Talk:Definitions of whiteness in the United States

Jewish material

I came across this article via Google yesterday when researching the argument of Jewish people being white, and I quickly looked in the edit history (as I always do for Wikipedia articles because I know the behind-the-scenes stuff that goes on here), and I saw that Rjensen had removed Jewish material (see here and here). Although I understand removing some of that material due to poor sourcing or similar, some of it should also be retained. We should keep the WP:Preserve policy in mind for the poorly sourced and/or poorly crafted material. Also, although Wikipedia cautions against relying solely or mostly on WP:Primary sources, it does not ban primary sources. Anyway, whether or not Jewish people should be classified as white is a topic of discussion in some solid sources (including media sources, such as this 2016 "Are Jews White?" source, from The Atlantic); so this aspect should be covered in this article. It's also very relevant recently due to white supremacist/white nationalist discussions currently going on. Today, I saw that The Human Trumpet Solo reverted Rjensen (see here and here). I wasn't going to revert, but I was going to address the deletions on this talk page. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:10, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

the source = anonymous newsletter of the Asiatic Exclusion League 1910 is a white supremacy hate group that in 1910 worked to exclude all Chinese, Japanese, Koreans etc. Trusting it for laws of Congress does not meet Wiki's reliable sources criteria. No reliable secondary sources supports its strange claims. Rjensen (talk) 01:58, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Wiki only uses RELIABLE sources. Wiki rule WP:QUESTIONABLE Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, that are promotional in nature, or that rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Questionable sources are generally unsuitable for citing contentious claims about third parties, which includes claims against institutions, persons living or dead, as well as more ill-defined entities. The proper uses of a questionable source are very limited. an anonymous newsletter from a white supremacy hate group hits all the warning signs when dealing with Jews (= "third party" in the wiki rule) Rjensen (talk) 02:25, 18 August 2017 (UTC).

If there are questionable sources included, an effort should be made to either find additional sources or revise the existing material in accordance with what is available. Blanking the entire section and removing all mention of Jews is not productive.The Human Trumpet Solo (talk) 03:31, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

If there are questionable sources we delete them. False attacks on Jews are not productive especially when based on white supremacy hate groups. Rjensen (talk) 07:16, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Rjensen, I understand deleting questionable sources, but you are deleting valid content as well. Look at this deletion. Some of that is supported by acceptable academic sources. This 2008 "The price of whiteness: Jews, race, and American identity" source, from Princeton University Press, for example, is quoted in the reference as stating, "Much has changed since 1945, when Jews still worried that their Jewishness might keep them from being accepted as full members of white society. Today, many Jews fear that their thorough implication in that society may sever some of their strongest ties to Jewishness."

Re those deletions I made. I read each one that had page numbers. None of those discuss whiteness for Jews--someone took a 60-second google search and pasted them in without reading them. That's garbage-in editing that shows a disregard for the topic of whiteness by the editor. Rjensen (talk) 02:18, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

So you're stating that someone fabricated the quote for the "The price of whiteness: Jews, race, and American identity" source? I don't think that's the case. You may not be able to see that the source has that quote in it, but that is no reason to get rid of the source; see WP:SOURCEACCESS. I think it's clear that a source like that is relevant to this article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:59, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm going to drop a line about this matter at WP:Anthropology, WP:Ethnic groups, WP:United States, WP:Law, WP:History, Wikipedia:WikiProject Culture, WP:Politics Wikipedia:WikiProject Politics and WP:Religion. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:48, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

I also alerted Wikipedia:WikiProject Judaism. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:46, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

My complaint was the whole edit was spoiled ruined by heavy reliance on bad sources such as unsigned white supremacy newsletters from 1910. If there is some valid info, it is all buried. Try to extract it if you can, while keeping to the article topic = the Definition of whiteness. (the quote you mention does not refer to definitions) Rjensen (talk) 08:50, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Definitions of whiteness in the United States include people's views on the matter, including how people define themselves. The topic is not just about official definitions. You know, WP:NOTADICTIONARY and all. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:07, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, and the best information we have is that the overwhelming majority of American Jews consider themselves white. Let's summarize the history of the relationship between Jews and whiteness in the United States, using high-quality sources, but let's not engage in original research about vague ambivalence. When asked, American Jews say they're white. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 17:21, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

This is a cultural topic in addition to being an academic topic; so it should include society and cultural material as well, which is also what our other race/ethnicity articles do. This means that political material is also bound to be included; and this type of material is usually supported by media sources, which is fine as long as the sources are solid. Other types of material in the article should be supported by academic sources. Not everything in the article needs to be supported by academic sources. If there are a number of Jewish people who disagree with being classified as white, which there is, that should be covered in this article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:00, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes and the definition of "whiteness" in the US does not depend on how a group sees itself - don't want to pre-argue this too much but hopefully you are not intending to try to remove any content that is not about how Jews sees themselves. It is worth saying how a group sees itself, but race in America is very much about how one is treated by others. Group level (what people say about X group) as well as individual level (how you get treated in a store or job interview). Jews and race in the US is a complex topic - needs strong sourcing and good writing summarizing the refs. Should not be excluded. Jytdog (talk) 17:46, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't disagree, Jytdog. The relationship between American Jews and whiteness is a complicated one, and it took centuries before they came to be considered white. (The main reason they can consider themselves to be white is because other white Americans accept them as white, because whiteness is a club or "social construct", not a biological fact.) The article should summarize that history. There are hundreds of academic and other high-quality sources on the subject. We don't need garbage like the Asiatic Exclusion League as a source. Below, I asked The Human Trumpet Solo to explain why he removed some of those sources without explanation. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:56, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Jytdog, were you replying to me, Malik Shabazz, or to both of us? When it comes to definitions of whiteness in the United States, I was stating that "official" definitions are not the only thing to consider. How the groups view/identify themselves is also a matter, which is why such content is in our other race/ethnicity articles. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:00, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Sorry I indented badly. was replying to malik. yes how others generally view, and how groups generally view themselves, should both be included. Jytdog (talk) 18:14, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

• The Asiatic Exclusion League is a poor source, but they were being cited for a matter of settled law, so surely we can find another source for that. As for this edit, Rjensen, I have no idea why you made it as all of those sources look, at first glance, excellent. (Except perhaps the Boas one, we might need a more recent secondary source on that one to make sure it's not synth, etc., and the US Nazi membership one, which is not being used improperly but for which it also wouldn't hurt to find a secondary source) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:45, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but we don't include drivel just because an editor found a shitty source in a Google search. Unless material can be substantiated by reliable sources, it should not be added to, or restored to, an encyclopedia article.

I know some of the material I just deleted had academic sources, and I'll restore it. But most of it was bullshit. When did Frank Sweet and his self-published materials become reliable sources? Would we cite the Klan's website about what U.S. law is? So why are we citing a hundred-year-old version of the Klan's website? — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 16:18, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

My mistake. The academic material about Jews and whiteness was deleted by The Human Trumpet Solo, not me. Perhaps he would care to explain why. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 16:29, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

I wasn't sure if the Cornel West quote had any relevance, so I removed it. I don't recall deleting anything else. Rjensen blanked the rest.

I don't agree with removing the Asiatic Exclusion League source as opposed to reframing it. It isn't a RS for US policy of the time, but it does show that there was a concerted attempt at barring Jewish immigration on the grounds that they were not white, so it has relevance to this topic. We should avoid portraying only one side of the story (i.e. "Jews are white") when there is a considerable amount of dissenting opinion and RS, some of which was removed. It is still a very controversial issue overall, and this fact should be emphasized (and for what it's worth, I don't consider myself white).The Human Trumpet Solo (talk) 23:53, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Please don't be coy. I'm not referring to your removal of the Cornel West quote. I'm referring to this edit, in which you removed academic sources about the relationship between American Jews and whiteness with absolutely no explanation. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 00:01, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Also, the Asiatic Exclusion League is a reliable source only for the opinion of the Asiatic Exclusion League, nothing else. If you believe differently, please visit WP:RS/N and make your argument there.

The article doesn't say that Jews are white, it says they view themselves as white. Like it or not, that's what reliable sources say. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 00:07, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

What's missing are any RS that state "in year A, XYZ said that Jews were not white." Who are the mystery XYZ folks who publicly made such a claim?? Did any of the XYZ act on it in any way? Rjensen (talk) 02:22, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

As one of them-thar' 'Mercan Jews, I'd have to say my experience, not a RS, of course, tallies with what Malik says. But as the article itself points out, there was plenty of incentive at a certain point for us to think of ourselves that way, and the case of the Lebanese police officer cited makes it clear that many of origins in the Levant (let's say) went the same way. When I was a kid (not recent), I thought of "Asian" on census forms and the like as being for Indians and Chinese (etc.), not me. (And that's not to mention that my ancestors immigrated from Europe, not Ottoman Palestine).

But when MENA is available, I'll probably use it, even if activists for Middle Eastern Muslim populations howl about it. Why wouldn't I?

I say all this because I think that my situation is probably reasonably typical for American Jews, at least those migrating pre-WW II (and also many in the close aftermath of the war). And any information in this article, even if backed by RS, needs to include context if it is to be useful here. StevenJ81 (talk) 12:13, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

I must have removed it by accident when attempting to restore the previous version. My mistake.

The Asiatic Exclusion League is cited in the paragraph dealing with the Shishim case, so I don't see why it can't be used here too, especially when the context is more or less the same. My other concern is that a litany of relevant RS were needlessly removed, resulting in a very one-sided (to say the least) paragraph on American Jews. Those sources should be restored. Moreover, there are academic sources (e.g. Sander Gilman, among others) indicating that Jews were constructed as "Asiatic" until the 1920s, so that should be included as well.The Human Trumpet Solo (talk) 16:01, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that it was used elsewhere. I've tagged it as unreliable and will remove it in a few days.

What are some of these reliable sources that were removed that you restored? Frank Sweet, a self-published, amateur historian whose fringe views are accepted by no reputable historian? An op-ed column from Haaretz? A journal article from where exactly? An "introductory essay" from the Jewish Women's Archive? (The last three of which were being mis-cited, I might add, to claim that "many" American Jews, Israeli Americans, Arab Americans, and Americans of North African ancestry feel uneasy about being white. They say no such thing, and "many" is a notorious weasel word.) I don't see Sander Gilman at all. Maybe you can point him out to me.

In the meantime, I will try to find and restore the information sourced to real historians and academic presses. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:26, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

It's in his 1991 book "The Jew's Body" if I remember correctly, but I don't recall the exact page number. I'll have to dig it up within the next couple of days or so. There are some other books I want to include as well.The Human Trumpet Solo (talk) 12:40, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Gilman misquotes it. the actual quote is "the organization of the Eastern Jews in Europe, in its political and social aspects, is primitive, tribal. Oriental" -- from Burton Hendricks The American Jew (1923) p 99. the quote is NOT about American Jews and NOT about race. full text is at https://archive.org/stream/jewsinamerica00hend/jewsinamerica00hend_djvu.txt Rjensen (talk) 18:49, 31 August 2017 (UTC)