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)

Please see below the new section created on 30 December 2009 "From MADOFF to Political Controversy", an appendix to the text above, related to the new section in the article, on Political Controversy. Stefanson (talk) 17:37, 30 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)

Here are the problems with the paragraph you added today:

1) The paragraph is unsourced. Per WP:BLP, I removed it.

2) The paragraph is synthesis.

3) What does the paragraph you added have to do with "Notable American Jews", the section in which you placed it?

4) Neither John Mearsheimer nor Stephen Walt are identified in their biographies as American Jews. Why are they mentioned as notable American Jews?

As noted above, I reverted your edit per WP:BLP. Before you restore it, please discuss it here. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:37, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Just took a quick look at the Irish American, Italian American, German Americans and Polish Americans. Two of the articles do not discuss any negative famous people at all. A few of them discuss racist stereotypes, and properly debunk them. The Italian American article mentions the Mafia and how organized crime affiliation is a stereotype. I don't think it actually mentions anybody by name. Only one article mentions any "notorious" members of a group. It is a paragraph within a larger article and is more or less a mere mention. So, this is the only article where there is a constant attempt to point out "bad Jews". The most ridiculous part about pointing out the whole Madoff thing is that the vast vast majority of the people and organizations that he stole from and hurt were other Jews. If Madoff is mentioned as all, it should be as a mere sentence within notable Jews in finance, so after you mention the dozens of Economics Nobel prizes won by Jews, and former and current Fed governors, etc., you can have a clause saying, "...and Bernie Madoff was responsible for the largest financial Ponzi scheme ever in America." It isn't even close to the largest financial fraud of course. That belongs to Worldcom and Enron executives. As far as the Israel Lobby goes, it is certainly reasonable to mention it in the International Affairs section. However, if it is mentioned, one needs to clearly note that the Israel Lobby is not a Jewish lobby and is also in large part supported by Evangelical Christians. One must also note that many many Jews are not supporters of the AIPAC, for example. As the article already states, most American Jews support a two-state solution. The problem with Israel Lobby mentions is that it gives a 100% false impression on how Jews vote. Israel may be a consideration, but I don't think I've ever met a Jew whose decision was based on Israel. I am sure it is not ignored, and it is of varying importance, but social and fiscal policies of America tend to be far more important to American Jews than Israel. If that isn't made clear in any mention of the Israel Lobby, then it fails NPOV.Sposer (talk) 01:17, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I see this after an absence. I appreciate the exemplary conciseness of the list of problems with my alternative insert on POLITICAL CONTROVERSY, as perceived by Malik Shabazz (above) who immediately deleted it (30 December). But it is obtained at the cost of bypassing all my arguments which per se might have justified a reinstatement of a version of my [2], or Rjensen's [3] earlier contribution about the notable Bernard Madoff in the subsection on finance. And it also obtained at the cost of the length of my present and earlier talk-inserts [4] for which I may be gratuitously criticized. The sudden deletion of my first version by Jayjg on 24 August, 2009 with its trackless edit summary which, except for a mute, nameless reference to Talk, obliterates the very mention of Madoff's name in both the article and its history. That deletion together with the deletion by Oboler on 1 December 2009, not to mention the extremely noncommittal and remarkable deletion without edit summary by Sposer on 2 December 1009 of others' laborious editorial improvements offsetting claims of WP:UNDUE, had already violated in the edit summaries several points of WP:IMPROVE. While acknowledging that mass media politics also concerns Wikipedia as already pointed out in WP:MEAT (see more below), I assume WP:GOODFAITH for all these deletions. Procedural care, however, must be taken in the justifications in order not to strain the confidence of the general public as a critical reader and a welcome co-editor of Wikipedia.

If one assumes that the listed problems with my new text were serious, I myself or, rather, Wikipedia would have needed some help and suggestions of improvement, a task which requires much more effort than sheer deletion. We should not forget that our main task is to enrich and improve Wikipedia, not to only preserve it (cf. errors of omission vs. commission, WP:IMPERFECT , WP:PRESERVE). There is a problem with that sort of Jayjg's concise statement of problems since a superficial interpretation of WP:BURDEN shifts too comfortably the total burden of proof on the author of the contribution, with a conciseness which is based on a wholesale reference to the total text of, earlier, WP:UNDUE, and later WP:BLP and WP:SYN, and perhaps ultimately on a whole alphabet of policies and guidelines without specification of the relevant details. This allows for the risk of an endless recursion of numerous subsequent objections: an editorial biasing filter by a team of soulmates in a spirit of mass media politics analog to identity politics, manufacturing consent [5] or, in the best case, self-censorship [6]. This would block any futurely suggested rewordings and improvement by me and others, with the risk of our final surrender and retraction by sheer fatigue, which has already been a symptomatic temptation after the first deletions due to the vague WP:UNDUE. This risk might get exemplified by the possible consequences of my answering the list of problems as follows:

1) The paragraph is unsourced. Per WP:BLP, I removed it.

ANSWER - The WP:PSTS details on sourcing state that "Wikipedia articles should be based on published reliable secondary sources, as such sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and avoid novel interpretations of primary sources. However in some circumstances it may be appropriate to cite either primary or tertiary sources for supporting details." The notability of the article and the topic were already established and I used tertiary sources only for supporting details. Furthermore, WP:PSTS states that Wikipedia articles may not be used as tertiary sources, but are sometimes used as primary sources in articles about Wikipedia. I used reference to Wikipedia articles in a subsection about how Wikipedia can be used as a source for search of notable names of American Jews, not the least through cited organizations and their history.

2) The paragraph is synthesis.

ANSWER- WP:SYN states "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." I did not combine multiple source to reach any conclusion at all but in order to indicate where a search for notable names and events can be performed. I was not supposed to list names, them all, dozens of them depending upon situational relevance, as already suggested by others in this Talk-section. But take just one example from Israel Lobby, of a forgotten Paul Wolfowitz. "Sic transit gloria mundi", as for the mere mention of Madoff's name, and of his tremendous impact on the American Jewish community.

3) What does the paragraph you added have to do with "Notable American Jews", the section in which you placed it?

ANSWER - See the previous item. As i wrote: it offers directly and indirectly sources for search of names of notable American Jews, their deeds, and related events.

4) Neither John Mearsheimer nor Stephen Walt are identified in their biographies as American Jews. Why are they mentioned as notable American Jews?

ANSWER - My text was the following: "A source of names of great notability or importance in national politics, in their very quality of "American Jews", has been [...]" The expression <in their very quality of "American Jews"> referred to the previous "names", and not the to the subsequently mentioned authors and entries in Wikipedia. But the question remains whether it really was a "contentious" material about living persons which justified an immediate removal by WP:BLP, instead of inviting an improvement. Would it be an insult if a reader had wrongly assumed that somebody was an American Jew? And the final note above about the reversion/deletion of my subsection was the following:

5) As noted above, I reverted your edit per WP:BLP. Before you restore it, please discuss it here. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 19:37, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

ANSWER - So, my critics shifted the criticism from UNDUE to BLP and SYN, always summarily deleting. In the process I gained insights in the risk of a biased filtering of data into the article up to now. The Madoff-question grew into a more serious and general one. I decide now to not restore my edit but rather to insert a new edit in the article's section "External links and further reading" or in a new one on "Further reading". This should avoid all the above doubts and objections, including the references to WP:BLP and WP:SYN which were adduced as the reason for the speedy removals. At the same time I overlook (WP:GOODFAITH) that the intervention did neither take into account nor mention my own earlier arguments above, on 30 December 2009, about inclusion of Bernard Madoff in the subsection on "Finance". Not to mention deletion without edit summary.

My purpose is to provide, together with the names, a rich material for Wikipedia readers to further their own study in view of the questions considered in this article, as exemplified by what Sposer did in his own further study as per his talk-contribution above on 31 December 2009. This is except for his categorizing some Jews as "bad Jews" (a term which was not used in my edits but was inferred by and from the critics), his referal to Jews he never met, and his simple comparisons where he implicitly treats Jewry as a nationality without taking the next logical step of stating the alternative idea of a concurrent Jewish criminal organization as for other nationalities. Sposer is ultimately concerned about failing to satisfy WP:NPOV if the mention of the Israel lobby is not carefully qualified (as it already is in its Wikipedia article) but a most serious infringement of WP:NPOV seems to be to ignore the kind of information advanced in my own contribution, as I explained in my arguments (of 30 December). Furthermore, Sposer's own suggestion of 2 December 2009, (above), deserved an objection in view advocating an illegitimate content forking WP:POVFORK, given the impossibility of conceiving an inclusion of Madoff into an extended article on Jewish-American mafia.

In all this, besides aforementioned policies and guidelines, I am following the policy of Consensus as a result of the editing process in WP:CONS, and WP:EL. As a sign of politeness I refrain until further notice from introducing my text into the article. I trust everybody's goodwill in implementing the text (below), which is enframed for emphasis only on this talk-page:

CONTROVERSIES: For a broader and deeper search of names and events treated in Wikipedia and involving American Jews, please see the articles on the the Jewish lobby or, more accurately, the Israel lobby, as well as Norman Finkelstein concerning the Holocaust industry, John Mearsheimer who together with Stephen Walt co-authored work on the Israel lobby, Jonathan Pollard on the politics of military espionage, Jewish-American mafia as criminal organization, and Bernard Madoff on the political frame of a financial fraud which had a unique impact on the American Jewish community.

Stefanson (talk) 10:09, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I adamantly reject any suggestion that Jewry is a nationality. Judiasim, IMO, though not agreed upon by the Wiki community, is a religion. I have no problem with things like the Jewish Mafia, etc. My point is that none of the other ethnic article, save one, has any mention of anything negative tied to that group. For that reason only, Madoff does not belong here. All of the articles are essentially a "best of the best" list.Sposer (talk) 15:49, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Sposer is incorrect. Look at Irish Americans and read there that "The Catholic Telegraph of Cincinnati in 1853, saying that the "name of 'Irish' has become identified in the minds of many, with almost every species of outlawry," distinguished the Irish vices as "not of a deep malignant nature," arising rather from the "transient burst of undisciplined passion," like "drunk, disorderly, fighting, etc., not like robbery, cheating, swindling, counterfeiting, slandering, calumniating, blasphemy, using obscene language, &c." Rjensen (talk) 17:28, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, rjnsen, the Irish American article discusses this more than 150 year old description as a stereotype, essentially implying, and correctly so, that it is not true. It also does not mention specific people. What I stated is 100% correct, with one exception as I recall.Sposer (talk) 18:35, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Agree. The list of mentioned people in every ethnic group seems to tacitly be a statement of "here's the variety of this group and what it has contributed to society."--Louiedog (talk) 17:32, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Judaism is described in many ways, but then again Christianity could also probably be described in many ways.

Encyclopedia Britannica, in a basic definition, says the following:

"One of the three great monotheistic world religions, Judaism began as the faith of the ancient Hebrews, and its sacred text is the Hebrew Bible, particularly the Torah."

I guess Encyclopedia Britannica forgot to mention that Judaism was a "nationality." Bus stop (talk) 17:48, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

this is not an article about Judaism--it's about millions of American Jews. The Madoff episode had a major impact because he catered to their trust and loyalties and betrayed them in a major way.Rjensen (talk) 17:52, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Rjensen, the argument above, by Stefanson, is that Judaism is a "nationality." I am pointing out that Encyclopedia Britannica does not seem to agree. Bus stop (talk) 18:01, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Let's not raise the whole Judaism is/is a not religion debate explosion. Books have been written on the subject. Einstein was hardly a practicing/believing Jew yet he was Jewish. Sammy Davis, Jr. wasn't born a Jew, yet he is Jewish.--Louiedog (talk) 19:16, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Correct: Albert Einstein and Sammy Davis, Jr. were Jewish. Were you making a point? In case you didn't know, Albert Einstein was nonobservant. Sammy Davis, Jr. was a convert to Judaism. Or, do you see some significance in this that I do not? Bus stop (talk) 19:44, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, both of those facts were there to illustrate my point.--Louiedog (talk) 20:21, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

To illustrate what point? Bus stop (talk) 20:33, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

That being Jewish both is and isn't a matter of religion so let's not bring it back up here. It has no relevance to this discussion.--Louiedog (talk) 21:01, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Give it a rest, Bus stop. Your obsessive need to dismiss Jewish ethnicity is becoming disruptive and will be going to WP:ANI as soon as I can collect the necessary diffs. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:20, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Malik Shabazz, you disagree with me. Why are you calling that "disruptive?" And where have I dismissed Jewish ethnicity? Quoting from Encyclopedia Britannica should be viewed as a legitimate way of countering another editor's assertion that Jews are a "nationality." Bus stop (talk) 20:44, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

It's disruptive because, like a dog with a bone, you've taken it up on many different Talk pages. You refuse to get the point that reliable sources say that Jews constitute an ethnic group. Please read WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:49, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

And nor did I say that Jews did not constitute an ethnic group, not on this Talk page and not on any Talk page. In fact I was the one calling for sources in some instances. Not because I necessarily doubt that Jews have an ethnic component to their identity, but because an assertion of that nature has to adhere closely to what reliable sources say. This is not a simple matter. Jews also have a religious component to their identity. Reliable sources also support that. Or do you take issue with what Encyclopedia Britannica has to say in this regard? Bus stop (talk) 21:19, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Reply to Stefanson: Wikipedia is based on consensus. It seems to me, based on the large number of editors who have reverted your edits, that there is a consensus here that your "controversy" paragraph doesn't belong in the article. You haven't managed to convince anybody that there is a controversy concerning American Jews that needs addressing in the article. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:47, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Bus stop claims, above, that my argument is that Judaism is a "nationality" while I expressely wrote that it is Sposer who in his simple comparisons (as if one shortcoming were an argument for an additional one) with Irish Americans, Italian Americans, German Americans and Polish Americans, implicitly treats Jewry as a nationality. I meant that his way of framing the question is likely to lead him to contradiction and paradoxes, as it is suggested elsewhere in the painful hairsplitting semantics of American Jews vs. Jewish Americans which probably relates to uniqueness and unique entitlement to exemption from criticism and control.

Reply to Malik Shabbaz: You have never considered my arguments, and this leads to a politics of sheer counting a supposed number of sympathizing voters who voted on other issues. If our article affects mainly American Jews who constitute the majority of its committed editors and consider the article as "their own", rather than Wikipedia's, then it may be natural for you to wish to obliterate both Madoff's name and embarassing controversies. But consensus-making is not an arithmetic of counting integer numbers up to 3. It requires respectful accounting of others' arguments: to not only affirm the supremacy of a supposed majority but also the respect for the arguments of a supposed minority, if the ultimate counting is to have any meaning. You bypassed it all, and attempted now to summarize authoritatively all Talk by claiming that there is a consensus by large number (number 2, or 3?). It may be, but there is no evidence. My ignored arguments clarified that it is not this last text of mine which was deleted earlier, but rather two other texts which were placed in an altogether different context wherefrom they were deleted with wholesale reference to policy guidelines which (beyond WP:BURO) are not applicable.

All involved in this talk have had the chance of expressing their comments and suggest improvements (WP:IMPROVE) of my last text and did not reveal reasons for why I should refrain from editing it now into the article. From earlier behavior I infer that somebody may wish to delete summarily also this last text of mine, which I will see as a blatant infringement of WP:NPOV, and Wikipedia will need that final deletion documented in the article's history. Anyhow, I trust now to be spared disparaging rebuttals or the slandering ridicule of being described (as Bus stop was described, above and in diff): "disruptive because, like a dog with a bone..." Thank you. Stefanson (talk) 12:04, 18 January 2010 (UTC)