Talk:American Jews/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Recent Infobox Changes

My recent reverts are not about the choice of people that have been made. It is that the agreed way to do this is to discuss the proposed changes first and then after community consensus, make the changes. That has not happened. To be sure, I would certainly argue that if we were going to include a famous Jewish physicist, Albert Einstein is head and shoulders above Feynman (and Albert Einstein award winner and a person who constantly tried to disassociate himself from anything Jewish, religiously or culturally). I have no problem myself with the removal of Stein, although having controversial subjects is reasonable. The Infobox and article is not "American Jews that Jews are Proud Of". That said, Stein is certainly such an extreme example, that I agree with her removal. Replace her with Golda Meir, who has been on these pages in the past. I do not necessarily have a problem with most of the other changes, but my point is discuss first, change later. I would have reverted the changes even if you have put my children there! There needs to be a good reason to remove people. It is not a popularity contest and just because an editor placed them there before, and someplace along the way this proper community rule was not used to replace, is not a good enough reason to return the person. Please, let's discuss the changes first. I will restore the page to its prior position, and the editor(s) can make his/her recommendations, and we can then come to consensus. I've started by agreeing that Stein should be removed, but not Goldman and we replace Stein with Meir, plus keep Einstein.Sposer (talk) 15:04, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Regardless of the proposed changes, we need discussion first. The previous state was that every couple of weeks someone would come along and insert his own "favorite" American Jews. The current set has been arrived at through a long series of thoughtful negotiations, and comprises a reasonable cross-section - a mix of professions, men and women, religions and non-religious, straight and gay, native-born and immigrant. American Jews are all of these things, and arbitrary changes to the box upsets a delicate balance. The only way the box will change is through more thoughtful discussion and consensus building. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:29, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

The longstanding version (which included Feynman) was replaced with the current set, for which there is a lot of discussion, but certainly no consensus (apart from for Soloveitchik). Many of the selections in the current set are ill-advised and controversial (you've managed to include a figure who agitated for revolutionary murder, and another who vigorously supported Hitler). My variation attempted to keep the suggestions of principle that were made on here (i.e. gender balance, straight and gay, variety, BLP, and a religious figure). Two of them (Gershwin and Von Neumann) had a consensus in the Ashkenazi page discussions, which Jayjg will remember from a few years ago, as he was involved. Before I intervened and started editing the Ashkenazi photobox, it included Kissinger, Trotsky, Emma Goldman (I may be misremembering) and Karl Marx.

But to return to a negotiation. First of all having Emma Goldman and Gertrude Stein in this list is ill-advised and disrespectful. I would certainly suggest Gerty Cori as a replacement for Emma Goldman (she was the first American woman to win a Nobel Prize in science). I would add that Golda Meir is not a good choice, since she only spent a small portion of her life in America, and clearly is far more an Israeli than an American. If we need another woman I would suggest Lauren Bacall or Gertrude B. Elion. I also think that Gershwin is unarguably more notable than Stephen Samuel Wise (given that we are including Rabbi Soloveitchik). Finally, I would not include Kissinger (although he is obviously notable).

I also disagree with Spose's contention that the list cannot take into account "American Jews that Jews are Proud Of" - on the contrary, it's obvious that the latter is a useful criterion since it indicates figures who are (i) notable, (ii) will not be offensive (i.e. we don't include Al Capone in the Italian American infobox), and have (iii) an importance in American Jewish culture.Avaya1 (talk) 23:58, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I would be in favor of restoring Richard Feynman to our Infobox. That he was nonobservant and even ambivalent is completely irrelevant. He is Jew of high stature which seems to be our main criteria for inclusion. He expressed ambivalence about attributing his accomplishments, such as winning the Nobel prize, to his being a Jew. That is actually a perfectly defensible and logical position for him to have taken. Rather than that being used as a reason to exclude him from this Infobox, that should be viewed as an element that recommends him for inclusion. Bus stop (talk) 01:11, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I think the infobox should stay as it is. Avaya1 has not followed due process, he has made several arguments which I think are superficial, and I don't think he has provided a good reason to change the infobox.

1. He asserts there was a previous consensus, and behaves as though that fact gives him the right to reinstate an arbitrary subset of figures from that consensus, selected by him, removing an arbitrary subset of figures, selected by him. I disagree with this mindset.

2. He does so making an edit summary that refers only to Feynman, but his edits include several other changes.

3. In his talk page comments, he does not feel the need to address the arguments that were made when the (most recent) consensus was formed, finding it more convenient to label Stein an "anti-semite" and others "controversial".

4. He also refers to Marx and some others whom I don't remember even being suggested for the infobox. Maybe he could explain these further.

My advice to Avaya is to cool down, stop reverting, and then suggest his proposed changes on this talk page, one by one, starting with those most likely to meet agreement. Zargulon (talk) 02:04, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Zargulon, I've stopped reverting - I am simply continuing the discussion. Please address the actual choices. As for referring to Marx, et al, please read my post more carefully. I'm talking about the discussions we had on the Ashkenazi infobox a few years ago. We had far longer discussions, and one of things that came out of it was a consensus not to include overly controversial figures, when equally notable, but less offensive ones, are available.Avaya1 (talk) 17:12, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

On Feynman, if we are going to have one phycisist, the greatest ever, and the single best known Jew is probably Einstein. To remove him is a "shonda". Meir grew up here, but I do not have a strong need for her to be added. Stein does not belong. Goldman less of a reason to remove IMO. But being controversial or negative, if it is at least representative is reasonable. Stein is not at all representative. Goldman is a stretch, but better than Stein. Do not remember if there are any sports figures, but if not, Sandy Koufax or Mark Spitz are probably the two most notable Jewish American athletes (I remember Hank Greenberg being there are one time, but Koufax and Spitz are prob more notable.)Sposer (talk)

Sposer - it is fine to discuss individuals, but at this moment my feeling is that it is more important to recognize and respect the amount of work that went into getting a version that none of the many participating editors was reverting (whatever their misgivings - I certainly had mine). Zargulon (talk) 13:40, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Zargulon I recognise that there is a long discussion on here (which I unfortunately missed out on). The issue is not the fact you had a long discussion, but the quality of the result. I understand Jayj's point that we will have to decide on a decent final selection, as we did for the Ashkenazi box. But the current set is not that (and from reading the discussion, most of the choices appear to be yours - and some of your choices included Bobby Fischer). I agree with Sposer's point about choosing Einstein as our physicist because he is the most notable. My point about Feynman is that he is a lot more representative of American Jewish culture (and Einstein of German Jewish culture), and that there is no rule that we can't include more than one physicist (the German people infobox includes 4 philosophers). A large number of the choices in the current set don't make sense on an individual basis (for example, including mid-level figures like Arthur Miller - but not including Gershwin!). There's no reason to include Emma Goldman (you were the only person who supported her). I understand that you wanted women, but why would you have (violent revolutionary) Emma Goldman and the (Hitlerite) Gertrude Stein (who's notable more for her social life, than her writing), but not Gerty Cori, who was the first American woman to win a Nobel Prize in science? Avaya1 (talk) 17:37, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Zargulon- I don't disagree with you there. However, Avayal does deserve a response to his suggested changes. My main issue with what he did was not the content so much as he did not follow protocol. If Avayal seeks some consensus past what we had already, it is worth making an attempt, but it must come the base of what was there, which is where I think we stand now.Sposer (talk) 17:08, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

OK, I agree that we have established a way to proceed and it is time to respond to Avaya's comments.. I thank him for engaging on the talk page.

1. It is strange that Avaya thinks that "most of the choices were mine". That is not a reasonable interpretation of the recorded discussion. I didn't choose or even suggest any of the rabbis, and my preference to remove Einstein, Bob Dylan and Betty Friedan was not followed in the final consensus. I did not try to include Bobby Fisher and I have never been in favour of including him, but even if I had been, that would demonstrate even more strongly how absurd it is to suggest that "most of the choices were mine", since he was not in fact included.

2. Avaya states that I was the only one in favour of Gertrude Stein and Emma Goldman. But that disingenuously implies that everyone else was against them, which there is no evidence for; even Sposer didn't object at the time, and there is no evidence that anyone except for Sposer and Avaya have a problem with Goldman or Stein.

3. We can go into Stein if you like - I certainly don't think she is normally regarded as an anti-semite, there is no evidence that she hated Jews nor incited against Jews - and she is not known for her unorthodox but for being a creative giant. That said, I am rather disturbed by Avaya's statement that Stein is not "representative", not because of his animus against Stein, but because of what it suggests about his attitude to the infobox.. see next.

4. I feel that the infobox should present 16 people who are representative as a group of American Jews as a group. That means, the correct question to ask when switching someone is "Will the resulting group be more representative", not, as Avaya seems to think, "is the individual representative". The individuals have to be American and they have to be Jewish, but the aim in the infobox is not to select the sixteen most famous, least controversial, most admired American Jews. Rather it is to represent American Jews as a group. Jayjg has expressed similar sentiments (I hope I'm not misinterpreting him). I would find it difficult to continue this discussion without at least agreeing this as a ground rule. Zargulon (talk) 18:05, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Zargulon—are most American Jews known beyond their family, friends and community? The aim of the pictures in the Infobox is not to "represent American Jews as a group." I think you are leaving out the "fame" or "renown" factor. Bus stop (talk) 18:48, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

In reply to 3. Stein is certainly not "known for being a creative giant". She is famous (and I went to school in France) for her role as a wealthy Parisian salonnière (an important role in French culture, but not a particularly impressive one). She hosted many famous figures, and she had an influence on the prose-style of one of them (Hemingway), but - extracted from her social function - she has little independent merit (nobody would read her writing, if it wasn't to find out more about her friends, who included such pleasant men as Bernard Faÿ). She might also have a readership amongst American professors of 'gender studies', or some similar field. Given the subsequent history of the French Jews who didn't have her wealth, fascist views and social connections, I find her inclusion pretty offensive. And I think that (anti-American agitator) Emma Goldman would be considered similarly offensive by many Americans (including President Mckinley).

In reply to 4. If you want to claim that Gertrude Stein, Emma Goldman, or (for that matter) Henry Kissinger are representative of American Jews as a group, then feel free - but your claim is not going to hold much water. I have met many American Jews, and none of would be fairly represented by any of those figures. The issue here is clearly that representativeness is not the criterion that you are using (and at any rate a number of other criteria are equally important). Avaya1 (talk) 18:52, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

For what it's worth, Emma Goldman was not anti-American and she fairly represents me. She may be the best known figure of the American Jewish left. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:10, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

"She may be the best known figure of the American Jewish left". That accolade, I'm pretty sure, goes to Noam Chomsky, who at least hasn't, as far as I'm aware, celebrated the assassination of any US Presidents. Read here Avaya1 (talk) 20:03, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I have no interest in debating the relative fame of Goldman and Chomsky, which is why I said she "may be" the best known. If you would like to know more about Goldman, Czolgosz, and McKinley, you could read our featured article about her. A pretty basic reading of the essay to which you link would show that she didn't celebrate McKinley's assassination. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:24, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

A pretty basic reading of the essay shows that she does, in her characteristically pompous and rhetorical way, celebrate the assassination.

"... but daring just the same, and I cannot help but bow in reverent silence before the power of such a soul, that has broken the narrow walls of its prison, and has taken a daring leap into the unknown."

Now of course editors will have different political views. Given that your name is Malik Shabazz, I assume that you are political. My point is that, given a choice of equally notable individuals, I would rather not select an ideologue who is offensive to a proportion of the readership, regardless of whether that 'offense' is justifiable or not. If there is a set of equally notable figures available to choose from, I would rather choose the less divisive members of that set ceteris paribus. And I would rather avoid Kissinger and Ayn Rand for the same reasons. In this instance, since we have a certain selection of women to choose from, I would prefer to choose Gerty Cori. And equally I would prefer Gershwin to Kissinger. Also, I want to point out that we already have Betty Friedan in there. If there is a consensus here that we need more than one political radical, then I will nominate Noam Chomsky as the second one. Avaya1 (talk) 21:13, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I repeat to Avaya (he claimed to reply to this but actually did not), does he agree that the correct question to ask when switching someone is "Will the resulting group be more representative", not, as he seems to think, "is the individual representative". Zargulon (talk) 21:54, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I hope he will

:: Assuming a normal distribution (likely since we are talking about a population of a lot more than 6 million, over the period covered by the article), and a sample of 16 photos to represent them, choosing more representative figures in each individual case will generally increase the representativeness of the group (and it would also imply that we can exclude anyone more than 2σ from the mean - or rather that that population group can be represented by a bit more than half a photo). However, I understand and agree with your actual point, which is that we should ensure to some degree a mix of gender and profession (or stratification). But that is not the only criterion, and it certainly doesn't support some of the choices made so far.Avaya1 (talk) 22:11, 19 March 2012

Good, we are getting somewhere. Although I don't share your views on Gertrude Stein and Emma Goldman, I wouldnt't claim that they are somehow the most representative individuals of American Jews - that would be a silly claim for me to make about anyone, and it would also miss the point, that you seem to agree on at least in part, that the infobox should aim for diversity. I agree with you, and have stated before, that this diversity should not come at any cost. I disagree with you about whether Stein and Goldman constitute an unacceptable cost for the diversity they impart to the list as regards politics, art, gender and sexual orientation. I am nonetheless completely ready to entertain your suggestions for changes to the list which maintain the level of diversity imparted by Stein and Goldman. I think you will find it difficult to do that however.. it took us a while. Zargulon (talk) 22:26, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I agree that representativeness does favour us selecting more women. I also agree that we should represent people of varied sexual orientation. But given that the percentage of the American population who identify as either homosexual or bisexual is 4%, and we have 16 photoboxes - then the diversity criterion implies that significantly less than one of the photoboxes needs to include a figure identifying as either homosexual or bisexual. And currently we have three such figures. So the LGBT population is being over-represented, and representativeness therefore surely favours reducing the current number? Avaya1 (talk) 22:44, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I disagree with your presumption that representation should be "proportional", and your statistic of 4%, of dubious provenance and quoted without spread, is irrelevant since neither Bernstein, nor Stein, nor many people of their sexual orientation "identify" as being homosexual nor bisexual. I don't actually know who the third person you are referring to is but I'd be interested since it might affect my perception of what can be done to the list while maintaining diversity. Zargulon (talk) 22:56, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Your claim that representativeness shouldn't be proportional is a contradiction in terms (a sample is only representative to the extent that it matches its population, that's the meaning of the term 'representative'). You are correct that two (not three) of the people in the current set seem to be homosexual/bisexual. As for identifying their sexual orientation - if they don't identify that way, we can't generally use it as a criteria for their inclusion on wiki. As for the numbers, one photobox is easily representing the population (each photobox is 6.25%). The proportion of of LGBT people in the US appears to be well within that figure. Read the most recent review of the literature. I agree that we should represent the population, which means that we should make sure at least one photobox has a person of LGBT orientation. Avaya1 (talk) 01:25, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I am not claiming that representation (not 'representativeness') shouldn't be proportional, and it wouldn't be a contradiction in terms if I were claiming that, and your percentage is not a valid basis for limiting the number of homosexual/bisexual (not 'LGBT') figures, but all these issues are irrelevant compared to your most serious error - that only "self-identification" can make one homosexual, bisexual or anything else - this is not only untrue in real life (which makes your statistic irrelevant) but it is untrue on wikipedia, where self-identification is just one of many possible types of reliable source for sexual preference and a whole host of other characteristics.. just look at all the people on the Feynman talk page claiming Feynman shouldn't be categorized as Jewish. Self-identification takes on unique importance on WP when the person concerned is alive due to BLP, but that is not an issue here. Zargulon (talk) 09:02, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Even if you take the highest definition for the size of the LGBT population, which means counting anyone who has any same-sex encounters (although the Williams Institute recommends against that definition), the recent reviews of the literature suggest that the population is around 8%, which is still much closer to one photobox than two. I agree with you that we should represent people with different orientations, but that only suggests that we need to include one photobox to satisfy this criterion. As for your claim that the representativeness of the sample doesn't have to be proportional - you can say that if you want, but the concept then loses its validity ("disproportional representativeness"?).

Anyway, I think we're going off topic. I propose that we replace Emma Goldman with Gerty Cori. My argument for this swap this is that (i) we currently have two female, left-wing, feminist, political writers (Betty Friedan and Emma Goldman) - I think that one is enough to be representative; (ii) we currently don't have any female scientists; (iii) we currently don't have any female Nobel prize winners; (iii) we currently don't have any female first-generation immigrants to the US; (iv) given the choice between equally notable figures, I would give more weight to one who doesn't (whether arguably or not) justify/celebrate the assassination of a president - since I imagine much of our readership would share this preference; and (v) if there is a consensus that we need another radical figure, I would nominate Chomsky as more notable.Avaya1 (talk) 16:25, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I am sympathetic to including Gerty Cori, but not to replace Emma Goldman. I would instead replace, in this order of preference, Albert Einstein, Bob Dylan, Steven Spielberg, Arthur Miller, one of the rabbis. Reasoning:

1. They are male, so replacing them with Cori would help the gender balance

2. Einstein is borderline not-primarily-American

3. The list is showbiz-heavy and Dylan is the weakest link among them

4. Closely followed by Spielberg

5. Followed (not-so-closely) by Miller

6. Maybe three rabbis would be enough although I think it will be hyper-difficult to choose which denomination to offend by removing their rabbi. Zargulon (talk) 16:46, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't think rabbis should be included because most American Jews are not observant. If a rabbi is to be included I think it should be (of the three presently included) Stephen Samuel Wise as he is from the liberal end of the spectrum of observance. Bus stop (talk) 17:58, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Except for being a woman, Goldman adds nothing in terms of variety: we currently have two female, left-wing, feminist, political writers (Betty Friedan and Emma Goldman) - I think that one is enough to be representative. And by replacing Goldman with Cori, we don't make the gender balance worse than it currently is.

As for Spielberg, Einstein, Dylan and Miller. Aside from Miller, each of them are leaders in their profession, and have contributed an enormous amount to American and world culture (the same can't be said of Goldman - how many people read her writings?). Her best selling book on amazon is ranked #89,240 and her most famous work is #272,277. By comparison, Ayn Rand's books are all in the top 500. Moreover, outside of America, few have ever heard of Goldman - she hasn't had an international impact, whereas even the least notable figure you suggest, Arthur Miller, has his work staged in all the European capitals.Avaya1 (talk) 22:54, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Then maybe you (Avaya) and I, at least, could agree on replacing Arthur Miller with Gerty Cori. Lets hear some other opinions though, people have heard plenty from us. Zargulon (talk) 23:08, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I would support that swap. I would then propose that we swap Emma Goldman for Ayn Rand, since in that case at least we'll have female, radical, political writers, representing both sides of the spectrum. And Rand, while maybe not an appealing figure, is extremely popular outside the universities. Compared to Goldman, she also has the benefit of being less liable to encourage anti-semitism (not that that's a difficult task, compared to Goldman), since she didn't condone the assassination of presidents and was never deported for anti-American activities. Avaya1 (talk) 03:14, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Introducing Ayn Rand

I am completely in favour of introducing Ayn Rand but I don't think she should replace Emma Goldman. I think she should replace a man. What are you feelings about our current crop of men.. Zargulon (talk) 18:38, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I think Rand should replace Goldman, because not all American Jews are liberals, marxists, socialists, anarchists and bolsheviks. In fact, someone like Ayn Rand represents more the current ideas of the Jewry and the best values of the American people. Fortunately Communism was defeated long time ago and the red flag isn't waving any more, so exalting people like Emma Goldman is a little bit anachronistic, don't you think?--AndresHerutJaim (talk) 19:41, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Andres makes a valid point. In her life-time, Goldman had notoriety rather fame or achievements. She's only known about because she became fashionable for radical academics, for a short time in the 1970s. I recommend reading some of her essays. She celebrated, or at least certainly justified, the assassination of an American president, before making friends with the assassin, who had claimed to be inspired by her. She was subsequently deported from the country for engaging in anti-American activities. She didn't make any original contributions to political theory - she is not a political philosopher. Her writing is journalism and political activism - if we include radical political figures, we should at least include political theorists, like Nozick or perhaps Chomsky.Avaya1 (talk) 00:17, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Then why shouldn't Rand replace, say, Bob Dylan instead? Zargulon (talk) 19:44, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Because Bob Dylan is cool. We need cool Jews, proud of their identity and patriots.--AndresHerutJaim (talk) 19:48, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Lol. Zargulon (talk) 19:52, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I would say the names of Orthodox rabbis should be removed. A rabbi such as Menachem Mendel Schneerson is not a typical American Jew. Ditto for Joseph B. Soloveitchik. These names should be replaced by the names of typical secular American Jews. Bus stop (talk) 20:32, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Either Emma Goldman or Betty Friedan are clearly the correct choice to be replaced, since, like Rand, they are both radical female political writers. It really will not be representative to have three radical female political ideologues (especially since we're sacrificing spaces for far more famous figures, like Gershwin and Von Neumann). I'm introducing Rand because it is simply more balanced to have two radical female political writers - one right wing, one left wing - rather than to have two radical female ideologues who are both on the left. But having three of them is simply OTT. For example, we currently have no mathematicians, even though that's one of the spheres in which American Jews have made the biggest contributions. We also have no philosophers, even though there are a number of very famous American Jewish philosophers. Avaya1 (talk) 00:06, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Please, Avaya. Friedan was a liberal, not a radical. Rand is as unacceptable to me as Goldman is to you. Her chief accomplishment is writing long books that nobody reads.

@Bus stop, while I agree that a rabbi isn't a "typical" Jew, neither is a celebrity. Why should we exclude people whose fame comes from their religious endeavors and include only secular Jews? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:27, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

(1.) For 1963, Friedan was a radical. The fact that the revolution she supported succeeded, and has subsequently become mainstream doesn't prevent this. If her revolution had succeeded, then Emma Goldman's views would have become mainstream (exactly the same ideas were boringly mainstream during the paris commune, and across europe in 1848). (2.) I personally don't like Ayn Rand. However to claim that nobody reads her books is nonsense. They regularly reach the amazon best-sellers list. They are some of the best selling books in the world. To have two, less famous, less popular female radicals from the left, but to exclude any from the right, is simply an incorrect decision, regardless of our preferences.Avaya1 (talk) 17:21, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

As for the Rabbis, I thought there was only one Orthodox, one Conservative and one Reform Rabbi, which is reasonable. Schneerson is famous world wide and led an international organization that has outreach all over the world. I have a far bigger problem with Gertrude Stein than Emma Goldman. While the infobox should not represent "Good Jews" or "Jews I like", having a person that seemed to be a Hitler admirer is so non-representative as to be ridiculous. Goldman was at least somewhat representative of a small but vocal minority of Americans and Jews at that time. Malik is right, Friedan is a liberal, not a radical, but if rand was a radical, I think we have room for one, not two and Stein does not belong in any way, shape or form.Sposer (talk) 10:17, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

The left-wing, radical minority, of American Jews would be far more effectively and accurately represented by Chomsky. It makes no sense that he's not there and Goldman is, especially since this article mainly focuses on the current community. Zargulon put both these figures in without any prior consensus, and without any voting. We only have a consensus to be representative and to try to get some degree of gender balance. Avaya1 (talk) 18:28, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

No doubt that Chomsky is an overall better choice for left wing radical, but they are also going for at least some gender balance. Wonder if we can find a good right-wing reactionary American Jew?Sposer (talk) 18:34, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I would suggest Chomsky to represent the left, and Ayn Rand to represent the right. If we want objective criteria, the worldwide book sales massively support these choices. After we put them in, I would suggest that we look at the gender balance issue separately. For the gender balance issue, for example, we currently have no actors or actresses (even though Hollywood is one of the most central parts of American Jewish history), so I would suggest that we choose a female for our actor (for example, someone like Lauren Bacall). Avaya1 (talk) 18:46, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Milton Friedman? Henry Kissinger? Since Reagan, there aren't many Jewish commies nor anti-freedom intelectuals with significant popular support in America. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.92.4.72 (talk) 00:12, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

The greatest American actors are Jewish and Italian, no doubt about it.--AndresHerutJaim (talk) 19:15, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Malik Shabazz—celebrities represent the aspirations of the typical American Jew more so than do Orthodox rabbis. Bus stop (talk) 14:42, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

No historian would deny that Hollywood is one of the main contributions American Jews have made to American and world culture. It makes no sense to include an obscure and insignificant, although perhaps historically interesting, writer like Gertrude Stein, and yet not have single actor for one of the photoboxes, when the latter reach a demographic of hundreds of millions of people. This is generally a project wide consensus for photoboxes. Avaya1 (talk) 21:28, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree, Adam Sandler is the Messiah of our time. By the way, we have no Jewish sportsmen in the infobox, I suggest adding the Bear Jew.--AndresHerutJaim (talk) 19:12, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't think we are going to reach any consensus on this soon. But if it's any consolation to Andres, the baseball player Hank Greenberg is already in the infobox. Zargulon (talk) 19:45, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I second AndresHerutJaim's endorsement of Adam Sandler for placement in the Infobox. I think he represents secular Jews who I think represent a sizable portion of American Jewry. Bus stop (talk) 12:36, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Introducing Adam Sandler

Bus Stop and Andres want Adam Sandler to be introduced to the infobox. Who do they suggest taking out? What are other people's thoughts on how this would contribute to how the set of people in the infobox would collectively represent American Jews? Zargulon (talk) 12:59, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't think Adam Sandler is necessary, but I do support the inclusion of an actor. But I think we should include an actor in a way that improves the gender balance. Also so far. Two of us want Chomsky (me + Spose). And two of us want Ayn Rand (me + Zargulon - but Malik opposes her). Avaya1 (talk) 14:15, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

To Avaya, as far as female actors go, Streisand, whom we have already, is at least partially known as an actress. For what it's worth, I'm completely unfamiliar with Adam Sandler; I understand Bus Stop's feeling that 3 rabbis is too many, but I'd remind him that the other 13 people are not particularly associated with religion, and some of them are strongly secular or anti-religious. Zargulon (talk) 15:14, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Woody Allen and Jerry Seinfield I would have to characterize as quintessential American Jews. Also Jerry Lewis, Groucho Marx, and Al Jolson. There are probably many more. I think some of you are over-thinking this. It occurs to me that "celebrity" is very important. Part of the definition of celebrity is being well-known. We haven't established what the criteria for inclusion are here. But if we are overlooking popularity as a yardstick then we are imposing criteria of our own creation. That would seem to me to be a contrivance. I have to admit that I resisted this idea when first presented (tacitly) by others. But I think what we should be looking for are "household names". Ubiquitousness, or as close to it as we can find, should be a criteria in choosing these people—how well-known are they? Bus stop (talk) 16:11, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

If what Bus Stop were saying was true, it would certainly bother me. But we have discussed quite extensively the criteria for forming this list, and the strategy that met with some agreement was that the final group we choose should reflect the diversity of American Jews as a group. Subject to this strategy, there does not need to be any criterion at all on the inclusion of individiuals except that they are verifiably American and Jewish, and that they verifiably represent the sub-category(ies) of American Jews which their inclusion in the list is designed to illustrate (which generally entails being well known, but does notinvolve ranking people by their well-known-ness). I don't know if Bus Stop would care to express an opinion on this strategy. Zargulon (talk) 16:20, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Zargulon—how do you propose that we "reflect the diversity of American Jews as a group" when there are only 16 picture slots? Bus stop (talk) 16:36, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Bus stop, first let's deal with the political figures, and then we can vote on the actors. Of course, we are currently over-representing certain groups, for example, political figures. We definitely don't need more than 2 photoboxes of political writers (which is 12.5% of the group). To be representative, I suggest that we choose one from the left, and one from the right. Me and Spose support using Chomsky for the left, and me and Zargulon support choosing Ayn Rand for the right. So currently there are two votes for each. What do the rest of you think about these choices? Avaya1 (talk) 20:50, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I request Avaya to please stay on topic for the thread. If he wants to continue to discuss what he calls "political figures", he should feel free to continue contributing to the Ayn Rand thread above, or start a new thread if he feels that one was deficient in some way. But there is no reason we can't have a discussion about actors at the same time, particularly since it seems clear at least to me that, with the current selection of editors, a consensus on replacing a specific current infobox person with Ayn Rand, or with Chomsky for that matter, will not be achieved. That doesn't preclude it being revisited by a different selection of editors in future. Zargulon (talk) 00:25, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree. We should include Chomsky and Ayn Rand representing left-wing and right-wing respectively. The most important thing to me is to divide equitably the picture slots by profession: American Jewish actors, politicians (both left and right alike), sportsmen, writers, scientists, rabbis, singers and military men. I think this is even more important than gender issue.--AndresHerutJaim (talk) 02:08, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

I second Andre's suggestion. Avaya1 (talk) 14:10, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

By the way, why don't we have any Jewish military personnel in the infobox? American Jewry has a rich and interesting history in US armed forces, dating since the Civil War and even the Revolutionary War. In World War II Jews enlisted in the armed forces more than any other ethnic group in America (proportionally to the population). I suggest adding Jeffrey Feinstein, a recognized flying ace in Vietnam.--AndresHerutJaim (talk) 02:24, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

There is no for consensus that. I hope that answers your question.. Zargulon (talk) 08:19, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Zargulon there are now three votes for Chomsky and Ayn Rand, which is far more than your original choices, which had no more than one vote for them (your own) and three votes against them (me + Sposer + Andre). I will be adding them in a few days. Avaya1 (talk) 14:09, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Avaya, leaving aside your fantasy vote tallies, whom do you propose to remove, and where is the consensus for those removals? Or do you propose to add two extra people without removing anyone, and if so, where is the consensus for that? Reasonable questions, I hope you would agree. Zargulon (talk) 14:19, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

They're not "fantasy vote tallies". There was no consensus for your original additions. I will remove only figures that have less of a consensus for inclusion than the figures with whom they will be replaced, taking the need for representativeness (of profession, political views, gender etc) into account. The whole discussion is on here and it's not difficult to count. Avaya1 (talk) 14:27, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Avaya - please answer my questions specifically, it will save a lot of time. Zargulon (talk) 14:31, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Zargulon you added a number of your personal choices (Arthur Miller, Getrude Stein, Emma Goldman, Leonard Bernstein etc) to the photobox in February, with no consensus for those individual choices from any other editor. Now that other editors object to your personal choices, or propose more popular ones - you say "there's no consensus for their removal". There is currently - unless other editors join in - more of a consensus for their exclusion than their inclusion. This can be counted. Avaya1 (talk) 14:44, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Avaya, I didn't say there was "no consensus for removal", how can I, when you won't reveal whom you intend to remove? Why is it such a big secret? Zargulon (talk) 14:53, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Currently (I hope some other editors weigh in), three of us think that Chomsky is the best representative for a left-wing writer. And three of us (if we include you) support Ayn Rand for a right-wing writer. Those would allow us to replace Gertrude Stein, Emma Goldman or Betty Friedan. And then, I think, we can focus on the gender balance. Looking at the original photobox, I also don't understand why we removed Dianne Feinstein (I guess we had too many political figures?).Avaya1 (talk) 17:15, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Avaya, fantasy vote tallies aside, if you were really serious about either gender or political balance you would be willing to let Rand replace either Kissinger or Milton Friedman, and you would not want to replace Goldman with Chomsky. Aside from Chomsky's gender, the chief problem with both Chomsky and Feinstein is Recentism - there have been Jews in the USA for roughly 400 years, and Goldman's place in history is established, whether she is remembered for good or bad. Chomsky and Feinstein may well be forgotten remarkably soon. Zargulon (talk) 17:38, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Zargulon the content of this article is predominantly about the current community, and therefore having more recent people in the infobox is a point in their favour. Chomsky is far more notable and famous than Gertrude Stein, Betty Friedan, and Emma Goldman. He's also been a leading figure since the 1950s (that is not recentism). From reading your comments, it is evident that you don't know much about some of the people who you added ("Stein is a creative giant"). Also, the vote tallies are not a "fantasy". You added people without any consensus. Those people have less editors in favour of their inclusion than against it. Other figures have more editors in favour of their inclusion than against it. Therefore they should be included. You can count on the page.

As for Kissinger and Friedman. I would vote in favour of including Friedman (unless you can think of a comparably influential economist). I would vote in favour of replacing Kissinger. Avaya1 (talk) 22:30, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Then it sounds like, as far as you and I are concerned, there is another possibility on the table - Rand replaces Kissinger. Malik Shabazz was against Rand but it's not clear he'd object if she replaced Kissinger. Again I will leave it out there for a couple of days so that others can comment. Zargulon (talk) 23:12, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

The reason I wouldn't vote for that is that then we would end up with too many political writers. But I agree it's a good idea to wait some days now to see what other editors say. Some of them only check in about once a week. Avaya1 (talk) 00:20, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Kissinger should stay. We have no politicians in the infobox and Kissinger was one of the most influential.--AndresHerutJaim (talk) 00:41, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Let's all be clear here: if we introduce a new picture to the infobox, there will have to be a specific discussion and !vote about that specific individual, and who that person replaces. That goes for Rand, Sandler, or any other individual. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:52, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Bearing in mind that not a single one of the present choices were voted in. And thus can be replaced once we have the 16 voted figures sorted out.Avaya1 (talk) 17:56, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I would suggest Milton Glaser. Bus stop (talk) 14:14, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Voting on my proposals for political photoboxes (please comment)

Please comment/vote on each point separately.

1. I propose that we have no more than two photoboxes for political writers (thus representing 12.5% of the photobox population). Having more than two is massively over-representing this demographic, especially when we have so many notable figures, from other professions, to choose from (for example, we are currently squeezing out figures as notable as Gershwin).

Oppose As we agreed, the infobox is not primarily intended to reflect demographics, so the premise is bogus. Zargulon (talk) 18:25, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

2. I propose that, in order to be representative, we should have one figure from the left and one figure from the right.

Oppose we should strive for overall balance. Demanding political balance among political writers at the expense of every other type of balance across the whole infobox reveals an unhealthy fixation. Zargulon (talk) 18:25, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

3. I suggest Ayn Rand for our right-wing political writer, and Chomsky for our left-wing writer. Avaya1 (talk) 18:01, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Oppose please review Jayjg's post above as well as our lengthy discussion. Please be specific about whom you wish to remove, and introduce your suggested swaps one at a time, starting with the least controversial first. I think your choice of questions is disingenuous and not what Jayjg meant, but feel free to exhaust yourself. Zargulon (talk) 18:25, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Zargulon, the (many) figures you've added to the photobox have not yet been voted on. The new photobox should only include figures who have more editors voting in favour of them than against them. Any figure we want to keep or introduce should get voted on. That's surely the only way we will get a consensus photobox. Avaya1 (talk) 18:43, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Avaya - you and I disagree on whether or not there was consensus regarding the current version. You think there was not consensus. I think there was consensus, and although no consensus is final, I think that your real unspoken gripe is that you weren't around when that consensus was formed. This may be regrettable but it doesn't make the consensus invalid - that would mean that all of the other consensus in the whole of Wikipedia which you didn't personally participate in would also be invalid. I am sure you aren't that much of a megalomaniac. In any case it doesn't matter - if you want to change any of the figures currently in the infobox, all you would have to do is propose a vote, being specific about both whom you wish to add and whom you wish to remove, and introducing your suggested swaps one at a time, starting with the least controversial first. Why do you find that so difficult? Zargulon (talk) 18:53, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

But there's no consensus yet. The majority of editors want to change the current set. As for voting - every figure should be voted for, and we also should vote on the proportions of different figures to include - which is what I'm trying to do. This follows your point that we should aim to choose the best group, as well as specific individuals. Avaya1 (talk) 19:05, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

We should vote on specific individual swaps, accepting or rejecting them according to their effect on the group. Proportions are not suitable matters for a vote, they should be tackled in a discussion. If you disagree, feel free to continue trying.. I think you will see what I mean very quickly. Zargulon (talk) 19:24, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Is it possible to consider Levi Strauss?[1] He is arguably important judging by the popularity of jeans. I think this photograph is not bad. Bus stop (talk) 17:43, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Remove Stein, add Chomsky. Remove Emma Goldman, add Ayn Rand. On Levi Strauss, I like that idea a lot. He started an iconic American brand and is also Jewish. Bus Stop, whom do you suggest we remove? Sposer (talk) 18:58, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Again, please propose one name at a time, and with each name, propose which name it should replace. Then we'll discuss and decide. Long lists of possible changes will lead nowhere. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:09, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Seriously?I gave two names with the recommended replacement and I asked for a proposal on the third. Lecture misplaced. I repeat: (1) Replace Stein with Chomsky, yea or nay; (2) Replace Goldman with Rand, yea or nay?; (3) Busstop needs full proposal for Levi Strauss. I think the editors are capable of voting on two replacement recommendations.Sposer (talk) 12:03, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Let's find out.

Stein with Chomsky:

Oppose. Stein which representation of categories and gender balance. Chomsky neither replaces these nor provides any of his own, and is recent. Zargulon (talk) 18:06, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Stein and Chomsky are both left wing. Stein is completely un-representative(pro-Hitler Jew). Although I have no love for Chomsky, he is noteable, famous for politics and linquistics. We can fix gender balance through scientists/entertainers or even a female reform "Rabbi".

I simply disagree with *all* of the above statements. I think we have already hashed this out in the discussion.

Oppose. Replacing Stein with Chomsky would further unbalance the genders. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:47, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Jayjg we can easily improve the gender balance with a second swap. Please concentrate on the figures, because gender balance we can do next. Avaya1 (talk) 16:04, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Goldman with Rand:

Avaya, if that is really the case, then we should be considering that "second swap" first. Please review what I said about proposing the least controversial changes first. Zargulon (talk) 16:38, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Oppose. It upsets political balance , does not improve gender balance, there is no other good reason for it. Zargulon (talk) 18:06, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

How does it upset balance. We have no right-wingers without Goldman. Orthodox Rabbis may be conservative, but they are not politicians.Sposer (talk) 20:04, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand the statement "We have no right-wingers without Goldman". Are you sure this is what you meant to say? Zargulon (talk) 21:00, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, no right wingers if we do not replace Goldman with Rand.Sposer (talk) 01:11, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. My impression is that Kissinger and Milton Friedman are both right wing figures who were significant in Republican governments.

It is beyond silly to worry about politically correct so-called balances, but if consensus is that we must force that kind of stuff here, although we never hashed it all out: (1) Replace Stein with Rand (more political balance), (2) Keep Goldman, (3) Find a representative Female "rabbi" from the reform or reconstructionist movements, while keeping the Conservative and Orthodox Rabbis. Having Stein here is a slap in the pace to Holocaust survivors.Sposer (talk) 01:11, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I'd be ok with replacing Stein with Rand. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:15, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I would oppose Stein for Rand. We spent a long time (you were here!) trying to find a female rabbi, and couldn't find anyone satisfying the minimum notability requisite. If you have any new candidates, please mention them, I for one would like to know. As for Stein, what facts are your opinion of Stein based on? Can you point to a single source which suggests that anything Stein said or did was "offensive to holocaust survivors", or where Stein's writing has been boycotted (as, e.g. the music was of Richard Wagner, who who didn't know anything about Hitler), or where she was even criticised on those grounds? I would really like to see it. Also what exactly do you mean when you say she "supported Hitler"? Zargulon (talk) 07:02, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Also I don't understand why you suggest that replacing Stein with Rand would improve political balance. Granted that neither of them are politicians, I have always thought of both of them as basically on the right of the political spectrum if anything. Zargulon (talk)

I messed up on political spectrum, but Rand is supposed to be right wing. Stein's support of Hitler for a peace prize is controversial, but see here . To even say it jokingly or sarcastically is offensive. Also see the Wiki article itself. As for rabbis, I do not know any, was just making a suggestion to help the gender balance.Sposer (talk) 10:13, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Ok, thanks - at least I understand what you are referring to. I think to say that something is offensive to holocaust survivors you should at least be able to come up with an instance where a actual holocaust survivor has actually said that they found it offensive. Also remember Stein was herself a holocaust survivor - she didn't suffer in the same way as those who survived the camps, but her life was certainly in acute danger over a prolonged period in occupied France. Taken together with the fact that Stein's characteristic and famous mode of expression was to say things that do not make sense, I would encourage you to reconsider that particular objection. Anyway it may well be that there is a consensus to remove Stein, but I would encourage you to find a man to replace Rand with instead. Zargulon (talk) 10:35, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

We currently have a 3-1 vote to replace Stein with Rand. We have a 2-2 vote on Chomsky for Goldman. Can Bus Stop please vote for or against the second swap.Avaya1 (talk) 15:58, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Avaya - no-one has made you a ballot secretary, and this is a !vote, not a vote, so please stop constructing fantasy vote tallies based on your subjective and arbitrary interpretations of people's contributions. Also please review WP:CANVAS. Zargulon (talk) 16:38, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Zargulon this is not a 'fantasy vote' tally. This is an official voting section that you've been doing your best to clutter up and disrupt. You only have one vote like everyone else, we don't need to hear you repeat your opinions over and over again. You've put in your vote, now we need to see what the other editors vote for. Avaya1 (talk) 18:29, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Far from 'doing my best to disrupt' anything, I am the only person who has actually made a !vote. Please make more accurate talk page statements. Zargulon (talk) 00:31, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Avaya, this is not a vote at all, and without consensus no changes can be made - see also WP:PNSD. I see no consensus so far. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:38, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Agree 100% with this. Consensus must be reached through discussion, not just empty voting. Hamsterlopithecus (talk) 17:31, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Can we consider Emma Lazarus? She is female—the underrepresented gender in the Infobox. She wrote the famous lines:

"Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door."

Those lines are of course inscribed on the pedestal of Statue of Liberty, one of the entities most symbolic of the USA. Bus stop (talk) 20:55, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that Lazarus is essentially known solely for those lines - an achievement of sorts, no doubt, but not nearly on the level of the other people in the infobox. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:38, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

You mean we want more impressive achievement? Those lines sum up the difference between the United States and the European colonial powers in the nineteenth century. Whereas several European powers in the nineteenth century vied with one another to subjugate third world people, the United States had a policy somewhat in contrast—that of welcoming immigration of the poorest peoples of the world to American shores. That policy has changed somewhat in recent years, but Emma Lazarus' sentiments remain extremely relevant to ongoing discussion in the area of immigration policy—hardly a topic on the back burner. Furthermore this article is not titled Famous American Jews or Extremely accomplished American Jews or American Jews who had a huge impact on something. Some interesting information on her found here. Bus stop (talk) 11:38, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Bus Stop can please vote on the current two swaps, yes or no, and then we can vote on Lazarus in a separate section. Avaya1 (talk) 15:42, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I am sympathetic to including Lazarus - her notability is specifically related to Americanness, and also she seems to be Sephardi which is an underrepresented category. I see where Jayjg is coming from though. Anyway, whom did you intend to replace..? Zargulon (talk) 19:33, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Bus Stop, we've been through this before - for three years now, in fact. Despite your unique views on this, infoboxes on ethnic groups include the pictures of the most notable members of that group. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:48, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I think we are disagreeing over what "notable" means in this instance. Emma Lazarus obviously exhibits some degree of notability, and I'm heartened by Zargulon's endorsement pointing out that "her notability is specifically related to Americanness". I've got 2 more to suggest: Albert Sabin and Jonas Salk, both involved in developing a vaccine against polio. These people are notable but perhaps not notable enough. I don't know that I agree that those included in infoboxes have to be "the most notable members of that group." Obviously they have to have an article devoted to them. But midrange notability should be considered too, and might make for a more interesting infobox. Bus stop (talk) 11:46, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Salk and Sabin are certainly notable, but I don't understand what specific swap you are suggesting. Zargulon (talk) 12:15, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I am not suggesting a specific swap. I'm just presenting ideas for consideration. Bus stop (talk) 12:37, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Consider them considered! Zargulon (talk) 13:21, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Investment Banking

Did the German Jews who founded investment banks have any connection with the German-Jewish banking families (like Rotschild), or was it complete coincidence that they started investment banks as well? Would it be common for members of the prominent banking families to emigrate to the states and found branches of their banks there? Also, if Jews settled mostly in the South, than why were there more Jewish Union solders than Confederates?--24.62.109.225 (talk) 14:28, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Foreign languages in lede

I don't understand the rationale for any foreign language names for American Jews in the first sentence. American Jews don't originate in one country like, say, Italian Americans, so there's no good reason for including languages that most American Jews don't speak because they're not our "native languages". (I question the fetishization of foreign words in the lede of many articles, but according to User:Yerevanci they're common in articles about ethnic groups.)

Anyway, I welcome discussion. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:13, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

What do you mean by saying according to User:Yerevanci they're common in articles about ethnic groups? I didn't made that up. Look at the articles about Italian Americans, Polish Americans, Armenian Americans, Ukrainian Americans, Greek Americans, Hungarian American, Croatian Americans and many others.

Although, I do agree that American Jews do not originate from one country, BUT Yiddish, Hebrew and Russian are the most common languages among Jewish Americans.

Also, if you think that overwhelming majority of American Jews speak English, then take a look at 17 million Italian Americans, from which only 1 million speak their native tongue. Or Poles. Out of 10 million Polish ethnics in the US, only 667,414 speak Polish. Therefore, your argument is invalid. --Yerevanci (talk) 03:40, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

What I meant by "according to User:Yerevanci" was, "Yerevanci says this is so, I'm going to take it on trust and I'm not going to verify it." No need to take offense.

And your facts only reiterate what I wrote about the fetish of unnecessarily including foreign names in English-language articles. It doesn't make any sense. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:55, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I see no justification for translating "American Jews" into any other language. There isn't one language that is associated with Jews. Bus stop (talk) 04:50, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Zargulon (talk) 10:19, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, OK then. --Yerevanci (talk) 12:58, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Jews and Whiteness

Although there is clearly valid sourcing, with the exception of truly Black Jews, the issue was never of White or not-White. I suspect the "whiteness" argument that is espoused there, is at best, fringe. I do not know enough about the subject to outright revert. The first quote seems more or less correct (having grown up at that time in Brooklyn). It was about being accepted or not and the discrimination they faced, albeit nothing like African Americans, which I gather is what this book refers to. The second quote is correct to the degree that Jews were and still are a minority religion, but most Jews are, and always were of the Caucasian race and consider themselves as such. They may consider themselves a minority, but never from a racial perspective. I would suggest changing the title of the section to something like "Jews and Identifying as a Minority". Sposer (talk) 01:46, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Sposer. Thanks for your comment. I was the user who made these changes. I did so only after having seen a number of sources pointing in the same direction: to the idea that Jewish "whiteness" was consolidated only after WWII, and that before then Jews were often a 'minority' to themselves and to others. A simple web search will reveal many sources for this claim (and none or few contrary). I think the quotes you're referring to are the ones included in the citations... I put those there so that people could have a look at the argument of the work being referenced without having to go find a book. However, I don't think the encyclopedia has to endorse those particulars. I would agree that "Ocean Hill–Brownsville provoked Jews to identify as white" would be too specific of a claim here. And, actually, looking at the section now, I think even "opposition to blackness" may be a little strong of a claim. Shalom, groupuscule (talk) 05:27, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Groupuscule - My main point is the "whiteness" issue. You can be a minority, and still be white. Almost all Jews are white (although that will probably change over time). Jews are a minority religion everywhere except Israel, but that does not make them non-white (not that there is any importance to be white or not). My issue is equating "whiteness" to "minorityness" (sounds like a Stephen Colbert "Word of the Day"). I think the points are interesting and important with regard to being treated or self-identification as a minority, but the "whiteness" part seems to be off base. Sposer (talk) 19:07, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Groupuscule - I think the whiteness stuff does not belong in *this* article. Aside from appearing to be a fringe topic, and the word "whiteness" sounding like a pretentious neologism to all but the initiated, the paragraph relates exclusively to the question of how, *subjectively*, a category American Jews see themselves, whereas the presumed content of this article is what can be said *objectively* about American Jews, and it is way too long already. I therefore think you should move it to Jewish identity, racial identity, American Jewish identity, racial politics in the USA or some similar more appropriate article. Zargulon (talk) 21:13, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, I can totally see what you mean about the word "whiteness". Use of that word really isn't essential. I read your two comments and I see problems in two opposite directions. On the one hand, "all Jews are white." On the other hand, we want the article to be about "objective" and not "subjective" Jewish identity. Objectively, however, very few people have white skin. The label "white" in the United States is therefore social and not literal. The line between white and non-white is extremely blurry and has changed throughout history. Irish immigrants, for example, were in a similar position. White Americans simply did not call this group "white". It's not just that they were treated as a racial or ethnic minority. They also literally did not get to be part of the "white" club for several generations (interracial marriage is also a part of this story).

I had these facts in mind when I made the changes I did. I feel that it is not truthful or encyclopedic to call one group of American Jews "white" without describing the contingent nature of this "white" status. Zargulon, I see that you've just deleted the section. I'd like to put at least some of it back, because I think that this question of "white" status is absolutely essential to the history of Jews in America, but I'm particularly glad that you've left the "American Jews and race" header. groupuscule (talk) 20:24, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I should probably have removed "American Jews and race". I left it because the racial aspect of Judaism, i.e. the Jewish race, is historically very important. But I am beginning to see that "race" was being used in the narrow context of skin colour so I am not sure it should remain here. I am fine with having a section about black Jews and their achievements, they are an objectively well-defined subgroup of Jews, and while I might not have chosen to deal with them separately in a section, it at least reads naturally. By contrast, when the reader comes to the section about whether Jews in general see themselves as white, they just stop and ask "why is this question important"? Perhaps if you answered this here, it could give us a framework of how to integrate some of that material in the article. Zargulon (talk) 23:35, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Notable Jewish Buddhists

Perhaps teachers like Joseph Goldstein and Lama Surya Das should be mentioned? Is this the wrong venue yo bring this up? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.226.55.243 (talk) 07:04, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Number

Why does the infobox say there are 6.5 million Jews? This directly conflicts with the 5,275,000 figure given in the infobox for the article Jews.

Plus, according to the Jewish Virtual Library, 6.5 million is apparently not the true number, because it's not the "core Jewish population". Even though they give a figure of 6,588,065 as the Jewish population of the USA, they explain that not all of them are actually Jews:

• Jewish population here is defined as the Enlarged Jewish Population.

The enlarged population includes:

(A) Core Population - Those Jews who were either born to Jewish parents or converted to Judaism. (B) Other Persons of Jewish Parentage - Jewish fathers or grandfathers; non-Jews with Jewish backgrounds (C) Respective non-Jewish households members

The Core Jewish Population of the United States in 2010 was 5,275,000.

Link: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/US-Israel/usjewpop.html

This, in addition to Sergio DellaPergola's study on the world Jewish population, which is used in the article infobox for Jews. Also, the source given for the 6.5 million figure in the infobox admits that there is at least some overcount because of the number of Jews that live in more than one state.

So the actual number of American Jews is 5,275,000.--RM (Be my friend) 23:22, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I just cut

"The Woodstock Festival is its successor. "

out of the Folk Music section because, at least as an unsourced statement, was too much of a stretch for me. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 01:53, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Eastern European Jews changed to Eastern Ashkenazim

I think it would be a good idea if I changed East European Jews to Eastern Ashkenazim, as that might help distinguish between Jews in Germany and Jews in Eastern Europe. Also, I feel that the article doesn't make enough of a distinction between Jewish communities (who were largely nomadic and of non-European origin) and the indigenous people living in Central/Eastern Europe. 69.248.98.23 (talk) 10:30, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand why you think that. Germany is considered Western Europe so the distincion is completely clear. What are you talking about when you say that Jewish communities were largely nomadic? And "Jewish" vs. "Indigenous"? That is a loaded and misleading distinction and I hope it won't appear in the article in those terms. Zargulon (talk) 11:58, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

You don't really think Jewish communities in Central and Eastern Europe and their surrounding populations are one and the same, do you? Because they're not, and what I mean by nomadic is that they had been repeatedly expelled from their host countries many times over, and thus never had any real permanent presence in any European country. How is the distinction loaded and misleading? 69.248.98.23 (talk) 14:10, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

You don't really think that the population of Eastern Europe was entirely homogeneous and sedentary except for Jews, do you? Or that Jews "never had any real permanent presence in any European country"? If you do think these things, I think you should put your opinions to the test at the page on the History of the Jews in Europe, rather than here on the American Jews page. But prepare to be taught some facts by the editors there. Zargulon (talk) 14:40, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

@69.248.98.23 You need to read your talk page – you're on the verge of being banned for the edit warring on this page. The article is very careful (I believe) to say Ashkenazim where it means to include all Ashkenazim, Eastern Europeans when it means to include only those, German Jews when it means to include only those, etc. You can't just come along and change the meaning of these sentences without discussing each of them individually here and citing the reasons and sources for your desired change.

I don't want to revert again, but I believe someone should revert to this version by Rjensen at 2012-10-09T09:35:38‎ so we don't lose track of what the article originally said. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 04:44, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Noted. I will leave it alone for now. My intention was not to cause trouble. I will leave a note in the talk page before I edit any further. The information from the Rjensen version of the article is intact with the current version, so I believe it should stay the same.69.248.98.23 (talk) 14:05, 11 October 2012 (UTC)69.248.98.23 (talk) 13:44, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

It seems you're back at it. You leave us no choice. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 04:12, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Minor terminology edits

There have been edits of terminology again that may be confusing the meaning of the article:

1. East European Jews → Jews [who migrated] from Eastern Europe
2. East European Jews → Jews in Eastern Europe
3. German Jews → Jews in Germany
4. European → Ashkenazi

Some of the first case appear correct, in that they seem to refer to people in America.

The second and third cases, in context from the Holocaust section:

During the World War II period, the American Jewish community was bitterly and deeply divided and was unable to form a common front. Most Jews in Eastern Europe favored Zionism, which saw a return to their historical homeland as the only solution; this had the effect of diverting attention from the horrors in Nazi Germany. Jews in Germany were alarmed at the Nazis but were disdainful of Zionism. Proponents of a Jewish state and Jewish army agitated, but many leaders were so fearful of an antisemitic backlash inside the U.S. that they demanded that all Jews keep a low public profile. One important development was the sudden conversion of most (but not all) Jewish leaders to Zionism late in the war. The Holocaust was largely ignored by American media as it was happening.

Given the lead sentence of the paragraph, and the article's subject, I believe the paragraph in its entirety, is meant to discuss the views of Jews in America. The original language for the second case was "Eastern Europeans" and, for the third case, "German Jews". The second case was edited some time ago to "Jews in Eastern Europe", which I believe was incorrect, and should have been "Jews from Eastern Europe". This change in meaning prompted another user to recently edit "German Jews" to "Jews in Germany" instead of "Jews from Germany".

The fourth case, in context:

Yiddish was once spoken as the primary language by most of the several million Ashkenazi Jews who immigrated to the United States.

"European" was changed to "Ashkenazi" here. I don't think it's correct to change the meaning of the sentence to include only Ashkenazim – some other European Jews spoke Yiddish as well, no?

As has happened before (with an IP editor), these creeping small changes can have the effect of disrupting the coherence and accuracy of an article. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 10:05, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Now I see what you mean. I will revert my changes.Evildoer187 (talk) 00:51, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Jews and "ostensibly religious"

I reverted the change, because I think the editor is thinking of the term "religious" as "observant", which is a common usage. However, the way I read this section, it merely is stating that Jews' religion is Judaism. They may not be observant, and they may not even believe in G-d, but they are members of the Jewish faith. Judiasm is a religion and Jews are therefore a religious group (although not necessarily observant). Sposer (talk) 17:26, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Many Jews are secular, but still considered part of the Jewish people. Jews are an ethnic group, but Judaism is a religion.Evildoer187 (talk) 17:33, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

That was kind of my point (although I 100% the ethnic group thing since not all Jews are ethnically Jewish). But, I see you reverted anyway. There is lots of controversy on the ethnic group thing, since many Jews are ethnically Semitic, as are other groups. Plus, using the ethnicity definition brings up bad memories around WWII. Not arguing ethnicityhere (done it before and lost). But the point is as you said -- the verbiage that was there was assuming "religious" meant observant, which though it can, that is not really the meaning here. Sposer (talk) 19:24, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Related ethnic groups

I have added Lebanese, Jordanian, Syrian, and Palestinian people to the related ethnic groups category. They are all Semitic, rooted in the original peoples of the Levant, and are closely related genetically. All of this is factual, and I don't see why anyone would think that it doesn't belong. Discuss.Evildoer187 (talk) 23:58, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

That you don't see why someone else might object may not be enough to carry the day. We'll see. I find it good to remember that I don't get to decide how other folks see things. You might consider trying that too.Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 00:56, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Because it's a political edit that really doesn't fit here, unless you're trying to bring American Jews to the whole Israeli-Arab conflict and how they are actually all related and thus Israel shouldn't be hated by these groups etc etc. That's how it seems and it doesn't belong here. The majority of AJ don't share praticular related history or culture to the Middle Eastern groups you added, I mean no more than other to American groups, So I think it should be left with "Related groups: Other Jewish groups" and that's it. Yuvn86 (talk) 11:57, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Given our earlier discussions, not only do I disagree, but much of your argument seems to be predicated on personal opinion itself. Nevertheless, I'll stand back and wait for other opinions.Evildoer187 (talk) 18:19, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I think we should just do away with the related ethnic groups section. What's the point if all it says is "other Jewish ethnic divisions"?Evildoer187 (talk) 19:57, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

When we are speaking in to terms of related ethnic groups, this relationship is usually genetic. As we know AJ are genetically related to this people, therefore I support Evildoer187 position on this subject.--Tritomex (talk) 11:52, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

True or not, the opinion of the editor(s) is irrelevant. Especially because this has a "hot-button" political aspect, it needs reliable sources to be cited, which will probably be well-scrutinized. Right? —[AlanM1(talk)]— 18:14, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

What kind of sources are you looking for? Genetic? Cultural? Historical?Evildoer187 (talk) 17:42, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

It should be something like the way such relationships are described in scholarly writing on the subject. I'm sure, in the relevant Wiki pages or their sources, something like a tree, showing various groups and how they're related, can be found.

However, that starts to drift outside the "general overview" nature of the article. Links to such information, with an accurate description of how American Jews are related to nearby members of the tree, would probably be best. Certainly, WP:RS, in this area in particular, need to "come with clean hands", be completely apolitical, and without an agenda. When talking about such things, you can expect Jews to be on high alert, since, throughout history, people attempting to categorize us haven't had the best of motives, so try to understand why people might have reservations about whatever you do. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 17:51, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Hebrew language translation of "American Jews" in the info box

There appears to be a disagreement about the inclusion of the Hebrew language in the info box. I personally support it. There is an Arabic translation of "Arab Americans" on the Arab American page, despite most being English speakers. I don't see why the same shouldn't be done here.Evildoer187 (talk) 17:36, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I support it as well, which is why I reverted Malik's original removal of it. Most American Jews (especially religious ones) speak enough Hebrew or Yiddish for it to be considered a common second language among the group. What's the harm in it being in the article? —[AlanM1(talk)]— 20:22, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

It would make more sense to have the title in Russian, because there are more Russian-speaking American Jews than Hebrew-speakers. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:15, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Do you have statistics for this?Evildoer187 (talk) 11:53, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Please look at the article and its sources. There are 223,000 Russian-speaking Jews in the New York metropolitan area alone[2] and 195,374 Hebrew-speakers across the US[3] — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:38, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I know this is unacceptable since it is third hand, but to help frame the discussion only, I would say that with the exception of the most Orthodox and Israeli immigrants, virtually zero American Jews understand Hebrew. Many can read the sounds, but know very few words. In fact, my former Rabbi gave a sermon about how the former President of Haiti (Aristide) gave a speech to United Synagogue of Judaism leaders and spoke in Hebrew and NOT ONE OF THE LAY leaders could understand a word he said. As Malik said, there are likely far more Russian speakers than Hebrew speakers. And, even if the Orthodox can speak Hebrew, they converse in Yiddish. Only Israeli immigrants would speak Hebrew, but I assume there are more Russian than Israeli Jews here (I don't know for sure). Regarding the point about Arab speakers, that is more akin to saying that Israelis speak Hebrew, not Jews. Further, Arabs are far more first generation in this country than Jews are and so are more likely to speak Arabic. Arabic is also their national language. Hebrew is the national language for Israel only. Sposer (talk) 02:34, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Jews are defined as a nation who trace their roots to Israel, so it's safe to say that Hebrew is the national language of the Jews. By the way, very few French Americans know French, and yet they still have a French translation of their name. Frankly, I don't think this is a very good argument for excluding the language here.Evildoer187 (talk) 11:53, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Using that logic, then we should add Aramaic as well. There is no "national language" of Jews. Even in Israel, over history, Jews have spoken Hebrew, Italian, Greek, Aramaic, etc. Israel's national language is mainly Hebrew, but Israel does not represent a majority of the world's Jews. And just because there is a DNA relationship to some percentage of the Jewish population, does not make Hebrew relevant in any way, shape or form. Few Jews speak Hebrew. Period.Sposer (talk) 13:01, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Huh? Almost half of the world's Jews reside in Israel.Evildoer187 (talk) 20:38, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

More like a third, but so what? Zargulon (talk) 02:44, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Safe or not, Hebrew is not the "national language of the Jews". It is not even the sole official language of Israel. As for the French, see comment below, mutatis mutandis. Zargulon (talk) 12:42, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I have no idea why there is a Arabic translation of "Arab Americans", it sounds really stupid. But not as stupid as doing something stupid just because someone else is doing it. Zargulon (talk) 03:02, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Quite simply, it's the description of roughly half the world's Jewish population, as written in the language of at least half the world's Jewish population. What's wrong with it being in the article? —[AlanM1(talk)]— 21:23, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Why would either of those things be relevant, even if they were true (which they aren't)? This is English Wikipedia. Zargulon (talk) 23:00, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Why would we be showing the reader what the term "American" looks like expressed in Hebrew letters in this article? I fail to see what doing so would have to do with this article. This is a transliteration of "American". It is not a translation. Bus stop (talk) 04:01, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Religion Box

You are not Jewish if you are a Christian or a Moslem or any other religion. These religions conflict with Judaism. The only argument for including other religions is by viewing Jews ONLY from an ethnic perspective, which, putting it kindly, is pure garbage. Any person born Jewish, who practices Christianity, is not a Jew (except according to a Rabbi). If you are born Christian, and convert to Judaism, you are not Christian, you are Jewish and you are an American Jew (if you are an American). You are not excluded from being a Jew, because you are not ethnically Jewish. Arabs are more ethnically Jewish than most Jews are, since most Jews are as European as they are Semitic. Jews practice one religion. Judaism. Sposer (talk) 16:26, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

By the way, I just want to make it clear that I understand the distinction between the idea of the Jewish ethnicity and Judaism. However, outside of in Nazi Germany, where the Germans considered non-Jews as Jews because a grandparent was born a Jew regardless of what you practiced, in general, identification as a Jew is based on the religion you follow, or at least relate to. So, if you do not believe in G-d, but are born Jewish, you are a Jew. But, if you decide that you believe in Islam, Buddhism or Christianity, you may be ethnically a Jew, but you are really not identifying as Jewish, nor would anybody else. Likewise, you could have been born an Asian Buddhist, but if you become an American citizen and convert to Judaism, you are an American Jew, regardless of your ethnicity. For that reason, the one overarching similarity of Jews is that they are observant or non-observant members of Judaism, regardless of their ethnicity. For this reason, it make no sense to include other religions (or non-religious belief systems) in the religion section of the info box). If anything, the bigger issue is people that consider themselves religiously Jewish, but are not considered Jewish by all flavors of Judaism (i.e., Reform Jews whose father is Jewish only, and who identify as Jews).Sposer (talk) 17:12, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree and that's the reason I removed this edit by Evildoer187. However there's no reason to bring Nazi Germany as an example... it's insulting to many people. Also Semitic is a language group, not genetics.Yuvn86 (talk) 17:42, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

As a Jew who lost family to the Nazis, I abhor the whole ethnic Jew thing, especially since you do not need to be ethnically a Jew to be a Jew. That is why I made that comment. It is usually anti-Semites that insist on the ethnic definition. That is what I am generally railing against. I certainy dd not want to insult anybody. I am no expert on the origin of Semite, but the Wiki article states that although the definition originally was linguistic, it is now also considered ethnic. Then again, Wiki is far from perfect! :-) Sposer (talk) 18:00, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Sposer's example was completely appropriate. I don't see how it could possibly be insulting to anyone who wasn't trying very hard to be insulted. I'm not sure it's factually correct though - the Israeli law of return is (last time I checked) also based on having one Jewish grandparent. However I basically agree that it is silly to say that Jewish Americans e.g. practise Christianity. There may be some people who practise other religions who self-identify as Jews, and that should be taken seriously. But that category of people is not significant enough for a place in the infobox. Zargulon (talk) 01:49, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Thankd Zargulon. Converted Jews can also enter Israel (although I do not think Reform Conversions are accepted and the issue of Conservative/Masorti I think has gone back and forth a few times, but not sure on that).Sposer (talk) 01:53, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

This article is about ethnic Jews, and a good portion of the people in the infobox are secular/atheist. Heinrich Heine and several others converted to Christianity, but they are still recognized by Wikipedia as Jews. You may personally believe that it's just a religion, but Wikipedia recognizes that it is also a distinct ethnic group.Evildoer187 (talk) 20:25, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

This article is about Jews, and Judaism is the religion of the Jews. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:40, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

But not the only religion. You can still be a Jew in the ethnic sense and follow other religions.Evildoer187 (talk) 15:11, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

That is an utter falsehood. If you follow Halachic rules, and Orthodox Rabbi will say that it makes no difference what you say you are, you are a Jew. If you follow a more liberal version of Judaism, it still is either/or, but if you consider yourself Christian, you are a Christian and you are not a Jew. And, as far as atheism or agnosticism, that is not a religion. And, while some may follow Buddhist precepts, they follow the philosophy and precepts, but if they consider themselves full fleged Buddhists, they cannot have the same belief system and would no longer be Jewish in any religious sense.

Basically, being ethnically Jewish is neither a necessary nor a sole requirement to be an American Jew. You can be an American Jew without be ethnically Jewish. And you cannot be an American Jew if you practice another religion, even if you are ethnically Jewish.Sposer (talk) 17:54, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

That's great, but this page is about ethnic Jews, not the religion.Evildoer187 (talk) 16:24, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

It would be misleading to add Islam and Christianity to the Infobox as we see taking place in this edit. One reason would be that Judaism does not endorse Islam or Christianity. Furthermore there is a long list of religions of the world. Some Jews may explore/immerse themselves in other religions of the world. I hardly think we would list all of the other religions of the world in the Infobox for American Jews. Bus stop (talk) 17:08, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Then we should remove every secular Jew on this page, of which there are several. Jews are an ethnic group, and Judaism is a religion. This article is about the former.Evildoer187 (talk) 16:24, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

UNINDENTING: That makes no sense. First of all, nowhere does it say that the article is just about "ethnic" Jews. The lede defines an American Jew as a member of the Jewish (Judaism) faith or somebody that is ethnically a Jew. This is too broad in my opinion, but is what other editors have agreed upon. And, that covers everybody in the info box. There is absolutely nothing in here that says that if you consider yourself agnostic that you are not a Jew. Likewise, if you follow Eastern Philosophy, you can still follow the Jewish religion. There seems to be very little about Buddhism, if you are not praying to idols or other humans, that is unacceptable to Judaism from what I read of the Buddhism article. Being a secular Jew does not mean you are not a Jew. The only people that I would not consider to be valid would be those that activity adhere to another faith. Buddhism in that sense does not qualify, and secular/agnostic/atheist does not either. They are not faiths. I would not include, for example, Madeline Albright. Although born Jewish, she did not know she was and considers hereself a Christian. Similarly, Bobby Fisher does not belong either as by the end of his life, he was outright antagonistic to Jews and Judaism.Einstein was not religious, but he considered himself a Jew by all biographies that I've seen. Bob Dylan left and came back. bottom line is that the pictures are 100% aligned with the article content.Sposer (talk) 17:46, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

What I'm trying to say is that Wikipedia does not factor in Halakhic or any other religious laws when considering who counts as a Jewish American. If you are Jewish by descent, you are a Jew. If either your father, or mother, or both were Jewish, then you are a Jew. If you converted to Judaism, you are a Jew. Likewise, if you are an ethnic Jew who adopted another religion, you are still a Jew because that is still your ethnicity. You are right that it isn't just about ethnic Jews, but you appear to be looking at the article from a purely religious perspective. There's much more to it than that, and that's why Heinrich Heine and other converts to Christianity are nevertheless categorized as Jews on here.Evildoer187 (talk) 22:43, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I understand your point, but that argument does not fly. By that logic, there are probably about a billion Jews in the world, although they do not know it. Is Madeline Albright a Jew? She was born a Jew and was hidden and 100% does not consider herself a Jew, nor does anybody else. Ethnicity does not trump belief of the person when they are actively non-Jewish. So, for things like Islam and Christianity, you cannot be both. For Buddhism, that is a philosophy and I could keep Kosher, and the Sabbath and be a Buddhist based on a belief system, but my religion would not be Buddhism. The consensus on the page, and I am sure if you asked the public, would not consider converts to Christianity Jews. Half of Spain would be Jewish otherwise.Sposer (talk) 19:53, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Sposer, the Jews around the world who might not know they are Jewish are not relevant in this discussion. This article is about American Jews. While many American Jews religiously identify with Judaism - perhaps even most of them, not all of them do. In fact, a significant amount of American people who identify as Jewish consider themselves either Atheist or Agnostic. Including plenty of notable American Jews, so it would be relevant to add. At least Atheism and Agnosticism, because the amount of American Jews who identify as such is significant. Lullaby69 (talk) 04:36, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Lullaby69—you say "In fact, a significant amount of American people who identify as Jewish consider themselves either Atheist or Agnostic. Including plenty of notable American Jews, so it would be relevant to add. At least Atheism and Agnosticism, because the amount of American Jews who identify as such is significant."[4]

It is irrelevant whether a Jew is atheistic or not, and it is irrelevant whether a Jew is agnostic or not. Being a Jew has nothing to do with what one believes:

"It is important to note that being a Jew has nothing to do with what you believe or what you do. A person born to non-Jewish parents who has not undergone the formal process of conversion but who believes everything that Orthodox Jews believe and observes every law and custom of Judaism is still a non-Jew, even in the eyes of the most liberal movements of Judaism, and a person born to a Jewish mother who is an atheist and never practices the Jewish religion is still a Jew, even in the eyes of the ultra-Orthodox."[5] Bus stop (talk) 14:26, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Religious laws shouldn't even factor into this discussion, because this is Wikipedia, not Talmudic study. There have been countless Jews throughout history who have converted to other religions, but are still recognized as Jews because it is an ethnicity and nationality.Evildoer187 (talk) 07:19, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

You keep missing the point. First of all, the box says religion. Not belief system of people that are racially Jewish. Second of all, I've repeated about 1,000 times, neither Atheism nor Agnosticism are religions. I have known Atheistic Jews who still would only marry a Jew, and be willing to be buried in a Jewish cemetery. Also, the article is on American Jews, not people who are ethnically Jewish (who are basically Middle Eastern anyway) that happen to live in America. Religion is absolutely a requirement for this article.Sposer (talk) 11:10, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't think there are many American Jews who convert to Christianity or Islam to begin with. Second, Evildoer, there are no "facts" in this: your opinion may be that an American Jew who converts to Christianity is still Jewish - the majority of American Jews will probably think otherwise, that he is not Jewish anymore. Just because the same convert may have an ancient Israelite chromosome doesn't make him anything, it's just your opinion. Yuvn86 (talk) 11:36, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

You don't think? What was it you just said about inserting personal opinions? I am also fairly certain that you have no idea what the majority of American Jews would think. Not that it matters in this context, especially without RS.

As for "facts": The Jews (Hebrew: יְהוּדִים ISO 259-3 Yehudim Israeli pronunciation [jehuˈdim]), also known as the Jewish people, are a nation and an ethnoreligious group, originating in the Israelites or Hebrews of the Ancient Near East. The Jewish ethnicity, nationality, and religion are strongly interrelated, as Judaism is the traditional faith of the Jewish nation.[12][13][14] Converts to Judaism, whose status as Jews within the Jewish ethnos is equal to those born into it, have been absorbed into the Jewish people throughout the millennia.

That is how Wikipedia defines the Jewish people, so it is natural that we extend it to all of its sub-groups as well. Until WP limits the scope of the definition to religious ones, then we should treat it as an ethnic group.Evildoer187 (talk) 13:27, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia says nothing about anything. This is editorial consensus. We are talking about simple facts. The box says "Religion". Atheism and Agnosticism are not religions. The definition points out that there is an intersection between the religion and the ethnicity, but you can be an American Jew without being an ethnic Jew. You can also be ethnically Jewish without being a Jew. But this article IS NOT TITLED ETHNICALLY AMERICAN JEWS. This article is titled American Jews. So you need to either be Jewish by birth and have not converted out of the religion, or Jewish by conversion. PERIOD. There is no other logical answer that comes without opinion or bias. Using the ethnic only definition, in my mind, is awful and anti-semitic and it is a slap in the face to those that have converted. And to the European Jews, many of whom are "ethnically" more European than Jewish, so using an ethnocentric basis for this article is just plain wrong on nearly every level.Sposer (talk) 19:51, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Bus stop — What you said is in many cases true - many American Jews don't observe Judaism, and that's exactly why it's logical for the religion section to also include things other than Judaism. It is a section that should include religions that these people adhere to in significant amounts. I'm not sure if Christianity and Islam are very widespead among American Jews, but I know Atheism/Agnosticism is. It would make sense to add that into the religion section. I know some of you argue that Atheism/Agnosticism is not a religion, but I think we could add it considering the fact that it is added in the religion section of some other peoples, like for example the Czechs).

Sposer — you said "using the ethnic only definition, in my mind, is awful and anti-semitic and it is a slap in the face to those that have converted". Adding the Atheism/Agnosticism into the religion section does not equal using only the ethnic definition. There would still be Judaism in the section too, which of course includes converts as well. And like I said, because many American Jews identify as Atheist/Agnostic it would be misleading for the religion section to include Judaism only. Lullaby69 (talk) 20:56, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Lullaby69—a Jew is a person who either converted to Judaism or was born Jewish. Belief in God is irrelevant to whether a person is Jewish and belief in God is irrelevant to whether a person is an American Jew. Bus stop (talk) 22:19, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

You are not a Jew of any kind if you are another religion. As for Agnostic/Atheist, I would argue that it is wrong to be in the Czech box too on religion, since these are absence of religion. I don't edit there however and am not going to opine as to how or why that is the case. There is a difference though in that Czech is not a combination of ethnicity and religion. And you are a Jew, as Bus Stop says, unless you say you are not a Jew. There is already a section in the text that mentions that there is a high percentage of Jews that consider themselves atheist or agnostic, which is fine, but I still would argue against inclusion in the religion box. They are still Jews and members of the Jewish faith. These things are not mutually exclusive. And, if the person is the female half of an intermarriage, her children will be Jewish too. Reform Jews would consider this true of children of an agnostic male in an intermarriage.Sposer (talk) 22:49, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Bus stop — What you mentioned is the common definition/criteria of who is a Jew. But the religion section of this article is not meant as a criteria for who is Jewish. It is there simply to tell what religious/non-religious views are common among American Jews. Therefore I still suggest we add the Atheism/Agnosticism into the section.

Sposer — you said "You are not a Jew of any kind if you are another religion". That is false. It's not a fact but just your opinion and is therefore irrelevant to an objective discussion. I personally am born a Jew, never practiced Judaism, and I eventually converted to Islam. But as I was born culturally and ethnically a Jew, both my family and the local Jewish community see me as a Jew nonetheless, and I share this view as well. But I don't think the number of American Jews who observe Islamic or Christian faith is particularly significant, so for now I just suggest adding Atheism/Agnosticism. Lullaby69 (talk) 23:26, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Sheer nonsense. I have some Buddhist beliefs but because I don't follow Judaism, I'm not actually a Mizrahi Jew? You're going to have to accept that Jews are defined on here, to a large extent, by ethnicity and descent. Lullaby is absolutely right.Evildoer187 (talk) 03:35, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Islam is not a Jewish religion and Buddhism is not a Jewish religion, and atheism and agnosticism are not religions. Bus stop (talk) 05:06, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

You're not getting my point. Even though I have some arguably non-Jewish beliefs, it doesn't change the fact that I am a Mizrahi Jew. The only people who would believe this are people who think it's just a religion, and it's not.Evildoer187 (talk) 06:34, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I did not say that. Buddhism is a philosophy. I did not argue that you are not a Jew. Nor did I say that you are not a Jew if you have Agnostic nor Atheistic beliefs. There is nothing that says your are not. But Buddhism can be both religion and philosophy. If you "convert" to Buddhism, you are not a Jew, even if you are 100% Mizrahi. If you convert to any religion, you are not a Jew, no matter what your ethnic markers say. If, in theory, you were ex-communicated, you are not a Jew. Religion is a requirement, but being agnostic, buddhist, atheist are not religions in that sense and would not disqualify you. If you marry a non-Jew AND convert, you are not a Jew.10:46, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Are you arguing for this edit? Bus stop (talk) 07:12, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Where are the reliable sources that say Christianity and Islam are religions practiced by American Jews? See WP:BURDEN. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 13:41, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Please note that I do not want to denigrate what anybody thinks of themselves in anything I say. The point I have been making is that neither Ethnicity nor religious practice on its own is enough to consider somebody a Jew, or specifically, an American Jew. Lullaby69 mentions that he/she converted to Islam, but the local community considers Lullaby a Jew as does Lullaby. Although I find that surprising (from the Jewish community's perspective only), as Lullaby pointed out to me, that is all opinion (considering oneself a Jew). The bottom line is that there is no definition of an American Jew. Being ethnically a member of the Jewish race, is not the subject of this article. It is not Ethnically American Jews. To be an American Jew you must either be a convert to Judaism, or have been born into Judaism and not converted out, regardless of your belief in G-d. It is very simple. My last post on the subject. Is that my opinion? I assume so, but that is the consensus of the editors too.Sposer (talk) 12:56, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

The only thing that Wikipedia cares about is what reliable sources say on a subject. Malik has focused on what is most relevant here. Another point to be considered is WP:UNDUE. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:13, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Gerty Cori replacement

Its saied here that if any person born Jewish, who practices Christianity, is not a Jew. Then why the picture of Gerty Cori is in the articale as Famous American Jews. Gerty converted to Catholicism it's mean she is not jews any more the picture should be removed.. Jobas (talk) 16:53, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

That is a very good point. Anyone got a favourite female Jewish Scientist we can uncontroversially replace her with? Zargulon (talk) 16:23, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

How about Rosalyn Sussman Yalow? Bus stop (talk) 01:49, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

• • yes sound good idea i'm with replace cori picture with Rosalyn Sussman Yalow.Jobas (talk) 18:32, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure. Yalow is not very high profile, and her WP page does not give a lot of background information. She could have converted to Scientology and we wouldn't know about it. I'm ok with it for the moment but I hope we can find someone better than Yalow. Zargulon (talk) 18:39, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

• • What about Gertrude B. Elion???. Jobas (talk) 20:51, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, the same. But I think either Elion or Yalow could replace Cori temporarily while we think of someone else. Zargulon (talk) 20:59, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

• • ok good idea ... then can i replace the picture with Rosalyn Sussman Yalow, Is there any objection befor the replacing?.Jobas (talk) 22:44, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

No objection by me. But see how the picture looks in the infobox.. you might want to crop it so just her head is showing. Zargulon (talk) 00:00, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

• I founded a picture that consistent with the infobox.Done :).Jobas (talk) 01:00, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

The Pic is fine. Any chance you could put her in alphabetical order? (under 'Y' for Yalow I guess). Zargulon (talk) 02:18, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Oh sorry i wan't aware that the order of picture is by alphabetical. i will changed it.Jobas (talk) 16:27, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

This source indicates that Rosalyn Sussman Yalow is Jewish. Bus stop (talk) 20:13, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks for alphabetizing Jobas. Zargulon (talk) 21:07, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Images

A new editor is changing the images, I noticed there is a great big note which says "get consensus before changing these images" Would DannyCarter777 please get consensus for the changes he is making. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:27, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I put a brand new Picture with rich colors and more American Jews.

There's lots of Nobel Prizes, and famous Americans in there.( DannyCarter777 (talk) 17:24, 30 January 2013 (UTC) )

I want the population under the ethnic group though so if someone can please make that happen it will be great. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DannyCarter777 (talk • contribs) 16:46, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

You need to get consensus to change the images, please self revert. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:51, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

So I made a brand new picture. One that is more enriched first of all. One that features much more AJ's.

There's 30 in total.( DannyCarter777 (talk) 17:24, 30 January 2013 (UTC) )

Haym Salomon Uriah Levy Washington Bartlett Benjamin Cardozo Emma Lazarus Louis Brandeis ,J. Robert Oppenheimer,Sandy Kofax]] , Joel Engel, Richard Feynman]] 3rd row: Albert Einstein Lee Strasberg Bob Dylan , Gertrude Elion , Stanley Cohen 4th row: Bob Kahn Ralph Baer Scarlett Johansson Hedy Lamarr, Ralph Lauren 5th row: Steven Spielberg Ted Maiman Ruth Handler ,Michael Dell, Larry Page 6th row:Kat Dennings • Theodore Von Karman • Mark Zuckerberg • Levi Strauss• Cecil B. DeMille ( DannyCarter777 (talk) 17:24, 30 January 2013 (UTC) )

File:AMERICAN Jews picture Virtual Library.jpg

— Preceding unsigned comment added by DannyCarter777 (talk • contribs) 17:10, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

So that's the new picture

It's a little more compacted than the previous one but on the good side, there's colors and there's power. Lots of big names too. And I like it. ( DannyCarter777 (talk) 17:24, 30 January 2013 (UTC) )

When the consensus will be established and we're on the same page please put it in. Yeah -- I'm a new user. Thank you for being polite Dark Side man. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DannyCarter777 (talk • contribs) 17:15, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Hey Darkness Shines

Consensus from who? How many editors are involved here nowadays? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DannyCarter777 (talk • contribs) 17:20, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

The new image needs lots of work. Cant see much - need to tkae the time to make the images all the same size and not distorted. Not only that but there is no indication at File:AMERICAN Jews picture Virtual Library.jpg that the images used are not copyrighted. See File:Canadians of differnt ethnic backgrounds.JPG for how the image should be sizes wise (and clear) and attributions given (note how they are all the same shot - angel and size)Moxy (talk) 17:33, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

The new image is unacceptable in its current form. Too many pictures are distorted to fit. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:41, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I get what you mean guys. Signing out.DannyCarter777 (talk) 19:12, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

So here is the new edit. This time I paid close attention to the size and angles as suggested. I also enlarged it by at least 10-15 % to minimize prior distortions.

File:Picture of 30 known American Jews.jpg

Picture Of American Jews

— Preceding unsigned comment added by DannyCarter777 (talk • contribs) 10:14, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

The file was uploaded from commons as a free file. Every picture on it has been altered and been taken from public domain. Let me know your suggestions concerning this as well. DannyCarter777 (talk) 10:32, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Can i suggest Theodore Bachenheimer picture to be added to the image gallery.Surrey74 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:57, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Mondoweiss

See diff here. http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=American_Jews&diff=546139386&oldid=545470011

Mondoweiss is an independently run political blog, which often borders on antisemitism (http://mondoweiss.net/2011/07/my-response-to-dailykos-smear.html) and is, needless to say, controversial. We're going to need much better sources than this to support the inclusion of "American Jews tend to be better educated and earn more than Americans as a whole". Provide some statistics, studies, or something like that. Otherwise, that line will be deleted.Evildoer187 (talk) 19:35, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

That wasn't the only source [6]:

“ A new study by the renowned Pew public opinions institute reveals some good news regarding the Jewish community in America. US Jews tend to be more educated, long-lived and wealthier as well as more socially-conscious.

Jews in the US were at the second highest percentage of people over the age of 65 (22 percent) as well as of those holding post-graduate degrees (35 percent). They also made more money than the average US citizen (46 percent of Jews in the US make more than $100,000 a year), and more than half of them said they believe the US should continue to be involved in world affairs.

”

In fact, Mondoweiss was citing the same Pew study being referred to here.--Louiedog (talk) 19:56, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Then include that, and remove the link to Mondoweiss. I will review the study later to see if it accurately reflects the line in question. In the future, please don't use Mondoweiss as a source, unless they are directly involved (e.g. responding to criticisms of their work).Evildoer187 (talk) 21:22, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I never put either source in there. I was just pointing at that the fact was sourced, even removing the rather dubious source cited.--Louiedog (talk) 19:55, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Here are the refs you need.Moxy (talk) 20:00, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

• Martin Marger (11 February 2011). Race and Ethnic Relations: American and Global Perspectives. Cengage Learning. p. 316. ISBN 978-1-111-18638-8.
• Thomas Sowell (1981). Ethnic America: A History. Basic Books. p. 89. ISBN 978-0-7867-2315-7.
• Haskel Lookstein (1 December 1999). Were We Our Brother's Keeper?. Hartmore House. p. 22. ISBN 978-0-7592-4230-2. Retrieved 22 March 2013.

Thanks.Evildoer187 (talk) 21:22, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Good work, man.--Louiedog (talk) 19:55, 29 March 2013 (UTC)