Talk:American Jews

Holocaust section

This section seems to be devoted to the bizarre notion that anti-Zionist attitudes among Jews contributed to the Holocaust. Regardless of personal feelings about Zionism, I think it's pretty clear that this section is both inaccurate and highly biased. Bluemonkee (talk) 06:15, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

utter nonsense. the section summarizes the latest scholarship as published in leading Jewish history journals. Rjensen (talk) 06:41, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Agnosticism, Atheism

There is a constant attempt to add Agnosticism or Atheism to the religion tags of American Jews. American Jews are of the Jewish religion, by definition, whether they practice it or not. I know there seem to be all sorts of polls that say that there are a whole lot of Agnostic or Atheistic American Jews. I know they exist. But, I think that is more a city/coast thing more than Jewish. Growing up in NYC, I know far more none-practicing Catholics than I do Jews. If you took a poll of NYers or Los Angelans, or Chicagoans, I suspect that you'd find high numbers of agnostics and atheists there amongst all religious groups. Judaism is a religion, and there are a few cultural similarities among the world's Jews that allow some to mischaracterize it as an ethnic group too. But the religion of Jews, is Judaism, plain and simple, not Agnostic, not Atheist, not Protestant, etc.Sposer (talk) 21:44, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you, and there are sources that agree with you too. This source says the following:

"Clearly, there is a religion called Judaism, a set of ideas about the world and the way we should live our lives that is called "Judaism." It is studied in Religious Studies courses and taught to Jewish children in Hebrew schools. See What do Jews Believe? for details. There is a lot of flexibility about certain aspects of those beliefs, and a lot of disagreement about specifics, but that flexibility is built into the organized system of belief that is Judaism."

"However, many people who call themselves Jews do not believe in that religion at all! More than half of all Jews in Israel today call themselves "secular," and don't believe in G-d or any of the religious beliefs of Judaism. Half of all Jews in the United States don't belong to any synagogue. They may practice some of the rituals of Judaism and celebrate some of the holidays, but they don't think of these actions as religious activities."

I doubt that an atheistic orientation invalidates identity as a Jew. The religion clearly concerns affirmation of one G-d. But I doubt that identity is ever contingent on mere thoughts such as the belief that G-d in fact does not exist, and the above source seems to affirm this. Bus stop (talk) 22:47, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

No censorship of "BERNARD MADOFF"

A couple of months after the initial insert 30 June 2009 of a paragraph on financier BERNARD MADOFF it was deleted on 24 August 2009, and then deleted again on 1 December with no detailed and traceable justification in the Edit summary. In view of lack of reference to the details in the adduced text of WP:UNDUE one must assume the the deletion aims at the passus "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject." If this is the case then the newly added paragraph should do since it considers Madoff's positive achievements together with one main reason for his exceptional notability, which has great importance for both the subject "American Jews", and "Finance". If such a paragraph is deleted it would raise the suspicion of wiki-CENSORSHIP, in that the subject "American Jews" would only aim at furthering a biased view of people deserving only admiration. It would amount to sheer advertising or positive discrimination. Stefanson (talk) 15:25, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Please familiarize yourself with the concept of undue weight. Screaming CENSORSHIP doesn't help your argument; we're all editors here. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 15:39, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

The amount of material you have put into the article on American Jews in reference to Bernard Madoff way outweighs his importance to the subject of this article. I would recommend trimming back much of the detail you've added, and leaving that for the reader to find in the Bernard Madoff article. Bus stop (talk) 15:40, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

The "undue" objection is spending too much of the article on Bernie Madoff in the first place. The idea is that each subject in the article should carry weight proportionate with the relative amount of notability it has for the greater subject.--Louiedog (talk) 15:41, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I will leave it at that since I feel since long quite familiar with the UNDUE-matter and do not believe in the value of screaming - neither CENSORSHIP nor UNDUE. The text in this section of TALK should be sufficient for every interested reader to form his/her own opinion on the article's reliability and adherence to the WIKI-guidelines. Stefanson (talk) 15:53, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

As for the question of whether to include him, no one's rushing to include Ted Kazinsky in the Polish Americans article or Seung-Hui Cho to the Korean Americans article.--Louiedog (talk) 16:09, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

As long as Wikipedia has an article on Madoff, accusations of censorship sound bizarre. He shouldn't be given any more space than any individual. The whole point of Wikipedia is hypertext and peole can go to the madoff article to learn the full story with one click. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:11, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Bus stop's verion [1] is entirely proportionate and appropriate. Why don't we have more information on Philip Roth, Sandy Koufax, Isaac Bashevis Singer, Albert Einstein, Herman Wouk, Howard Fast, George Gershwin, Irving Berlin, Irving Howe or Harrison Ford? Aren't most of these people more notable than Madoff? Let's say a bit about these guys, before adding any more weight to Madoff.Slrubenstein | Talk 16:20, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

The Madoff affair was a major event in the history of the Jewish community, because of the huge negative impact on so many endowments, institutions and families. The text now reflects that. Rjensen (talk) 16:22, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

It was hardly a major event in American Jewish history. Five years from now few will know who Madof was, aside from those directly harmed by him. I would only agree to this: that the US press turned Madoff into a major event for their news cycle. Madoff helped the press spin the collapse of the US banking industry as being the result of individual greed and fraud, when in fact the reason for the collapse was much more complex, involved most Americans, and requires a serious overhaul of the regulation of investment banks and the trade in derivatives. Everyone will feel nice and warm when Madoff goes to jail, but the in the meantime the real problems don't get addressed. Madoff was a crook, but there are thousands of othe Madoffs out there who did not get caught; he got caught because of a massive economic collapse the deprived him of anything he could hide behind. And the far bigger scandal is all the many little trades - none of which were illigal, but which turned Wall Street from being a market to being a casino - behind the total collapse. Compared to this Madoff is a distraction. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:27, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

It should be mentioned that Madoff is not Orthodox. I put into the article text indicating that, along with sources, but it was reverted. (Actually, I reverted myself the second time I put it in — I thought I should use the Talk page first, rather than be edit-warrior-like.) That information is relevant, as Orthodox represents one extreme on the spectrum of Jewish observance (the other extreme being nonobservance). If Madoff were Orthodox I doubt that would escape notice. Sources make more than casual reference to his not being Orthodox. In fact the sources I provided have to counter false innuendo that Madoff might be Orthodox. Bus stop (talk) 16:30, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Very few notable American Jews mentioned 'are Orthodox. What are we going to do, point out every last one of them?--Louiedog (talk) 16:37, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Louiedog, it is sourced information. It would be up to you to find and add sourced information if you feel it is relevant and suitable for these other people you are referring to. Bus stop (talk) 16:41, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

"it is sourced information. " So is his hair color.--Louiedog (talk) 16:45, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

But is hair color relevant, and sourced? Bus stop (talk) 16:48, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

That it is sourced just means it can be used, not that it must or even should be used. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 17:09, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. I've put that text plus sources into the article which is the biography of the man, where I hope it is appropriate. Bus stop (talk) 17:11, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

That's the right place for it, if anywhere is. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 17:29, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I removed almost all the names from the section on "Notable American Jews" because it had become a dumping ground for everybody's favorite American Jews. (See Talk:American Jews/Archive 2#Image gallery and these edits) I don't think it's appropriate to add Madoff or Koufax or anybody else to that section, and it's got nothing to do with censorship. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:16, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

As long as we can agree tht Koufax was a GREAT pitcher. Can we at least have consensus on this? Slrubenstein | Talk 19:57, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't blame the '66 series on him. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 20:19, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

well, that's just baseball, right. Anyway, I too agree that Malik did the right thing. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:21, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Malik. This gets tiresome. We do not need a list of every American Jew. I would love to get rid of the Jews in Sports list too. It is kind of silly. As for Madoff, I think he is sort of important right now, but it is newsy. That he is Jewish is sort of relevant, but he belongs in a section of famous Jewish American criminals, not famous Jews in finance. For that, there are 100s of far more notable people. And, I am not suggesting we add the 100s. Just stating that Madoff is in now way particularly notable as per finance. This is neither positive nor negative censorship.Sposer (talk) 02:38, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Title

This article deals with US-American Jews and not with American Jews in the main! It should be renamed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Njrwally (talk • contribs) 14:59, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Census

When dealing with census, stats, polls, and the like, are Jews classified as White Americans? 75.4.247.171 (talk) 06:18, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

I find this: "Public Law 94-521 prohibits us from asking a question on religious affiliation on a mandatory basis; therefore, the Bureau of the Census is not the source for information on religion." Bus stop (talk) 12:38, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

So this means they should be considered White, because the religion does not count. I see. 75.4.247.171 (talk) 04:58, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

From MADOFF to Political Controversy

Today I added a new sub-section on political controversy. The following is an appendix to the talk section "No censorship of "BERNARD MADOFF" initiated on 1 December 2009, with the purpose of improving the article. The question is: are there "bad American Jews" who then are turned into unimportant, non notable people who do not deserve to figure among American Jews? The formal component of the Israel lobby, easily confounded with the Jewish lobby, has been described in Wikipedia as including media watchdog groups. The latter may also be working within Wikipedia itself and, if so, in a problematic relation to Wikipedia's WP:SOCKS guidelines, and specifically to the two recommendations of (1) Do not bias discussions by asking for supporters from other places (meatpuppetry), and (2) Do not act as a meat puppet for somebody else. Meatpuppetry or spontaneously concerted, solidary wiki-editorial action is not censorship but it has the same effect, also in suggesting that the mere mention of censorship is a sort of hysterical "screaming". I think such an actual danger can be inferred from some controversial Talk-discussions of the article on financial advisor Bernard Madoff, regarding whether and how his Jewishness should be mentioned (see the latest insert here), or on whether his name should be mentioned at all in the "Finance" subsection of this present article from which it was repeatedly deleted (see Talk section).

In the latter case arguments were advanced in the Talk, such as "As long as Wikipedia has an article on Madoff, accusations of censorship sound bizarre [...] people can go to the madoff article to learn the full story with one click ". As if - after editorial strifes - one still uncensored and editorially still controversial article of Wikipedia should justify the deletion of the very name of Madoff in another article. As a matter of fact his very name was obliterated in this present article on American Jews, and therefore the reader could not "go" to the article Bernard Madoff. His deleted name was also omitted in the remarkably obscure "Edit summary" of its first deletion, which also denied that an unnamed "something" had anything to do with finance. See "History" 24 August 2009: "WP:UNDUE, for starters. Also, not in Finance anyway." Another argument was " Why don't we have more information on Philip Roth, Sandy Koufax, Isaac Bashevis Singer, Albert Einstein, Herman Wouk, Howard Fast, George Gershwin, Irving Berlin, Irving Howe or Harrison Ford?" A simple search on Google shows that Bernard Madoff produces about one sixth of the number of hits for Albert Einstein, an absolute world hit-champion, not being by far comparable in such world-wide notability with any one of the other names except Philip Roth and Harrison Ford. But the point is that the our article in question had a section on finance! Another argument has been "the US press turned Madoff into a major event for their news cycle" which in turn suggests that his notability was not real notability but was constructed by the US press. It claimed that "there are thousands of other Madoffs out there who did not get caught". But nothing is mentioned about Wikipedia itself recalling that his may have been the largest investment fraud in Wall Street history, and therefore in the world's financial history, and consequently not comparable with thousands of others. Furthermore in the talk following 1 December 2009 it is acknowledged that Madoff "is sort of [sic!] important right now, but it is newsy. That he is Jewish is sort of [sic!] relevant, but he belongs in a section of famous Jewish American criminals, not famous Jews in finance. For that, there are 100s of far more notable people. And, I am not suggesting we add the 100s. Just stating that Madoff is in now [sic] way particularly notable as per finance.This is neither positive nor negative censorship". I think that this kind of argument misunderstands not only the connotations of finance and censorship but mainly notability, since it downgrades present notability in view of its presumed or postulated future decrease, and confuses positive famousness with relevant notability.

This confirms that one sees the article on American Jews as an advertising of famous admirable and good American Jews while proposing parallel articles (which would certainly be wiki-editorially obliterated as anti-semitic) for bad, criminal American Jews. How would articles in Wikipedia look like if they all followed such as policy about the good and the bad guys? And, finally: an editor removed almost all the names from the section on Notable American Jews because it had become a dumping ground for everybody's favorite American Jews, but forgot to justify why some final few (good) guys were not removed. In summary: editorial wars seem to be won by enduring censoring in rationalized passion, rather than by dull argument. That is: rhetoric for the sake of politics. I still hope that the new article section on political controversy will not be also be rhetorically deleted with a new enigmatic, blanking "Edit summary". Stefanson (talk) 17:04, 30 December 2009 (UTC)