Talk:Jews/infobox

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

Comment on the photobox

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Name under each picture

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

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

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

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

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

Re-editing

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

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

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

Region order

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

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

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

Answer

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Including Jesus

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why all modern?

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

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

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

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

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

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

There are two reasons why that is impossible:

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

Transclusion over hardcoding

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

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

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

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

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

You can't replace Spinoza with Ben Gurion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Problematic source

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

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

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

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