Talk:American Jews

Changes to the infobox

AndresHerutJaim (talk · contribs) has been making many changes to the infobox on the page, generally adding all sorts of images of young actors. As has been discussed here many times, the pictures in the infobox are a careful balance of men and women from all sorts of professions, all Jews, and geared towards overall significance. It's unclear that these additions match those criteria, and in any event need to be discussed first. AndresHerutJaim, please explain which pictures you wish to add/delete, and why. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:41, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Ron Perlman - Famous Jewish actor

Morgan Pressel - Famous Jewish golfer

Liev Schreiber - Famous Jewish actor

Adam Sandler - Very famous Jewish actor

Natalie Portman - Very famous Jewish actress

Mark Zuckerberg - Very famous Jewish computer scientist and software developer, founder of Facebook

Yuri Foreman - Famous Jewish boxer

Jason Lezak - Famous Jewish swimmer

Noah Emmerich - Famous Jewish actor

Joe Lieberman - Very famous Jewish senator

Ben Stiller - Very famous Jewish actor

Rahm Emanuel - Famous Jewish White House Chief of Staff

Why they are not included in the image, as my edition pretended to do. At least let me include Lieberman, Zuckerberg and Sandler... famous and 100% Jewish.--AndresHerutJaim (talk) 00:51, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not in favor of the addition of a fifth row. Do you have any suggestions on who you would remove and replace, and why? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:14, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

You have to include a remarkable politician like Joe Lieberman, a guy like Zuckerberg (created the most famous social network in the world) and a young actor like Sandler (he is just cool and loved by the American public). I don't see any problem with the adding of another row. However, If I were forced to choose... I'd certainly remove Dianne Feinstein (for Lieberman), Betty Friedan (for Zuckerberg) and Hank Greenberg (for Sandler). I would also like to replace Richard Feynman with Robert Oppenheimer (he's much more famous and known around world, and made a major contribution to his nation when the entire Free World was fighting against evil).--AndresHerutJaim (talk) 01:39, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not in favor of a fifth row either. Also, the infobox only has 3 women vs. 9 men, so I don't think we should replace any more women with men. I also think Fenyman was a more significant physicist than Oppenheimer. Finally, if we removed Greenberg we would have no sportspeople in the infobox - we already have two Hollywood celebrities, one of whom was an actor (and singer), so I don't think we need a third one. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:15, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm concerned that your proposal would remove two of the three women in the infobox. Let's see what other editors have to say, both about this and about a fifth row. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:16, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

But you are excluding a lot of important people... let's add a fifth row, shall we?

Besides, not to include a significant contemporaneous man like Zuckerberg is an outrage!--AndresHerutJaim (talk) 02:34, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

The infobox is already pretty big, and so far no-one else wants to make it even bigger. Also Zuckerberg's pretty young, and his invention is pretty new. Please review WP:RECENTISM. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:18, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Facebook gained popularity recently, but it was launched seven years ago... so I think wikipedia should recognize soon the importance of Zuckerberg for human civilization.--AndresHerutJaim (talk) 03:35, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I think Adam Sandler is a good choice for the Infobox. Elena Kagan would be a good choice too. Bus stop (talk) 03:54, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I forgot to include Mrs. Kagan... she is a little liberal, though. Dustin Hoffman is also a good choice (the best actors in America are Italians and Jews, in my opinion... with some exceptions, like Vin Diesel, who unfortunately isn't Jewish).--AndresHerutJaim (talk) 04:16, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

And what about Jennifer Connelly? her mother is Jewish, therefore she is Jewish too. And what about Mark Spitz? he is one of the most famous Jewish sportsmen.--AndresHerutJaim (talk) 09:20, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

And what about the greatest actor ever seen in Hollywood? He was Jewish too.--AndresHerutJaim (talk) 11:18, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Mark Spitz might be a good replacement for Hank Greenberg, but we don't have any particularly good pictures of him, especially from when he was competing. Newman's and Connelly's status as Jews are unclear, and in any event, as I said above, we already have two Hollywood figures in the infobox, we don't need more. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:30, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

i would vote for zuckerberg, sandler, kagan and spitz. i would also vote for 16 pics, 4x4, but not a fifth row. and if you want young, hip, 4-time platinum album singer, go with david draiman, too. if you need a good pic of draiman, i will find one.Soosim (talk) 17:45, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

But since your "vote" hasn't dealt with any of the issues raised, it's not really that meaningful. I will say, however, that it might make sense to replace Brandeis with Kagan - they were in the same profession, and it would help improve the gender imbalance. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:58, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I think Kagan would be a good choice. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:22, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

David Draiman would be a good choice. He strikes me an an independent-minded person who articulates unambiguously that he is a Jew. He breaks the mold of what it takes to be a Jew.

Herbert and Dorothy Vogel would be good choices too. They could be considered as one as concerns the Infobox, with one picture containing them both. They represent "…Jewish identification with the avant garde…" as you can read about in the linked-to article. Bus stop (talk) 18:53, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

We have a crappy free picture of Draiman and no free picture of the Vogels. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:56, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Malik Shabazz—perhaps a better picture of David Draiman could be found. Bus stop (talk) 19:00, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Matisyahu would also be a good choice. He breaks the mold of what it means to be Jewish. He is unambiguously Jewish yet not stereotypically so. Bus stop (talk) 19:08, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

@jayjg - thanks for the encouraging words. @malik - as i said...i will get you a nice pic of david draiman. start with these, and i will look for more: david draiman1 david draiman2 david draiman3Soosim (talk) 19:12, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Bus stop, Soosim, as with all such infoboxes, we'll stick with the most famous individuals; that will preclude included generally not-well-known individuals like Draiman or the Vogels or even Matisyahu. So far we seem to have consensus on replacing Brandeis with Kagan; any disagreement with that? Jayjg ^(talk) 20:23, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Guys, did you know Shia LaBeouf is Jewish? It seems the world is a Kippah.--AndresHerutJaim (talk) 01:58, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikipeda has thousands of biographies of American Jews, but the infobox has room for 12 pictures. Let's make sure we get a good wide variety of the most notable individuals. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:42, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

hey jayjg...did you that david draiman's last three albums debuted at Number One on Billboard's Top 200, making him one of only six rock bands (and the only jew!) in history to have three consecutive releases debut at Number One. he has sold in excess of 11 million records worldwide and had eight No.1 singles. not sure why you think he isn't famous...i guess you never heard of him. not sure what your criteria is for 'famous'? Soosim (talk) 07:05, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure he's reasonably well-known among fans of his musical genre. American Jews have been extraordinarily successful, and that includes as musicians, so we have a huge number from which to choose for the infobox. Are you suggesting that Draiman is better known than, say, Bob Dylan or Barbra Streisand? Because we already have two popular singing artists in the infobox. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:04, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Jayjg here. This is ridiculous. If we are talking about great American Jews, we are speaking over history. Shia Lebouf, Draiman etc, do not have multi-decade careers and rank with people like those Jayjg mentions. And, this should not be about singers and actors, although having a great singer/actor in the 12 makes sense, what truly belongs are great scientists, classical authors, politicians and even lawyers, and that is what was already present. I definitely would not replace Greenberg with Sandler. If there is one Jewish athlete there, any of Greenberg, Sandy Koufax or Mark Spitz would be acceptable. For politicians, I would think Lieberman is better than Feinstein. As far as Kagan, Ruth Bader Ginsburg actually has been on the court for years, but Brandeis, IMO, is far more notable. None of the other actors/singers comes close to any of the recently mentioned, except possibly for Adam Sandler, and to put Sandler there when you could include somebody like Mel Brooks, Milton Berle or even Jerry Seinfeld, is questionable. As far as Oppenheimer or Feynman, I am agnostic, but maybe we should include somebody more recent or in a different field. Both of them were contemporaries of Einstein. Maybe Dr. Jonas Salk, he of the polio vaccine or Saul Bellow, the Nobel Prize winning author.Sposer (talk) 18:25, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, this is getting ridiculous. The whole reason we don't allow changes to the infobox without consensus is because it has always been plagued with people almost randomly adding their favorite American Jews to the infobox, with no consideration whatsoever for any rationale for inclusion other than "I like this person, let's put him/her in". Brandeis is undoubtedly the most famous Supreme Court Justice, but I was willing to support putting a woman in, in order to help balance the male/female ratio. As for replacing Greenberg, I'd actually prefer Spitz, but we don't have a good picture of him. Regarding Feymann, I'm ok with Salk too as someone from a different field than Einstein. Regarding Saul Bellow, he might be a good replacement for Asimov - both were authors, but Bellow did win the Nobel Prize. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:04, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I think Jonas Salk is a very good suggestion. Bus stop (talk) 21:43, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

The article is entitled American Jews. It is not entitled Famous American Jews. I think that implies that inclusion and exclusion should be based on the strength of the argument presented by editors for inclusion and for exclusion. I feel that "famous" is an important factor but not the only factor that should be considered. Bus stop (talk) 18:39, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Bus stop, infoboxes contain images of the most famous individuals of the group, not just random members - "famous" is the minimum requirement for consideration. You've made this argument many times before, and no-one has ever agreed with you on this point in any discussion I can remember. This is one of those areas where you're again veering into WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Please focus on areas where agreement can be reached, not on areas in which you have a unique perspective. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:04, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Jayjg—any selection is going to be subjective. Any selection could be replaced with a multitude of other selections. It all depends on what criteria one is applying. Were one to apply religious criteria wouldn't one be considering Moshe Feinstein, Yonasan Steif, Joseph B. Soloveitchik, Aharon Kotler, and Yaakov Kamenetsky? It all depends on what one's priorities are. If one were thinking in terms of Jewish-American visual artists one would choose from among those on this list—would one not? I don't for instance think Bob Dylan is indispensable to our Infobox. I can accept the importance of a person being famous, but the question becomes—famous for what? Unlike other aspects of an article, the pictures chosen for an Infobox of an article such as American Jews is subjective to a large extent. There is no "right" selection. I believe the selection is open to discussion, but obviously reasons should accompany suggestions. Bus stop (talk) 00:21, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I have news: this funny man and this one are so Jewish as this guy and this one. Probably it would be easier simply to ask which famous actor is NOT Jewish.--AndresHerutJaim (talk) 23:11, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Many of these people have already been mentioned here. What was the point of your last two comments? We're trying to decide who should go in the infobox, not marveling at how many American Jews are actors or comedians. Please review WP:NOTAFORUM. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:16, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Why no religious Jews ?

Why don't you include any religious jews in your info box, Like Moshe Feinstein, the Satmar Rav, Menachem Mendel Schneerson … etc. I think it is mistaken to show only a cross segment of the secular jewish population when the Religious jewish population has had a larger effect on the jewish character of the US, even though they maybe smaller in numbers. yisraeldov (talk) 14:35, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Obviously, we cannot include every single notable American Jew in the infobox, so we've tried to use the most notable examples, correcting to get a nice spread across gender, ethnicity, and field of accomplishment. You are welcome to propose alternatives to what we have now, but keep in mind it's all subject to limited space. If you want to include someone you mentioned above, you'll need to argue who (s)he is to replace:

Isaac Asimov • Louis Brandeis • Bob Dylan

Albert Einstein • Dianne Feinstein • Betty Friedan

Richard Feynman • Hank Greenberg

Henry Kissinger • Steven Spielberg • Barbra Streisand

Who would you remove to make way for your suggestion? These are all pretty much superstars. In my opinion, no one you mention comes close to any of them in notability.--Louiedog (talk) 15:24, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

But you did not get a good cross segment of religious jews at all. The problem is that you are looking through american centric eyes. I'm sure that many people have never heard of ½ of the people on your list. I'm sure that we can find many more people who have heard of the Chabd Rebbe than have heard of Richard Feynman. It's strange that your list seems to exclude Jews who are also Jewish by religion, no ? yisraeldov (talk) 15:31, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. Virtually everyone up there is a household name and I actually had to google "Chabad Rebbe" to find out who that (Menachem Mendel Schneerson) was, while Feynman is well known in my circles, though I'm a physicist so I'm hardly a representative sample of the US. But to step aside from the two data points you and I are, google gives roughly 800,000 hits for Schneerson and 7.5 million for Feynman. The wikipedia hit counter gives 70,000 hits for Feynman and 6000 for Schneerson. Your additional familiarity with Jewish religious pedagogy and the frequency with which Schneerson is mentioned in your experiences may have oversold him as notable.

You may disagree that the hit counts and google results are representative of notability, or you may claim that Schneerson simply needs to be mentioned to balance out our sample in terms of including religious Jews. You are welcome to argue either, but my guess is you'll get very few editors here agreeing with you to replace Feynman with Schneerson.--Louiedog (talk) 16:09, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Louiedog, I'm not disagreeing with the thrust of your argument, but you're on thin ice if you start making arguments based solely on Google and Wikipedia hits. For example, "Betty Friedan" gets only 111,000 Google hits and only 127 Wikipedia hits. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:33, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Of course, Friedan is likely not as notable as Spielberg, but she was included for the other reason I mentioned: distribution. Without her we had only 2 of 11 figures as female. Also, since her contributions are that she's the household name in feminism, it adds a nice balance to the physicists, actors, directors, politicians, and legal scholars as only the second mention of someone in the humanities. As I've said, anon may wish to make an argument for the inclusion of Schneerson on the basis of distribution, but the problem winds up being that it throws off some other distribution adjustment made in some earlier discussion. All in all, it's a lot of balancing that will never be perfect.--Louiedog (talk) 17:09, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I do not think there was a deliberate attempt to not include religious Jews. There are relatively fewer religious Jews that have made non-religious contributions, which is what is the apparent focus of the Infobox. Given the global importance of the Chabad movement, love it or hate it, Schneerson is probably worth considering (not sure if I am for or against at this point). However, I think including devout Jews that have contributed outside of the religion to America or the world is more relevant to an article on Jewish Americans.Sposer (talk) 16:19, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

We can't make decisions based on who individual editors happen to be familiar with, and it is odd that not even one religious leader is included. Menachem Mendel Schneerson is as famous as a number of the people in the infobox, and likely more influential than most. The only concern is that as soon as you include him, editors will show up insisting that we also include other leaders, like Moshe Feinstein, Joel Teitelbaum, Joseph B. Soloveitchik, Solomon Schechter, Mordecai Kaplan, Judah Leon Magnes, Stephen Samuel Wise. Yisraeldov, were you suggesting we include, say, Mordecai Kaplan, the founder of both Young Israel and Reconstructionist Judaism? Solomon Schechter, excavator of the Cairo Geniza, founder of the United Synagogue of America, and president of the Jewish Theological Seminary of America? I somehow get the impression that neither of those two individuals were what Yisraeldov had in mind. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:21, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

The list goes on, including less wonderful figures, like Meir Kahane who was Orthodox and definitely important in Jewish American history. Also Larry Silverstein is, I believe, observant. I seem to remember reading that Robert Rubin also was observant. I am sure there are some scientists that would fit the mold as well. Jayjg mentions several good religion-oriented choices above.!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sposer (talk • contribs) 18:54, 24 January 2012‎ (UTC)

Getting back to the point at hand, I think the lack of any religious figures is an issue we should at least discuss. I see three possible approaches:

1. Do nothing. This would reflect the fact that American Jewish religious leaders are not generally as well known outside the Jewish community as the actors, singers, sportspeople, scientists, etc. currently in the infobox, but leaves a rather odd impression that Judaism is not an important facet of American Jewish life.
2. Add one religious figure. This would fill up the current empty spot, but would lead to arguments about which American Jewish religious leader was the most famous and/or influential.
3. Add four (fill the empty spot, and add a row) or five religious figures (make the box four by four). With that number, we would be able to get a more balanced representation of American Jews religiously, but this might imbalance the overall infobox (four or five out of 15 pictures would now be of religious individuals).

Thoughts? Jayjg ^(talk) 19:31, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Off-topic and oft-repeated proposal

There are no criteria for inclusion in the Infobox for "American Jews". The image component of the Infobox should probably be eliminated if a system cannot be found to simply include a virtually random sampling of individuals that reliable sources indicate are "American Jews". The article is not on the topic of high profile American Jews, and even if it were, these sorts of discussions make it very apparent that there is a wide range of opinion on what constitutes high profile. The article ostensibly treats the intersection between American identity and Jewish identity. The Infobox should be reflective of the broad range of individuals included under the rubric of the term "American Jew". A discussion such as the above serves to advance narrowly held value judgements that are irrelevant to the subject matter of the article. Bus stop (talk) 16:57, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

After witnessing many discussions like this and discussions in similar articles, the criteria seem to be twofold: (1) figures should be notable, and (2) figures should be a nice distribution by category (e.g. gender, field of contribution). Most ethnic articles (e.g. Italian American) include a photographic sampling of the more notable members of that group.--Louiedog (talk) 17:14, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Loodog—I disagree with all of the above. The article is not about any of the concerns you've expressed. For the article to retain its potency, indeed for the article to remain on topic—we do not need a boosterism-fueled sampling of images. The article in no way addresses itself to those in the limelight. "American Jew" is a term applied to millions of people. The article should confine itself to that subject and refrain from highlighting those that are already highlighted by circumstance. Bus stop (talk) 17:31, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Couldn't disagree more Bus stop. This is standard Wiki practice and makes perfect sense to me.Sposer (talk) 18:54, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

It is "standard Wiki practice" to misconstrue the subject matter of an article? The title is American Jews. It is not Noteworthy American Jews, Notable American Jews, Popular American Jews, Famous American Jews, Well-known American Jews, or anything remotely like that. I think it is understood that the Infobox should be consistent with the subject matter of an article. The discussion above revolves around what sort of boosterism we should engage in, while the title of the article indicates a scope which includes in fact millions of American Jews, most of whom don't have an article on Wikipedia. Bus stop (talk) 19:08, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi Bus stop. You've been arguing for at least the last two years that infoboxes should include the pictures of non-notable individuals. I have yet to see a single other editor agree with you on this point. It's time to Wikipedia:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:31, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I think he's referring to the fact that this is done with every virtually article about a group of people on wikipedia, including: Jews, Americans, Irish American, Italian American, Greek American, Germans, Moroccan people, Danes, Poles, English people, etc... It's not so much a boosterism of the group as a set of examples readers may be familiar with, a demonstration by example, which is how wikipedia teaches everything. We don't really have a lot of pictures of "boring" people that are representative of a given group and the boring examples aren't as interesting to look at anyway.--Louiedog (talk) 19:32, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Jayjg—a good first step would be to eliminate the Infobox at this article, not to "include the pictures of non-notable individuals." That would be consistent with the subject matter of this article. The millions of American Jews are in fact not known beyond a small circle of people from workplace, family, friends etc. We should get off this grandiosity jag that is in fact marring an article that is primarily about the sociological phenomena involving the intersection of American identity and Jewish identity. That is what needs to be looked at with an unflinching eye. The glitter of the people that tend to find placement in the present Infobox only serves as a distraction to what should be the purpose of this article. Bus stop (talk) 19:48, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

We should remove from this article the infobox designed specifically for articles like this? The one that one finds at all similar such articles, such as Italian American, Greek American, African American, Russian American, Arab American, Polish American, Irish American,German American, etc.? Yeah, that's "a good first step" Jayjg ^(talk) 22:37, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Jayjg—please don't remove comments (as you do here) that the initiator of this section of the Talk page (User:Yisraeldov) has probably not yet had an opportunity to see and respond to. Please allow my suggestions to remain until there is reason to believe that Yisraeldov has had the opportunity to take my suggestions into consideration. Bus stop (talk) 21:31, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I didn't remove any comments, and Yisraeldov was proposing the exact opposite of your "suggestions". Jayjg ^(talk) 22:24, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Jayjg—you are displaying a propensity to disallow the posts on a Talk page to unfold in the simple chronological order in which they are posted and without manipulation. Any reader of this Talk page can evaluate the opinions of the editors posting—discarding those ideas that seem irrelevant, and retaining those ideas that seem pertinent. But that is only possible when an intact record is available to a reader trying to understand the points being made. You insist on "collapsing" areas of the thread, and rearranging parts of the discussion, and placing parts of the discussion under new headings of your own creation. Do you not think that is manipulative and heavy-handed? I tread lightly on the layout of a Talk page. I genuinely want the record to remain intact. I want it to be obvious to newcomers to the discussion to see the development of the discussion. Edits such as this, this, this, and this obscure the trail of the discussion. A newcomer has to be a magician to piece together the chronological unfolding of dialogue. Bus stop (talk) 22:57, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean. The posts in this thread are in chronological order and in an order in which a sensible discussion can be understood. The purpose of the Talk: page is to allow for meaningful discussion, not to ensure a perfect historical record is permanently maintained of every action taken on them. In fact, things like archiving (for example) inevitably destroy that "perfect record". This section is where the irrelevant discussion of proposals regarding unique and novel ways to use or not use the Infobox ethnic group take place. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:55, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Stereotypes of Jews

I am pulling the following text out of Stereotypes of Jews because it talks specifically about Jews in the United States. I would like to insert it into this article as the intro to a longer section about "Stereotypes of American Jews" but I wanted to put it up for discussion before doing that.

David Schneder writes "Three large clusters of traits are part of the Jewish stereotype (Wuthnow, 1982). First, [American] Jews are seen as being powerful and manipulative. Second, they are accused of dividing their loyalties between the United States and Israel. A third set of traits concerns Jewish materialistic values, aggressiveness, clannishness."

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 16:38, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

You'll need this:

. Cheers.--Louiedog (talk) 19:10, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Carl Sagan

I was thinking of adding Carl Sagan to the infobox pictures of famous Jews, as he was a Jew, albeit nonpracticing. Would that be acceptable? Saberwolf116 (talk) 15:57, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

This issue has been discussed quite a bit here. You can add Carl Sagan only if you simultaneously nominate one of the existing infobox Jews for removal.--Louiedog (talk) 17:08, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

...and get consensus for the change. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:33, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Already have more important scientists, Feynman and Einstein. Wouldn't take either of them out for Sagan, even though he is a personal hero of mine. Sposer (talk) 01:16, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Jews coming from Brazil

In the article Luso-American, it is written that "In September 1654, shortly before the Jewish New Year, twenty-three Jews of Portuguese ancestry from Recife, Brazil, arrived in New York, which at the time was under Dutch rule and known as New Amsterdam. This arrival was the beginning of Jewish-American history. Sephardic Portuguese Jews were also the early settlers of Newport, Rhode Island (where the country's first synagogue was founded), Charleston, Philadelphia and Baltimore." However, I don't see any reference of such migration here. The website of the Center for Jewish History (http://www.cjh.org/p/52) states that "2004 marked a significant landmark in American Jewish history: the 350th anniversary of the arrival of 23 Sephardic Jews from Recife, Brazil to what was still New Amsterdam. These refugees wrote the first page of a new chapter in the annals of Jewish history." Moreover, the article Spanish and Portuguese Jews also brings this peculiar historical fact. Despite having such relevance, the article over here only states that "Jews have been present in what is today the United States of America as early as the 17th century.[8][9] However, they were small in numbers and almost exclusively Sephardic Jewish immigrants of Spanish and Portuguese ancestry", apparently considering such migration irrelevant. Seeing it from an international perspective, this fact is very relevant. Do you guys agree on including a reference to such migration?

--Jgsodre (talk) 02:34, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. Fairly well known and important fact. Source it and add it. Sposer (talk) 16:32, 27 December 2011 (UTC)