Jump to content

Talk:American Jews/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5→Archive 7

No censorship of "BERNARD MADOFF"

A couple of months after the initial insert 30 June 2009 of a paragraph on financier BERNARD MADOFF it was deleted on 24 August 2009, and then deleted again on 1 December with no detailed and traceable justification in the Edit summary. In view of lack of reference to the details in the adduced text of WP:UNDUE one must assume the the deletion aims at the passus "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject." If this is the case then the newly added paragraph should do since it considers Madoff's positive achievements together with one main reason for his exceptional notability, which has great importance for both the subject "American Jews", and "Finance". If such a paragraph is deleted it would raise the suspicion of wiki-CENSORSHIP, in that the subject "American Jews" would only aim at furthering a biased view of people deserving only admiration. It would amount to sheer advertising or positive discrimination. Stefanson (talk) 15:25, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Please familiarize yourself with the concept of undue weight. Screaming CENSORSHIP doesn't help your argument; we're all editors here. --jpgordon::==( o ) 15:39, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
The amount of material you have put into the article on American Jews in reference to Bernard Madoff way outweighs his importance to the subject of this article. I would recommend trimming back much of the detail you've added, and leaving that for the reader to find in the Bernard Madoff article. Bus stop (talk) 15:40, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
The "undue" objection is spending too much of the article on Bernie Madoff in the first place. The idea is that each subject in the article should carry weight proportionate with the relative amount of notability it has for the greater subject.--Louiedog (talk) 15:41, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I will leave it at that since I feel since long quite familiar with the UNDUE-matter and do not believe in the value of screaming - neither CENSORSHIP nor UNDUE. The text in this section of TALK should be sufficient for every interested reader to form his/her own opinion on the article's reliability and adherence to the WIKI-guidelines. Stefanson (talk) 15:53, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

As for the question of whether to include him, no one's rushing to include Ted Kazinsky in the Polish Americans article or Seung-Hui Cho to the Korean Americans article.--Louiedog (talk) 16:09, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

As long as Wikipedia has an article on Madoff, accusations of censorship sound bizarre. He shouldn't be given any more space than any individual. The whole point of Wikipedia is hypertext and peole can go to the madoff article to learn the full story with one click. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:11, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Bus stop's verion [1] is entirely proportionate and appropriate. Why don't we have more information on Philip Roth, Sandy Koufax, Isaac Bashevis Singer, Albert Einstein, Herman Wouk, Howard Fast, George Gershwin, Irving Berlin, Irving Howe or Harrison Ford? Aren't most of these people more notable than Madoff? Let's say a bit about these guys, before adding any more weight to Madoff.Slrubenstein | Talk 16:20, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
The Madoff affair was a major event in the history of the Jewish community, because of the huge negative impact on so many endowments, institutions and families. The text now reflects that. Rjensen (talk) 16:22, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

It was hardly a major event in American Jewish history. Five years from now few will know who Madof was, aside from those directly harmed by him. I would only agree to this: that the US press turned Madoff into a major event for their news cycle. Madoff helped the press spin the collapse of the US banking industry as being the result of individual greed and fraud, when in fact the reason for the collapse was much more complex, involved most Americans, and requires a serious overhaul of the regulation of investment banks and the trade in derivatives. Everyone will feel nice and warm when Madoff goes to jail, but the in the meantime the real problems don't get addressed. Madoff was a crook, but there are thousands of othe Madoffs out there who did not get caught; he got caught because of a massive economic collapse the deprived him of anything he could hide behind. And the far bigger scandal is all the many little trades - none of which were illigal, but which turned Wall Street from being a market to being a casino - behind the total collapse. Compared to this Madoff is a distraction. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:27, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

It should be mentioned that Madoff is not Orthodox. I put into the article text indicating that, along with sources, but it was reverted. (Actually, I reverted myself the second time I put it in — I thought I should use the Talk page first, rather than be edit-warrior-like.) That information is relevant, as Orthodox represents one extreme on the spectrum of Jewish observance (the other extreme being nonobservance). If Madoff were Orthodox I doubt that would escape notice. Sources make more than casual reference to his not being Orthodox. In fact the sources I provided have to counter false innuendo that Madoff might be Orthodox. Bus stop (talk) 16:30, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Very few notable American Jews mentioned 'are Orthodox. What are we going to do, point out every last one of them?--Louiedog (talk) 16:37, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Louiedog, it is sourced information. It would be up to you to find and add sourced information if you feel it is relevant and suitable for these other people you are referring to. Bus stop (talk) 16:41, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
"it is sourced information. " So is his hair color.--Louiedog (talk) 16:45, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
But is hair color relevant, and sourced? Bus stop (talk) 16:48, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
That it is sourced just means it can be used, not that it must or even should be used. --jpgordon::==( o ) 17:09, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Fair enough. I've put that text plus sources into the article which is the biography of the man, where I hope it is appropriate. Bus stop (talk) 17:11, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
That's the right place for it, if anywhere is. --jpgordon::==( o ) 17:29, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I removed almost all the names from the section on "Notable American Jews" because it had become a dumping ground for everybody's favorite American Jews. (See Talk:American Jews/Archive 2#Image gallery and these edits) I don't think it's appropriate to add Madoff or Koufax or anybody else to that section, and it's got nothing to do with censorship. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 18:16, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

As long as we can agree tht Koufax was a GREAT pitcher. Can we at least have consensus on this? Slrubenstein | Talk 19:57, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I don't blame the '66 series on him. --jpgordon::==( o ) 20:19, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
well, that's just baseball, right. Anyway, I too agree that Malik did the right thing. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:21, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Agree with Malik. This gets tiresome. We do not need a list of every American Jew. I would love to get rid of the Jews in Sports list too. It is kind of silly. As for Madoff, I think he is sort of important right now, but it is newsy. That he is Jewish is sort of relevant, but he belongs in a section of famous Jewish American criminals, not famous Jews in finance. For that, there are 100s of far more notable people. And, I am not suggesting we add the 100s. Just stating that Madoff is in now way particularly notable as per finance. This is neither positive nor negative censorship.Sposer (talk) 02:38, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


Please see below the new section created on 30 December 2009 "From MADOFF to Political Controversy", an appendix to the text above, related to the new section in the article, on Political Controversy. Stefanson (talk) 17:37, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Title

This article deals with US-American Jews and not with American Jews in the main! It should be renamed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Njrwally (talk • contribs) 14:59, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Census

When dealing with census, stats, polls, and the like, are Jews classified as White Americans? 75.4.247.171 (talk) 06:18, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

I find this: "Public Law 94-521 prohibits us from asking a question on religious affiliation on a mandatory basis; therefore, the Bureau of the Census is not the source for information on religion." Bus stop (talk) 12:38, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
So this means they should be considered White, because the religion does not count. I see. 75.4.247.171 (talk) 04:58, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

From MADOFF to Political Controversy

Today I added a new sub-section on political controversy. The following is an appendix to the talk section "No censorship of "BERNARD MADOFF" initiated on 1 December 2009, with the purpose of improving the article. The question is: are there "bad American Jews" who then are turned into unimportant, non notable people who do not deserve to figure among American Jews? The formal component of the Israel lobby, easily confounded with the Jewish lobby, has been described in Wikipedia as including media watchdog groups. The latter may also be working within Wikipedia itself and, if so, in a problematic relation to Wikipedia's WP:SOCKS guidelines, and specifically to the two recommendations of (1) Do not bias discussions by asking for supporters from other places (meatpuppetry), and (2) Do not act as a meat puppet for somebody else. Meatpuppetry or spontaneously concerted, solidary wiki-editorial action is not censorship but it has the same effect, also in suggesting that the mere mention of censorship is a sort of hysterical "screaming". I think such an actual danger can be inferred from some controversial Talk-discussions of the article on financial advisor Bernard Madoff, regarding whether and how his Jewishness should be mentioned (see the latest insert here), or on whether his name should be mentioned at all in the "Finance" subsection of this present article from which it was repeatedly deleted (see Talk section).

In the latter case arguments were advanced in the Talk, such as "As long as Wikipedia has an article on Madoff, accusations of censorship sound bizarre [...] people can go to the madoff article to learn the full story with one click ". As if - after editorial strifes - one still uncensored and editorially still controversial article of Wikipedia should justify the deletion of the very name of Madoff in another article. As a matter of fact his very name was obliterated in this present article on American Jews, and therefore the reader could not "go" to the article Bernard Madoff. His deleted name was also omitted in the remarkably obscure "Edit summary" of its first deletion, which also denied that an unnamed "something" had anything to do with finance. See "History" 24 August 2009: "WP:UNDUE, for starters. Also, not in Finance anyway." Another argument was " Why don't we have more information on Philip Roth, Sandy Koufax, Isaac Bashevis Singer, Albert Einstein, Herman Wouk, Howard Fast, George Gershwin, Irving Berlin, Irving Howe or Harrison Ford?" A simple search on Google shows that Bernard Madoff produces about one sixth of the number of hits for Albert Einstein, an absolute world hit-champion, not being by far comparable in such world-wide notability with any one of the other names except Philip Roth and Harrison Ford. But the point is that the our article in question had a section on finance! Another argument has been "the US press turned Madoff into a major event for their news cycle" which in turn suggests that his notability was not real notability but was constructed by the US press. It claimed that "there are thousands of other Madoffs out there who did not get caught". But nothing is mentioned about Wikipedia itself recalling that his may have been the largest investment fraud in Wall Street history, and therefore in the world's financial history, and consequently not comparable with thousands of others. Furthermore in the talk following 1 December 2009 it is acknowledged that Madoff "is sort of [sic!] important right now, but it is newsy. That he is Jewish is sort of [sic!] relevant, but he belongs in a section of famous Jewish American criminals, not famous Jews in finance. For that, there are 100s of far more notable people. And, I am not suggesting we add the 100s. Just stating that Madoff is in now [sic] way particularly notable as per finance.This is neither positive nor negative censorship". I think that this kind of argument misunderstands not only the connotations of finance and censorship but mainly notability, since it downgrades present notability in view of its presumed or postulated future decrease, and confuses positive famousness with relevant notability.

This confirms that one sees the article on American Jews as an advertising of famous admirable and good American Jews while proposing parallel articles (which would certainly be wiki-editorially obliterated as anti-semitic) for bad, criminal American Jews. How would articles in Wikipedia look like if they all followed such as policy about the good and the bad guys? And, finally: an editor removed almost all the names from the section on Notable American Jews because it had become a dumping ground for everybody's favorite American Jews, but forgot to justify why some final few (good) guys were not removed. In summary: editorial wars seem to be won by enduring censoring in rationalized passion, rather than by dull argument. That is: rhetoric for the sake of politics. I still hope that the new article section on political controversy will not be also be rhetorically deleted with a new enigmatic, blanking "Edit summary". Stefanson (talk) 17:04, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Here are the problems with the paragraph you added today:
1) The paragraph is unsourced. Per WP:BLP, I removed it.
2) The paragraph is synthesis.
3) What does the paragraph you added have to do with "Notable American Jews", the section in which you placed it?
4) Neither John Mearsheimer nor Stephen Walt are identified in their biographies as American Jews. Why are they mentioned as notable American Jews?
As noted above, I reverted your edit per WP:BLP. Before you restore it, please discuss it here. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 19:37, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Just took a quick look at the Irish American, Italian American, German Americans and Polish Americans. Two of the articles do not discuss any negative famous people at all. A few of them discuss racist stereotypes, and properly debunk them. The Italian American article mentions the Mafia and how organized crime affiliation is a stereotype. I don't think it actually mentions anybody by name. Only one article mentions any "notorious" members of a group. It is a paragraph within a larger article and is more or less a mere mention. So, this is the only article where there is a constant attempt to point out "bad Jews". The most ridiculous part about pointing out the whole Madoff thing is that the vast vast majority of the people and organizations that he stole from and hurt were other Jews. If Madoff is mentioned as all, it should be as a mere sentence within notable Jews in finance, so after you mention the dozens of Economics Nobel prizes won by Jews, and former and current Fed governors, etc., you can have a clause saying, "...and Bernie Madoff was responsible for the largest financial Ponzi scheme ever in America." It isn't even close to the largest financial fraud of course. That belongs to Worldcom and Enron executives. As far as the Israel Lobby goes, it is certainly reasonable to mention it in the International Affairs section. However, if it is mentioned, one needs to clearly note that the Israel Lobby is not a Jewish lobby and is also in large part supported by Evangelical Christians. One must also note that many many Jews are not supporters of the AIPAC, for example. As the article already states, most American Jews support a two-state solution. The problem with Israel Lobby mentions is that it gives a 100% false impression on how Jews vote. Israel may be a consideration, but I don't think I've ever met a Jew whose decision was based on Israel. I am sure it is not ignored, and it is of varying importance, but social and fiscal policies of America tend to be far more important to American Jews than Israel. If that isn't made clear in any mention of the Israel Lobby, then it fails NPOV.Sposer (talk) 01:17, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I see this after an absence. I appreciate the exemplary conciseness of the list of problems with my alternative insert on POLITICAL CONTROVERSY, as perceived by Malik Shabazz (above) who immediately deleted it (30 December). But it is obtained at the cost of bypassing all my arguments which per se might have justified a reinstatement of a version of my [2], or Rjensen's [3] earlier contribution about the notable Bernard Madoff in the subsection on finance. And it also obtained at the cost of the length of my present and earlier talk-inserts [4] for which I may be gratuitously criticized. The sudden deletion of my first version by Jayjg on 24 August, 2009 with its trackless edit summary which, except for a mute, nameless reference to Talk, obliterates the very mention of Madoff's name in both the article and its history. That deletion together with the deletion by Oboler on 1 December 2009, not to mention the extremely noncommittal and remarkable deletion without edit summary by Sposer on 2 December 1009 of others' laborious editorial improvements offsetting claims of WP:UNDUE, had already violated in the edit summaries several points of WP:IMPROVE. While acknowledging that mass media politics also concerns Wikipedia as already pointed out in WP:MEAT (see more below), I assume WP:GOODFAITH for all these deletions. Procedural care, however, must be taken in the justifications in order not to strain the confidence of the general public as a critical reader and a welcome co-editor of Wikipedia.

If one assumes that the listed problems with my new text were serious, I myself or, rather, Wikipedia would have needed some help and suggestions of improvement, a task which requires much more effort than sheer deletion. We should not forget that our main task is to enrich and improve Wikipedia, not to only preserve it (cf. errors of omission vs. commission, WP:IMPERFECT , WP:PRESERVE). There is a problem with that sort of Jayjg's concise statement of problems since a superficial interpretation of WP:BURDEN shifts too comfortably the total burden of proof on the author of the contribution, with a conciseness which is based on a wholesale reference to the total text of, earlier, WP:UNDUE, and later WP:BLP and WP:SYN, and perhaps ultimately on a whole alphabet of policies and guidelines without specification of the relevant details. This allows for the risk of an endless recursion of numerous subsequent objections: an editorial biasing filter by a team of soulmates in a spirit of mass media politics analog to identity politics, manufacturing consent [5] or, in the best case, self-censorship [6]. This would block any futurely suggested rewordings and improvement by me and others, with the risk of our final surrender and retraction by sheer fatigue, which has already been a symptomatic temptation after the first deletions due to the vague WP:UNDUE. This risk might get exemplified by the possible consequences of my answering the list of problems as follows:

1) The paragraph is unsourced. Per WP:BLP, I removed it.

ANSWER - The WP:PSTS details on sourcing state that "Wikipedia articles should be based on published reliable secondary sources, as such sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and avoid novel interpretations of primary sources. However in some circumstances it may be appropriate to cite either primary or tertiary sources for supporting details." The notability of the article and the topic were already established and I used tertiary sources only for supporting details. Furthermore, WP:PSTS states that Wikipedia articles may not be used as tertiary sources, but are sometimes used as primary sources in articles about Wikipedia. I used reference to Wikipedia articles in a subsection about how Wikipedia can be used as a source for search of notable names of American Jews, not the least through cited organizations and their history.

2) The paragraph is synthesis.

ANSWER- WP:SYN states "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." I did not combine multiple source to reach any conclusion at all but in order to indicate where a search for notable names and events can be performed. I was not supposed to list names, them all, dozens of them depending upon situational relevance, as already suggested by others in this Talk-section. But take just one example from Israel Lobby, of a forgotten Paul Wolfowitz. "Sic transit gloria mundi", as for the mere mention of Madoff's name, and of his tremendous impact on the American Jewish community.

3) What does the paragraph you added have to do with "Notable American Jews", the section in which you placed it?

ANSWER - See the previous item. As i wrote: it offers directly and indirectly sources for search of names of notable American Jews, their deeds, and related events.

4) Neither John Mearsheimer nor Stephen Walt are identified in their biographies as American Jews. Why are they mentioned as notable American Jews?

ANSWER - My text was the following: "A source of names of great notability or importance in national politics, in their very quality of "American Jews", has been [...]" The expression <in their very quality of "American Jews"> referred to the previous "names", and not the to the subsequently mentioned authors and entries in Wikipedia. But the question remains whether it really was a "contentious" material about living persons which justified an immediate removal by WP:BLP, instead of inviting an improvement. Would it be an insult if a reader had wrongly assumed that somebody was an American Jew? And the final note above about the reversion/deletion of my subsection was the following:

5) As noted above, I reverted your edit per WP:BLP. Before you restore it, please discuss it here. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 19:37, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

ANSWER - So, my critics shifted the criticism from UNDUE to BLP and SYN, always summarily deleting. In the process I gained insights in the risk of a biased filtering of data into the article up to now. The Madoff-question grew into a more serious and general one. I decide now to not restore my edit but rather to insert a new edit in the article's section "External links and further reading" or in a new one on "Further reading". This should avoid all the above doubts and objections, including the references to WP:BLP and WP:SYN which were adduced as the reason for the speedy removals. At the same time I overlook (WP:GOODFAITH) that the intervention did neither take into account nor mention my own earlier arguments above, on 30 December 2009, about inclusion of Bernard Madoff in the subsection on "Finance". Not to mention deletion without edit summary.

My purpose is to provide, together with the names, a rich material for Wikipedia readers to further their own study in view of the questions considered in this article, as exemplified by what Sposer did in his own further study as per his talk-contribution above on 31 December 2009. This is except for his categorizing some Jews as "bad Jews" (a term which was not used in my edits but was inferred by and from the critics), his referal to Jews he never met, and his simple comparisons where he implicitly treats Jewry as a nationality without taking the next logical step of stating the alternative idea of a concurrent Jewish criminal organization as for other nationalities. Sposer is ultimately concerned about failing to satisfy WP:NPOV if the mention of the Israel lobby is not carefully qualified (as it already is in its Wikipedia article) but a most serious infringement of WP:NPOV seems to be to ignore the kind of information advanced in my own contribution, as I explained in my arguments (of 30 December). Furthermore, Sposer's own suggestion of 2 December 2009, (above), deserved an objection in view advocating an illegitimate content forking WP:POVFORK, given the impossibility of conceiving an inclusion of Madoff into an extended article on Jewish-American mafia.

In all this, besides aforementioned policies and guidelines, I am following the policy of Consensus as a result of the editing process in WP:CONS, and WP:EL. As a sign of politeness I refrain until further notice from introducing my text into the article. I trust everybody's goodwill in implementing the text (below), which is enframed for emphasis only on this talk-page:

CONTROVERSIES: For a broader and deeper search of names and events treated in Wikipedia and involving American Jews, please see the articles on the the Jewish lobby or, more accurately, the Israel lobby, as well as Norman Finkelstein concerning the Holocaust industry, John Mearsheimer who together with Stephen Walt co-authored work on the Israel lobby, Jonathan Pollard on the politics of military espionage, Jewish-American mafia as criminal organization, and Bernard Madoff on the political frame of a financial fraud which had a unique impact on the American Jewish community.

Stefanson (talk) 10:09, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I adamantly reject any suggestion that Jewry is a nationality. Judiasim, IMO, though not agreed upon by the Wiki community, is a religion. I have no problem with things like the Jewish Mafia, etc. My point is that none of the other ethnic article, save one, has any mention of anything negative tied to that group. For that reason only, Madoff does not belong here. All of the articles are essentially a "best of the best" list.Sposer (talk) 15:49, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Sposer is incorrect. Look at Irish Americans and read there that "The Catholic Telegraph of Cincinnati in 1853, saying that the "name of 'Irish' has become identified in the minds of many, with almost every species of outlawry," distinguished the Irish vices as "not of a deep malignant nature," arising rather from the "transient burst of undisciplined passion," like "drunk, disorderly, fighting, etc., not like robbery, cheating, swindling, counterfeiting, slandering, calumniating, blasphemy, using obscene language, &c." Rjensen (talk) 17:28, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Yes, rjnsen, the Irish American article discusses this more than 150 year old description as a stereotype, essentially implying, and correctly so, that it is not true. It also does not mention specific people. What I stated is 100% correct, with one exception as I recall.Sposer (talk) 18:35, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Agree. The list of mentioned people in every ethnic group seems to tacitly be a statement of "here's the variety of this group and what it has contributed to society."--Louiedog (talk) 17:32, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Judaism is described in many ways, but then again Christianity could also probably be described in many ways.
Encyclopedia Britannica, in a basic definition, says the following:
"One of the three great monotheistic world religions, Judaism began as the faith of the ancient Hebrews, and its sacred text is the Hebrew Bible, particularly the Torah."
I guess Encyclopedia Britannica forgot to mention that Judaism was a "nationality." Bus stop (talk) 17:48, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
this is not an article about Judaism--it's about millions of American Jews. The Madoff episode had a major impact because he catered to their trust and loyalties and betrayed them in a major way.Rjensen (talk) 17:52, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Rjensen, the argument above, by Stefanson, is that Judaism is a "nationality." I am pointing out that Encyclopedia Britannica does not seem to agree. Bus stop (talk) 18:01, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Let's not raise the whole Judaism is/is a not religion debate explosion. Books have been written on the subject. Einstein was hardly a practicing/believing Jew yet he was Jewish. Sammy Davis, Jr. wasn't born a Jew, yet he is Jewish.--Louiedog (talk) 19:16, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Correct: Albert Einstein and Sammy Davis, Jr. were Jewish. Were you making a point? In case you didn't know, Albert Einstein was nonobservant. Sammy Davis, Jr. was a convert to Judaism. Or, do you see some significance in this that I do not? Bus stop (talk) 19:44, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Yes, both of those facts were there to illustrate my point.--Louiedog (talk) 20:21, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
To illustrate what point? Bus stop (talk) 20:33, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
That being Jewish both is and isn't a matter of religion so let's not bring it back up here. It has no relevance to this discussion.--Louiedog (talk) 21:01, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Give it a rest, Bus stop. Your obsessive need to dismiss Jewish ethnicity is becoming disruptive and will be going to WP:ANI as soon as I can collect the necessary diffs. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 20:20, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Malik Shabazz, you disagree with me. Why are you calling that "disruptive?" And where have I dismissed Jewish ethnicity? Quoting from Encyclopedia Britannica should be viewed as a legitimate way of countering another editor's assertion that Jews are a "nationality." Bus stop (talk) 20:44, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
It's disruptive because, like a dog with a bone, you've taken it up on many different Talk pages. You refuse to get the point that reliable sources say that Jews constitute an ethnic group. Please read WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 20:49, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
And nor did I say that Jews did not constitute an ethnic group, not on this Talk page and not on any Talk page. In fact I was the one calling for sources in some instances. Not because I necessarily doubt that Jews have an ethnic component to their identity, but because an assertion of that nature has to adhere closely to what reliable sources say. This is not a simple matter. Jews also have a religious component to their identity. Reliable sources also support that. Or do you take issue with what Encyclopedia Britannica has to say in this regard? Bus stop (talk) 21:19, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Reply to Stefanson: Wikipedia is based on consensus. It seems to me, based on the large number of editors who have reverted your edits, that there is a consensus here that your "controversy" paragraph doesn't belong in the article. You haven't managed to convince anybody that there is a controversy concerning American Jews that needs addressing in the article. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 20:47, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Bus stop claims, above, that my argument is that Judaism is a "nationality" while I expressely wrote that it is Sposer who in his simple comparisons (as if one shortcoming were an argument for an additional one) with Irish Americans, Italian Americans, German Americans and Polish Americans, implicitly treats Jewry as a nationality. I meant that his way of framing the question is likely to lead him to contradiction and paradoxes, as it is suggested elsewhere in the painful hairsplitting semantics of American Jews vs. Jewish Americans which probably relates to uniqueness and unique entitlement to exemption from criticism and control.
Reply to Malik Shabbaz: You have never considered my arguments, and this leads to a politics of sheer counting a supposed number of sympathizing voters who voted on other issues. If our article affects mainly American Jews who constitute the majority of its committed editors and consider the article as "their own", rather than Wikipedia's, then it may be natural for you to wish to obliterate both Madoff's name and embarassing controversies. But consensus-making is not an arithmetic of counting integer numbers up to 3. It requires respectful accounting of others' arguments: to not only affirm the supremacy of a supposed majority but also the respect for the arguments of a supposed minority, if the ultimate counting is to have any meaning. You bypassed it all, and attempted now to summarize authoritatively all Talk by claiming that there is a consensus by large number (number 2, or 3?). It may be, but there is no evidence. My ignored arguments clarified that it is not this last text of mine which was deleted earlier, but rather two other texts which were placed in an altogether different context wherefrom they were deleted with wholesale reference to policy guidelines which (beyond WP:BURO) are not applicable.
All involved in this talk have had the chance of expressing their comments and suggest improvements (WP:IMPROVE) of my last text and did not reveal reasons for why I should refrain from editing it now into the article. From earlier behavior I infer that somebody may wish to delete summarily also this last text of mine, which I will see as a blatant infringement of WP:NPOV, and Wikipedia will need that final deletion documented in the article's history. Anyhow, I trust now to be spared disparaging rebuttals or the slandering ridicule of being described (as Bus stop was described, above and in diff): "disruptive because, like a dog with a bone..." Thank you. Stefanson (talk) 12:04, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

ENOUGH ON CONTROVERSY: After today's speedy reversion of my last edit from the announced placement which nobody had questioned, I see a final infringement of WP:NPOV. I am considering WP:DR and WP:ANI but have no time for a follow-up. Initially I did not intend to focus on MADOFF which I saw as an uncontroversial detail in the finance-subsection of the article. The form of subsequent deletions, however, convinced me that they may be the visible "top of an iceberg" of policy misinterpretations worthy of being futurely questioned by the Wikipedia community. For this useful purpose I summarize below all the relevant earlier entries into the revision and talk histories.

REVISION HISTORY:

TALK HISTORY:

Stefanson (talk) 16:44, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me that it is these edits that are NPOV. Jews are no better and no worse than other people. And yet, there is no other article where there is an ongoing attempt to focus on the negative (for that matter, there is no other editor on this article attempting to do that either). If the Jewish mafia is a major part of American Jewry, then mention of it belongs here. I am not qualified to answer that. With regard to Madoff, the only reason why it might be relevant at all that he is Jewish, is the simple fact that he almost completely targeted other Jews, and Jewish philanthropies. Is Ted Bundy mentioned in the article on whatever religion he belongs to? As far as the Israel Lobby, using simplistic and out of context links comes off as being a bit nefarious, even if it is not meant that way. Support for Israel, is far from universal among American Jews, and it is not typically a top factor in Jews' votes. If it was, George Bush, who was probably Israel's best friend as far as American Presidents go, would have received much more support than he did. Few Jews have anything to do with AIPAC, or give any money to AIPAC. It also ignores the importance of 2-state solution PACs, such as J-Street, which also have substantial support among Jews. "American Jews" are not some sort of monolithic group of people of one nationality, which speak with one voice.Sposer (talk) 18:04, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Getting back to discussion on content and not editors, Madoff has no basis in being added whether you count Judaism as a religion, nationality, or an ethnicity. Nidal Malik Hasan was not added to Muslim Americans or to Palestinian Americans (religion, nationality), Ted Kazinsky was not added to the Polish Americans article (nationality), Seung-Hui Cho was not added to Korean Americans or Asian Americans (nationality, ethnicity), nor was Al Capone even mentioned in Italian Americans (nationality). The purpose of the representative sample of notable people belonging to an ethnic group, nationality, or ethnicity is to highlight the diversity and contributions of that group, not to serve as a coatrack for notable criminals with that association.--Louiedog (talk) 18:42, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Like you, I'm not seeing similar treatment of other similar individuals who come from various American ethnicities/religious groups. This seems to be an effort uniquely directed at Jews. Jayjg (talk) 01:10, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Yesterday I returned to this page and saw the unexpected threefold aftermath of 18 January, requiring a corresponding longer answer. The systematic disregard of all my earlier arguments against misinterpretations of a subsection on Undue content and (the now opportunely forgotten) Biographies of living persons, followed by the blatant violation of the core of Neutral point of view, ends now with repeated violations of Good faith. For the purpose of illustration let's emphasize the following relevant excerpts from Sposer's talk of 18 January 2009 and contrast them with my text which was summarily deleted 13 minutes after its insertion the same day:

Sposer: A few points here. Stefanson's clear agenda here is to add negative comments about American Jews [...] Is Ted Bundy mentioned in the article on whatever religion he belongs to? I suspect that if he was Jewish, Stefanson would seek to add that information to the American Jews article too. [...] As far as the Israel Lobby, using simplistic and out of context links comes off as being a bit nefarious, even if it is not meant that way.[...] A section regarding "controversies" is a thinly veiled attempt to push a POV agenda by the editor.

And, which anti-Jewish straw man is this cannonade, including the absurd mentioning of Ted Bundy, aimed at? It is necessary to contrast that straw man with the missed correct target, the deleted text of mine, whose content I clearly emphasized above but is barely mentioned:

Stefanson: For a broader and deeper search of names and events treated in Wikipedia and involving American Jews, please see the articles on the the Jewish lobby or, more accurately, the Israel lobby, as well as Norman Finkelstein concerning the Holocaust industry, John Mearsheimer who together with Stephen Walt co-authored work on the Israel lobby, Jonathan Pollard on the politics of military espionage, Jewish-American mafia as criminal organization, and Bernard Madoff on the political frame of a financial fraud which had a unique impact on the American Jewish community.

After a discreet warning by Louiedog ("Getting back to discussion on content and not editors") who, by the way, seems to appear above as an alternative signature of Loodog, Sposer partially retracts his words and offers a welcomed apology. But the main issue remains: that remarkable and unfortunate talk-tone reveals an attitude which also pops up in Jayjg's "This seems to be an effort uniquely directed at Jews." It a talk-tone which explains the quenching disregard for my arguments against the arbitrary deletions. It is a talk-tone which fortunately stops short of requesting proofs of (good) Jewishness or of accusations of worse. Such proofs, however, even if adduced, might not be good enough, as they were not in talks/discussions about Noam Chomsky. There, by the way, both Sposer and Malik Shabazz seem even to have been involved, and intervened, in several symptomatic violations of the policy of Biographies of living persons, so they must know.

The last comments of 18 January by Louiedog seem to request that, supposedly for the sake of (a curiously misinterpreted) neutral point of view, before mentioning Madoff in the context of finance I myself (and some meatpuppets?) should simultaneously edit subsections on criminals in the articles Muslim Americans, Polish Americans, Korean Americans or Asian Americans, Italian Americans. And, as suggested by Sposer in talk 31 December 2009, also in Irish American, and German Americans. If this is not done simultaneously, in a concerted forceful action, policing editors for each one of the articles may for all future repeat the "arguments" adduced here against me: "why here but not there, why us but not them?"

There are references to crime and such in articles about other nations' Americans, as it can be seen, for instance in Italian American. It is OK to talk about "Italian-American contingent of organized crime" but it is taboo to refer to Jewish mafia in American Jews. And it is OK to refer repeatedly to "Terrorism" and "Controversy" in the article on Muslim Americans but, again, not in the article on American Jews where one is not supposed to uncover controversies. Polish Americans in its bibliography was allowed to list a book onTraitors and True Poles: Narrating a Polish-American Identity, 1880-1939, with its treatment of ethnic loyalty and its converse, betrayal (see below). And it is OK to have a subsection on "Crime" in all Wikipedia articles on American cities without offending their respective dwellers, but it is offensive and "undue" to refer to a financial crime of historical proportions, especially for the American Jewish community, in a subsection on finance in American Jews. And nobody has gone so far as wanting to mention reliable secondary sources on the bitter controversy around the by now famous Shlomo Sand's book on The invention of the Jewish people" which may be seen - as a matter of principle - as putting into question the very existence of this very same article on American Jews.

The title of the our article is neither "Venerable American Jews" nor "Contributions of American Jews to the glory of the United States." But possibly it is about their role in its history. Eventually all comparisons and metaphors break down, but the article resembles a history of Germany and Germans, or Russia and Russians, where Hitler or Stalin are not mentioned in a sub-section on world politics. And, finally, I think that it was an insult touching upon violation of WP:BLP to put the names of Norman Finkelstein, John Mearsheimer, Stephen Walt and the Jewish lobby, at the same argumentative level of Bernard Madoff, Jewish-American mafia, and Jonathan Pollard. Not to mention the other names whose listing by Sposer comes off as a bit nefarious, such as Ted Bundy, Nidal Malik Hasan, Seung-Hui Cho, and Al Capone, who are not relevant for (non existing) sub-sections on finance or political controversy. But, regarding ethnic loyalty and its converse, betrayal (see above) please note that Jonathan Pollard is an American Jew who has proved to be officially highly esteemed by the Israeli government.

So, now I expect that the prominent editors will eventually apply the Wikipedia policy of improvement to my text. If not, a reliance on "guest editors" like me not having the time for a follow up (WP:ANI, WP:DR) could discourage other substantial discussions in these talk pages since even naively bold edits will seem to be speedily suffocated. Stefanson (talk) 08:48, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

A couple of things. First of all, I did not mention Nidal Malik Hasan or Seung-Hui Cho (they would not belong, in my opinion, in a Moslem American or Asian American article). I might have mentioned Capone and I know I referenced Bundy. These were deliberately silly mentions. The point I was trying to make is that if they are mentioned in an article like this, it should be because they are somehow representative of the population the article is about. None of those people are. I also stated that the article on Italian Americans noted organized crime. As far as Mearshimer goes, the point on that (which I did not make) is that they are not American Jews. I think that book is excellent. I do not agree with much of what they say, but they make many interesting points, some of which I agree with. It is not relevant to this article, I don't think, but it is a worthy subject in general. As for Pollard, although Pollard is not representative of American Jews (how many treasonous American Jewish spies for Israel do we really think there is), he is noteworthy. If I have argued against him being in this article, and I don't think I did, his case is so exceptional, I would not revert it. I cannot speak for other editors. As for Jewish organized crime, I think I even mentioned that as a possible section, although I do not think it is a major part of American Jewish culture, there are/were some infamous members. Regarding Chomsky, I was truly unaware of his notoriety (positive or negative), which is why I argued against his picture's inclusion, but after reading up on him, although I would not invite him to my home, I would not remove his picture from the article. I haven't thought about his inclusion in the article or where he would fit. Finally, regarding Madoff, a one-off sentence on Madoff makes no sense. It gives the implication that Madoff is some sort of standard-bearer for Jews in American finance. Given that his main act was betrayal of mostly Jewish clients and charities, if you presented it something along the lines of: "Bernard Madoff was convicted of the largest (if that is true) known financial ponzi scheme in American history. He mostly preyed on wealthy American Jews and Jewish philanthropies, playing off the fact that he too was Jewish." If it is stated that way, which is true (except in a better prose), I would not revert it.Sposer (talk) 02:10, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Actually, I don't think we should give any weight whatsoever to the views of an editor with under 50 article edits, who apparently edits Wikipedia primarily for the purpose of inserting negative information about Jews, or trying to make Jews look bad. Jayjg (talk) 01:12, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Jayjg, I am not giving weight to Stefanson's arguments, outside of that I think Madoff, if mentioned in an NPOV way, does belong here. I am pointing out that if editors agree that there is a good reason to include any of the things mentioned, then they should be included. I personally think Madoff will wind up in the textbooks, and is notable. I am less sure about Pollard, and the Jewish mafia, since they are neither representative nor notable in my mind, but I would not feel strongly enough about them to revert (especially given the movie Bugsy). I have an extremely negative personal view of Pollard, and cannot be unbiased, so I would never touch anything referring to him.Sposer (talk) 01:28, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

Stefanson, I never intended to imply that anyone should run around meatpuppeting or editing other articles. The place to discuss the editing of other articles is at 'those other articles'. My goal was an argument by analogy since the examples I cited of notorious people of other ethnic, religious, or nationality groups were not included for what I thought to be very obvious reasons. Further, all the affirmative inclusions you cite are of groups of the given ethnic/religious/nationality group and not specific people. I have no problem with a mention of the Jewish mafia here if someone more knowledgeable than I on the subject deems it to be notable enough for inclusion. It doesn't mean specific people start getting highlighted.

Additionally, Sposer's language is better for the simple reason that it addresses impact on and connection to the American Jewish community, something far more notable than simple almost happenstance membership in it. Kids apparently can't go on Birthright now because of the crater Madoff left - that's got to be more relevant to the American Jewish community than the fact that Madoff was born Jewish.--Louiedog (talk) 03:57, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

How would you know what is most "relevant to the American Jewish community"? Do you have a source on the perspective of the "Jewish community" on the matters to which you refer? Bus stop (talk) 04:37, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
He's giving his opinion, which sounds reasonable and accurate enough. Please don't drag this conversation down any rabbit holes. Jayjg (talk) 01:12, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
A follow up to my point: 2 out of 5 American Jews were affected by Madoff scandal. this article gives the scope impact on Jewish charities. this article implicates Madoff's scheme for a rise in antisemitism. The simple fact that Madoff was Jewish pales in comparison to the havoc he wreaked on the Jewish community.--Louiedog (talk) 01:42, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Names in Finance

I think if one wishes to be principled about not having long lists of people (in each of the categories mentioned) then both Ben Bernanke and Alan Greenspan should be left out. But if Bernanke is in, I think it seems natural and logical to also mention Greenspan. Bus stop (talk) 20:57, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

The problem I see is that two names leads to three names—I can practically guarantee you that Arthur F. Burns will be added back soon—and so on. The section on "Notable American Jews" used to include scores of names, and I don't want to encourage people to start adding back the names of their "favorite" notable Jews. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 21:15, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
I agree, but these two are consecutively in the office of Chairman of the Federal Reserve. Bus stop (talk) 21:32, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Albert Einstein

Hello. I do not know how to use wikipedia talkpages well enough to make a headline and all that, but I must point out that ALBERT EINSTEIN IS NOT AMERICAN!!! He is German. Please change this soon. Goodguy1066 (talk) 18:44, 16 February 2010 (UTC)Goodguy1066Goodguy1066 (talk) 18:44, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Goodguy1066, please add new topics at the bottom of talk pages. As for your comments, Einstein became an American citizen in 1940. This article considers all Jews either born in the United States or living as permanent residents.--Louiedog (talk) 19:38, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, we can at least mention that he's German-born and raised and lived in Germany for over 60 years! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Goodguy1066 (talk • contribs) 15:47, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

The Albert Einstein article makes his national origin clear. As this article doesn't seem to discuss Einstein in any way other than to show his picture, and doesn't define "American" by place of birth, I don't see any reason to go out of the way to make note of his German origin. Fletcher (talk) 01:43, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
And, as a point of fact, he lived in Germany for 36 years, not "over 60 years". As a point of interest, he lived in the United States for 32 years. He was a citizen of Germany for 17 years, and a citizen of the United States for 25 years. Jayjg (talk) 01:56, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Everyvon knows zat Einstein vas born German. Zees is vhy ve associate him vis ze accent.--Louiedog (talk) 04:47, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I think these people should be in the gallery: Noam Chomsky, milton friedman (The Economist magazine praised him as "the most intellectual economist of the second half of the 20th century… possibly of all of it"), bob dylan, allen ginsberg(one of the best american poets) and richard Feynman. Now it looks very childish. יניבפור (talk) 01:30, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Given the fact that we're only allotting 12 choices and that there are hundreds to choose from, no choice of pictures is going to please everyone. That being said, I would wholeheartedly endorse trading Norman Mailer for Allen Ginsberg as they're both notable writers of approximately the same time period but Mailer returns 941k google hits vs. Ginsberg's 1.2M. I would also support replacing Ben Bernanke with the far more accomplished economist Milton Friedman. Other trade-offs wouldn't be so obvious. Who would you remove in the current line-up to insert Bob Dylan, Richard Feynman (we've already got Einstein), or Chomsky?--Louiedog (talk) 02:51, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Here's a list of better choices:

- Allen ginsberg instead of Norman Mailer (As we agreed) - Milton Friedman instead of Ben Bernanke (As we agreed)

- Dustin hoffman (won two Academy Awards, six Golden Globes, three BAFTAs, three Drama Desk Awards, an Emmy Award and an Annie Award) instead of Barbra Streisand.

- Marc Spitz (Between 1968 and 1972, Spitz won nine Olympic golds plus a silver and a bronze, five Pan American golds, 31 US Amateur Athletic Union titles and eight US National Collegiate Athletic Association titles. During those years, he set 33 world records.[1] He was named World Swimmer of the Year in 1969, 1971 and 1972) instead of Hank Greenberg (only 3 langueges)

- Bob Dylan (must be on this gallery) and Noam Chomsky instead of Rahm Emanuel and Louis Brandeis

- J.D.Salinger (jewish father) instead of Asimov יניבפור (talk) 11:17, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Streisand has twice the google hits of Hoffman, is the best-selling female recording artist of all time, won two Academy Awards, nine Grammy Awards, four Emmy Awards, a Special Tony Award, an American Film Institute award, and a Peabody Award. She also helps balance the gender representation (currently 10 - 2).
Greenberg returns slightly more google hits so internet fame is about par. However, while Spitz may have achieved more international fame, Greenberg is a baseball icon, and is known for being the first Jewish superstar in American sports. He also created a whole incident by not playing on Yom Kippur.
I would support changing Chomsky, one of the most cited scholars of all time, or Bob Dylan, musical icon of his era, for Rahm Emanuel, who just happens to be a high ranking official in the current administration. I'm not so sure about removing Brandeis, the first Jewish Supreme Court justice known for his brilliance, achievements, and influence in the Jewish community.
Salinger is mostly only known for Catcher in the Rye and his mom isn't even Jewish. Asimov is a household name in science fiction, popular science, and is "one of the most prolific writers of all time".--Louiedog (talk) 14:40, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
I agree that Salinger is a questionable choice. He is not typically identified as Jewish, and two of the three major Jewish groupings would not consider him to be Jewish. Asimov has probably written more books than anybody, but if you want to replace Asimov, consider people like Leon Uris, Herman Wouk, Saul Bellow or Philip Roth. Personally, as a SciFi fan, I am more than happy with Asimov. Others to consider: Ayn Rand, Bernard Malamud, Chaim Potok, William Goldman. But, top pick if I chose one to replace Asimov would be Roth or Saul Bellow.Sposer (talk) 17:50, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Allen Ginsberg instead of Norman Mailer, Milton Friedman instead of Ben Bernanke, and that Rahm Emanuel should be replaced. However, we already have enough popular culture in the gallery; I suggest Hyman G. Rickover instead - or, if we want another politician, Dianne Feinstein. That would help with the male-female imbalance too. Jayjg (talk) 01:19, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

many of the most prominent american intellectuals are jewish (let's face it, the majority). few examples: franz boas ("Father of American Anthropology"). Milton Friedman, Joseph E. Stiglitz, Paul Samuelson ,Kenneth Arrow, Paul Krugman in Economics. Saul Kripke, Thomas Kuhn, Hilary Putnam etc. (philosophy). Richard Feynman, Edward Witten, Julian Schwinger, Steven Weinberg etc. (Physics). Noam Chomsky, Edward Sapir (linguistics) and so on. for that reason i think the gallery should include at least one more scientist/intellectual. i suggested noam chomsky instead of Rahm Emanuel.

i steel think mark spitz is better choice than greenberg. you forget that many reeders aren't american (just like me [israeli - my english is poor, but i know the materia as you can see]) and few know who is he. mark spitz on the other hand won 9 olympic gold medals plus silver and a bronze (huge achievement), and everybody knows him.

as i said, bob dylan must be in the gallery. and i would suggest to put him instead of mel brooks. יניבפור (talk) 12:03, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

We want to have a balance in the box, a cross-section of all kinds of Jews. Yes, there are many Jewish intellectuals, but the box has enough intellectuals already; we can replace a politician with another politician or a military person, of which we have none. We also have enough men, and should try to have a woman. I'm fine with replacing Mel Brooks with Bob Dylan. Jayjg (talk) 12:19, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

ok, i agree, bob dylan instead of mel brooks. and allen ginsberg instead of mailer and Milton Friedman instead of Ben Bernanke. יניבפור (talk) 12:27, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Bob Dylan is a good guitarist. He should be in the gallery. Bus stop (talk) 15:08, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Jewish American, the magazine

There must have been an magazine or a newspaper in New York about 1900, named Jewish American. But under this title, there is only a redirect to "American Jews". I just mention it, if someone is interested to do some research on that magazine or newspaper ;) The author Zalmen Zylbercweig, for example, worked for the "Jewish American" - that's why I mention it. -- Otto Normalverbraucher (talk) 19:05, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Jews and finance

I've moved the following material here for discussion:

Jews play a large role in Wall Street, both at investment banks and investment funds. Goldman Sachs, Lehman Brothers, Salomon Brothers and other top Wall Street banks were founded by Jews. SAC Capital, Fortress Investment Group, Soros Capital Management, Och-Ziff, GLG Partners Renaissance Technologies and Baupost are all large hedge funds founded by Jews. Jews have also played a pivotal role in the private equity industry, founding such firms as Blackstone, Carlyle Group, TPG Capital, Warburg Pincus, Apax Partners and KKR. The top 5 largest private equity funds were all established by Jews.<ref>R. William Weisberger, "Jews and American Investment Banking," ''American Jewish Archives,'' June 1991, Vol. 43 Issue 1, pp 71-75</ref>

I originally removed it as unreferenced and non-notable, but was reverted by Rjensen, who added the given citation, alluding only to the "unreferenced" part of my comment. To begin with, it's unclear to me how much of this paragraph is actually supported by the sourced provided. I note, for example, that GLG Partners was founded in 1995 - yet the supporting reference is from 1991! Does this citation really support the material? Second, it's not clear to me that this is particularly notable, except in a "Jews control the banks and finance industry" sort of way. Goldman Sachs was founded in 1869; was has it to do with an organization founded in 1995? Jayjg (talk) 16:55, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

He first said it's not notable: that is falsified by a journal article from a leading jewish historical journal that focuses on the very issue. Then he says the content references more recently formed companies--but that is quibbling for they were spinoffs of the older companies discussed in the scholarly article (all the GLG partners came out of Goldman Sachs). Wiki rules do not allow suppressing true, sourced, relevant information --in this case provided by a leading Jewish scholarly journals.Rjensen (talk) 18:45, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean by "He first said it's not notable" - my edit summary when I first removed it was "remove unsourced and not particularly notable claims". The "not particularly notable" was there from the start. Furthermore, the claims that "that is quibbling for they were spinoffs of the older companies discussed in the scholarly article" is a rather shocking violation of WP:V and WP:NOR. You cannot simply place a citation after material that is not even mentioned in the source! Now, what exactly does the source say? Does it mention every one of these companies? If so, please quote it doing so. Does it say "The top 5 largest private equity funds were all established by Jews"? If so, again, please quote it doing so. Jayjg (talk) 18:59, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
OK I revised the text to take Jayjg's comments into account. It adds new sources--there is a large serious literature here that does NOT come from antisemitic hate groups. Try this: Jews in the 20th and 21st centuries played a major role in American finance or "Wall Street", both at investment banks and investment funds. Goldman Sachs, Lehman Brothers, Salomon Brothers and other top Wall Street banks were founded by Jews. SAC Capital, Fortress Investment Group, Soros Fund Management, Och-Ziff, GLG Partners Renaissance Technologies and Baupost are all large hedge funds founded by Jews. Jews have also played a pivotal role in the private equity industry, founding some of the largest firms as Blackstone, Carlyle Group, TPG Capital, Warburg Pincus, Apax Partners and KKR.<ref>R. William Weisberger, "Jews and American Investment Banking," ''American Jewish Archives,'' June 1991, Vol. 43 Issue 1, pp 71-75</ref><ref> Judith Ramsey Ehrlich, ''The New Crowd: The Changing of the Jewish Guard on Wall Street'' (1990) covers the careers of [[Sanford Weill]], [[Felix Rohatyn]], [[Michael Milken]] and numerous others.</ref><ref> Charles D. Ellis, ''The Partnership: The Making of Goldman Sachs'' (2nd ed. 2009) [http://www.amazon.com/Partnership-Making-Goldman-Sachs/dp/0143116126/ excerpt and text search]</ref><ref> On bankers before 1950 see Stephen Birmingham, ''Our Crowd”: The Great Jewish Families of New York'' (1967)</ref> Rjensen (talk) 19:07, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
You need page numbers for books, and we still need the quotes mentioning these companies specifically. BTW, is Pierre Lagrange, the "L" in "GLG", Jewish? Jayjg (talk) 19:26, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
OK I added some more cites and more background. Lagrange (and GLG) is famously secretive--he's born and raised in Belgian and based in London, which stretches the definition of "American Jew". Rjensen (talk) 20:20, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Rjensen, I still don't see any page numbers for Ehrlich, Ellis, or Birmingham. Also, I don't see any quotations regarding any of these companies. Regarding Legrange, yes, not really American, never mind a Jew. Would Sir Ronald Cohen and Maurice Tchénio be American Jews? Jayjg (talk) 20:27, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Hmm. Rather disappointingly, you've reinserted the paragraph, without the requested quotes, and, in some cases, without the requested page numbers. I've tagged them for now. I'll give you 26 hours to provide a quote regarding, for example, GLG Partners. If one isn't provided, the whole paragraph will come out again. WP:V and WP:NOR aren't things to be ignored or gotten around, they're policies that should be respected and followed. Jayjg (talk) 20:40, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Wiki rules say that page numbers are needed for exact quotations, of which thefre are none here. Please don't make threats like "I'll give you 26 hours to..."-- these threats violates the spirit of Wiklipedia which requires assumption of good faith. But as for GLG, Forbes magazine in its list of the richest 400 calls Noam Gottesman" an "Israeli-American investor". The "L" (Lagrange) and "G" (Green) are not Americans. Sir Ronald Cohen is Jewish (his autobiography tells how his Jewish family was forced out of Egypt by Nassar), he graduated Harvard but built his career in Europe and is considered British; Maurice Tchénio is French and might be Jewish but I don't know. Rjensen (talk) 01:41, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Page numbers in books are required for all information, not just specific quotations. Please provide the page numbers, and the quotes that mention GLG Partners as a firm founded by American Jews. Since you've just added the sources, they should be right at hand, and easy to access. Thanks. Jayjg (talk) 01:36, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
This is not true: "Page numbers in books are required for all information" Rjensen (talk) 01:41, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
WP:V: "The source should be cited clearly and precisely, with page numbers where appropriate, and must clearly support the material as presented in the article." One cannot expect material to be verified from an entire book, hundreds of pages. A page number must be provided for material cited to a book. Jayjg (talk) 02:19, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Sure, an entire book can, under some circumstances, be used as a perfectly appropriate citation. WP:V only requires page numbers where appropriate, and that means that page numbers are not actually appropriate in 100% of cases. This understanding is explicitly reinforced at WP:CITE: "Page numbers...are not required for a reference to the source as a whole; for example when describing a complete book or article or when the source is used to illustrate a particular point of view."
Whether or not these entire sources are being used this way is a question that needs to be addressed directly. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:52, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

On the matter of "phobia to be called antisemitic": German ancestry as the majority.

A lot of people talk about paranoia about people saying "Jews control America", which is obviously a ridiculous antisemitic claim. However it is true that Germany is very sensitive in matters involving Jews for the obvious reason of WW2 reparations. But what is often not heard is that the majority ancestry in the US is German. Could that be a source of 'shame'? Inclusion of articles from reliable source on the matter for betterment of the article would be appreciated. --Leladax (talk) 17:16, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

15% is not usually what people mean when they claim a majority. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:08, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
"..."Jews control America", which is obviously a ridiculous antisemitic claim." Not really. If you think that you had to make that statement as a prelude to your point it is clear that that ethnic group has such power to put some fear in you. Considering that they are about 3% of the population that is vastly disproportionate. Among other things in this article, the fact that 30% of Harvard is Jewish and so represents the majority of the "white people" at one of the country's most elite university should tell you why people like yourself are de-evolving into the new N-words of the world. These people occupy disproportionate places of power in society at YOUR expense. If you can't wake up to that then you deserve your fate. While your pop was a farmer or miner whose backbreaking work allowed you to become the first person in your family to go to college, these people are 5 generation of Cohen mathematicians, engineers, bankers, etc. How can you compete with that? All at your expense while your people were toiling they took over. Naturally they don't run everything but it is the dis-proportionality that is the problem...again at your lose of status and culture...wake up and stop being a dope. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.38.145.35 (talk) 05:57, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Leftist Description

As I noted in my initial revert, leftist has a connotation that implies that this was, is and continues to be a general leaning amongst the Jewish population, which is not accurate. None of the cites tied to the statements discuss this, so it is OR to add it. I am not denying that a small minority in the 30s and 40s and possibly early 50s, were involved in leftist leaning groups, but it was never a major part of the structure of Jewish politics. And, at this point, although still highly leaning towards Democrats, it is untrue now. Even using membership in organizations as a way of counting this leaning is questionable. I can recall in the 1970s, the International Committee Against Racism, which I almost joined. They were mostly fighting apartheid in South Africa, and many people in my university belonged to it (Jew and non-Jew). However, I found out that they were tied to the Communist party and did not join. I am sure many people never dug into that, and joined anyway and could thus be included as "leftist". The cause was worthy, but the apparatus around it was not. RJensen is an historian and I am sure can come up with a valid source that correctly identifies the short period where there was anything more than a tiny percent of Jews involved in so-called leftist politics.Sposer (talk) 14:47, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Eric Cantor is the highest-ranking Jew who has ever served in the U.S. Congress.

Shouldn't the contemporary politics section mention, first that Eric Cantor is now House Majority Leader, and second, that in achieving that position he has reached the highest rank of any Jew ever in the U.S. Congress? Hypercallipygian (talk) 00:23, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Cantor is mentioned in that section. Jayjg (talk) 02:39, 16 February 2011 (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."[1]

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

You'll need this:
  1. ^ Schneider, David J. (2004). The psychology of stereotyping. Guilford Press. p. 461.

. 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)

Over/under -representation of categories in the infobox

Expanding on from the observation that there are no religious figures in the infobox, here are my thoughts.

1) I agree there should be a religious figure. I would tolerate the Lubavitcher Rebbe, Satmar Rav, Moshe Feinshtein, or any of the other suggestions made above. This could replace Kissinger or Feinstein (there are 3 politicians and Brandeis is too important).
2) If there are going to be two scientists (which there needn't be), there is no reason to have two theoretical physicists. One of them would ideally be replaced by a the economist Milton Friedman, or a biologist (Kornberg?). Either Einstein or Feynman could be removed - Einstein is not in my mind iconically American (whatever his self-identification or official status), and Feynman is mainly known in the non-scientific community through his self-publicising (and self-aggrandizing) autobiographies.
3) There should be a representative from the visual arts, rather than two representatives from the world of literature. Mark Rothko should replace Betty Friedan. Philip Roth is vastly more iconic American writer than either Asimov or Friedan, and I think he should replace the remaining literature figure.
4) For music, there is no reason to doubly represent the narrow genre 70's pop music (Dylan/Streisand) to the exclusion of the entire musical world. Get rid of Dylan or Streisand (for gender balance, probably Dylan) and replace with Leonard Bernstein or Steven Sondheim for example.

e.g.: Leonard Bernstein Louis Brandeis Albert Einstein Milton Friedman Hank Greenberg Abraham Joshua Heschel Henry Kissinger Philip Roth Mark Rothko Steven Spielberg Barbara Streisand

P.S. If you are looking for a token "Bad guy" (apart from Kissinger!) I can't think of anyone better than Bobby Fischer.

Zargulon (talk) 14:11, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

As I mentioned before Abraham Joshua Heschel is not Identifiably religious enough. I think many more people out side of jewish circles would have heard of the Lubavitcher Rebbe or even the Satmar Rav. yisraeldov (talk) 14:31, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
YD, you were asked the reasonable question of whom your chosen religious person should replace.. ? Zargulon (talk) 16:09, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
I think that the Lubavitcher Rebbe makes the most sense, he is the most well known. I'm just worried that sooner or latter some will come and object because of the controversy. (Personally I would rather have the Satmar Rov ) Since there is now 2 empty spaces I am going to place a picture of the Lubavitcher Rebbe there. There seems to be more or less of a consensus that a visibly religious jew should be included. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yisraeldov (talk • contribs) 21:15, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
2) I agree that we don't need two theoretical physicists, but Einstein is far more famous than Feynman, who, by the way, is known for much more than his autobiographies (he's known as a favorite physics circles, as much for his report on the Challenger disaster as his physics popularizing books, his path integral formulations, his spirited talks, as his quirky and cleverly mischievous nature).
3) Betty Friedan is the household name in feminism. She was the second movement of feminism. And she's also one of only three women on our list of 11 notable American Jews.
4) Dylan is a folk rock superstar, but not very "Jewish". Streisand is up there as much in a capacity as a actress as she is as a singer. And I'd hardly put her in the same genre as Dylan just because of the time period.--Louiedog (talk) 17:16, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps I was a little harsh on Feynman. I personally still Friedan narrowly misses the cut (just like a lot of other indisputably great and well-known people) but I take your point. Perhaps if there was a female painter or sculptor to replace her with instead of Rothko.. Anyway my interpretation of what you wrote seems to be that you are ok with replacing Feynman and Dylan (without prejudice to their greatness or otherwise..) with, e.g. Milton Friedman and Leonard Bernstein? Zargulon (talk) 17:28, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually, scratch that about Dylan not being very Jewish. I forgot he'd recently taken a renewed interest in Judaism and been a big supporter of Chabad, so he's actually Jewish as hell. Feynman can go. I love the guy, but he's not nearly as known as Einstein and certainly not as "Jewish". Feynman role as a Jew was purely ethnic, with him making basically no references to Jewish culture or Jewish thought. (Interestly, here are his thoughts on why Jews aren't a distinctive people: "Therefore you see at thirteen I was not only converted to other religious views but I also stopped believing that the Jewish people are in any way "the chosen people." ) Einstein, however, escaped the Holocaust, traveled to Palestine and made comments about Jewish consciousness.--Louiedog (talk) 17:51, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Hmm.. by that criterion, Madonna would be as Jewish as hell, and maybe Michael Jackson. But what do I know.. Zargulon (talk) 18:02, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, everyone in our list here is accepted as at least ethnically Jewish while very few would accept MJ or Madonna as legit Jews by any measure. Also, I have just found more justification for removing Feynman from the infobox: he hated being being included on lists of Jews, even ethnic ones. He wrote letters explaining why he didn't want to be included in lists of Jews. I'd say we could respect this wish and take him out.--Louiedog (talk) 18:17, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
The fact that he denied his heritage isn't really a reason for removing him. If anything, it's the opposite - he's a good example of a famous American Jew who denies his heritage. Jayjg (talk) 04:04, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Ok. What about taking Diane Feinstein out to replace with the religious figure? I think she is hardly known at all outside America. Zargulon (talk) 18:23, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Removing Feinstein makes the collection have 2 females out of 11. I think we were trying to keep it somewhat balanced by gender. I'd almost say let's add Debbie Friedman who is so popularly associated with American Jewish culture, but for the fact that we have 2 singers up there already.--Louiedog (talk) 18:38, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I would be prepared to use gender as a tie-break, but I think it is better to have a more famous man than a woman who would clearly be there just because of her gender, as I think is the case with Feinstein. Debbie Friedman is completely below the radar for me. Zargulon (talk) 18:51, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Please keep in mind that there is an empty spot in the box, so we don't have to remove anyone. It's only if we add two religious figues (which actually makes sense) that we must remove a secular figure. Jayjg (talk) 20:04, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Well I am stumped for the religious figure(s). It's not that I'd object, but just don't think that the Lubavitcher/Satmar Rebbe or any of the others have any significant public footprint outside of the Jewish world. In the UK we could go for Jonathan Sacks or Hugo Gryn who are/were well-known public personalities. What about Shmuley Boteach.. Zargulon (talk)

Chabad is an enormous global organization with outreach centers in every corner of the world. Schneerson is world reknowned. I am amazed that his numbers aren't higher. I think Yisrael Dov was seeking somebody devout. Although as a Conservative Jew, I would consider Schecter devout, an Orthodox Jew might not. For that reason, if we had to choose one religious leader, it would be Schneerson. Although the Reform movement may be large, I do not think there is any one well known leader of the Reform movement. Conservative Judaism is largely an American invention. Reform Judaism is German+American. Personally, I prefer Robert Rubin and Meir Kahane (not saying I consider Kahane a positive, but he is certainly globally notable).Sposer (talk)
But piety is not the criterion for infobox inclusion, and the infobox is for people, not movements. I don't object to Schneerson but I rather think that if due process is followed an alternative will be clearly preferable. Zargulon (talk) 21:40, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Agreed. We may well have to more than one religious figure. We could create a 4x4 - that would allow us to add five individuals, not all of whom need be religious figures. Jayjg (talk) 21:49, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Hmm, based on the discussion above, I added Heschel to the table in the previous sections, and his google numbers are quite impressive. Jayjg (talk) 22:04, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
I am very much in favour of a 4x4. Philip Roth doesn't seem to have a commons-licensed picture, so keep Asimov for the moment, but I would hope to see added Leonard Bernstein, Arthur Miller and/or Rothko. I would really like Dianne Feinstein to be removed, partly because she is not really relevant outside of the USA but also because she is a serving politician and I don't feel she should draw succour from our infobox. In her place, if it has to be a woman, Gertrude Stein, Emma Goldman or Ayn Rand are more than worthy. We could introduce two of these women and get rid of Asimov, which would help the gender balance. That would leave space for two religious people, identities to be discussed above. Zargulon (talk) 22:17, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Zargulon—you say "…piety is not the criterion for infobox inclusion…" What are the criteria for Info-box inclusion? What criteria are we supposed to apply in order to determine the composition of the Info-box? Bus stop (talk) 22:42, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Bus stop - in the absence of a Wikipedia guideline, I suppose your "criteria" are to be determined by consensus. Isn't that obvious? Zargulon (talk) 22:53, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Zargulon—could wealth be considered an applicable criteria? Why not include Sheldon Adelson and Michael Bloomberg for instance? Not that they don't have other outstanding qualities—but their personal net worth is certainly impressive. Bus stop (talk) 23:46, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Bus stop - I don't know who Sheldon Adelson is, others might be better placed to comment. I would prefer to avoid Bloomberg since he is a politician who is currently in office (see above), and in any case we have plenty of politicians already. He is well enough known outside the States though. Do you have any opinions on the suggestions already made? Zargulon (talk) 23:52, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Zargulon—you are expressing criteria. You say that you don't know who Sheldon Adelson is. In so doing you are saying that a criteria for inclusion is that the individuals should be household names. I definitely question that criteria. You say in Bloomberg's favor that he is well-known outside the United States (though you question his inclusion because he is a politician and one in office). Again—you are saying that a criteria for inclusion is that a person should be well known. I don't understand this. Anyone can click on Sheldon Adelson's name and see that he has a net worth of 20 billion dollars. Does the reader have to find instant recognizability in any name for inclusion? I question this whole notion of fame. There are no criteria so you are reaching for the least common denominator and that happens to be fame or notoriety or recognizability of one sort or another. How about Ralph M. Steinman? The criteria recommending him is his contribution to medicine, "for his discovery of the dendritic cell and its role in adaptive immunity". Bus stop (talk) 00:21, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Zargulon, I think we also have to keep in mind that we need good head shots of whoever is added, which limits our choices. Jayjg (talk) 04:04, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

a potential solution to most of the discussions on this page....

how about this: we rotate the pictures every week (month?), so that in the course of a year, a goodly number of all the people mentioned above will be shown. 12 x 52 = a lot of people highlighted. this will solve a lot of the arguments since if this week there are too many scientists, then next week there will be too many orthodox jews, etc. comments? Soosim (talk) 11:31, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it would work to have an official rotation schedule, but it would be good to acknowledge the fact that there is no intrinsic reason why the pictures couldn't evolve/revolve. The only problem is to avoid chaos. Zargulon (talk) 11:59, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
If people can argue over how to spell yogurt, they can argue over which 624 people (12 x 52) are displayed in a year. Bus stop (talk) 12:02, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
bus stop - they will mostly agree to the first 600...the last 24 will always be a problem.... - i am still enjoying the edit warring over at falafel. Soosim (talk) 15:29, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Jewish culture: no mention of humor?

There's a great deal of humor that is considered in the discourse to be reflective of Jewish culture. Surely, any article mentioning Jewish American culture should mention the influence of Woody Allen in such films as Annie Hall, Seinfeld, or its spiritual successor Curb Your Enthusiasm. How about Seth Rogen's wearing a Superjew t-shirt in Funny People, as reflective of the self-parodying Jewish consciousness of Heeb Magazine?--Louiedog (talk) 16:20, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

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)

Feynman is definitely staying. He self-identifies as Jewish and American many times in his writings. He is extremely notable. And his personality and life is representative of American culture (far more than Einstein, for example). As for whoever added Emma Goldman, this is a very controversial choice and should be removed (we don't have Lenin in the Russian infobox). It's also a little bizarre to include Gertrude Stein, considering that she was an extreme anti-semite. Even Ayn Rand would be less controversial. Avaya1 (talk) 04:20, 17 March 2012 (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)
If you google for Chabbad You will get over 8 million hits. For the record I'm not the biggest fan of Chabbad, but they are a big part of american judiaism yisraeldov (talk) 12:59, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
A statistic that tells nothing. First off because you're establishing the notability of a branch of Judaism, which has nothing to do with the notability of an individual figure. It would be like me making the case for Feynman by showing how notable physics is. Second off, what are you comparing it against? https://www.google.com/search?q=Chabad#sclient=psy-ab&hl=en&source=hp&q=American+Judaism&psj=1&oq=American+Judaism&aq=f&aqi=g8g-v2&aql=&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=43627l52699l0l52828l19l16l0l1l1l0l212l1934l6.8.1l15l0&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.,cf.osb&fp=6b29ab0951e4b347&biw=1133&bih=684 "American Judaism" returns 42 million], Judaism returns 42 million, "menorah" returns 42 million, "kosher" returns 47 million. It doesn't follow that we designate a spot to someone notable in Jewish kashrut laws or menorah making.--Louiedog (talk) 13:14, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
On Schneerson, he is well known outside of Jewish circles. There have been books written on Chabad and specifically regarding him (see "The Rebbe's Army"). Articles on him in the WSJ and around the world. The horrible Mumbai attacks hit a Chabad center there, and Chabad and Schneerson are inextricably linked. He is a polarizing figure in the Jewish community and world reknowned amongst any significant religious leader, Jewish or not. Not sure how anyone would not be aware of him. He is, from a religious perspective, probably the most notable and widely known Jewish American. Controversial for sure (since many Chabad followers think he will be return as the Messiah). This increases his notability, like him and Chabad or not. By the way, I am not arguing for his inclusion or not. I personally rather include an obviously devout Jew that was also active in the secular world.Sposer (talk) 13:27, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
My comment below to Yisraeldov. I actually was unaware of him until this debate, but I was very aware of the Chabad movement. I had not made the connection that essentially is the creator of the modern Chabad movement. Consider my objections withdrawn.--Louiedog (talk) 15:51, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
My point was that you can't use a google search for a metric. The difference between your analogy is that Menoras and Kashrus is not attributed to any one person. The present Chabbad movement is attributed to the past Lubavitcher Rebbe. Also Chabad isn't a "branch" of Judaism, it is an implementation. When you searched for Feynman, how many of the results were about him personally and how many of the results were about his contributions to physics ? Again, my argument is more that the booth ends of the religious spectrum need to be represented, and currently it is very one-sided .yisraeldov (talk) 13:31, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Apologies for my ignorance. I did not make the connection. I didn't realize how much of the Chabad movement's prominence was due to Schneerson. I thought you were merely showing that the Chabad movement's notability implied we should include a Chabad figure. I didn't realize the Chabad movement today is essentially due to him. My objections are rescinded.--Louiedog (talk) 15:51, 25 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)
We are not here to debate your personal opinion of people, and yes, people who might not be generally liked should be included.yisraeldov (talk) 09:12, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

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)

Adding one visibly religious jew I think would make for a more balanced info box ( if you must use the info box ). I mentioned the Chabad Rebbe because I think that chabbad has probably had the largest effect on the world wide religious jewish community. Although the others that I mentioned (Satmar Rav and Rav Moshe Feinshtien) are more characteristic of the american Religious Jewish Identity in contrast to the rest of the Religious Jewish world, [Chabad] is known world wide. Anding 4 religious would be an exaggeration of the religiosity of the US Jewish population. yisraeldov (talk) 09:12, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
i think one religiously looking american jew should be added. perhaps Abraham Joshua Heschel as being more 'neutral', though he did hang out at jts, i think he is best known for his philosophy and his writings, that many american jews still read and use. comments?
He isn't exactly a religious looking jew ( looks more like mark twain ). If you are looking for religious looking then you should go for the Satmar Rav, but I still think the Lubavitcher Rebbe is much more iconic. And he is more neutral that what ? Rav Moshe Feinstien was the posek hador, and was is almost universally accepted among practicing jews around the world. yisraeldov (talk) 11:15, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
ok, how about rav soloveitchik? Soosim (talk) 11:52, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Again, Moshe Fienshtien is much more universally accepted, and the Lubavitcher Rebbe is more iconic, I think that if we are trying balance out the info box, that is currently tilted extremely secular, we should use the most religious that we can find. If you put the Satmar Rav on one end and the rest of the info box on the other people will be able to interpolate the all of the other levels of religiosity. If we use one of your more moderate suggestions, people will not be able to assume that there are american jews such as those that live in Kirat Yoel, Lakewood, Crown Heights, or Monsey. yisraeldov (talk) 12:21, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

If we do a google search on the names of American Jewish religious figures to try to (crudely) ascertain which are the most well-known/influential, we get the following results:

Religious leader Google hits Google book hits
Solomon Schechter 678,000 225,000
Menachem Mendel Schneerson 509,000 15,700
Abraham Joshua Heschel 459,000 88,300
Judah Magnes 391,000 17,500
Stephen Samuel Wise 308,000 42,200
Joseph B. Soloveitchik 291,000 71,600
Moshe Feinstein 136,000 16,900
Mordecai Kaplan 67,900 23,500
Joel Teitelbaum 48,600 4,080

While google hits isn't an exact science, it's pretty clear we shouldn't be picking Feinstein, Kaplan, or Teitelbaum. In addition, Orthodoxy is the smallest of the the major movements of American Judaism (Reform is the largest, Conservative next largest). So, it would seem to make sense to go with Schechter, but we might also want to use Magnes or Wise instead, representing the Reform movement. Jayjg (talk) 20:02, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Much as I would love to see Schechter given kavod, I wonder about his credentials as an American Jew. According to his WP page, he only spent the last 13 years of his life in America. Nonetheless as ever I wouldn't object. Zargulon (talk) 21:02, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Sorry but you need to know how to search, people might not know who Menachem Mendel Schneerson is but they know who the Chabad Rebbe is, he gets over 3Million hits on google. Also people might not have heard of Joel Teitelbaum but they have heard of the Satmar Rebbe. I think that the Chabad Rebbe is clearly the most well known. Also while Orthodoxy might be the smallest in numbers, it is the most influential. Almost every Orthodox jew will know who who Moshe Feinstein is but I doubt that most jews that call themselves reform will not know who Wise is, and for sure your average non-jew won't. yisraeldov (talk) 21:08, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
"Chabad rebbe" gets 85,700 hits ([7]) - and even then, Chabad had seven rebbes, so many of the hits will be false positives. Also, your notion that "while Orthodoxy might be the smallest in numbers, it is the most influential" is dubious at best. We need to focus on objective measures, not just people with whom Israel-based haredi User:Yisraeldov happens to be familiar. Jayjg (talk) 21:32, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
I agree with Jayjg's search results, I just did it myself. If you leave out the quotes, you will get hits which are about Chabad but not the Rebbe, or about some Rebbe other than a Chabad one, and as Jayjg says, there were seven Chabad Rebbes, all of them called "Schneerson" and two of them called Menachem Mendel Schneerson. Zargulon (talk) 21:43, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Kind of ironic, actually, given that he started his comment with "Sorry but you need to know how to search". Jayjg (talk) 21:46, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Lets talk about false positives then, On the first page of search results for Solomon Schechter, one is the wiki article and the rest are about schools. If you want to tell me that having schools named after him is a reflection of his notability, then any chabbad synagogues and schools should be a reflection of the Lubavicher Rebbe's notability, as was already mentioned, he is the founder of chabad in the US. If you search for 'chabad rebbe' almost all of the results are about the last Chabbad Rebbe him self, there is one about a shul, and one about a school, as well as pictures and movies of him. Google obviously makes the correlation between the last rebbe and chabbad it's self. But, as has been discussed before, google is a poor metric. yisraeldov (talk) 22:15, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Chabad is a movement that has been around for two hundred years. There were 6 rebbes before Schneerson, and the movement is doing quite well since his death. Chabad and Schneerson are not synonymous. Any schools names "Menachem Mendel Schneerson school" will also be reflected in the search results. Google is not a great metric, but it's a starting point, and certainly better than the personal viewpoint of any individual whose knowledge of Jewish history and culture apparently begins and ends with late 20th and early 21st century Haredi Judaism. Jayjg (talk) 03:52, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm think that your constant personal attacks on me are completely out of place. I know quite well how many Chabbad rebbes there have been, but who brought Chabbad Chasidus to the US ? Who is responsible for the huge explosion of chabbad? The movement may be doing well, but it is on the foundation that he left. Read the rest of the talk page, you will see that others agree with me about his influence, and his connection to chabad.yisraeldov (talk) 11:14, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

The Lubavitcher Rebbe

Sorry If I jumped the gun, but I added the Chabad rebbe, it seems that at least a few people agreed with me or at least didn't object. Also now there is a place for a religious jew on the board. If there are any objections please put them under this section, it was getting confusing looking in 15 different places. On a side note, any one that knows me personally will be shocked that I would be the one to put the Chabad rebbe, but I think it is the logical thing to do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yisraeldov (talk • contribs) 21:34, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, you jumped the gun. This can't just be people who you, a haredi Jew living in Israel, happen to be familiar with. It's out again, pending consensus. Jayjg (talk) 21:40, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Please do not remove the heading, If we are going to discuss the inclusion or exclusion of a person, let us do it in an orderly fashion. Remember that this article is abbout american jews, not for american jews. It would probably do you some good to have a different perspective. Also we are not talking about changing the whole list, it is one person out of 12. As I mentioned this is not just people that I 'happen to be familiar with,' I specifically mentioned 3 rabbonim that are very well known. I think you are taking this too personally. yisraeldov (talk) 22:02, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Personally? I'm not taking it personally at all, I have no personal stake in any of this. On the other hand, you seem to be familiar with only haredi rabbis - those are certainly the only ones you have entertained adding. Jayjg (talk) 22:06, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
To be clear, I am not offering a list of my personal favorites. I am mentioning rabbi's that have contributed to the character of the jews of america. As I mentioned before, I think the point of the info box is to give a good spectrum of American jews, the list is filled with non-religious jews, and looking at that list people would get the impression that there are no places like Lakewood, Monsey, or Williamsburg. Some one from the opposite end of the religious spectrum should be added so that people can interpolate the characteristics of american jews. I think that the Satmar Rav would balance the list much better, but he not as well known as the Lubavitcher Rebbe. Adding the people that you mentioned will just add more data points in the same area of the religiosity plane. Also to be clear, I have no affiliation with Chabbad, Satmar, or MTJ. yisraeldov (talk) 22:27, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
...and you still seem to only be aware of the existence of Haredi rabbis and Judaism. There are six million Jews in the U.S., of whom perhaps 30,000 live in Lakewood and Monsey combined. That's a tiny percentage of American Jews. There are more non-Haredi Jews in Miami alone than all the Haredi Jews in the entire United States. Please accept that the view of American Jews held by a haredi Jew living in Israel will be narrow at best. Jayjg (talk) 03:52, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
First of all, just because I currently live in Israel doesn't mean that I did not live in the US for over 20 years. Second I am aware of the other people you mentioned and they do not provide a balanced spectrum of religiosity of american jews. I am fully aware that haradim do not make up the majority of jews in the us, but there are about ½ a million haradim in the US, combine that with tour 6 million statistic and that means that 1 in 12 american jews is a haradi, and don't forget that the haradi population grows at a much faster rate that that of non-haradim. There are 12 people in the info box and not one religious , let alone haradi. If you want your info box to show a balanced spectrum of the Jewish american population, you should include a jew that is visually haradi. Also, I think it is very unfair for you to discount my opinions because of my personal religious beliefs and where I choose to live. yisraeldov (talk) 08:16, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
YD, I agree that this article should take account of the readership. Living in the secular world as I do, I can confidently report that non-jews know nothing of Chabad, the Lubavitcher nor Satmar Rebbes. The (American) rabbis they know about are Shmuley Boteach and Jackie Mason. So while Schneerson would definitely be appropriate in an encyclopedia aimed at Jews but for Wikipedia I am not convinced. (Edit conflict)Zargulon (talk) 22:31, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Zargulon - I am a wholly secular Jew. I can tell you that Schneerson is known outside of Jewish circles. I had not heard of Boteach until about a year ago however. There are been articles on Chabad and Schneerson for years in the popular press, as well as books written about both. He is certainly better known than the Satmar Rebbe. Both are controversial (Schneerson due to some believing he will come back as the Messiah and the Satmar Rebbe due to views on Israel). If we are trying to find a religious Jew known for being religious, Scneerson is probably the best fit here (not that I think that should be the criteria). I would rather have somebody who is known to be religious that has contributed (either positive or negative) in other wells, and whom is well known. Somebody like Robert Rubin, who is supposedly observant, or Meir Kahane. There are others I am sure too, but that is out of my knowledge base.Sposer (talk) 00:10, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Zrgulon - Did you know that in Los Angeles there is a Chabad Telethon, and there are banners in the streets advertising chabad. The non jews know about chabad and even donate money. I think that R' Meir Kahane (not haradi btw ) would be a good addition, but again, I don't think he represents the far end of the spectrum.yisraeldov (talk) 08:16, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Kahane, like Jackie Mason, was ordained a rabbi but subsequently took a very different path. I thought we were discussing people whose life work was based on religious teaching. Not to say Kahane is a bad choice, I just don't think he would solve the problem of representing religion. Zargulon (talk) 09:13, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Sposer - so it sounds like the one we agree on is Jackie Mason!? Zargulon (talk) 00:12, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
I don't think he is observant any more, although as I recall, he is/was a Rabbai. I know his brother is an Orthodox Rabbi (if he is still alive).Sposer (talk) 00:18, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Mason is a comic, and not any sort of religious leader. Boteach is remarkably good at getting media attention, but not a religious leader either. Jayjg (talk) 03:33, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Well, that is true. Does it have to be a "leader"..? Ideally it would be. Zargulon (talk) 09:09, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Please see my conversation above. I don't think he has to be a leader but he should be someone that represents the 1/12 of the population that is not represented in the info box. Neither Mason or Boteach are good samples. Its like saying Mike Tyson is a good representative of african american athletes. yisraeldov (talk) 09:17, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Why? Boteach has a beard and kippa. He is certainly orthodox. Zargulon (talk) 09:24, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
The pope also wears a kippa. Boteach has been rejected by main stream orthodoxy and you cannot say that he has a lot in common with most orthodox jews. You can see that, he was thrown out of chabad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yisraeldov (talk • contribs) 09:36, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
I wouldn't call the Pope's hat a kippa except as a joke, and more importantly the Pope is not an American Jew. I don't think being "thrown out of Chabad" means that Boteach is rejected by mainstream orthodoxy, and the fact remains that he is a completely bona fide Orthodox American Jew who is famous for teaching Judaism and is known beyond the Jewish world. It doesn't matter that Chabadniks don't feel represented by him.. in some ways he is better for the infobox than Schneerson. Zargulon (talk) 10:39, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
My point was that it takes more than a kippah and a beard to make someone orthodox. He is not recognized by mainstream orthodox Judaism, what makes him a "bona fide orthodox jew"? I haven't checked but have any Mainstream rabonim given him approbation on his books ? Also from what I have seen from his writing, it is not Judiasim that he is teaching. All that aside, I think that including him would just be making a mockery of jews, again reinforcing the stereotype that all jews are in the entertainment industry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yisraeldov (talk • contribs) 11:03, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying. I can't find any reference saying that he was excommunicated, even from Chabad (his WP page says that he attended a meeting of Chabad shlichim in 2010). What you are describing is called "you disagreeing with him/not liking what he says" (which is your privilege) but it is not called his "not being a bona fide orthodox Jew". I don't think he is "in the entertainment industry"; rather he teaches Torah in an entertaining way, which is just fine by me. Do you really think Meir Kahane is more of a bona fide Orthodox Jew than Shmuley Boteach? Zargulon (talk) 11:58, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
The WP article says "he was asked to leave his posting as shaliach" and " the London Chief Rabbi said Boteach "did not possess the appropriate United Synagogue rabbinical 'practice certificate'" ". I for sure think that Kahane is more accepted by main stream orthodoxy. Also my question "what makes him a "bona fide orthodox jew" was not sarcastic. I started to write some of the reasons that main stream orthodoxy rejects him, but I think it constitutes Loshon Hora, I think that is also the reason that you won't find much criticism of him from the mainstream orthodox on the internet. I think that any mainstream orthodox jew will immediately see what the issues are. yisraeldov (talk) 13:05, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Boteach was asked to leave a particular shaliach posting as an apparent consequence of inviting Yitzhak Rabin to speak. That has nothing to do with the authenticity of his Orthodox Judaism, or with his good standing within Chabad, or his semicha. His not possessing a London United Synagogue practice certificate is completely normal for an American Rabbi, and there is no evidence that it would have been withheld had he been interested in receiving one, which being based in Oxford there is no reason why he should have. It is clear to me now that he wasn't "thrown out of Chabad" at all. My orthodox acquaintances lead me to strongly doubt your statement about the relative acceptance of Kahane and Boteach, but if what you say is true it is a huge chillul hashem. Zargulon (talk) 13:32, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
At YD's suggestion, this particular thread of the discussion shall be continued, if at all, at my talk page. Zargulon (talk) 13:52, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Boteach is clearly Orthodox. He may have some views atypical of your classic Orthodox rabbi, but he is a practicing Orthodox Jew. If there is no reliable source that says he is not Orthodox, you cannot use that as reason to reject him. I would guess he is a member of the Rabbinical Council of America, which is the main Orthodox Rabbinical group and a group that has been oft criticized for kowtowing to Haredi Israeli edicts that are not in any way, shape or form in line with American Orthodox views. If he has not been ex-communicated or had his smicha removed, he is Orthodox. I still see Schneerson as more notable due to the global importance of Chabad and even Kahane due to his involvement with the JDL (be that moral or immoral). But the view that Boteach is not Orthodox sounds like a view limited to a very small percentage of ultra-Orthodox members of the religion. Boteach certainly has greater moral, and in my mind, Jewish standing, than the types harassing women at the Wailing Wall.Sposer (talk) 13:52, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I must have misread the article, and I retract what I said about being thrown out of chabbad, but I still believe that he is not accepted by mainstream orthodoxy, we can put your acquaintances against my acquaintances but I don't think that will get us any where. I'm sure if you looked a bit harder, you would see what I'm talking about, as I mentioned before, I don't feel that I can go into more detail. After these conversations, I'm thinking that Rav Moshe Feinshtein is a better choice, because he is not controversial, and I think that almost all orthodox jews would agree that he is a fair representation of orthodoxy in america with out any additives. Yes he is less known, but that gets us back to the question, what is the point of the info box ? To spotlight famous jews, or to give the reader an idea of what constitutes an american jew by giving examples? yisraeldov (talk) 13:58, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Sposer, Boteach is amazingly good at getting himself attention in the media, and he's written some popular books with interest-grabbing titles, but he really isn't a religious leader per se or seen as a serious thinker of any sort, so I don't think he'd be a good choice. Jayjg (talk) 21:08, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Jayjg - You misunderstood me. I do not think Boteach should be there either. If it is based on being a notable religious leader, Schneerson fits the bill to me. I do believe the person should have a recognizable name and his is the only one that is truly known outside of Orthodox circles. My argument on Boteach was that he is Orthodox, that is all. Not that he should be in the Infobox.Sposer (talk) 21:50, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
I think we're going to need at least 3 religious leaders for balance - that's why I suggest the 4x4 box, which also adds two non-religious figures. Three out of sixteen isn't an unreasonable ratio. Jayjg (talk) 01:53, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
Ok, but the only 3 from your list with head shots at the top of their WP pages are Schneerson, Teitelbaum and Soloveitchik! Zargulon (talk) 09:22, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
There's this head shot: File:Stephen Samuel Wise cropped.jpg and it would be easy to create a headshot from this: File:Judah Leon Magnes.jpg. What about Schneerson, Soloveitchik, and one of Wise or Magnes? Jayjg (talk) 17:55, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
Fine by me. Zargulon (talk) 00:10, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
O.K., who would the two other secular additions be? Jayjg (talk) 01:48, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Leonard Bernstein and Arthur Miller. Gertrude Stein or Emma Goldman to replace Diane Feinstein. 09:05, 29 January 2012 (UTC) Zargulon (talk) 11:38, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
It seems that there is now a consensus that The Lubavitcher Rebbe should be added, can we put him back why deciding on the rest? yisraeldov (talk) 11:03, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
No, we needed to make sure there was a balance in the box, not just add our favorite guy. Jayjg (talk) 17:43, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
I added Schneerson, Soloveitchik and Wise. I put in Bernstein and Miller. I replaced Asimov with Gertrude Stein, and Diane Feinstein with Emma Goldman - there are now more women (although the ratio is worse because of the three rabbis); also lesbian and gay Jews are represented in Stein and Bernstein. Feel free to shoot me down in flames etc. Zargulon (talk) 12:04, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Looks good to me. Jayjg (talk) 17:43, 29 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)
I think that removing the info box would be a good idea. Picking a few celebrates really gives no reflection at all on the average american jew. If you must have such an info box, then it should have a good cross section of the american jewish population. By looking at your current info box you get the impression that most jews in america are in the entertainment industry, and that is just feeding a stereotype. If you must have this info box It should be more diverse. You made sacrifices not to exclude women but you are not willing to include Rabbis that have had a strong impact on the shape of american Judaism ? Also you should probably include some Jewish criminals, like Mayer Lansky, or Buggsy Segal. Also I think that including Rabbi Mayer Kahane would be a good idea. Maybe in-place of your info box you should just have a link to famous american jews. Also I'm in a different timezone than most of you so I cannot reply right away. yisraeldov (talk) 09:04, 25 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 Talk: pages 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)
And you are still manipulating posts so that it is not easy to see what an editor's intentions were when making a post. You say that "In fact, things like archiving (for example) inevitably destroy that 'perfect record'." A "perfect record" is not what we are aiming for. Sometimes discussion must be archived. But you should be able to understand that it should be easy for current participants as well as newcomers to the discussion to see where we have been in this discussion. Events transpire chronologically, as does input to a discussion such as this. Chronology is a logical organizing principle. Also, you should not be providing a section heading for my posts titled "Off-topic and oft-repeated proposal by one individual that ethnicity infobox pictures be used in a radically different way on Wikipedia than they are currently used" as you do in this edit. This Talk page has a section heading called Talk:American Jews#Changes to the infobox and that happens to be the topmost heading of this discussion. OK, so my suggestion to eliminate the Infobox is a bit radical. But my suggestion is still in the general realm of the topic of discussion. And I am trying to speak to User:Yisraeldov, who initiated a sub-thread under that general heading here. You have not been particularly receptive to Yisraeldov's suggestions, as evidenced by your comment that "I somehow get the impression that neither of those two individuals were what Yisraeldov had in mind." You are making it well-nigh impossible for normal interactive dialogue to take place. You are rearranging the Talk page. You are making it difficult for others to assess what is transpiring here. Bus stop (talk) 02:47, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
As cute as this is, you guys can stop now. There's nothing to be gained by continuing this. Get an RfC, or at least continue this on your own talk pages.--Louiedog (talk) 04:32, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
If the images are not removed, Feynman is definitely staying. He self-identifies as Jewish and American many times in his writings. He is extremely notable. And his personality and life is representative of American culture (far more than Einstein, for example).Avaya1 (talk) 04:20, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:American_Jews/Archive_3&oldid=1037686973"