Talk:Definitions of whiteness in the United States/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Newly added material

I just looked at the newer version, and it's still quite flawed.

"In the 19th and early 20th Century, Jewish racial status in the United States was not settled, with extreme nativists classifying them as "Asiatic"."

Nowhere in the source does it say that this sentiment was limited to extreme nativists, and I have the book right next to me. I suggest changing it to "In the 19th and early 20th century, Jews in America were frequently constructed as racially "Asiatic".

"but as Jews assimilated they were viewed as white."

This part is unsourced.

"The ethnic identity of Jews has continued to engender debate,[46] with some commentators, and far-right leaders such as David Duke, arguing that all Jews are people of color.[47][48]"

This statement comes off as WP:POINTy, and there is no mention of David Duke within either source. I suggest "The ethnic identity of Jews has continued to be the subject of debate,[46] with some commenters arguing that all Jews are non-white."The Human Trumpet Solo (talk) 03:59, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Can you translate "Jews in America were frequently constructed as racially 'Asiatic'" into English? First, use the active voice instead of the passive voice: who did it? Second, what does it mean to "construct" somebody? Is it the same as "construe"? If so, why not use the more common word? Finally, what does "racially 'Asiatic'" mean? I don't want to put words in your mouth, but were you trying to say that "many white Americans considered Jews to be members of an 'Asiatic' race"?

Your second suggestion is no less problematic. The subject of debate by whom? Who are the commentators who argue that all Jews are non-white? Pleas see WP:WEASEL. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:24, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

@Human Trumpet Solo: David Duke is specifically mentioned in the Haaretz article that is foortnoted directly after the sentence mentioning him (No. 48), The text re Jews being considered white while assimilated is from the Brodkin article; she is a subject matter expert as you know. We can't just say "some commentators" when it is clear, from that and other sources, that the "Jews as nonwhites" theory is expounded not just by Jews but by anti-Semites. Still, this is a nuanced issue, and I understand the sensitivities involved. I would urge that you seek out good sources reflecting the commentators you mention. The "Asiatic" terminology was specifically attributed to nativists in the source (the diabetes paper). The Brodkin quote is a placeholder until I get her book, and also I have acquired other source materials, which I hope to reflect in the article when I have time. Again, what's needed here is more and better sources. Also I agree with Malik that we should avoid use of the passive voice; it just isn't necessary considering the documentation and sourcing available to us. Coretheapple (talk) 13:32, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

• Just to underline my point: I just found a serious factual inaccuracy in the article: the MENA census category has not been approved. It had been portrayed in the article as if it was happening. In fact it is still in the U.S. regulatory mixmaster, and its fate will be determined by Congress, as clearly indicated in one of the sources, a USA Today article. (If I missed a source indicating that it has been approved, do advise.) Also I found that a source was not reflected accurately concerning the petition to find that Middle Eastern persons were disadvantaged. The source stated clearly that the petition was rejected, but that was not included in the article, and the relevancy of that petition is questionable as this article is about racial status of ethnic groups, and that material seems beyond the scope of this article. There was more misuses of sources as well. This article needs to be checked for factual accuracy and for proper use of sources. Coretheapple (talk) 14:19, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

The reason I find it pointy is that there are also antisemites (particularly on the left side of the spectrum) who angrily insist that Jews are white, and shout down anyone who disagrees. As you said, this is a nuanced topic. Also, according to the books I have by Eric Goldstein and Robert Singerman, the sentiment that Jews (and MENA ethnicities writ large) were Asiatic/Mongoloid was mainstream, hence the court cases of the early 20th century. I believe that I quoted from at least one of these books in one of our earlier discussions.The Human Trumpet Solo (talk) 18:41, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Sure, go ahead and add. It doesn't have to be cleared here. I removed the specific reference to Singerman by name as it is not necessary to attribute facts in most instances. Coretheapple (talk) 18:46, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

This was part of what I proposed.

"Robert Singerman notes that, in the early to mid 20th century, American Jews were racially constructed as 'Asiatic'. According to Eric L. Goldstein, the 1909 ruling to classify Syrians as "Mongolians", thus non-white and ineligible for citizenship, caused American Jewish leaders to fear that Jews would soon be denaturalized as well. Congressman Henry Goldfogle responded with a bill proposing that "Asiatics who are Armenians, Syrians, or Jews" not be denaturalized, which was not passed."The Human Trumpet Solo (talk) 18:49, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Here's one quote...."Among the gravest issues of government policy confronting Jewish leaders in 1909 was the decision of the Department of Commerce and Labor to classify Syrians as "Mongolians". The ruling that Syrians were not white sparked fears that Jews would be similarly classified beyond the color line. Earlier, when anti-Japanese rioting in San Francisco sparked a movement for the restriction of "Asiatic" immigration, the Jewish columnist George Selikovitch joked in the Reform Advocate that the government might "refuse to grant citizen-papers [to Jews] on the ground that we are of Asiatic extraction like the Chinese and Japanese". But several months later, when court clerks in certain Western states refused naturalization to Syrians because of their "Mongolian" blood, Selikovitch was astonished to discover that his prediction had not been far from the mark. Selikovitch's fears were echoed by the Jewish communal elite."

Another...."In 1910, Jewish leaders also began to take action to prevent a narrowing of those eligible for naturalization. Several courts had already denied the government's assertion that Syrians and other "Asiatics" were not eligible for citizenship because of race, but several bills appeared in Congress later that year trying to revive the exclusionary measure. In response, a Jewish congressman from New York, Henry Goldfogle, ushered a bill through the House of Representatives proposing that "Asiatics who are Armenians, Syrians or Jews" not be barred from becoming naturalized citizens". The Human Trumpet Solo (talk) 19:02, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

The medical source attributes the "Asiatic" categorization to extreme nativists, but the Singerman source does not.The Human Trumpet Solo (talk) 19:12, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

References

• The problem is that what you added directly contradicts what we have in the following paragraph, which is that the legal status of Arab-Americans was settled in 1909. This has to be made consistent. Also what you added what excessively detailed and wordy. Coretheapple (talk) 19:27, 23 September 2017 (UTC) Please note how I've attempted to reconcile the two paragraphs. Evidently the Commerce ruling was superceded by the Shishim case. Coretheapple (talk) 19:40, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
• Another problem is that the material that we currently have there is poorly sourced (to an Arab-American organization). We need to make the entire paragraph consistent and accurate, and not treat every paragraph like an individual sub-sub-section, Coretheapple (talk) 19:31, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately, Coretheapple, choppiness and internal inconsistencies (because one looks only at one's one addition and not at the article or section as a whole) and misrepresentation of what sources say (as you noted above) is a typical result of the POV-pushing that characterizes most of the editing on this subject.

    And The Human Trumpet Solo, I notice that you've addressed none of my criticisms. Further evidence, as if any were necessary, of the attitude with which you "collaborate": WP:IDONTHEARYOU. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:09, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

    • Whatever the reason, the article was and unfortunately is a big mess. I agree about POV pushing and I would posit that it has come from more than one side. (Not referring to anyone here. I am just seeing a lot of poor sourcing and crappy writing.) Coretheapple (talk) 23:30, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
    • One danger we need to be aware of is that improvement of this section not enlarge it to the point that it overhelms the article. This section now dwarfs the one on African Americans. There is also excessive detail in other sections. Quelle mess. Coretheapple (talk) 14:42, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

"The racial status of Jews has continued to engender debate,[27] with some commentators, and far-right leaders such as David Duke, arguing that all Jews are people of color.[28][29] In 2013, more than 90% of U.S. Jews described themselves as white.[30]"

I believe this part should be moved further down, as it breaks up the flow of the article.The Human Trumpet Solo (talk) 18:34, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

I think the problem was that the Jewish and Arab sub-sections needed to be set off by subheads, which I just did, reversing the order to keep in strict alphabetical order. That would seem to rectify that issue. Coretheapple (talk) 18:43, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Can I just point out, per my suggested reorganization above, that this attempt to maintain alphabetical order represents pretty much exactly what is wrong with the current article? To be meaningful and encyclopaedic, an article such as this needs to discuss its subject systematically and not through a picareque form based on the interests of single-issue contributions. Newimpartial (talk) 21:28, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Allphabetizing seemed like the most neutral approach to the current organization. I think that if balance is restored (more on African-Americans, for instance) the article would work reasonably. Many articles take a similar approach. I don't think a chronological approach would work, as the subject matter seems to lend itself to this kind of organization, and it also seems most reader-friendly. Each ethnic group had its own separate struggle for immigration, voting rights and social acceptance, so dealing with them separately does seem the most logical approach. It also has the advantage of not requiring a top-to-bottom rewrite, with all the attendant drama. Coretheapple (talk) 22:33, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

And yes there have been single-issue contributors, which is where JUSTFIXIT comes in. They aren't going away.. Coretheapple (talk) 22:36, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

"The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission regulations also decided on explicitly defining "white" as "original peoples of Europe, North Africa, or the Middle East".[citation needed] Under pressure from advocacy groups, the Census Bureau announced in 2014 that it would consider establishing a new, MENA ethnic category for populations from the Middle East, North Africa and the Arab world, separate from the "white" category. If approved by the Census Bureau, the category would also require approval by Congress.[26][27][24]"

Why is this passage under Arab Americans, and not under West Asians as a whole?The Human Trumpet Solo (talk) 23:27, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

As for the Jewish section, it's still a little WP:POINTy.The Human Trumpet Solo (talk) 23:27, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

You made that same comment previously, and frankly I didn't find it especially comprehensible or constructive then either. Coretheapple (talk) 21:09, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

You're point re the Census/EEOC is correct, however, as it is so worded as to be broader than just Arab-Americans. See? You're "pointy" comment was so irritating and unwarranted that it diverted attention from your valid point. Coretheapple (talk) 21:48, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

User:Coretheapple For one, the sentiment that Jews are "Asiatic" wasn't limited to extreme nativists, as the current version suggests. According to the Singerman source I provided (as well as the Goldstein one), it was a mainstream view shared by many in policy making positions. Also, I would suggest this line...

"The racial status of Jews has continued to engender debate,[34] with some commentators, and far-right leaders such as David Duke, arguing that all Jews are people of color.[35][36]"

Be changed to "The racial status of Jews has continued to engender debate,[34] with a variety of commentators arguing that all Jews are people of color.[35][36]" This is largely what I was referring to when I said that the Jewish section was POINTy. The current version reads like an indictment of people who believe (for whatever reason) that Jews are POC. I understand that there were concerns about this particular view being endorsed by David Duke et al, but this likewise threatens to ignore the fact that there are also plenty of antisemites (particularly radical Islamists and large segments of the anti-Israel left) who loudly assert the opposite. It's a nuanced topic, and Wikipedia shouldn't be taking sides either way.

Lastly, this part "In making the ruling, the judge noted that the government had already made no objection to Jews. The judge ruled that "if aboriginal people of Asia are excluded it is hard to find a loophole for the admission of Hebrews."[28]" I think should be integrated under the Jewish section as well, since it involves Jews.The Human Trumpet Solo (talk) 02:36, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Additionally, there is a passage in Goldstein's book (same page numbers) on Senator Henry Goldfogle's bill relating to Jewish racial classification and eligibility for citizenship. It is relevant info, so it should be included as well, especially as it no longer risks clashing with the rest of the article (since Jews are now sectioned off from other MENA groups).The Human Trumpet Solo (talk) 05:15, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Another thing, does a Forward opinion piece qualify as WP:RS? I think a passage from Brodkin's book, or perhaps a summation of it, would be more preferable.The Human Trumpet Solo (talk) 02:01, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

The article asserts, based on a pair of gossipy news articles about Gal Gadot, that "various commentators" argue that Jews are people of color. Please provide reliable sources that indicate that a wide number of commentators make the argument that more than a handful of Mizrahi Jews are people of color, and per WP:WEASEL, please identify who these "various" commentators are. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:30, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

And? Prior to my last revision, the passage said that "some commentators, including David Duke" (paraphrased) asserted that Jews writ large are POC, but for some reason you waited until now to bring this up. Why did you not ask us to identify the commentators then? The Human Trumpet Solo (talk) 02:58, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

I did, asshole. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:37, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

I did not see that, most likely because it had already been edited out by the time I got here. You made no mention of it on talk page, and your criticisms appeared to be aimed exclusively at me, rather than Coretheapple (who added the sources in the first place).

Please mind WP:CIVIL. Your repeated violations of this, along with the fact that your very strong personal POV practically bleeds out of every pore of your comments and editing behavior, accounts for much of the reason I've avoided engaging with you up to this point.The Human Trumpet Solo (talk) 03:45, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Whose fault is it that you didn't see it? Whose fault is it that it became a bigger issue when you removed the attribution of the opinion to its biggest wellspring, neo-Nazis and other antisemites?

As far as civility goes, kiss my ass. Then look in a mirror. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:53, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

There were at least 10 new diffs by the time I got here. Do you really expect me to check every single one, rather than focus on adding to the current version? I don't believe it was anyone's fault, but I do believe it would have helpful had you clarified, instead of being combative and antagonistic.

Why was it a bigger issue when I removed David Duke's name? And where is your proof that antisemites are the main source (or the only source) for the view that Jews are POC? My guess is that you have none, so I will repeat what I said to you before: nobody cares about your personal feelings on this topic. Go blog about it somewhere. We have no use for it here.

Lastly, I did not insult you once, either in that diff or in any of my previous comments towards you. Nice try, though.The Human Trumpet Solo (talk) 04:31, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Sourcing is sufficient for a few words on the controversy over whiteness, which is just a sentence for chrissakes, and Duke should not have been omitted. All this is relevant to the article. Note too that this discussion arose prior to Gail Gadot so it's not a tempest in a teapot. Coretheapple (talk) 11:58, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

User:Coretheapple You didn't answer or address any of my concerns above. Please do.The Human Trumpet Solo (talk) 14:23, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

The Forward opinion piece was by Brodkin, author of the "When Jews Became White Folks" book, so as a subject matter expert I think the article is OK as a source. As for the racial classification bill, it went nowhere and am having trouble seeing its value and think adding it would be excess detail. Please be mindful of the length of this article, as the entire article as a whole requires improvement and more detail, some more than others, to bring into balance. Right now I think that section will do for now until better sourcing becomes available. I'm much more concerned about the African-American section and have reached out to subject matter experts. As to Duke vs. the left-wing extremists, I don't see the relevancy of the stance of left-wing extremists in relation to that. I have personally read quite a bit from right-wing extremists denying Jews are white. It is so common that in fact I recall it once came up in a movie about an American Nazi, Pressure Point, The fact that left-wingers take the opposing tack just doesn't strike me as relevant or pertinent. I'm not sure what else bothers you about the text, as much of the above is obscured by back-and-forth. Coretheapple (talk) 17:18, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

I must disagree. Although Brodkin is considered an expert in this field (albeit a polarizing one for a multitude of reasons), we should stick to including academic texts rather than including just any old thing they write. The reason I believe left wing extremists are relevant, in this particular case, is because the initial justification against omitting mention of David Duke was that "the view that Jews are non-white isn't shared only by a number of Jewish and non-Jewish commentators, but also by antisemites", whereas the same is true in reverse i.e. that large swathes of antisemites on the other end of the spectrum (or horseshoe, if you prefer) believe that Jews are white, and are ideologically invested in perpetuating that idea. So, in that respect, making overt mention of far right views in this context (which could, presumably, be interpreted as an effort to dissuade people from that view) is, essentially, taking sides. We're not allowed to do that here.The Human Trumpet Solo (talk) 22:58, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Lastly, I advocate including the above mentioned quote because it is relevant information. Providing a well-rounded summary of the topic is more important than keeping it short.The Human Trumpet Solo (talk) 22:58, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Anti-Italian "racism" in the North (vs. xenophobia)

Henry Cabot Lodge of Massachusetts was virulently anti-Italian, and in his mind, at least, it was racial. See Henry Cabot Lodge#Immigration.

On the other hand, people used to use the word "race" more casually than we do now. My great grandfather's Boston Globe obituary (January 31, 1906) refers to him as a "member of the Italian race." [1] A 1927 article in the Jewish Daily Forward referred to George Washington Forbes as "a friend of the [Jewish] race." As late as 1939, William Foote Whyte wrote an article titled "Race Conflicts in the North End of Boston," about hostilities between the Irish and the Italians. And even today, you see references to the "Irish race." --MopTop (talk) 21:02, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

If you can add reliably sourced material it would be great. I've gotten some good source material on the Jewish section but haven;t had time to add. Coretheapple (talk) 22:17, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Adding/Revising Material to Arab American

I am planning on adding some material to update and revise the section on Arab Americans. As it currently stands there is limited information about the Arab American status as white after George Shishim's case which was only the beginning. I will include briefly some information about George Dow (and link to the Wikipedia article on his case) and also include a few more citations from scholars working in this area, including John Tehranian, Sarah Gualtieri, and Ian Haney-Lopez.BradleyZopf (talk) 15:47, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Has/have

There is a grammatical error in the first sentence of this article but I'm not a user so I'm not sure how to edit it. The verb should be "have" to agree with the plural subject of the sentence, "the legal and social strictures defining white Americans" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.103.10.7 (talk) 18:11, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

 Done --ChiveFungi (talk) 23:34, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Jews as a race in the United States

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

Parent section to Jewish Americans

I notice that "Jewish Americans" is a subsection of "Asian Americans". Since the references seem to be about Ashkenazi Jews, I think this should be under "European Americans". (Sephardic Jews might be considered Hispanic.) Before changing the page, I'd like to give people watching this page a chance to comment. Espertus (talk) 20:04, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Irish Americans?

I move to delete the section on Irish Americans. This article is about "definitions of whiteness in the US", and the Irish were always considered "white". This section serves no other purpose but to lend a little credence to the pseudo-historical field of "whiteness studies", which has served only to confuse the average person about the historical views of race in American society.

Ditto for the Italian section.Jonathan f1 (talk) 00:13, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Italian american

The section is very misleaning. "n-word wop" was used commonly until the mid-1900s, "Rollins v. State: 1992" prove the opposite of what its written in the section about istitution. so "largely accepted as white" is debatable — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yuiolop (talk • contribs) 20:16, 5 May 2020 (UTC)