Jump to content

Talk:Definitions of whiteness in the United States/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Middle East and North Africa

Okay I don't know about the census stuff but I can tell you socially they're not considered white by most White Americans 70.59.1.169 (talk) 10:22, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Arabs are not white, but caucasian. Our colour is olive-brown but can be black and in rare cases similar to white but not the same.This however is found rarely and if, usually its found among people who immigrated to the Middle East such as Tsherkess people, Armenians, Assyrians, Arameans, Greeks, Kurds and some mixed ancestry people of the Levant.Neither do this people consider themself as "Arab" nor can they be taken as "the example" for "original population of Middle East & North Afrika.Most of so called Arab Americans come from this latter groups and are Christians and they battled hard in American courts for their whiteness in order to naturalize.Now that they got " whiteness" they find they are facing more problems than blacks.Specially in post 9/11.No jobs, no housing and constantly under suspicion and given names such as sandniggers....etc. I think that says a lot.The times that we Arabs looked towards the west are over, once and for good.My dad did it in the 50's and 60's.But that is long time ago.We cannot learn much from the West. Emerging Asian countries are much more interesting:UAE, India, China, Malaysia, Egypt, Qatar, Bahrain, Taiwan........the list is endless.There is fear amongst Arabs, that after being painted white, one's ancestral lands are being stolen by intruders .One is being given things such as smallpocks infected blankets and similar goodies.And eventually being put into reservations such as Gaza, Iraq and the Westbank....left to die from starvation as UN beggars.

Central Asian Turkic Republics of FSU

the following:

Definitions of whiteness in the United States: People who reported their race as the following religions Muslim, Shi'ite, Sunni or Zoroastrianism in the "Some other race" section are automatically categorized as whites in the 2000 US Census.(Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results. Race and Nationality Descriptions from the 2000 US Census and Bureau of Vital Statistics. 2007. May 21, 2007)

is quite idiotic :-( Idot (talk) 20:12, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of whether it makes sense, it is a referenced practice of census-takers. See the PDF citation. Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:13, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

When you say Russians are considered as Whites, do you mean европейской or белой? Note for the English terms in this article, European is narrower than White, which can also include West Asian and North African under current US government definition.(talk) 21:26, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

  • coloqually белой, officially (by police) европейской (as police in FSU never use white and black in description, it use european, asian, caucasian and sometimes african and inidian) Idot (talk) 04:00, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Googling census.gov does not give any relevant hits for Hui. US Census relies primarily on self-identification for race, and tries to guess from other information such as write-in race or ancestry only if respondent has not specified one of the races in the Census race categories. --JWB (talk) 21:26, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Rename Article

I propose the article be renamed to "United States Definition of White". Care to dis/agree?--75.164.113.233 (talk) 06:13, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Jewish people are actually middle eastern

Jewish people are a middle eastern people. Just because jewish people moved into Europe does not make them European or white. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.69.73.147 (talk) 11:17, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Their skin is white. What more do you want? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.40.35.196 (talk) 11:22, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, Ashkenazi and Sephardi (Spain, Portugal) Jews are white, because they mixed with Europeans and Khazars. Mizrachim are Middle Eastern, so by the U.S. definition, they are white.--75.164.113.233 (talk) 06:17, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Not all Ashkenazi and Sephardi Jews have white skin. Quite a few of them are darker in pigmentation. Brad Garrett, for instance. Also, Khazar input is minimal at best. This is a good explanation: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2012/08/ashkenazi-jews-are-probably-not-descended-from-the-khazars/ <--Signed by evildoer187-->

germanic, celtic and slavic?

Isn't it that the only people who are considered white are the germanic, celtic and slavic ethinic groups? And that the closer that the celtic person or slavic person comes to acting within the germanic norm the more white that a celtic or slavic person becomes? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.106.206.113 (talk) 22:06, 28 November 2008 (UTC)


Muslim Americans and Zoroastrians

What does this mean? Muslim Americans and Zoroastrians

People who reported their race as the following religions Muslim, Shi'ite, Sunni or Zoroastrianism in the "Some other race" section are automatically categorized as whites in the 2000 US Census.[38]

On the census, you can check the "other race" box and write in your race (instead of just checking white, black, etc.). If you do so, and write one of the above, the US govt automatically counts you as white when compiling statistics and other similar things. Calliopejen1 20:39, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Following the reference link given there (Surveilance Epidemology and End Results. Race and Nationality Descriptions from the 2000 US Census and Bureau of Vital Statistics. 2007. May 21, 2007. [1]) gives a document which is procedures for a cancer study. It uses the US Census category names, but it says nothing about how the US Census itself categorizes race. Therefore I've removed it from the article. If you find a reference from the US Census about their own procedures, we can add that information. --JWB (talk) 21:12, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

nothing about the french?

what about the huguenots and cajun people ? Cliché Online (talk) 05:35, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

John Tehranian

"Among those not considered white at some time in American history are the Irish, Germans, Ashkenazi Jews, Italians, Spaniards, Portuguese, Slavs, Greeks, Welsh and many other peoples who were not English."[2]^ John Tehranian, "Performing Whiteness: Naturalization Litigation and the Construction of Racial Identity in America," The Yale Law Journal, Vol. 109, No. 4. (Jan., 2000), pp. 825-827.
I've seen this cited in several articles but have not been able to get a copy of the article. Can someone who has been able to say when these determinations were made and how many people were effected by the various legal cases? The difference between one case effecting one or two people and a case effecting all Irish (for instance) for a period of 10 years would be immense. All these groups were at one time or another looked upon as inferior to English immigrants but Tehranian is the only source that says they were non-white. As such he would be considered a minor point of view and should perhaps be moved out of the first paragraph. Nitpyck (talk) 02:04, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, good point. Wikipedia is going to get killed by useless nonsense citations and garbage statistics. The English throughout history freely intermarried with Celts and Saxons, etc.

http://www.onellp.com/parts/pubs/Tehranian_Performing_Whiteness.pdf page 8 In fact the legal opinion was exactly the opposite: "...immigrants from Eastern, Southern and Middle Europe and these were received as unquestionably akin to those already here..." "the Irish ... were for years considered the Blacks of Europe" The footnote for the Irish statement is from the movie The Commitments. So not only is it a minority opinion but it is incorrect according to the cite. Nitpyck (talk) 05:58, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

What are your thoughts on moving this section Most persons considered White today would not have been considered White at a point in U.S. history. Among those not considered white by some people at some time in American history are the Irish, Germans, Ashkenazi Jews, Italians, Spaniards, Portuguese, Slavs, Greeks, Welsh and many other peoples who were not English. However, legally all these groups were white.[2] out of the lede to someplace down in the body of the article. I suggest this because first: Tehranian is the main source and he has an idiosyncratic view of this issue and second: as stated it is a questionable reading of his article. Nitpyck (talk) 19:40, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Bar graph

The bar graph label overlaps with the paragraph text making it hard to read either of them. I don't know how to fix this. --Khajidha (talk) 13:53, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Yemenite Jews

Article says "even though not all Israelis are of European (Ashkenazi or Sephardi) or Middle Eastern (Mizrahi, or Israeli Arabs, Druze) descent. They may be Jews of Ethiopian (Beta Israel), Yemenite (considered by some a Mizrahi subgroup) or Indian descent.". But surely Yemenites ARE of Middle Eastern descent. Shouldn't then the sentence read "even though not all Israelis are of European (Ashkenazi or Sephardi) or Middle Eastern (Mizrahi, Yemenite Jews, Israeli Arabs, Druze) descent. They may be Jews of Ethiopian (Beta Israel) or Indian descent." ? 60.225.114.230 (talk) 21:04, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Important New Reference

People interested in this subject would do well to read Nell Irvin Painter's "The History of White People" (2010). It is too briefly addressed in Wikipedia : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_History_of_White_People 98.114.26.114 (talk) 16:40, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Benjamin Franklin is more likely to be celtic than anglo-saxon

Since the majority of english people are descendents of celtic people franklin is more likely to be celtic. I removed the unsourced assertion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.103.174.178 (talk) 20:05, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Not sure which universe you are in where most English do not have Anglo-Saxon roots. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:58, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Missing ethnic groups

I was fascinated to learn that German and Finnish Americans were ever considered anything but white, but I think some of the more obvious groups are missing. Like Germans and Finns, we see the Irish as obviously white today, but it wasn't always so. See, for example, How the Irish Became White. This New York Times article suggests the Irish were always seen as white, but suggests they were seen as "inferior white races" along with Jews, Italians, and Greeks. Jews have good coverage in the article already, but Greeks and Italians don't. Some of this might be better treated at Race and ethnicity in the United States. Either way, it's worth some discussion that whiteness has never been monolithic. --BDD (talk) 16:18, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

  • Another NYT book review worth considering: [2] I found particularly interesting "While Jews and Italians were nonwhite in the East, they had long been white in San Francisco, where the racial 'inferiors' were the Chinese." How geography affected definitions of whiteness is also worth exploring. --BDD (talk) 16:25, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Definitions of whiteness in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:58, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Definitions of whiteness in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:37, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Cleanup

Some sections got mixed up in this edit. I fixed some of it. If a regular of this article would look into the reminder. -- User:Docu

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Definitions of whiteness in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:30, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Table of Contents

For reference, the cucrent table of contents:

1 German Americans

2 Finnish Americans

3 Hispanic Americans

3.1 Mexican Americans

3.2 Latino Caribbean

4 Native Americans

5 Asian Americans

5.1 Central and West Asian Americans

5.2 East Asian Americans

5.3 South Asian Americans

6 North Africans in the United States

7 African Americans and admixture

8 See also

9 References

10 Further reading

The choice of sections seem arbitrary, at best. What should the sections in the article be? Power~enwiki (talk) 07:00, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

On the removal of sourced content

A few days ago, I copied a paragraph from the American Jews section on race and duplicated it here, seeing as it is (in my opinion, at least) relevant content. However, my efforts to expand this article's section on American Jews were met with resistance from the same two editors who nearly blanked it in the first place (and at least one of whom appears to be incapable of maintaining a WP:NPOV on this subject [3]). The first justification they (or rather, Malik) had to offer was that it was "poorly sourced pabulum" (sic?), although it was well-sourced enough for him to leave it in place on the aforementioned article, under a heading that deals with what is essentially the same topic. When I pointed this out, the rationale then shifted to "these sources have nothing to do with the definition of whiteness" (paraphrased), although they are about the same thing as the poll Malik added to the article: Jewish self-identification. Both editors seem hostile to any WP:RS which treats Jewish whiteness as something other than immutable, set-in-stone fact. These attitudes are not conducive to building a well-rounded article on this very intricate, complex topic.The Human Trumpet Solo (talk) 05:08, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

the text is not about the DEFINITION of whiteness. It is entirely about how a few individual Jews are uncomfortable that Jews are in fact considered whites, because they personally have a negative view of white history. The text is about "American Jews" but not about the "DEFINITION of WHITENESS" which is the topic here. Rjensen (talk) 05:31, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
Your assessment of the sources is widely off the mark, and appears to come from a place of personal resentment. Did you even read them?The Human Trumpet Solo (talk) 06:35, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
That seems pretty obvious to me. It doesn't belong here. If we had an article on "Identifying as white" it would. Doug Weller talk 05:39, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
If this is about the definition of whiteness sensu stricto, then the poll (which is entirely about Jewish self-identification) doesn't seem apropos either. As such, I have removed it. In its place, I've added info/sources more relevant (per your arguments) to this article.The Human Trumpet Solo (talk) 06:35, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
American Jews nearly all define themselves as white. that seems relevant to this article. Rjensen (talk) 06:58, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
How is it any more (or less) relevant than the sourced content I added before, and which you removed on the (alleged) grounds that it was about Jewish self-identity? The poll you are arguing in favor of keeping is also about Jewish self-identity. The only difference is that what I added discusses the complicated nature of Jewish identity, rather than giving off the impression that Jewish whiteness is some immutable fact and anyone who disagrees is a moron (in fact, I was literally called a moron on the American Jews talk page for precisely that reason). Tell me how what you're doing is not POV pushing?The Human Trumpet Solo (talk) 07:48, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
If you are still arguing for your original edit, it appears your new deletion is designed not to follow your policy but to vandalize the article. please don't do that. 08:40, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
No, I am no longer arguing for it, hence why I removed the poll in the first place.The Human Trumpet Solo (talk) 08:48, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

As was evident by your recent unsuccessful attempts to have me sanctioned at multiple noticeboards, Human Trumpet Solo, you really need to read the policies and guidelines you (mis)cite. Like you -- and all other people -- I have a viewpoint. WP:NPOV doesn't require that I pretend otherwise; it requires that the content of encyclopedia articles be written from a neutral point of view. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 11:36, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

"it requires that the content of encyclopedia articles be written from a neutral point of view". A requirement which, given your behavior, you are failing to meet (at least on this topic). Either way, keep it up....my case against you is only getting longer.The Human Trumpet Solo (talk) 11:44, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

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)
  • This source:
Tuchman, AM (January 2011). "Diabetes and race. A historical perspective". American journal of public health. 101 (1): 24–33. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2010.202564. PMC 3000712. PMID 21148711.
has a surprisingly thorough discussion of the legal classification of Jews (and some other group) in relation to whiteness. Jytdog (talk) 07:29, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
I don't know how I am supposed to add a health-related source to the article, but I'll try.The Human Trumpet Solo (talk) 08:50, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
Somewhere here you complained about people not seeming to read the source before they commented. Read the source! Jytdog (talk) 10:22, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
Someone trying to prove that someday definitions will change and Jews will be considered non-white, may be at risk of getting in bed with white supremacy hate groups and anti-semitic movements --rather like that Asiatic Exclusion League, out in California in 1910. Rjensen (talk) 09:01, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
Your advice is misplaced (considering I've done no such thing), highly disrespectful, and ultimately uncalled for.The Human Trumpet Solo (talk) 09:38, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
Human Trumpet Solo has twice suggested on this page that he believes Jewish whiteness is "something other than immutable, set-in-stone fact." The way I read it that's uncomfortably close to suggesting "Jews are white" is not really true. Human Trumpet Solo wrote (below) 1) "Both editors seem hostile to any WP:RS which treats Jewish whiteness as something other than immutable, set-in-stone fact." 05:08, 11 September 2017 2) "what I added discusses the complicated nature of Jewish identity, rather than giving off the impression that Jewish whiteness is some immutable fact " signed Human Trumpet Solo 07:48, 11 September 2017. Perhaps he can rephrase that for us. Rjensen (talk) 10:09, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
You've taken my quotes out of context. I was addressing your and Malik's refusal to include any RS which provides a more fleshed out perspective on discussions of Jewish identity, noting that you both seem invested in presenting a one-sided "Jews are objectively white and if you disagree you're wrong/antisemitic" view, which is dishonest and, yes, POV. The Human Trumpet Solo (talk) 10:38, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
The way I read it that's uncomfortably close to suggesting "Jews are white" is not really true.
This kind of reinforces my point. Why does it matter to you how Jews are identified, or self-identify? The fact that you, an ostensibly non-Jewish person (based on your available background), would even make a statement like this makes me (someone who actually is Jewish) feel quite uncomfortable.The Human Trumpet Solo (talk) 10:58, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Saw this referenced on the talk page of Wikiproject Politics. Haven't read through the whole discussion but I did want to comment that while the first diff cited at the top was properly reverted, use of the revert button for the second one was not correct as it threw out well-cited material. However, more generally I believe that this article is seriously deficient in not discussing how Italians and other southern European ethnicities, as well as Irish, were not considered white at certain points in the 20th Century, and also I agree that the discussion of Jews is insufficient, and agree that the latter is both historical and contemporary. That being the case, since I feel that this article has a serious WP:WEIGHT issue, I am putting an NPOV tag on this article pending resolution of this issue. Coretheapple (talk) 14:12, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Proposed content on Jews

Something like this?

In the 19th century, some people, including some Jews, discussed Jews as a distinct racial group, fitting somewhere in the hierarchy between Caucasians and Ethiopians; where exactly was a point of debate. In general the view was that Jews were "Slavonic", which in turn was considered a subset of "Aryan." The 1907 Dillingham Commission that analyzed the racial composition of the US with a view to restricting immigration to "better" racial groups, kept Jews within the group of Caucasians but moved them to a lower rank within that group. At that time some nativists characterized Jews as "oriental" or "Mongoloid", groups that were excluded from immigrating at that time. These older notions of fine gradations of race began to be challenged by anthropologists and others in the 1920s and 30s. Further, as Jim Crow unfolded in the South and blacks migrated north in the early twentieth century, notions of race in the US became polarized between black and white, and Jews came to be considered as white people. The integration of Jews into American society contributed to this.[1] Jews' status as white people has remained contested in some quarters, and some aspects of African American–Jewish relations have been informed by Jews allying with blacks in the U.S. as a group that also experienced marginalization by white people.[2]: 2 

References

  1. ^ Tuchman, AM (January 2011). "Diabetes and race. A historical perspective". American journal of public health. 101 (1): 24–33. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2010.202564. PMC 3000712. PMID 21148711.
  2. ^ Greenberg, Cheryl Lynn (2006). Troubling the waters : Black-Jewish relations in the American century. Princeton, NJ [u.a.]: Princeton Univ. Press. ISBN 978-0691058658.


A proposal....-- Jytdog (talk) 19:01, 11 September 2017 (UTC) (made some tweaks, wrote that fast while running out the door. It is a bit rambley, yes Jytdog (talk) 22:26, 11 September 2017 (UTC))

There have been scholarly books books written on the subject, such as How Jews Became White Folks and What That Says About America. by Karen Brodkin, Rutgers University Press, and others. Some material from Brodkin was added, along with questionably sourced text, and rolled back en masse. I read it some years ago but can't find my copy. Lots out there on the general topic. I reached out to a subject area expert. But also the Irish and Italians were both categorized as nonwhite, the Irish back into the 19th Century and the Italians well into the 20th. Again, quite a bit out there, sourcing should be ample. Coretheapple (talk) 19:15, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
I tried to add Brodkin to this article, but it was repeatedly removed. As for Jytdog's proposal, it rambles a bit too much and is confusing, but the second source could be implemented. I also disagree with removing Singerman and Goldstein from the article.The Human Trumpet Solo (talk) 19:19, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
Can you provide the Singerman/Goldstein citations you wanted added? Coretheapple (talk) 19:24, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
The diabetes article is interesting and worth tapping, However given that Brodkin wrote an entire book on the subject, I think that needs to be reflected. My recollection of it was that it was a comprehensive discussion of the question in all its aspects. There are other books as well, in addition to broader examinations of views of "white ethnics" by the broader society. More recently I've seen articles in reliable sources that have reopened the question of Jews and whiteness, written mainly by Jews and written in a kind of "racial politics" theme. We don't want to overweight, but surely there needs to be more on this. Likewise, the absence of material on Italians/Irish/others needs to be remedied. Coretheapple (talk) 19:29, 11 September 2017 (UTC)


The Singerman and Goldstein sources are already in the article, but Jytdog's proposed version leaves them out. I also have concerns about the poll that Malik Shabazz insists on putting in, considering the current consensus is against sources related to self-identification.The Human Trumpet Solo (talk) 19:40, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
Agree that self-identification is irrelevant in this article. Coretheapple (talk) 19:51, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
Coretheapple, if self-identification by the overwhelming majority of American Jews is irrelevant (and I'm not going to argue strongly that it isn't), then so too should be apologias by a very small group of white Jewish academics who feel uneasy about their white privilege, of the type The Human Trumpet Solo keeps trying to add. I don't see how it could be appropriate to include one without the other. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:39, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
It's irrelevant because this article is about perceptions of ethnic groups by others. So therefore the fact that ethnic groups self-identify as white (as I presume the Irish did in the 19th century when they were often viewed otherwise and yet were involved in conflict with blacks) doesn't seem terribly relevant. If content concerning the current debate within the Jewish community over whether "Jews are white" is added, then yes, the poll you refer to would be relevant and only then. Used in isolation it strikes me as POV, as does your description of the issue. Coretheapple (talk) 12:33, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
You still haven't explained why the crap The Human Trumpet Solo keeps trying to force back in, about how a small group of white Jewish academics is uncomfortable with their white privilege, is relevant, which was the question I asked. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 12:45, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
I haven't even looked at what he wrote, and I don't care. The article needs a de novo approach. I do know that what you added, which is all I have seen, was not appropriate. This is not a tribunal weighing one editor's contributions against another's. If you feel he's adding "crap," go to ANI, but beware of the boomerang. Coretheapple (talk) 13:09, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
User:Malik Shabazz Your immature and racist misrepresentation of the sources aside, I removed your poll for precisely that reason. If self-identity related sources are verboten, then all of them must be removed. You can't just keep the ones that support your point of view.The Human Trumpet Solo (talk) 04:08, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Please ping me when you have something intelligent to say. Unlike you, I know how to read, count to four, and tell time. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 04:29, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
I see now that Goldstein is the author of "The Price of Whiteness: Jews, Race, and American Identity," published by Princeton University Press and actually it was one of the potential source materials I had in mind. Still not sure what the Singerman cite is. Coretheapple (talk) 20:13, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
Although I don't want to put words in his mouth, I believe he's referring to Robert Singerman and work such as "Contemporary Racist and Judeophobic Ideology Discovers the Khazars, or, Who Really Are the Jews?" (2004) or "The Jew as Racial Alien: The Genetic Component of American Anti-Semitism" (1998), a chapter in Anti-Semitism in America. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:08, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Thank you. I think that is of greatest value as a directory of sources. Coretheapple (talk) 12:37, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
--Moxy (talk) 20:34, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
But as it is, we just need a short text here. If somebody wants to propose something else, please do. Jytdog (talk) 22:22, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
It certainly should be proportional, lest one WEIGHT issue be replaced by another. A fork may be a good idea. Coretheapple (talk) 22:46, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
Right now there is an entire section (a very interesting one) on Finns. So no, I don't know that "short" is necessarily the description I would use. I think it would need to be proportional to the sourcing and the subject matter, as well as to the length of the article. Your proposal above is far too short, so if that is the kind of length you had in mind, ixnay. Coretheapple (talk) 23:04, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
So propose a version of your own. Jytdog (talk) 02:42, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Since there is a book on the subject (Brodkin), I think it's best that someone utilize that book to build this article. Short of that, we have to do the best we can. Coretheapple (talk) 12:40, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

NPOV tag

See my comment above under "Jewish material" concerning absence of material re "whiteness" of Italians et al, and insufficient discussion of Jewish matters. Coretheapple (talk) 14:13, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Why don't you just create that content? No one is arguing that you shouldn't. I have removed the tag, as there is no argument here. Just WP:FIXIT Jytdog (talk) 22:32, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
Huh? You just removed all the content re Jews, exacerbating the WEIGHT issue, and you now say that I should fix it? I did, and you reverted. I said your reversion was in good faith. I have doubts about that now. As for the NPOV tag, there is ample disputation above over what should and shouldn't be added, and you just removed some material, worsening the WEIGHT issue so.... uh .... yeah, the tag is warranted. Maintenance templates are removed when the problem is addressed or when there is a consensus over how to do so, per WP:WTRMT, and we are far from that point. Don't edit war over it, please. Coretheapple (talk) 22:42, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
I will leave you to your imaginary dispute here. Jytdog (talk) 02:46, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Oh, my mistake. I must have just imagined there was a dispute over the Jewish content. Meanwhile I'd suggest that you re-read WP:WTRMT. Coretheapple (talk) 12:15, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
That you cannot see how utterly uncontructive it is for you to drag your battleax against me into this topic, which is already disrupted by an interpersonal dispute between two other editors, shows again utterly clueless behavior as well as a continued lack of ability to restrain yourself. This behavior will be brought to the community's attention at some point. For now I am again walking away from an article that you are turning into a cesspool. I do not come here to experience this kind of behavior. Jytdog (talk) 15:17, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
After re-reading WP:WTRMT I suggest that you revisit WP:CIVIL. Coretheapple (talk) 15:40, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Leaving it blank for now

User:The Human Trumpet Solo your edit note here says "There is nothing wrong with this version. We can just add to it later". That is not true. You and MShabazz have been at the center of an edit war lasting over a month now about what the content should include or not include. There is no shared "core" of content that everybody agrees on. The standard thing to do for now is just leave it silent, and work out agreed-on content here, and then post the consensus content. The article does not have to say anything about Jews at every moment. Please use the talk page and work toward an actual consensus version so the content can be undisrupted while it is getting worked out. Please. Jytdog (talk) 04:07, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Building a balanced, neutral representation of this topic is a nigh impossible task with editors like Malik Shabazz running around. He deletes everything he doesn't like and is outraged at even the *slightest* suggestion (even when supported by academic sources) that Jewish identity is more complicated than "Jews are white and if you disagree you're a POV pusher". How the hell am I supposed to work with someone like that? This is a joke. If only he would take his own advice and accept that Wikipedia is not a soapbox and that nobody cares about his feelings on the subject.The Human Trumpet Solo (talk) 04:19, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
At any rate, I suggest at least keeping the last version of the article and using it as a basis to build/add more sources onto.The Human Trumpet Solo (talk) 04:32, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) You've never given any indication that you're interested in "[b]uilding a balanced, neutral representation of this topic". Your edits only advance one absurd idea—that Jews aren't white, and efforts to classify them as white are incorrect. Despite what you assert, I've never written that Jews are white. What I've written is that European Jews (and hence the overwhelming majority of American Jews) are the same color as their non-white neighbors, and that for more than 50 years they have been regarded and they regard themselves as white. The fact that a small minority of American Jewish academics feels guilt about their white privilege and would like to assert that they have mixed feelings about being white doesn't change the truth of one word of what I've written. (If you read more widely, you'd know that anti-racist white people of other religions express similar ambivalent feelings about being white. That doesn't make them any less white than it makes ambivalent white Jews.)
I never questioned—in fact, I proposed—the history that you added earlier, about how Jews were perceived as non-white (Asiatic or Mongolian or Mongoloid) during the early 20th century. Those are facts (both historical facts about race and facts about suggestions I've made on talk pages). They also have nothing to do with the 21st-century racial classification into which the overwhelming majority of American Jews put themselves and are put by others.
Over the years, I've managed to work with hundreds, perhaps thousands of people with whose viewpoints I disagree. The key is that we agree to try to improve the encyclopedia's coverage of a subject. I've got a track record of collaborating on FAs and GAs. Your contributions? Edit wars about how to categorize articles about Jews. If you're interested, I'm willing to help. But to date, your edits show no evidence of that. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 04:46, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
And while our behavior was being discussed at WP:AN3, you went ahead and broke WP:3RR at this article. Two 3RR violations in two weeks—that's impressive! — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 04:50, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
If that is what you believe about me, then I recommend you take a look at my page, specifically my very long list of contributions to this site over the years. What I took issue with was the palpable zeal I felt in your edits/reverts, your misrepresentation of the sources that were added (which you just did again, in your first paragraph), your efforts at labeling me a POV pusher (as well as calling me a "moron") simply for disagreeing with you, and yes, your attempts at including one source about self-identity (one that just so happened to align with the views you've expressed on both talk pages) but not the rest (which, obviously, did not align with your views). In short, you come off as a very agenda driven editor. The Human Trumpet Solo (talk) 05:42, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Furthermore, Jewishness isn't a religious identity (e.g. Christianity or Islam) so much as it's a Levantine national/ethnoreligious identity (hence why Jews outside of Israel are called "diaspora Jews"), and there are plenty of European Jews who do not have the same skin color as indigenous Europeans. Rather, they look Middle Eastern (who are often quite light skinned themselves), reflecting their heritage. To wit, not every Jew (European or otherwise) agrees that Jews are white, and given their history and their experiences in contemporary American/Canadian/European society, they are more than entitled to feel that way, regardless of how "absurd" you think it is (and I promise you that nobody cares). But that's neither here nor there, and I don't think this is the proper forum for debating this topic.The Human Trumpet Solo (talk) 05:42, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Moreover, had you paid attention, you'd know that the only reason I removed the poll in the first place is because it was about self-identity, whereas this article is about definitions of whiteness. You can't have it both ways.The Human Trumpet Solo (talk) 05:53, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
  • This has gotten very hairy - two experienced users have been acting badly and this is not good for anybody, nor for our content. I hope it is clear now, if it wasn't before, that there is no core agreed-on content. So let's work it out here. Jytdog (talk) 05:51, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
I suggest sticking with this version for now. It is an adequate summary of the early/mid 20th century and ties in neatly with the other paragraphs. As for anything else we might want to add, I think first we have to agree on whether or not this article can include content about self-identity.

Arleen Marcia Tuchman, writing in 'Diabetes and Race: A Historical Perspective', chronicles the debate on Jewish racial status in the United States.[1] Robert Singerman notes that, in the early to mid 20th century, American Jews were racially constructed as 'Asiatic'.[2] According to Eric L. Goldstein, the 1909 ruling to classify Syrians as "Mongolians", thus non-white and ineligible for citizenship, caused American Jewish leaders to fear that Jews would soon be denaturalized as well. Congressman Henry Goldfogle responded with a bill proposing that "Asiatics who are Armenians, Syrians, or Jews" not be denaturalized, which was not passed.[3]

The Human Trumpet Solo (talk) 06:10, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Tuchman, Arleen Marcia. Diabetes and Race: A Historical Perspective. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3000712/#bib31
  2. ^ Singerman, Robert (1986). "The Jew as Racial Alien: The Genetic Component of American Anti-Semitism". In Gerber, David A. (ed.). Anti-Semitism in American history. Urbana: University of Illinois Press. ISBN 9780252012143.: 103, 116–117 
  3. ^ Goldstein, Eric L. The Price of Whiteness: Jews, Race, And American Identity. pp. 103-104
I think that's an okay start, but...
1. Instead of saying that Tuchman chronicled something, we should summarize what she wrote.
2. It's fine if we were living in the 1910s, but more than a century has passed and (as Tuchman chronicled) ideas about race have evolved. Including only information about the first decade of the 20th century is woefully incomplete.
— MShabazz Talk/Stalk 12:34, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Yes, that's the weakness of the Tuchman paper. Coretheapple (talk) 13:40, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Suggested reorganization

The current structure of this article reads like a series of responses to brushfires, and is unduly vulnerable to problems with DUE coverage and with POV meddling. I would suggest that rather than listing a series of nationalities, the article would be better organized historically and in terms of boundaries established by law or social practice between "white" and various "non-white" groups. So the fundamental distinction between slaveholders and white colonists, on the one hand, and slaves and free blacks, on the other, would be accompanied by a discussion of the distinctions established at various times between white, Native American, and "mixed race" individuals (including that interesting period in which Oklahoma defined Native Americans as "white" for purposes of Jim Crow laws). Another section should deal with the evolving legal distinction between "white" and Asian or "Mongoloid" people, which would deal with the Finnish case, the Armenian case and Syrian cases, as well as the current re-introduction of a non-white MENA category more than 100 years after this group was ruled to be no longer Asian. I am not saying that only these boundary cases should be discussed (nor that only the position of US governments be considered - the social exclusion of Irish and Italian-Americans would also be in-scope if properly sourced), but I am suggesting that discussing them in an organized way, as a series of broad boundaries established and re-defined over time, would do a better job than the current happenstance approach. Newimpartial (talk) 14:04, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Sure, that makes sense. However, for the moment I suggest working on the omitted Jewish, Irish and Italian content. Then it can be reorganized, if there is agreement to that. Coretheapple (talk) 15:16, 12 September 2017 (UTC) See my further comment below. Coretheapple (talk) 17:49, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
I think Newimpartial has hit the nail on the head. The opening section of the article is the only part that (barely) gives some historical context to the issue (and importance) of whiteness in the United States. And it violates WP:LEAD, because that important material doesn't appear elsewhere in the article.
I think it's a mistake to keep shoveling more stuff into a poorly arranged article in the hope that it will be restructured one day. I think we'd get better content if the purpose and structure of the article were clearer. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 16:41, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Agree that the lead, like the article, is a mess. Coretheapple (talk) 16:44, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Coreapple in that we should work on rounding out the Jewish content (and filling in the Irish/Italian stuff) before thinking about an overhaul.The Human Trumpet Solo (talk) 22:28, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Actually, I disagree with the above. I have the impression that it would be easier to achieve a WP:DUE section on Jewish Americans and whiteness in the context of a section on the white-Asian boundary that discussed the other boundary issues first, as well as in the context of a social attitudes section that discussed the Irish and the Italian experience properly. Both of those two key elements would give appropriate context for a nuanced section on the Jewish experience (which has not yet been achieved here). Newimpartial (talk) 22:34, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Well right now the DUE issue is even more fundamental - a lack of Irish, Italians and now someone took out any mention of Jews entirely. That has to be fixed first and then the reorganization can be attempted. It makes a lot of sense in theory but everything depends on execution. Coretheapple (talk) 13:13, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
I think that as far as the "Asian-to-white" context is concerned, the article is already arranged appropriately (or at least it was, before the Jewish content was removed entirely). There can also be an additional section on present-day (specifically post 9/11) social attitudes as well, since that is when both antisemitic and anti-Arab attitudes were noted to have risen dramatically in the US.
The Irish and Italians section is in need of expansion as well, although I don't know how (or why) you would try to fit Jews in with Irish and Italians when their experiences have been (and continue to be) very different. The Human Trumpet Solo (talk) 12:48, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

To restate: the boundary between whiteness and blackness should be discussed first, then the boundary between whiteness and redness, then the other legal boundaries.

Legal definitions affecting Finns and Armenians need to be discussed in the same section as MENA and Jewish Americans, since it is a subsidiary issue about "Asians".

Social issues affecting Jewish Americans, however, are appropriately discussed in relation to the Irish and Italian experience since that was the way the informal boundary evolved. Newimpartial (talk) 14:10, 14 September 2017 (UTC)


I am not sure what you are saying? That Jews are indistinguishable from Christian goyim? It is true that many Jews are highly assimilated and celebrate Christmas, work on Shabbat, do not cover their heads, nor keep kosher. Many are not Jewish according to Halakha.
The US government classifies Jews as white. You cannot seriously expect Jews to give incorrect answers on forms do you? Why would anyone do that?
I guess you are saying that the history of Jewish quotas is similar to the Irish and Italians? Anyway not all Jews are assimilated which makes the unqualified comparison sophomoric. Aside from that yes many Jews these day are indistinguishable from the goyim.Jonney2000 (talk) 16:16, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
I am not saying anything like that, because this article is not about relations between Jews and goyim (about which many other articles are more relevant, such as American Jews), but rather about Definitions of whiteness. Jews have generally been defined as "white" by American law and in the 20th century increasingly also by social norms. This article should reflect the legal decisions that defined people as "white", or not, as well as informal attitudes by which groups of people were or were not treated as "white". Irish, Italians, and other groups were not always considered socially "white" in the US, and neither were Jews, although now generally speaking the majority of all those groups are now considered "white" for most purposes, both legally and socially.Newimpartial (talk) 16:30, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
I think Newimpartial is right that it is not necessary to organize ethnic groups in specific "silos" the way it has been done in this article. That is not to say that separate sections can't materialize if it is apt. It really all depends on the execution to ensure that all aspects receive appropriate weight. As for Jews being "lumped in" with Irish, Italians - I don't have an opinion and I think it depends on how the sources have characterized it. However, the scholarship does seem to separate out the Jewish experience. Oh, and while I don't have the "How Jews Became White Folks" source (though it IS available full-text online as observed above) I think I may have a book on the Italian experience. Coretheapple (talk) 17:19, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
What does socially white mean? Bus stop (talk) 19:37, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
My operational definition is, if there is a "Whites Only" sign, will you be admitted or not. YMMV. Newimpartial (talk) 21:01, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
I don't believe any source supports your "operational definition". Bus stop (talk) 12:48, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
Well, there's the Arkansas Times [4] and also interestingly, Canada's National Post on real estate [something like nationalpost.com/news/canada/b-c-property-titles-bear-reminders-of-a-time-when-race-based-covenants-kept-neighbourhoods-white/ - google/amp link blocked]. Taking a slightly broader view, I think you would find that real estate covenants referring to the "Caucasian race" were used to express the intent to exclude semitic peoples as well as blacks, on a fairly regular basis per reliable sources (though of course this was, or became, illegal) - this is what I meant by that awkward phrase, "social whiteness".Newimpartial (talk) 14:06, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
  • I've reconsidered this possible reorganization and though it is intriguing, I think a division into separate ethnic groups is probably the best way to go. Such a rewrite would require a "from scratch" approach that is just not necessary, I think, and would be a nightmare as a practical matter. The current approach, while not well-executed, is more reader-friendly. Coretheapple (talk) 17:47, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Definitions_of_whiteness_in_the_United_States/Archive_1&oldid=831981541"