Talk:Jews/infobox/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

More serious discussion - Maimonides

The image of Maimonides used in the montage has always bothered me. I'd love to have an image of Maimonides in the montage, since he's undoubtedly famous and important enough, but this isn't actually an image of Maimonides. Rather, it's a 19th century invention/artist's conception which, in all likelihood, looks absolutely nothing like Maimonides did. If we're going with artist's conceptions, then why not use one of Moses or David too? Can we discuss including a real image of a Sephardi/Mizrahi Jew in the montage? Jayjg ^(talk) 06:22, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

• 
  19th century anonymous artist's conception of Maimonides
• 
  Rembrandt's 17th century conception of Moses
• 
  Michelangelo's 16th century conception of Moses
• 
  Michelangelo's 16th century conception of King David

Images in the infobox

There's a community discussion concerning whether there should or should not be images in infobox templates such as this one. If you'd like to comment, the discussion is here. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 00:05, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Which picture

Why not pick Sholem Aleichem's picture instead of Emma Lazarus? Both are Jewish writers. But, with all due respect, I've never heard of Emma Lazarus, while Sholem Aleichem's name I've heard many times over the years. We could even compare how many visits their pages get here on Wikipedia, if anybody would like to argue that this is a result of my personal illiteracy. And Sholem Aleichem's picture is also black and white, for those who have argued that that is better.

As to the argument which I have seen mentioned above that now the template is balanced in the number of men and women, surely that is not an argument. If proportionality were to be an issue, then there have been more famous Jewish men than women over the ages. Mind you, not that this is a reason for me to want to remove Emma Lazarus. It is merely what I would reply if this argument were to be brought forth. Debresser (talk) 13:53, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Pictures

Hello,

I was surprised to see the article about Jews doesnt have pictures of famous people so I put: Albert Einstein, Sholem Aleichem, Marc Chagall, Emmy Noether, Maimonides, Baruch Spinoza, Natalie Portman, Franz Kafka

My selection was based on giving representation to as much fields as possible Jews made an impact in!

1. I'm not a big expert about Jews, but I do know that the Ashkenazi ones are around 80% of all Jews, that's why 6 people in the picture are Ashkenazis.

2. Though the article is about the Jewish ethnic group and not religion, I decided not to put converted Jews like Anton Rubinstein, Karl Marx or Mendelssohn into it (though I think they actually should due to the fact that they were Jewish ethnically).

3. In order to avoid controversy, I decided not to put political figures into it like Karl Marx, Ben Gurion or Herzel, again, due to the fact I assume there are Jews who support them and oppose to them.

4. Due to the fact the article is about Jews as an ethnic group I didn't put religious figures in it in order not to create confusion!

I hope the selection is OK :-) Danton's Jacobin (talk) 23:42, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

If you read the discussions above, you would see that there were no pictures for a reason. Although I personally like it with pictures better. By the way, Maimonides was not religious? :) And I like the fact that there are no political figures in here. Debresser (talk) 09:42, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your response :-) Maimonides was a religious figure, but unlike many religious figures who are known only inside their "sect" if I may say so and are known only for their religius views, Maimonides was also a respected scientist who was respected all around the kingdom. I did not mean to isolate religious people, I just didn't want to put in people known only for religious reasons only among religious people.

I read the discussions, and though it's true many said there should be no picture, many also wanted the picture, and the main reason it was deleted was due to controversies, that's why I tried to avoid it. Hope it worked! Danton's Jacobin (talk) 22:49, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I for one am happy both with the fact that there are pictures, and with the fact that Maimonides is one of them. Debresser (talk) 15:33, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you :-) Danton's Jacobin (talk) 18:37, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

The editor was a sockpuppet, hence why he's been permanently banned. There's no reason to take up the sudden re-introduction of his arbritary selection of celebrities in the infobox, where photos have been objected to by dozens of users over the years. The selection is absurd - for starters all but one of the figures is Ashkenazi, and no other groups are represented. And as has been stated before, the use of a photobox is inappropriate for an article about a religious group. There are associated ethnic groups for this religious grouping and they have their own articles. But this article describes a religious group, and no other religious group has a photobox, let alone one that only represents Europeans members of that group. Avaya1 (talk) 00:37, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I see now that he is blocked. If these specific pictures are against consensus, then I have no problem with your revert. But skimming the talkpage, I see no real objections to these specific pictures. If I am mistaken, please let me know. But the fact that 2 out of the 8 are Ashkenazi (Maimonides and Spinoza are Sefaradi) is not a problem. If more Ashkenazim are famous than Sefaradim, then the pictures should reflect this. And since Judaism is most certainly an ethnicity as well, the last argument is not a problem either. Debresser (talk) 17:08, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Frankly, I preferred the infobox without any images. But with or without images, either way is better than edit-warring over it.

We may wish to post a neutral notice at WT:JUDAISM inviting editors to comment here. That's one way of getting more input. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:54, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Avaya1: Basing your evident animus against a photobox on regarding the Jews strictly as a religious group is basing it on a fallacy. It is more accurate to describe Jews as an ethnoreligious group, a people (singular) who to a large extent share a common religious background. It is as appropriate for the Jewish people to have a photobox in their article as for any other national group. There is room for discussion of the specific pictures chosen, but I oppose their wholesale removal. In the past a good balance was struck in the choice of images, and it seems to me we are very close to having one again with the existing selection. Hertz1888 (talk) 05:22, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't agree with Avaya1's position. First, it's wrong to say that Jews are just a religious group. If an ethnic Jew converts to christianity, does he become ethnically English or German? Genetic studies showed that the Jews have a common ancestry, therefore they are also an ethnic group. The Jewish identity can be ethnic or religious. If you convert to Judaism you don't become an ethnic Jew. In fact, Jews are what’s called an ethnoreligious group (like Druze people, Coptic people and few more examples like that). It means they are an ethnic groups but religion played a role in their formation and development as a nation. Second, it's good that 6 out of 8 people are Ashkenazi because 80% of the Jews in the world are Ashkenazi, so it's just proportinal representation. Guitar hero on the roof (talk) 13:35, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I saw an opinion on this page that we should add ancient Israelites to the image, but I actually don’t think it’s a good idea. Old Israelites like Moses and Abraham were not Jews but Israelites. Jews are obviously the direct decedents and only heirs of the Israelites, it’s proven by genetic tests, but there is still a difference. Don’t forget that the Israelites were actually many tribes, and most of them were lost. The ones which survived and eventually formed into the Jewish nation were the three tribes in the Kingdom of Judea (Judea, Shimon and Benyamin), all those three tribes intermixed and became Jews, and they are called Jews after the Judea tribe which was the biggest of the 3. That’s when the modern Jewish nation was formed! So saying that old Israelites like Abraham or Moses were Jews it’s like saying the kings of Rus were Russian, Belarusian or Ukrainian. They were the ancestors, and the identity are obviously connected (in fact, one identities was an evolution of the another), but there is still a difference and a difference that should be clear. When putting someone in the collage it should be made sure the people in the collage should be those who actually belonged to the modern Jewish nation, which means those who also called themselves Jews. Guitar hero on the roof (talk) 13:30, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Also, you would find it difficult to find their pictures. :) Debresser (talk) 17:57, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

So true! For example Josephus or Judas Maccabeus have images representing them which are either attributed to them without any proof or works of art from a later period! I like the current selection but would never be against adding a third line with 4 more people (though I don't think any changes are needed). Guitar hero on the roof (talk) 23:41, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Related ethnic groups

I am adding a related ethnic group section to the template. Discuss.Evildoer187 (talk) 18:47, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I like the idea! I changed Levant to Semitic peoples and also added Assyrians to the list. Levant is the name of the region and not of the ethnic family. Guitar hero on the roof (talk) 20:02, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Arabs are a Semitic people and they were already included. Also, they do share a relationship with non-Semitic groups in the Levant, such as the Druze.Evildoer187 (talk) 20:25, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Assyrians are actually Semitic. Druze are a different case because they are an ethnoreligious group, and while being formed it included Arabs, Persians and other individuals that excepted the Druz faith (mostly they are Semitic though because the vast majority were Arabs). Guitar hero on the roof (talk) 22:39, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Semitic is a language group, so why shouldn't the Druze be considered Semitic? Every Druze I knew spoke Arabic as a first language, and their culture is similar to that of Arabs, though many of them don't consider themselves to be Arabs. In other words, there's nothing scientific in being 'Semitic'. And in the case of this infobox I'd leave the related group empty because it's debatable what the criteria for 'related' really is, especially for a group who lived in many different lands for 2,000 years... Yuvn86 (talk) 23:48, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Druze aren't listed on the Semitic page, so I assumed they weren't. Either way, Jews are historically, culturally, genetically, and linguistically closest to other Middle Eastern groups. That's not even my own personal opinion, it's a proven fact. On a personal note, I wasn't even aware that anybody contested this relationship until I was exposed to extreme anti-Zionist politics.Evildoer187 (talk) 03:58, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I have reverted the addition of related ethnic groups for the moment, for a lack of sources. Feel free to add them back with reliable sources. Debresser (talk) 11:48, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I added some RS.Evildoer187 (talk) 16:45, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Hebrew is a historical language, as it was the mother tongue of the Jewish people before the diaspora.Evildoer187 (talk) 01:14, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

No. That was Biblical Hebrew. Just "Hebrew" is a redirect to Hebrew language, and that includes Modern Hebrew as well, although those are two different languages. Debresser (talk) 15:34, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Modern Hebrew came from Biblical Hebrew, and both of them are Hebrew! Guitar hero on the roof (talk) 20:47, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

That may be true, but does not justify your edit, sorry. Debresser (talk) 11:20, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Question about the images

I understand why there in no Ethiopian or Indian Jewish representative because they are tiny minorities and there are doubts about their ethnic identity, I also think it’s a good idea to ignore from which specific country a person came and just look at weather they are Ashkenazi or Sephardi/Mizrahi, but there is one thing I would like to ask and it’s how come 6 out of 8 people are Ashkenazis, while they are only 50% of the Jewish population in Israel?

Don't get me wrong, I think the people selected are great and all I just think we need to add 4 more people who are Sephardi/Mizrahi so it would match the population in Israel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Galbi Habibi (talk • contribs) 13:38, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

We didn’t do it according to Israel, we did it according to the world, and in the world 80% of the Jews are Ashkenazi while only 20% are Sephardi or Mizrahi, therefore by giving Sephardi and Mizrahi Jews 2 representatives out of 8 in the collage we actually gave them perfect representation compared to their number out of the whole Jewish population. The article talks about all the Jews and not just Israel. Guitar hero on the roof (talk) 14:42, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Comment on the photobox

I suggested removing the photobox last week here Avaya1 (talk) 12:30, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm glad you said you were only removing it "tentatively". I have put it back. This is in keeping with the WP:BRD approach. I think it is a very bad idea to remove the photomontage bodily, and especially not on account of your perception of shortcomings with it, or because it might be daunting to make it better. Any perceived shortcomings can be discussed, and possibly improved upon (and, by the way, that discussion belongs here, not there; discussion of the infobox had moved over to to this talk page some time ago). If you look back you will find that there have been lengthy discussions of whom to include in the photomontage, and a finely-tuned balance worked out with considerable effort. Still, I suppose there is always room for improvement. I believe it is the norm for WP articles on peoples to have such montages in their infoboxes, showing representative or notable individuals, and I see no reason for the article on the Jews to be excluded from that practice. A faceless text would be too impersonal. Hertz1888 (talk) 15:21, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I disagree with your OTHERSTUFF argument, since all the subsets of this category i.e. "British Jews", have got their own photoboxes, and those are the relevant comparison articles to "WP articles on people". This is not such an article. Other equivalent long-ranging, and international, religious categories, such as Sikhs, Christians, Muslims, and Buddhists, do not have a photobox. This photobox hasn't got a consensus on the talk pages, since the majority of comments mentioning it over the years object to it. It is really unrepresentative since all the figures are European and from the modern world. The latter point is quite important, since our pages on the ancient world, and even on the Monarchic period, link to this article quite often (if it's an ethnic category, it is implying that the ethnic group has been unchanged, which is not consistent with Ancient History, since in that period it changed quite a lot, for example in the Hasmonean Period - and if it's a religious category, then it shouldn't have a photobox), and the article itself also covers the ancient history. Avaya1 (talk) 18:25, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for helping initiate a discussion based on specific points. As explained in the article's hatnote and lede, the subject is the Jewish people as a people, though their religion is closely related, and not about a religious category, as you put it, so I don't think that parallel is valid. I think we have to treat it primarily as an ethnic category. Other than that, I don't wish to debate you, having largely stated my position. I think we should allow ample time to see who else shows up, and hear what they have to say, and then allow ample time for discussion. Your suggestion on the other talk page to delete the photobox did not expressly indicate a proposal or intention to do so, and the deletion may have caught others, like myself, by surprise. Hertz1888 (talk) 03:19, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

1. If we take it as an ethnicity, then the photobox isn't historically accurate, since it is in an article which is also used hyperlinked from articles on ancient history, and even in the ancient world the ethnicity of Jews varied across different time periods. For example between the Israelites of the Monarchic period, and the Judeans of the Hasmonean period, there was a change in ethnicity. 2. If we take the photobox merely as representing contemporary Jews, as an ethnic category, then it is extremely unrepresentative. Any such photobox, would have to presumably include a photo of a Yemeni Jew, an Iraqi Jew, an Indian Jew, an Ethiopian Jew, a Mountain Jew, a Berber Jew etc. Instead, we merely have photos of European Jews. Overall, the most sensible choice is surely to leave the photoboxes for the ethnic subcategories, and to treat this infobox in the same way as any of the other articles for religious groups, which don't have photoboxes. If you read the comments over the years, the vast majority of commentators seem to object to it. Avaya1 (talk) 23:55, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

1. Old Israelites like Moses and Abraham were not Jews but Israelites. Jews are obviously the direct decedents and only heirs of the Israelites, it’s proven by genetic tests, but there is still a difference. Don’t forget that the Israelites were actually many tribes, and most of them were lost. The ones which survived and eventually formed into the Jewish nation were the three tribes in the Kingdom of Judea (Judea, Shimon and Benyamin), all those three tribes intermixed and became Jews, and they are called Jews after the Judea tribe which was the biggest of the 3. That’s when the modern Jewish nation was formed! So saying that old Israelites like Abraham or Moses were Jews it’s like saying the kings of Rus were Russian, Belarusian or Ukrainian. They were the ancestors, and the identity are obviously connected (in fact, one identities was an evolution of the another), but there is still a difference and a difference that should be clear. When putting someone in the collage it should be made sure the people in the collage should be those who actually belonged to the modern Jewish nation, which means those who also called themselves Jews.

2. We shouldn't do the division by countries but more simple: Ashkenazi, Sephardi, Mizrahi (right now the picture has 6 Ashkenazim 1 Sephardi and 1 Mizrahi, which is also the proportion between them in real life), while groups like Ethiopian and Indian Jews are very small so I don't think it's a big deal not to have their pictures. Guitar hero on the roof (talk) 19:23, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I think you both are getting carried away with the usual nitpicking. I find these photo-boxes an embarrassment—this one no less so. An intellectual article is not necessarily helped by a picture. The presence of Albert Einstein, Maimonides, Golda Meir, and Emma Lazarus (present photo-box) is of no significance in relation to the article accompanying it. All that we see in the pictures is that they are human beings. In fact a Jew looks no different than a non-Jew. Just affixing an image to an article does not necessarily inform that article. I think the article would be improved by simply removing the photo-box. Bus stop (talk) 22:27, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

I see merit in arguments from both sides. My personal opinion is that such a photobox is a common thing in encyclopedias, and that it makes the article look more attractive. Debresser (talk) 18:04, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

The issue is not the use of photoboxes in general (we have them for Polish Jews, Ashkenazi Jews, Iraqi Jews, Yemeni Jews, etc), but whether they can be used in this particular article and the redundancy when we have the other articles. Avaya1 (talk) 18:09, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I am sick and tired that no one brings the stereotypical "Jew" out of the water, coz as long he is in them, no one knows his looks. i say, enough showing humans labeled as "Jews" in black and white, UNyoung, and in sadness or simplicity. particular ignorants of the world, who lives in areas that in them there are no "Jews" and a "Jew" is nothing more than a "Zionist demon" which sometimes could be seen in TV as an enigmatic soldier, and (how not) villain, and that's it. The "Jews" of the world today, and of the world in the last 500 600 years at least, are a very biologically integrated group, what some call "Multiracial", and also the particular (lazy) ingnoratns of the world should also see that, in this article, through a colorful-when-possible, and at least "Fine", carefully selected Maximally-loyal portraits, and, Photographs of influencing "Jews" (in their fields), starting from Moses and Jesus, to Philo, Maimonides, Marx, Freud, Albert Einstein&Stanley Milgram,Benjamin Netanyahu, and many more, which whom all of u will choose. i also don't understand why there are in many times, ultra-morbid pictures of people here, and i speak generally now. peoples, when presented in an article, should appear in their best... thanks. 79.176.18.13 (talk) 01:14, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't think thats the case. We shouldn't do the devision by countries but more simple: Ashkenazi, Sephardi, Mizrahi (right now the picture has 6 Ashkenazim 1 Sephardi and 1 Mizrahi, which is also the proportion between them in realy life), while groups like Ethiopian and Indian Jews are very small so I don't think it's a big deal not to have their pictures. Guitar hero on the roof (talk) 23:19, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I personally think the current selection is close to perfect. Sholem Aleichem, Marc Chagall and Albert Einstein are present on the Ashkenazi side, while Spinoza is present on the Sephardi side. Also, Natalie Portman is present which gives representation to modern Jews and Jews in cinema. 90.196.60.197 (talk) 08:09, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Name under each picture

In a recent edit Frietjes updated some technical aspects of the template, and also moved the names from under all the pictures to each name under its picture. I don't like that, and I have not seen so ordinarily done on Wikipedia. I have reverted his edit with the editsummary that he should first establish consensus for this change. I for one am against. Debresser (talk) 16:00, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

the common format for {{infobox ethnic group}} is either to (a) use a single representative image, or (b) generate a single montage image, or (c) to use the image array template (see image array). I see no reason for this instance of {{infobox ethnic group}} to be the only one to using a different format. as far as I can tell, this is the only instance using raw html markup. having the captions under the images improves accessibility, since the captions are grouped with the content. Frietjes (talk) 16:14, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

My problem is of course not with the technical way this template is created. But I do oppose the captions under the images, as I find it disturbing the overall picture. Debresser (talk) 19:37, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

and now we have a fifth row, making it even less accessible due to the distance between the images and the captions. Frietjes (talk) 16:48, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

That incomplete 5th row is definitely a bad idea. Will revert. :) Debresser (talk) 17:36, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Region order

I thought the order for the regions was decreasing population, but apparently not? please explain why Ukraine and South Africa are out of order. Frietjes (talk) 23:18, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Fixed. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:16, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks also for the correct editsummary, Malik. Debresser (talk) 09:34, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Why all modern?

Well, I'll get to the point. All the Jews in the Infobox are modern Jews, but there are many ancient Jews which aren't represented in the Infobox. אשכנזישעיידן (talk) 20:03, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

There should indeed be at least 1 or 2 Jews from older periods. That makes sense. Perhaps indeed the Rambam. Debresser (talk) 17:20, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

I think Judas Maccabaeus, King David, King Hezekiah, Alexander Janneus might be candidates.אשכנזישעיידן (talk) 15:41, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

I'd prefer people with more of a picture. :) Debresser (talk) 19:07, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Ancient people don't have pictures.אשכנזישעיידן (talk) 22:14, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

That was my point precisely. Which is why I prefer the Rambam. Debresser (talk) 23:00, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

There are two reasons why that is impossible:

• Even though modern Jews are the direct descendants of ancient Israelis, ancient Israelis didn't call themselves Jews, due to the fact the word Yehudim referred only to those from the tribe of Judea.
• We don't have authentic pictures/paintings of ancient Israelis. What we have are late interpretations of how they might have looked. Also, many of them probably didn't exist, so those two arguments also explain while Hercules is not on the selection for Greeks. 2.124.14.197 (talk) 23:50, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Including Jesus

I suggest that the picture of Jesus be included, as Jesus is by far the most influential and most famous Jew who ever lived. Billions of population around the world relate to Jesus. Including Jesus picture would make those people able to relate to Jewish people. --Samuelled (talk) 14:45, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I think that even though he definitely was a Jew, nevertheless this idea is best not implemented. Debresser (talk) 18:18, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

No, it won't work. And there is also a Jewish religious opposition to that, which view Jesus as a false messiah and a creator of a cult that turned to Christianity later. אשכנזישעיידן (talk) 20:18, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

What do you mean 'it won't work'? And yes there is opposition to Jesus from some orthodox Jewish people it terms of Jesus' being Messiah, but I think most of them would agree to that him being a influential and famous Jew, like Rabbi Shmuley Boteach who wrote Kosher Jesus and the growing number of Messianic Jews. And for an encyclopedic document, showing him as a Jew would broaden the comprehensiveness of the content. And the pictures should be selected based on him/her being a Jew and should mostly be neutral about their religious or political affiliations or leanings. --Samuelled (talk) 15:22, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

As an Atheist Jew, I deeply oppose it because Jesus is and was many times a symbol of the antisemitic pogroms "in the name of Jesus" of some angry Gentiles "avenging Jesus' death". אשכנזישעיידן (talk) 19:59, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

That is exactly why I said it is important to include Jesus. For centuries Jews have been alienating Jesus as one of them and some Gentiles (anti-semites) are using this to promote their hatred. Having Jesus as shown as a Jew can help Jews and gentile Christians relate to each other. --Samuelled (talk) 21:58, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

And why would we at Wikipedia make that one of our goals? Still think it is a bad idea. To be more precise: A Bad idea. Debresser (talk) 23:08, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

So do I, if for no other reason than that this discussion itself demonstrates how controversial such an inclusion would be. Hertz1888 (talk) 00:31, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Not a bad idea, but impossible due to two reasons:

• We don't have an authentic painting of how he looks, all guesses and imagination of the creators.
• He probably didn't even exist, which is a very important fact. Usually mythological characters are not appearing in collages. 2.124.14.197 (talk) 23:53, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Answer

copied here from my talkpage The real crime would be the absolute ignorance of this article about important Jews in history! Albert Einstein, Maimonides, Franz Kafka and Baruch Spinoza are important figures. Yet, is Natalie Portman, with all of the respect really, one of the most important Jewish figures in Jewish history? Emily Noether is an interesting yet unknown figure. Yet historic necessities like David, Hezekiah, Judas Maccabaeus, David Ben-Gurion, Eliezer Ben-Yehuda, Zeev Jabotinsky, Avraham Stern, and Mordechai Anielewicz are being ignored completely?

A) All of the above are Jews B) All of the above are important historic figures

What the hell, sorry for the language, is offensive/incorrect about noting them as important Jews? אשכנזישעיידן (talk) 15:21, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree, as would anybody, that there are many more important Jews than those in the template. But we have to make a selection. And that selection is based not only on importance. We try, for example, to have a balance in the number of men and women, Ashkenazi and Sefaradi, and the various fields of life. So the inclusion of let's say Natalie Portman over Kafka might be justified because we want a contemporary actor in the infobox, rather then a writer who lived almost 100 years ago.

What we do not want is too large a template. Four rows is too much, imho. But feel free to try and obtain consensus that 4 rows is better than 2 rows if you so feel. Just know, that without discussion, leading to consensus, you will never get anything done on Wikipedia. This is a community based on WP:5 pillars, which include consensus as he main decisive process. Debresser (talk) 17:39, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Totally agree! 00:12, 20 September 2013 (UTC)2.124.14.197 (talk)

I suggest that the photobox will have 4 rows rather than 2, or shall we make the pictures smaller and add more people. Since I believe it misses a lot of, according to my subjective view, much more important than some, if not most of the people in the photobox. As well as I would like to replace Natalie Portman and Emmy Noether, I find Natalie Portman not an important figure, and Emmy Noether is pretty much an unknown figure. The people I want to add:

• Eliezer Ben-Yehuda-The main contributor to Modern Hebrew
• Mordechai Anielewicz-Leader of the Warsaw-Ghetto uprising
• David-King of Judah and Israel for 40 years, started the House of David which ruled for 424 years, according to the prophecy the messiah would be his descendant.
• David Ben-Gurion-First Prime-Minister of Israel and head of the Haganah
• Theodore Herzl-Founder of Zionism
• Judas Maccabaeus-Leader of the Hasmonean revolt after his father Mattathias
• Avraham Stern-Head of the Lehi
• Zeev Jabotinsky-Founder of Revisionist Zionism, head of Beitar and Irgun
• Hezekiah-The king who managed to defeat the Assyrian Empire, thanks to him we exist and didn't disappear like the Northern Kingdom.
• Haim Nachman Bialik-National poet of Israel

So my suggests: 1. 4 rows/3 rows with smaller pictures 2. Replacing Emmy Noether and Natalie Portman with Mordechai Anielewicz and Eliezer Ben-Yehuda/Or maybe both can exist if the pictures were smaller 3. Agreeing that the figures I mentioned are important and worthy of being shown in the photobox — Preceding unsigned comment added by אשכנזישעיידן (talk • contribs) 09:55, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Keep it 8 pictures (to prevent it from being too dense), and in my view, keep the current selection. Your suggestions, to be fair, are in my opinion totally inappropriate. About King David, Hezkiah and Judah Maccabee.. you can't put an image in the collage which is not an authentic image (and not less important, we don't even know if King David or Hezkiah really existed).

About Stern... unknown outside Israel, and even in Israel considered a very controversial figure (being popular mostly among the nationalist ultra-right), same thing to a lesser extent applies to Jabotinsky. I don't see why you are trying to push controversial figures like those two into the collage, it's not about making a point or a political statement.

Other figures you suggested, though notable, in my opinion are not as notable as those already in the collage. Bialik is not as notable in world literature as Kafka and Sholem Aleichem (and we already have writers in the collage), Ben Gurion is actually a good suggestion but I don't see who he can push out (especially because we can't reduce the amount of Sephardi's or women in the collage), and Ben Yehuda... again, not really known outside Israel.

Some of the suggestions you made though would apply better to the Israeli Jews article. 2.124.14.197 (talk) 00:10, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I think the infobox looks fine with eight pictures. If you want to add somebody, my preference would be substitute a new image for one of the existing images. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:24, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Is it okay to replace Natalie Portman with king David?אשכנזישעיידן (talk) 18:43, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Replacing the picture of either of the two women would further lower the female:male ratio (presently 1:3) to only 1:7. Maintaining some gender balance has been of concern here in the past, and I think that is a good idea. We might consider replacing Spinoza, as we already have at least one other philosopher included. As the image of King David is very indistinct, a better candidate might be Mordechai Anielewicz. I too favor eight pictures as a desirable number and limit. Hertz1888 (talk) 20:39, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Then I'd replace him with Ben Gurion, whose is a lot more famous, and looks distinctive. Debresser (talk) 22:33, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Our friend אשכנזישעייד gave a high priority to Anielewicz and Ben-Yehuda. That, among other things, prompted me to choose one of those. No objection to Ben-Gurion. Hertz1888 (talk) 01:59, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

I suggest replacing Natalie Portman with Golda Meir who was a strong leader of Israel. That way there is representation from current state of Israel and with female gender and could be used instead of David Ben-Gurion --Samuelled (talk) 16:41, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I believe Golda Meir wouldn't do justice to the female gender since she is mostly known as the Prime Minister who ignored completely the coming Yom Kippur War which at the beginning (when she was Prime-Minister) it was the worst war for Israel. I mean, this is a possibility and I don't oppose it but it seems to be not the best idea. For the female gender there are women who are considered heroes, like Deborah, Salome Alexandra.... But I still put David Ben-Gurion and King David at higher priorityאשכנזישעיידן (talk) 20:14, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Do we have a picture of King David that is authentic? I didn't think so. Besides, I think we need to choose between characters who definitely existed (and not under dispute like King David). 2.124.14.197 (talk) 00:00, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

So we replace Spinoza by Ben Gurion. Let's give it 24 hours to see if anybody is against. אשכנזישעיידן, will you do the honors after that? Debresser (talk) 23:03, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

I see there's no opposition of replacing Natalie Portman with David Ben-Gurion. Did it. אשכנזישעיידן (talk) 18:51, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I oppose this change. The proposal was to replace Spinoza, not Portman. And it hasn't been 24 hours. Hertz1888 (talk) 18:58, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. Right on both accounts. Debresser (talk) 19:36, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Fixed. אשכנזישעיידן (talk) 19:41, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm totally against any changes to the current selection. Replacing Spinoza with Ben Gurion? Right now in the selection there are 6 Ashkenazi Jews and 2 Sephardi, which is fare when you think of the fact that most Jews are Ashkenazi. Having only one Sephardi (which is what will happen by replacing Spinoza with Ben Gurion) is underrepresenting Sephardis. Also, Spinoza is much more known and influential in the world than Ben Gurion. 2.124.14.197 (talk) 23:56, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

About Portman... she is a woman, which is important for the collage, and an academy award winning actress (which means a good representative for Jews in entertainment). 2.124.14.197 (talk) 23:57, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Re-editing

Excuse me, but I think important figures like King David, David Ben-Gurion Judas Maccabaeus Ze'ev Jabotinsky and Avraham Stern as well as Eliezer ben Yehudah are notable figures in Jewish history, and I quite find them more important than Natalie Portman etc. mind you. I demand the people to stop erasing my edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by אשכנזישעיידן (talk • contribs) 16:40, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is based on WP:CONSENSUS, not demands. As soon as you start respecting the opinions of other people, and the channels for establishing consensus (see WP:DISCUSSION), you are welcome to edit Wikipedia. Debresser (talk) 18:54, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

First of all, we don't have authentic pictures of Kind David and Judas Maccabeus (and we don't even know if King David existed). Second, Portman is an academy award winning actress, which means as a Jew in entertainment she is notable. Third, Abraham Stern?? Are you serious? The guy is not known outside of Israel, and in Israel he is popular only among far-right nationalists (controversially suggesting to fight on the side of Nazi Germany against the British). Same thing about Jabotinsky though to a lesser extent. Those selections are not here to make political points. 2.124.14.197 (talk) 08:45, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Problematic source

First, I cited this source but it was removed and I think it's reliable, anyone agrees? The other bigger issue is that the current website used as the main source for this article doesn't open. I'm talking about this: http://www.jewishdatabank.org/Reports/World_Jewish_Population_2012.pdf, it says "Authentication Reuired". Help? Thanks. Shalom11111 (talk) 02:27, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Evidently they reorganized their site. The study is here and the PDF is here. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:45, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Okay good thanks for fixing. And why do you think the other source given by Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs isn't reliable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shalom11111 (talk • contribs) 09:54, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

It's an opinion column, and therefore not a reliable source. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:38, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Transclusion over hardcoding

The reason I restored the transclusion of this template, rather than have it hardcoded in the only article using it, nl. Jews, is that this template has a lot of edits in its own right, and we do not need to mix them into the edits of the article proper. Debresser (talk) 18:35, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

It is also currently the only ethnic group infobox (out of over 4000) that hasn't been merged with the article. Frietjes (talk) 16:27, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

For an orderly person like me that is a strong argument for hardcoding. But we do have a lot of discussions here. Hard to decide. Debresser (talk) 22:52, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

if you want to save the edit history and talk page history, just move the template to a subpage of the article (e.g., Jews/summary), and redirect it to the article. or if you are only concerned about the talk page, then just move that to a subpage of the article talk. this is what was done with several of them post deletion. Frietjes (talk) 17:16, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Other pages don't get so many racist vandalism cases like the Jews page does, but the template is usually unharmed because the vandals don't know how to get to it. Also, for whatever reason, the Jews template has more discussions about it than other templates, and keeping it in a separate page helps not to have too many discussions on the Jews place. 2.124.14.197 (talk) 17:47, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

I think it's good to keep the template in a separate article. The Jews and Template:Jews pages have a lot of discussions and arguments, so that helps not to load to many discussions on one page (which would make it harder to follow). Also, people who come to vandalize the Jews article usually keep the template untouched because they don't know how to get to it. 2.124.14.197 (talk) 00:20, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Also, people who want to edit the template without discussion first usually have to go through the process of asking on the Jews talk page "why can't I edit the template?", where they are being told "you need to discuss it first", so it prevents pointless reverts and edit wars. 2.124.14.197 (talk) 17:47, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

yes, we should keep IPs and new users from touching the template by adding semiprotection. Frietjes (talk) 18:07, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

And the point would be...? Some new users or IP users have more knowledge and experience than most registered "old" users have. Also, allowing only registered users to edit will in some way damage the idea of a free encyclopedia. 2.124.14.197 (talk) 19:29, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

exactly, and obfuscation of the source of content is also damaging to the idea of a free encyclopedia. the infobox should be merged with the article, like it is for every other article using {{infobox ethnic group}}. I see no compelling argument why this one is significantly different than the thousands of others. Frietjes (talk) 22:38, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

First of all, the argument "everyone else does it" is not always a relevant argument. Different pages have different criteria's to enter the collage, for example, because they decide different things on the talk page. Second, having the template in a different page doesn't damage the free editing principle, it just prevents people from editing it without discussion because when asking about it on the Jews talk page users who think they can edit it without discussion get told that they have to discuss (templates are so sensitive on Wikipedia and have so much discussions around them, it's good to prevent edits without discussion). 2.124.14.197 (talk) 08:23, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

You can't replace Spinoza with Ben Gurion

There are 2 Sephardis and 6 Ashkenazis in the current collage, which makes sense when you think about the number of Ashkenazis and Sephardis world wide. You can't replace Spinoza, a Sephardi, with Ben Gurion, and Ashkenazi, because it violates that balance. I'm not even talking about the fact that Spinoza is a more notable and influencial persona!

The latest discussion which "decided" to do that change had only 3 people involved, and was too quick to actually seriously consider the consequences. If you want to put Ben Gurion in - it has to be instead of an Ashkenazi male! 2.124.14.197 (talk) 18:37, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

If you want to the include Ben Gurion, I think it should be instead of a writer because we have two writers in the collage, Sholem Aleichem and Kafka. 2.124.14.197 (talk) 18:40, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

careful, you have already been issued a warning for edit warring, so you should avoid editing the template for the near future. Frietjes (talk) 18:43, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps this IP editor would stop telling us what me can/cannot/must/mustnot do, and adopt a style of argument and proposal. That would be so much more pleasant. Debresser (talk) 16:52, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

I do not think Spinoza is better know or even more influential than Ben Gurion. I do agree that it would be nice to have another Sepharadi in the template. Perhaps indeed change one of the two writers, as the IP editor "proposed". Debresser (talk) 16:52, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

By the way, I never heard of Emmy Noether. Perhaps we could leave Spinoza, and change her for Golda Meir, who is something like Ben Gurion (notable and well-known modern Israeli politician). Debresser (talk) 16:54, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

I think we need Noether because we don't have much women in the collage, but I agree with you Spinoza is much more notable than Ben Gurion. 2.124.14.197 (talk) 22:54, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

we should keep Emmy Noether, described as the "most important woman in the history of mathematics". Frietjes (talk) 17:14, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Even that epithet doesn't mean we must have her here. We Jews have produced many notable and famous people, and plausibly another 8 more notable and famous than her. Debresser (talk) 23:50, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Fair point, however, I don't think the collage is just about notability but also about representation. That's why in the discussion above it was decided to keep Portman, to represent women and represent the entertainment sector. I think Spinoza should replace an Ashkenazi male. 2.124.14.197 (talk) 23:01, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

I suggest to replace Kafka or Ben Gurion with Spinoza. Kafka is a great writer, and much more notable person that Ben Gurion in my opinion, but we have 2 writers in the collage already (and in my opinion getting rid of Sholem Aleichem is not an option). I still think though it's smarter to replace Ben Gurion with Spinoza, simply by the notability criteria.

I remind we can't replace women because we don't have much of them already in the collage.

Spinoza is a must, simply because he is the most famous Jewish philosopher ever (one of the most famous ones in general), and he is a Sephardi and we can't have a Jews picture with only one Sephardi. 2.124.14.197 (talk) 22:54, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Statistically, Ashkenazi Jews make up about 75% of the entire Jewish population and have undoubtedly been more notable and influential than their fellow Sephardi/Mizrahi brothers, and so that's happening in this collage. However, I entirely agree with you that Baruch Spinoza should be included in the current collage, and therefore I'm proposing what I think would be the best solution: Why don't we expand the current collage to, say, 14 people (which is exactly 1 Jew for every 1 million Jews on earth)? Shalom11111 (talk) 11:41, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Don't forget that this is a template, we should have 2 rows of 4 or 3 rows of 3. I can live with 9 people. Debresser (talk) 17:42, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Oh I didn't know that, are you sure templates limited only to 8-9 people? Can't we create something like the one to the right side in this article? If not, let's just add Spinoza.. Shalom11111 (talk) 21:17, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Not all templates are limited, but in an old discussion it was agreed that i's better not to allow the collage to blow up too much. People tried adding another line and were reverted on the base they were violating that consensus. 2.124.14.197 (talk) 07:33, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

I get what you mean, but don't forget, in that template representation is as important as notability, therefore it is important to give the right amount of representation. The size thing was discussed in the past, and it was decided it's not good to over-load it and make it too big. 2.124.14.197 (talk) 22:03, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

So from the discussion, it seems like we have 2 options:

• Add Spinoza and have a 9 people collage (3 lines of 3).
• Replace an existing Ashkenazi male with Spinoza (my suggestion, Kafka. Please mention who your suggestion is, in case you support that option).

Which one should we choose? 2.124.14.197 (talk) 22:03, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I personally prefer the second option, with Kafka the one being replaced. The reason is because we have two writers in the collage. 2.124.14.197 (talk) 07:31, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

I think we should turn it into a collage of 9 and then add Spinoza - whether to replace Kafka with someone else or not that's a different story, though I'm also favor of doing that. So we have a consensus here? Shalom11111 (talk) 11:26, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

I think we should wait to hear what Debresser has to say, but I think we have a consensus on the topic. I will do it later on today :-)Glad the issue is resolved! 2.124.14.197 (talk) 13:38, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Summary

In summary: Following the latest discussion (and the past discussions), it was decided that from now on the collage will be 9 pictures in 3 rows (before that it was 8 pictures in 2 rows).

The selection now is:

• Albert Einstein - Emmy Noether - Franz Kafka
• Sholem Aleichem - David Ben-Gurion - Marc Chagall
• Maimonides - Natalie Portman - Baruch Spinoza

Having 7 Ashkenazis and 2 Sephardis/Mizrahis, we achieved a balance close to the real balance between Ashkenazis and Sephardis (per principle: representation as important as notability). Also, the collage gives representation to a big array of areas/occupations (science, literature, arts, philosophy, entertainment), which is also really good for representation.. 2.124.14.197 (talk) 13:55, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Good job, thanks. Now it seems like we just need to keep this template alive... By the way, I'd suggest you to consider creating a Wikipedia account since you're quite active here and it's simply better having one, from many aspects. - Shalom11111 (talk) 00:52, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for giving me so much credit. I have no problem with the edit. I am glad that we found a solution that satisfies all. Debresser (talk) 02:02, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

To be fair, it looks better now! And Ben Gurion does make sense to be in the collage to represent the leadership of the state of Israel. 2.124.14.197 (talk) 08:28, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

It does look better, and it does make sense, agreed. Debresser (talk) 10:23, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you :-) I actually have an account, User:Sunderland against Di Canio. I just don't bother login in, but I make sure not to use my account and IP on the same page to make sure people don't think I'm trying to cheat by using "two voices". 2.124.14.197 (talk) 08:28, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Very wise of you. Debresser (talk) 10:23, 25 September 2013 (UTC)