Talk:American Jews

Changes to the infobox

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

Ron Perlman - Famous Jewish actor

Morgan Pressel - Famous Jewish golfer

Liev Schreiber - Famous Jewish actor

Adam Sandler - Very famous Jewish actor

Natalie Portman - Very famous Jewish actress

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

Yuri Foreman - Famous Jewish boxer

Jason Lezak - Famous Jewish swimmer

Noah Emmerich - Famous Jewish actor

Joe Lieberman - Very famous Jewish senator

Ben Stiller - Very famous Jewish actor

Rahm Emanuel - Famous Jewish White House Chief of Staff

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Feynman is definitely staying. He self-identifies as Jewish and American many times in his writings. He is extremely notable. And his personality and life is representative of American culture (far more than Einstein, for example). As for whoever added Emma Goldman, this is a very controversial choice and should be removed (we don't have Lenin in the Russian infobox). It's also a little bizarre to include Gertrude Stein, considering that she was an extreme anti-semite. Even Ayn Rand would be less controversial. Avaya1 (talk) 04:20, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Why no religious Jews ?

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

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

Isaac Asimov • Louis Brandeis • Bob Dylan

Albert Einstein • Dianne Feinstein • Betty Friedan

Richard Feynman • Hank Greenberg

Henry Kissinger • Steven Spielberg • Barbra Streisand

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

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

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

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

If you google for Chabbad You will get over 8 million hits. For the record I'm not the biggest fan of Chabbad, but they are a big part of american judiaism yisraeldov (talk) 12:59, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

A statistic that tells nothing. First off because you're establishing the notability of a branch of Judaism, which has nothing to do with the notability of an individual figure. It would be like me making the case for Feynman by showing how notable physics is. Second off, what are you comparing it against? https://www.google.com/search?q=Chabad#sclient=psy-ab&hl=en&source=hp&q=American+Judaism&psj=1&oq=American+Judaism&aq=f&aqi=g8g-v2&aql=&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=43627l52699l0l52828l19l16l0l1l1l0l212l1934l6.8.1l15l0&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.,cf.osb&fp=6b29ab0951e4b347&biw=1133&bih=684 "American Judaism" returns 42 million], Judaism returns 42 million, "menorah" returns 42 million, "kosher" returns 47 million. It doesn't follow that we designate a spot to someone notable in Jewish kashrut laws or menorah making.--Louiedog (talk) 13:14, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

On Schneerson, he is well known outside of Jewish circles. There have been books written on Chabad and specifically regarding him (see "The Rebbe's Army"). Articles on him in the WSJ and around the world. The horrible Mumbai attacks hit a Chabad center there, and Chabad and Schneerson are inextricably linked. He is a polarizing figure in the Jewish community and world reknowned amongst any significant religious leader, Jewish or not. Not sure how anyone would not be aware of him. He is, from a religious perspective, probably the most notable and widely known Jewish American. Controversial for sure (since many Chabad followers think he will be return as the Messiah). This increases his notability, like him and Chabad or not. By the way, I am not arguing for his inclusion or not. I personally rather include an obviously devout Jew that was also active in the secular world.Sposer (talk) 13:27, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

My comment below to Yisraeldov. I actually was unaware of him until this debate, but I was very aware of the Chabad movement. I had not made the connection that essentially is the creator of the modern Chabad movement. Consider my objections withdrawn.--Louiedog (talk) 15:51, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

My point was that you can't use a google search for a metric. The difference between your analogy is that Menoras and Kashrus is not attributed to any one person. The present Chabbad movement is attributed to the past Lubavitcher Rebbe. Also Chabad isn't a "branch" of Judaism, it is an implementation. When you searched for Feynman, how many of the results were about him personally and how many of the results were about his contributions to physics ? Again, my argument is more that the booth ends of the religious spectrum need to be represented, and currently it is very one-sided .yisraeldov (talk) 13:31, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Apologies for my ignorance. I did not make the connection. I didn't realize how much of the Chabad movement's prominence was due to Schneerson. I thought you were merely showing that the Chabad movement's notability implied we should include a Chabad figure. I didn't realize the Chabad movement today is essentially due to him. My objections are rescinded.--Louiedog (talk) 15:51, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

We are not here to debate your personal opinion of people, and yes, people who might not be generally liked should be included.yisraeldov (talk) 09:12, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I think the lack of any religious figures is an issue we should at least discuss. I see three possible approaches:

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

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

Adding one visibly religious jew I think would make for a more balanced info box ( if you must use the info box ). I mentioned the Chabad Rebbe because I think that chabbad has probably had the largest effect on the world wide religious jewish community. Although the others that I mentioned (Satmar Rav and Rav Moshe Feinshtien) are more characteristic of the american Religious Jewish Identity in contrast to the rest of the Religious Jewish world, [Chabad] is known world wide. Anding 4 religious would be an exaggeration of the religiosity of the US Jewish population. yisraeldov (talk) 09:12, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

i think one religiously looking american jew should be added. perhaps Abraham Joshua Heschel as being more 'neutral', though he did hang out at jts, i think he is best known for his philosophy and his writings, that many american jews still read and use. comments?

He isn't exactly a religious looking jew ( looks more like mark twain ). If you are looking for religious looking then you should go for the Satmar Rav, but I still think the Lubavitcher Rebbe is much more iconic. And he is more neutral that what ? Rav Moshe Feinstien was the posek hador, and was is almost universally accepted among practicing jews around the world. yisraeldov (talk) 11:15, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

ok, how about rav soloveitchik? Soosim (talk) 11:52, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Again, Moshe Fienshtien is much more universally accepted, and the Lubavitcher Rebbe is more iconic, I think that if we are trying balance out the info box, that is currently tilted extremely secular, we should use the most religious that we can find. If you put the Satmar Rav on one end and the rest of the info box on the other people will be able to interpolate the all of the other levels of religiosity. If we use one of your more moderate suggestions, people will not be able to assume that there are american jews such as those that live in Kirat Yoel, Lakewood, Crown Heights, or Monsey. yisraeldov (talk) 12:21, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

Much as I would love to see Schechter given kavod, I wonder about his credentials as an American Jew. According to his WP page, he only spent the last 13 years of his life in America. Nonetheless as ever I wouldn't object. Zargulon (talk) 21:02, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry but you need to know how to search, people might not know who Menachem Mendel Schneerson is but they know who the Chabad Rebbe is, he gets over 3Million hits on google. Also people might not have heard of Joel Teitelbaum but they have heard of the Satmar Rebbe. I think that the Chabad Rebbe is clearly the most well known. Also while Orthodoxy might be the smallest in numbers, it is the most influential. Almost every Orthodox jew will know who who Moshe Feinstein is but I doubt that most jews that call themselves reform will not know who Wise is, and for sure your average non-jew won't. yisraeldov (talk) 21:08, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

"Chabad rebbe" gets 85,700 hits ([1]) - and even then, Chabad had seven rebbes, so many of the hits will be false positives. Also, your notion that "while Orthodoxy might be the smallest in numbers, it is the most influential" is dubious at best. We need to focus on objective measures, not just people with whom Israel-based haredi User:Yisraeldov happens to be familiar. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:32, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Jayjg's search results, I just did it myself. If you leave out the quotes, you will get hits which are about Chabad but not the Rebbe, or about some Rebbe other than a Chabad one, and as Jayjg says, there were seven Chabad Rebbes, all of them called "Schneerson" and two of them called Menachem Mendel Schneerson. Zargulon (talk) 21:43, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Kind of ironic, actually, given that he started his comment with "Sorry but you need to know how to search". Jayjg ^(talk) 21:46, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Lets talk about false positives then, On the first page of search results for Solomon Schechter, one is the wiki article and the rest are about schools. If you want to tell me that having schools named after him is a reflection of his notability, then any chabbad synagogues and schools should be a reflection of the Lubavicher Rebbe's notability, as was already mentioned, he is the founder of chabad in the US. If you search for 'chabad rebbe' almost all of the results are about the last Chabbad Rebbe him self, there is one about a shul, and one about a school, as well as pictures and movies of him. Google obviously makes the correlation between the last rebbe and chabbad it's self. But, as has been discussed before, google is a poor metric. yisraeldov (talk) 22:15, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Chabad is a movement that has been around for two hundred years. There were 6 rebbes before Schneerson, and the movement is doing quite well since his death. Chabad and Schneerson are not synonymous. Any schools names "Menachem Mendel Schneerson school" will also be reflected in the search results. Google is not a great metric, but it's a starting point, and certainly better than the personal viewpoint of any individual whose knowledge of Jewish history and culture apparently begins and ends with late 20th and early 21st century Haredi Judaism. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:52, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm think that your constant personal attacks on me are completely out of place. I know quite well how many Chabbad rebbes there have been, but who brought Chabbad Chasidus to the US ? Who is responsible for the huge explosion of chabbad? The movement may be doing well, but it is on the foundation that he left. Read the rest of the talk page, you will see that others agree with me about his influence, and his connection to chabad.yisraeldov (talk) 11:14, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

The Lubavitcher Rebbe

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

Yeah, you jumped the gun. This can't just be people who you, a haredi Jew living in Israel, happen to be familiar with. It's out again, pending consensus. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:40, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Please do not remove the heading, If we are going to discuss the inclusion or exclusion of a person, let us do it in an orderly fashion. Remember that this article is abbout american jews, not for american jews. It would probably do you some good to have a different perspective. Also we are not talking about changing the whole list, it is one person out of 12. As I mentioned this is not just people that I 'happen to be familiar with,' I specifically mentioned 3 rabbonim that are very well known. I think you are taking this too personally. yisraeldov (talk) 22:02, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Personally? I'm not taking it personally at all, I have no personal stake in any of this. On the other hand, you seem to be familiar with only haredi rabbis - those are certainly the only ones you have entertained adding. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:06, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

To be clear, I am not offering a list of my personal favorites. I am mentioning rabbi's that have contributed to the character of the jews of america. As I mentioned before, I think the point of the info box is to give a good spectrum of American jews, the list is filled with non-religious jews, and looking at that list people would get the impression that there are no places like Lakewood, Monsey, or Williamsburg. Some one from the opposite end of the religious spectrum should be added so that people can interpolate the characteristics of american jews. I think that the Satmar Rav would balance the list much better, but he not as well known as the Lubavitcher Rebbe. Adding the people that you mentioned will just add more data points in the same area of the religiosity plane. Also to be clear, I have no affiliation with Chabbad, Satmar, or MTJ. yisraeldov (talk) 22:27, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

...and you still seem to only be aware of the existence of Haredi rabbis and Judaism. There are six million Jews in the U.S., of whom perhaps 30,000 live in Lakewood and Monsey combined. That's a tiny percentage of American Jews. There are more non-Haredi Jews in Miami alone than all the Haredi Jews in the entire United States. Please accept that the view of American Jews held by a haredi Jew living in Israel will be narrow at best. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:52, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

First of all, just because I currently live in Israel doesn't mean that I did not live in the US for over 20 years. Second I am aware of the other people you mentioned and they do not provide a balanced spectrum of religiosity of american jews. I am fully aware that haradim do not make up the majority of jews in the us, but there are about ½ a million haradim in the US, combine that with tour 6 million statistic and that means that 1 in 12 american jews is a haradi, and don't forget that the haradi population grows at a much faster rate that that of non-haradim. There are 12 people in the info box and not one religious , let alone haradi. If you want your info box to show a balanced spectrum of the Jewish american population, you should include a jew that is visually haradi. Also, I think it is very unfair for you to discount my opinions because of my personal religious beliefs and where I choose to live. yisraeldov (talk) 08:16, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

YD, I agree that this article should take account of the readership. Living in the secular world as I do, I can confidently report that non-jews know nothing of Chabad, the Lubavitcher nor Satmar Rebbes. The (American) rabbis they know about are Shmuley Boteach and Jackie Mason. So while Schneerson would definitely be appropriate in an encyclopedia aimed at Jews but for Wikipedia I am not convinced. (Edit conflict)Zargulon (talk) 22:31, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Zargulon - I am a wholly secular Jew. I can tell you that Schneerson is known outside of Jewish circles. I had not heard of Boteach until about a year ago however. There are been articles on Chabad and Schneerson for years in the popular press, as well as books written about both. He is certainly better known than the Satmar Rebbe. Both are controversial (Schneerson due to some believing he will come back as the Messiah and the Satmar Rebbe due to views on Israel). If we are trying to find a religious Jew known for being religious, Scneerson is probably the best fit here (not that I think that should be the criteria). I would rather have somebody who is known to be religious that has contributed (either positive or negative) in other wells, and whom is well known. Somebody like Robert Rubin, who is supposedly observant, or Meir Kahane. There are others I am sure too, but that is out of my knowledge base.Sposer (talk) 00:10, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Zrgulon - Did you know that in Los Angeles there is a Chabad Telethon, and there are banners in the streets advertising chabad. The non jews know about chabad and even donate money. I think that R' Meir Kahane (not haradi btw ) would be a good addition, but again, I don't think he represents the far end of the spectrum.yisraeldov (talk) 08:16, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Kahane, like Jackie Mason, was ordained a rabbi but subsequently took a very different path. I thought we were discussing people whose life work was based on religious teaching. Not to say Kahane is a bad choice, I just don't think he would solve the problem of representing religion. Zargulon (talk) 09:13, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Sposer - so it sounds like the one we agree on is Jackie Mason!? Zargulon (talk) 00:12, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't think he is observant any more, although as I recall, he is/was a Rabbai. I know his brother is an Orthodox Rabbi (if he is still alive).Sposer (talk) 00:18, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Mason is a comic, and not any sort of religious leader. Boteach is remarkably good at getting media attention, but not a religious leader either. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:33, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, that is true. Does it have to be a "leader"..? Ideally it would be. Zargulon (talk) 09:09, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Please see my conversation above. I don't think he has to be a leader but he should be someone that represents the 1/12 of the population that is not represented in the info box. Neither Mason or Boteach are good samples. Its like saying Mike Tyson is a good representative of african american athletes. yisraeldov (talk) 09:17, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Why? Boteach has a beard and kippa. He is certainly orthodox. Zargulon (talk) 09:24, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

The pope also wears a kippa. Boteach has been rejected by main stream orthodoxy and you cannot say that he has a lot in common with most orthodox jews. You can see that, he was thrown out of chabad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yisraeldov (talk • contribs) 09:36, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't call the Pope's hat a kippa except as a joke, and more importantly the Pope is not an American Jew. I don't think being "thrown out of Chabad" means that Boteach is rejected by mainstream orthodoxy, and the fact remains that he is a completely bona fide Orthodox American Jew who is famous for teaching Judaism and is known beyond the Jewish world. It doesn't matter that Chabadniks don't feel represented by him.. in some ways he is better for the infobox than Schneerson. Zargulon (talk) 10:39, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

My point was that it takes more than a kippah and a beard to make someone orthodox. He is not recognized by mainstream orthodox Judaism, what makes him a "bona fide orthodox jew"? I haven't checked but have any Mainstream rabonim given him approbation on his books ? Also from what I have seen from his writing, it is not Judiasim that he is teaching. All that aside, I think that including him would just be making a mockery of jews, again reinforcing the stereotype that all jews are in the entertainment industry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yisraeldov (talk • contribs) 11:03, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. I can't find any reference saying that he was excommunicated, even from Chabad (his WP page says that he attended a meeting of Chabad shlichim in 2010). What you are describing is called "you disagreeing with him/not liking what he says" (which is your privilege) but it is not called his "not being a bona fide orthodox Jew". I don't think he is "in the entertainment industry"; rather he teaches Torah in an entertaining way, which is just fine by me. Do you really think Meir Kahane is more of a bona fide Orthodox Jew than Shmuley Boteach? Zargulon (talk) 11:58, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

The WP article says "he was asked to leave his posting as shaliach" and " the London Chief Rabbi said Boteach "did not possess the appropriate United Synagogue rabbinical 'practice certificate'" ". I for sure think that Kahane is more accepted by main stream orthodoxy. Also my question "what makes him a "bona fide orthodox jew" was not sarcastic. I started to write some of the reasons that main stream orthodoxy rejects him, but I think it constitutes Loshon Hora, I think that is also the reason that you won't find much criticism of him from the mainstream orthodox on the internet. I think that any mainstream orthodox jew will immediately see what the issues are. yisraeldov (talk) 13:05, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Boteach was asked to leave a particular shaliach posting as an apparent consequence of inviting Yitzhak Rabin to speak. That has nothing to do with the authenticity of his Orthodox Judaism, or with his good standing within Chabad, or his semicha. His not possessing a London United Synagogue practice certificate is completely normal for an American Rabbi, and there is no evidence that it would have been withheld had he been interested in receiving one, which being based in Oxford there is no reason why he should have. It is clear to me now that he wasn't "thrown out of Chabad" at all. My orthodox acquaintances lead me to strongly doubt your statement about the relative acceptance of Kahane and Boteach, but if what you say is true it is a huge chillul hashem. Zargulon (talk) 13:32, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

At YD's suggestion, this particular thread of the discussion shall be continued, if at all, at my talk page. Zargulon (talk) 13:52, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

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

I must have misread the article, and I retract what I said about being thrown out of chabbad, but I still believe that he is not accepted by mainstream orthodoxy, we can put your acquaintances against my acquaintances but I don't think that will get us any where. I'm sure if you looked a bit harder, you would see what I'm talking about, as I mentioned before, I don't feel that I can go into more detail. After these conversations, I'm thinking that Rav Moshe Feinshtein is a better choice, because he is not controversial, and I think that almost all orthodox jews would agree that he is a fair representation of orthodoxy in america with out any additives. Yes he is less known, but that gets us back to the question, what is the point of the info box ? To spotlight famous jews, or to give the reader an idea of what constitutes an american jew by giving examples? yisraeldov (talk) 13:58, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Sposer, Boteach is amazingly good at getting himself attention in the media, and he's written some popular books with interest-grabbing titles, but he really isn't a religious leader per se or seen as a serious thinker of any sort, so I don't think he'd be a good choice. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:08, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Jayjg - You misunderstood me. I do not think Boteach should be there either. If it is based on being a notable religious leader, Schneerson fits the bill to me. I do believe the person should have a recognizable name and his is the only one that is truly known outside of Orthodox circles. My argument on Boteach was that he is Orthodox, that is all. Not that he should be in the Infobox.Sposer (talk) 21:50, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I think we're going to need at least 3 religious leaders for balance - that's why I suggest the 4x4 box, which also adds two non-religious figures. Three out of sixteen isn't an unreasonable ratio. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:53, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Ok, but the only 3 from your list with head shots at the top of their WP pages are Schneerson, Teitelbaum and Soloveitchik! Zargulon (talk) 09:22, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

There's this head shot: File:Stephen Samuel Wise cropped.jpg and it would be easy to create a headshot from this: File:Judah Leon Magnes.jpg. What about Schneerson, Soloveitchik, and one of Wise or Magnes? Jayjg ^(talk) 17:55, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Fine by me. Zargulon (talk) 00:10, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

O.K., who would the two other secular additions be? Jayjg ^(talk) 01:48, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Leonard Bernstein and Arthur Miller. Gertrude Stein or Emma Goldman to replace Diane Feinstein. 09:05, 29 January 2012 (UTC) Zargulon (talk) 11:38, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

It seems that there is now a consensus that The Lubavitcher Rebbe should be added, can we put him back why deciding on the rest? yisraeldov (talk) 11:03, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

No, we needed to make sure there was a balance in the box, not just add our favorite guy. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:43, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I added Schneerson, Soloveitchik and Wise. I put in Bernstein and Miller. I replaced Asimov with Gertrude Stein, and Diane Feinstein with Emma Goldman - there are now more women (although the ratio is worse because of the three rabbis); also lesbian and gay Jews are represented in Stein and Bernstein. Feel free to shoot me down in flames etc. Zargulon (talk) 12:04, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:43, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Off-topic and oft-repeated proposal

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I think that removing the info box would be a good idea. Picking a few celebrates really gives no reflection at all on the average american jew. If you must have such an info box, then it should have a good cross section of the american jewish population. By looking at your current info box you get the impression that most jews in america are in the entertainment industry, and that is just feeding a stereotype. If you must have this info box It should be more diverse. You made sacrifices not to exclude women but you are not willing to include Rabbis that have had a strong impact on the shape of american Judaism ? Also you should probably include some Jewish criminals, like Mayer Lansky, or Buggsy Segal. Also I think that including Rabbi Mayer Kahane would be a good idea. Maybe in-place of your info box you should just have a link to famous american jews. Also I'm in a different timezone than most of you so I cannot reply right away. yisraeldov (talk) 09:04, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

And you are still manipulating posts so that it is not easy to see what an editor's intentions were when making a post. You say that "In fact, things like archiving (for example) inevitably destroy that 'perfect record'." A "perfect record" is not what we are aiming for. Sometimes discussion must be archived. But you should be able to understand that it should be easy for current participants as well as newcomers to the discussion to see where we have been in this discussion. Events transpire chronologically, as does input to a discussion such as this. Chronology is a logical organizing principle. Also, you should not be providing a section heading for my posts titled "Off-topic and oft-repeated proposal by one individual that ethnicity infobox pictures be used in a radically different way on Wikipedia than they are currently used" as you do in this edit. This Talk page has a section heading called Talk:American Jews#Changes to the infobox and that happens to be the topmost heading of this discussion. OK, so my suggestion to eliminate the Infobox is a bit radical. But my suggestion is still in the general realm of the topic of discussion. And I am trying to speak to User:Yisraeldov, who initiated a sub-thread under that general heading here. You have not been particularly receptive to Yisraeldov's suggestions, as evidenced by your comment that "I somehow get the impression that neither of those two individuals were what Yisraeldov had in mind." You are making it well-nigh impossible for normal interactive dialogue to take place. You are rearranging the Talk page. You are making it difficult for others to assess what is transpiring here. Bus stop (talk) 02:47, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

As cute as this is, you guys can stop now. There's nothing to be gained by continuing this. Get an RfC, or at least continue this on your own talk pages.--Louiedog (talk) 04:32, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

If the images are not removed, Feynman is definitely staying. He self-identifies as Jewish and American many times in his writings. He is extremely notable. And his personality and life is representative of American culture (far more than Einstein, for example).Avaya1 (talk) 04:20, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Jewish culture: no mention of humor?

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

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.

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)