnic identity to themselves in name, language, cuisine, philosophy, culture, etc. when they join the Tribe (convert). Jeffgr9 (talk) 15:51, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Based on the almost immutable factors of facial features, skin tone, hair type, etc., this American Jew is black and this American Jew is white. Bus stop (talk) 16:21, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

False; Paul Simon's nose, lip, eye, and eyebrow shapes/sizes say otherwise. Paul Simon may not be (predominantly, outside of possible Early Migration ancestry, as discussed in the article I included above) Black, but he is not "white." Jeffgr9 (talk) 22:15, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Jeffgr9—can you please name for me a Jew who is white? I only mentioned Paul Simon as an example. Thanks. Bus stop (talk) 22:53, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Again, because B'Nei Y'Israel are a Tribe, there are no "white" Jews, only "white-passing" Jews and Jews who intersect European and Semitic heritage--whether through genetic admixture or new Tribal designation (as discussed in the Jews by Choice article I included above). Whereas ethnic Jews can predominantly trace their lineage back to Semites who first settled the Levant (and/or to Jews by Choice who joined the Tribe), Jews by Choice add Semitic ethnic heritage to their identity in addition to whatever previous ethnic heritage they had. Therefore, Jews by Choice may no longer just identify as European, Ugandan, Japanese, etc., they must incorporate their new Semitic ethnic heritage into their identity. That is how race in relation to Tribes like B'Nei Y'Israel works.

Also, as an aside, the term "white Jew" was used by Nazis to describe non-Jewish European scientists who adopted Jewish scientists' principles. Point being, the term "white Jew" carries no significant relevance to ethnic Jews or Jews by Choice and should not be used when describing any Jew. Jeffgr9 (talk) 23:19, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

So, if a Jewish person has straight blond hair, blue eyes, and pale skin, they are only "passing" as white? Bus stop (talk) 23:48, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Exactly. That is the definition of "white-passing." Jeffgr9 (talk) 23:53, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Well, then what sort of a person with straight blond hair, light skin, and blue eyes is not white-passing? If we don't designate them as Jews, what do we designate them as? Bus stop (talk) 00:05, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

We disignate people by whatever ethnocultural/Tribal identity with which they belong. Walter F. White, one of the Presidents of the NAACP, was a blond-haired, blue-eyed, light-skinned Black man. There are many similar cases within other/intersecting ethnic groups, from Queen Noor of Jordan, to Chloe Bennett, to Cherokee Nation's Principal Chief John Baker, to Pawnee Nation's Andrew Knife Chief, and more. The term "white" in it of itself is not even descriptive enough for the ethnic and/or sociopolitical differences between Europeans, but that is for a different discussion. Jeffgr9 (talk) 00:41, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

It is original research to assert that white Jews are only "passing" as white. Most of them say they are white and most other people regard them as white, as long as they contain the "hallmarks" of "whiteness" which are commonly seen in skin color, often seen in hair color and hair type, and sometimes seen in eye color. Bus stop (talk) 00:33, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Please read my response above. Jeffgr9 (talk) 00:41, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

We abide by the findings of sources. We avoid original research. No source says that no Jew is white. You are making that assertion without the support that we require in sources. This edit is improper. You are asserting that white Jews are "passing" as white. This is possible, but not in all instances. The reality is that it probably is the case in very few instances. Bus stop (talk) 00:56, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

I did not assert my fact-based opinion while making my edits. I asserted that American Jews are often given no other options to identify on censuses and other related surveys, and many Jews feel that "European" or "white" identifiers are not appropriate in relation to breaking down Jewish ethnic heritage, both of which are sourced and true. Moreover, there are sources that prove my these assertions contained in articles such as [this one by Micha Danzig http://forward.com/scribe/355864/anti-semitism-in-america-is-nothing-new-dont-deny-jewish-history-and-cultur/]. And no, it is not a "few instances." Have you seen [this gallery of Ashkenazim http://ashkenazim.weebly.com/gallery.html]? The majority do not appear "white" at all. Jeffgr9 (talk) 01:21, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

You don't get to decide who is actually white and who is passing as white. You are saying that Jews are passing as white. Without support in sources this is original research. Bus stop (talk) 02:02, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

User:Bus stop I forgot you ignored sources I have provided to you in the past, now I realize you are doing it again. Why do you do that? In our previous conversations and this one, you often violate Wikipedia:Civility by ignoring my sources/points. Very disturbing. In any case, I made the change to which you just referred based on not only our conversation here, but sources that I provided in the article. You have not proven Jews to be "white," so excluding sources that explain these phenomena from a fact-based perpective is against Wikipedia policy. Jeffgr9 (talk) 02:45, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

What makes you think that you can decide that Jewish people are not white? If the person thinks they are white, and others think they are white, then that leaves you as the sole authority deciding that they are not white, but merely "passing" as white. You made this edit and I partially reverted it, as seen here. Not only is it not supported by a source, but the second half of the sentence is a non sequitur from the first half. That is because there is no connection between "passing" as white and being an atheist. If you had a source (for the passing as white implication) you would probably still want to split that into two sentences. Bus stop (talk) 03:24, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

You say that I have not "proven Jews to be white". That is correct. And I am not trying to prove that Jews are white. You are using article space to assert that Jews are not white. I consider that claim farfetched and I'm asking you to provide a source. Bus stop (talk) 03:33, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

I have not decided any such notion of Jewish identity alone. In fact, in 1987, the Supreme Court ruled that Jews were "racially distinct" from "white" people. You can read further instances in this cited article and in this cited article that I included above.

This sentiment regarding Jews is not new, nor "farfetched," and I find it personally offensive and that you seem to want to conflate or support conflating Jews with those who have repeatedly rejected, pogromed, and genocided them (i.e. the Holocaust in which Jews were racially persecuted for being non-"white," the Spanish Inquisition with "limpieza de sangre," with the most recent alt-right protests in Charlottesville, Virginia, in which "white" Supremacists called for Jews' destruction because Jews are not "white"). In any case, the various opnions of how Jews view themselves deserve to be included, but most especially in the context of the fact-based reality: Jews may only be "white-passing" and/or "mixed-with-white," neither of which are "white," and a Jews' "white-passing" status is only conditional until a Jewish individual and/or community have to face Antisemitism, a form of racism directed against Jews. I suggest you ask David Duke, Richard Spencer, or other "white Supremacists" regarding how they view Jews, because at the end of the day, these extremists represent the subconscious/underlying racism that still exists against Jews by many actual "white people" today.

Some last notes, so you agree that those non-Jewish people of color whom I listed are in fact "white-passing," yes? And you agree that the Jews in the Ashkenazim gallery do not fit conventional "white" phenotypes, yes? And finally, you agree that Jews are a Tribe (as per the Jews by Choice article) with tribal rules that include those regarding ethnicity that dictate that Jews are a People in it of themselves, yes? תודה. (Thank you.) Jeffgr9 (talk) 06:23, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

You really need to read more carefully. The Supreme Court did not "rule that Jews were 'racially distinct' from 'white' people". The decision says:

the question before us is not whether Jews are considered to be a separate race by today's standards, but whether, at the time § 1982 was adopted, Jews constituted a group of people that Congress intended to protect. It is evident from the legislative history of the section reviewed in Saint Francis College, a review that we need not repeat here, that Jews and Arabs were among the peoples then considered to be distinct races

When was section 1982 enacted? 1866. In other words, the Supreme Court said that more than 100 years ago, when Congress wrote the law in question, it considered Jews to be racially distinct and therefore intended for them to be covered by the statute. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 11:47, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

The fact there has been constant and documented questioning (both within and outside the Jewish community) of the racial categorization of Jews shows there is racially more to Jews than is described by the term "white." How many "white" groups have this same intensive degree of scrutiny or identity ambiguity when discussing race?

The Shaare Tefila Congregation v. Cobb case above merely states Jews can claim racial disrcrimination from "whtie" groups; its primary purpose is not to promote the concept of considering Jews "white," and invokes previous decisions to show that Jews indeed have a claim of racial discrimination even if society were to consider them "white" during any time period. Meaning, the court ruled to protect Jews no matter what they are considered, but most especially because Jews have been considered "racially distinct."

Further, you did not address any of the rest of the articles or points I have made, so you agree with them? Jeffgr9 (talk) 16:47, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

This whole discussion is ludicrous. Arabs and originally middle Eastern Jews are scientifically considered Caucasian (Semitic). Many Ashkenazim have significant European genes in them too, often due to rape, as well as intermarriage. While many Jews historically in places like Poland, did not consider themselves Polish, for example, they identified that time as a religion. It is modern academia that has painted an ethnic and/or racial component. And most people arguing about this either are trying to prove that Jews are not White for racist reasons (I know the difference between race and ethnicity, but they are often conflated, even if that is not correct), or not originally from the Middle East for political reasons. That the vast majority of Jews, genetically, according to modern definitions, are Caucasian is unassailable. Even the Brandeis study mentioned earlier is mis-quoted. 89% identify as White and another 6% as Hispanic. In all likely, these are Spanish (Sephardic) Jews and are thus also White. So, 95% of Jews identify as White. There are definitely Black and other non-White Jews, whether by choice, intermarriage, or the early diaspora. In the end, there is nothing wrong with saying Jews are overwhelmingly White, because that is a 100% unassailable scientific fact. Sposer (talk) 12:26, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Sposer, again, labeling Jews "white" is literally racist, as in Anti-Semitic, as in denying the Ethnocultural/Tribal origins of Jews as a Semitic People who originated in the Levant. As many sources, like the George Shishim case, already provided in the article state, only a conditional inclusion of Semites into "Caucasian" may exist to assert a connect between the figure Jesus and European peoples. Such a "white" status has been revoked over and over again in various European pogroms, genocides, exiles, and other persecutions (even by European Americans) against Jews. Please address the sources and arguments above before trying to derail the conversation. Your claims have already been addressed above. And you present and interpret flawed/incomplete evidence. Jeffgr9 (talk) 16:47, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Actually I would say the exact opposite. Calling Jews a race is racist. Jews, and I am one, are mostly Caucasian, period, as long as Semite is Caucasian. Using the more classically defined races: Caucasian, Negro and Asian, there is no other race that Jews largely would fall under. Those that have labeled Jews as non-white did so specifically to persecute them (Nazis). Pogroms also are racist as these European pogroms and genocides lie and say that Jews are different, which they are not. The Supreme Court Case says the opposite of what you wrote. It says that Jews are White, but if racists are treating them otherwise, they can still sue, since they are being incorrectly targeted. The Brandeis survery says 95% of Jews are White, assuming that most of the Hispanic self-identified Jews are non-Negro (Caucasian) Hispanic. And since Ashkenazim, Sephardim and Mizrahim all are scientifically similar and are at least partially Semitic (with Ashkenazim often partly European) and therefore White. Sposer (talk) 17:42, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Again, all of your points have been previously addressed with cited material. Please refer to all arguments/sources cited above. However, even then, the tridivisional/quadri-divisional definition of race by Blumenbach/others was mislabeling and created with racist intentions. And the Brandeis survey does not call Jews "white," it says, given the limited racial choices and information provided, many of those selected Jews self-identified as racially "white." That does not definitively prove their self-identification of "white," and does not exclude other perspectives on the matter. Jeffgr9 (talk) 18:13, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Jeff, you are mistaken about so many things. You are engaging in impermissible original research. And you still don't know how to spell the name of the author of the journal article you're misrepresenting.

When they are asked their race, more than 90% of American Jews say they're white. Rosenwaike's article says the percentage was 97% among Jewish New Yorkers. On Wikipedia, we don't make up stories to rationalize why the overwhelming majority of our co-religionists disagree with us. We report what reliable sources say, and we give appropriate emphasis to mainstream views and fringe views. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:01, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

David Biale; Michael Galchinsky; Susannah Heschel (1998). Insider/Outsider: American Jews and Multiculturalism. University of California Press. p. 60. ISBN 978-0-520-21122-3.

Kenneth L. Marcus (2015). The Definition of Anti-Semitism. Oxford University Press. p. 77. ISBN 978-0-19-937564-6.--Moxy (talk) 18:32, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Those are both interesting references, Moxy (and I own a copy of the book edited by Biale, Galchinsky, and Heschel), but would you care to elaborate on your point a little? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 00:56, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

• Just real sources for all to see.....cant rebut the whiteness.--Moxy (talk) 18:32, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Karen Brodkin (1998). How Jews Became White Folks and what that Says about Race in America. Rutgers University Press. p. 142. ISBN 978-0-8135-2590-7.

Jerry Diller (2013). Cultural Diversity: A Primer for the Human Services. Cengage Learning. p. 354. ISBN 978-1-305-17753-6.

Inaccurate quote

Can we agree that quotes from sources are expected to be accurate? Please note the edit that I made here. The inaccuracy that I removed is now back in the quote again. Can we all agree that the quote should be restored to the wording found in the source? Bus stop (talk) 10:42, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Agreed, and therefore done. Truth is the first casualty of edit war. Newimpartial (talk) 11:22, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Edit-warring has nothing to do with it. It was intentionally misquoted by a POV pusher. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:35, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Edit-warring has everything to do with why I restored an inaccurate quote (and a mis-spelled name): three times, Malik, you opted to blank the whole section with which you disagreed, rather than correcting the errors. That's edit-warring. Then you blamed me for "vandalism" because a small part of the content I re-introduced contained an error. Not cool. At least it's all fixed now. Newimpartial (talk) 04:11, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Bullshit. You restored a POV-pusher's intentional misquote of two sources, twice, because you jumped into an edit war you knew nothing about. Take some responsibility for your edits. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 11:44, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Exactly. An edit war. QED.

I'm not pretending to innocence here -- you'll find I write quite differently when pretending innocence. :p But yes, I should have been more careful, and corrected my edit without having to be prompted to do so. I will aim higher in the future.

Anyway, as purest speculation, I suspect that if the MENA designation for census is approved for 2020, the number of American Jews identifying as non-white will at least double, if only because of the ones wanting to put "Israeli" on that part of the questionnaire. Which will still leave the vast majority identifying as white...Newimpartial (talk) 13:11, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Newimpartial—white non-Jews and white Jews will still look the same regardless of changes to the 2020 census. Bus stop (talk) 14:14, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

I am impressed at the power you have to detect "whiteness" by looking. Surely some government somewhere has a use for your talents. Newimpartial (talk) 14:17, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

One cannot distinguish between white non-Jews and white Jews. Bus stop (talk) 14:33, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

True, but I'm just astounded that you can tell white from non-white by "looking". I suppose it's easier if you only need to tell black from white (like that police lineup you mentioned earlier). Newimpartial (talk) 15:35, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

(this has been deleted; I reverted myself; but another editor reinstated it) I didn't say anything about telling white from non-white by looking. I can only assume you haven't read what has already transpired in the conversation you are jumping into. Bus stop (talk) 16:19, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

This conversation? I've been here the whole time. You've said that you can't tell white Jews from non-white Jews by "looking", but you've also appealed to "objective" whiteness which you can apparently identify because you are "hypersensitized" as an American.

If your appeal to "objective whiteness" isn't about what a "hypersensitized" observer can tell "by looking", then what is it about?

For the record, and nothong to do with my edits, I don't believe in "objective whiteness". Some people identify as white, some people are perceived as white - mostly the same people - and there can be genetic factors about which subject and/or observer are unaware. However, there is no "objective" standard of whiteness to handle boundary cases --which is why all nations, and many subcultures within nations, handle categorizes like "whiteness" differently. Newimpartial (talk) 16:56, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) I didn't say anything about telling white from non-white by looking. The point that I was making, or trying to make, about a police lineup, is that both white Jews and white non-Jews would be included in such a lineup if "whiteness" was part of a description of a suspect. And of course I am not in the least bit concerned with police lineups, but rather the appearance of people. You seem overly concerned with how people "identify" and not concerned enough about how people look. Appearance matters. A salient point is that white Jews are all but indistinguishable from white non-Jews. (this is written prior to the comment immediately above due to an edit conflict) Bus stop (talk) 16:59, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

As stated in my by edit summary, I'm fine to drop this. But it's not so much that I am concerned with how people identify - it's a data issue. Thanks mostly to the census, we have pretty good data based on self-identification. Data on how people's race is perceived, on the other hand, is pretty much nonexistent, aside from police incident reports and other crime statistics, I'd reckon.Newimpartial (talk) 17:46, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Identifying as white and being white

Newimpartial and myself seem to be locked in a disagreement. It concerns the first sentence in the paragraph presently labeled as American Jews#American Jews and race. My contention is that we start with the facts, therefore the first sentence should read "The overwhelming majority of American Jews are white." My fellow editor seems to believe the first sentence should read "The overwhelming majority of American Jews identify as white." I think that the rest of the paragraph should be used to articulate that even white Jews, who represent the majority of Jews, do not necessarily identify as white. But the fact that they are white should be stated at the outset. Can other editors weigh in? Bus stop (talk) 13:09, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

You are stating opinions as if they are facts. See: WP:NOR The Human Trumpet Solo (talk) 17:08, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

The evidence shows precisely that the majority of American Jews identify as white; stating that they are white is, in fact, original research. Newimpartial (talk) 13:24, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Original research? I find sentences in our article such as "Estimates of the number of American Jews of African descent in the United States range from 20,000[93] to 200,000.[94] Jews of African descent belong to all of American Jewish denominations. Like their white Jewish counterparts, some Black Jews are atheists." Or do you think that the majority of American Jews are neither white nor black? If a certain small percentage are black, then of course the larger percentage are white. Do you have another explanation for the racial complexion of most American Jews, in fact for most Jews the world over? Is it original research that black Jews are black? Bus stop (talk) 14:03, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Your claims about Jewish skin complexion are both impossible to quantify and constitute original research.The Human Trumpet Solo (talk) 17:05, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

The Human Trumpet Solo—we are not talking about those people that share characteristics of whiteness and blackness. This discussion is primarily about people who are clearly white or clearly black. No one will deny that most Jews are clearly white. Except of course a few Wikipedia editors. In the real world the terms white and black have real meaning. On a Wikipedia Talk page there are editors that challenge the existence of the racial reality that prevails elsewhere. Bus stop (talk) 17:15, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Everything you've just said is original research. Please read WP:NOR carefully. Thank you.The Human Trumpet Solo (talk) 20:08, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Where is your nontrivial mention that the majority of American Jews are white as opposed to identifying as white? This is a serious question, for the reasons implied in the discussion of "literal" and "figurative" whiteness and non-whiteness for Arab-descended people above.Newimpartial (talk) 14:10, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

The majority of American Jews are white. Not sure what the issue is. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 14:06, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Newimpartial—I don't know what your issue is. We are not here to right great wrongs, not that I am even clear what "wrong" you are trying to "right". Bus stop (talk) 14:26, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

I am not trying to right any "wrong", just to prevent the erasure of the well-documented ambivalence of American Jewish identities vis-à-vis racial categories. Because "race" is constructed and re-constructed almost every generation (do I really need to give the hundreds of citations for this?), it seems absurd to me to use context-free, quasi-ontological language -- "95% of American Jews are white" -- as a pretext to erase the well-documented ambivalence many American Jews feel about "whiteness" as a racial category.Newimpartial (talk) 14:33, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

In order for there to be "ambivalence" about whiteness there has to be whiteness in the first place to be ambivalent about—or are black people also ambivalent about their whiteness? Bus stop (talk) 14:44, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

How about looking at my Arab-ancestry example above, then tell me whether the ambivalence members of that group might experience toward "whiteness" depends on whether or not they (somehow) are white, hors contexte.Newimpartial (talk)

Newimpartial—you have to start with the facts. And again—we are not here to right great wrongs. "Arab-ancestry" is not what this article is about. This is an article entitled American Jews. You are discussing the "ambivalence" that Jews feel toward their whiteness. Fine. This is the paragraph for delving into that ambivalence. But you have to set the stage for the ensuing sentences which delve into the ambivalent feelings some Jews have about their whiteness. That is accomplished by stating the fundamental fact of the whiteness of the majority of Jews. You are reluctant to state the obvious. Bus stop (talk) 15:01, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

I repeat, what is your source that American Jews are white, rather than simply identifying as white? What would that even mean? That the vast majority identify as white is a documented, empirical fact which sets the tone for the paragraph. The other claim ... I seriously don't know what it means, besides making an absurd ontological claim.Newimpartial (talk) 15:06, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

The word white doesn't mean anything. If somebody asks me to describe the guy, I might say he was a white guy. Or I might say he was a black guy. Or I might say I'm not sure if he was white or black because his features shared characteristics of white guys and black guys. But this doesn't mean that we don't know what we are talking about. On the contrary it means that we have an information bank for factors that indicate whiteness and factors that indicate blackness. In fact it may very well be the case that we, in American society, are hypersensitive to the smallest indications of whiteness and blackness. We are sensitized to this. It is absurd for you to resist saying in our paragraph that the majority of Jews are white. That is just a plain and obvious fact. Do all Jews embrace whiteness? I don't think so. This is the "ambivalence" that is being spoken about in this paragraph. But we should start with the facts. That most Jews are white is an objective fact. Bus stop (talk) 15:31, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

How about we start by discussing a different "objective fact", namely that the phrase in question was repeatedly inserted in the article specifically by editors who have also repeatedly removed the discussion of "ambivalence" which has evolved into the rest of the present paragraph.

As far as the substance of your current argument, Bus stop, how does your "hypersensitivity" lead you to interpret the case of Arab-descended Americans (and Canadians) crossing the border between the two countries as I mentioned above? The whole point of that example is that "whiteness and blackness" are defined by specific frames of reference, which you mentioned initially and then go ahead to ignore in your preferred text to open this section. Or is there some "objective fact" about the whiteness or non-whiteness of people from West Asia and North Africa that you have not shared with the group?

Also, I fail to grasp any meaningful information that would be communicated by "95% of American Jews are white" that is not present in "95% of American Jews identify as white". With all the AGF in the world, the best-case scenarios I can see are stylistic or ideological preferences, rather than any empirical or concrete significance.Newimpartial (talk) 15:41, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Are people allowed into the United States or not allowed into the United States, from Canada, depending on whether they are white or not? If so, I wasn't aware of that. Bus stop (talk) 16:13, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Let's look at the question in another way. If the recommendation for a Middle East and North Africa designation goes through for the 2020 U.S. census, will millions of people suddenly stop being "objectively white"? If so, how and why? Newimpartial (talk) 16:16, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

The census doesn't determine who is white and who is black. The census is not the final arbiter of who is white and who is black. In fact the census would not even concern itself with who is white and who is black if it were not for the fact that there are real-world consequences of being white and of being black. First whiteness and blackness exists in the world outside of the census, then the census gets around to attempting to quantify self-disclosed information concerning whiteness and blackness. It would never occur to a census-taker to gather information on whiteness and blackness if it didn't matter. Bus stop (talk) 16:56, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Bus stop, why do you discuss American racial categories as if they consisted of "white" and "black". They never have, and never will. Newimpartial (talk) 17:07, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

There's also the fact that many American and Canadian Jews identify as West Asian rather than with their recent diaspora countries (say, Poland, Russia?). What if, on the 2020 Census, these folks mark Middle Eastern/North African instead of White? Will they still be objectively white?The Human Trumpet Solo (talk) 17:18, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Those Jews who are from West Asia would then if they choose identify as West Asian. But most Jews in the US are not from West Asia. Also, the US Census demographic category is not a black or white categorization. It's more an in depth cultural, ancestral and race categorization that goes well beyond black or white.Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:21, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

"most Jews in the US are not from West Asia". That is your opinion, one that many Jews do not share. Not all Jews identify with their recent diaspora host countries, for obvious reasons. This is where much of the Jewish ambivalence around "whiteness" comes from.The Human Trumpet Solo (talk) 17:24, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Seeing as my concerns were never adequately addressed, I will repeat them here.

"The overwhelming majority of American Jews view themselves as white." This line is redundant, unnecessary, and reeks of POV pushing. The following line is adequate, so this one should be removed.The Human Trumpet Solo (talk) 17:02, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

It already is removed, The Human Trumpet Solo. Bus stop (talk) 17:05, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

I just looked at the article. It's still there.The Human Trumpet Solo (talk) 17:20, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

No, it is not. You are inquiring about a sentence reading "The overwhelming majority of American Jews view themselves as white." The sentence in the article at present reads: "The overwhelming majority of American Jews identify as white." Don't you see the difference? In fact that is the sentence under discussion in this section of this Talk page. Bus stop (talk) 17:27, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

No, you don't get it. I'm saying the line should be 'removed', not reworded.The Human Trumpet Solo (talk) 17:33, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

As per your instructions we should not discuss it? You wrote above "This line is redundant, unnecessary, and reeks of POV pushing." How does this sentence reek of POV pushing? Please tell me. It is POV pushing to state that the majority of American Jews are white? Can you expand on that? Bus stop (talk) 17:40, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

I explained how in the above section, which you derailed. But yes, stating that the majority of American Jews *are* white (as opposed to *identifying* as white) is POV, and original research.The Human Trumpet Solo (talk) 17:54, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

You asserted above that "This line...reeks of POV pushing." Please tell me—how is it "POV pushing" to state that the majority of American Jews are white? Bus stop (talk) 18:07, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Didn't I just explain how? Or are you just being recalcitrant?The Human Trumpet Solo (talk) 18:16, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

• What do scholars say?

Gabriel N. Finder is Ida and Nathan Kolodiz Director of the Jewish Studies at the University of Virginia.

Eli Lederhendler is a modern Jewish historian who specializes in American and European Jewish politics, society, and migration. He has taught at Yale University, University College London, Vassar College, Tel-Aviv University, and the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.

Eli Lederhendler; Gabriel N. Finder (2016). A Club of Their Own: Jewish Humorists and the Contemporary World. Oxford University Press. p. 284. ISBN 978-0-19-064612-7. A majority of American Jews..... coming from Central and Eastern Europe— were regarded as white. This determination, which went more or less unquestioned, afforded Jews over time all the advantages of whiteness

--Moxy (talk) 18:44, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

From the same text: At the same time, the racial identity of Jews was more problematic, as the notion of race and the category "whiteness" encompassed far more than just skin color.

Nice selective quotation.The Human Trumpet Solo (talk) 19:02, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Good to see someone read and reply to a source.......yes always best to read the linked text for oneself ......see the context. Also best to assume good faith....--Moxy (talk) 19:16, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Of course they are "regarded as white". It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that out. White Jews are all but indistinguishable from other white people. Our article has a perfectly valid point to make—that white Jews have mixed feelings about being white. That point should be made. But the context has to be set for making that point. That is where the first sentence of the paragraph comes into play. It has to state the obvious—that the majority of Jews are white. Black Jews, for instance, represent only a small minority of the total population of American Jews. No doubt there are also some Jews who share characteristics of both white people and black people. But there is nothing problematic in stating that the majority of American Jews are white. That is just a simple fact. I think we can leave out the word "overwhelmingly" from the sentence under consideration. I think that sentence can read "The majority of American Jews are white." Bus stop (talk) 19:06, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

The sources do not say "they have mixed feelings about being white". That is original research.

"White Jews are all but indistinguishable from other white people."

This is also original research.The Human Trumpet Solo (talk) 19:14, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Don't be ridiculous. We are expected to paraphrase. Isn't "ambivalence" related to having "mixed feelings"? Do you prefer the term "ambivalent"? It is fine with me. As concerns Jews looking like other white people, countless sources support that. Let us look at the one most proximal: "A majority of American Jews...coming from Central and Eastern Europe—were regarded as white. This determination, which went more or less unquestioned, afforded Jews over time all the advantages of whiteness". Bus stop (talk) 19:37, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

That source says nothing about appearance. Furthermore, it's only one source - the claims of which are not supported by other WP:RS - and should therefore not be treated as consensus per WP:UNDUE. None of the other sources state that they *are* white, but that they may (and in many cases, may not) view themselves as white.The Human Trumpet Solo (talk) 20:01, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

The first sentence of the paragraph under discussion doesn't address how white Jews view themselves. Subsequent sentences in that paragraph address how they view themselves vis-a-vis whiteness. In fact you and others are implying that Jews are white. You do so when you state that Jews are ambivalent about being white. If you are stating that white Jews are ambivalent about being white then you are implying that white Jews are white. You are talking about how they view themselves but the first sentence is not and should not be about how they view themselves. The first sentence should be about reality. What are they? They are white. Not only do sources support that assertion but you are supporting that assertion. You support that assertion when you go on to write subsequent sentences which articulate the notion that white Jews are ambivalent about their whiteness. Bus stop (talk) 20:30, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

The source says they identify as white, not that they *are* white. Therefore, that is what the article should say. Why are you not getting that?The Human Trumpet Solo (talk) 21:54, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

(ec) Agree most see themselves more then just "White" as per Ronald H. Bayor (2004). The Columbia Documentary History of Race and Ethnicity in America. Columbia University Press. pp. 697–. ISBN 978-0-231-11994-8......but "look" white as per Maurianne Adams; John H. Bracey (2001). 2 (ed.). Strangers & Neighbors: Relations Between Blacks & Jews in the United States. Univ of Massachusetts Press. p. 820. ISBN 1-55849-236-4. {{cite book}}: |editor= has numeric name (help).--Moxy (talk) 20:39, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

We've got to stop splitting hairs. We are writing a straightforward encyclopedia article. You start out a paragraph with broad strokes and then you fine tune it: "despite being white, not all Jews view themselves as white". That is the gist of the whole paragraph, in a nutshell. A person from Mars should understand that the majority of Jews are white. How would a person from Mars understand that unless we explicitly say it? Bus stop (talk) 20:53, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Because none of the sources say that most Jews *are* white, only that they identify as white (and, per Moxy's source, are often perceived as white). There is a fine distinction between "Jews identify as white/Jews are perceived as white" and "Jews are white, that is a fact". That is what you do not seem to understand.

"A person from Mars should understand that the majority of Jews are white." No, they should understand what the sources say, and then draw their own conclusions from that. This isn't a soapbox.The Human Trumpet Solo (talk) 21:40, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Moreover, the claim in Moxy's original source (i.e. that Jews were always regarded as white in the States) is not supported by other academic sources.The Human Trumpet Solo (talk) 23:30, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

You are correct ....Jews were not always regarded as white in the States....but the source does say that. Here is a more accessible text Kathleen J. Fitzgerald (2014). 2 (ed.). Recognizing Race and Ethnicity: Power, Privilege, and Inequality. Loyola University New Orleans. p. 46. ISBN 978-0-8133-4931-2. {{cite book}}: |editor= has numeric name (help). --Moxy (talk) 23:51, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

It is clear that Kathleen J. Fitzgerald is using the term "white" figuratively. When we write, in our article, "The overwhelming majority of American Jews are white", we are using the term "white" literally. We are not using it figuratively. Kathleen J. Fitzgerald is using the term figuratively. Bus stop (talk) 00:46, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

As ridiculous as I think The Human Trumpet Solo's arguments are, I believe he's right. I would assert that nobody is white (they're more of a pinkish color). Whiteness is a country club to which most Americans of predominantly European descent belong, including Jews of European descent. If someone looks like a member and acts like a member, the members don't usually question one another's membership.

Are American Jews white? No more or less so than the other members of the club. Do they identify as white (or, as I wrote, describe themselves as white)? Overwhelmingly so, as study after study find. In 1980, the first survey found that 97% of Jewish New Yorkers, 95% of Jewish Angelenos, and 95% of Jewish Chicagoans identified themselves as white (other was an option). The second survey found that in 2013, 94 or 95% of American Jews described themselves as white (depending on one's definition of a Jew) (other or mixed were options). — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:54, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Which is exactly the version of reality reflected in the opening line of the current section on American Jews and race: that the vast majority identify as white. The section then goes on to explore some of the reliable sources documenting American Jewish ambivalence about whiteness, which is an extraordinarily persistent finding and which is readily understandable in terms of many historical and biographical frames of reference.Newimpartial (talk) 03:39, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

"As ridiculous as I think The Human Trumpet Solo's arguments are"

How so? And I think your arguments are both ridiculous and agenda driven, but for the sake of decorum I kept those feelings to myself.The Human Trumpet Solo (talk) 17:23, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Um, what just happened? I come back after two days and a huge debate occurs over issues already discussed? I may have accidentally misread the text as context (as in presenting the quote) and added a hyperlink that changed the Rosenbaum quote. My mistake and I apologize. However, my arguments and sources for my other edits have not been addressed, and although I assume good faith, my arguments/sources have been ignored multiple times, and I find Malik, Bus Stop, and Sir Joseph to be thus not abiding by Wikipedia:Civility. And I agree with The Human Trumpet Solo's rebuttal to Moxy's second quote, by providing a quote that in fact supports claims of Jews not being "white," and also proves that such a notion is not a fringe view. Thank you. Jeffgr9 (talk) 14:35, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

So you agree with how the article is currently written as presented in all thelse sources ....so really the majority agree with the current text. Should we add the sources here? -Moxy (talk) 15:00, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

I do not agree with everything that is written in the article, Moxy , such as the contextual descriptor of "white Jew," and I believe more information about this subject should indeed be added to the article. Please examine my arguments/sources above. Jeffgr9 (talk) 16:06, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

For fucks sake, his name is Ira Rosenwaike, not Rosenwalke and not Rosenbaum. Rosenwaike. And it wasn't his quote that you manipulated. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 15:17, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

It seems that once again, Malik Shabazz,Wikipedia:Civility is lost on you. So I re-typed the wrong letter of Rosenwaike's last name and I added a hyperlink/changed a word in a quote by Rosenbaum that I originally thought was context; and although I apologize for making those mistakes, both mistakes in part have to do with you violating WP:3RR in this case. Jeffgr9 (talk) 15:56, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

As has been explained to you at two noticeboards, I have not violated 3RR. On the other hand, you did. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 16:08, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

False--what are you talking about? What a deflection from my questions/inquiries/arguments. Jeffgr9 (talk) 16:51, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

My sincere apologies. I confused you with another editor. I've stricken my comment. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 17:58, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

• I am also supervised at the lack of accuracy with many comments (not understanding the sources). They seem to be arguing about a topic covered in the article. Perhaps we should expand on the white history as it relates to other whites......explain more on how like with the Irish and Italians....there was a pecking order in the past .....a whiteness scale per say.

William Labov (2006). The Social Stratification of English in New York City. Cambridge University Press. p. 231. ISBN 978-0-521-82122-3. Since identification as a Jew or an Italian has long been an important social theme for New Yorkers, it is ... However, it appears that the traditional orientation of New Yorkers into a three-cornered structure of Jews, Irish, and Italians is giving way to new social patterns. The white population is now contrasted as a whole with

Maurianne Adams; Lee Anne Bell (2016). Teaching for Diversity and Social Justice. Routledge. p. 289. ISBN 978-1-317-68868-6. Ethnic groups considered white today were not always socially accepted as such. Throughout our history, there have been shades of white, where skin color and European origin intersected with social disadvantage, as they did with the Irish, Italian, and....

Steven Seidman (2016). Contested Knowledge: Social Theory Today. Wiley. p. 395. ISBN 978-1-119-16759-4. Immigrants could be Irish, Italian, Hungarian, and Jewish, for example, without being White. ... The Irish, Italians, Poles, and Jews were assimilated or became first‐class Americans only when they were recognized as White

--Moxy (talk) 15:51, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Jews are not, at their core, a European People; Jews may "be mixed with," "pass for," or intersect with Europeans, but that does not make them European. Jeffgr9 (talk) 16:06, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Jeffgr9—you say that you disagree with the contextual descriptor of "white Jew". The American Jews article speaks extensively about "black Jews", as does the article African-American Jews. What are we contrasting "black Jews" with except "white Jews"? Bus stop (talk) 17:11, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

User:Bus stop, interesting you point out one of the main flaws in a different descriptor "Jews of color," but you still do not seem to understand the issue. The term "white" largely means "European" with its origins based in claiming Europeans superior to non-Europeans. (Note: Jews historically have been and continue to be in large part considered to be non-European.) However, in racial politics, because European (and Arab*) Empires/nations often enslaved, raped, exiled, dispersed, etc. non-European (*and non-Arab) peoples, it is inconsistent and offensive to label Jews with the same sociopolitical demonym of "white" as opposed to "white-passing" and/or "mixed-with-white" (the same with calling Jews who are "mixed-with-Arab" as "Arab Jews," when Arabs are the dominant and Imperialist group of the Levant. Instead one would either say Mizrachi/Sephardi, or "mixed-with-Arab"). This issue especially remains the case given the context that non-Jewish people often use the term "white Jews" to either connote a European person who supports Jews (as the Nazis described German scientists who adopted Jewish scientists' work), or to imply Ashkenazi/Sephardi disconnection to their Semitic roots, the connections of which do in fact exist either/both genetically and/or culturally. So, whereas the term "white Jews" should definitely not be used--given that Jews' Tribal origin is Semitic, and when we live in a world that is still very racist against Jews as a People--the term "Black," on the other hand, when used properly, is meant to empower peoples of more direct African descent in a world that is currently very Anti-African, and may be especially used to describe those reclaiming their identity as those who have not only survived slavery, but who have thrived as a People. Thus, the term "Black Jews" may be used if Black Jews include "Black" as a term of empowerment. If a Black Jew like a Lemba group/individual finds to not perceive "Black" as empowrlering, then they may instead say "mixed-with-Black." One does not ethnically/racially label President Barack Obama a "white Black person," but instead President Barack Obama is a Black man who has "mixed" or "mixed-with-white" heritage. One may, however, identify Rashida Jones, or Lenny Kravitz, or Walter Mosley, as Black Jews or Black and Jewish if they view their Black identity as empowering. The "white" identity juxtaposed in front of "Jews" as "white Jews" (just as with "Arab Jews") is disempowering and only reminds Jews of European enslavment, exile, dispersal, genocide, and further persecutions at the hands of European Empires/modern countries, as well as systems of European American racism. In summary, the term "Black Jews" is not "in contrast" to other Jews, it is to add on an empowering identifier for those who consider "Black" empowering, but "white Jews" as a term is not empowering, but represents levels of Oppression; similarly, the term "Jews of Color" is a problematic term in that it implies "other Jews" (or those mixed/intersecting with European) to not be "of color," when much racism directed at Jews are directed at Jews who may "pass-for-white" and/or be "mixed-with-white." So, instead, Jews are a Tribe/People of Color, with those who "pass-for-white" and/or be "mixed-with-white" included within. Jeffgr9 (talk) 20:17, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Someday, I am sure, I will meet an Ashkenazi Jew that does not consider themselves white, but after 57+ years of being an Ashekenazi Jew and living among Ashkenazi Jews, I have NEVER met one that did not see themselves as White, unless they were mixed race (i.e., Far East or African/Black). Further, although there is (sadly) prejudice among Ashkenazim towards Sephardim and Mizrahim, I do not know any Ashkenazim that do not consider them, or Arabs for that matter, to be, as a race, White. Now, if scientifically Semites are generally not considered White, then I would assume many Ashkenazim assume they are mixed race, due to intermarriage and rape(pogroms) in Europe. I have as yet to meet a Jew, including those that lived through the Holocaust in Europe and lost family there (as my father did), who did not consider themselves to be White. While many racists will say that Jews and Arabs are not White, unless that is the new academic definition of race (which lay people are certainly not aware of, but ought to be clearly explained if it is going to find its way into this article), they are White. So scientifically, they appear to be White unless there is a scientific classification for Semites as a race, and as far as the ambivalence thing, that just sounds like academics looking for something to say and twisting their data to match their pre-conceived notions. (By the way, I know my observations are not RS, and at this point I give up trying to argue that the idea that the vast majority of Jews are white, but I just want to point out that suggesting that Jews are not White and that they are ambivalent about it (except when racists use it to say Jews do not originally come from the Middle East) is beyond ridiculous.Sposer (talk) 20:38, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

For what it's worth, most Semitic populations are mixed with Europeans at this point (due to Crusader, Roman, and Greek incursions). It's not exclusive to Jews.The Human Trumpet Solo (talk) 02:20, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Jeffgr9—you are talking about empowerment but the American Jews article isn't primarily about social class. Bus stop (talk) 22:28, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

User:Bus stop we are duscussing the topic of "race" and identity as it relates to Jews, both Black and non-Black, so yes, we are discussing social class, and yes we are talking about empowerment and power dynamics when we discuss "race." Can you please respond to my points instead of deflecting? Jeffgr9 (talk) 01:13, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Moxy—are you supervised at the lack of accuracy or are you surprised at the lack of accuracy? Bus stop (talk) 16:22, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

For the record, I find Jeffgr9's and Bus stop's positions equally absurd and equally "FRINGE". But Bus stop, surely not all Jews are "black" or "white"? Newimpartial (talk) 17:23, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Newimpartial—most Jews are white. Other Jews are in the minority. There are black Jews. There are Jews that look neither black nor white. And there are Jews that look both black and white. But the majority of Jews are white. Bus stop (talk) 18:13, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Do you have any data behind how Jews "look", Bus stop, or is that anally sourced?

Please feel free to tell me—what does Paul Simon look like? What does Barbra Streisand look like? Are they not white Jews? And does their appearance not typify world Jewry? Let's stop being silly. Why do you think our article at this moment says that "The overwhelming majority of American Jews identify as white"? Let me give you a hint: they identify as white because they are white. Would they be identifying as white if they were not white? By the way, in answer to Moxy's question, I'm content to leave the article as it is. I am not arguing to change anything. Bus stop (talk) 18:26, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

I find your views to be very one-sided. For example, what of Ashkenazim like Jeremy Stoppelman, Jennifer Rush, Ari Lesser, Sacha Baron Cohen, Cliff Simon, Fritz Perls, Grant Heslov, Phoebe Snow, and countless others who are either dark skinned or explicitly Middle Eastern in appearance? What of Syrians, Lebanese, Native Americans, Iranians, Pashtuns, et al who have light skin? Are they white?The Human Trumpet Solo (talk) 02:20, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Debate about Jews and 'whiteness' in this talk page makes the news

The debate on this page has recently been featured in a news report about Wikipedia titled "Are Jews white and is Richard Spencer a white supremacist? Wikipedia debates" and published on the English edition of the Israeli newspaper Haaretz. It seems this is the second such piece to be written for the newspaper (see: "The royal houses of Netanyahu and Baratheon: Inside this week's drama on Hebrew Wikipedia") by a writer called Omer Benjakob who claims to be researching Wikipedia. --192.118.73.36 (talk) 07:03, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

How does an article behind a pay wall with numerous popups that mis-quotes the debate going to help here. --Moxy (talk) 11:53, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

As the revert-er, I would have thought "pop-ups" <> paywall. Also, I would hope that being (mis)quoted in Ha'aretz would give editors some encouragement to think about what they write here.Newimpartial (talk) 11:57, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

OK if some think it's relevant fine....but pls don't add back the source to the article. ....wiki debates are not notible for inclusion in articles.--Moxy (talk) 12:02, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Yeah; I had no intention of reverting that. I found the reference in the article POINTey. Newimpartial (talk) 13:24, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Is this really relevant to an encyclopedia article?

Is "whiteness" a defining fact on the topic of American Jews at all? Greek Americans does not say "Greeks are white." Italian Americans does not say "Italians are white". Arab Americans does not say "Arabs are white." Filipino Americans does not assign a race to Filipinos. In short, there is no basis for using the factoid (which is about as useless as any pseudo-factoid can be) in any article on Wikipedia in the first place whatsoever. Collect (talk) 13:55, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Would you argue that the article African-American Jews should be deleted? Bus stop (talk) 14:19, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

No. And that is an absurd comment. The question is Should the article American Jews stress that they are White'? Collect (talk) 15:12, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

And I would note to the person who knee-jerked the edit that this is indeed an example of me having the discussion on this page, and that it damn well looks like I am far from the first person questioning the section. Collect (talk) 15:14, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes and if you had read the previous talk page discussion, you would have seen that while this section of the article has been frequently discussed and edited. It had also consistently been maintained in each stable version. My reversion was not a "knee-jerk", it is literally what BRD calls for in this and similar instances. Newimpartial (talk) 16:56, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Touchy? I followed the normal edit procedure, and my edit summary should have been clear -

not relevant, and not a topic covered in any other Wikipedia article abt such groups. see talk page)

Which rather seems to suggest that I am discussing the issue on the talk page, else I would not likely have written "see talk page", would I? Collect (talk) 17:35, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

True, but you shouldn't sound butt-hurt (q.v. "knee-jerk") when such a BOLD edit is reverted. The best practice, after all, is BRD not BDR. Newimpartial (talk) 17:43, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Because Jewish whiteness (much like Middle Eastern whiteness in general) remains controversial and hotly contested both within the academic realm and outside of it. This relatively recent article is one such example (http://www.politicalresearch.org/2017/06/29/skin-in-the-game-how-antisemitism-animates-white-nationalism/ ).The Human Trumpet Solo (talk) 02:27, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

You're out of your mind. Whether Jews are white is only a question discussed among a small percentage of American Jews who are uncomfortable with their white privilege. Your habit of pointing to what antisemites believe as if it were a barometer of rational thought is getting tiresome. Many antisemites don't believe Jews are fully human, let alone "white". And who cares. See WP:FRINGE, WP:UNDUE, and WP:PROPORTION.

And for the record, I agree with Collect. No, it shouldn't be necessary to state the obvious—that the overwhelming majority of American Jews are white—except that a small group of Wikipedia editors insist against all evidence that it's untrue and, worse still, that our encyclopedia articles should state their fringe theory as if it were fact. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:37, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

This comment can be summed up as WP:IDONTLIKEIT. You are entitled to your views User:Malik Shabazz, but you cannot remove sourced material just because you do not like what it says.

Actually, Malik Shabazz is 100% correct. The only people that ever question that Jews are essentially white, except those due to mixed race marriages (Drake et al) are due to social and racial descriptors. The only other people that say they are not white, are neo-Nazis and their ilk. A few fringe ridiculous academics talking about how some left wing Jews are ambivalent over the FACT THAT THEY ARE WHITE, does not make Jews not white, and does not mean there should be any mention of Jewish whiteness in the article, outside of the attempts by racists to call them non-white or lesser humans. This is not do not like, this is absolute truth. As for SPLC, although I generally agree with them, they are extremely left wing and really are not a reliable source on things like this. They are fringe in many ways and should not be held up as a justification for ridiculous edits.Sposer (talk) 16:03, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

This is a crude, one-sided misrepresentation on the debate of Jewish whiteness, essentially lumping in anyone who disagrees with you as either being a racist or insecure. By contrast, this subject has been hotly contested within the Jewish community and outside of it for decades. Moreover, whiteness itself is malleable and changes almost every generation. It isn't some immutable fact of the Jewish condition, as you are trying to portray it.The Human Trumpet Solo (talk) 04:54, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

We shouldn't put the cart before the horse. The figurative use of "white" in relation to Jews is relatively unimportant. Some Jews as well as antisemites may say that Jews are not white. But that is the figurative use of the word "white", and consequently that use is of relative unimportance to us. We should be more concerned with the literal meaning of the word "white" in relation to people. (Obviously we are not concerned with the use of the word "white", the color of standard bright white printing paper.) When writing an encyclopedia article we should be giving prominence of position to the literal meaning of the word "white". An encyclopedia article should not lavish disproportionate attention on mere figurative commentary. Bus stop (talk) 13:21, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

But surely there is no "literal" use of white for a race/genotype/ethnic group? Even describing albinos as "white" is somewhat figurative; Irish, French, Jews or Moroccans, much more so. Newimpartial (talk) 14:47, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

The most literal use of the term "white" for our purposes is the use of the term to describe appearance. That is why we have an article called White Jamaicans. Figurative uses are less important for our purposes than literal usages. If our article is to touch on this subject—and indeed it can be omitted, as some have pointed out—prominence of importance should be given to the literal. Lesser importance should be given to the merely figurative. Therefore the views of some Jews and of some antisemites should be relegated to a position of lesser importance in our article. Bus stop (talk) 15:29, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

But no American has a "literally white" appearance. The usage of "whiteness" is figurative all the way down. That is why wikipedia's articles about racial categories do not describe the "appearance" of each category, but the ways they are historically and culturally constructed in specific contexts. Newimpartial (talk) 15:54, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

If an antisemite says that Jews aren't white they are clearly using the term in its most figurative sense. If someone with the appearance of Paul Simon or Barbra Streisand says that they are not white they are clearly using the term in its most figurative sense. (I should quickly add that I do not know that these people make any such assertion.) Our article need not get bogged down on the most figurative usages of the term white. Bus stop (talk) 16:21, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

You know, Bus stop, I could very easily and with good evidence make the argument that in the example you give, the antisemite (or the Streisand-looking person) is being more literal in denying whiteness than you are in avowing it. You might want to rethink your mental hierarchies. Newimpartial (talk) 16:43, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

White is a descriptive term. It is descriptive of appearance. It enjoys widespread use. When an antisemite says that Jews are not white, that antisemite is using the term "white" in a specialized sense. That specialized sense warrants little space in this article. When a Jewish person (who happens to look like Simon or Streisand) says they are not white, that person is using the term "white" in a specialized sense, and that specialized sense warrants little space in this article. We should be primarily concerned with using the term as it is most broadly used. Bus stop (talk) 19:06, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

For one thing, this is the article on "American Jews", and any discussion of race or "whiteness" here needs to be relevant to the topic of "American Jews" per reliable sources. It doesn't matter how broadly used or specialized the discussion is.

Second, if you look at other articles related to "Whiteness" they do not concern themselves mostly with the way you think "the term is most broadly used" - perhaps because that would be impossible, since there is no generally accepted definition. Newimpartial (talk) 19:24, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Correct me if I am wrong but doesn't the Pew survey support that 90% of American Jews identify as white? Bus stop (talk) 19:49, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Absolutely, which is why I edited the article to reflect that finding. But that is self-identification - just like any survey or census data - and has nothing to do with "literal whiteness". Newimpartial (talk) 19:57, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Therefore you would want to remove from the "American Jews" article the paragraph on African American Jews and other American Jews of African descent, correct? And you would probably want to delete the article African-American Jews, right? Bus stop (talk) 20:13, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

And while you're at it, you would probably want to delete the article White Jamaicans, right? Bus stop (talk) 20:17, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Why would I? I've known white Jamaicans. Those are all perfectly coherent self-identification categories - which is why data exists on them - even though none of them can be taken "literally" q.v. albino. Newimpartial (talk) 20:30, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

The White Jamaicans article says "White Jamaicans or European Jamaicans are Jamaicans whose ancestry lies within the continent of Europe, most notably England, Ireland, Scotland and Spain." Our article doesn't say that they merely "self-identify" as white. Bus stop (talk) 20:40, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Your point? What Jamaicans do you think identify as white, and why? The article certainly doesn't discuss what Jamaicans are "literally" white, nor, more to the point, does it define Jamaicans of Syrian-Jewish descent as being either white or not-white.Newimpartial (talk) 20:58, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Europeans are some of the most quintessentially white people of the world. The White Jamaicans article says "White Jamaicans or European Jamaicans are Jamaicans whose ancestry lies within the continent of Europe, most notably England, Ireland, Scotland and Spain." The "White Jamaicans" are people of European origin living in Jamaica. And where does our article say that they are merely "self-identifying" as white? And by the way, how would a black person "self-identify" as white? Wouldn't that be rather difficult? Bus stop (talk) 21:37, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

FFS, nobody says that sane "black" people identify as "white", though some may identify as bi-racial. But many, many non-Europeans, including many people from the Middle East and North Africa, do not identify as "white" or "black", nor are they necessarily defined as "white" or "black" by the societies in which they live. Is this really so hard to understand?Newimpartial (talk) 23:15, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

You may not be aware of it but many white American Jews originate in Europe or Eastern Europe or Russia. These are locations where many light skin people are found. Bus stop (talk) 04:44, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

And I do not dispute that in any way. You may not be aware of it, but there are also many American Jews who come from North Africa or the Middle East, where the population is not considered white in their countries of origin, nor will they be so considered by the US Census after the MENA proposal goes through. I am not saying that these people are or aren't white, but your argument that they must be white because they aren't black is at least somewhat peculiar. Newimpartial (talk) 11:50, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

I never asserted that a segment of the American Jewish population "must be white because they aren't black". In your post above you are linking to the color white. Shouldn't you be linking to white people? Bus stop (talk) 12:25, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Actually, Bus stop, you made that assertion here: [5] "Or do you think that the majority of American Jews are neither white nor black? If a certain small percentage are black, then of course the larger percentage are white." If you meant for that that latter comment to be parsed differently, I would certainly be interested in hearing what you meant.

And you are certainly right about my linking error. I won't correct my original post, because it wouldn't be proper, and anyway those populations are considered neither white nor white in their countries of origin. Newimpartial (talk) 12:43, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Where is the "self-identification" required of black people in this article and other articles that is required by you and other editors of white American Jews in this article? Does blackness get a pass as concerns the "self-identification" requirement? Bus stop (talk) 13:08, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

I don't require self-identification in any way, and neither does the article (which I do not OWN anyway). However, virtually all empirical data about "race" and whiteness in the United States - except for police statistics and some touchy medical data - is based on self-identification, so it is what we have. And when we have a group whose identity is not self-evident - like MENA people, who have successfully lobbied to be removed from the category "white" on the US census, or self-avowed or potentially "biracial" people - how do you propose that wikipedia should treat them without mentioning self-identification? Blackness is no more exempt from self-identification than is biracial status, as far as I can tell, since individuals can identify with one, or the other, or both. Race simply does not have some "literal" meaning that can be read outside of the identities people hold and those imposed by others - it is those phenomena, and nothing else. Newimpartial (talk) 13:26, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

You say "how do you propose that wikipedia should treat them without mentioning self-identification" but we do not mention self-identification when it comes to black people. Bus stop (talk) 13:44, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Really? The article Black people does. Look at the sections on North Africa and Australia, for example. Newimpartial (talk) 13:51, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

The article African Americans also currently has a whole paragraph about "people who self-identified as black" on the 2010 US census. Care to re-think? Newimpartial (talk) 13:53, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

The American Jews article does not mention black American Jews identifying as black. Bus stop (talk) 14:05, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Sure it does. First paragraph, American Jews and race. Newimpartial (talk) 14:10, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

What are you referring to? Cut and paste to this Talk page, please. Bus stop (talk) 14:18, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

The article currently reads "In 2013, the Pew Research Center's Portrait of Jewish Americans found that more than 90% of Jews who responded to their survey described themselves as non-Hispanic whites, 2% as black ...". That is, 2% of Jews described themselves as black. "Describing themselves as" and "identifying as" are literally synonymous. Newimpartial (talk) 14:25, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Yet only white Jewish Americans get the language "identify as white" as in "[t]he overwhelming majority of American Jews identify as white." Ditto for the African-American Jews article, except for a mention of self-identification on a different subject. Bus stop (talk) 14:36, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

I could certainly re-write for more parallel treatment of black and hispanic Jews in this article, and I might add the finding - which I find interesting and relevant - that among American Jews, both Ashkenazim and Sephardim both identify as white by a huge majority. But were you making a proposal or a POINT? And if the latter, I would like to know what the POINT is? Newimpartial (talk) 14:43, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

I think at this point, in the midst of a lot of confusing conversation, I am just trying to make myself clearly understood. The "American Jews" article simply says "[t]he American Jewish community includes African American Jews and other American Jews of African descent..." It doesn't say for instance "[t]he American Jewish community includes Jews who self-identify as African American", nor does it refer to "Jews who self-identify as black". Let us pause for a moment and reflect on just that, before we rush headlong to propose changes to the article. I think we should let other editors weigh in at this point. Bus stop (talk) 14:59, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Moreover, that source was from SPLC, not an antisemite.The Human Trumpet Solo (talk) 03:58, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it was from the SPLC about what antisemites say about the whiteness of Jews, moron. Don't you read the tripe you cite? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:03, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

I read it, but you obviously didn't because he is arguing himself that Jews are not white. Or is Eric Ward an antisemite too? Also, watch WP:CIVILITY.The Human Trumpet Solo (talk) 04:15, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

"To refuse opposition to antisemitism, likewise, is an act of antisemitism. Arguably, not much more should need to be said than that. But I suspect that much more does need to be said. To the hovering question, why should we be talking about antisemitism, I reply, what is it we are afraid we will find out if we do? What historic and contemporary conflicts will be laid bare? And if we recognize that White privilege really is privilege, what will it mean for Jewish antiracists to give up the fantasy that they ever really had it to begin with?" Did you notice that part before you posted this emotional outburst? Or did you just skim over it?The Human Trumpet Solo (talk) 04:18, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

However, thanks to WP's sourcing requirements, we don't have any fringe opinions reflected in the article, only in the talk pages. Newimpartial (talk) 03:24, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

For the record, User:Malik Shabazz is attempting the same thing on this article. See diff: https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Definitions_of_whiteness_in_the_United_States&diff=799662401&oldid=799543964.The Human Trumpet Solo (talk) 03:58, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

"You're out of your mind. Whether Jews are white is only a question discussed among a small percentage of American Jews who are uncomfortable with their white privilege."

I'm pretty sure this qualifies as WP:BIAS.The Human Trumpet Solo (talk) 04:06, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

If included, such a section of the article should state that Jews have a complicated relation to the identity of "white," with some Jews identifying as "white" for a variety of reasons--from not having any other alternative choice in surveys, from perceiving "being white" as "appearing white" and/or being "mixed-with-white," to being taught to disconnect "race" from Judaism in schools/media, or to suffering first-hand, second-hand, and third-hand trauma of Jews who survived the Holocaust/other Anti-Jewish persecutions and do not want to identify as Jews (or to avoid persecution, would feel necessity to identify as the population-dominant group) --and some Jews identifying as "Semitic," (which all Jews, tribally, are), "Middle Eastern," "Other," "Mixed," etc.. The section should not attempt to solely classify Jews or the majority of Jews as a group as "white," because classifying most/all Jews as "white" is not only contrary to fact (as some of the sources in previous discussions have revealed), but also POV-pushing. Further, it is also in violation of WP:Civility to drop conversations (as in to ignore others' responses) without coming to consensus before moving on to comment on new related sections and comments--about which I mainly refer to the acitivity of users Bus stop and Malik; such ignoring is insulting and hurts the academic foundation of this institution. Jeffgr9 (talk) 05:10, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Not sure about the wall of text above....but if people are not familiar with the white class debate and research.....I am not sure they have the expertise needed to edit the article. Pls read some of the book sources above or an article like Anti-Italianism.--Moxy (talk) 12:15, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on American Jews. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ujc.org/content_display.html?ArticleID=83784
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130116072128/http://old.library.jhu.edu/collections/specialcollections/sheetmusic/musictours/text/jewishmusic.html to http://old.library.jhu.edu/collections/specialcollections/sheetmusic/musictours/text/jewishmusic.html

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:48, 24 December 2017 (UTC)