Talk:Jews/infobox/Archive 1

Photos
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.  M ath K night  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 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)


 * 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.  M ath K night  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.  M ath K night  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. — Malik Shabazz (talk · 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. — Malik Shabazz (talk · 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 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! &mdash;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, we should try to have left-facing images along the right margin where possible. — Malik Shabazz (talk · 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? — Malik Shabazz (talk · 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. &mdash;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 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... &mdash;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: And you can see what has been made for other "people" articles:

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


 * If you go with one montage, that can leave some unhappy with the selection, and maybe end up with one persons' pov. Look on Irish people page, and the montage is a collection of different images, but still each one can be changed quite easily. purple (talk) 23:10, 7 May 2009 (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. [[Image:Smile.png|18px]] — Malik Shabazz (talk · 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 Jews} 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&#39;48 (talk) 13:46, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Israel is centred as by the template it is the population centre. Not only does it have the highest Jewish population in the world, the only Jewish majority, the historic home of the Jewish people, it is the world's only Jewish state.  The United States is a non-Jewish state and Jews in the United States comprise only 2% of the population. Epson291 (talk) 16:44, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Whether Israel has the largest Jewish population is debatable, as noted above, but being external, I want to stay away from internal religious debates. That Israel is the only country with a majority is absolute fact, and as I noted above, should remain at the top for both demographic and Jewish reasons.  But then, for some unknown reason(s), the infobox marginalizes a similar, equal US population by lumping them below the highlighted break as 'also rans', when the numbers indicate a 'dead heat'.  This is absolutely undue weight.  As this template is only currently linked with one article, Jew, describing a widely diverse people of a specific but similarly diverse religion, it should indicate the weight of their demographics and distribution, not their internal politics.  If you feel that Israel is the center and should be centered, I have no problem with that, but NPOV requires the US be similarly centered per the stated facts.   CasualObserver&#39;48 (talk) 06:22, 13 April 2008 (UTC) (written prior to comments below)
 * The format follows all similar infoboxes. Israel contains both the largest number of Jews in the world, but is also the world's only Jewish state, and the only country where Jews form a majority. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jayjg (talk • contribs) 06:35, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * We've had this discussion before; look at Talk:Jew. I'm in favor of including the United States as a significant population center (it had more Jews than Israel until one or two years ago), but consensus is otherwise.
 * With respect to your complaints that these are countries and not "regions", they apply to all ethnic templates. There is no reason to criticize this template and not Template:African American ethnicity or Template:Italian ethnicity. The appropriate forum for that discussion is Template talk: Infobox Ethnic group. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 01:57, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Malik, thanks. This is a valid “‘dah’ response regarding my comments”, which I hadn’t known/considered.  I had looked at your population ref above on this page and didn’t see much of what I needed.  I landed/posted here coming from the bottom-up, not the top-down; I believe my argument remains valid from that perspective, but am unfamiliar with the top-down, as yet.  I assume there are no conflicts between these two perspectives.  I will look deeper into that root of my complaint and re-consider its continued applicability and significance. Regards, CasualObserver&#39;48 (talk) 06:22, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * CasualObserver, if you will trouble to take a look at Germans, Italians, Spanish people, British people or any of a number of other articles on varioius, groups you will see that the infoboxes in those articles are formatted identically to this one, with the home country of the ethnic group centered at the top and other countries below it in order of raw population numbers. I see no reason to implement any of the suggestions above with the possible exception of removal of the phrase "Other significant populations centers:", which seems not to be found in any similar article. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 03:13, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Steve, thanks too. Please see my comments to Malik, above.  I appreciate the support on ‘centers.’  But don’t you also think the wildly confused arrangement/misuse of ‘regions’ is a similarly valid argument?  Without yet looking deeper into the global, top-down template side of the debate I have raised, I would still have to say that the current specific listing by decreasing population tends to defeat the purpose of the apparent ‘regional’ basis of an ethnic template.  This, for me, brings up more questions than answers.  CasualObserver&#39;48 (talk) 06:22, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Similar templates that I've seen follow the same format. You appear to be trying to inject politics into a template which has successfully avoided it until now. Jayjg(talk) 06:35, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi, Jay, I guess I did bring ‘political’ up, outside the photo-related discussion, above, anyway. It appears that you brought one up in the template itself, with your (reverted) ‘Related groups’ edit.  I concur with your edit, btw, and not its revert, but I will stay away from those aspects of the template; it seems internal and I am not.  I am arguing what I see as the editorial/political separation of numbers, which I believe should be able to speak for themselves.  Most of whatever ‘political’ I noted, I tried to keep it in a separate, multiple-issue problem, not yet raised. CasualObserver&#39;48 (talk) 07:05, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed with Jayjg. As for the "Other significant populations centers:", I removed the word "centre" per this discussion. Epson291 (talk) 07:53, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Epson, I can not understand this post, unless you are talking to Jay elsewhere, or you mean Steve, or a slightly different, earlier quote from me. Thanks for the removal of ‘centers’, but the questionable use of ‘significant’ remains, in relation to all the numbers used and how they have been divided. CasualObserver&#39;48 (talk) 07:05, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I still see some NPOV questions. Per Malik’s suggestion, I took a look at Template:Infobox Ethnic group and came up with the list below. I cherry-picked a bit to save time, stay away from what I thought to be Far East or Amerindian, get ones that were previously mentioned, ones with similarities or ethnics with which I am personally familiar, or approapriate examples. Editors are free to point out any lack of NPOV they might see, or pick your own. My list and looking into Wiki-template-things show, in fact, that there is little consistency and there is some picking-and-choosing allowable within the template realm. I am still disputing the NPOV of some choices that have been made here. Please look at my choices; I believe you can understand my shorthand, otherwise this has all been a waste of time. I posted here with commitment to NPOV.


 * Albanians, no centering, large population difference, no organization of countries;
 * Armenians, no centering, large diff in population, decr’g pop;
 * Basque people, no centering, large diff, decr’g pop;
 * Circassians, no centering, large reverse diff, decr’g population;
 * Danish people, no centering, decr’g pop;
 * English people, no centering, equal wt for 4 countries;
 * Greeks, no centering, decr’g pop;
 * Hazara people, no centering, large diff, decr’g pop;
 * Hungarian people, no centering, largest pop, followed by geog regions w/ decr’g pop;
 * Irish people, all centered, mostly decr’g pop;
 * Javanese people, all centered, by regional and decr’g pop;
 * Ashkenazi Jews, no centering, decr’g pop;
 * Cochin Jews, all centered, decr’g pop;
 * Georgian Jews, all centered, decr’g pop;
 * Mizrahi Jews, no centering, decr’g pop;
 * Mountain Jews, no centering, generally decr’g pop;
 * Sephardi Jews, no centering, decr’g pop;
 * Kurdish people, no centering, large diff, geog regions w/ decr’g pop;
 * Latvian people all centered, decr’g pop;
 * Persian people, no centering, large diff, decr’g pop;
 * Poles, no centering, decr’g pop;
 * Punjabi people, all centered, general decr’g pop;
 * Roma people no centering, alphabetical including homeland w/ large diff;
 * Romanians, no centering, not all decr’g pop, geog regional mix;
 * Slovaks, no centering, decr’g pop;
 * Slovenes, no centering, decr’g pop;
 * Serbs, no centering, by geog and by regions w/ decr’g pop;
 * Turkish people, no centering, decr’g pop;


 * British people, homeland centered, mod’t diff, generally decr’g pop;
 * Estonians, homeland centered, large diff, rest not, decr’g pop;
 * Italians, homeland centered, large diff, rest not, decr’g pop;
 * Palestinian people, homeland centered, mod’t diff, decr’g pop;
 * Russians, homeland centered, large diff, decr’g pop;
 * Scottish people, Homeland homeland centered, large reverse diff, decr’g pop;
 * Sikh, homeland centered, large diff, decr’g pop;
 * Spanish people, homeland centered, mod’t diff, decr’g pop, to absolute insignificance;
 * Swedish people, homeland centered, large diff, decr’g pop;
 * Ukrainians, homeland centered, large pop diff, decr’g pop, rest of world;

Many/most of my specific complaints remain valid. Others or ones with aspects that may need clarification will be brought to Template:Infobox Ethnic group, as suggested. Regards, CasualObserver&#39;48 (talk) 07:05, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It looks to me like you're nitpicking to make some political point. Frankly, it's distasteful. There's no need to inject political views into absolutely every article. Jayjg (talk) 00:47, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * My goodness, CO, you certianly have been busy. However, all your research seems to establish is that the way this template is used varies somewhat from article to article based on the consensus reached at each individual article. I still see no reason for a change or a POV tag. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 02:29, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I see it as data collection, not research, to form a firm basis for things I was unaware, and it was suggested that I look; I did. I believe, based on these and likely others, that my comments remain valid; there seem to be some glaring inconsistencies.  I appreciate that “consensus reached at each individual article” is a valid point, but I believe consistency and living within NPOV provided by numbers remains a more-prime Wiki-objective.  Honestly, I am hesitant to add a POV tag, because I don’t know if the two can co-exist because of differing formats.  Is there a specific POV tag designed for an infobox? CasualObserver&#39;48 (talk) 08:55, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with Jayjg and Steven J. Anderson. There doesn't seem to be any controversy or contention concerning the layout of the infobox. As I wrote earlier, there is a well-established consensus to keep the layout the way it is. Even though I don't agree with that view, I don't see any POV problems with it. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 02:52, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * As I state below I contend some inconsistencies between number-facts and layout. I discussed what you call the “well-established consensus to keep the layout the way it is,” above.  My enumerated POV concerns are described below.  Thanks for adding the back-ref to the main discussion page at the top of this page, but it is too late now.  Regards, CasualObserver&#39;48 (talk) 08:55, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Jay, (et.al., later) thanks for the comments, and I will answer them with an outdent, because they bear substantially on the topic, might reduce indents, and shorten this discussion. It may also allow others to see where I stand relative to the NPOV problem I raised and some blurring Jay has included. My replies might also have to wander some, so other involved editors may more fully understand.
 * Concerning Jay’s first comment, “nitpicking to make some political point:” My simple rebuttal is that my criticism of the current design, which “hides very relevant info by the placement of unnatural breaks” and creates “separation of numbers, which … should be able to speak for themselves,” is not nitpicking. It is NPOV.  The current design is an excellent example of one of my favorite expressions: “Figures don’t lie, but liars can figure.”  With that, I am not calling anyone a liar, only implying that some can figure/calculate.
 * Your comment raises, again however, “whatever ‘political’ I noted, I tried to keep [it] in a separate, multiple-issue problem, not yet raised.” So now, I must try to elucidate.  I believe that our political differences revolve around a single word, Zionism, and its multiple, changing definitions, which you and I have discussed at length elsewhere.
 * To state my POV simply, so others may judge and better lead toward resolution, my POV strongly supports Medīnat Yisrā'el’s Biblical and modern legitimacy and its right to exist in peace, when and since it was established. I believe Jay and I agree on that.  I am opposed, however, to activist Zionism’s post-1967/1977/on-going changes, which actively attempt to re-define Israel into Eretz Israel on multiple fronts.  I am opposed to this for moral, ethical and real-world reasons, because it seems to negate and disavow equally valid self-determination for another people (POV) and seems to create growing troubles for Israel, the US and the World.  Such a zealous view of Zionism essentially negates Israel’s and the World’s 1947 acceptance of United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine (UN181), a critical, basic legal framework for Israel’s political legitimacy.  This is extremely worrisome, downright frightening. (I will now stop there, noting that it had to be stated to establish my POV bona fides and my degree of, and ability to be NPOV.  This also gives Jay and others an opening to do the same, and I encourage you to do so.  This is the talk page, right?  I might step on a Wiki-toe, but it seems much preferred to bludgeoning editors with NEO, OR, RS and SYN.)
 * The quite simple changes I believe are required for NPOV consist of the following at this point; please refer to the template to understand/’see’ them.
 * Delete the ‘centering’ of Israel and make it ‘left,’ similar to other countries. This makes this template consistent with all other Jewish ethnic templates that I have found (examples are provided above).
 * Remove the small ‘ Other significant Populations ’ from its current position between Israel and the US to a position somewhere below the US. At this point, since there has been no reply to my questions at the global ethnic group infobox page.  I have no idea where that break might be.  How do you define ‘significant’ in relation to the numbers provided?


 * Concerning Jay’s second comment, “Frankly, it's distasteful,” I unfortunately tend to agree, but feel he over-states it. Yesterday, I ran across a somewhat similar personal-political nerve and used the expression ‘disturbingly POV’d.’  What I see as Zionism’s POV already in the current infobox design is that Israel, by design, becomes the ‘center’ of what Jews are.  This is distinctly political not NPOV, based on the facts that the numbers indicate and should be allowed to indicate, in and of themselves.  I believe this latter view is quite widely held, and I am not alone.  We shall see.

Respectfully, CasualObserver&#39;48 (talk) 08:24, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Concerning Jay’s last comment: ‘There’s no need to inject political views into absolutely every article.” Well, I guess it was intended for you other editors.  I dispute it somewhat, but guess it is a fair statement of Jay’s views of my edits.  I believe I just dealt with the specifics immediately above.  My dispute concerning the current design is that the political view already exists; I am attempting to remove it, and inject NPOV.
 * CO48, it was your attempt to politicize this infobox I found distasteful, as you well know. Disingenuous comments are not helpful. Regarding your other points, your claim that the infobox has been designed with "Zionism's POV" is, frankly, absurd - stop looking for sneaky Zionist conspiracies where none exist. The Israel heading is centered because Israel is the ancestral homeland of Jews, it has the world's largest Jewish population, and is the only state with a Jewish majority - in fact, the only state with more than 2% Jews. The infobox matches many similar infoboxes, and your attempts to inject your political POV into this infobox have moved beyond distasteful. Jayjg (talk) 03:18, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The design layout was designed like many other groups. "Zionism" has nothing to do with it.  Israel, the country, makes up the world's largest Jewish population, the only Jewish majority, the ancestral homeland of the Jewish people, and the only place Jews up make up more then a couple of percent.  The changes you seek to diminish Israel relate to your own political views, and they need to stay out of this. There is no reason to change this template to conform to your self-admitted anti- Israeli "Zionism" POV. Epson291 (talk) 05:04, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

As you both point out, it is somewhat similar, but not that much and here are two ways where it is totally different: I believe that the global ethnic info box seeks consistency. I am asking for one of these to be edited, make it consistent. Whatever my openly admitted POV may be, my complaint revolves around the numbers and how they are presented. The current presentation is not NPOV. Regards, CasualObserver&#39;48 (talk) 12:25, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * This infobox is the only one I've found that 'centers' their 'homeland', even though, there is no difference between the populations of the 'homeland' and a somewhere else, uncentered. Please, find one, it will support the current version, I'm open.
 * This Jewish ethnic group infobox is the only Jewish ethnic infobox (1 of 7) that centers Israel (see above). Is there some specific, technical reason for this that I might have missed, based on the parameters of the ethnic group infobox (regions, countries, populations, etc)? The stated reasons provided so far are not ‘ethnic’.  They seem to be religious, historical, Biblical, national, or (maybe) political. Please provide me with a good, ethnic reason, I'm open to suggestions/things I may have missed.
 * You're making a mountain out of a molehill. So it's centered. Big deal. I don't see you complaining about the exact same thing in the Palestinian people infobox. Jayjg (talk) 01:42, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * In case anyone new to this page is wondering why all this verbiage is being expended, I'll try to do my honest best to condense CasualObserver's position down to its essentials. Simply put, he seems to think the infobox has POV problems for two reasons:
 * In the population statistics section, the entry for Israel is centered.
 * The line under the entry for Israel contains the text "Other significant populations:"
 * I am not making this up. This is actually what he's on about. All of the gibberish above about "unnatural breaks", "absolute mis-statement of fact" and, most precious of all, "Zionism, and its multiple, changing definitions" amounts to no more than this.
 * CO, have you noticed that no one at this talk page but you sees any merit in your arguments? Do you understand the meaning of consensus? Can you recognize that there is one?
 * I'll tell you what, just because I want everyone here to be as happy as possible, I'll state my view that the text "Other significant populations:", while obviously not the slightest bit POV, is pretty clearly tautological and conveys no actual information to the reader, so I'll delete it myself forthwith. Is there any chance that this will satisfy your injured sense of justice or are we all going to have to watch this talk page become further bloated with endless, spurious, irrelevant nonsense? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 07:25, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Sheesh, could we cool off with the personal attacks? I agree with your edit, though now it makes the different vertical alignment of "Israel" look less like visual emphasis and more like a formatting oversight. I fully expect some well-meaning editor not aware of this overwrought discussion to come along and "fix" it to line up with all the others, purely for visual reasons. &mdash;Ashley Y 07:55, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for that edit of the infobox, really. It is not a molehill, it is movement toward NPOV. As an infobox characterizing ‘Jew’, it looks more characteristic, and provides better balance for the included facts. I too, want this to end quickly, but don’t believe I have been nasty about it. I have consistently argued to let the numbers speak for themselves.

I am still asking, however, for an ethnic justification for the centering of Israel, as noted above, not the non-ethnic ones provided. This is my last problem, then I will get out of your hair and thank you for your consideration of the facts.

I will point to some facts, which might make this admittedly very difficult ‘homeland’ edit quicker, and hopefully easier, because I will not dispute what I consider the legitimate right to an ethnic infobox for the article, it seems to be one of those self-identifying terms, and to do so I feel, is less than honorable. The infobox indicates a homeland, but the article is written in English in the 21st Century CE, not in Latin in the 1st or 2nd Century, nor in Hebrew in the 6th Century BCE. There have been many changes and events in the interim. Like America, Israel is a land of immigrants, although you use different terms. We already have more strictly ethnic/genealogical Jewish ethnic infoboxes. In addition, there are such terms as Yishuv, Sabras, refugees and those who make aliyah. I do not want to go there, nor do I think you do. To paraphrase a comment on the article talk pages, ‘you generally can’t convert to an ethnicity’. Please, let’s wrap this up, let us all retain out honor. Respectfully, CasualObserver&#39;48 (talk) 09:48, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * While the statement is unnecessary, it was put there because it confused some people that it was a 'formatting oversight'. Since the statment it self is is not inaccurate and pretty benign, I put it back. I already removed the word "centre" for CasualObserver. Epson291 (talk) 22:36, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * CO, you have alreay been given several justifications for it, and I don't see how any of them are not 'ethnic' ones. Epson291 (talk) 22:43, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * CasualObserver, it has been pointed out to you several times that there is consensus to leave the infobox the way it is. I don't entirely agree with the rationale (e.g., the Jewish ancestral homeland is the Land of Israel, not the modern State of Israel), but consensus is Wikipedia's fundamental model for editorial decision-making and it is clear that there is a consensus concerning this matter. There is no Zionist conspiracy at work here, forcing its POV down the throats of unsuspecting Wikipedia editors and readers.
 * Yes, let's wrap this up. Please consider that you're swimming upstream and no amount of rhetoric is likely to change the consensus concerning the placement of Israel in the infobox. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 23:27, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely, Malik, and thank you, from the bottom of my heart. Consensus is absolutely at the root of article/infobox/template or Wiki-whatever writing and must be. Since your previous suggestions have been so helpful and informative, I took a look at the top of the page, the decision tree, TOC, and about one page-down. That more-or-less covers the topic at hand. I really haven’t looked much into that side of Wiki-rules yet, but I suspect at some point I should/must. However, I also did a quick ctrl-f, which is my basic ‘sniff-test’-method, and that surprisingly unhappy result, will likely cause a comment on that talk page, because (by my POV) it is so basic to what Wikipedia is/should be.

Anyway, I believe my approach here has complied very well with the intended method of building consensus. I will point to no reverts, no moves and no disruption of the article. I can further point to several article edits, which apparently, were established by a changing consensus, since I have made no edits myself. Isn’t that the way it is supposed to work? I admit that I may have ruffled some feathers on this talk page (in some cases) by even being here and questioning the existing consensus, but as far as the CON decision tree is concerned, we have been making relatively calm loops on the top line only. My involvement has conformed with Wiki-policy, and note that I arrived here from the bottom-up with the lowest level of consensual rhetorical violence that I could imagine still being effective.

Consensus, however, is also based on one other thing that seems missing from the CON page (seemingly even denigrated). Since I have used this ‘other thing’ many times but have not yet linked it, I suppose it is time to make this thing and my point both bold and blue. The thing that also seems missing from the infobox are the Fact(s) and their NPOV usage. I do not believe that consensus may or should ‘trump’ facts; I believe this is basic and encyclopedic (or am I missing something). As far as editing this infobox is concerned, the facts are the numbers, their distribution and their significance. These facts are followed (or sorted) by the regions, countries, flags, references, etc. At their least factual and most POV’able level, however, is how these facts are arranged. This is what I have been stressing since I landed here.

There is no factual (numerical) reason to ‘center’ Israel in the info box; specifically ethnic reasons to do so may be factually questionable, but seem to be self-identifying and I want to stay away from that, if I can. I accept that there are other very strongly self-identified, non-ethnic reasons to do so, but these are not among the factual parameters of the ethnic infobox. Therefore, I still consider the ‘centered’ status of Israel to be in violation of NPOV, unless as I have said you can provide something specifically ethnic. (I also just noticed that 'centering' is now out but the previously removed unnatural break has been re-introduced - Still POV.) With high regard, Malik, CasualObserver&#39;48 (talk) 06:09, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

What is this, chopped liver?
You should be aware that I posted here and received several responses that tended to support my NPOV position. Also, I should note that this discussion has since ensued. As always, I take the advice given, and have learned some things of particular relevance to the question at hand, specifically this NPOV. I have used that phrase several times, and the current consensus stands in violation of a specific paragraph of NPOV policy, word for word. Think about it, soon.

This is no side-dish, believe me. This is a very specific case, quite perfect, well suited, and potentially quite tasty, for some, but I don’t want to go there, if possible. I am somewhat aware of the options that are available at differing levels of rhetorical violence, if this impasse continues. I will endeavor to minimize this, but patience and AGF are only good for so long. I have attempted a tact that seemed reasonable, but has been fruitless and has now ended with a total lack of negotiation. The current tack, of ‘taking your CON ball and going home’ will not resolve this. It could get ugly. Specifically, I am referring to what happens when the NPOV tag is inserted at the top of the infobox; try it with a preview, but cancel, please. If some sense an increasing boldness, you are likely right; I will point to Wikilobby campaign as being a major motivator. Regards, CasualObserver&#39;48 (talk) 08:32, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Having perused your posts and the responses to it at Wikipedia talk:Consensus I can state unequivocally that there are, contrary to what you claim, no responses that tend to support your position. Having done everything I can to explain the manifest and manifold flaws in your reasoning (such as it is), I think there's nothing for it but to assure you that the tag you propose will not survive and note that it's well past time to invoke WP:DNFTT. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 11:15, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * If you had read my post there and comprehended it, rather than just reacting, you would have realized that I never noted my question of 'centering' Israel on that page. It was you who put that question there, but don't expect much of a reply. I'm working on a deeper (or possibly higher) level at which a healthy 'Hmmmm' is considered acknowledgingly positive. CasualObserver&#39;48 (talk) 12:13, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I see. How stupidly undiscerning of me not to realize that your secret Jedi powers enable you to comprehend the hidden meaning behind "Hmmm". --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 12:47, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure how many different ways there are to explain this to you, CasualObserver&#39;48, but nobody else seems to see a POV problem here. Many other ethnic templates use the same layout. Even non-Zionists accept the status quo. You can write about facts all you'd like, but other editors have laid out other facts. The two sets of facts have been weighed, and consensus gelled around the current layout. Repeating yourself won't change that. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 23:47, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * CO48, I can state with certainty that there is absolutely no consensus for your attempts to mete out special treatment to this template. The template is similar to many other templates. Go "fix" the template at Palestinian people. Jayjg (talk) 23:52, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Regions with "significant" Jewish populations
I think one of the comments above raised a good point. Maybe countries with fewer than x Jews (where x might be 15,000 or 20,000 or 25,000) shouldn't be described as "significant" Jewish populations. What do others think? — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 02:55, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * There aren't all that many Jews in the world. I think any population over 5000 is "significant". See also Serbs, Spanish people, Romanians etc. Danish people goes under 1000. Jayjg (talk) 03:04, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed, and in addition, many of these places are historically very important to Jewish history. Epson291 (talk) 07:11, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I will stay out; this is an internal decision. This has no impact on my previous comments, but i have raised the relative use of 'significant' globally on the approapriate page.  CasualObserver&#39;48 (talk) 09:00, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Palestinian territories
Shouldn't we list the number of Jews in the Palestinian Territories? &mdash;Ashley Y 08:37, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I've changed the box to point out that the "Israel" figure is in fact for both Israel and the Palestinian territories. If someone has a source, I recommend separating out the latter. Note that figures are of 2006, after the Israeli withdrawal from the Gaza Strip. &mdash;Ashley Y 01:37, 19 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd also like to point out that when the West Bank is taken out, there are, apparently, more Jews in America than in Israel. &mdash;Ashley Y 07:08, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * However, those Jews are citizens of Israel and not the Palestinian territories, they are not under Palestinian jurisdiction or control at all, your edit is misleading. Epson291 (talk) 10:44, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * It doesn't say "citizenship" or "jurisdiction" or "control". It says "Regions with significant populations". &mdash;Ashley Y 18:26, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * That's right, and the "region" in this case is Israel. Jayjg (talk) 00:07, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Ethnic reasons, should likely be the only basic determinants on an ethnic infobox. These words sound distinctly unethnic.  How you define your 'homeland' is your choice as long as it is based on RSs.  CasualObserver&#39;48 (talk) 00:46, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I disagree, we should use a neutral point of view, not a "pro-ethnic" point of view, regarding the names of regions with populations of Jews. &mdash;Ashley Y 01:16, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The "Palestinian territories" are not a country however.  And in addition, those Jews are still residing in the country of Israel. The infobox contains a list of countries, that is how its been done.  The  "Palestinian territories" or "Palestine" is not a country and should not be listed as if it is one.  Taking out the Israeli popultion from the number, makes the the Israel number incorrect. Dissecting the population of Israel doesn't belong on this page.  Epson291 (talk) 14:22, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * They're definitely not in Israel. It's true that the Palestinian territories are not a country, but the infobox says "regions", not "countries". The Israel article makes it quite clear the territories are not part of Israel: "The West Bank and Gaza Strip, which are partially administrated by the Palestinian National Authority, are also adjacent." &mdash;Ashley Y 18:58, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * There are no Jews in the Gaza Strip, and half of the rest are in East Jerusalem, the Corpus separatum. Jayjg (talk) 00:05, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * There are still Jews in the West Bank, however. That's not Israel. &mdash;Ashley Y 01:18, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps not the country of Israel. But, as you point out, the template is referring to "regions", and they're certainly in the region of Israel. Jayjg (talk) 01:26, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * There is no "region of Israel" besides Israel. And the West Bank is not part of Israel. &mdash;Ashley Y 01:28, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * According to whom? In any event, they're all in the region of Israel, under the government of Israel. You too can take your attempts to politicize this template elsewhere, thank you very much. Jayjg (talk) 01:31, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Please assume good faith. This "region of Israel" is original research, and highly political. Sure, the West Bank is under the government of Israel, but it is not part of it: Israel has not annexed it. East Jerusalem is a more dubious case, as Israel has annexed it (maybe) but that annexation is not generally recognised. But the West Bank is quite clear. &mdash;Ashley Y 01:37, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The people living in the settlements are under the government of Israel, not the PA, just as residents of Haifa or Tel Aviv are. Jayjg (talk) 02:00, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Correct. But the infobox doesn't say "governments", it says "regions". And as I pointed out, there is no "region of Israel" besides Israel (unless you want to coin a new phrase). Haifa and Tel Aviv are in Israel. The settlements are not. &mdash;Ashley Y 02:04, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It's clear that the term "region" is used rather broadly in the ethnicity infoboxes, to refer to countries, regions, or anything else people want it to refer to. For example in Persian people the infobox refers to "Israel"! Do you think they subtracted the number of "Persians" living in the West Bank and East Jerusalem from the total? Do you figure you need to go to every single ethnic infobox that mentions "Israel" and change it to "Israel and the Palestinian territories"? Or would that seem a bit disruptive? As I've said before, attempts to politicize this template are unwelcome, whether by CO48, you, or anyone else. Please take these pointless political battles to some other article, and leave this template alone. Please. Jayjg (talk) 02:27, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Please assume good faith. If the figures for the number of Persian people living in Israel are inaccurate, they should of course be corrected. Putting "Israel" to mean in fact "Israel and the Palestinian territories" is at best highly POV and at worst inaccurate. It's not acceptable in a neutral encyclopedia. Claiming there's a "Region of Israel" other than Israel is original research. And talking about "governments" is irrelevant. &mdash;Ashley Y 02:39, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You're going around in circles, I'm afraid. In any event, the source says simply "Israel"; your claim that it means anything else is OR. Inserting your political POV into this template is disruptive. This template will remain simple, and unpolluted with political point-making. If you really feel create political strife, go to the Han Chinese template and change "People's Republic of China" to "People's Republic of China and Occupied Tibet and Kashmir". Jayjg (talk) 03:17, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Please assume good faith. China's claim to Tibet is recognised by pretty much all nations. Chinese-occupied Kashmir may be disputed, but it's negligible for the Han. You'll notice how Hong Kong and Macau are shown as sub-regions, even though they are clearly part of the PRC. And how, especially, Taiwan is separated out, even though the PRC claims it.


 * Accuracy trumps simplicity, and using "Israel" to mean "Israel and the Palestinian territories" is a political POV that must be removed. &mdash;Ashley Y 03:26, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed, your political POV "must be removed" from this Template. The source says Israel. Jayjg (talk) 03:32, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The source does indeed say "Israel", but it is including the Palestinian territories. It has the same political POV as the one currently shown in the template, one that cannot be said to be neutral. &mdash;Ashley Y 03:39, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * According to whom is it including the Palestinian territories? Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 03:55, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Do you doubt it? &mdash;Ashley Y 03:57, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * What an odd non-response! According to whom is it including the Palestinian territories? Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 04:02, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * It's not what the source says, it's what it means. Where the source says "Israel", do you believe it includes the Palestinian territories or not? &mdash;Ashley Y 04:05, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * What an odd non-response! According to whom is it including the Palestinian territories? P.S. Unlike you, I won't indulge in OR on this topic. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 04:07, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * You won't indulge in OR on this topic. Good. I have assumed that it was obvious that it does include the Palestinian territories. But if it is not obvious, then a source would be needed, which I can't find. In the absence of a source on whether the Palestinian territories are included, should we assume that they are not included? &mdash;Ashley Y 04:12, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * No, instead, let's just comply with WP:V and WP:NOR, and simply quote the source. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 04:26, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, if we, as you suggest, don't assume that they are not included, then we cannot "simply quote the source", since we don't know what it means. &mdash;Ashley Y 04:30, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It says Israel, it means Israel. It's only your original research and political point-making that indicate anything else. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 05:24, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Please assume good faith. Does that "Israel" include the Palestinian territories or not? We can't use the source if we don't know. &mdash;Ashley Y 05:45, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * We have no reason, other than OR, to think otherwise. If you find a reliable source questioning this, let me know. There's nothing whatsoever in policy that says "we can't use a reliable source if User:Ashley Y isn't sure that it means 'Israel' when it says 'Israel'". Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 05:55, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Think otherwise? Just to be clear, should we assume it does or does not include the Palestinian territories? I can't tell from your comment. Certainly, we can't use the source if nobody is sure of its meaning. &mdash;Ashley Y 06:01, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The source says "Israel". There's no reason to think it means anything else. If you think there is a reason to think it means something else, provide a reliable source backing up that opinion. There's no-one who is not "sure of it's meaning", least of all you, who insists that it means "Israel and the Palestinian territories". Please desist from further WP:POINT; WP:AGF no longer applies, since you're now just playing Talk: page games. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 06:04, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

(outdent)Just to be completely clear, you are saying that "Israel" does not include the Palestinian territories, right? &mdash;Ashley Y 06:06, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * No, to be completely clear, I'm saying that if you think the source means "Israel and the Palestinian territories", then bring a source backing it up, otherwise it's just more disruptive original research and wikilawyering. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 06:11, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Please assume good faith. OK, so in the absence of any source, do we assume it doesn't includes the "Palestinian territories"? If we don't know, we can't use the source. &mdash;Ashley Y 06:16, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * No, to be completely clear, I'm saying that if you think the source means "Israel and the Palestinian territories", then bring a source backing it up, otherwise you're just admitting once again your disruptive original research and wikilawyering. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 06:18, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) There's a precise term for the "region of Israel" that Jayjg would like to include. It's Greater Israel, and I've added it to the template. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 03:34, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * That is at least accurate, and thus an improvement. Having the Israeli flag symbolically fly over "Greater Israel" strikes me as non-neutral, however. Also, according to the Greater Israel article, the term is not so precise. Still, in context, it may be clear enough. &mdash;Ashley Y 03:43, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Err, no. I don't "want to include" anything. The source says "Israel", not "Greater Israel". Please avoid original research. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 03:54, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I could also go for "Israel and the West Bank". That avoids the P-word that seems to bother some people. &mdash;Ashley Y 05:45, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, the source just says "Israel". That's quite clear. If you have some other source questioning this first one, please let us know. Until then, please avoid further WP:POINT. And no need to cite WP:AGF, since it has been applied to your Talk: page comments, and it turns out they're still WP:POINT. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 06:09, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * It's not clear unless you can tell me whether "Israel" includes the Palestinian territories or not. &mdash;Ashley Y 06:11, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * So you admit, then, that you have no source indicating it means "Israel and the Palestinian territories"? If your reply is anything other than a source backing your claim, then it will be an admission that you do not. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 06:13, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I do not have a source. I thought I had made that clear. In the absence of a source, should we assume that when they say "Israel", they do not include the Palestinian territories? &mdash;Ashley Y 06:17, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Good. You admit you have no source for your claims. The source says "Israel". We print "Israel". No original research. End of discussion. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 06:20, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * We can't do that unless we know what that "Israel" means. Apparently even you can't tell me whether or not it includes the Palestinian territories. &mdash;Ashley Y 06:22, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The source says "Israel". We print "Israel". No original research. End of discussion. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 06:27, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you two might consider taking a break until tomorrow. The current discussion doesn't seem to be terribly productive, and it's taking up an awful lot of space here. Thanks.--Pharos (talk) 06:26, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Very good advice, Pharos, entirely too many colons; I do not participate that far left, or right as the case may be. As a casual observer, I would say that the most proper term may be 'Eretz Yisrael', but please do not link it, because you will end up something else, which is all prepared for mass acceptance in English. Also, no matter what else you might decide, based on existing ethnic infobox parameters, it would also likely require a new flag. Unless, of course, there already is one that makes the lack-of-distinction between Medinat Yisrael and Eretz Yisrael. I do know where it is. Open dicsussion is good and absolutely necessary on certain tough subjects. I believe the previous statement, "It's clear that the term "region" is used rather broadly in the ethnicity infoboxes, to refer to countries, regions, or anything else people want it to refer to." actually needs one of these:. Take a look at the examples I provided above for reference; it looks like a mis-statement of provided facts, and keep up the good work. CasualObserver&#39;48 (talk) 12:24, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Question

 * (Transparency: see this thread)

Would someone explain the rationale for "Other significant populations:"? Is there a need for the second header?

When I look over Palestinian people, or any of the other ethnic examples posted in the discussions above, I haven't found this second header. Is there some reason I am unaware of? (I'm not seeking out debate, merely information : ) - jc37 16:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Joe Slovo
The great Joe Slovo, the leader of the SACP and the fighter against Apartheis must be included in the infobox. He is one of the greatest contemporary Jews. --Umkhontto (talk) 07:07, 15 December 2008 (UTC)


 * He may well be, but please read the preceding discussions and you will understand that consensus is necessary before any change is made in the chosen photos. Pending such consensus, am once again reverting your unilateral edit. Hertz1888 (talk) 07:58, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The current images were reached through consensus, to balance males and females and Ashkenazi and Sephardi. I don't see any good reason to disrupt the balance. (FYI, All Flickr photos are NOT in the public doman Upload/Flickr) Epson291 (talk) 08:59, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with the consensus to retain the stable version. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 15:35, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Allright, thanks for the explanation. But PLEASE can someone help me regulate the status of the photos I just uploaded - 1 2 3 4. Please. Thanks in advance mates. --Umkhontto (talk) 16:34, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Related ethnic groups
The consensus on the Arabs page is that to list their related ethnic groups as "Jews and other semitic groups" is POV and, moreover, highly inaccurate and without basis (see User:FunkMonk's comment on my page). If that is the case, then the related ethnic groups section of the Jew infobox must also be removed in the interests of uniformity. The related ethnic groups infobox is by its very nature POV, is utterly useless and has caused endless controversy. It's about time it was removed.--Yolgnu (talk) 14:51, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Languages
I added Judeo-Arabic to the languages section. Yiddish was historically the main language of Ashkenazi Jews, Ladino of Sephardic Jews, and Judeo-Arabic of Mizrahi Jews. It surely has a place among the main languages of the Jewish people. I guess it wasn't there beacuse people tend to confuse Sephardic and Mizrahi Jews. בן גרשון (talk) 11:54, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Image
Should the current composite image, File:Jews2.png, have File:Esti Ginzborg, taken by Michal Bar.jpg added to it? Peter Karlsen (talk) 03:20, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

The previous image File:Jews.jpg, does illustrate many important historical figures. However, the use of a series of esthetically displeasing portraits is inconsistent with WP:NPOV in its visually negative portrayal of Jewish people. For balance, I'm adding Israeli model Esti Ginzburg to the composite. File:Esti Ginzborg, taken by Michal Bar.jpg is a compositionally excellent photograph, and of sufficient technical quality for the small images used in the composite. Also, File:Jews.jpg suffers from obvious JPEG compression artefacts not present in the source photographs. In course of adding Ginzburg's image, a complete reconstruction of the composite from the originals, and saving the result in losslessly compressed PNG format, greatly improves its visual quality. I've created File:Jews.png as described, and used it to replace the previous image. Peter Karlsen (talk) 06:34, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * No doubt your image change is well-intentioned, but with all due respect, who are you to decide, and unilaterally, that the existing figures are esthetically displeasing? That aside, there has been no discussion of the change.  The previous version emerged from lengthy discussion, taking into account an elaborate set of criteria for various kinds of balance.  I am reverting your new image per WP:BRD, so that discussion may ensue here.  A new consensus would seem to be needed.  In the interim, perhaps you would consider modifying the existing file of four images to embody the technical improvements you mention and are evidently skilled at making. Hertz1888 (talk) 10:52, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with Hertz. I see nothing aesthetically displeasing about the current version; on the other hand the image looks bizarre and unbalanced with the full-color portrait of Ginzburg added to it. I can't really detect the compression artifacts you refer to, however I understand that PNG files are preferred to JPGs, so a conversion of the current file to PNG file would be welcome. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 11:39, 2 October 2010 (UTC)


 * This issue comes up from time to time, and the consensus has always been to leave the image alone. I'd recommend keeping is as is. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 18:02, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * For now, I've created a PNG version of the composite retaining the existing subjects, File:Jews2.png, and added it to the template. However, I see several problems with the current selection of photographs:
 * All of the subjects are deceased individuals, which isn't a neutral portrayal of a people with a living population of 13,155,000, according to the template.
 * All of the photographs are in black-and-white, which detracts from their aesthetic appeal.
 * All of the people portrayed aren't particularly beautiful. This doesn't neutrally portray Jewish people since, like all human populations, some are visually attractive.
 * I believe that adding File:Esti Ginzborg, taken by Michal Bar.jpg to the composite helps to resolve all of these issues. However, I welcome any suggestions regarding other photographs that might be added. Peter Karlsen (talk) 02:47, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * First, please take a look at the discussions further up the page to get a sense of the history of this. Prior consensus is that the image we have is simple, clean and balanced, two men, two women, two Sephardim, two Ashkenazim, one poet, one political figure, one scientist, one, rabbi/physician/philosopher. Second, maybe I'm hopelessly old-school, but Ms. Lazarus looks quite lovely to me. Third, very nice work one producing the PNG file. I think that looks a lot better. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 03:29, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I think it's a good idea to have Esti Ginzburg in that composite image. But the article on her doesn't even mention her being Jewish. Obviously if for Wikipedia purposes no sources can be found which confirm that she is Jewish, then it would make little sense to have her illustrate that composite image. Bus stop (talk) 22:19, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Whether we have sources to indicate that Ginzburg is Jewish depends on the thorny question of what one means by "Jewish". From the "Jew" article,
 * Judaism shares some of the characteristics of a nation, an ethnicity, a religion, and a culture, making the definition of who is a Jew vary slightly depending on whether a religious or national approach to identity is used.
 * We have sources indicating that Ginzburg is a native-born citizen of Israel, and is therefore "Jewish" under the national definition, in the absence of being a member of a minority group in Israel (Arabs, etc). The inclusion of other Israeli citizens in the composite, such as Golda Meir, is generally accepted without question. Peter Karlsen (talk) 18:26, 5 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Only you are seeing a "thorny question." I haven't the foggiest idea if she is Jewish or not. All I said was that if she is Jewish then fine—include her in the composite. That is my opinion. But checking her article I don't even see mention of her religion. Don't you agree that this person—being considered for inclusion in a composite of Jewish people, and her article not even mentioning her being Jewish—is kind of odd? Bus stop (talk) 18:46, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * To the best of my knowledge, no reliable sources discuss Ginzburg's religion. However, as I've explained above, religion is only one aspect of Judaism. Being a member of the nation of Israel is another; as an Israeli, Ginzburg qualifies as Jewish in this respect. Peter Karlsen (talk) 19:09, 5 October 2010 (UTC)


 * In my opinion her article should say she is Jewish, if her visage is going to grace the composite image representing Jews. Her article is only going to say she is Jewish if a source says she is Jewish. Bus stop (talk) 19:15, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * We have reliable sources indicating that Ginzburg is Jewish. While they use the word "Israeli" rather than "Jewish", one of the meanings of "Jewish" is "Israeli". Verifiability does not require us to parrot the exact words of sources; rewriting source material in original language, substantially retaining the meaning of the references, is not considered to be original research. Peter Karlsen (talk) 19:25, 5 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I am not sure we should be reading into what sources say. In the articles of other candidates for inclusion in the composite image, it says that they are Jewish. I am not sure why in the case of this candidate it can't simply say that she is Jewish in her Wikipedia article. I am not opposed to anything about this person. But in the absence of confirmation that she is Jewish I think we should consider instead those candidates that sources specifically indicate are Jewish using specifically that terminology. Bus stop (talk) 19:34, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * There's a good reason why neither the article on Esti Ginzburg, nor any of the sources it cites, uses the word "Jewish": it would be both redundant, insofar as the word "Jewish" is used with a national definition, since they've already said she's an Israeli, and misleading, since readers would construe the word as having independent significance, and would assume that it related to the religious definition of "Jewish", as her nationality was previously described. However, in an infobox used only in the Jew article, in which Judaism's "characteristics of a nation, an ethnicity, a religion, and a culture" are described, insisting that only religiously "Jewish" people be featured in the composite photograph is inconsistent with WP:NPOV. Peter Karlsen (talk) 19:56, 5 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I personally am not making the argument that only religious Jews should appear in that composite image. But nor am I accepting that a source indicating that she was Jewish would be making any particular statement regarding her level of observance—a source could simply say she was a nonobservant Jew. The fact that no source even says that, I think would make her a less than ideal candidate for this purpose. Many Jews are referred to simply as secular Jews. It might just be the case that the source has not been located yet. If she is Jewish I think one has a reasonable expectation that a source would say that, even if at the same time it indicated that she was not religious. Bus stop (talk) 20:17, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The term "secular Jew" is usually used to describe citizens of countries other than Israel, since tacking "Jewish" onto "Israeli" is normally considered redundant, unless used in specific reference to religious faith. Remember, Verifiability requires only that reliable sources support the substantive meaning of what we intend to say, not that they use precisely the same words. Peter Karlsen (talk) 00:13, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I really don't see why there's any question about this. To be born in Israel, speak Hebrew as one's native tongue, etc, is to be a member of the Jewish nation, irrespective of ancestry or religious faith. We have a source which states that Ginzburg strongly identifies with Israel . Peter Karlsen (talk) 07:42, 7 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Peter Karlsen—from where do you derive that, "To be born in Israel, speak Hebrew as one's native tongue, etc, is to be a member of the Jewish nation…"? Bus stop (talk) 14:35, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * "Israel", definition 2 . Peter Karlsen (talk) 17:27, 7 October 2010 (UTC)


 * That isn't the sense in which you used the word "Israel." You said, "To be born in Israel, speak Hebrew as one's native tongue, etc, is to be a member of the Jewish nation, irrespective of ancestry or religious faith." You were referring to the geographical place, were you not? The link you provided to the Merriam Webster online dictionary actually provides more than one usage of the word. One of those usages is called the "geographical name." That is the sense in which you were using the term "Israel." Bus stop (talk) 18:18, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you claiming that the definitions are disjoint, that the State of Israel has adopted its name by pure coincidence? Peter Karlsen (talk) 18:27, 7 October 2010 (UTC)


 * No, I am not claiming that. But I hardly think it is unreasonable that an individual to be placed in a composite image for an article entitled Jews should have a verifiable source attesting to her being a Jew. I have no reason to think she is not a Jew. But for Wikipedia purposes I think a source attesting to that would be a plus. Bus stop (talk) 18:56, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It's a distortion of Verifiability to require sources to use certain magic words, rather than to support the substantive meaning of language included in articles. One might as well claim that we can't write "he had a lengthy stay in England[source]" if the reference used "protracted" instead of "lengthy". Peter Karlsen (talk) 19:14, 7 October 2010 (UTC)


 * In the one instance you are using what could be called paraphrasing. In the other instance you are are using a significant term in place of another significant term. The switching of significant terms involves overcoming a barrier. Paraphrasing is a process that encounters little resistance. No one is going to give a second though to the substitution of the word "lengthy" for the word "protracted." "Israel" and "Jew" may be interchangeable, but certainly not in all circumstances. And when a speaker or writer chooses one of those terms, there is a fair likelihood that they have chosen that term for a reason. There is less ease of interchangeability between "Israel" and "Jew" than there is between "protracted" and "lengthy." Bus stop (talk) 19:27, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * There is no support in the policy for a "significant term" doctrine under which certain language in references is declared immutable, and may not be changed by editors even while its meaning is preserved. I agree, however, that sources writing about Ginzburg "have chosen... [Israeli] for a reason". Due to its various meanings "Jewish", as applied to specific people, is vague, and normally requires disambiguation (for example, Orthodox Jew, secular Jew, etc.) When writing about people who are Jewish under the national definition, "citizen of the Jewish State" is normally abandoned in favour of the simpler term "Israeli", without any subsequent modification indicating that a Jewish person isn't being described at all (for example, "Israeli Arab", etc.) Substitution of a generalized term (Jewish) for a specific term used in references (Israeli) is normally accomplished without difficulty. It is only the reverse that is problematic, since a source referring to someone as "Jewish" without further qualification is speaking in nebulous language. Peter Karlsen (talk) 20:34, 7 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Policy is obviously not 100% clear. I am trying to apply my own logic just as I think you are trying to apply your own logic. I don't want to get into the morass of Jewish identity. But let me say that I think you are making much more of a morass of it than it really is. I think in 99% of cases it is clear who is a Jew and who isn't a Jew. We have an Israelis article and we have a Jews article. Both of the articles have composite pictures at the top of the article. In my opinion sources should conform to the title of the article, as concerns which pictures (of which people) belong in a given article. Clearly if sources indicate that a person is both Jewish and Israeli then they could go in either article. The problem, as I see it, is that Esti Ginzburg is not sourced as being Jewish. That should translate into a preference given to those individuals that sources specify as being Jewish. Bus stop (talk) 01:31, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I do not understand the preoccupation with Ginsborg. Per previous discussions, a large number of equally or more noteworthy Jews were considered for inclusion, and constitute a pool of runners-up. It may be helpful to review the record, and to revisit the inclusion and layout criteria. If the number of images is to be increased beyond four, a sixth one is probably needed, to make it an even number and avoid awkwardly tacking on a fifth. In any event, a new consensus would be needed for any such changes. Hertz1888 (talk) 21:07, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Adding an image of Esti Ginzburg to the infobox appears to provide one of the most dramatic available remedies for the current selection of black and white photographs of dead, and not particularly photogenic people. Levels of notability are not the only relevant consideration; balance, in terms of neutrality, is important for an infobox such as this. I'm open to suggestions regarding a sixth photograph. Peter Karlsen (talk) 00:13, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It is obvious that persons depicted should not be chosen by dint of their merely being Jewish, but should be of persons who have excelled in the spheres of advancing Jewish culture or religion. If we have Einstien we have to have Esti. Only rabbis and rebetzens please. Chesdovi (talk) 11:01, 11 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Chesdovi—I think that is debatable. The indisputable fact is that a nonobservant Jew is no less Jewish than an observant Jew. Bus stop (talk) 17:19, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, depending on exactly which definition of "Jewish" is being applied. Since Jew, the only article in which this template appears, describes the most common formulations, I wouldn't support any limitation to the religious faith definition. Peter Karlsen (talk) 21:48, 11 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Peter Karlsen—you say, "…I wouldn't support any limitation to the religious faith definition." But I didn't "support any limitation to the religious faith definition"—I included "nonobservant Jews." There aren't as many definitions of Jewish as you are purporting. Basically a Jew is born Jewish or converts to Judaism. Can you think of any other definitions? Bus stop (talk) 00:40, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * My comment "I wouldn't support any limitation to the religious faith definition" relates to Chesdovi's wish to constrain images in the infobox to "rabbis and rebetzens[sic]" (the canonical spelling is actually rebbetzins.) Basically, I was agreeing with most of your comment (while acknowledging that nonobservant Jews really aren't Jewish according to the religious faith definition only.) Peter Karlsen (talk) 02:56, 12 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Peter Karlsen—you say that, "nonobservant Jews really aren't Jewish according to the religious faith definition only." Can you please show me some material that supports your understanding in that regard? I don't think you will be able to find a source for anything of that nature. Bus stop (talk) 03:38, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Per, "Some Reform Jews view Judaism as a religion alone, and thus they view Jews who convert to another faith as non-Jews." Fortunately, religious faith isn't the only definition of Judaism available - the various formulations of Jewish identity are so numerous that a fairly lengthy article is required to explain them. Peter Karlsen (talk) 03:55, 12 October 2010 (UTC)


 * That quote that you provided does not support your statement. The point to the quote that you provided concerns conversion. It doesn't say anything about nonobservant Jews not "really" being Jewish. Bus stop (talk) 05:00, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * That depends on the rather contentious issue of whether atheism is a faith to which one can convert. In any case, it should be apparent from the Reform Jewish definition of "Judaism as a religion alone" that the phenomena of Jewish atheism contradicts this formulation: Peter Karlsen (talk) 05:35, 12 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Peter Karlsen—please bring a source supporting your contention that nonobservant Jews are not Jewish according what you are referring to as a "religious faith definition." Bus stop (talk) 12:12, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Add an image of Liran Kohner instead
According to, Liran Kohner celebrated her Bat Mitzvah, and is therefore clearly qualified for inclusion in this template. Adding the photograph shown at the right resolves the aesthetic problems with the current selection of images, while avoiding the previously described debate as to whether reliable sources describe Esti Ginzburg as Jewish. Peter Karlsen (talk) 21:37, 11 October 2010 (UTC)


 * What were those aesthetic problems? The pictures are in black and white; so what? I don't see any reason to add people of little or no significance to the infobox just so there are color pictures. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 21:48, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The other aesthetic problem is that the current image, File:Jews2.png, only includes people who aren't very attractive, thereby violating WP:NPOV in its depiction of Jewish people, since all human populations contain some people who are nice looking. Peter Karlsen (talk) 22:01, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder". You are hardly expressing a neutral POV.  Please stop with the borderline defamation. Hertz1888 (talk) 22:48, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Please review our article on Physical attractiveness, which cites numerous reliable sources that indicate human beauty is a scientifically studied phenomenon, and describes how physical appearance affects our treatment of other people. Furthermore, I'm not basing my assessment of the attractiveness of the people currently shown in the composite, and the people who I propose to add, on my own opinion or original research. For instance, we have reliable sources which indicate that Liran Kohner has received significant recognition for her beauty . To the best of my knowledge, no such sources exist for any of the people in File:Jews2.png. Incidentally, there's no possibility of "borderline defamation" in my comments against the people currently featured in the composite, since they are all deceased, an NPOV problem in depicting a population which includes millions of living people in and of itself. A statement that someone is unattractive is not legally actionable in any case. Peter Karlsen (talk) 23:38, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm having a hard time believing this is a serious discussion. Are you actually saying that we should include a picture of a 22 year-old beauty queen because you find her attractive? Out of the thousands of pictures we have on Wikipedia of famous Jews, this is one of the most important four or so images to include? Should we replace the entire montage with images of Kohner, Bar Refaeli, Gal Gadot, Linor Abergil, Esti Ginzburg and Dianna Agron? Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 06:15, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * That's a straw man argument: I actually proposed the inclusion of one image of someone who has been recognized by reliable sources  as attractive. Why is this important? From the physical attractiveness article:
 * Physical attractiveness can have a significant effect on how people are judged in terms of employment or social opportunities, friendship, sexual behavior, and marriage. In many cases, humans attribute positive characteristics, such as intelligence and honesty, to attractive people without consciously realizing it.


 * Consequently, it's no small stretch to conclude that the physical appearance of the people in the infobox bears a direct relationship to the extent to which readers of the Jew article will be left with a favourable impression of Jewish people, even if they fool themselves into believing that they could never be so superficial. Inclusion of at least one physically attractive individual is important to ensure the neutrality of the article, and avoid portraying Jewish people negatively - as the research shows, this isn't just in terms of appearance. That's not just my opinion - it's a scientific fact. Peter Karlsen (talk) 06:53, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Here are much more reliable sources indicating that Albert Einstein (who is already in the photo montage) was "handsome", "sexy", and "very good-looking":
 * "Partly, the answer lies with pure chance: the fact that Einstein happened to photograph well. He had always been handsome, even overtly sexy in his younger days." Thomas Levenson, Einstein in Berlin, Random House of Canada, 2004, p. 226.
 * "Friends were surprised that a sensuous and handsome man such as Einstein, who could have almost any woman fall for him, would find himself with a short and plain Serbian who had a limp and exuded an air of melancholy" Walter Isaacson, Einstein: His Life and Universe, Simon and Schuster, 2007, p. 45.
 * "Milana was excited at first to meet this "German," Einstein, who was handsome and clever and played the violin so beautifully." Dennis Overbye, Einstein in Love: A Scientific Romance, Penguin, 2001, p. 38.
 * "And saints may be luminous, but they really aren't sexy. Einstein was clearly both.", Peter Galison, Gerald James Holton, Silvan S. Schweber, Einstein for the 21st century: his legacy in science, art, and modern culture, Princeton University Press, 2008, p. 60.
 * "Throughout much of his life, and especially in his early years, Einstein was a very good-looking man who appealed to women." Jeremy Bernstein, Albert Einstein and the Frontiers of Physics, Oxford University Press US, 1997, p. 33.
 * "He had regular features, warm brown eyes, a mass of curly black hair, and a raffish mustache. He was good-looking and enjoyed the company of women." John Brockman, My Einstein, Random House, 2007, p. 4.
 * "He was good looking, humorous, and well groomed in his earlier years." Conrad P. Pritscher, Einstein & Zen: Learning to Learn, Peter Lang, 2010, p. 158.
 * I have to agree with these reliable sources, Einstein was quite the hottie. O.K., thank goodness we've got the "physically attractive" issue covered. Now, can we move on to more serious topics? See below, for example. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 07:14, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Those sources primarily or exclusively refer to Einstein as a young man, which the 1921 image presently included in the composite doesn't accurately represent. Much of them recount Einstein at the time of his early 1900s courtship with Mileva Marić. You might as well claim that if some reference described Golda Meir as attractive as a young woman, that the same may be said of Meir when she was photographed at the age of 74. With a single exception, your references are also describing the actual Albert Einstein, appearing in full color (or is it original research to point out that Einstein wasn't really gray?) By contrast, the photograph of Liran Kohner was taken during the same year that she won the Miss Israel pageant, and is an accurate, full color depiction. Peter Karlsen (talk) 07:51, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

The sources you have also describe "actual" people, who have things like bodies, butts, legs, voices, smells, movement, musical talents, etc. Is it original research to point out that all of the models you've proposed are actually three-dimensional living beings, whereas the pictures you have proposed are all two-dimensional head or upper torso-shots that display none of these critical attractiveness characteristics? Clearly you think these kinds of two-dimensional highly-limited images are no barrier to portraying hotness. Also, images can obviously be sexy whether in color or black-and-white (see Betty Grable, Audrey Hepburn and Marylin Monroe images below), so we'll hear no more about that "must be in full color" bias, ok? Now, you think that in the current image of Einstein in 1921 he's too old? Well, I have to object to that kind of ageism, but in any event we should all be ok with the picture of Einstein below taken in 1904, when he was 25 years old. That was just before his Annus Mirabilis, when he did something that was kind of, you know, "important" too? Besides looking like a sexy thang, which is still the primary consideration, of course. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 08:34, 12 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Maybe a pic of yourself, Jayjg. I hear your were quite the thing back in the 30's.-- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 15:28, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The analogy between still two dimensional color photographs with hypothetical dimensional moving representations, and grayscale images with color photos, is fallacious, since flat color images are generally accepted as a standard of modern photography, and the only type of image readily available for inclusion in the composite, whereas grayscale photography borders on obsolete, though it is still sometimes used for nostalgic purposes or perceived artistic value. The 1904 image of Einstein isn't even properly grayscale, due to excessive contrast rendering it nearly monochrome. Hepburn and Monroe may have been considered attractive in grayscale, but only because this was the most commonly used type of photography at the time; color processes were available by World War II, but expensive, exotic, and rarely utilized.
 * Wikipedia is a high traffic site, and Jews is a very heavily viewed article: it's currently the top Google search result for "Jew", "Jews", and "Jewish". Like it or not, the hundreds of thousands of readers of the Jews article will judge the images included in the composite against contemporary standards of color photography. For readers whose views of Jewish people are inchoate, the photographs in the article will affect their perceptions of Jewish people, in respects other than appearance (per the research above, whether they recognize the phenomenon or not.) Concerns of "ageism" are moot, since readers' evaluation occurs under actual conditions of human psychology, not normative standards. The issue is not one solely of sexuality, either. Per the Physical attractiveness article: "In certain instances, physical attractiveness is distinct from sexual attraction; humans may regard the young as attractive for various reasons, for example, but without sexual attraction."
 * Advertisers have long had a keen appreciation of this aspect of human nature, even before it was confirmed via scientific research: this is why color images of young, beautiful people are commonly used to promote products, even to an audience of (primarily heterosexual) purchasers of the same gender as the models. If you were creating a brochure to encourage tourism to Israel, would you place a grayscale photograph of Golda Meir at the age of 74 on the cover? Of course not.
 * While, per WP:NPOV, the Jew article isn't intended to promote Judaism, neither should it serve to disparage it, even implicitly and subliminally through an unfortunate selection of images. Given the number of readers we attract, this isn't purely a concern of internal compliance with the neutrality policy, but also a matter of public importance. Peter Karlsen (talk) 20:15, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Peter Karlsen—I don't think you have mentioned any preference for any particular qualities you look for in people for our composite image. Some of them in there now are known for being scientists, some statesmen, etc. I'm trying to understand what other criteria, besides the ones you've mentioned, you feel should be brought to bear in our decision-making process. Let me throw this question out there: how would you feel about the idea of having relatively unknown people in that composite image? If they were known to be Jewish, but were known for little else, would such a person be acceptable, in your assessment of the sorts of individuals we should have in our composite image illustrating the Jews article? Bus stop (talk) 21:16, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * At a minimum, everyone featured in the infobox should be sufficiently notable to have a Wikipedia article about them. Kohner meets this standard, though barely. Ideally, images should feature people who have achieved a very high level of notability (Einstein, for instance), and variety in occupations and gender (a composite could be created with six male nuclear physicists who worked on the Manhattan Project, but this isn't an accurate representation of an entire people.) People who are extremely well known, but whose notability is significantly derogatory (Leon Trotsky, for example) aren't welcome. And then of course, there's physical appearance. Note that this criterion for inclusion is somewhat in conflict with others I've described: by the time people have very significant career accomplishments, they are often well past their prime visually. High quality, freely-licensed, color photographs taken several decades earlier can be difficult to find. For this reason, I've suggested that for at least one of the slots, the requirement of extraordinary notability be relaxed for a person who is less notable (though still satisfies Wikipedia's standards for article inclusion), and can be established through reliable sources to have received significant recognition for beauty near the time the photograph we're using was taken. This practice shouldn't be overdone: a composite full of Israeli models isn't neutral, doesn't accurately represent an entire people, and makes the article seem like pro-Israel propaganda. However, one such image would balance the overall visual effect (and, per the research above, subliminal influence) of an infobox in which an "extreme notability" requirement is otherwise upheld. Peter Karlsen (talk) 21:59, 12 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Peter Karlsen—supposing an individual (male or female) were both physically attractive and decidedly religious? Tzniut concerns might preclude abundant skin exposure but presumably that would not obviate attractiveness. Would you consider such a person a good choice? Bus stop (talk) 23:26, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think anyone wants to put someone in abbreviated attire in the infobox. Photographs of models in bikinis, etc, may have a place in articles about those people, but not here. Even significantly modest dress shouldn't interfere with the usual concerns of portraiture: do we see the person's face and hair? Unlike Islam, Judaism has no practice of face covering, though depending on which religious authority one follows, head or hair covering may be required, to varying degrees. A judgement is therefore needed: do reliable sources attest to the person having received significant recognition for beauty in attire substantially similar to the garments in which they were photographed? Peter Karlsen (talk) 02:16, 13 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Do you consider this person a good candidate? Bus stop (talk) 02:21, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Are there reliable sources indicating that he's received significant recognition for beauty, near the date the photograph was taken? I'm not seeing anything like that in the article, though I might be missing it. In any case, the technical quality of the picture currently in the article isn't that great: compare File:Gil head2.jpg to File:Miss Israel 07 Liran Kohener.jpg in terms of effective resolution and lighting. Kohner appears smooth and anti-aliased, while Student has sharp pixels. The correct use of photographic flash in portraiture is to point multiple flash units at diffusers such as white umbrellas, not to use a single on-camera flash aimed directly at the subject. An incorrect flash technique is apparent in the current image of Student: a distinct, white reflection from the flash can be seen in his eyes. There may also be a faint red-eye effect. By contrast, Kohner's eyes are rendered flawlessly. Jpeg compression artefacts are also visible in the image of Student, but not Kohner. In short, File:Gil head2.jpg is an amateurish snapshot, while File:Miss Israel 07 Liran Kohener.jpg is clearly the work of a photographer with professional-level skills. Peter Karlsen (talk) 03:07, 13 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I think Rabbi Alysa Stanton could possibly make a good choice. There are many good quality photographs of her online. Bus stop (talk) 02:49, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Again, has Stanton received significant recognition for beauty, recorded by reliable sources, near the time the photographs were taken? Nothing of that nature appears in her article. Also, we can't simply grab copyrighted photographs off the internet and upload them to Wikipedia: a free license is required to avoid a copyright violation. (even though Wikipedia is a non-commercial project that could legally use non-commercial only material, this restriction is incompatible with content freedom for downstream users. A no-derivatives clause is unacceptable for the same reason. File copyright tags/Free licenses details the sort of image licenses that we can accept.) Peter Karlsen (talk) 03:17, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * When you asked "supposing an individual (male or female) were both physically attractive and decidedly religious", I assumed that your definition of "physically attractive" was the same one that I suggested: backed up by high-quality references to verify the fact, like we have for Kohner . Just as it wouldn't be fair for me to suggest someone for inclusion in the infobox solely because I regarded them as beautiful, your personal opinion of candidates' appearance really can't be decisive either. Peter Karlsen (talk) 03:35, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Clearly, the choice of candidates for inclusion cannot be based on subjective criteria of beauty. A reliable, well-calibrated, objective standard is needed. This may help, and like chicken soup, it couldn't hurt. Hertz1888 (talk) 03:55, 13 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Against. There are plenty of Jews who are reasonably attractive and who also made contributions to society; why must we choose a model whose article is two paragraphs long? Roscelese (talk) 06:32, 13 October 2010 (UTC)