Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:35, 18 December 2012

Judaism Redirect‑class

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Judaism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Judaism-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JudaismWikipedia:WikiProject JudaismTemplate:WikiProject JudaismJudaism Redirect This redirect does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

Previous discussions concerning this infobox may be found at Talk:Jews.

Archives

1, 2

This page has archives. Sections older than 180 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Jews/infobox redirect. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 6 months

Which picture

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

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

Comment on the photobox

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pictures

Hello,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What Avays1 says doesnt really make sense. First, it's wrong to say that Jews are just a religious group. If an ethnic Jew converts to christianity, does he become ethnically English or German? Genetic studies showed that the Jews have a common ancestry, therefore they are also an ethnic group. The Jewish identity can be ethnic or religious. If you convert to Judaism you don't become an ethnic Jew. Second, it's good that 6 out of 8 people are Ashkenazi because 80% of the Jews in the world are Ashkenazi, so it's just proportinal representation. Guitar hero on the roof (talk) 13:35, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

• Redirect-Class Judaism pages
• NA-importance Judaism pages