Talk:Abe Burrows
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is part of WikiProject Musical Theatre, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to musical theatre. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. |
[edit] Why Jewish American??
I'm sorry, but I really don't see why Jewish-American has been included as an adjective. Why not "bald" or "slightly overweight" or "extremely witty"? Mr Burrows Jewish-American heritage is not mentioned in any other context. If this adjective had been edited in by a neo-nazi, it would probably be offensive to many. I'm assuming that it was well meant, but I think it is essentially demeaning, and so am removing it.
If some editor were to describe Mr Burrows' activities on behalf of Israeli war widows or the Jewish Entertainer's Fund, or some such, then the Jewish-American adjective WOULD have relevance, and I would defend keeping it in place. Also I have no problem including the category: jewish-americans.
- 1. re: I'm sorry, but I really don't see why Jewish-American has been included as an adjective. Why not "bald" or "slightly overweight" or "extremely witty"? Mr Burrows Jewish-American heritage is not mentioned in any other context.
- I only added "Jewish-American" to the opening sentence because in many pages for Jewish-Americans it is standard [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], etc. etc. etc. This is often done with members of other ethnic groups: [10], [11], [12], [13], etc.
- 2. re: If this adjective had been edited in by a neo-nazi, it would probably be offensive to many.
- If, considering that "Jewish-American", "African-American" and "Mexican-American" have been left alone in the above contexts and seem to have been accepted, the assertion that they should not be included either because we don't know who the editor is or racist or Neo-Nazi readers will use it in some perverted way seems rather absurd, don't you think? The issue in this point is not whether "Jewish-American" should be included in the first paragraph, but rather whether it is appropriate. With that considered, even in the pretend world you mention in which "Jewish-American" is "demeaning", that would not mean that it should not be included. See What Wikipedia is and is not. See this debate in which an article on a controversial issue that many view offensive and even racist was upheld because it is in accordance with Wikipedia policy.
- 3. re: I'm assuming that it was well meant, but I think it is essentially demeaning, and so am removing it.
- Well you don't have to assume, I'm the person who simply added it, see my user page. Yet I am extremely surprised that you find the term "Jewish-American" in context "essentially demeaning", and to me it seems demeaning that you think that it is demeaning. Seems sorta strange to me. Can you explain your reasoning?
- 4. HOWEVER, as long as you are ok with the "Jewish Americans" category being kept in the bottom, I don't think it's a big deal to remove the reference in the first sentence. So we don't have to debate about that, especially since it would seem silly to me. Please, however, read my above three points. Thanks. Yid613 22:54, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
