I'm very glad that you asked this - I reviewed your tag summaries and approved about half of them. I wanted to leave feedback for the ones I rejected, but I didn't know how to do so, and then I got distracted by tasks for which people pay me.
If there was a pattern to the rejections it was because I felt there was a dangerous ambiguity in the text. Unfortunately enough time has gone by that I don't remember the details, but I remember looking at one of the texts and thinking, "I can see what he meant to say, but I'm not sure that it says that." I remember thinking that it was the kind of sentence that I could see myself writing, and then being pilloried for not spotting the ambiguity. I really wished I could have offered an constructive suggestion or edit rather than a rejection. As I said, I meant to go back and try to fix that, but got distracted by a shiny paycheck.
Tags are constrained to be very brief, and sometimes that brevity seems to facilitate misunderstanding. When the subject is contentious, any misunderstanding can lead to the kind of fractious debate that undermines SE. I wish I could remember the details, but I do recall rejecting your first attempt at a summary tag for Jews, and then approving the second because it was much clearer.
In any case I'm glad you asked for the feedback - the site doesn't offer the chance to offer feedback on tag wiki content. In every case I appreciated that you'd drafted the tag, and liked most of what I saw. I only rejected when I saw something that was unintentionally substantively misleading, or that might generate unpleasant arguments.