Talk:American Jews

More politics

I've found a fascinating article [1] that explains how the Jewish vote is so influential: political and media power are overestimated, Jews have political importance because they vote in large numbers in swing states and are a swayable bloc because of Israel. Didn't know if anyone would raise objection to adding this since these are, of course, blanket statements about a large group of people. Thoughts?--Loodog (talk) 22:14, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Took a quick look at that site. Seems to be a very right wing political site, so hard to judge. The problem with the whole tact you are taking is that Jews do not vote in a bloc. Yes, if a candidate is perceived as outwardly anti-Israel or anti-Semitic, that can be seen as an issue and may sway some and sometimes many Jewish voters. I would never vote for an anti-Semite, regardless of other politics. But, I would have no problem voting for somebody that disagrees with me on Israel. Israel is not front and center for most Jews as long as the person is not outright antagonistic to Israel. George W. Bush may have been the most pro-Israel President we ever had, but he receives little support among Jews, except among those that are wealthy and like Republican tax views, or are conservative and anti-abortion, etc. Most Jews are still supporting Barrack Obama, despite questions over his support for Israel (I am not expressing a view here, just repeating what I see in the press). Jews tend to vote for more Liberal policies - progressive taxes, pro-abortion, pro-gun control. I remember voting for Anderson, because I thought Carter was a horrible President. I respected Carter greatly (then) as a force for good and peace in the Middle East, and voted for Anderson although I recall some questions as to his "love" for the Jewish people. I did not vote for Carter, because I thought he destroyed the U.S. economy, but at the time thought he was a great friend of Israel. Jews did not vote for McGovern heavily because he was a poor choice, not because he may have been seen as not strongly pro-Israel. Voting for D'Amato is beyond me. I know I never did and I never knew that fact that Abrams polled poorly among Jews. I could care less about his stance on Israel and I don't understand why any Jew would swing on a single senator.

I am not arguing that there aren't some Jews whose vote is influenced by support for Israel, but the numbers are not as strong as this article makes out, unless a candidate is outwardly antagonistic. I doubt few Arabs would vote for a member of Likud in Israel, but many might vote for a member of Labor there. Same logic applies.

You are clearly seeking to "prove" that Jews control the U.S. vote. Any small group -- and Jews aren't the only one -- if you understand game theory, can theoretically swing an election or have greater voting power than their numbers. However, the implication that you make is that Jews do this deliberately, that Jews act in a bloc and have chosen places to live just to sway a vote. I am sorry to disappoint you, but it rare that the vote in any state for President is ever close enough for the Jews to turn that vote. A 30% swing in a state where the Jews are 5% of the vote means that you would need a race separated by less than 2% otherwise. Although 2000 could have been such a case, it rarely ever is (and as the recount showed in Florida, Bush won fair and sqaure). Florida has been consistently Republican in Presidential races, despite the fairly large Jewish vote there. This garbage about Jews having such a great influence on the vote, is just that, pure garbage.Sposer (talk) 03:22, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Not at all. And it goes past good faith to assume so. I've always wondered why candidates spend so much time talking about Israel and there are headlines like, "McCain courts the Jewish vote". I've always thought, why should such a small group matter to them? And counter to conspiracy and Jewish world domination theories, it's not that they are pulling all the strings behind the scenes.

The source says the reason Jews are pandered to is NOT their financial or media influence; it just happens to be how they vote and where they vote. As for Israel, no, I wouldn't change parties because of Israel, nor would something like 80% Jews who consistently vote Democrat or Republican, but the last 20% is what the author is arguing is responsible for the political focus.--Loodog (talk) 14:23, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

But, as I showed you, they do not vote like the author claims, nor does that vote impact anything except in very rare cases. When Jews have (rarely) voted more heavily Republican in Presidential elections, they were landslide elections for the Republicans. I did not say or imply anything about conspiracy. However, you are arguing and implying that Jews vote together on one issue, and they don't. It gives the impression, even though I will assume there is no intent of a POV. The actual voting and NY Times article I wrote helps to make it clear that any single small ethnic group can rarely sway a Presidential election.Sposer (talk) 15:56, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to discuss latest edit, "The largest states: New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Massachusetts, California, and Michigan have voted straight Democrat since 1992 with pluralities almost always larger than the total possible Jewish votes in those states. Florida voted Democrat but once in that period, when Bill Clinton took outpolled Bob Dole by 8.5% nationally, but only by 5.7% in Florida.[28]"

The first sentence does establish that Jews were not a deciding factor in those six states, but only since 1992. That's a set size of four elections, unlike the historical politics section which establishes consistency over a period of time dating back to FDR. Though, the article I read credits Bush's alienation of Jewish voters from his Middle East policy as one of the reasons for Clinton's 1992 electoral victory. Florida was close that year.

Of course, it also doesn't mean Jews had influence in elections before those states went Dem. Reagan won a resounding victory with Jews, but hell, he won just about everyone over too.

As for Florida. Oh, Florida. You didn't give margins in Florida except for in '96, when Jews when along with everybody else. '92 was close. 2000 was absurdly close (and the fair and square thing, the Supreme Court ordered the recount stopped and it was never conclusively decided but that's another issue.) and the article I posted credits Bush's Israel stance for the results there. 2004 was close, though I don't know if close enough to be decided by Jews.--Loodog (talk) 17:22, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I didn't give Florida the other times because it went Republican, and as I recall, fairly heavily so most of those years with Jews still voting for the Democrat. In 2000, it went Republican, despite a very heavy Jewish vote for Gore. I am adding a paper that discusses some of this directly.Sposer (talk) 17:39, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Gotcha. You're saying if it went Republican, it did so against the net effects of the Jews. What I'm trying to tie in here is if enough Jews "defected" to make the difference e.g. if 80% of Jews going Dem became 60% because [Bush/W. Bush/etc...] had enough appeal. I'm claiming Jews can influence a race not only by going solidly Dem, but also by deciding not to. The article I cited states the amount of time candidates spend on Jews is precisely because they (~20% of them) are swayable. That being the case, narrow Republican victories could also be a result of Jewish response to a candidate.

This being the case, 2000 Florida could be a result of Jewish voters if either: (1) enough Jews were attracted to W. Bush to throw the state, (2) the state actually went Democratic by voter intents (again this is possible but contentious), or (3) Jews made the race close enough to require Supreme Court intervention, which is itself a political outcome and has profoundly influenced the voting method there, as well as affected ideas about W. Bush. If any one of these three is possible, we can't discount the effect of the Jewish vote in Florida 2000.--Loodog (talk) 18:48, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

In 2000, Jews did not vote heavily for Bush, though the number increased in 2004. Remember, 15% said they considered Israel important, which led to Bush doing better among those, but still did not have the majority. However, you are talking about pretty small numbers now, and it is rare that a state has a couple thousand plurality, although clearly Florida did in 2000. I am just making the point that the way it looks, it makes it looks as if Jews are special. Other groups have particular focus items that they are swayable on too. That is why I have an issue with this kind of stuff. Let's look at some numbers. Florida had about 7.5 million votes registered in 2004. I think your article said Jews represented 5% of the Fla vote (vs. 3.7% of the population). That approximates to about 375K votes. 15% of those considered Israel paramount, or about 56,000 voters. Bush's 2004 plurality, in what was a fairly close race was almost 400,000 voters, or more than the entire Jewish vote. If of the 56K vote, there was a swing of 20-25%, we are talking 11K - 13K. Going back to 1968, the Florida plurality was less than 150K for one candidate or the other only once. The Jewish population of Fla has grown over the years, so it is unlikely that, outside of 2000, they ever could have had an impact on the vote in that state.Sposer (talk) 19:49, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

It's true that 2000 was close enough to where everyone with the name "Sam" would have thrown it, but I think the point is that the candidates see the Jewish vote as a tangible, swayable bloc in FL enough to be worth chasing with statements like, "We have to make sure there'll never be another Holocaust," -Palin. That statement, by the way, disturbed me as shameless pandering on a sensitive evocation.--Loodog (talk) 20:00, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Also, there was the disturbing Jewish push-polling in Ohio revealed a couple weeks ago.--Loodog (talk) 20:15, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I truly wish my Jewish vote was as important as some people seem to think it is. Not sure what you are referring to in Ohio, but in Ohio, Jews are 1.3% of the population. Hard to see them being a factor unless you have a vote that is almost as close as Florida in 2000. Jews are 2.2% of the U.S. population, but exceed 2% of the population of 11 states. Jewish population (total, not voting) exceeds 100K in 13 states, one of which is Texas, where they are 0.6% of the vote. Figuring about 50-60% of those numbers represent real voters (and that is probably high except for Fla and Arizona, which are elderly and tend to vote more), you are talking about only a couple of states where, even if every Jew voted one way, that they would be able to sway the vote, except in extremely close races. When that happens, almost any group could move the race.Sposer (talk) 21:12, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

[2][3]What I'm talking about in Ohio (and apparently Michigan too) is where people have been push polled like so:

"Hi, we're calling for polling purposes."

"Ok."

"Are you Jewish?"

"Yes."

"Would your support for Obama be affected if you knew Obama had ties to Hamas?"

"Um.. yes."

"Would your support for Obama be affected if you were told his chief foreign advisor accepted bribes from Iran?"

"Oi, meshuganuh! His advisor has done what?!???"

"Oh nothing, just want your opinion."

The caller would hangup if the "polled" person wasn't Jewish. There are these very targeted tactics and soundbites which are specifically geared toward Jews. True, I imagine Jews aren't so large a group that targeting them alone does it, but you see approaches like this and it shows [they/we]'re seen as a highly targetable group, as low-hanging fruit for the grabbing. It wouldn't be so if not for Jewish voting issues, Jewish voter turnout, and the states Jews are found in.--Loodog (talk) 16:56, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. That is disgusting (the practice). Never heard of it. Hard to believe anybody would believe that. Sposer (talk) 20:34, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't know, I didn't think so either until I met some of my uncle's friends from his temple. They're not voting for Obama because their Rabbi gave them a pamphlet with similar smears in it. I guess if it works in something like 1 out of 20 calls, it would be successful enough to be worth the time, but it's a nasty part of the country's political system.--Loodog (talk) 22:43, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I've seen the pro-Arab e-mails, and garbage about him being a Moslem (which is abhorrent as well, since calling somebody a Moslem in and of itself should not be an issue). Whenever I get one of those things in the email, I always write a nasty note back, usually with "REPLY ALL". Never a tie to Hamas though. It almost makes me want to vote for the guy. Instead, I will just have to write-in my wife or something, since I cannot see me voting for either. And, Israel is not the reason for my disdain for either of the candidates.Sposer (talk) 22:54, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Back to the point, 78% of Jews voted for Obama versus 21% for McCain, despite the fact that McCain was considerably more hawkish on Israel. Kind of puts the lie to the claim that it is the issue of Israel that swings the American Jewish electorate. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:33, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

It's of course up for debate, but we have sources so it's fine to stay here. But just to debate that:

Your wording of the claim is a bit strong since the only difference I could find between the candidates on Israel was Obama's "meeting unconditionally" thing with Iran, and Palin's Holocaust remark. Actually, Obama said something McCain didn't: "Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided".[4] Also, voters declaring the Iraq War (Jews were never big on liking the war) the #1 issue broke something like 66-33 for Obama, so there are all sorts of sides to this issue that make this a much weaker assertion than the overly simplistic, "Jews will automatically support you if you affirm Israeli security."--Loodog (talk) 05:59, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Regarding that Obama statement over Jerusalem, he promptly backtracked the next day.[5] Jayjg ^(talk) 06:03, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

That's its own issue that kind of digresses. It wasn't really a backtrack because Obama's position had been the entire time, "Jerusalem should remain the undivided capital, but that's not up to us," but ever the careful speaker, this was not how it was taken when he first said it... Anyway, my point was both sides pandered about the same on the Israel issue. The only overt declaration made I think was when Hillary juxtaposed the words "obliterate" and "Iran", and she did happen to have a pretty nice lead over Obama in the Jew vote in Florida[6].--Loodog (talk) 06:27, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

"Jewish vote", not "Jew vote". Jayjg ^(talk) 06:35, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

RE: Population edit

The addition following the semicolon more fully summarizes the facts presented in the subsequent section paragraphs and is as neutral as I could devise. The previous version was incomplete and avoided noting the reality. I hope it meets and keeps consensus. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 06:56, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Who is a Jew?

The argument about who is a Jew is typically discussed regarding people that are religiously Jewish, but do not identify as such, because they are either atheist or do not follow the religion any longer. It is not correct to consider people Jewish that are not religiously Jewish, even if they identify as socially "Jewish". You are Jewish if your mother is Jewish (although some Reform Jews accept patrilineal descent too, this is not accepted universally by Reform Jews and is not at all accepted by normative Judaism). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sposer (talk • contribs) 21:17, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. This article from a reliable source says that Lenny Kravitz is Jewish. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] ([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]]) 21:22, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Malik. We don't have to use the Orthodox standard for Jew inclusion. It should be sufficient for a person to be self-identified, as it would be for any other religion.--Loodog (talk) 21:24, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but Kravitz says he is half-Jewish here: http://www.lenny-kravitz.com/interviewdeepjoy.html, and Gelbwasser has been called before on accuracy. Kravitz is not a Jew, period.Sposer (talk) 21:27, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

He also says he's half Black.

Have you checked the religion of the mothers of all the other people identified as Jews in the article? — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] ([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]]) 21:32, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

In fact, I have been fixing the lists, for those that I know, for more than a year (i.e., removed baseball player Ryan Braun). Has nothing to do with him being Black, if that is what you are getting at. I added Lisa Bonet (who wasn't on the list originally) as her mother is Jewish and her father is not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sposer (talk • contribs) 21:35, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

No, I was just asking because there are a lot of names and very few no sources cited. In this instance, there is a source, but you won't accept it because of your judgment that he isn't Jewish. Have you read WP:SYNTH recently? — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] ([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]]) 21:45, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Malik - There are multiple sources that say he is not Jewish too. Most say that his father was Jewish and his mother a Bahamian Christian, but state neither way about him directly (probably because that information identifies him as not being Jewish by Jewish law). It is not synthesis to use that to say he isn't Jewish, since relgious Judiasm is defined by matrilineal descent. Beyond that, in my latest revert, I gave a source that says he identifies as Christian. His biographies say he is "half-Jewish", including quotes by him (so, he does not say he is Jewish either). I think I remember seeing an article in one of the Jewish papers coming down on Gelbwasser for having inaccuracies in his articles on who is Jewish, but I am not sure (plus if Glebwasser is Reform, he might consider Kravitz Jewish, but again, that is not normative Judiasm).Sposer (talk) 21:52, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

You are twisting WP:SYNTH to meet your belief. That is your POV, but it is 100% incorrect. Kravitz is not Jewish, period. He says he is half-Jewish in interviews. Half-Jewish is not Jewish. I gave a source that said he identifies as Christian: http://www.interfaithfamily.com/arts_and_entertainment/movies_theater_tv_and_music/Interfaith_Celebrities_New_Projects_By_Bonet_Okonedo_Lumet_and_Paltrow.shtml and here he says he is half-Jewish (which does not = Jewish): http://www.lenny-kravitz.com/interviewdeepjoy.html. Also, the Gelbwasser article gives the halachic definition of Jewish, and then says Kravitz is Jewish, but does not add that only his father is Jewish. It is not synthesis to use two completely true and related statements because the author left out that info, and especially when other sources state it correctly. Sposer (talk) 22:19, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

1) I reverted myself because of the article you linked to that says Kravitz identifies himself as Christian.

2) With respect to WP:SYNTH: Synthesis is taking fact A published by a reliable source (a person has a Jewish father and a non-Jewish mother) and fact B published by a reliable source (according to halakha, Jewish identity is passed matrilineally) and joining A and B to come to conclusion C that isn't in the source (the person isn't Jewish). — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] ([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]]) 17:38, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Malik. I do see your point on WP:SYNTH, but sort of disagree with this particular application. Sposer (talk) 20:50, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Let's look at how this would play out were Judaism (a) an ethnicity, (b) a religion:

(a) If a notable person were half Chinese, they would show up in an article about Chinese Americans. This even goes to the extreme for African Americans, since being 1/32 black "makes" you black.

(b) If a notable person were a self-declared Christian, Buddhist, Jain, Sikh, Muslim, etc..., we'd include that person as being that religion.

Either way, I don't see why Judaism is being held up to this standard that only Orthodox Jews austerely follow.--Loodog (talk) 21:15, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you, Loodog, but that's a discussion for another day. The article says that Lenny Kravitz identifies himself as a Christian, so there's no reason to discuss him further. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] ([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]]) 21:49, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but I didn't mean to speak in the abstract. I thought that Lenny Kravitz self identified as Jewish or half-Jewish and so should be in this article.--Loodog (talk) 21:55, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Loodog,It isn't just Orthodox Jews. Only Reform Jews accept as Jewish (religiously) somebody whose father (and not mother) are Jewish, absent a Conversion by a Conservative or Orthodox Rabbi. And, I am not sure all Reform Jews accepts patrilineal descent either, although I am not sure on that one. However, you are getting at the ethnic versus religious argument on Judiasm. However, the ethnic part is usually used as a way of eliminating people who are religiously Jewish, but do not consider themselves to be Jewish (at least that is how I have seen it in articles), and not the other way around. So, if Lisa Bonet, and her daughter Zoe Kravitz, who are Jewish because their mothers are Jewish, were to say they don't consider themselves to be Jewish, then who am I to say they are, even if they are technically Jewish according to any rabbinical interpretation. I am not saying it isn't done the other way, but I have not seen it. For example, Madeline Albright can be considered Jewish (since some Rabbis will say you are Jewish even if you convert out), because her mother was Jewish. However, because she was brought up Christian, and practices Christianity, and does not consider herself to be Jewish, she isn't. But, you cannot just say you are Jewish (or Catholic for that matter, for example, without Baptism, right?). You must convert, or be born into it, and most Jews require the mother to be Jewish to be born into it. The argument that Judiasm is an ethnicity in fact depends on the birth requirement.Sposer (talk) 22:05, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I beg to differ. I think the more important measure of Jewishness is self-identification. If someone claims to be Jewish, who are we to hold them up to some minority group's standard when the majority of English speakers (the proper wikipedia standard) would recognize it?--Loodog (talk) 01:18, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Self-identification is important, but not sufficient on its own. For better or worse, Jews are an ethnicity with their own membership rules; the "minority group" in question happens to be the Jews, who actually get to make these decisions. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:33, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Certainly, non-Jews cannot define who Jews are Loodog (though I am guessing you meant Orthodox Jews and not that Jews can't decide the rules). And, as I would interpret the merriam-webster definiton, (3) and (4) are matrilineal (I know that is OR, but any interpretation is OR, including yours I guess). Conversion is religious, and only some reform Jews accept patrilineal, with all others accepting only matrilineal. Definition (1) it is no longer known who is of the tribe of Judah and definition (2) is not relevant.Sposer (talk) 02:37, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

You're definitely *interpretting* number 4. "Someone whose religion is Judaism." There's no interpretation to be made. There's no need to hallucinate details that aren't there.

Christ, look up "religion" if you don't believe me: "commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance". So unless you're accusing a self-identified Jew of lying about his faith and/or observance, you accept that his religion is Judaism. And someone whose religion is Judaism is one of the standard definitions for "Jew".--Loodog (talk) 03:11, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Judaism is an odd mix of religion, culture, and ethnicity. Practicing Judaism does not make one a Jew, though it will likely be a pre-requisite for (or assist in) conversion to Judaism. The waters are further muddied by the fact that almost 100% of "practitioners of Judaism" are "Jews" (though the reverse is not true). That said, if some Basque villager in Elduain suddenly decides to take up Judaism, practicing it in every respect and detail, he still won't be a Jew unless and until he formally converts to the faith. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:27, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

(undent).

1. Practicing and believing the principles of a religion makes it your religion.
2. If your religion is Judaism, you are a Jew by definition. It is not the ONLY way to be a Jew, but it is one way to be defined as a Jew.

1 & 2 -> 3

3. Practicing and believing the principles of Judaism is sufficient but not necessary to be labeled a Jew according to the definition.

You are contesting #3. Is this because you contest #1, #2, or simple logic?--Loodog (talk) 03:37, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Your arguments are interesting, but not particularly relevant: Jews decide who Jews are, not American dictionaries. All sorts of organizations and groups require some sort of formal certification for membership, whether it's a passing a degree program, paying some sort of dues, or a conversion ceremony. Your religion cannot be Judaism unless you formally convert to Judaism. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:42, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Jayjg is right. There is nobody that considers "calling oneself Jewish" enough, even if they practice. You must go through a formal conversion. What you need to understand is that Judaism requires you to show commitment (as per your Merriam Webster definition) to the religion via a ceremonial conversion or via matrilineal descent. Definition 4 outright mentions conversion. Conversion is a formal ceremony, not saying you are a Jew. The definition of religion is fine, but what commitment to the religion is varies by religion. Catholics require Baptism. Moslems require you to state your desire to follow Islam's precepts. Judiasm requires matrilineal descent or formal conversion. You are the one interpreting a general definition and wholly incorrectly applying it to something very specific. It does not make the person a liar that he calls himself Jewish. He can call himself Jewish all he/she wants, but he won't be considered Jewish unless he meets either the matrilineal descent requirement, or he/she undergoes the formal commitment via a conversion.

You are stuck on a definition that completely agrees with what Jayjg and I are saying, but seem to be misinterpreting it, which of course is your right, but it is not commonly accepted among Jews. Jews decide who are Jews, not the dictionary anyway, but the dictionary definition you gave, if you don't misinterpret it, fully meets the Jewish religious requirements anyway. You are Jewish if you commit via conversion or are Jewish by matrilineal descent. The Jew definition does not mention matrilineal, but that is how almost all accept it. And, definition #4 outright states conversion for the Jew definition. As for the religion defintion, I've already gone through that - you commit by converting (or you are by matrilineal descent). Please stop making up your own definitions. Sposer (talk) 03:44, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Jews are an ethnic group, while Judaism is a religion. Lenny Kravitz, to use an example cited earlier, is 50% ethnically Jewish through his father. A book written 2000 years ago by people who thought the world was flat doesn't change the fact 50% of a person's genes come through the father. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CommanderJamesBond (talk • contribs) 09:09, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Why "American Jews" and not "Jewish American"?

Do they consider themselves Jews who happen to be Americans instead of Americans who happen to be Jewish? DHN (talk) 03:50, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Why Jew at all since it is a religion, not an ethnicity or race? Why don't they call themselves Germans, Pols or Russians?

Religion

"Religion Judaism"

Not all Jews believe in Judaism, some are Christians, Muslims or Atheists as well.

This gets into the whole BS ethnicity of Jews/Judiasm garbage. If you convert to another religion, you are no longer Jewish. Otherwise, you are Jewish, if your mother was Jewish. If you are a convert to Christianity or Islam (or any other religion that is not Judiasm), you are not a Jew, except as defined by Nazis.Sposer (talk) 14:05, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Bernard Madoff

I say we add Mr.Madoff to the picture listing. Plz add kthnxbai —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.23.227.170 (talk) 17:47, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Given his notoriety, I don't think it'd be appropriate any more than putting Ted Kaczynsky in the Polish Americans article.--Loodog (talk) 18:13, 17 December 2008 (UTC)