Talk:Jews/infobox

User:M.V.E.i. has repeated changed the image on the the template to Image:Ashfamo1.JPG from Image:Jews.jpg I, as well as Humus sapiens have been reverting him. I do not believe that there is any consensus to change the image. The image was chosen for its balance of man/female and Ashkenazi/Sephardi on Talk:Jew. there has been no discussion to change the image and User:M.V.E.i. does not seem to understand that. Jon513 20:46, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Revert back from photos of contemporary entertainers

I noticed that a recent edit removed the photos of four Jewish historical figures with a large number of contemporary entertainers. I haven't seen any discussion prior to this change and I'd suggest it be discussed before such a major change is made. Rickterp 21:27, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Definitely not the way to go, but we need to include a Jew (I chose Jon Stewart but it can be anyone) from the 21st century IMO. Paliku 08:18, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Emma Lazarus v Rabbi Lau

Due to the minor edit conflict, I thought this would be a good subject for discussion. Both Emma Lazarus and Rabbi Lau are moderately well-known figures, so either would be a good candidate. One problem with both is that they're both known only in small spheres - Lazarus in the US, Lau in Israel, which makes it difficult to choose one over the other.

An advantage of Lazarus is that is balances the male/female ratio of the template; on the other hand, Rabbi Lau balances the religious/secular ratio.

Any thoughts or comments are much appreciated! Daniel^C/_T+ 14:28, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

On a purely aesthetic note, I do believe that the Lazarus picture fits better with the others. That's purely stylistic though, not informational. Daniel^C/_T+ 14:34, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree. The Lau image is, unfortunately, not to the same relative scale as the others; a cropped photo, zooming in closer, would be more effective. Perhaps someone with the graphics editing skills can accomplish this. As for the main issue, does this have to be an either-or, and cause a tug-of-war, or is there room for both images (i.e., total of five)? Here again, I defer to someone proficient in manipulating the graphics. Whoever said Emma Lazarus was an unknown woman has some homework to do, which I hope leads to a pleasant discovery regarding what she is most noted for, and where it is inscribed. Hertz1888 (talk) 15:17, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

In Israel she is barely known, if any. I think Yisrael Meir Lau is more representive of Jews than Emma. Firstly, he is a Rabbi. Secondly, he dressed in modern Haredi Jew (ultra-orthodox Jews) clothes. Thirdly, he was the chief Rabbi of Israel and fourthly, he is a Holocaust survivor. I think that for that reasons he should be pereferd over Emma the poet. MathKnight Gothic Israeli Jew 15:22, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

As to the either-or issue, I agree that including both might be possible; we should be sure that it doesn't get out of hand though, as is rapidly occurring on Ashkenazi Jews. Introducing a few lesser-known individuals could easily lead to editors adding their own personal favorites, which will have to then be shown to be less worthy in comparison to others in the template - something that I'd personally rather avoid. Einstein, Maimonides, and Meir are obvious choices; Lazarus and Lau less so. Daniel^C/_T+ 15:29, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

There are a few reasons why I think the picture of Lazarus fits better here.

• First, I think the picture works better visually, The fact that her head occupies a substantial portion of the frame and the picture is in black and white like the others makes it a better fit.
• Second, in terms of balance, the template as it is contains two women and two men; two ashkenazim and two sephardim; one scientist, one rabbi/physician/philosopher, one political leader, and one poet. This seems rather well thought out and advantageous to me. Or is it just serendipitous?
• I think there's something to be said for leaving things as they are when they don't have glaring problems. I'd hate to see the template become unstable without clear improvement being made. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 18:22, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

The balancing was indeed deliberate, and I'm glad you've appreciated it. See Talk:Jew/Archive_17#Smaller collage for the history.--Pharos (talk) 21:45, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Looking at the talk archive that Pharos provided, I'm very happy to maintain the status quo based on previous consensus (with a dissenting IP editor). While I do agree that having a modern religious figure in the collage is appealing, I don't think that the current proposal outweighs the previously agreed-upon format. If another modern religious figure can be found that matches with the other 3 figures better than what's been suggested here (Rabbi Lau) I would be open to further discussion, but based on the current options I think I'll have to support keeping the Lazarus entry for the template over the Lau replacement. Thanks to all for a reasoned, balanced debate; any further thoughts will still of course be taken fully into account. :) Daniel^C/_T+ 23:51, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Rabbi Ovadia Yosef with Tefilin and Talit.

I understand your reasons. Emma Lazarus is almost unknown to the folks here in Israel and her picture doesn't have any Jewish characteristics such as clothings. If you want a Sepharadi Rabbi how about Rabbi Ovadia Yosef? Here there is a picture of him with Tefilin and Talit, the religious Jewish clothes. MathKnight Gothic Israeli Jew 11:39, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect to Rabbi Lau, is he known outside of the Haredi community in Israel? Until his picture was added to the template, I had never heard of him. (I'm an American Jew with a solid Jewish education for somebody who didn't attend a yeshiva.) Most American Jews, and many times more non-Jewish Americans, have heard of Lazarus.

I wasn't aware of the care that went into the four portraits, but they seem reasonable to me. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 05:11, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Rabbi Lau was the Chief Rabbi of Israel and also mentioned as nominated to presidentcy of Israel. He, and Rabbi Ovadia Yosef, are very well known in Israel. I think their pictures, with religious costumes, are more representive of a Jews than a picture of American poet that not many recognize. MathKnight Gothic Israeli Jew 10:03, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I believe the current status quo should be mantained as well. 99.237.129.80 (talk) 03:18, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Shame of those representing Jews!

Three of these Jews were secular and were not shomer shabbat a deciding factor as to whether one is part of the Jewish community. The Jews pictured should be Jews in the true sense of the word, i.e. committed Jews, otherwise Jesus may as well appear?! Chesdovi (talk) 02:34, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

All three you speak of lived their entire lives as Jews, and nothing but. 99.237.129.80 (talk) 03:18, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Populations

Please note that the questions of the Jewish populations shown in the template was discussed in February-March 2008 at Talk:Jew#Populations. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] ([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]]) 20:46, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

New image uploaded

I created a new image. There are two reasons: 1. The image included Golda Meir. We should keep politics out. Many dont like her in Israel after the Yom Kippur War. 2. The previous image havent showed enough the Jewish contribution to many aspects of human life. Shpakovich (talk) 20:38, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

And I restored the previous image. Again.

Please read the discussion above. If you think there's a good reason to change the image, make a proposal and wait for a consensus to emerge. Thank you. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] ([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]]) 20:49, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

For years people try to change here something and they are brutaly reverted. Lets simply have a vote!!! Shpakovich (talk) 21:00, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

A vote

There are two proposed images. Choose.

A:

B:

Shpakovich (talk) 20:56, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

B. Because it shows the Jewish contribution in many directions, and because it doesnt have Golda Meir (we should keep politics out!!! And dont forget that after the Yom Kippur war she is hated by many in Israel). Shpakovich (talk) 21:02, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

First, we don't vote on Wikipedia:We discuss

Second, this has been thoroughly discussed and a consensus reached, although apparently not one that you like.

Third, we have something called WP:3RR on Wikipedia and you are grossly in violation of it. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 21:06, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

For years there were discussion and they brought nothing. Whats the peoblem to do a vote? During a vote a discussion will awake. Vote. Shpakovich (talk) 21:08, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion. I think your statement that "they brought nothing" can be effectively paraphrased as "a consensus formed that I don't like". --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 21:13, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I tried to discuss, i opened a discussion, i was reverted. During a vote people will say why they support something and that will be a discussion. Shpakovich (talk) 21:14, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Why should a political figure be kept out of it, aren't Jews involved in politics? Not to deny that discussion can be re-opened, but I thought this was pretty well hashed out already with even compromises on male/female, Sephardi/Ashkenaz, too many photos/too few photos, et cetera, ad nauseam. I say stay with the status quo. Have a good Shabbos! —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 21:20, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

The status quo is ugly, its invented by lazy people. The current image is primitive. Look at: Russians, Russians in Ukraine, Arab, Scottish people, Italians, Ukrainians, Han Chinese. Those are good images!!! They havent said "status quo"! Shpakovich (talk) 21:24, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to changing the image, but I question some of the people in Shpakovich's collage. Pedro Nunes was of Jewish descent, but he was a Christian. Baruch Spinoza was considered a heretic, which doesn't bother me but probably makes him objectionable to many others. If you're trying to avoid politics, why include Joseph Trumpeldor — have you ever heard of the right-wing Betar (Brit Trumpeldor) movement?

Another problem (albeit a minor one) is that many of the images face right. Per WP:MOS#Images, we should try to have left-facing images along the right margin where possible. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] ([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]]) 21:21, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

This article is about Jewish ethnicity. Nunes even if he will become a Budhist wont change the nose. Actually, about the turning of the faces, the dissorder style is even better here. I thought of it to in the begining. Shpakovich (talk) 21:24, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

(out of sequence outdent) "This article is about Jewish ethnicity. Nunes even if he will become a Budhist wont change the nose." Won't change the nose? What kind of sick garbage is that? Are you interested in improving this article or are you just being disruptive? — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] ([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]]) 20:55, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Just a small not on Pedro Nunes - he was not a Jew who converted to catholicism (he was catholic, though - in 1548 he was even knighted with an honorific catholic order by the King of Portugal), he was a New Christian of Jewish origin, that is to say, someone whose ancestors (no one knowns if recent of distant) were Jewish and converted or were forced to convert to catholicism. He never had problems with the Portuguese Inquisition, although two of his grandsons were arrested, Matias Pereira from 1623 to 31 and Pedro Nunes Pereira from 1623 to 32 (they were both released alive and given back their properties, though, which was quite rare). The Ogre (talk) 05:17, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't metters to the article. You talk about relegion, while this article is about ethnicity. Even if all his grandfathers and grandmothers were Jewish Christians, and he's a second generation born-catholic, ethnicaly he' still jewish. Shpakovich 18:59, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

On a point of information; Shpakovich you say that you've previously tried to open discussion on this but were reverted. I just went through your edit history and I can find no record of such a discussion before today, except your notice diff of how you changed the images on American Jews. Can you please post the diff of where/when to find this reverted old attempt at discussion? Thank you. —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 21:31, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I talk about the messege i wrote an hour ago. I havent receved a response to it until i was reverted about ten times. And in the history here i saw that alot of people before me tried to change something. Shpakovich (talk) 21:33, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I believe you mean this diff? While Steve Crossin (talk · contribs) may have been a tad blunt by reverting, polling is not a substitute for discussion and the discussion you opened was not reverted. Furthermore calling other editors lazy is likely a violation of the no personal attacks policy. There's no reason to we can't (yet again) discuss these images, but let's keep the subject the issues and not characterizations of others, okay? Thanks and good shabbos! Logging off for the next 25 hours or so... —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 21:58, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Group A seems more sensible, sticking to famous Jews, rather than obscure Jews or non-Jews. It might make sense to substitute Freud for Lazarus. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:31, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

If you substitute Freud for Lazarus, you're replacing a woman with a man and an Sephardic with and Ashkenazi Jew, undoing a carefully thought out balance. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 17:27, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Why not Emma Goldman instead of Golda Meir? and why not 6 or 8 figures instead of 4 to make everyone satisfied?Yuvn86 (talk) 19:03, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Meir was more famous and achieved more. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:30, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

For the Sephardi Jews' article the following was made:

File:Sephardi Jews - mosaic.PNG

And you can see what has been made for other "people" articles:

• Portuguese
  Portuguese
• 
  African Americans
• Italians
  Italians
• 
  Irish Americans
• 
  French
• 
  Spanish

Just though you should know if you didn't already. Cheers. The Ogre (talk) 19:25, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Usage in 16 other language Wikipedias

I just want to point out that the current portraits image is hosted on the Wikimedia Commons, and is used in 16 other language Wikipedias in addition to English, including the major languages Spanish, French, Japanese, Polish, Portuguese and (important in this instance) Hebrew. This presumably implies some sort of consensus among these projects.--Pharos (talk) 00:25, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Or perhaps laziness, as Shpakovich suggested. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] ([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]]) 02:37, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Getting ready for an NPOV tag

The current Infobox raises NPOV concerns, as described below. Since I consider it overly Bold/agressive to slap a tag on it now, I am approaching what I consider necessary edits on the talk page first. Thanks Malik, for the population reference above, but I do not believe it has been discussed enough.

• {Infobox Jew} hides very relevant info by the placement of unnatural breaks (i.e. Total, Israel, Others). The data should set the design, currently, political placement appears to set the design.
• The info that this infobox table should show is that there are only two countries in the world with large populations of Jews (both greater by a factor of >10). These two are Israel the US and then, following far behind, all others countries. The NPOV presentation of data necessitates the equal presentation of these two countries, which together and equally comprise 75% of the total population. Anything else is Undue. My read of NPOV is that (with population as the stated basis), Israel and the US are equal. Any other criteria to unequally highlight Israel (like centered and alone versus justified and ‘the rest’) will likely get a multiple issue tag, because that brings in ‘Aliyah/Diaspora-or-not’, which sides politically with Israel/Zionism, rather than the majority Diaspora, and also is not necessarily about Jewry and population. Whichever way you divide any facts below these two, is up to you. Sorting by continental ‘regions’, then population, seems logical and factual for the smaller-population countries.
• Absolute mis-statement of fact: “Regions with significant populations.” There are no ‘regions’ listed, they are countries.
• The countries are not even arranged by ‘region.’ They are presently arranged by population and mix ‘regions’ wildly.
• If the countries were arranged by ‘region,’ then North America would be the largest. Personally, I prefer by country, the basis of the data, it also keeps Israel at the top. If there are any descriptive breaks, they must go below the US position.
• Absolute mis-statement of fact; most countries are listed as “Other significant population centers.” Although there are significant ‘population centers’ around the world, they are not countries. If you keep the list by ‘population centers’, then list Tel Aviv, followed by NYC (per JVL, I believe).
• I do not believe that country populations under, say, 10,000 (and about 0.1% of the total) are truly ‘significant’. Keep the data you want, but this should be re-stated.

Whatever pictures are included at the top of the infobox is up to you, but my read is that the history and diversity of World Jewry can be illustrated better by many more than four pics. I believe that a 12- or 16-pic block would be more representative and likely easier to build a consensus. Adding some life, live people and color would help.

I am not yet technically comfortable about just jumping into the infobox edits, but if nothing comes of my comments, I will learn what is necessary. If my lack of technical knowledge causes a ‘dah’ response regarding my comments, then fill me in as to why these cannot be accommodated. Regards, CasualObserver'48 (talk) 13:46, 12 April 2008 (UTC)