Jewish history Category‑class

This category is within the scope of WikiProject Jewish history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Jewish history on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Jewish historyWikipedia:WikiProject Jewish historyTemplate:WikiProject Jewish historyJewish history-related articles Category This category does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Judaism Category‑class

This category is within the scope of WikiProject Judaism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Judaism-related articles on Wikipedia. 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 articles Category This category does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

The last discussion we had on whether or not to include these categories to people of Jewish descent ended in somewhat of a stalemate. Neither side had consensus, either for removing the cats or for restoring them, and yet certain editors still took matters into their own hands. Let's settle this once and for all. Should the categories be added, or removed?

My opinion remains the same as before: the categories are appropriate. Statute of limitations on descent do not exist, and as shown through a litany of data, the overwhelming majority of modern Jews do trace their origins to the Middle East.Evildoer187 (talk) 04:53, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually people don't 'trace their descent' generally, which implies personal investigation. People accept an idea about their origins, here 'subscribe to the view that people of Jewish descent' come from the Middle East. Very large numbers of Jews (one third of the million plus ex-Soviet immigrants) are not of ME descent, nor are Falasha, nor Inca Jews. The statement therefore will be counterfactual, and since most Jews are Ashkenazi, and there is no agreement yet on the only determinative science that counts here, genetics, re Ashkenazi origins, to make out that 'the overwhelming majority of Jews' descend from the ME is POV pushing.Nishidani (talk) 07:58, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is not pushing to claim that Jews overwhelmingly are descended from Middle Eastern ancestors, when that is exactly what genetic studies have shown us! There is no statute of limitations on descent. Most people have no problem acknowledging that Arabs whose ancestors left Arabia 1400 years ago, to conquer other lands, are still Arabs. So why is there consensus about Arabs, yet dispute about Jews? Is it because the Arabs were conquerors, who became the rulers of the lands they conquered, as opposed to being an oppressed minority, like the Jews in assorted host countries? Do the descendants of African slaves in the US have a statute of limitations on how long they can claim African descent? Unless you apply those same limitations to all people, your attempts to deny the Middle Eastern heritage of the Jewish people sounds less like a reasoned academic argument, and more like a personal viewpoint that you just can't get past. PA Math Prof (talk) 12:57, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nishidani, Jews were formed as a people in the ME and began leaving their homeland one millennia before Jesus walked the earth. The Jewish diaspora is the largest diaspora known to ethnographers. Also, Jews do not proselytize and tend to live in isolated clusters, so how did so many groups of Jews emerge outside of the Levant if they did not emigrate from there? Gilad55 (talk) 22:47, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Read a book some day, examine the complexities of the development of a collective ethnic or relgious identity (which didn't exist 1000 BCE). Jews don't proselytise? Well what's the verb hityahed at Esther 8:17 mean if not 'convert to Judaism'? The Inca Jews or the Jews of San Nicandro, or the Falasha did not originate in the ME, and if the maternal line is overwhelmingly European (Askenazim) such people originate in Europe as much as the ME. In short, wiki has no place for meme recycling. Nishidani (talk) 15:22, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is sad that someone who is permitted to edit this site is unable to distinguish between "proselytizing" and "accepting converts". You are correct, in the Book of Esther, it mentions that after the events of the Purim story, a good number of people in the Persian Empire converted to Judaism. Let me remind you, first, that the Book of Esther is a religious text, and not a history book. Citing it as historical proof of "mass conversion" is hardly valid historical research. More importantly, the fact that Judaism ALLOWS converts, after extensive study, typically over a period of two or more years, does not equate to proselytizing. Proselytizing means ACTIVELY SEEKING converts. Judaism does not do that, and hence the number of converts is quite small. The individuals have to actively seek to convert, and by Halachic requirement, they must be turned away at least twice, and if they come back a third time, they are allowed to begin studying for conversion. When you contrast this with the Muslim and Christian expansion, historically, where people were given the option to convert or die (or, if they were lucky, to go into exile), it makes perfect sense as to why being Jewish is a matter of ethnicity as well as religion, where Islam and Christianity, both of which actively and sometimes forcefully proselytized, cannot be seen as ethnic identities. PA Math Prof (talk) 13:07, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with the claim of Evildoer187 as though modern Jews consider themselves to be of Middle Eastern descent. It was clear, and it has been made clear to Evildoer187 and Gilad555, that there is no consensus for these categories. Debresser (talk) 11:20, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And no consensus for removal of the categories, but you keep removing them anyway, even though they were there when discussion concluded. I think the time has come for a DRN.Evildoer187 (talk) 12:36, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One has to wonder why an editor would oppose an ethnographically appropriate category. Ethnic Jews are of Middle Eastern descent, so why wouldn't we consider Jewish Americans to be persons of Middle Eastern descent? Anti-Semitism is defined as a hostility toward Jews as a people and toward the attributes of the Jewish people. The Levantine descent of ethnic Jews is certainly one of those attributes. Let's add the category and be done with it. Gilad55 (talk) 22:39, 26 February 2014 (UTC)Gilad55[reply]

One does not have to wonder. This has been discussed many times, and several reason were brought why the category is inappropriate. You were part of that discussion, so look it over to refresh your memory, if you forgot and are not just playing naive. Debresser (talk) 23:57, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Every reason given was contrived, so I am indeed still wondering why an editor would oppose including Jewish Americans in this category when Jews of so many other nationalities are included. Gilad55 (talk) 00:12, 27 February 2014 (UTC)Gilad55 I would like to point out Debresser's hostility and failure to assume good faith. Gilad55 (talk) 00:14, 27 February 2014 (UTC)Gilad55[reply]

Hostility and good faith from my side? After the edit war you are engaged in in despite of the consensus that these categories should no be added? That is some insolence! As to the point, the discussion was conclusive that apart from two editors who are very loud and very aggressive (you and Evildoer), there is nobody who really thinks this should be done. Debresser (talk) 01:29, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite. There were many people who disagreed with you, including several long time editors. The arguments against you were strong, as well. Read through it again. In that sense, to say you had consensus to remove the categories which had consistently been there for over a year. and through the entire duration of the debate, is false. The fact that you violated WP:3RR doesn't help you either.Evildoer187 (talk) 01:47, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"very loud and very aggressive". What were you saying before about WP:NPA?Evildoer187 (talk) 01:48, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If by "loud and aggressive" you mean committed to civil discourse and abiding by Wikipedia guidelines, then yes, I suppose Evildoer and myself are completely out of control. You, sir, removed a category without consensus then violated 3RR. I would take some time to reflect if I were in your position. Gilad55 (talk) 01:58, 27 February 2014 (UTC)Gilad55[reply]

If your mother is Jewish, then most Jews will consider you one as well. that's what you need to understand. If she's Jewish and has "Northern European" genes then you are considered Jewish and if she has "Middle Eastern" genes then your Jewish status is exactly, exactly the same. So all these geographical categories are not really relevant. Yuvn86 (talk) 14:22, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

By "very loud and very aggressive" I mean edit warring and not abiding by consensus. There were other editors who agreed with your point of view, nobody denies it. And nobody said you have no argument at all in favor of your point of view. But there is no consensus for the addition of these categories. As a result of that fact, in accordance with Wikipedia rules and guidelines, they must be removed wherever you have added them. Debresser (talk) 18:44, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Debresser and I disagree around here on much, - we never edit in lockstep. On this I agree thoroughly with him. His judgement is eminently sound.Nishidani (talk) 19:46, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"very loud and very aggressive" I mean edit warring and not abiding by consensus." Which is what you are doing, not us. And certainly not me. You didn't have consensus to remove them, just as I didn't have consensus to add them, hence why I left Category:Canadian people of Jewish descent alone after being reverted.Evildoer187 (talk) 01:11, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yuvn, anyone of Jewish ancestry, mother or father, is considered Jewish by descent. The overwhelming majority of Jews trace a large portion of their descent to the Middle East, which is one of the reasons I feel these cats are appropriate. Further, Jews are by definition a Semitic people of the Middle East. Just because not every single Jew has Middle Eastern genes doesn't necessarily render these categories inappropriate. Does every single German have Nordic blood? Not really.Evildoer187 (talk) 01:18, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't have consensus to remove them, just as I didn't have consensus to add them,

Your disagreement with Debresser is based on a procedural error. You admit to adding categories without consensus, but say he is guilty of removing them without consensus. Actually, if you make a controversial edit that is challenged, the WP:Burden for you is to convince the talk page and obtain consensus there before restoring the edit. Debresser is under no such constraint, nor does he need consensus to remove an edit made without consensus. Were to the contrary this the case, all chaos would break out, since the precedent would be that anyone can act unilaterally to include matter without consensus, but no one can remove it without consensus.

'Jews are by definition a Semitic people of the Middle East.' No. One could just as validly argue that Jews are people who subscribe to Judaism, a religion developed in the ME. The formula you adopt disenfranchises many Jews, for it has a logical entailment: Jews who do not hail from a semitic background in the Middle East are not in fact Jews. There is a religious definition ('A Jew is one who accepts the faith opf Judaism'), a spiritual definition (living according to the wisdom of the sages); a cultural definition (living within the terms of a self-identification with the literary, folklorish and cultural heritage of Judaism), and an ethnic definition (born and raised as Jews, of Jewish parentage and education)( Morris N. Kertzer,What is a Jew, Simon&Schuster 1996 p.6-7). Even Kertzer's omnibus definition:

A Jew is therefore a member of a people, by birth or by conversion, who chooses to share a common cultural heritage, a religious perspective, and a spiritual horizon derived uniquely from Jewish experience and Jewish wisdom

is wildly unfair, because it excludes Einstein, Kafka, Freud. etc.etc. thousands of famous Jews who understood they had cultural roots in Jewish traditions and intermarriage but did not subscribe to any of the above, i.e. about 90% of the secular civilisation emerging from the haskalah, one of the most important cultural forces in the making of modernity. There is absolutely nothing in common between the world of Einstein and that of Ovadia Yosef. Debresser might strongly disagree with me here, but that is why I concur with him in opposing the introduction of a highly subjective, indeterminate but decidedly 'nationalistic' CAT that assumes an untruth, that Jews are of ME extraction by definition. Israel's right to nationhood in the ME are firmly, ineradically rooted in international law, not in ethnic descent, a claim which is extremely dangerous, as one sees from this cat.Nishidani (talk) 12:59, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nishidani, Identifying as a Jewish American of ME descent does not require a person to assume a set of religious beliefs. The Levantine descent of all major Jewish ethnic sub-groups is affirmed by science. Namely, the sciences of genetics and archeology. Genetics affirms that Jews, all Jews, share a common Levantine ancestry. Genetics also has revealed that the Khazar hypothesis is a myth. Archeology affirms that the oldest artifacts unearthed in Israel/Palestine are of Hebrew and Canaanite origin thus confirming the ancient presence of Jews and Jewish civilization in the Levant. A wholehearted belief in Torah is wonderful, but not necessary to claim one's Jewish identity and heritage. Also, one does not replace the other. The two are complementary. Gilad55 (talk) 16:33, 28 February 2014 (UTC)Gilad55[reply]

I won't address the second part of your post. Gilad beat me to the punch on that one. The categories in question had been there for over a year before there was any discussion, and had not been removed until last week, several months after it was established (albeit ambiguously) that nobody had consensus to change anything. And seeing as they didn't have consensus to remove it, they were reverted, and rightly so. This is a two-way street.Evildoer187 (talk) 17:06, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Nishidani, you used the phrase, "Zionism is not Judaism". Neither Evildoer nor myself are promoting Jewish nationalism and yet you used a phrase popular among persons who oppose the return of Jews to Israel and Israel's existence as a Jewish and democratic state. Are you here to promote scientifically appropriate categories or merely to oppose Zionism; central to which is the belief that Jews are indigenous to Israel? This is not a rhetorical question. Gilad55 (talk) 17:19, 28 February 2014 (UTC)Gilad55[reply]

Gilad55, that is too much. Zionism is not Judaism. That's a simple fact. Does anyone on earth actually disagree with that? Zionism is one thing, Judaism is another thing. I don't care if Adolf Hitler agrees with me, it's still true. You're committing the fallacy of the converse when you insinuate that the use of a phrase used by bad guys makes the user bad. It's just not supportable. Also, you pose a false dichotomy to Nishidani along with an insinuation that if he doesn't answer it the right way his opinions are dismissable. That's a rhetorical technique regularly used by all manner of bad actors. If I were to adopt your methodology I might ask whether you are here to "promote scientifically appropriate categories or merely to" smear other editors with fallacious rhetorical techniques which are regularly used by ideological criminals. It's a bunch of crap and I hope you have the good sense to drop it and carry on with the actual conversation about the categories.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 17:33, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Levantine descent of all major Jewish ethnic sub-groups is affirmed by science.

History testifies to widespread conversion in early times (and no reference to Khazars is intended), and much of the 'science' over the past 15 years has been questioned as questionable. It is a part of Zionist doctrine to speak of a 'return' to one's putative territorial roots - but Zionism is an ideology, not a science. Behar and his team consistently came up with results that 'there is a likely Near Eastern origin for the maternal gene pool of Ashkenazi Jewry. (Nadia Abu El-Haj, The Genealogical Science: The Search for Jewish Origins and the Politics of Epistemology, 2012 p.125). Richards and Costa within a few years came to exactly the opposite conclusion. What complicates this is how a Jew is defined. If you use matrilineal descent, Richards and Costa's work is, in religious-rabbinical terms, disinvalidating. If you use patrilineal descent, you have 4 founders, but with a logical implication that undoes the theory: all people are thus related in a time frame of 2600 years (6BCE), according to genetic science. It depends what definition you use. One might argue for the Ashkenazi that 'the descent' is Levantine, or 'European' depending on the criteria privileging one's reading of the data, and the definitions of what a Jew is. I.e. if you use a cat of this kind for Ashkenazi you would be obliged to put in a parallel cat 'people of European descent' contradicting 'people of Levantine descent'. When cats produce messes like this, it's best to desist, at least until, some 20 years down the line, scientists manage to match their interpretations of DNA in a way consistent with the attested documentation of history. The only reason for insisting on Southeast Asian origin is to buttress a Zionist meme. We don't do ideology here.Nishidani (talk) 18:28, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nishidani, When I speak of Jews, I speak of the Jewish people as a whole. Ashkenazim often link Israel to the West or act as the face of Israel, yet only make-up 20% of Israel's Jews. Also, it's interesting that when I say, 'Jewish American' you assume that I am referring to Ashkenazim. Anti-Zionists are preoccupied with Ashkenazim and with portraying Ashkenazi Jewishness as inauthentic. Yes, genetic studies suggest that Ashkenazim possess European maternal ancestors who likely married Jewish men who emigrated to Southern Europe from the Levant. Yes, these genes can be traced to four maternal ancestors. Yes, this would mean that the descendants of these women are not halachically Jewish, but Jewish in the secular and ethnic sense; which would make them eligible for inclusion in the category being discussed. We are not, after all, discussing the Orthodox definition of who is a Jew as this definition is far too exclusive to apply to any persons except the Orthodox. It would seem that the only person relating this discussion to Zionism and Jewish immigration to Israel is you. You've been observed employing anti-Zionist rhetoric while attempting to invalidate the ME descent of Jewish Americans. Gilad55 (talk) 22:59, 28 February 2014 (UTC)Gilad55[reply]

Also, widespread conversion to Judaism is hotly contested. There are no reliable, true histories that attest to such conversion. You've employed yet another anti-Zionist meme. Gilad55 (talk) 23:03, 28 February 2014 (UTC)Gilad55[reply]

"Zionism is not Judaism." I am reticent to get into a political discussion on Wikipedia, as I don't find this to be the appropriate forum. That being said, Israel and a desire to return to it has been integral to Jewish culture long before these ideas manifested themselves in the Zionist movement. At best, your comment is ignorant. At worst, it is willfully disingenuous.

"Does anyone on earth actually disagree with that?" Actually yes, there are plenty of Jews who disagree with you. And if I am to wax anecdotal for a moment, the only Jews I've met who separate Zionism from Judaism are ultra right wing Hasidim and anti-Zionist leftist Jews. As for myself, I don't believe they are literally the same, but they are undeniably intertwined with one another.Evildoer187 (talk) 11:39, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"much of the 'science' over the past 15 years has been questioned as questionable." By whom?

"If you use patrilineal descent, you have 4 founders". I think you mean "matrilineal".

"Behar and his team consistently came up with results that 'there is a likely Near Eastern origin for the maternal gene pool of Ashkenazi Jewry." His study does not arrive at this conclusion. In fact, the word "likely" does not appear even once in the entire paper. Or are you referring to Nadia's book (see below)? At any rate, genetic and historical consensus places the origins of Ashkenazim in the Near East, particularly the Levant.

Also, you cited Nadia Abu El Haj, a noted anti-Zionist whose very credentials have been repeatedly called into question. You say you are opposed to dragging ideology into this discussion, but then you cite her? Needless to say, that source by itself is not adequate. The DNA tests speak for themselves, and overwhelmingly in favor of Levantine origins for all Jewish groups.Evildoer187 (talk) 11:49, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As for Richard's study. "As might be expected from the autosomal picture, Y-chromosome studies generally show the opposite trend to mtDNA (with a predominantly Near Eastern source) with the exception of the large fraction of European ancestry seen in Ashkenazi Levites"

http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2013/131008/ncomms3543/full/ncomms3543.html Evildoer187 (talk) 12:24, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"If you use patrilineal descent, you have 4 founders". I think you mean "matrilineal".

In fact, the word "likely" does not appear even once in the entire paper.

No I don't on the first count, and you are wrong on the second. Please familiarise yourself with the literature. Accusing me of being 'wilfully disingenuous while you now distort and misrepresent the relevant papers I cited is ironic.

The Matrilineal Descent of Ashkenazi Jewry American Journal of Human Genetics. March 2006; 78(3): 487–497.

'Here, using complete sequences of the maternally inherited mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA), we show that close to one-half of Ashkenazi Jews, estimated at 8,000,000 people, can be traced back to only 4 women carrying distinct mtDNAs that are virtually absent in other populations, with the important exception of low frequencies among non-Ashkenazi Jews.'

We conclude that four founding mtDNAs, likely of Near Eastern ancestry, underwent major expansion(s) in Europe within the past millennium.

In the Ashkenazi Jews, this approach enabled us to reconstruct a detailed phylogenetic tree for the major Ashkenazi Hgs K and N1b, allowing the detection of a small set of only four individual female ancestors, likely from a Hebrew/Levantine mtDNA pool, whose descendants lived in Europe and carried forward their particular mtDNA variants to 3,500,000 individuals in a time frame of <2 millennia.

'Likely' is used four times in that paper. Why do you distort sources?

I.e. you dismiss peer-reviewed academic RS (Nadia Abu El-Haj) whose reportage you dislike, by adducing personal readings of the relevant primary literature. Your personal readings are then shown to misrepresent both Nadia Abu El-Haj's reportage of Behar's paper, and Behar's paper itself. This is a fundamental error among inexperienced wikipedians, but here one suspects frivolous contentiousness or just bad-faith. Whatever it is wasting serious editors' time. Behar did not write 'one study'. Y-DNA , further, defines patrilineal descent, which is excluded as a criterion for Jewishness by rabbinical consensus. If the rabbis are right, Behar et al., are wrong. If Behar and co are right, then the relevant halakha must be rewritten. See? The conceptual paradigm is messy.Nishidani (talk) 12:47, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, widespread conversion to Judaism is hotly contested.

Well kashim gerim le-yisrael k'sapahat likens proselytes to leprosy, but rabbinical traditions are one thing, history another. Louis H. Feldman, Jew and Gentile in the Ancient World, Princeton University Press, 1996 p.295:

'The Jewish attitude toward proselytism apparently changed from a passive to a more active approach during the Hellenistic period. The chief reason for presuming that there were massive conversions to Judaism during this period is the seemingly dramatic increase in Jewish populations at this time. . .Only proselytism can account for this large increase'](pre-Exilic 150,000 to Ist century CE 8 million)

Both of you, please refresh your reading of history, starting with the conversion of the Abiabene aristocracy; John Hyrcanus's conversion of the Idumeans; the conversion of the Himyarite aristocracy and so forth, and try to ground your arguments in quality source you have read, and above all, no prevarication about what you pretend to have read. That kind of behaviour is an index of maliciously vi9olating WP:AGF.

ps. in this thread, 'reticence' is used as a synonym for reluctance (like the classic 'transpire' in the sense of 'happen'). We really should avoid solecistic usage, if only because it disturbs my sleeping pattern (esp. while I'm editing) Nishidani (talk) 12:47, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion is kind of sickening; users here should stop for a minute and think about it. Do Italians need genetic test to prove that Italians "exist"? Do Hungarians? Do Ukrainians? no. So why here? Jewish history starts in ancient Israel and that's why the category may be appropriate. There's a lot of archeology, history books etc. Whether someone today has this or that "ancient chromosome" is a ridiculous and childish discussion. I assure you that most Israelis don't know or care for genetics. Yuvn86 (talk) 13:05, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, Italians, Hungarians, and Ukrainians are so because they have that political nationality. Cécile Kyenge and Mario Balotelli are Italians. The only people who contest that are members of the Northern League, i.e.,provincial fascists or racists. No one is contesting that Jews exist, which would be idiotic. Ashkenazi Jews have manifold nationalities, American, Ukrainian, Hungarian, Czech, Italian and some editors are trying to insert the idea that where we have Ashkenazi of such varied nationalities, they must be ulteriorly identified as descending from the Southwestern Levant. This is mythology, or religious belief, or whatever. It is not objective, and pushes a known POV in a certain vein of identity rhetoric. We are discussing whether a cat insinuating Ashkenazi Jews are of Middle Eastern descent is appropriate, nor the existence of Jews. As to Israel, please read and follow up Beta Israel and ponder

Some notable poskim, from non-Zionist Ashkenazi circles, placed a halakhic safek (doubt) over the Jewishness of the Beta Israel. Such dissenting voices include rabbis Rabbi Elazar Shach, Rabbi Yosef Shalom Eliashiv, Rabbi Shlomo Zalman Auerbach, and Rabbi Moshe Feinstein.[55][56] Similar doubts were raised within the same circles towards Bene Israel Jews,[57] and Russian immigrants to Israel in the 1990s.

Most Israelis don't care about genetics, but numerous rabbinical controversies there show that Jewish identity is caught up between the genetics of descent and that of simply religious identification. Nishidani (talk) 13:20, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What I mean is that Italians, Hungarians etc. may see themselves as a single nation, peoplehood, even if they have multiple origins, live in a diaspora, don't speak Italian/Hungarian and so on. There is not right or wrong here. And by the way, some Sephardim have also been in Europe for 2,000 years, some Ashkenazim are of Sephardi ancestry etc. Identity is not mathematics Yuvn86 (talk) 14:46, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, fine, but that is not the point.Nishidani (talk) 15:07, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"No I don't on the first count". In which case, you are wrong. The paper you linked to just now (your second link redirects to a barebones Wikipedia article) are clearly referring to maternal DNA, not Y-DNA. You said "If you use patrilineal descent, you have 4 founders", to which I responded that the 4 founders were matrilineal. And you're accusing me of distorting?

"and you are wrong on the second." I believed you were referring to citation #16 on here (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_studies_on_Jews#Autosomal_DNA).

"Accusing me of being 'wilfully disingenuous while you now distort and misrepresent the relevant papers I cited is ironic." I haven't misrepresented a thing, and your accusation is doubly ironic given what I just point out above. My "willfully disingenuous" remark was direct at Alf.

"I.e. you dismiss peer-reviewed academic RS (Nadia Abu El-Haj) whose reportage you dislike, by adducing personal readings of the relevant primary literature." I was simply pointing out the irony of your complaints vis a vis ideological arguments, when you have cited someone who is both anti-Zionist and of dubious credibility. One look at her Wikipedia article is enough to verify this. Used by itself, her book is not sufficient to refute the mountains of DNA tests reaffirming Levantine origins for Ashkenazi Jews.

"Your personal readings are then shown to misrepresent both Nadia Abu El-Haj's reportage of Behar's paper, and Behar's paper itself." I mistakenly believed that Behar only released one paper, which I linked to. That was an error on my part. My mind is hazy at 3 in the morning, and I may have subconsciously conflated him with another geneticist. In any case, you referred to 4 patrilineal founders in your post, and that's what I was referring to. As for Nadia, what exactly have I misrepresented?

"Y-DNA , further, defines patrilineal descent, which is excluded as a criterion for Jewishness by rabbinical consensus. If the rabbis are right, Behar et al., are wrong. If Behar and co are right, then the relevant halakha must be rewritten. See? The conceptual paradigm is messy." Strictly speaking, if one is born to a Jewish father and gentile mother, he/she is still of Jewish descent. As genetic studies (including those you have cited) attest to, Ashkenazim have Levantine origins and varying degrees of European admixture. That is predominant narrative among scholars and geneticists. Therefore, European descent and Middle Eastern descent are applicable. However, given how Jews are defined both by themselves and by others, the latter would be more appropriate, in this case. Evildoer187 (talk) 13:54, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strictly speaking, if one is born to a Jewish father and gentile mother, he/she is still of Jewish descent.

strictly speaking is meaningless. Your position is entertained only by some schools of Reform Judaism. A sister in law of mine was denied that recognition by a rabbi of great distinction who said she required conversion in such a case. The rabbi was of great distinction and a wonderful man, - he went out of his way to help her with exceptional courtesy and humanity -but was under the constraint of halakhic law. You are prevaricating.

Walls of text, poorly formatted, and going all over the place with 'arguments' that ignore, distort or talk round specific issues cannot, by their nature, be replied to. That you arer either totally confused, or out of your depth, or are playing games can be seen at a glance by comparing the following sequence of edits above.

(Me)Behar and his team consistently came up with results that 'there is a likely Near Eastern origin for the maternal gene pool of Ashkenazi Jewry. (Nadia Abu El-Haj, The Genealogical Science: The Search for Jewish Origins and the Politics of Epistemology, 2012 p.125).

(You)"Behar and his team consistently came up with results that 'there is a likely Near Eastern origin for the maternal gene pool of Ashkenazi Jewry." His study does not arrive at this conclusion. In fact, the word "likely" does not appear even once in the entire paper.

(Me)The paper cited on p.125 of Nadia Abu el-Hajj is the following:-

The Matrilineal Descent of Ashkenazi Jewry American Journal of Human Genetics. March 2006; 78(3): 487–497.

It reads:-

'Here, using complete sequences of the maternally inherited mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA), we show that close to one-half of Ashkenazi Jews, estimated at 8,000,000 people, can be traced back to only 4 women carrying distinct mtDNAs that are virtually absent in other populations, with the important exception of low frequencies among non-Ashkenazi Jews.'

We conclude that four founding mtDNAs, likely of Near Eastern ancestry, underwent major expansion(s) in Europe within the past millennium.

If you cannot follow an argument, don't engage. The same applies if you are playing games to waste editors' time and win by sheer attrition and third party confusion/boredom.Nishidani (talk) 15:00, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Both of you, please refresh your reading of history, starting with the conversion of the Abiabene aristocracy; John Hyrcanus's conversion of the Idumeans; the conversion of the Himyarite aristocracy" Those are all Southwest Asian kingdoms. Adiabene was in Assyria, Idumea in the Levant (in what is now southern Israel and SW Jordan), and the Himyarite kingdom was in Yemen. Further, nobody is arguing that Ashkenazim or any Jewish group are purely Levantine, just that the Middle Eastern descent is clearly there, and it is not minor. Nobody is genetically pure. Moreover, Jews self-identify as Judeans (that's where "Jew" etymologically derives from), a tribe native to the Middle East. So long as that self-identity is preserved, and the ancestral links between modern Jewry and the Middle East have been proven time and again, the categories are applicable.

"ps. in this thread, 'reticence' is used as a synonym for reluctance (like the classic 'transpire' in the sense of 'happen'). We really should avoid solecistic usage, if only because it disturbs my sleeping pattern (esp. while I'm editing)" And I was reluctant to delve into a political argument. The word was used appropriately.Evildoer187 (talk) 14:07, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am reticent to get into a political discussion on Wikipedia, as I don't find this to be the appropriate forum.

And I was reluctant to delve into a political argument. The word was used appropriately.

Nope. In English, even solecistic English, one cannot use the form 'reticent to get into'. One is reticent about etc, but never 'reticent to'. It is not grammatical, whereas 'reluctant to get into' is perfectly acceptable. Therefore the word was not used appropriately, but solecistically. Don't argue against the obvious.Nishidani (talk) 15:17, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"strictly speaking is meaningless. Your position is entertained only by some schools of Reform Judaism. A sister in law of mine was denied that recognition by a rabbi of great distinction who said she required conversion in such a case. The rabbi was of great distinction and a wonderful man, - he went out of his way to help her with exceptional courtesy and humanity -but was under the constraint of halakhic law. You are prevaricating."

You ignore secular and atheist Jews as well. Further, we don't use Halakhic law to determine whether or not someone is Jewish by descent, and we never have. Anyone born to a Jewish or partially Jewish parent is listed under these categories. We even have Karl Marx and Heinrich Heine listed as Jews, even though both were baptized into Christianity, and certainly would not be considered Jews under Halakhic law. That's not prevarication. Sorry.

"Walls of text, poorly formatted, and going all over the place with 'arguments' that ignore, distort or talk round specific issues cannot, by their nature, be replied to. That you arer either totally confused, or out of your depth, or are playing games can be seen at a glance by comparing the following sequence of edits above."

Not only are these hypocritical accusations (most of them, anyway), they breach WP:NPA. I am a writer, and proofreading is par the course for us. I post responses as promptly as possible and then tweak them in the hopes they won't be lost in the shuffle.

As for the paper, I already confessed to making a mistake, which I ascribed to having just woken up. Posting on here when I was half-asleep was not a master stroke, in hindsight.

"If you use patrilineal descent, you have 4 founders"

This passage here is what I was referring to, when I said "I think you mean "matrilineal". What study says there are 4 patrilineal founders? None of the links you've posted make any such argument.

At any rate, the consensus among scholars, geneticists, et al is clearly in favor of Levantine origins for Ashkenazi Jews. Even Elhaik's controversial study concluded that Ashkenazim had "Semitic" ancestry. Nobody disputes that Ashkenazim have mixed with indigenous Europeans. However, the Near Eastern ancestry of Ashkenazi Jews is still significant, and pretty much fact at this point.

Descent categorization is contingent on nationality and ancestry. I've already addressed the latter. In case of the former, Jewish is a distinct nationality, originating in (yes) the Middle East. If Jews were merely Poles, Russians, Hungarians, Ethiopians, or what have you, that renders the entire family of "Jewish descent" categories useless.Evildoer187 (talk) 16:40, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just a thought, but this tit-for-tat arguing, where neither one of you will be changing your opinion, serves no purpose other than venting your frustration. You're not going to convince each other and you'll just be exhausted by the time the dispute resolution case is filed. I suggest you two give up trying to have the last word as the situation is at a stalemate. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:47, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed? It is not tit-for-tat, I might reply with knitted eyebrow. It is a conflict between opinions and wiki rules, that require evidence from RS, and policy-grounds. I try to keep abreast of every tit and jottle regarding the originative facts (Und schreibe getrost: Im Anfang war die Tat! Faust: Eine Tragödie,Studierzimmer ) that has relevance to the encyclopedia. I do not expect my perusal and use of the relevant RS to be greeted with the milk of human kindness, but I don't think much is gained by ignoring the difference in the style of argument, and saying 'two people argue: there must be no difference in the quality of their arguments, because they can't agree.' That is a very peculiar premise in logic. One is full of assertion, the other enlists evidence, and tries at least to construe it correctly, which cannot be said for what Evildoer has done above, visibly altering the evidence.Nishidani (talk) 21:48, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All these DNA stories are no really relevant to the issue. Not because part of my blood can be traced to Spain (some of my ancestors were of Sephardic heritage) am I of Spanish descent. If this is how we categorize people, all of us would have a long list of descent categories. We usually go back only a few generations, as far as is relevant to the person himself. DNA studies show that all of the world has one ancestor in Biblical times. And where did this ancestor live, pray tell? There is no end to this argument, and that was one of the main arguments against these categories in the discussion. Debresser (talk) 17:56, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DNA studies show that all of the world has one ancestor in Biblical times.

It's as the man says. One the global scale, universal common ancestry emerges no more than a hundred generations ago-well into the Old Testament era, perhaps, around the destruction of the First Temple in about 600 B.C. Steve Jones, Serpent's Promise: The Bible Retold as Science, Hachette 2013 Nishidani (talk) 21:48, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What are "Biblical times" and how could a timeline not taken from a true historical record be relevant to science and to scientific studies? We don't even know for certain when Mosche wrote the Pentateuch let alone when the events of Genesis and Exodus took place. DNA, unlike timelines constructed to affirm stories found in religious texts, is relevant to this discussion. Genetic studies confirm that modern Jews, all modern Jews, share common ancestors - ancestors who were most likely Levantine in origin due to the genetic overlap between all modern Jews and other groups living in the Levant; namely Syrians, Druze and even persons who self-identify as Arab Palestinians. Gilad55 (talk) 23:09, 1 March 2014 (UTC)Gilad55[reply]

Your post completely ignores the arguments set forth in my post. Just as Jews share an ancestor, so does all of humanity. So are we all of African descent? Or perhaps Indian? And why do you say "most likely Levantine"? Where is your proof? Debresser (talk) 01:22, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Debresser, Yes, all of humanity share common ancestors who can be traced to a point 400,000 years in the past. When geneticists like Ostrer identified the common ancestors of Jews, they were examining separate clusters of DNA; autosomal DNA to be specific. Jews share more autosomal DNA with each other than we do with non-Jews. We share so much of this DNA that many of us are third and fifth cousins. Yes, we are all distantly related, yet share more of our genes with some groups than with others. Also, I say, "most likely Levantine" due to the fact that the genes shared by Ashkenazim, Sephardim and Mizrahim overlap with genes shared by other groups living in the Levant. This indicates that the ancestry shared by Jews is of Levantine origin. Gilad55 (talk) 02:14, 2 March 2014 (UTC)Gilad55[reply]

Also, Debresser, science does not offer "proof". Science offers evidence. Gilad55 (talk) 02:17, 2 March 2014 (UTC)Gilad55[reply]

"One is full of assertion, the other enlists evidence, and tries at least to construe it correctly, which cannot be said for what Evildoer has done above, visibly altering the evidence."

Asserting that I'm deliberately altering things does not make it so. The mistakes I have made, I have admitted to. You have done no such thing. Rather, you ignore relevant evidence to push a POV.Evildoer187 (talk) 02:20, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"We usually go back only a few generations, as far as is relevant to the person himself." Debresser, does that mean that an African-American whose family was brought over on early slave ships, and has been in America for many hundreds of years, is now white? Or Native American? And for that matter, are the descendants of the pilgrims now Anglo-Saxon? My husband is ethnically Chinese but his family has lived in Malaysia for as long as they can remember (at least 150 years) and thus has no record of ever having been in China... does this suddenly make him an ethnic Malay? And for all he knows, he could have some Malay blood in him... is he still Chinese? If only the last few generations is relevant, then we're basically negating the concept of ethnic groups at all. But as you're of course aware, in exile, we still managed to maintain our identity as a nation for 2,000 years, and did have distinct Jewish vernacular languages that incorporated Hebrew, and did maintain Jewish culture and customs... There is likely over a period of two thousand years to be some intermarriage with local populations, but there is enough Semitic Y-DNA markers to say that Middle Eastern descent plays a very substantial role in the DNA makeup of most Jews. After all, if you're asking for 100% of Jews to have 100% Jewish blood quantum before such a category could be used, then I'm afraid that you're really going to struggle to find ANY ethnic group that such a high standard could apply to... Kitty (talk) 02:37, 2 March 2014 (UTC) Nishidani, re: "One could just as validly argue that Jews are people who subscribe to Judaism, a religion developed in the ME. The formula you adopt disenfranchises many Jews, for it has a logical entailment: Jews who do not hail from a semitic background in the Middle East are not in fact Jews." The traditional definition of a Jew is a person who is the child of a Jewish mother. Thus, one can join the tribe despite not being an original member of it (just as Native Americans adopted people into their tribes, or like I can gain citizenship into another country). Jews are both a religion or a people, there's no question of either-or. But while there have been some converts from outside of the ME, they would presumably either marry a Jew or their children or grand-children would or so on; the idea of someone being descended from 10 generations of only converts seems incredibly unlikely. There's enough Middle Eastern y-DNA markers within most of the Jewish people to indicate that this forms a very large part of our descent, and as I mentioned to Debresser, if you're looking to speak in absolutes (100% of Jews must have 100% blood quantum) then basically no ethnic groups are going to be valid. Not all Jews do have shared ancestry, but very many do, and I don't think we should be ignoring that or insisting that they all have to. Kitty (talk) 02:46, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My family's oral history goes back to the Norman invasion of Ireland. Not for that do I think I am 'ethnically' Irish. It's nice to believe in a collectivist story, but that is a matter of personal choice: the baggage such stories contain (the mystical 2,000 years ago meme goes back to the idea Jews were expelled from Judea by Hadrian, and the diaspora began. The Roman Jewish community was there centuries earlier, presumably by choice) is a fairytale. Jewish history was nomadic from its mythical legendary beginnings, and marvellously diasporic since then: the doctrinal idea of a return is a story woven out of a clerical ideology born in the early Babylonian diaspora, as was the Ezra/Nehemiah doctrine of bloodlines as indexes of Jewishness. The confusion of rabbinic tales of yearning for a return with some collective idea that all wished to return is completely unhistorical and counterfactual, as the data on preferred emigration to the New Zion (America) rather than Palestine consistently shows throughout 1880s-1930s.Nishidani (talk) 11:22, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The overwhelming majority of Jews share ancestry with each other, and with other Levantines. Especially given how the majority of Jews alive today are Ashkenazi, Sephardic, or Mizrahi. This has been affirmed time and again by DNA tests. Purity of blood should not be a prerequisite for inclusion in a category.Evildoer187 (talk) 02:53, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

...or maybe the sad truth is that some users here, like Gilad and Kitty, have no idea why they're Jewish, so they are forcing an answer from science (and the paper results often contradict each other). Maybe genetic-obsessed users know that, let's face it, there wasn't much between Albert Einstein and Ovadia Yosef except some shared religious traditions (the example Nishidani gave above), but it doesn't matter to you because you've probably already decided that "they both share some ancient Eastern chromosomes and that's why they're the same nation". Just think of how stupid it is, you make Jewish tradition laughable with such arguments. Yuvn86 (talk) 03:52, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

^ An ad-hominem attack and, worse, a display of ignorance. Jews are an ethnic group. Einstein was an atheist who, during adulthood, turned away from Judaism, a religion practiced by most, but not by all ethnic Jews, and embraced scientific inquiry and mathematics. The Honorable Chief Rabbi of Israel, Ovadia Yosef was a Jew who emigrated to Israel from Iraq and, being Sephardi, would have shared no European ancestors with Einstein; who was Ashkenazi. But, yes, both men are of the same nation and shared Levantine ancestors. Gilad55 (talk) 04:16, 2 March 2014 (UTC)Gilad55[reply]

What I meant is that Einstein and Yosef didn't share culture, language, lifestyle, foods, music and other "ethnic attributes", though maybe they shared some Judaism traditions (Einstein surely knew some even if was secular). What makes them the same group then? Going into genetics may seem like an excuse to "yes, they didn't share anything in their lives, but they're still the same nation because some ancient chromosome". I am not denying Jewish peoplehood, I just believe it's wrong if some users automatically go into irrelevant genetic arguments on Wikipedia (not just here, I've seen it also in other groups pages) to prove that their people are this or that. Yuvn86 (talk) 04:58, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"A groundbreaking paper published in 2000 by Harry Ostrer, a professor of genetics at the Albert Einstein College of Medicine, and University of Arizona geneticist Michael Hammer showed that most modern Jews are descended on their male side from a core population of approximately 20,000 Jews who migrated from Italy over the first millennium and eventually settled in Eastern Europe.

“All European [Ashkenazi] Jews seem connected on the order of fourth or fifth cousins,” Ostrer has said.

Known as the so-called “Rhineland hypothesis,” the consensus research holds that most Ashkenazi Jews, as well as many Jews tracing their lineage to Italy, North Africa, Iraq, Iran, Kurdish regions and Yemen, share common paternal haplotypes also found among many Arabs from Palestine, Lebanon and Syria. Only a small percentage of the Y-DNA of Ashkenazi Jews—less than 25 percent—originated outside of the Near East, presumably as converts.

This historical and genetic mosaic has provided support for the controversial concept of a “Jewish people.” The Law of Return, the Israeli law that established the right of Jews around the world to settle in Israel and which remains in force today, was a central tenet of Zionism. It is invoked by some religious Jews to support territorial claims (even though, based on this research, many Arabs, including Palestinians, where therefore also have a genetic ‘right of return’)." ^[1] The Genetic Literacy Project is a great source for unbiased information on this topic. Gilad55 (talk) 04:34, 2 March 2014 (UTC)Gilad55[reply]

If you haven't figured it out by now Yuvn, I couldn't give a rat's ass about religious tradition. If someone is documented as having Jewish ancestors, then they are Jews as far as Wikipedia is concerned. And where do Jews trace their ethnic origins and descent to? The Middle East, as virtually all of the genetic papers agree on barring some minor quibbling over the extent of European admixture. Otherwise, these Jewish descent categories should not even exist.Evildoer187 (talk) 04:48, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The most practical way to confuse third parties is to overload an argument with repetitive walls of text. Almost no one reads past the second repeat, and here we have several. Wiki uses policy guidelines, RS-based arguments, and precedents. None of those arguing for the CAT have shown reason for its use according to these criteria. The gestures at citing the genetic evidence are pathetically reductive, unilateral cherrypicking from memory, and often wrong. Please, if you wish to continue, observe the courtesies of standard wikipedia communications.Nishidani (talk) 11:12, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If what you're looking for is non-genetic sources, I can easily provide those as well. Unfortunately, my time on here is limited these days due to real life obligations, so I have not had the opportunity to dig them up.Evildoer187 (talk) 12:51, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Provide them. Firstly you are obliged to provide academic sources that indicate that Jews are all of South-Eastwestern Asian descent. Once you have documented that this usage is widespread, you can then go to level 2, and argue for the CAT. Until you do that, then I'm sure everyone else can extend you the necessary time to gather the material, come back and make the case in terms that are accepted as standard on wikipedia.Nishidani (talk) 14:41, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well firstly, it's Southwest Asian, not Southeast. Second, asking for a requirement that all Jews are of Southwest Asian descent is silly. What ethnic group has a 100% blood quantum among 100% of its people?Evildoer187 (talk) 04:23, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No other ethnic group is required to provide academic sources as evidence of their descent. We trust that indigenous Mexicans are the descendants of the Incas, among other ancient South American indigenous civilizations, because Mexicans claim this descent as part of their national ethos. Similarly, Hebrew descent is part of the Jewish ethos. As there are no viable theories to counter the claim that all Jews share a common descent, the burden of proof falls on those who would have the cat removed, not on those who would keep it in place. To proceed in any other way, would be to enforce a double-standard and ignore the process by which any cat should be removed. Gilad55 (talk) 04:40, 3 March 2014 (UTC)Gilad55[reply]

Here are some genetic sources.

http://www.ucl.ac.uk/tcga/tcgapdf/Nebel-HG-00-IPArabs.pdf

http://bhusers.upf.edu/.../uploads/2011/02/Behar2010.pdf

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12820706

http://www.nature.com/.../100603/full/news.2010.277.html

http://www.familytreedna.com/pdf/Behar_contrasting.pdf

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3032072/

http://www.sciencedirect.com/.../pii/S0002929707613251

http://forward.com/.../jews-are-a-race-genes-reveal/...

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2687795/

And one for women...

http://www.familytreedna.com/pdf/43026_Doron.pdf

I'll be back with some non-genetic sources.Evildoer187 (talk) 04:43, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And here we have the unedited text of the Jewish Encyclopedia from 1906, with some statistics from both Josephus and Tacitus. http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/13992-statistics

"Tacitus declares that Jerusalem at its fall contained 600,000 persons; Josephus, that there were as many as 1,100,000, of whom 97,000 were sold as slaves. It is from the latter that most European Jews are descended."

I will post some more links tomorrow, as soon as I get out of class.Evildoer187 (talk) 05:15, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

None of those links, some of them dead, and most irrelevant, reply to my point. To repeat.'Firstly you are obliged to provide academic sources that indicate that Jews are all of South-western Asian descent.' You need that language, not dated papers on genetics arguing that many Jews, at least on the patrilineal line, come from the Near East. Time and again, I have been asked to justify phrasing by source usage, and I have done so. So, provide the sources justifying the wording of your CAT.

Ps please don't get confused about Tacitus, Josephus, or Hadrian. The population figures for Jerusalem (mirroring the mythic 600,000 who left Egypt in the Exodus) in Ist cent are thought to be 'hugely exaggerated by most commentators'. (Reinhardt in Richard Bauckham here p.261 Nishidani (talk) 11:20, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at Y-chromosomal Aaron, it seems that many Kohanim Jews, share the same old father. This might be an indication of a shared Jewish origin, although it is not yet a full proof. Ykantor (talk) 17:17, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your first point is very odd to me. Consensus places Jewish origins in the Levant, which is located in Southwestern Asia. If we were to require language that specific in each case, the category would be empty. You also attempt to discredit the sources I provided by calling them outdated. Isn't that what you accused me of doing earlier, when I argued that Nadia Abu El-Haj's credentials were disputed? The newer studies that came out in the past year or so have pretty much arrived at the same (or similar) conclusions, so it's a moot point either way. I notice you did not actually refute the other source I provided, which states that the Romans took Jewish slaves to Europe, and that the majority of today's European Jews are descended from these slaves.

@Ykantor, what is your position on the categories?Evildoer187 (talk) 17:30, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• (a) the overwhelming majority of modern Jews do trace their origins to the Middle East.Evildoer187 (talk) 04:53, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
• (c) Genetics affirms that Jews, all Jews, share a common Levantine ancestry Gilad55 (talk) 16:33, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
• (c) Not all Jews do have shared ancestry, but very many do, and I don't think we should be ignoring that or insisting that they all have to. Kitty (talk) 02:46, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

None of you can agree. It is all Jews for Gilad; the overwhelming majority for Evildoer; (c) 'very many' for Kitty.

The Jewish faith, and its foundational population, are placed in the Levant. That does not translate into all, or the overwhelming majority, or 'very many' Jews hailing from the Levant. You are confusing history, genetics and religion. Genetic science on this is constantly revising its conclusions as one can see from the conflicts within it: Ostrer back Behar, and when Richards-Costa came out, agreed with them, though Behar et al and Richards-Costa have fundamental differences over origins. So Genetics cannot yet tell us that 'all/most Jews' come from the Levant. What your CAT does implicitly challenge is a valid historically grounded hypothesis that large numbers of Jews descend from people who converted to Judaism, in Egypt, Africa, and Europe. CATs should not assert as a given 'fact' what is just an hypothesis.Nishidani (talk) 19:57, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe either of them: not the "all", not the "most" and not the "many". Disregarding those Jews who are from the Middle East in the last generation or 2 or 3, no Jew would says he is of Middle eastern descent just by virtue of him being a Jew. There is even a joke about this asking "Do you know you are an Iraqi Jew" and then when the other guy vehemently denies you say "All Jews are descended from Abraham who came from Ur which is in Iraq". Debresser (talk) 20:24, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That is a good joke. :) Whether it is all, many or most, ethnic Jews hail from the Middle East. All, many and most would each merit a description of Jews as being persons of Middle Eastern descent. Jews do not proselytize and genetic studies affirm that ethnic Jews possess Levantine DNA. Science tells us that it makes no difference whether a Jew is Ashkenazi, Sephardi or Mizrahi. Members of each group are related as distant cousins within a family. Also, persons can be included in more than one category of descent. Many Ashkenazi Jews can claim Western European descent while simultaneously claiming Middle Eastern descent by virtue of the fact that their forefathers began their journey in Israel/Palestine. Were you under the impression that categories of descent are mutually exclusive? Gilad55 (talk) 23:02, 4 March 2014 (UTC)Gilad55[reply]

Repeating what you believe does not constitute an argument. We decide what we do here by consulting authoritative sources, not personal opinions.Nishidani (talk) 23:05, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As an aside, inheritance in Ha'aretz Yisrael was based on tribal affiliation which is passed from father to son. The son inherits his share of the land from his father and so on. It's good that we emphasize the Mosaic covenant, but the Abrahamic covenant, the covenant of inheritance, is the foundational covenant of Judaism. This is perhaps why Jews do not and never proselytize. The inheritance of Ha'aretz Yisrael is limited to the children of Israel. Not the spiritual children, mind you, but the physical children. Judaism is very much a part of that inheritance. It is the thing that seals the child to the land. Gilad55 (talk) 23:22, 4 March 2014 (UTC)Gilad55[reply]

Nishidani, Please define "authoritative source". Gilad55 (talk) 23:46, 4 March 2014 (UTC)Gilad55[reply]

"Israel Science and Technology Homepage is the national database and directory of science and technology related sites in Israel. The site also includes sections on Jewish scientists and students in the Diaspora.

I established the first version of this site during my term as The Science Adviser to the Prime Minister Mr. Benjamin Netanyahu during 1996-1999. Since then, the site has been vastly expanded."

From the ISTH: "After the exile by the Romans at 70 CE, the Jewish people migrated to Europe and North Africa. In the Diaspora (scattered outside of the Land of Israel), they established rich cultural and economic lives, and contributed greatly to the societies where they lived. Yet, they continued their national culture and prayed to return to Israel through centuries. In the first half of the 20th century there were major waves of immigration of Jews back to Israel from Arab countries and from Europe. During the British rule in Palestine, the Jewish people were subject to great violence and massacres directed by Arab civilians or forces of the neighboring Arab states. During World War II, the Nazi regime in Germany decimated about 6 million Jews creating the great tragedy of The Holocaust." ^[2] Gilad55 (talk) 23:54, 4 March 2014 (UTC)Gilad55[reply]

Jews are a nation. Israel is our national home. Jews in Israel and in the diaspora define themselves as descendants of the tribes of ancient Israel. This definition is reflected in the abbreviated history above. Intermarriage and the conversion of European women certainly occurred in the diaspora, but mass conversion to Judaism in the diaspora is not related in any true history of the diaspora. Gilad55 (talk) 00:04, 5 March 2014 (UTC)Gilad55[reply]

"We decide what we do here by consulting authoritative sources, not personal opinions." I provided you several, and you rejected all of them.Evildoer187 (talk) 06:15, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And Debresser, personal anecdotes and ad ignorantium fallacies do not constitute an argument.Evildoer187 (talk) 06:16, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Genetic science on this is constantly revising its conclusions as one can see from the conflicts within it: Ostrer back Behar, and when Richards-Costa came out, agreed with them, though Behar et al and Richards-Costa have fundamental differences over origins." They all agree that Jews have Levantine origins. They disagree on the extent of foreign admixture.Evildoer187 (talk) 06:28, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"What your CAT does implicitly challenge is a valid historically grounded hypothesis that large numbers of Jews descend from people who converted to Judaism, in Egypt, Africa, and Europe. CATs should not assert as a given 'fact' what is just an hypothesis." So is this a blood purity argument? Last I checked, nobody disputes that modern Jews are mixed. We're all mixed. An ethnically pure nation simply does not exist. In the end, Jews are self-defined, and defined by most others, as a nation in direct descent from the Hebrew tribes of the Middle East. The "hypothesis" I've laid out has significant from scholars, geneticists, archaeologists, and historians. The idea that most Jews today are descendents only of converts has no such support, and exists primarily in the fevered imaginations of....well, you know. What distinguishes Jews from other national groups is that a good portion of it spent the last 1,500+ years in diaspora. The very name "Jewish diaspora" implies a scattering; a dispersion from their land of origin, and that is how it is applied to other nations as well. Unless you can show me a source indicating that A) there is a statute of limitations on descent or B) all individuals within a nation must have blood ties to particular patch of land to be counted as "of that country", then I see no reason to remove the cats, other than for (possibly) ideological purposes.Evildoer187 (talk) 06:45, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The idea that Jews are not a nation is a relatively recent one, dating back to the past couple of centuries, and arising mainly from a fear of persecution. But even this has failed to gain any serious traction, outside of Reform and "anti-Zionist" Jewish circles. Today, it is championed mainly by anti-Zionists, usually by people who are not Jewish.Evildoer187 (talk) 06:52, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I just read many of the above comments. Allow me start mine by showing what some of the highest reliable scholastic and academic sources say about the matter:

"Jews originated as a national and religious group in the Middle East during the second millennium BCE1 and have maintained continuous genetic, cultural, and religious traditions since that time, despite a series of Diasporas. ... Recent studies of Y chromosomal and mitochondrial DNA haplotypes have pointed to founder effects of both Middle Eastern and local origin". [1] by the National Center for Biotechnology Information.

"Since their emergence as a national and religious group in the Middle East over 2,000 years ago (Biran and Naveh 1993), Jews have maintained continuous cultural and religious traditions amid a series of Diasporas (Ben-Sasson 1976)."[2] (National Center for Biotechnology Information)

"With a new technique based on the male or Y chromosome, biologists have traced the diaspora of Jewish populations from the dispersals that began in 586 B.C. to the modern communities of Europe and the Middle East ... Another finding, paradoxical but unsurprising, is that by the yardstick of the Y chromosome, the world's Jewish communities closely resemble not only each other but also Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese, suggesting that all are descended from a common ancestral population that inhabited the Middle East some four thousand years ago."[3], The New York Times

"Comparison with genetic data from non-Jewish groups indicates that all the Jewish groups originated in the Middle East ... Today, contemporary Jews carry evidence of their Middle Eastern origin along with genetic heritage from European and North African ancestors." [4] - Science News

The Y Chromosome Pool of Jews as Part of the Genetic Landscape of the Middle East by the National Center for Biotechnology Information

Jewish and Middle Eastern non-Jewish populations share a common pool of Y-chromosome biallelic haplotypes, by the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

Additional information could be found at this Science Daily paper and that PLOS ONE paper. And there are thousands of others, needless to say.

Every single legitimate study ever done on Jews either found or suggested they have middle eastern ancestry and originated from there, whether Ashkenazi, Sephardic, Mizrahi or other, and this can no longer be a matter of debate. The only question that can be debated here is the percentage amount of mid-east genes, which greatly varies as a couple recent studies have shown there are mixed ancestries for Ashkenazi Jews for example, but that doesn't rule it out the fact that they also have middle eastern origins. It's not about the Jewish people's supposed right/connection to the Land of Israel, nor is it about what the Bible says about the location of Adam and Eve - forget about it all - it's about what technologically advanced DNA studies and tests have found in addition to undeniable historical and empirical evidence.

Now let's use some logic and common sense. See how for example Category:Irish people has the sub-category Category:Celtic people (and Celts were "an ethnolinguistic group of tribal societies in Iron Age and Medieval Europe who spoke Celtic languages and had a similar culture). That may seem to imply that 100% of today's Irish people have Celtic origins, which is not true. But Irish people in general are widely (and rightly) regarded as people of Celtic ancestry, and the same thing goes for Jews and the Middle East. There are tens of thousands of [articles on]people who are included in sub-categories of Category:Indigenous peoples of Western Asia. Are they all indigenous to that region? No. Could there be descendants of 19th century immigrants among them? Yes. Were there converts among those [articles of]men and women included in sub-categories of Category:Ethnoreligious groups? Of course, because there are no pure ethnoreligious groups, nationals, etc. But they are still regarded as so.

Everything I have explained makes the case for the inclusion of Category:People of Middle Eastern descent in categories of 'People of Jewish descent'. So unless there is a double standard or some one and only exception for people who are Jewish - and there should be none, definitely not in an encyclopedia - this category cannot be omitted.

Yambaram (talk) 08:58, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yambaram, no need to start alluding to double standards. I, and others, hold that genetics has nothing to do with Wikipedia categorization. That's the short version. The long version I'll reserve for the Dispute Resolution. Debresser (talk) 19:49, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yambaram did not allude to a double standard. Rather, Yambaran stated in plain terms that a removal of the cat would enforce a double standard. Also, genetics is one, but not the only pillar of the pro cat argument. Genetics is admissible as evidence supporting the concept of Jews as an ethnic group. This concept does not negate the concept of Jews as an ethno-religious group. In fact, the two are not mutually exclusive. Genetics affirms that Jewishness is as rooted in ancestry as it is in Judaism. Why else would a Jew who leaves the faith still be considered a Jew? Gilad55 (talk) 22:21, 5 March 2014 (UTC)Gilad55[reply]

Debresser, What, according to you, does apply to Wikipedia categorization? What would you accept as evidence that Jews originated in the Levant as opposed to, let's say, your navel? Gilad55 (talk) 22:31, 5 March 2014 (UTC)Gilad55[reply]

As an aside, I was looking for a resource elaborating on a phenomenon I've long been aware of - religious Jews who oppose the secular Jewish state out of a belief that this state is an abomination before G-d. These persons are known to co-opt the cause of 'Palestinian human rights' to delegitimize Israel or to establish and live in unrecognized Jewish settlements in the West Bank. Persons living in these settlements are responsible for 'price-tagging' - attacks meant to heighten tensions between the Arabs of Palestine and Jews. From the Encyclopedia Britannica On-line:

"Jews hold widely divergent views about the role of Diaspora Jewry and the desirability and significance of maintaining a national identity. While the vast majority of Orthodox Jews support the Zionist movement (the return of Jews to Israel), some Orthodox Jews go so far as to oppose the modern nation of Israel as a godless and secular state, defying God’s will to send his Messiah at the time he has preordained.

According to the theory of shelilat ha-galut (“denial of the exile”), espoused by many Israelis, Jewish life and culture are doomed in the Diaspora because of assimilation and acculturation, and only those Jews who migrate to Israel have hope for continued existence as Jews. It should be noted that neither this position nor any other favourable to Israel holds that Israel is the fulfillment of the biblical prophecy regarding the coming of the messianic era." ^[3] Gilad55 (talk) 00:02, 6 March 2014 (UTC)Gilad55[reply]

The Jewish state was established, in part, to accomplish the 'in-gathering of the exiles'. The effecting of this in-gathering is motivated by the belief that diaspora Jews are the descendants of persons who were forced into exile by a succession of conquests and occupations of Ha'aretz Yisrael. Anyone opposing the Jewish state would, of course, be required to oppose the belief that diaspora Jews, Jewish Americans included, are the descendants of the exiles. Gilad55 (talk) 00:18, 6 March 2014 (UTC)Gilad55[reply]

"What would you accept as evidence that Jews originated in the Levant?" Gilad55, you don't get the point. Not genetics, nor any other proof, is what is needed here. The fact that Jews originated in the Levant is not at dispute. It is the Wikipedia categorization of present-day individuals (I mean Jews, of course) as "people of Middle Eastern descent" because of the fact that thousands of years ago the forefathers of the nation (mind you, not even necessarily their own forefathers) they belong to originated in a certain area. Debresser (talk) 02:51, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So essentially, you are arguing for a statute of limitations, where none exists. If there is one, why are the Romani (whose history bears very many parallels to our own) classified as Asian? They haven't lived in India since the Middle Ages, and there are many within that group who have no Indian descent. In fact, there is even a well-documented custom of kidnapping local children and adopting them into their people, often as brides. And as Yambaram said, to remove these cats would require reshuffling all of the descent cats to meet the criteria you've laid out, i.e. "every single member of a nation group must be genetically homogenous, and anything short of that standard cancels out the rest of its members from that category".Evildoer187 (talk) 10:05, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Why else would a Jew who leaves the faith still be considered a Jew?" Not because of genetics, of which ancient people knew not much, surely! Because such is the halakha (Jewish Law). In Judaism the halakha needs no scientific rationale. Exegesis or tradition are more than enough. By the way, the question in how far a Jew who leaves the faith and embraces another faith is still a Jew is not a simple one, which just comes to show you that genetics is not the factor determining Jewishness. Debresser (talk) 02:51, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We don't use halakhic law to determine who is of Jewish descent. Heinrich Heine converted to Christianity, but is still listed as a Jew, because he has Jewish ancestry. The examples are endless, so I won't discuss them at length. Nor do we use genetics as the defining basis of descent. The studies I've cited are only there as proof of common descent among the vast majority of today's Jews.Evildoer187 (talk) 10:05, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we do use halakha. Just not directly. Since the question who is Jewish is largely based on halakha, therefore so do we use it, implicitly. Debresser (talk) 01:03, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Heinrich Heine should probably not be listed as a Jew, but as being of Jewish descent. Debresser (talk) 01:03, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, he is listed as a Jew, same as Karl Marx and many others who neither identified as Jews or considered themselves part of the people. So why are they listed? Because they have Jewish descent. That's what I mean by "we don't define Jews based on halakha". If we were to use halakha, or Jewish self-definition, then the categories would be even more necessary as most religious Jews conceive of themselves as exiles from Judea.Evildoer187 (talk) 07:47, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's one of the great contributions of Judaic tradition, rabbinical and popular, to the goyim that it privileges disagreement and dissent. It's even proverbial:-'Two Jews, three opinions'. It is obvious that, where the community cannot agree on a self-definition (if only all nations were like that) using totalising generic CATs like the one being pushed is an imposition of one perspective on another wihin Judaism. I cited Corcos above: his brother is Jewish, and he is not. No one replied. He would not accept being called a 'person of south-western Asian' descent. So why should wiki impose that categorization on him because he has Ashkenazi roots? This applies to an enormous number of Jews. Debresser reflects this trenchant commonsense view among you, and you won't accept his right to self-define his Jewishness.Nishidani (talk) 09:36, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Nishidani. Debresser (talk) 01:03, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"So why should wiki impose that categorization on him because he has Ashkenazi roots? This applies to an enormous number of Jews. Debresser reflects this trenchant commonsense view among you, and you won't accept his right to self-define his Jewishness."

Isn't that the same thing you are doing? What if Gilad, or Kitty, or Yambaram, or AnkhMorpork (assuming all of the above are Jewish), or myself define ourselves as of SW Asian descent precisely because we have Jewish roots? Assuming I was of Ashkenazi descent, would it be ok for you to say "sorry, you're not Israelite/Middle Eastern anymore" because we spent the last 1,500+ years or so away from home (through no fault of our own, as history would attest), despite our own self-identity? If I recall correctly, there was one editor in the last thread who argued for inclusion, because removing them would threaten Jewish self-identity, and would also score political points for those who are currently attempting to erase or minimize Jewish history/ties to Israel (his arguments, not mine).Evildoer187 (talk) 10:05, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. That is the most elementary error in the beginner's introduction to logic. You have invented a categorization whose use would impose a contested identity on everyone in a group, even against known members of that group who dissent. I, and Debresser, imply nothing at all about your identity in opposing the introduction of such a category. A category imposes an identity: the lack of a given ccategory does not. The two positions are diametrically opposed: one is a busy-body intrusion on the right to self-definition, the other a tolerant silence which withholds stereotyping of a group out of respect for the right to self-definition. Nishidani (talk) 12:11, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And, congratulations on your longevity ('we spent the last 1,500+ years or so away from home (through no fault of our own, as history would attest)'). The remark is completely false historically by the way.

I read the other day the following passage:-

'We are inclined to view the Jews of the Diaspora as exiles, strangers in a strange land whose true loyalty was owed to Jerusalem. Close study of these texts suggests that this is not how the Jews of the Diaspora saw themselves. Strong as the links to Jerusalem are acknowledged to be, such passages as we have been examining suggest that many Jews clearly perceived themselves as loyal subjects of their foreign rulers and as natives of the lands in which they were born. For them, perhaps the ξενἰα that is said at LtAris 249 to bring contempt and disgrace would paradoxically have been to return permanently to the land of Judah.'Sara Raup Johnson,Historical Fictions and Hellenistic Jewish Identity, University of California Press, 2004 p.157 n.91Nishidani (talk) 12:25, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that you are deliberately ignoring the broader implications that removing the categories would entail. Namely, their absence would insinuate that Jews are not an ethnic group with a common heritage, and that Jews are native only to the lands which they presently inhabit (or most recently inhabited), implicitly undermining the widely accepted (beyond anti-Israel types, and a vocal minority of Jews) and millennia-old Jewish self-conception as a nation. It is a tacit way of confiscating Jewish peoplehood and their Levantine heritage, and it should go without saying that many Jews would profusely disagree. Putting that aside, my arguments for inclusion do not depend on the way I self-identify. I support them because I believe in consistency, and a litany of other reasons that I do not wish to elaborate on again. If you take a look at my user page, you would see that I'm a Sephardic Jew of Syrian descent, so whether or not the cats are removed will not affect me in any way. I brought it up only to point out the flaws in your logic.

I also don't believe anyone's self-identity would be threatened with these categories. Take, for example, a Ukrainian Jew. They would be placed under "People of Jewish descent" and "People of Ukrainian descent", reflecting their dual nationality or ethnicity (whether or not every single Jew in the world would accept this is not Wikipedia's concern). The former would roll up into Middle Eastern or Southwest Asian descent, and the latter would roll up into European. So if they consider themselves Europeans despite their Jewishness, then they still are. They're not mutually exclusive categories.

As for the second part of your post, I used the 1,500+ number because I was arguing from an Ashkenazi perspective, and Jews entered Europe no later than 1,500 years ago. If there is documented evidence to the contrary, I'd like to see it. The quotation you provided is also somewhat vague. Which "texts" are they referring to, specifically? I can also provide you with RS contradicting that passage, and I will do so later on today.Evildoer187 (talk) 15:01, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

'their absence would insinuate that Jews are not an ethnic group with a common heritage'.

This is the same logical error. Absence 'insinuates' nothing. Only presence says something. It's really fundamental logic, you know. Please reread what I wrote and think propositionally.Nishidani (talk) 15:45, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If I were to remove "Navajo people" from "Indigenous people of North America", what would that tell you? Silence does speak volumes, sometimes.Evildoer187 (talk) 16:31, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely, Nishidani, this category imposes nothing on no one. It merely affirms what a majority of Jews know to be true - Jews are from Judea. Individuals such as Debresser are free to define themselves as they like regardless of how ethnology, genetics or Halakha defines Jews as a whole or in part. No category of descent is absolute or mutually exclusive. Gilad55 (talk) 15:23, 6 March 2014 (UTC)Gilad55[reply]

Just for starters.

"Jewish survival in the face of external pressures from Roman Catholic empire and Persian Zoroastrian empire is ‘enigmatic’ to historians."[Salo Wittmayer Baron, “A Social and Religious History of the Jews,” Volume II, Ancient Times, Part II. p 215 Jewish Publication Society of America, 1952.]

Baron explains it by eight factors:

1. Messianic faith. Belief in an ultimately positive outcome and restoration of Israel.

2. The doctrine of the Hereafter increasingly elaborated. Reconciled Jews with suffering in this world and helped them resist outside temptations to convert.

3. Suffering was given meaning through hope-inducing interpretation of their history and their destiny.

4. The doctrine of martyrdom and inescapability of persecution transformed it into a source of communal solidarity.

5. Jewish daily life was very satisfying. Jews lived among Jews. In practice, in a lifetime, individuals encountered overt persecution only on a few dramatic occasions. Jews mostly lived under discrimination that affected everyone, and to which they were habituated. Daily life was governed by a multiplicity of ritual requirements, so that each Jew was constantly aware of God throughout the day. “For the most part, he found this all-encompassing Jewish way of life so eminently satisfactory that he was prepared to sacrifice himself...for the preservation of its fundamentals.”[Baron, p. 216] Those commandments for which Jews had sacrificed their lives, such as defying idolatry, not eating pork, observing circumcision, were the ones most strictly adhered to.[Baron, p. 216-217]

6. The corporate development and segregationist policies of the late Roman empire and Persian empire, helped keep Jewish community organization strong.

7. Talmud provided an extremely effective force to sustain Jewish ethics, law and culture, judicial and social welfare system, universal education, regulation of strong family life and religious life from birth to death.

8. The concentration of Jewish masses within ‘the lower middle class’,[Baron, p. 217] with the middle class virtues of sexual self-control. There was a moderate path between asceticism and licentiousness. Marriage was considered to be the foundation of ethnic, and ethical, life.

Outside hostility only helped cement Jewish unity and internal strength and commitment.

Evildoer187 (talk) 15:36, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a blog. WP:TLDR. I asked you for quality sources that would provide learned support for a cat that Jews are all of South-western Asian descent. You keep talking past this basic requirement.Nishidani (talk) 15:45, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond what I and numerous others have already provided? And revisiting Yambaram's point for a moment, if not every person in Ireland is Celtic, then why do we include them under Celtic people? Why are Romani included under Indian people, when it is well known they have adopted many locals into their tribe, just as Jews have done? This is what I suspect Gilad means by double standards.Evildoer187 (talk) 16:31, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I asked for RS specifying the usage in that CAT. You have not provided it. Saying Ashkenazim come from south-west Asia is like saying the Irish (people who came from Ireland) come from the La Tène hinterland because they are 'Celts'. It's WP:OR. I regard all of these categories and talk about 'ethnic groups' as crap, and can't respond to the abuses made of these generic labels on wikipedia. The less there are, the better, for everyone. Some stories in my family history say there is Goan blood from one ancestral marriage contracted in the 1820s. Even if true, I don't come from India.Nishidani (talk) 18:25, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Moot point, because Irish people (Celtic descended or not) are listed under Celtic peoples on here. A very large portion have no Celtic ancestry at all. Why should it be any different for Jews? What you're asking for is not possible, for any ethnic group.

Not moot. Because someone fucked up there, it doesn't mean we repeat the error here.Nishidani (talk) 21:50, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Remove it then. I guarantee you will be reverted.Evildoer187 (talk) 07:47, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And if your personal anecdote about having Indian descent is true, you would be eligible for the corresponding category.Evildoer187 (talk) 19:14, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's hearsay, and therefore I am not eligible, just as the meme about Ashkenazim being all of Levantine origin is hearsay, chat, hasbara, with no historic evidence. Jews are Jews, wherever they came from, Ethiopia or Inca Peru, or China, God bless them.Nishidani (talk) 21:52, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hence why I said if your personal anecdote about having Indian descent is true. If there's no RS indicating that you have Indian descent, you would not be listed. If you did, then you would be. This isn't rocket science.Evildoer187 (talk) 07:47, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the term "hasbara" does not mean what you think it does. It is Hebrew for "explanation", not "propaganda". It's a rookie mistake, a very common one among Orientalists. And what I'm saying is hardly propaganda.Evildoer187 (talk) 07:50, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nishidani, The validity of this cat is not dependent upon all Jews being persons of exclusively South-western Asian descent. This would be true of any cat. For example, Palestinians are persons of Egyptian and Syrian descent among other descents. Yasser Arafat was born outside of Palestine and has only one parent of Palestinian birth whose mother was herself an Egyptian with no connection to Palestine. In spite of this, we can describe Arafat as a person of Palestinian descent. We can do this because categories of descent are not mutually exclusive. Gilad55 (talk) 18:54, 6 March 2014 (UTC)Gilad55[reply]

Yasser Arafat et co, were born within the last hundred years, when birth certificates existed. You are using a cat to determine a line of direct, blood descent extending over a largely undocumented 2,600 year period for a vast number of communities. Your argument is, unexpectedly, in agreement with Debresser's. Descent is what your family tells you about mum and dad, grandma and grandpa, and if you are lucky, their immediate heirs, if, as with most of us, you are not a member of an historically royal elite that history constantly noticed.Nishidani (talk) 21:50, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Evildoer, That is precisely what I meant by 'double-standard'. Cats tend to have a functional purpose only when they are flexible. In the sciences, there are only a few cats that are mutually exclusive - animal, vegetable and mineral would be obvious examples. Cats of descent, on the other hand, are mutually inclusive. Gilad55 (talk) 19:03, 6 March 2014 (UTC)Gilad55[reply]

Nishidani, We are asserting that Jewish Americans are persons of South-west Asian descent, not Ashkenazim. You reveal a bias. Why, in your opinion, can Ashkenazi Jews be of only one descent? Gilad55 (talk) 19:13, 6 March 2014 (UTC)Gilad55[reply]

Of course. Jewish Americans, overwhelmingly Ashkenazim, must identify with Israel because their forefathers came there. Thanks for giving the game away. I admire honesty.Nishidani (talk) 21:50, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Simply by identifying as Jews, they are identifying with Israel. Otherwise, it would be like saying "I'm Basque, but I don't come from Spain or France".Evildoer187 (talk) 08:27, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I self-identify as Jewish, not as Ashkenazi, Sephardi, etc. The recent descent of Jewish persons rarely enters into my thinking. Persons such as yourself are fond of characterizing Israel as an Ashkenazi enterprise while ignoring the reality that Ashkenazim make up only 20% of Israel's Jewish population. Meaning, 80% of Jewish Israelis are Jews of Arab descent! Moreover, many of these 'Arab Jews' also live in the US and France!

I'll put this question to you again. Why do you believe Ashkenazim can be of only one descent? Gilad55 (talk) 23:14, 6 March 2014 (UTC)Gilad55[reply]

Nishidani, There is no statute of limitations on descent. Descent is a far more inclusive category than you're allowing yourself to believe. One's descent is not determined just by where one's parents, grandparents and great-parents lived. One's descent is also determined by where one's kinship group established a long-standing presence and especially by where one's kinship group was formed. Gilad55 (talk) 07:27, 7 March 2014 (UTC)Gilad55[reply]

Wikipedia registers facts, not hasbara memes. Nishidani (talk) 08:56, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware that the term "hasbarah" has become shorthand for "Jewish propaganda", but that's not what it means. It is literally "explanation" in Hebrew. If you're going to co-opt our language just to malign us with it, at least learn what the words mean first. That aside, it is fact that Jews trace their ethnogenesis and a significant portion of their descent to the Middle East (unless you earnestly believe that we're all just lying about who we are), as attested to by reliable sources. The very term "Jew" is derived from Judean. Even if not every single Jew has Middle Eastern blood, the overwhelming majority do, and that is more than enough for their inclusion to be consistent with the way all other descent categories are arranged. You have not yet adduced a valid reason for removing them.Evildoer187 (talk) 09:56, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's called 'poisoning the well'. Hasbara is not shorthand for Jewish propaganda. It is public advocacy in support of Israel. The inability of both editors here to distinguish (a) oneself as Jewish (b) from Jews and to distinguish (a) Jews from (b) Israel accounts for the conceptual confusion here. There has been no serious argument, but walls of text attrition, which itself is a rhetorical trick.Nishidani (talk) 18:21, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hasbara in Hebrew means explanation. It is not propaganda period. Also, what do you mean by "both"? There are 4 editors here that disagree with you, not two. Further, Jews are a nation and ethnoreligious group who trace their origins to Israel, and the two have been inextricably related for millennia. That is documented fact. Whether or not you recognize it is not Wikipedia's concern.

"There has been no serious argument, but walls of text attrition, which itself is a rhetorical trick." I don't do tricks. How about addressing my points, instead of accusing me of dishonesty?Evildoer187 (talk) 22:56, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you're struggling with the terminology, I could provide resources on terms such as descent, kinship group, etc. Gilad55 (talk) 07:33, 7 March 2014 (UTC)Gilad55[reply]

Gilad, while I agree with what you are saying, the demographics of Israel are not particularly relevant here.Evildoer187 (talk) 08:23, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Evildoer, I was pointing out that when we speak of Jewish Americans, Jewish Israelis, etc., we should not presume that we are speaking of Ashkenazim as Ashkenazim are not the be all end all of Jewry. Gilad55 (talk) 16:24, 7 March 2014 (UTC)Gilad55[reply]

Nishidani appears unable or unwilling to engage in a debate based on reason and existing definitions of terms pertinent to this discussion. Instead, Nishidani is using rhetoric popular among anti-Israel agitators and dodging our points. Nishidani's purpose here may have nothing to do with promoting ethnographically correct categories of descent. Gilad55 (talk) 16:24, 7 March 2014 (UTC)Gilad55[reply]

Yeah, sure. I'm an anti-Israel agitator because you dislike my inability to accept your personal definitions of what 'Jew' means. Repeating these confusions is pointless, and is Lizzie says, go to Dispute Resolution.Nishidani (talk) 18:21, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nishidani, My definition of who is a Jew is the one used by ethnologists. It is an inclusive definition that encompasses ethnic Jews like Ben Stiller, a popular actor/comedian who is not Halakhically Jewish, but of Jewish descent nonetheless. Your argument is based on a manufactured definition of descent - a definition tailored to fit your argument against keeping the category in place. I offered to provide you with the applied definition and explained that categories of descent are not mutually exclusive and subject to a statute of limitations. I provided the descent of Yasser Arafat as an example. Evildoer provided the descent of Romani as an example. You've been exposed as lacking the knowledge one would need to argue for or against the category or as being aware of the facts, but willfully ignoring them in order to pursue an agenda unrelated to an objective evaluation of the category. Gilad55 (talk) 19:28, 7 March 2014 (UTC)Gilad55[reply]

Normally, this would be in violation of WP:AGF, but this time I'm inclined to let it slip. AGF has it's limits.Evildoer187 (talk) 23:00, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[Descent is what your family tells you about mum and dad, grandma and grandpa, and if you are lucky, their immediate heirs, if, as with most of us, you are not a member of an historically royal elite that history constantly noticed. - Nishidani] Once again, Nishidani is incorrect. In truth, Jews were constantly noticed in the countries we emigrated to and settled in. The paths of migration traveled by Jews in the diaspora have been well researched and documented. The consensus is that the diaspora, excluding the Babylonian exile, began in the Mediterranean. From the Mediterranean, Jews traveled to Eastern Europe then established colonies in Western Europe; most famously along the Rhine in Germany. Gilad55 (talk) 19:49, 7 March 2014 (UTC)Gilad55[reply]

Nishidani, An heir is a person who inherits something left to him or her by a parent or other family member belonging to a previous generation. I believe you were looking for the words 'immediate ancestors'. It's alright, though. I understood what you were trying to say. Gilad55 (talk) 00:19, 8 March 2014 (UTC)Gilad55[reply]

AGF certainly does have its limits. A larger issue is POV pushing regarding the definitions of terms this editor studied as an undergrad. This POV pushing was followed by a refusal to acknowledge correct definitions even when those definitions were accompanied by explanation and context. Gilad55 (talk) 00:31, 8 March 2014 (UTC)Gilad55[reply]

Hard to believe this is still being discussed. I still don't see a reason to remove the categories. No serious historian or geneticist doubts the Levantine origins of most modern Jewry, and deleting them on the grounds that some Jews might not have Middle Eastern roots would not set a good precedent. It would also be WP:NOR.Ankh.Morpork 14:33, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Serious? I.e. dissenting historians or geneticists are not serious. You really should look at historians who document the vigorous proseyltisation and conversion of Christians by Jews in the Ist millenium. The otherwise very tolerant Visigothic law code of Alaric the second, which accorded Jew Roman citizenship, stipulates laws against the practice. Historians know that, and scores of other instances of such mixing in European history Ist millenium. Geneticists don't, generally, but Richards & Costa are serious.Nishidani (talk) 15:52, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Last I checked, Richards and Costa do not dispute the Middle Eastern origins of modern Jews. They only argue that the maternal lineages are predominantly European. They did not study the Y-DNA (predominantly Middle Eastern). We've been over this before. Having European mixture does not nullify the Middle Eastern origins, and to suggest that it does is patently ridiculous.Evildoer187 (talk) 21:57, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AnkhMorpork, the discussion is not about "some Jews" but "people of Jewish descent". If they identified as being Jewish, they wouldn't be in this category. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:49, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The laws mentioned by Nishidani were most likely motivated by Judeophobia. I wouldn't be surprised if there were Jewish cults that proselytized, but such cults (the Cult of Yahweh among them) shouldn't be confused with Judaism. Moreover, when Jews did proselytize, their targets were most likely other Jews - Jews who fell away from Judaism. Also, I challenge Nishidani to produce a true history describing a "vigorous proselytization" of non-Jews by authentic adherents to Judaism. True histories describe Jews as living in clusters or closed communities. In these histories, conversion is rare and accompanied by marriage. Gilad55 (talk) 22:47, 8 March 2014 (UTC)Gilad55[reply]

Liz, AnkhMorpork merely pointed out that there is a minority of Jews who are not of Levantine descent (200,000 in the US). AnkhMorpork rightly assets that the existence of these Jews does not disqualify Jews as a whole from being categorized as being a people of Levantine descent. Gilad55 (talk) 23:08, 8 March 2014 (UTC)Gilad55[reply]

Conclusions

I have just read the above discussion in its entirety, and would like to respond and summarize the key conclusions and facts from it. A bit late, but as the issue has been settled, it's important.

1- Jews are an ethnoreligious group that was formed in the Middle East and from there spread to the diaspora

2- Ashkenazi Jew as a group have been found to have Middle Eastern ancestry and this isn't disputed, and that's true for Sephardic and mizrahi Jews as well, which means that roughly 99.1% of today's Jews (15 million) have middle eastern ancestry, while rightly 0.9% of Jews (numbering about 150 thousand, most of whom are Ethiopian and some are Asian) may not. That is more than sufficient to include Jews in the ME category.

3- Gilad55 rightly said "One has to wonder why an editor would oppose an ethnographically appropriate category. Ethnic Jews are of Middle Eastern descent, so why wouldn't we consider Jewish Americans to be persons of Middle Eastern descent?" This statement is absolutely correct as it also applies to dozens of other ethnic groups on Wikipedia: Category:Irish people essentially includes people from many countries, and still has Category:Celtic people, even though there are individuals there that do not have Celtic blood. Category:Spanish people has the sub-Category:Italic peoples in it, even though not all of today's Spanish people are descendants of Italic peoples (there was immigration to Spain, etc.) The list goes on and on. Just to make this clear, this debate has very little to do, if anything at all, with Israel or Zionism

4- As Evildoer187 rightly said, "Jews trace a large portion of their descent to the ME, which is one of the reasons I feel these cats are appropriate. Further, Jews are by definition a Semitic people of the Middle East." As questionable as past and recent genetic studies are, they all point to a Middle Eastern origin of Jews, and as explained, what's debated is the percentage of these ME genes, not their presence

5- The ancestry of Ashkenazi Jews and their descendants is both Middle Eastern and European, as every single study ever done on the subject found. Therefore Nishisani's claim that "'people of European descent' contradicting 'people of Levantine descent'." is simply wrong. The two do not contradict, and there's no need to be an expert on this to know that. A person can have Spanish and and Chinese ancestry (and even more) for example. Evildoer187 rightly condemned the fact Nishidani used the work of the anti-Zionist Abu El Haj to prove his point here, as this is not appropriate at all for a objective discussion like this.

7- With regards to the four maternal ancestors, Gilad55 put it well: "Yes, these genes can be traced to four maternal ancestors. Yes, this would mean that the descendants of these women are not halachically Jewish, but Jewish in the secular and ethnic sense; which would make them eligible for inclusion in the category being discussed ... Also, widespread conversion to Judaism is hotly contested. There are no reliable, true histories that attest to such conversion. You've employed yet another anti-Zionist meme." The vast majority of today's Jews are descendant from the Southwestern Levant, and unlike what Nishidani says, this is NOT a "mythology, or religious belief, or whatever." Evildoer187 was right in saying "As genetic studies (including those you [Nishidani] have cited) attest to, Ashkenazim have Levantine origins and varying degrees of European admixture."

8- As to the statement that "Behar and his team consistently came up with results that 'there is a likely Near Eastern origin for the maternal gene pool of Ashkenazi Jewry", the same thing goes for all other ethnic groups, since science is not absolute and on subjects like this, genetic tests will never reach 100% identical conclusions on the origins of a certain ethnicity, yet they, and we, do classify ethnic groups on Wikipedia. That is, of course, in addition to undeniable historical and empirical evidence. What's disputed about Ashkenazim is when their founding fathers emigrated to Europe from the ME, to which areas, and their exact numbers. That's disputed and may never be solved. But they are as closely related as forth and fifth cousins as Gilad55 said quoting a scientific study, and share middle eastern genes common among ME people. As Evildoer187 rightly said, "nobody is arguing that Ashkenazim or any Jewish group are purely Levantine, just that the Middle Eastern descent is clearly there, and it is not minor. Nobody is genetically pure. Near Eastern ancestry of Ashkenazi Jews is still significant, and pretty much fact at this point."

9- To Debresser, there's great relevance to these categories just like there's relevance for the hundreds of tests and studies that have been done on this and other similar subjects. Wikipedia needs to reflect the appropriate information. Counter-arguments such as 'all of humanity shares genes and is originally from Africa' or that 'studies show the world has one ancestor in Biblical times' are pathetic and meaningless. Because according to you then, all the descent categories on Wikipedia should have no sub-categories at all. In reality, descent categories have many sub-categories, even though these subs may not be true for every single individual listed there, and that makes the undisputed case that people of Jewish descent, not just "Jews" as Liz noted but of Jewish descent, should have the middle eastern descent category, unless there's a double standard, and there must not be.

10- If such accuracy matters to anyone here so much, you could also try to argue against other descent categories on other talk pages. And the responses you'll get will be the same as here. Kitty1983 made this clear when she wrote: "After all, if you're asking for 100% of Jews to have 100% Jewish blood quantum before such a category could be used, then I'm afraid that you're really going to struggle to find ANY ethnic group that such a high standard could apply to."

11- I'd like to quote Evildoer187's great input again: "If someone is documented as having Jewish ancestors, then they are Jews as far as Wikipedia is concerned. And where do Jews trace their ethnic origins and descent to? The Middle East, as virtually all of the genetic papers agree on barring some minor quibbling over the extent of European admixture. Otherwise, these Jewish descent categories should not even exist." This applies of course to ALL other descent categories for all other ethnic groups.

12- Nishidani said "None of those arguing for the CAT have shown reason for its use according to these criteria." That's incredibly wrong, and I feel it's appropriate to quote Gilad55 here: "You've been exposed as lacking the knowledge one would need to argue for or against the category or as being aware of the facts, but willfully ignoring them in order to pursue an agenda unrelated to an objective evaluation of the category ... As there are no viable theories to counter the claim that all Jews share a common descent, the burden of proof falls on those who would have the cat removed, not on those who would keep it in place. To proceed in any other way, would be to enforce a double-standard and ignore the process by which any cat should be removed." I couldn't have said it better. And to Debresser: it does not matter if you "don't believe either of them: not the 'all', not the 'most' and not the 'many'. Gilad55 correctly replied that "All, many and most would each merit a description of Jews as being persons of Middle Eastern descent. Jews do not proselytize and genetic studies affirm that ethnic Jews possess Levantine DNA. Science tells us that it makes no difference whether a Jew is Ashkenazi, Sephardi or Mizrahi. Members of each group are related as distant cousins within a family."

13- Debresser, you said no Jew would say he is of Middle eastern descent just by virtue of him being a Jew. It's not true, and even if it were, it would apply to ALL other ethnic groups as well and wouldn't be a case for removing the category. I'd like to quote Evildoer187 again: "They disagree on the extent of foreign admixture ... Unless you can show me a source indicating that A) there is a statute of limitations on descent or B) all individuals within a nation must have blood ties to particular patch of land to be counted as "of that country", then I see no reason to remove the cats, other than for (possibly) ideological purposes"

14- As I've sourced this sentence above with an reliable scientific source, "Comparison with genetic data from non-Jewish groups indicates that all the Jewish groups originated in the Middle East ... Today, contemporary Jews carry evidence of their Middle Eastern origin along with genetic heritage from European and North African ancestors." Debresser all of a sudden admitted that Jews as a group have Levantine heritage [Debresser: "Not genetics, nor any other proof, is what is needed here. The fact that Jews originated in the Levant is not at dispute."] It is factually wrong, as many Jewish people acknowledge they have middle eastern ancestry. People listed under many wiki categories wouldn't necessarily accept it or consider themselves as what the cats say. Evildoer187 rightly responded to them: "It seems to me that you are deliberately ignoring the broader implications that removing the categories would entail. Namely, their absence would insinuate that Jews are not an ethnic group with a common heritage, and that Jews are native only to the lands which they presently inhabit (or most recently inhabited), implicitly undermining the widely accepted (beyond anti-Israel types, and a vocal minority of Jews) and millennia-old Jewish self-conception as a nation. It is a tacit way of confiscating Jewish peoplehood and their Levantine heritage, and it should go without saying that many Jews would profusely disagree. Putting that aside, my arguments for inclusion do not depend on the way I self-identify. I support them because I believe in consistency ... I also don't believe anyone's self-identity would be threatened with these categories. Take, for example, a Ukrainian Jew. They would be placed under "People of Jewish descent" and "People of Ukrainian descent", reflecting their dual nationality or ethnicity (whether or not every single Jew in the world would accept this is not Wikipedia's concern). The former would roll up into Middle Eastern or Southwest Asian descent, and the latter would roll up into European. So if they consider themselves Europeans despite their Jewishness, then they still are. They're not mutually exclusive categories." Nishidani said "This is the same logical error. Absence 'insinuates' nothing. Only presence says something. It's really fundamental logic, you know. Please reread what I wrote and think propositionally." A major statement but obviously an incorrect one, as Evildoer187 rightly said "If I were to remove "Navajo people" from "Indigenous people of North America", what would that tell you? Silence does speak volumes, sometimes."

That's it, case closed, and ME cat stays. Thanks, Yambaram (talk) 15:52, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's not how it works. A talk page conversation between 5 or 6 editors doesn't determine the basis of categorization of such a widely used category as "of descent". This disagreement needs to be the subject of an RFC or Dispute Resolution case. Many editors apply categories to articles and any decision that is considered definitive has to be more widely publicized otherwise, disputes will continue. No one editor can sum up a conversation, determine a result and declare an issue "closed". Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:29, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• @Yambaram What you call in point 4. "rightly said" are things I and other disagree with completely. My conclusion is a lot shorter and easier to understand than yours: there is no consensus for Middle-East categories on Jewish category pages. Debresser (talk) 17:06, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like this issue will be going to Dispute Resolution so you'll all be able to present your arguments there (although I hope statements are limited to, say 500 words). I'll make sure a notice is placed on this talk page whenever the case is opened. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:23, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz:, what's the latest here? I feel like the discussion above ended in no-consensus, but people are still warring to add the content back in. Shall we frame a neutral community wide-RFC on the matter?--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:51, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OBW, Iryna volunteered to put together a dispute resolution case in March. Then, the Ukraine happened. She has been very busy thwarting editors pushing a pro-Russian point of view on articles involving the Ukraine. Plus, several of the editors involved in this conversation were kind of exhausted by the fight and were putting off the dispute resolution process.

Recently, I changed some categories in this area, to test the waters and see if there were editors around who still objected to the removal of the "of Middle Eastern descent" from the "of Jewish descent" categories. Two new accounts appeared that day and reverted all of my changes and while I'm fine about initiating changes to test the waters, I don't edit war. But I did notice some similarities among accounts that have a strong POV about this issue and I've initiated an SPI to see if there is any socking going on. I'm not sure if the request will be accepted, we'll have to see. I won't do any further editing in this area until I see what results from the SPI. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:04, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is used de facto for all jews and people who don't consider themselves Jewish. I'm changing the description to work this apparent paradox out. --Monochrome_Monitor 15:57, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The description was perfect. I reverted the edit. Why do you always make edits before you discuss? Haven't you noticed yet that most of your edits to Jewish categories are reverted right away since they are incorrect or unnecessary? Debresser (talk) 19:49, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Same for your edits to Category:Jews. Debresser (talk) 19:52, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, have fun correcting thousands of articles on Jews to match the description. --Monochrome_Monitor 19:51, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean? Debresser (talk) 19:53, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What I have been trying to say the whole time is that these categories are defined differently then they are used. I can see how you thought I was trying to make arbitrary definitions and confuse everything, but I'm trying to do the opposite because right now it's a huge clusterf*ck. For example. We'll take David Ben Gurion. Here's two branches of his category tree.

or

So he's in both categories!--Monochrome_Monitor 20:12, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think I see what you mean though. You mean that "Polish Jews" is in the category "People of Polish-Jewish descent" and that ethnic Jews will be in the umbrella category but not in the specific category. I get that. The problem is there are so many descent categories and most don't have "Jews" subcategories. And both give worthwhile information. For example Category:Democratic Republic of the Congo people of Greek-Jewish descent tells a lot more than Category:Democratic Republic of the Congo Jews. --Monochrome_Monitor 20:21, 24 January 2016 (UTC) I wish there were a way to preserve both. Many articles do preserve both, like this one Moïse Rahmani. It give both categories. A lot of pages do that, use them in a way that isn't mutually exclusive. --Monochrome_Monitor 20:21, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For example, the category Category:Austrian Jews has the subcategory Category:People of Austrian-Jewish descent... which doesn't make any sense under the definition. I think this category needs major reforming based on a venn-diagram type thing. I'm just trying to help and I know you are passionate about the subject. --Monochrome_Monitor 20:28, 24 January 2016 (UTC) @Debresser:[reply]

I wouldn't say I'm passionate, but there is a system in place, and it is more or less working.

Ben-Gurion is of Jewish descent and he is Jewish. I agree that the two Austrian categories are the wrong way around, and I'll switch that right away. Debresser (talk) 21:26, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done: [5], [6], [7]. Debresser (talk) 21:33, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, he is of Jewish descent and he is Jewish. But by the guidelines only one or the other category should be used, not both. Also, your categorization doesn't work either, because not all austrian jews are ethnically jewish, like converts.--Monochrome_Monitor 21:37, 24 January 2016 (UTC) @Debresser:[reply]

Nope, both can be used, when applicable. No problem.

The issue of converts has been discussed at many places. They are the exception, and doesn't influence the usage of these categories.

I hope you now see that the system works fairly well. Debresser (talk) 00:17, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

When is it applicable that both be used? I want concrete guidelines for this, right now it just feels like guesswork. --Monochrome_Monitor 02:42, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strange question. When both are applicable separately: both of Jewish descent and Jewish. Usually the "descent" category will be something geographical, like "of Jewish-Polish descent", while the "Jewish" category will often be related to activities, like "Jewish chess-players". Debresser (talk) 06:35, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But it says the page lists "people of Jewish descent who are not Jewish". The way you describe its use is quite different. --Monochrome_Monitor 12:25, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. I got confused myself. :) Very embarrassing. David Ben Gurion should be in Category:Polish Jews and not of "Jewish-Polish descent". Can't be in both.

Now we've got a problem. "Descent" is a derivative. What is the derivative is not from "Jewish" but from "Polish". For example. I understand according to the explanation on this category page tat a Pole who is not Jewish, but his father was, should be in this category. What about a Jew, who lives in Israel, but his parents emigrated from Poland. He would be "Jews of Polish descent", but for lack of such a category he would probably be put in the same "People of Jewish-Polish descent". A mess. You definitely got your point across. Debresser (talk) 12:45, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see your response! Try to ping me next time. THANKS THOUGH!!! You made me feel like I was crazy... I thought you were gaslighting me or something. XD @Debresser: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Monochrome Monitor (talk • contribs) 12:36, 29 January 2016‎

Do you now understand my "solution" for reconciling the categories? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎ Monochrome Monitor (talk • contribs) 12:39, 29 January 2016

You were being a bit mean. :( "Haven't you noticed yet that most of your edits to Jewish categories are reverted right away since they are incorrect or unnecessary?" Hopefully you see that many of my edits are just misunderstood... like one on world jewish population... the highest form of wisdom is kindness — Preceding unsigned comment added by Monochrome Monitor (talk • contribs) 12:59, 29 January 2016‎ Why the hell aren't my squiggles turning into signatures?!!?!?! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Monochrome Monitor (talk • contribs) 13:01, 29 January 2016

I still don't see the point in what you tried to write. We need some more serious solution. Debresser (talk) 13:35, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't try to do anything, I wrote. If you see a problem with what I wrote, please tell me, or otherwise offer an alternative solution. --Monochrome_Monitor 18:09, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You only tried, because what you did was no solution. The problem is so serious, that an easy solution is not available. Basically, as I described above, we would need categories like "Jews of Polish descent" etc., to allow for a derivative both ways: "X-ish people of Jewish descent" and "Jews of X-ish descent", in addition to "X-ish Jews". Debresser (talk) 16:05, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You were the one saying there was no problem in the first place! I thought of that solution (ie American Jews of Polish descent" AND Americans of Polish-Jewish descent" but I figured it would be incredibly time consuming to move everything since a redirect isn't possible. --Monochrome_Monitor 01:05, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed that Debresser tried to remove the ME cat. This is very surprising, since he earlier acquiesced to an identical categorization here: Category talk:American people of Jewish descent. ??? What's going on? Musashiaharon (talk) 03:27, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, the discussion here shows that there is no consensus for the Middle East category. I hope we all agree on that?

At Category talk:American people of Jewish descent the main question was whether to add "Southwest Asian descent" if it already has "Middle Eastern descent". All I said there is that "Middle Eastern descent" is the most precise. That does not mean that I agreed with having "Middle Eastern descent" in the first place, just that - as you stated it very precisely - I acquiesced to it. I even remember searching for this discussion, in order to remove it, but unsuccessfully, otherwise I would have done so, just like I removed the "Southwest Asian descent" category there earlier.

As I pointed out there, "this issue is a mess", and there is no conformity over all the "Jewish descent" categories whether to have "Middle Eastern descent", "Southwest Asian descent" or "Asian descent".

Bottom line: there is no local consensus for the "Middle Eastern descent", and this issue is a mess when looking at other related categories. I would be happy to reach a broad consensus once and for all. Perhaps an Rfc would be a good idea. Debresser (talk) 07:46, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Perhaps an Rfc would be a good idea." Yeah, let's have a predominantly WP:BIASED non-Jewish "community" decide for us who and what we really are. To hell with facts, even when they're scientifically proven. It's alllll about majority vote, because it's not like the whims of the majority haven't resulted in tragedy for Jews in the past, right?

And yes, I am being sarcastic. Genetic studies alone make any discussion, let alone RfC, on this topic a complete waste of time. After all, I could "disagree" that the sky is blue, but I'd still be wrong. 2601:84:4502:61EA:BC43:EEF4:21FE:A9C0 (talk) 10:32, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not genetics will decide this, but solid arguments. Most likely many, if not most of the participants, will be Jewish, that is only natural. But yes, I see no problem with broad participation in a discussion, and I think your attitude is not being helpful. Debresser (talk) 11:44, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

From my experience on this site, even the most airtight arguments will not sway those with a deeply ingrained bias against a particular outcome (namely, recognizing our collective Middle Eastern roots). So forgive me if I'm not willing to extend the benefit of the doubt to a community that has proven, time and again, that it is utterly incapable of objectivity on any subject that involves Jews.2601:84:4502:61EA:BC43:EEF4:21FE:A9C0 (talk) 11:51, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

While I'm at it, your edit warring is not helpful either. You are the one who is trying to make a change, so the onus is on you to justify that change BEFORE implementing your edit. Citing a discussion that happened two years ago when a much more recent discussion on a similar topic, dealing with the same exact thing (yes, I read the entire conversation, and the edit war leading up to it), will not suffice. You are out of line here.2601:84:4502:61EA:BC43:EEF4:21FE:A9C0 (talk) 11:54, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There should not be a ME descent category here. Jews are not necessarily from the Middle East. I am not from the Middle East and in order to get some ME ancestor, I'd have to go back many generations. Far too many generations for it to be called ME Descent. 🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 14:30, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That was indeed one of the main arguments. Debresser (talk) 16:12, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Since when do ethnic origins and descent disappear with the passing of generations? That is ridiculous, and I rarely see such logic applied to any other people (e.g. we still recognize Romani as South Asian, white Americans settlers from the 1600's as British or Dutch, and so on). If a scholarly source exists supporting your belief that ethnic descent eventually evaporates or expires, I'd really like to see it. Otherwise, there is no reason to remove this category. The Jewish people are of Middle Eastern descent (the reason we are called Jews in the first place is *because* we are of Middle Eastern descent, particularly from what was historically known as Judea), as a people and as a nation. Many reliable sources, including genetic studies, exist supporting this fact. Also, you called my attitude "unhelpful", but accusing someone who reverts your changes of vandalism isn't? All this does is hint that your position will not change, no matter what arguments, sources, and facts are presented, thereby rendering any discussion a waste of time.2601:84:4502:61EA:6CB6:9CB9:5B50:8147 (talk) 22:14, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove the Middle Eastern Category from People of Jewish descent. Jews are predominiantly Semitic/Afro-Asiatic/Western Asian/"Middle Eastern"/etc. as per most Jews' dominant gene markers, Ethocultural/Tribal customs/traditions, and more--all of which are cited on various related articles. Please include Middle Eastern, or you are contributing to racist rhetoric that aims to disassociate Jews from the Middle East. Jeffgr9 (talk) 02:04, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jews are not predominantly middle eastern. They are from wherever they live. It's not racist to say that. IT makes no sense to have a person "from American descent" in the category of "Middle Eastern descent." You already lost this battle at the template for ethnic slurs we don't need to go down this road again. 🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 13:37, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If it wasn't clear yet from previous discussion, I agree with Sir Joseph. Debresser (talk) 14:15, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"They are from wherever they live". And that is why their most recent/current countries of residence are also included in their respective subcats. This is about people of Jewish descent as a parent cat. Someone of Ukrainian Jewish descent (to use one example) would be of Ukrainian and Jewish descent, and the Jewish descent cat would be a subcat of Middle Eastern descent, as it had been for several years now. This is because the Jewish people, as an nation and ethnic group, are indigenous to the Middle East. Ethnicity does not disappear by virtue of prolonged separation from their natal land. Following that logic, European settlers in North America would be Native American by now. "It makes no sense to have a person "from American descent" in the category" of "Middle Eastern descent." It does if this American immigrant also belongs to a Middle Eastern group, like say......Kurds, or Assyrians, or Jews.2601:84:4502:61EA:586A:4503:2F23:1B89 (talk) 23:18, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still not sure what changed since last year, since apparently Debresser saw some advantage to the extra precision offered by categorizing Jews as having "Middle Eastern descent." I'd like to know why that same precision is not advantageous here. Musashiaharon (talk) 05:34, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Middle East" is more precise that "Asian" or "Southwest Asian", that's all. Didn't say that it is correct. Debresser (talk) 14:15, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't really help my confusion, but I take it we must discuss this over again. In short, my research indicates continuous connection the the Middle East throughout Jewish history, the primary one of which being the Torah, which identifies a particular land as belonging to them. Even throughout the exile, Jews have continuously prayed to return to that land, and face in the direction of the Temple Mount in Jerusalem, no matter where in the world they find themselves. In their traditional laws, Jerusalem, not Greenwich, marks the prime meridian and the center of the world. In anthropological terms, that which distinguishes the Jew as Jewish is American. Back when King David flew the Star-Spangled Banner... Wait, let me try again. European? When King Hezekiah proclaimed, "Viva le France!"... Alright, enough joking. Middle Eastern. It's a Middle Eastern people, because that which distinguishes the Jew as Jewish is Middle Eastern. Musashiaharon (talk) 20:10, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's a whole lot of OR. What distinguishes a Jew is being a member of the Jewish faith. It has nothing to do with location. Someone born in the US to US parents can be Jewish without ever touching the middle east. Indeed, a convert to Judaism is not from the Middle East. This is not like Indians or NativeAmericans, where they are tied to a place. Being Jewish has zero to do with being of Middle Eastern descent. 🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 20:21, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's actually not true, because there are many Jews who are Jewish by ethnicity only, and do not practice Judaism (some even practice other faiths). For example, I am recognized as a Jew even though I used to practice Buddhism, and am not currently practicing any faith. You do not need to be observant to be a Jew, because Judaism is only our national faith, not a requirement for being a Jew. Furthermore, certain Native tribes did make a habit of adopting outsiders into their fold and making them a part of their tribe. Conversion to Judaism is the same thing. It can also be compared to immigration to a foreign country, say....Ireland, or France, or the UK. Would we stop considering Irish, French, and English people "European" because they are open to newcomers?2601:84:4502:61EA:586A:4503:2F23:1B89 (talk) 23:09, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"They are from wherever they live". And that is why their most recent/current countries of residence are also included in their respective subcats. This is about people of Jewish descent as a parent cat. Someone of Ukrainian Jewish descent (to use one example) would be of Ukrainian and Jewish descent, and the Jewish descent cat would be a subcat of Middle Eastern descent, as it had been for several years now. This is because the Jewish people, as an nation and ethnic group, are indigenous to the Middle East. Ethnicity does not disappear by virtue of prolonged separation from their natal land. Following that logic, European settlers in North America would be Native American by now.

"You already lost this battle at the template for ethnic slurs". That is why allegations of WP:BIAS were raised. No valid, RS based reasons as to why Jews as a people should not be categorized as Middle Eastern were ever put forward. The arguments that were put forward were each thoroughly picked apart, but instead of acknowledging it, the involved editors on the other side of the fence ignored it and continued espousing the same misinformed claptrap that had already been addressed. That battle was "won" not by the strength of arguments, but by majority groupthink.2601:84:4502:61EA:586A:4503:2F23:1B89 (talk) 00:01, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is a huge talkpage discussion about this above. I see no need to repeat this. The conclusion there was the same as here and now: there is no consensus for addition of the Middle East category. Debresser (talk) 16:20, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That discussion is 2 years old, and can hardly be used to short-circuit a newer discussion. Either defend your changes here with strong, RS based arguments, or you will keep being reverted, and possibly sanctioned for edit warring.2601:84:4502:61EA:203B:1B5C:2738:C1E9 (talk) 00:27, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed with this user (2601:84:4502:61EA:203B:1B5C:2738:C1E9|2601:84:4502:61EA:203B:1B5C:2738:C1E9]] (talk)); "People of Jewish descent" is a parent category and should have all related tags attached to it to provide continuity. That said, neither Sir Joseph(talk), nor Debresser(talk) have proven wrong any of my previous arguments, and Debresser even agreed with my note on Category:Americans of Jewish descent, so this category issue should be no different.Jeffgr9 (talk) 03:01, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the deal... It seems as though only one side of this dispute has any interest in arguing out their points and seeing the discussion through to its conclusion (that is, until an agreement is reached or until one side comes out with a clearly stronger argument). Instead, Debresser wants to act as an impassable wall impeding any changes (or in this case, retaining a longstanding change) and/or strong-arming the other side via WP:MAJORITY and systemic WP:BIAS while refusing to provide rock-solid reasons for his proposed change. This is against Wikipedia policy, and I have no intention of letting it slide. Furthermore, relying on a two year old discussion to circumvent a more thorough examination of this dispute contravenes WP:CCC, and for that reason, I have decided to give Debresser (and anyone else on his side of the argument) three days to provide concrete, irrefutable, consistent, and policy based reasons for removing this category. No more discussion dodging. Otherwise, their complaints will be dismissed as WP:IDONTLIKEIT and their changes will be reverted. And should Debresser's edit warring continue beyond this point, he will be brought before an administrator for conduct review. It is clear to me now that a concerted effort at gaming the system is underway, and I refuse to play ball. The shenanigans end here.2601:84:4502:61EA:203B:1B5C:2738:C1E9 (talk) 05:09, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Who exactly could be excluded from Middle Eastern descent here? Consider the possibilities. First, a Jew could be convert themselves. If so, they would not fit in this category at all, since this cat is "People of Jewish descent." Similarly, if they were descended from two convert parents, they also would not belong in this category. However, if one parent is not a convert, the child would certainly belong in the category of "People of Jewish descent." All the more so if neither parent was a convert. As long as there is a single Jew in the lineage who is not a convert or descended entirely from converts, they would still be of Jewish descent, and hence also Middle Eastern. So there should be no problem adding the Jews of this cat to the Middle Eastern category. Musashiaharon (talk) 05:23, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jews are a Middle Eastern people, as per genetics, archaeology, culture, and history. centuries of diaspora doesn't negate that. And Ashkinazi Jews were never considered European hence their marginalization, genocide, and exile to the Pale. Several haplogroups in Ashkenazi populations have middle eastern / african origins (Nebel, A., Filon, D., Faerman, M., Soodyall, H., & Oppenheim, A. (2005). Y chromosome evidence for a founder effect in ashkenazi jews. European Journal of Human Genetics : EJHG, 13(3), 388-91. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/sj.ejhg.5201319). 172.91.83.73 (talk) 06:13, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Time to finish this

For the sake of reaching a fair, policy based conclusion to this saga, and to save people the effort of wading through the entire discussion again, I will use this space to address the other side's arguments in the order they appear. If you want to remove the Middle East descent category, the following points need to be grappled with and addressed with strong, irrefutable arguments. If you are able to successfully refute the points raised, I will gladly concede my argument and let you remove the category. Above all, consistency and adherence to facts and policy (NOT personal feelings and biases) must be the order of the day.

Now then, let's begin...

"There should not be a ME descent category here. Jews are not necessarily from the Middle East. I am not from the Middle East and in order to get some ME ancestor, I'd have to go back many generations. Far too many generations for it to be called ME Descent."

Then why does Wikipedia recognize the Romani as South Asian, despite being many centuries removed from the Indian subcontinent (almost as long as the Jews have been removed from their land)? Why do white American/Australian/Canadian/etc families have their descent recognized despite not having lived in their countries of origin for almost 500 years, if not longer? Why are Arabs considered to be "of Southwest Asian descent" even though a significant portion live in Northern Africa and haven't seen the Arabian Peninsula since the 7th century colonial conquests (hell, some might not have any actual Arab descent at all). Because ethnic origins and descent do not disappear with the passing of generations. Evidently, Wikipedia recognizes this as well, in all but one case: the Jews. This irregularity alone is particularly damning (see WP:BIAS and WP:CONSISTENCY).

If a WP:RS exists supporting your belief that ethnic descent eventually evaporates or expires, please link to it and apply it consistently across the board. Otherwise, there is no reason to remove this category. The Jews/Israelites are of Middle Eastern descent (the reason we are called Jews in the first place is *because* of our Middle Eastern descent, particularly from what was historically known as Judea, in the Middle East ^[1]), as a people and a nation.^{[2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20]} Many reliable sources, including genetic studies (see the above passage for some non-genetic sources)^{[21][22][21][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31]}, exist supporting this fact.

Jews are not predominantly middle eastern. They are from wherever they live. It's not racist to say that. IT makes no sense to have a person "from American descent" in the category of "Middle Eastern descent." You already lost this battle at the template for ethnic slurs we don't need to go down this road again.

"They are from wherever they live". And that is why their most recent/current countries of residence are also included in their respective subcats. This dispute is about people of Jewish descent as a parent cat. Someone of Ukrainian Jewish descent (to use one example) would be placed under people of Ukrainian descent and people of Jewish descent, and the people of Jewish descent cat would be a subcat of people of Middle Eastern descent, as it had been for well over a year now. This is because the Jewish people, as a nation and ethnic group, are indigenous to the Middle East (a quick link to the List of indigenous peoples page should suffice; look under South West Asia and you'll find Jews there. That page is very heavily monitored and thoroughly sourced, so it stands to reason that Jews would have been removed long ago if they did not meet the accepted anthropological criteria). Ethnicity does not disappear by virtue of prolonged separation from their natal land, as mentioned above. Following that logic, European settlers in North America would be Native American by now.

"It makes no sense to have a person "from American descent" in the category" of "Middle Eastern descent." It does if this American immigrant also belongs to a Middle Eastern ethnic group, like say......Kurds, or Assyrians, or Jews.

"You already lost this battle at the template for ethnic slurs". And that is why allegations of WP:BIAS were raised, because no valid, WP:RS based reasons as to why Jews as a people should not be categorized as Middle Eastern were ever put forward (and indeed, they still haven't). The arguments that were put forward were each thoroughly picked apart, but instead of acknowledging it, the involved editors on the other side of the fence ignored it and continued espousing the same misinformed claptrap that had already been addressed. That battle was "won" not by the strength of arguments, but by majority groupthink. I will not allow the same thing to happen again in this case.

"That's a whole lot of OR. What distinguishes a Jew is being a member of the Jewish faith. It has nothing to do with location. Someone born in the US to US parents can be Jewish without ever touching the middle east. Indeed, a convert to Judaism is not from the Middle East. This is not like Indians or NativeAmericans, where they are tied to a place. Being Jewish has zero to do with being of Middle Eastern descent."

Per the above citations, Jews are a nation and ethnic group. Even pushing all of those aside, the real fly in the ointment for the "Jews are a religious faith only" argument is that atheist Jews (and even Jews who practice other faiths) are recognized as Jewish under our laws. Judaism is simply our national faith, and observance is not a requirement for being a Jew. Furthermore, certain Native tribes, in addition to being removed from their lands (would anyone tell the descendants of Cherokee exiled via the Trail of Tears that they are no longer descended from Tennessee?), did make a habit of adopting outsiders into their fold and making them a part of their tribe. Conversion to Judaism is the same thing. It could also be compared to immigration to a foreign country, say....Ireland, or France, or the UK. Would we stop considering Irish, French, and English people "European" because they are open to newcomers?

I think that just about wraps it up. You have three days to provide a sufficient counter-response to the above points; if you fail or refuse to do so, the Middle Eastern category will be restored and any further protests on your end will be duly ignored and, should your edit warring continue, you will be brought before an administrator. Good luck.2601:84:4502:61EA:203B:1B5C:2738:C1E9 (talk) 07:19, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Threats and ultimatums is not how Wikipedia works.

The arguments have not changed since two years ago, so I see no problem claiming that there is a consensus on this talkpage (or to be precise a lack of consensus for the "Middle East" category).

Nevertheless, and since some IP users have become very insistent, we can go over this again.

Since the two IP users here are single-purpose accounts, I will ask an uninvolved admin to consider checking whether any of these are socks.

After that, and dependent on the conclusions of that check, I'll make this a full-blown Rfc, and we'll try to reach a consensus for all "Jewish descent" categories.

Even then the fact that these two IPs are single-purpose accounts will likely affect the weight other editors will give to their opinions. Debresser (talk) 11:06, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Call it what you will, but what I am doing does not violate any rules. This is simply my way of ensuring that whatever decision is reached is based on RS and Wikipedia policy, not personal feelings, systemic bias, majority strong-arming, or groupthink. As to the discussion from two years ago, these same points were raised, but still ultimately unaddressed. My stance remains the same: refute the above paragraphs, or I will not allow you to make the change.2601:84:4502:61EA:203B:1B5C:2738:C1E9 (talk) 11:34, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Even then the fact that these two IPs are single-purpose accounts will likely affect the weight other editors will give to their opinions." I didn't know ad hominem was a policy here? Either way, check your talk page.2601:84:4502:61EA:203B:1B5C:2738:C1E9 (talk) 11:55, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: The above active IP address was me. I had forgotten my password and saw no harm in editing without logging in. Apologies for the confusion.

I don't know how to install an RfC for this section, so someone else will have to help me with that. Anyway, here we will decide if Jewish descent is a valid subcat of Middle Eastern descent. I will open up this discussion with my case for the inclusion of this category (in the form of a rebuttal I had written earlier today in response to another editor), and my hope is that this time, the outcome will purely be on the basis of strong arguments. No more dodging, no more evasions.

OK then, let's begin...

"There should not be a ME descent category here. Jews are not necessarily from the Middle East. I am not from the Middle East and in order to get some ME ancestor, I'd have to go back many generations. Far too many generations for it to be called ME Descent."

Then why does Wikipedia recognize the Romani as South Asian, despite being many centuries removed from the Indian subcontinent (almost as long as the Jews have been removed from their land)? Why do white American/Australian/Canadian/etc families have their descent recognized despite not having lived in their countries of origin for almost 500 years, if not longer? Why are Arabs considered to be "of Southwest Asian descent" even though a significant portion live in Northern Africa and haven't seen the Arabian Peninsula since the 7th century colonial conquests (hell, some might not have any actual Arab descent at all). Because ethnic origins and descent do not disappear with the passing of generations. Evidently, Wikipedia recognizes this as well, in all but one case: the Jews. This irregularity alone is particularly damning (see WP:BIAS and WP:CONSISTENCY).

If a WP:RS exists supporting your belief that ethnic descent eventually evaporates or expires, please link to it and apply it consistently across the board. Otherwise, there is no reason to remove this category. The Jews/Israelites are of Middle Eastern descent (the reason we are called Jews in the first place is *because* of our Middle Eastern descent, particularly from what was historically known as Judea, in the Middle East ^[1]), as a people and a nation.^{[2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20]} Many reliable sources, including genetic studies (see the above passage for some non-genetic sources)^{[21][22][21][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31]}, exist supporting this fact.

Jews are not predominantly middle eastern. They are from wherever they live. It's not racist to say that. IT makes no sense to have a person "from American descent" in the category of "Middle Eastern descent." You already lost this battle at the template for ethnic slurs we don't need to go down this road again.

"They are from wherever they live". And that is why their most recent/current countries of residence are also included in their respective subcats. This dispute is about people of Jewish descent as a parent cat. Someone of Ukrainian Jewish descent (to use one example) would be placed under people of Ukrainian descent and people of Jewish descent, and the people of Jewish descent cat would be a subcat of people of Middle Eastern descent, as it had been for well over a year now. This is because the Jewish people, as a nation and ethnic group, are indigenous to the Middle East (a quick link to the List of indigenous peoples page should suffice; look under South West Asia and you'll find Jews there. That page is very heavily monitored and thoroughly sourced, so it stands to reason that Jews would have been removed long ago if they did not meet the accepted anthropological criteria). Ethnicity does not disappear by virtue of prolonged separation from their natal land, as mentioned above. Following that logic, European settlers in North America would be Native American by now.

"It makes no sense to have a person "from American descent" in the category" of "Middle Eastern descent." It does if this American immigrant also belongs to a Middle Eastern ethnic group, like say......Kurds, or Assyrians, or Jews.

"You already lost this battle at the template for ethnic slurs". And that is why allegations of WP:BIAS were raised, because no valid, WP:RS based reasons as to why Jews as a people should not be categorized as Middle Eastern were ever put forward (and indeed, they still haven't). The arguments that were put forward were each thoroughly picked apart, but instead of acknowledging it, the involved editors on the other side of the fence ignored it and continued espousing the same misinformed claptrap that had already been addressed. That battle was "won" not by the strength of arguments, but by majority groupthink. I will not allow the same thing to happen again in this case.

"That's a whole lot of OR. What distinguishes a Jew is being a member of the Jewish faith. It has nothing to do with location. Someone born in the US to US parents can be Jewish without ever touching the middle east. Indeed, a convert to Judaism is not from the Middle East. This is not like Indians or NativeAmericans, where they are tied to a place. Being Jewish has zero to do with being of Middle Eastern descent."

Per the above citations, Jews are a nation and ethnic group. Even pushing all of those aside, the real fly in the ointment for the "Jews are a religious faith only" argument is that atheist Jews (and even Jews who practice other faiths) are recognized as Jewish under our laws. Judaism is simply our national faith, and observance is not a requirement for being a Jew. Furthermore, certain Native tribes, in addition to being removed from their lands (would anyone tell the descendants of Cherokee exiled via the Trail of Tears that they are no longer descended from Tennessee?), did make a habit of adopting outsiders into their fold and making them a part of their tribe. Conversion to Judaism is the same thing. It could also be compared to immigration to a foreign country, say....Ireland, or France, or the UK. Would we stop considering Irish, French, and English people "European" because they are open to newcomers?ChronoFrog (talk) 12:16, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In 2014 there was a very long discussion on this same talkpage, should Category:People of Middle Eastern descent be added to this category. Obviously nobody disagrees that the Middle East is the cradle of Judaism and the Jewish people, but that is not the same. The conclusion of that discussion, in which both sides had several proponents, was that there is no consensus for the "Middle East" category. The category, that was added originally in 2012, was not removed at after that discussion, for reasons that do not matter much at this moment. The arguments against its inclusion remain the same, and are basically two-fold:

1. Jews do not consider themselves to be of Middle Eastern descent.
2. There have been many proselytes over the ages, making it doubtful (to a very high degree) that any person of Jewish descent is in fact of Middle Eastern descent.

The first point can benefit from some explanation. Jews who emigrated from Germany to, let's say, Israel or the United States, will call themselves German Jews. And the same for Jews from Syria, e.g., who call themselves Chalabi Jews wherever they are. But that is as far as it goes! Nobody knows in which countries their forefathers from more than a few generations ago lived, and nobody cares! Certainly, if you'd ask any Jew straightforward, if they are of Middle Eastern decent, nobody would say they are because of the mere fact of being a Jew alone.

To further illustrate this point I retold a known Jewish joke in the previous discussion, about two Jews, let's say both 100% Ashkenazic Jews, where one tells the other: "Do you know you are an Iraqi Jew?" and then when the other guy vehemently denies he says "All Jews are descended from Abraham who came from Ur which is in Iraq". A similar proof ad absurdum regards mankind as a whole: most scientific and genetic research agrees that man comes from Africa, and nevertheless, not all "of .. descent" categories are part of "People of African descent", and it would be ridiculous to impose that scientific fact on descent categories, and the same is true in this case. The more so that in this case, where it is not a sure fact at all, in view of the second point regarding proselytes.

I propose to reach a conclusion that there is no place for "Middle East" categories, and per the same token "West Asian" or "Asian" categories, on any of the "Jewish descent" categories. There is at present no conformity on this issue in all of the "Jewish descent" categories, and of the many "Jewish descent" categories, some have one or more of the above. This Rfc strives to reach a conclusion that would be binding for all of them, and in my opinion that conclusion should be that those categories are out of place on all "Jewish descent" categories. Debresser (talk) 13:20, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A response to each of your points (ignoring your statement on what happened two years ago, for I was not involved in that).

The first point can benefit from some explanation. Jews who emigrated from Germany to, let's say, Israel or the United States, will call themselves German Jews. And the same for Jews from Syria, e.g., who call themselves Chalabi Jews wherever they are. But that is as far as it goes! Nobody knows in which countries their forefathers from more than a few generations ago lived, and nobody cares! Certainly, if you'd ask any Jew straightforward, if they are of Middle Eastern decent, nobody would say they are because of the mere fact of being a Jew alone.

This passage amounts to little more than unsourced conjecture. And while we're on that note, not only are there many Jews who would disagree, a few of them (the other editors in here arguing for inclusion seem to be Jews themselves, although they may feel free to correct me if I'm wrong) have challenged you directly on this point, including myself. Moreover, as even you acknowledged just a few sentences ago, the cradle of the Jewish people is in the Middle East, and there is a litany of RS (of which more anon; see below) affirming the common ancestral link between Jews (note that our very name means "of Judea", which is *surprise* located in historic Israel; so by identifying as Jews, we are essentially identifying as Middle Eastern) and historic Israel. There is a reason we are called "diaspora Jews" in every country except Israel. Why do you think that is?

To further illustrate this point I retold a known Jewish joke in the previous discussion, about two Jews, let's say both 100% Ashkenazic Jews, where one tells the other: "Do you know you are an Iraqi Jew?" and then when the other guy vehemently denies he says "All Jews are descended from Abraham who came from Ur which is in Iraq".

You know that this is a myth, right? From a historic perspective, Abraham was not much more than a patriarch and founding figure in Jewish culture. We don't all literally descend from Abraham. Even if it were true, it's not currently possible to establish. What can be established (and in fact, has been established repeatedly) is that the overwhelming majority of Jews worldwide trace much of their ancestry back to Israel (see the genetic studies I linked to, among other things). Jews as far flung as Poland, Russia, Iraq, France, Syria, Morocco, Africa, India, the United States, et al all possess a common ancestral descent (albeit to a lesser extent in the case of African, Indian, and Kaifeng Jews; a few of the DNA studies I linked to below deal with this directly and confirm what I am saying) from Israel. Hence, they are of Middle Eastern descent.

A similar proof ad absurdum regards mankind as a whole: most scientific and genetic research agrees that man comes from Africa, and nevertheless, not all "of .. descent" categories are part of "People of African descent", and it would be ridiculous to impose that scientific fact on descent categories, and the same is true in this case.

The human species originated in Africa, but most people we would recognize as non-African today are recognized as such because they do not belong to any ethnic groups or nationalities that originate in Africa. The same cannot be said of Jews vis a vis the Middle East. As a people, we originate from Israel, and we have maintained that ethnic identity up to the present. This is a standard application of the Indigenous Status checklist used here.

The more so that in this case, where it is not a sure fact at all, in view of the second point regarding proselytes.

This same argument could be applied to any nation or ethnic group. Do we stop categorizing Romanies as South Asian because they have accepted outsiders into their fold (as they have done for centuries)? What about indigenous tribes throughout the globe who have done the same thing? Do they lose their collective identification (or descent, in this case) with their natal land because they have absorbed and assimilated outsiders?

Also, the category is "People of Jewish descent", and it stresses that only people of Jewish descent who do not currently practice Judaism (thereby explicitly excluding converts) are qualified to be included here.

Now that that's out of the way, I will copy and paste my earlier rebuttal to another editor, because they sum up my case for inclusion well enough.

"There should not be a ME descent category here. Jews are not necessarily from the Middle East. I am not from the Middle East and in order to get some ME ancestor, I'd have to go back many generations. Far too many generations for it to be called ME Descent."

Then why does Wikipedia recognize the Romani as South Asian, despite being many centuries removed from the Indian subcontinent (almost as long as the Jews have been removed from their land)? Why do white American/Australian/Canadian/etc families have their descent recognized despite not having lived in their countries of origin for almost 500 years, if not longer? Why are Arabs considered to be "of Southwest Asian descent" even though a significant portion live in Northern Africa and haven't seen the Arabian Peninsula since the 7th century colonial conquests (hell, some might not have any actual Arab descent at all). Because ethnic origins and descent do not disappear with the passing of generations. Evidently, Wikipedia recognizes this as well, in all but one case: the Jews. This irregularity alone is particularly damning (see WP:BIAS and WP:CONSISTENCY).

If a WP:RS exists supporting your belief that ethnic descent eventually evaporates or expires, please link to it and apply it consistently across the board. Otherwise, there is no reason to remove this category. The Jews/Israelites are of Middle Eastern descent (the reason we are called Jews in the first place is *because* of our Middle Eastern descent, particularly from what was historically known as Judea, in the Middle East ^[1]), as a people and a nation. Many reliable sources, including genetic studies (see the above passage for some non-genetic sources)^{[2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][21][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30]}, exist supporting this fact.

Jews are not predominantly middle eastern. They are from wherever they live. It's not racist to say that. IT makes no sense to have a person "from American descent" in the category of "Middle Eastern descent." You already lost this battle at the template for ethnic slurs we don't need to go down this road again.

"They are from wherever they live". And that is why their most recent/current countries of residence are also included in their respective subcats. This dispute is about people of Jewish descent as a parent cat. Someone of Ukrainian Jewish descent (to use one example) would be placed under people of Ukrainian descent and people of Jewish descent, and the people of Jewish descent cat would be a subcat of people of Middle Eastern descent, as it had been for well over a year now. This is because the Jewish people, as a nation and ethnic group, are indigenous to the Middle East (a quick link to the List of indigenous peoples page should suffice; look under South West Asia and you'll find Jews there. That page is very heavily monitored and thoroughly sourced, so it stands to reason that Jews would have been removed long ago if they did not meet the accepted anthropological criteria). Ethnicity does not disappear by virtue of prolonged separation from their natal land, as mentioned above. Following that logic, European settlers in North America would be Native American by now.

"It makes no sense to have a person "from American descent" in the category" of "Middle Eastern descent." It does if this American immigrant also belongs to a Middle Eastern ethnic group, like say......Kurds, or Assyrians, or Jews.

"You already lost this battle at the template for ethnic slurs". And that is why allegations of WP:BIAS were raised, because no valid, WP:RS based reasons as to why Jews as a people should not be categorized as Middle Eastern were ever put forward (and indeed, they still haven't). The arguments that were put forward were each thoroughly picked apart, but instead of acknowledging it, the involved editors on the other side of the fence ignored it and continued espousing the same misinformed claptrap that had already been addressed. That battle was "won" not by the strength of arguments, but by majority groupthink. I will not allow the same thing to happen again in this case.

"That's a whole lot of OR. What distinguishes a Jew is being a member of the Jewish faith. It has nothing to do with location. Someone born in the US to US parents can be Jewish without ever touching the middle east. Indeed, a convert to Judaism is not from the Middle East. This is not like Indians or NativeAmericans, where they are tied to a place. Being Jewish has zero to do with being of Middle Eastern descent."

Per the above citations, Jews are a nation and ethnic group. Even pushing all of those aside, the real fly in the ointment for the "Jews are a religious faith only" argument is that atheist Jews (and even Jews who practice other faiths) are recognized as Jewish under our laws. Judaism is simply our national faith, and observance is not a requirement for being a Jew. Furthermore, certain Native tribes, in addition to being removed from their lands (would anyone tell the descendants of Cherokee exiled via the Trail of Tears that they are no longer descended from Tennessee?), did make a habit of adopting outsiders into their fold and making them a part of their tribe. Conversion to Judaism is the same thing. It could also be compared to immigration to a foreign country, say....Ireland, or France, or the UK. Would we stop considering Irish, French, and English people "European" because they are open to newcomers.ChronoFrog (talk) 15:13, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was hoping we could avoid the overly long posts you posted above, mainly because they have the immediate and deplorable effect of stifling any discussion. Nobody is interested in reading through such long discussions. But since you replied at length, and with several points, I will have to address each point in turn. Debresser (talk) 15:38, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That cannot be helped. What needs to be said, needs to be said. Go ahead and post a response. I'll look at it later on tonight. I am nevertheless happy that you are taking the time to address my points. That's all I was asking for.ChronoFrog (talk) 15:50, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your first point actually consists of two arguments. a. that I bring no proof that Jews don't consider themselves to be of Middle Eastern descent. b. The link between Jews and the Middle East (Israel) is well-sourced. To answer these two arguments:

1a1. According to standing Wikipedia policy, the burden of proof is on those who argue for inclusion of the category.

1a2. You bring a few editors, yourself including, who consider themselves to be of Middle Eastern descent. On the other hand, I bring a few editors, myself including, who don't.

1a3. However, those who claim to consider themselves to be of Middle Eastern descent, do not do so in the same way as they consider themselves to be of German or Syrian descent, for example (to stick to the same two examples I gave above). And that I can prove easily. When they use a siddur (prayer-book), it will be a prayer-book according to the German or Syrian rite. There is no such thing as a prayer book according to the rite of the Land of Canaan. The so-called Palestinian rite (or Nusach Eretz Yisrael as it is better known in Jewish circles), has not been in continuous use since antiquity, a fact that strengthens my point, that there is no continuous feeling among Jews of being of Middle East/Land of Canaan/Land of Israel descent. Likewise, when they make congregations, often those congregations are based on the most recent country of origin preceding the present country of domicile, but there are no synagogues especially for all those who consider themselves to be of antique Middle Eastern descent (as opposed to modern Middle Eastern descent, roughly Mizrahim).

1b1. As has been stated ad nauseam in the original discussion, and repeated above in the Rfc post, the link between Jews and the Middle East is only for those Jews who are not descendant from proselytes. Over the millennia, there have been very many of them. Nishidani has here and elsewhere made a valid case (by which I mean with reliable sources) for the proposition that in the first centuries after the diaspora, there was widespread proselyting.

1b2. As has been stated as well, and argued with two arguments ad absurdum, the connection with the Middle East (in as far as it exists), is not in itself sufficient reason for the inclusion of a Middle East category. I will not repeat myself, but it has been adequately show to be a non-argument to say that a person's genetic connection (in as far as it exists) to a certain location, would be a reason to add a descent category to the article about that person. The same holds true for category pages.

2. Your second point mentions Abraham. For the sake of this discussion it does not make a big difference whether he literally was the first Jew, or whether he stood at the head of group of people who started the Jewish people. I would like to add that Jewish tradition maintains that Abraham made proselytes among the men and Sara among the women, so even in their day, the number of proselytes was far vaster than the number of Jews (which was 1 = Abraham or 2, plus Sara). That however does not change the discussion much, because they were still all from the Middle East, but it does lend additional weight to the claim that there are far more proselytes (and their descendants) in Judaism than most people are aware of.

There are many studies regarding the degree of admixture of non-Middle Eastern genetic material in the modern Jewish genome, making widely diverging claims. That in itself is good reason not to use the genetic argument. In addition, the genetic argument is not valid because, as has been argued above, it also leads to some absurd conclusions (like that all mankind should be in an "of African descent" category), and because people simply don't in actual life trace their descent back more than one country. I for example know that part of my forefathers lived in Holland since the expulsion from Spain, while part came from Poland. How they came to Spain and Poland, where they lived before, I don't know. Nor do I care. And that is true for all people who consider the issue of their descent (with the occasional exception confirming the rule). Simply put, the fact that there is maybe a certain degree of Middle Eastern descent, is not enough to justify to use the category. That is simply not how people use them in real life, nor how we use them on Wikipedia.

3. Your third point confuses ethnicity and descent. Nothing more to add to that, a simple confusion, so not a valid argument.

4. Your fourth point is correct, and it is the same as I am making: that after a certain point of admixture and dilution of a certain original descent, we stop using it. Add to that the earlier stated fact that the degree of admixture by proselyting (or pogroms and rape, although I have not seen that point made in discussions on Wikipedia so far) has at times been very high.

The first point of the "rebuttal" you add also consists of several arguments. 1. The categorization of Romani and Arabs supports your point of view. 2. You repeat that I should bring reliable sources that descent dissipates. 3. Repetition of the sources and genetics argument. I will not repeat myself, just address the first point under the name point 4.

The Romani trace their origin as a group back to the 6th-11th century. That is a lot later than Jews. I think there is a difference between Arabs and Jews, in that Arabs retained without interruption a connection to a specific geographic homeland, and even when their empire expanded in the Golden age of Islam, that expansion took place around a central homeland. Possibly Nishidani can add more reasons why the Romani and the Arabs are not the same as the Jews regarding the issue of categorizing them geographically.

5. The second point of the "rebuttal" states that "the Jewish people, as a nation and ethnic group, are indigenous to the Middle East". You simply repeat your mistake to confuse ethnicity (nationhood) and descent.

6. + 7. The following arguments and "rebuttals" I don't subscribe to, so let's skip them.

8. Your last "rebuttal" compares proselyting to migration. I completely agree with that, and use that very same argument to make my point. Just like we wouldn't use a certain descent category after a person migrated more than once, in general, and certainly not with the same force that we would use the most recent migration category of that person, likewise we should not go back to what for most Jews would be at best a very partial Middle Eastern ancestry after a very large amount of steps back though the history of the Jewish diaspora. Q.E.D.

9. I am not going to go over all of your references, but have a good look at ref #2 for example. It says that Jews are "a continuation of the ancient Jewish people". Now, why doesn't it simply say "descendants of the ancient Jewish people", like it says further in the same sentence "descendants of the Hebrews of the Old Testament"? Because the EB knows that Jews are "only" a continuation, but not descendants! I am pretty sure that a lot more of your references actually support the opposite point of view, if closely examined. Debresser (talk) 19:21, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Responding to your first few points at a time:

1a. If you actually look at the text of the siddur, you will find that the core sections are virtually identical, as is their overall structure and arrangement, no matter the rite. They all have the same morning blessings, they all have baruch she'amar, they all have the verses of praise, including Psalms 145-150 and the Song at the Sea, they all have Yishtabach, the blessings over the Shema (two before and one after in the morning, two before and and two after it in the evening), they all say Y'hei shmeih raba, which is the primary part of the Kaddish, they all have the same 19 blessings in the Standing Prayer or the Amidah, and they all have the Song of the Day, and they all have Aleinu. The differences you mention are slight changes in wording and ordering of the phrases, but really impresses any outsider reading these texts for the first time is that they are so similar. This is because the core structure of the prayers, as well as the sequencing of the sections, morning blessings before the Verses of Praise, then the Shema and then the Amidah, was instituted by a single body, the Men of the Great Assembly in the Holy Land. No matter where Jews dispersed, they retained this structure, and today, Jews of different rites can simply tell where the rest of the congregation is by listening for a few seconds before joining into the service. I myself have done this numerous times, joining in with the Edut haMizrah, several Ashkenaz rites, and even the Yemenite rite, all while myself using a chassidic siddur, al pi nusach HaArizal. Rather than point to essential differences, the deep similarity points to an essential unity among all Jews. None of them cite passages of, say the Shulchan Aruch, the Yad HaHazakah or the Mapah. Instead, they read from earlier sources, like the Palestinian Zohar when the Holy Ark is opened, and they recite passages from the Scripture, Mishnah and Talmud on reciting the blessings on the Torah during the morning blessings (Birkat HaShachar). These texts all point to a time when Jews lived together in their land under their own unified government. Far from the insinuation that the siddur divides us, it shows that we a single people with a common history.

1b. This list, People of Jewish descent, never included proselytes to begin with. The very title rules them out, as well as those descended entirely from converts. Every person in this list, in other words, has non-proselyte Jewish ancestors, otherwise, they would not qualify as being of Jewish descent. Naturally, this includes those who are not halachically Jewish, and excludes some who are halachically Jewish, but that's not the point of this category. It's a list of people of Jewish descent. Even though there were converts in the past it can hardly be imagined that their family remained purely of converts generation after generation. We must conclude that they were absorbed into the rest of the non-proselyte Jewish family, and their descendants could thus also claim Jewish descent.

2. Even though Abraham made many proselytes, the Jews are called the children of Israel, his grandson, and each of the 70 who descended to Egypt were children and grandchildren of the Jacob's twelve sons. Upon leaving Egypt, there were roughly 600,000 men of military age who still traced their lineage to these same ancestors. As for the Egyptians who converted and followed them out of Egypt, again, it can be assumed that after the third generation, as soon as the Torah permitted them, they intermixed with the other Jews, and after a generation or two, their descendants were also of Jewish descent. This is basically identical to the case of more recent converts.

There is more I could say, but this should be sufficient. Musashiaharon (talk) 20:36, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Replying to Musashiaharon.

1a. You are completely right. Which makes my point all the more poignant, that the underlying sameness notwithstanding, Jews all over the world are so meticulous about using only the rites of their actual descent. No Ashkenazi will ever pray in a Sephardi siddur or visa versa. Nor will somebody who uses Nusach HaAri, like you say you do, use either of these. That proves that people do not care about the underlying unity from Biblical or even Talmudic time, rather look at the last few generations only.

1b. + 2. Even proselytes who lost the proselyte character, and their children are now "of Jewish descent", but they will never ever be "of Middle Eastern descent"! They simply aren't. Which precisely proves my point, again.

So yes, you could say more, but you have made my points for me, and there really is no need. Debresser (talk) 21:25, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Having read through this entire discussion, I feel like I need to say something.

I am absolutely dumbfounded.

So, you are telling me that everything I believe in, everything I know, everything I've learned is a lie?

I was born in the US. I am both a 2nd and 3rd generation Jewish American. I was taught, both at home and in Hebrew school, we are all descended from the Middle East.

I had a DNA test done. It shows I am in fact genetically descended from the Middle East.

I refer to myself as a Jewish American -- but that is only because I was born here. It doesn't have any bearing on -- nor detract from -- my heritage.

I've traced my paternal grandmother's family to the former Turkish Ottoman Empire. Ergo, even if only 25% of my more recent ancestors lived in and are of Middle Eastern descent, it doesn't mean I am any less of Middle Eastern descent.

It would be like telling my racially mixed grandchildren one side of their heritage was non-existent since they are not 100% one or the other. Or telling Indian tribes they can not accept members who are not 100% Indian heritage.

The fact that many (if not most) people are unaware/ignorant of their ancestry doesn't alter the fact all Jews are of Middle Eastern descent, to one degree or another. And being ignorant of one's ancestry doesn't mean it doesn't in fact exist.

On to your points.

@Debresser

1a1. And what policy would that be? I am unaware of any rule suggesting that all members of a particular ethnic group must identify the same way, with no variation, to be included under a geographic category. As mentioned previously by another editor, this seems to be the only place where such arguments crop up, and it is not consistent. Categories are not decided that way, and I see no rule based or source based reason to make an exception here. Geographic categorization is determined by where that group's ethnic origins are, and for Jews that place is Israel.

Fun fact: Karl Marx, Heinrich Heine, Leon Trotsky, and many others are categorized as Jewish on here even though none of the above examples considered themselves Jewish. That is because facts and policy trump personal feelings.

1a3. Virtually all known Jewish liturgy, despite varying degrees of difference, emphasizes that we are Israelites aka the nation of Israel. That much has been remarkably consistent across geographic boundaries, and the reason for that should be obvious. The Reform movement is the only exception, and in this particular case, I refer you back to point 1a1.

1b1. Conversions did happen, even if the extent is often exaggerated. Throughout most of our history in diaspora, indigenous Europeans, Arabs, et al weren't exactly queueing up to convert to Judaism, and if contemporary science and DNA studies are any indication, that number was never large enough to dwarf or subsume non-proselyte Jews. Rather, it was the other way around. The chances of running into someone of Jewish descent whose ancestors were all non-Israelite converts are practically zero. As ChronoFrog correctly pointed out, Romanies, First Nations, Arabs, and many others have accepted outsiders over the centuries, but this has no bearing on geographic categorization. Romani are still listed under South Asian, North American Indians remain geographically categorized according to wherever their tribe is indigenous to, Arabs are listed under West Asian despite the significantly higher probability that North African Arabs have no West Asian descent. Why should Jews be treated any differently?

1b2. This point borders on nonsensical. Even if someone belongs to a Middle Eastern ethnic group and has proven genetic descent (ironic, since your case against inclusion up until now was largely premised on the idea that we're not genetically "pure".... which one is it?) from the Middle East, they still wouldn't qualify as being categorized under "Middle Eastern descent"? That is so self-evidently absurd that it warrants no further response.

2. I'll focus on your second point, because I don't think Abraham is relevant here. It is apparent that you either did not read the studies, or ignored their conclusions. For geneticists, our Levantine descent is not an issue of "maybe", it's an issue of "how much admixture was there, and what were the sources of this admixture?". Our origins and descent from the Levant is concrete, scientifically proven fact. If you reject that, then you are ignoring the overwhelming consensus of the scientific community. That is highly unencyclopedic.

3. That's because ethnicity and descent are interrelated.

4a. There were many genetic studies posted in here refuting your assertions

4b. If you're trying to enforce a statute of limitations on descent, then yes. A source would be absolutely necessary.

4c. Arabs retained without interruption a connection to a specific geographic homeland.....and the Jews didn't? How so? Both groups consist of millions who hadn't set foot in their natal land for centuries (if ever, in the Arab case). The only notable difference is that one expanded through colonial conquest, whereas the other was dispersed BY conquest.

5. See number 3.

6+7. I'm afraid it doesn't work that way. If source supported arguments are presented, it is incumbent upon you to either engage with them or concede. There is no reason why I (or Wikipedia as a whole) should hand-wave reliable sources for the sake of someone's personal or religious sensibilities. This is not a Torah studies group.

8. Actually, we would use a certain descent category after a person migrated more than once. And in fact, we do in every case except this one. That is the crux of the problem.

9. This was addressed earlier.Bubbecraft (talk) 09:33, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Bubbecraft I have no doubt that you are of Middle Eastern descent, and please feel happy about that if you want to. But not all Jews are of Middle Eastern descent, and not in the same measure, or they simply don't really care, unlike you. I'd even say that most don't. These three things mean that we can not add a Middle Eastern or Asian descent category to all Jews as a rule. Let me now reply to your detailed objections.

1a1 That would be WP:BURDEN!

1a1. + 1a3. +2. +3. +4a. + 5. You too mix up ethnicity and religion with descent, very explicitly so even.

1a1. + 1b1. I already pointed to the differences between Romani and Arabs on the one hand, and Jews on the other.

1b2. To the contrary, this point is a major point, which I have shown with examples to be true. Descent, even if proven genetically, does not necessarily mean a person considers themselves to be of certain descent. People don't go back more than a few generations, and neither should Wikipedia try to impose this on people. Much like WP:CATGRS, by way of comparison.

4b. This is the second time you make this mistake. See WP:BURDEN again.

6. + 7. I take offense to your insinuation as though my opinion is based on my religious beliefs, rather than sound argument and Wikipedia policies and guidelines. I remind you of WP:NPA and would ask you to strike that line.

8. We do so only if there is verified information in reliable sources that a person migrated more than once. And in most cases we don't go back more than a few generations. In this case there are at least four serious problems with doing so: 1. you propose to go back about 100 generations! 2. the degree of Middle Eastern descent after so many generations is so small, that is becomes irrelevant for an encyclopedia 3. there is no guarantee regarding any specific person that they are indeed factually of Middle Eastern descent (unless they did a genetic test, and even then perhaps the source of the Middle Eastern genetic material is often not necessarily Jewish, but could be any non-Jewish Middle Eastern source as well) 4. all the sources you mention talk about the Jewish people, but not about any specific Jewish person, which means that you are left without any reliable source for your position! Now please notice that each of these is a valid reason not to include a Middle Eastern category, and you would need to disprove all of them in order to be able to include it.

9. Well, indulge me and repeat this, please, because I see prove in that source for the opposite of what you claim it shows. Debresser (talk) 10:18, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Just because some Jews are from Middle East descent does not mean that other Jews are not. Therefore you can't have the full category placed under Middle East descent. A Jew from Iraq is ME descent, so put the cat there, but a Jew from the US may or may not be from ME descent so you can't put the cat there. 🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 14:24, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for delayed reply. As a retired grandparent raising granddaughters, I don't always have time to sit at a computer.

You wrote, "But not all Jews are of Middle Eastern descent, and not in the same measure" That is a blatant fallacy as already proven by my statement above, example of my racially mixed grand daughter and Indian tribal membership requirements, some requiring as little as 1/16th percentage. All Jews originated in the Levant, and regardless of how diluted they may have become over time, they are still of Middle Eastern descent. What does a quantitative measure have to do with it?

Ancestry.com recognizes the Middle Eastern descent in their DNA advertising. See https://dna.ancestry.com/ethnicity/european-jewish: European Jewish Ethnicity "People in this DNA ethnicity group may identify as: Polish, Belarusian, Ukrainian, Russian, Hungarian, Israeli, Ashkenazi"

You also wrote, "they simply don't really care." What relevance is that? Again, what if I hadn't spent almost 20 years reasearching my family and learning my family's roots, would that mean I no longer am of Middle Eastern descent? And by that standard, since most people don't care about [fill in the topic of your choice] -- does that mean that particular topic should not be included in WP?

Once again, you can't have it both ways. 1) Either I am of Middle Eastern descent, or I am not, and whether I know it or not, whether I care or not, does not change my DNA. 2) Either all topics are contained within WP or you begin the process of censoring furthering such abhorant process as found in Islamization, banning books by various religious groups, right to be forgotten, and so much more egregious redactions. For an example of the degree to which this type of logic can descend, I refer you to the book, "Victims Stories and the Advancement of Human Rights" by Dana T. Meyers. Refer to page 16 where she writes, "Before I outline my philosophical agenda in this book, I want to spotlight an additional issue bearing on victims and their stories that Slahi's work puts on unusally consipicuous, graphic display. There are black bars covering text and signaling redactions on almost every page of Guantanamo Diary. Many of the redactions protect the identities of the persons who abducted and torrured Slahi. Given that the US government refuses to to prosecute any of these individuals, it is unsurprising, though highly problematic, that we are prevented from learning who they are. Although the legitimacy of these name redactions is debatable, two other redactons are blatantly egregious. Slahi's entire description of his polygraph test -- material that presumably would exonerate him once and for all -- is redacted (2015, 301-307). Likewise, several pages that are preceded by 'One of my poems went' are blacked out (2015, 359-361). His poem -- presumably a deeply personal statement concerning subject matter of great importance to him -- has been censored." And if you're going to go down the path of censorship, I refer you to the following 3 articles: a) The Case Against Censorship, by Victoria Brownworth, http://www.lambdaliterary.org/features/11/20/the-case-against-censorship/ b) Gavin McInnes Makes a Great Argument Against Censorship, by Elizabegth N. Brown, http://reason.com/blog/2014/08/21/gavin-mcinnes-as-anti-censorship-argumen c) and most imporantly, Censorship, Violence & Press Freedom, by Article19,, https://www.article19.org/pages/en/censorship-violence-press-freedom-more.html where they begin with "Censorship in all its forms is often unjustifiable and is used simply to stop truths or ideas emerge which draw attention to powerful people or governments, or undermine ideology. This is inexcusable."

As for my DNA results, my Middle Eastern markers are stronger than my father's -- he is the direct descendant from the family from the known Middle East. Which means my Ashkenazi side provided MORE markers for the Levant, than my Sephardic side.

Refer to https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/judaica/ejud_0002_0007_0_07174.html Read, "Jewish Paternal Ancestry – View from the NRY Markers of the Y-Chromosome" and read where it states, "Taken together these results confirmed that the majority of NRY haplogroups found among contemporary Ashkenazi Jews originated in the Near East"

And also read the section, "Jewish Maternal Ancestry: View from Mitochondrial DNA" where the author wrote, "Similar to the observation for male ancestry based on Y-chromosome analysis in the Ashkenazi population, the mitochondrial DNA results also show that the various Ashkenazi communities throughout Central and Eastern Europe cannot be readily distinguished from each other, likely reflecting shared recent origins from a common small ancestral deme, followed by continuous migration among the Ashkenazi communities."

Whether a person knows/cares about ancestry, has absolutely NO bearing on the facts. And the matter of degree is of zero consequence or even relevance.

In other words, contrary to your statements, DNA testing has confirmed ALL Jews are descended from the Levant.

1a1 WP:Burden states the editor must ensure all content is verifiable from a valid source. How is that a reply? How does that address the question, "that all members of a particular ethnic group must identify the same way, with no variation." If you are suggesting, and I suspect you are, that not all Jews identify the same way, then you are partially correct. No group of people all identify in the same manner, and Jews are no exception. However, if you want a verifiable source that all Jews identify with Israel/Levant, then you need only look as far as the Passover Seder. Regardless of heritage, ethnicity, race, Ashkenazi, Sephardic, etc., each and every Jew always says, and with good reason, "Next Year in Jerusalem." And why is that? Because it is designed to remind us from where we all came from and the desire to return there. Every Jew knows it -- even if only subconsciously. (Have you ever seen a Jew not state it at a Passover Seder?)

1a1 + 1a3 +2 +3 +4a + 5: I am not mixing up the 2. As an agnostic American born Jew, I am quite clear about the differences. This is a an ethnic issue -- as well as an indigenous people and race issue. I refer you to http://www.diffen.com/difference/Ethnicity_vs_Race: "Race refers to a person's physical characteristics, such as bone structure and skin, hair, or eye color. Ethnicity, however, refers to cultural factors, including nationality, regional culture, ancestry, and language. " As Jews we have identifiably distinct racial characteristics (as well as ethnic characteristics) as proven by DNA testing. It's long been known there are diseases which are predominantly found in Ahkenazi Jews. I refer you to the Ahkenazi Jewish Genetic Panel (http://www.webmd.com/children/tc/ashkenazi-jewish-genetic-panel-ajgp-what-are-ashkenazi-jewish-genetic-diseases) where you will find Bloom syndrome, Canavan disease, Cystic fibrosis, Familial dysautonomia, Fanconi anemia, Gaucher disease, Mucolipdosis IV, Niermann-Pick disease, Tay-Sachs and Torsiondystonia. Furthermore, if you read http://www.jpost.com/Enviro-Tech/Jews-A-religious-group-people-or-race, "The belief that Jews constitute a religious, rather than ethnic or racial group in the US and other Western countries is widespread. “Jewish” was never a category for race in the US Census, Ostrer notes, even though genetic studies 'would seem to refute this..." The fact that Jews have not been recognized as an ethnic group until now simply proves the point of ongoing ethnic and racial bias against us. It would seem you are attempting to eradicate our collective roots in the Middle East in a manner similar to the recent U.N.'s erasure of the Jewish connection to the Temple Mount.

1a1 + 1b1: Both of your explanations are flawed and, in the case of the Jewish-Arab analogy, nonsensical. One of the other editors explained this.

1b2. Consideration is not a factor as explained above. Example: my step-children are of Indian descent on their mother's side. My step-daughter followed through with the information and was able to obtain Indian membership in the appropriate tribe. My step-son didn't care and didn't do so. Does that make him any less of Indian descent? Moreover, whether the average person traces their lineage further back or not, is once again, irrelevant for the same reason as my step-children. As for Wikipedia: how would this would not be an imposition to say Jews originated in the Levant. My half-sister, who was rasied with no Jewish learning of even the most minal, considers herself a Jew and that all Jews originated in the Levant. (A conversation which came up at our last Passover Seder, and the first time she had ever attended one.) How can you speak for people as a whole, when it's clear you have no basis for that understanding. You have no imperical data supporting your statements. You have no polls. You have not met your own criteria for WP:BURDEN. You have nothing which suggests or even alludes to your point of view. And that's all you are doing, presenting a point of view which non-factual, unencylopedic, inconsistent, and above all, offensive.

4b: Same problem with your reply. Where is the statute of limitations in Wikipedia?

6 + 7: Unfortunately your replies are more often opinions than actual verifiable responses. You consistently fail to respond to the arguments presented. You dismiss out of hand, over and over again, that other points of view may have relevance. You do not engage the points being mentioned, instead dismissing them with references to WP:Burden which in no way actually addresses the issues mentioned. I am sorry you have taken offense. For the record, your lack of appropriate and engaged responses -- coupled with your apparent zeal in erasing this category -- have given offense to me as well.

8.1: As I read the prior conversation between you and another editor, I see you are attempting to set a statute of limitations with no sources or Wiki-polkcy based arguments to substantiate the position. Descent had no limitations.

8.2 + 8.3: Already addressed. To take it one step further, my former daughter-in-law refers to herself as an African American. Presumably, by your definition, she would be permitted to be a part of the African heritage. Never mind the fact I traced her family back to the 1760's -- and all American born. So far, I have been unable to answer her question when we started the quest: when did her ancestors come to the U.S.? There is NEVER any guarantee of ANY ONE individual of ANY descent to be of ANY particular heritage -- unless DNA is done. Your response is specious, without substance, merit or WP:BURDEN.

8.4: Come again? You want a verifiable source with specific genetic information to prove the claim of one individual? Would my DNA report meet that criteria? What about those reports from just about every Jewish genealogist I know who has taken DNA tests? Visit any DNA site (and there are MANY of them) and create a free account. View the DNA results of the Jews. They all, without exception, show Middle Eastern heritage. (1) Considering WP doesn't always meet that burden of proof on every subject contained, I find this hilarious. Refer to the pages for Joe Gold, my paternal grandfather's brother, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Gold. Most of the details (particularly the dates) originated from me personally and they are NOT sourced. (2) In fact, the whole issue of verifiable sources, near as I can determine, on WP is absurd and non-sustainable. It depends on the ability to point to a URL. Given the internet is filled with controversial and often contradictory information on any single topic, that URLs come and go as quickly as changing the baby's diaper, how can another page on the internet be the (often) sole and primary basis for proving a point?

9: Refer to the extensive list of sources provided by other editor(s). You are zeroing in on source #2 even though it states, "In the broader sense of the term, a Jew is any person belonging to the worldwide group that constitutes, through descent or conversion, a continuation of the ancient Jewish peple, who were themselves descendants of the Hebrews of the Old Testament." You can not ignore the descent part which accounts for the vast majority of Jews worldwide -- not least of which is that Judaism not only discourages conversion but pursues with great zeal the refusal to convert -- most Jews are NOT converts. Sources 3 and 4 emphasize descent and nationhood as well.

Bubbecraft (talk) 16:08, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't read your wall of text, but you said that ALL Jews come from the Middle East. Did Sammy Davis Jr. come from the ME? What about Ivanka Trump? They're Jewish and yet have no ME ancestry, so your claim fails. If you want to add ME descent to Jews who are known to have come from ME, that is one thing, but to put a blanket cat on ALL Jews is factually incorrect. Also, your bringing up genetic diseases kind of proves my point, many diseases are not across all Jews, but only for Ashkenazic, or European Jews. If all Jews came from the ME, shouldn't these diseases be common across all Jews? 🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 16:18, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ivanka Trump and SDJ are not of Jewish descent. They are both converts, so they're not relevant here as this category does not include them in it. Jacques Derrida was very much a Frenchman, but we wouldn't list him under any French descent categories nor would we add/remove categories on that basis. Besides, the rest of her post makes it fairly obvious that she wasn't referring to converts when she said 'all Jews'. Probably just sloppy wording on her part.

Certain diseases are exclusive to Ashkenazim due to generations of endogamy, not because they are genetically distinct from other Jewish subdivisions (genetically, they are almost indistinguishable from Sephardim), although it does refute the idea that Ashkenazim are Europeans who converted to Judaism. As for your flippant remarks about not reading her "wall of text", if you're not going to engage someone's arguments fairly, maybe you'd be better off leaving this RfC and finding something else to do.The Human Trumpet Solo (talk) 17:11, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ivanka's children are of Jewish descent. They are not of Middle Eastern descent. Also, how did you find this page? Were you emailed or notified in any way to comment here? 🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 17:13, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Bubbecraft You basically repeat yourself, so I am not going to repeat the replies I already gave, which stand in full force. You seem altogether too emotional about this, as though I want to deny you your Middle Eastern descent, which I do not. Your words, that you are offended by the fact that I want to remove this category, prove that you are way too emotional about this. Just wanted to add that I agree with Sir Joseph, that the case of converts proves you wrong. Debresser (talk) 19:51, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Debresser: you wrote, "I take offense to your insinuation as though my opinion is based on my religious beliefs."

I replied in the same vein, "I am sorry you have taken offense. For the record, your lack of appropriate and engaged responses -- coupled with your apparent zeal in erasing this category -- have given offense to me as well."

And then you replied, "Your words, that you are offended by the fact that I want to remove this category, prove that you are way too emotional about this."

Why neglect the key phrase in my reply, "apparent zeal"? Did it hit too close to home? Are you actually sharing your own emotional stand by directing the accusation towards me?

I actually have no idea what you're talking about, so the answer is probably "no". :) Debresser (talk) 23:07, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Then I would suggest you re-read everything in context. I am eminently clear. You are accusing me of being emotional when in fact I simply restated the relevant portions of the dialogue and asked a rhetorical question to address your inappropriate accusation/assertion.--Bubbecraft (talk) 15:47, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Sir Joseph:

I wrote "All Jews originated in the Levant" and you replied, "Did Sammy Davis Jr. come from the ME? What about Ivanka Trump? ...".

Is there some reason you resort to eisegetical interpretation of the written word?

Let me rephrase it: The first and primary source of modern day Jewry originated in the Levant.

As for converts, they are far and few between and bear little or no relevance on the basic issue: are Jews, taken as a whole, to be considered of Middle Eastern descent, regardless of dilution and/or other considerations? And if you insist on returning to the issue of converts, let's also remember -- as found in most instances of conversion -- the resulting children still inherit the DNA from the Jewish parent (who wasn't the convert).

How can you be a fair and impartial participant in this topic if you aren't willing to read all information presented. Like the other editor who has engaged with me, you are presenting opinions only, you have no WP:BURDEN and refuse to consider it when presented -- as you so eloquently wrote, "I didn't read your wall of text."

I'm sorry you feel I've written too long a dialogue in response, but prior editors left me no choice but to address all the responses with meaningful and WP:BURDEN sources. I am not simply defending an opinion.

Let me also emphasis something you missed since you didn't read my "wall of text": the DNA tests I pointed to clearly state the MAJORITY of Ashkenazi Jews ARE of ME descent.

Therefore your counter-claim lacks sufficiency and WP:BURDEN.

If this were a moderated debate, as I understand the process (which doesn't say much), I believe you have failed to meet the burden of proof.

@Debresser

Yes, I repeat myself to some degree -- but you have left me no choice -- and include WP:BURDEN, per your request.

Emotional?

Why on earth would you ask this? Because I don't communicate like a professor of theology? Because I answer with a question?

If your question, comment, statement is superfluous, then expect my reply to be in the same vein.

I would counter your comment: Might I suggest you refrain from eisegetical interpretation and resume exegetical form?

Moreover, I would ask you to apply the same WP:BURDEN to your own statements and account for the ones having been presented here by the "other camp." Bubbecraft (talk) 20:14, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're basically saying Judaism comes from the Middle East. I agree. Same as Christianity. Are all Christians ME descent? Judaism comes from the ME, but Jews don't necessarily. I don't have ME ancestry, Ivanka Trump doesn't, Sammy Davis Jr. doesn't, most of the Jews living in the US don't, etc. 🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 20:48, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Sir Joseph: where did I say, or even imply, Judaism? I am referring to the Jews, as a nation/race/ethnic group/people, not Judaism as a religion. This is the 2nd time someone has accused me (albeit indirectly this time) of confusing the 2.

Please review WP:BURDEN. It say that the editor who wants to add or restore content has the burden of proof. I want to remove a category. Debresser (talk) 20:32, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Debresser: So, as I understand it, because you want to remove a category, you don't have to justify your action? But because others want to add/restore content, then they do? Then why ignore all the sources that have been presented? Multiple authors, writing far better than I, have presented a magnificent mountain of evidence. Yet it is continually discounted and dismissed based on opinion only. I fail to understand this process. What is the point of providing evidence if it won't be accounted for and therefore no "burden of proof" could ever be met.

Near the beginning of this discussion, Nishidani wrote, "We are discussing whether a cat insinuating Ashkenazi Jews are of Middle Eastern descent is appropriate."

Later, @Debresser wrote, "All these DNA stories are no[t] really relevant to the issue. Not because part of my blood can be traced to Spain (some of my ancestors were of Sephardic heritage) am I of Spanish descent. If this is how we categorize people, all of us would have a long list of descent categories."

The fact is that we, none of us here, have the ability to classify and categorize people in any meaningful, consistent and conclusive manner.

No matter what rules are established for any category or classification, there will always be an exception to the rule.

Let me instead refer you to: Different differences: The use of ‘genetic ancestry’ versus race in biomedical human genetic research https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3124377/

This article presents a number of concepts specific to disease related DNA research. The hurdles they faced are similar to the discussion taking place here.

If you only read the first few sections, you will learn very quickly that the geneticists themselves are in "agreement race categories do not correspond to genetic groupings." It goes on to explain that "although one can interpret genetic ancestry as a concept derived from population genetics technologies and race as a socio-cultural set of understandings, we show that the two are not so easily separated in scientific/cultural practices and discourses." Eventually, the author leads you to a description of a statistical modeling program, EIGENSTRAT, which divides sample groups into similar clusters on the basis of SNP variations which then build algorithms independent of a "priori of human evolution or historical migrations."

In other words, the medical research community has determined there is no single definitive manner in which to establish/define groups/classifications/categories for people.

Has it ever occurred to anyone here to reach a compromise? Bubbecraft (talk) 00:03, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Have you seen the following 2 pages on WP?

Category:People of Arab descent, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:People_of_Arab_descent

Category:People of Romani descent, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:People_of_Romani_descent

In both instances, there is the caveat, "This page lists individuals of partial [Romani|Arab] descent. For those of full descent see Category:[Romani|Arab]".

The Romani people hadn't been in Asia for centuries and they often adopted children from the surrounding population.

The Arab people also live in North Africa with no West Asian descent at all, yet they are included on the referenced page.

In both instances, those facts do not alter how they are categorized on WP. Why do you insist it's different for the Jewish people when it's clearly the same issue -- and let me absolutely clear, I am referring to the nation/people/race/etc -- not the religion.

In conclusion, there already exists two examples of a compromise and I recommend the same be applied here as well.

Bubbecraft (talk) 04:45, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Seems Wikipedia has already weighed in on this topic: "Genetic studies indicate that modern Jews (Ashkenazi, Sephardic and Mizrahi specifically), Levantine Arabs, Assyrians, Samaritans, Syriacs-Arameans, Maronites, Druze, Mandaeans, and Mhallami, all have an ancient indigenous common Near Eastern heritage which can be genetically mapped back to the ancient Fertile Crescent, but often also display genetic profiles distinct from one another, indicating the different histories of these peoples"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semitic_people Bubbecraft (talk) 02:39, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sir Joseph, this category is one of many pages on my watchlist, and I would have commented earlier were it not for the fact that I'm, y'know, busy. Why is it that every time the tide of an argument or Request for Comment shifts in favor of the ostensibly "pro-Israel" side, people like you theorize that there is some sort of foul play or conspiracy involved?

Maybe people just disagree with you.The Human Trumpet Solo (talk) 03:53, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, Ivanka Trump married an ethnic Jew, so her children will undoubtedly carry Middle Eastern descent. Converts are gradually absorbed into the Jewish (read: Middle Eastern) gene pool, making this entire discussion on converts moot anyway.The Human Trumpet Solo (talk) 03:53, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What does people like you mean? 🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 13:29, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Sir Joseph: I would hazard a guess that when you asked, "Also, how did you find this page? Were you emailed or notified in any way to comment here?" suggested you doubted his (The Human Trumpet Solo) veracity. Reading Hanlon's razor states, "Don't assume bad intentions over neglect and misunderstanding" -- seems to apply here. I'm still learning the rules -- but isn't this kind of conversation not only inapplicable, but also inappropriate? Shouldn't we stick to the RfC? Bubbecraft (talk) 14:53, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, @Bubbecraft, your last posts seem to recognize that there is a serious problem categorizing people by descent, when that descent is removed many generations. Then you start talking about compromise. Excuse me, but there is a Jewish saying "parve is treif". Why a compromise, when one of the alternatives is not good.

In any case, we too make the differentiation between "Jewish" and "of Jewish descent", and "of Jewish descent" indeed includes partial descent, as well as people who don't self-identify as Jewish. But there is a limit to how partial you can get, so to say. Debresser (talk) 23:22, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Debresser, I'm afraid you have read more into my comments than intended, but thank you for the compliment. My point is that there is already a compromise taking place on WP (Arabs, Romanies) so why not make the same compromise here as well? I don't see there is a "serious" problem of categorizing by descent, regardless of the number of generations, but rather, like one of my favorite hobbies, genealogy, sometimes things have to be cross classified into multiple groups. It's kind of like the links at the bottom of the WP pages on any given topic, where you find the various pages/groups that link to the topic being displayed. It's one of the most useful things I find about WP. I feel this is a good way to handle this issue as well. So, say for example, there were to be a page for me, I would be found under multiple group descents: Russian Jewish, Belorussian Jewish, Ukrainian Jewish, Turkish Jewish, Serbian Jewish, Macedonian Jewish, and also just "Jewish" - that confusing array is due in part to geographical name changes, but there is one thing all of those have in common: the Jewish part. And the Jewish part is Middle Eastern. That is why all of these disparate categories are Middle Eastern, because we are a West Asian diaspora. It's really no different than finding any given topic under multiple classifications/groups. As for why I thought of it at all, it's because there seemed to be a level of hostility building and I wanted to derail it. As for your suggestion that one of the alternatives is not good: I disagree. Question: do you want to remove ALL descent categories, or just this one? Because, I'll be frank with you, the descent categories are very helpful to me when I'm working on genealogy. Often times, I want to find out who came from a specific area. I will then research that particular person if the surname/region is of interest to me. This has been manifestly useful in locating new avenues of research. Removing this category will hurt my research and probably those of other genealogists as well. What do you mean by there is a limit to how partial you can get? Can you provide an example? In any case, how is that relevant to whether this category continues to exist or not? Bubbecraft (talk) 00:58, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that isn't very clear. Let me try this differently. From a genealogical research point of view, these categories, particularly those of "by descent", whether by partial or full descent -- which I don't believe exists in any context, whether geographical or otherwise -- is eminently useful. My favorite method, is to find a surname/region which matches my interest, I then research the family tree for that person. In this way, I have found cousins and many of these cousins have information which helps me break through brick walls in my research. The point is, that if there weren't all these lists, regardless of partial or full, I wouldn't be able to use this method. What I can't do, is depend on general WP searches, because names can be spelled a lot of different ways, never mind shortened. The only way I can determine if a name is useful is by seeing it, not searching for it. Maybe this example will make it more clear. My paternal grandmother's surname is Sarfatty. However, the name is sometimes spelled Sarfaty, Sarfatti, Sarfati, Tsarfati, Zarfaty and many, many more -- I have a list of 226 permutations! Another useful reason for this list is to collect surnames from a specific region, compare them to another region, looking for migration patterns of surnames. Once again, something I wouldn't be able to do if this list were removed. And keep in mind, I'm only doing this for Jewish genealogical research. I don't care if it's partial Jewish or full Jewish. It's the surname/region combinations that are helping me. Bubbecraft (talk) 01:18, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, @Debresser, let me clarify what I meant by compromise: 1) the Romani are included in their categories eventhough they had been removed from their lands for a long time. They also adopted children who are still considered Romani, eventhough they were not at the time of adoption. 2) the Arabs category includes the subcategory, Spanish People of Arab descent which contains a most interesting sub-sub-category, "Arabs in Spain" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arabs_in_Spain). The first sentence states, "There have been Arabs in Spain ... since the early 8th century ..." Not only does the Arab category reflect the difficulty and compromise I mentioned, but it goes on to show there is no limit to the number of generations distant that connection requires or that it matters if they left the country of origin, gone many generations and then returned or moved to another country altogether. Bubbecraft (talk) 02:22, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Debresser, at one point did you maintain one reason for not including "Jewish" was because the subcategories for the category, "People of ME Descent" is grouped by geography -- and that's the reason Jewish should not be included? If so, then why is there a sub-category called "Semitic" (which is not a geographical definition, at least it no longer is by today's usage -- see links below). And if an argument can be made for Semitic being an acceptable geographical definition, then why doesn't that page contain "Jewish" which is by definition most definitely Semitic?

Semitic: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semitic

Antisemitism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitism The root word Semite gives the false impression that antisemitism is directed against all Semitic people. However, the compound word antisemite was popularized in Germany in 1879 as a scientific-sounding term for Judenhass "Jew-hatred", and that has been its common use since then. Bubbecraft (talk) 02:46, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am in agreement with Bubbecraft (talk), The Human Trumpet Solo (talk), Musashiaharon (talk), ChronoFrog (talk), and Evildoer187 (talk)——as I have stated many times before, Jews/Hebrews/Israelites are of one large family (Tribe, "race," Ethnocultural/Ethnoreligious group, etc.) with many and intersecting branches. Whether or both through Semitic genetics^[1][2] and/or Ethnocultural traditions/philosophies/religions/customs/etc. (e.g. the Abayudaya, who—since their founding—have passed down Jewish traditions as well as their sociopolitical identification of being Jews in Uganda, and have been treated as such), most Jews are more interrelated with one another than with any other group. Our closest core (in relation to being Jews) relatives outside of those who intersect with our communities are predominantly the other Middle Eastern groups (see above). There would not have been European pogroms, Holocaust, or Inquisitions of Jews had any little/possible genetic/cultural connections to Diasporic Jews in fact significantly mattered to Europeans in general——who, as I am sure most people here know, have often systematically succumbed to deadly bouts of racism over the past several millennia (from the Greeks, to the Visigoths, to the Romans, to the British, to the Germans, to the Poles, to the Turks, etc.). The bottom line is this: Jews are a Middle Eastern/Semitic/West Asian/Afro-Asiatic group, as per our genetic and cultural origins——so, please refrain from denying/trying to erase what is inherently true. Jeffgr9 (talk) 03:06, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Let me try and summarize this as I understand it. Currently, the categories are delineated as follows:

People of ME

People of Jewish desc.

People of [country] Jewish desc.

You want to remove the parent category, leaving only:

People of Jewish desc.

People of [country] Jewish desc.

How can one disconnect the Jewish history from the Middle East -- regardless of whether it's 1 generation or 1,000 generatons ago? of DNA? of known/unknown heritage? geography?

I just realized that if I were researching the Middle East, with no personal connections or perceived conceptions, I would be surprised NOT to find Jewish people listed. Because it is an indisputable historical fact. It has nothing to do with an individual's direct connection to the ME, but rather the historical relevance.

@Debresser, I think you made some reference to people not caring. But they don't have to care on a personal level, but WP must care on an historical level and be as accurate as possible. Removing the parent category disenfranchises an unassailable historical fact. Bubbecraft (talk) 04:11, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Neither Ashkenazi Jews nor the two Sephardic samples clustered with their former host populations (non-Jewish Eastern European, Iberian, and North African populations). This finding is supported by highly significant FST values (all FSTs >.12; P<.001) between Jews and their respective host populations^[3] -- meaning extensive endogamy and very little to no admixture! Bubbecraft (talk) 05:18, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Bubbecraft, you are more and more resorting to arguments like "I would be surprised NOT to find Jewish people listed", "it is an indisputable historical fact", and other argument by assertion. While I rely on facts, both scientific and psychological, and Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Sir Joseph agrees with me here, as did Nishidani and Liz in the discussion above. The conclusion must be that there is no consensus for having the category, which means it stays gone. Posting these long repetitive posts every time somebody disagrees with you is not helpful.

@Debresser: (1) once again, you depend on eisegetical interpretation in order to change the intended meaning of my words and have it suit a bias. For example: when you claim the statement, "it [Jewish descent from the Middle East] is an indisputable fact" is an argument by assertion and then claim you rely solely on facts, you imply I have not (which I have) and that by default you, Nishidani and Liz have only done so. Do you therefore deny, and can you prove, there is no historical connection between people of Jewish descent (as a group, not for any specific individual) and the Middle East? (2) Making the claim you and the others have relied solely on "facts, both scientific and psychological" is disingenuous because I and the other camp have repeatedly asked you to provide proof, sources to substantiate your purported facts and each time your sole response has been that is only incumbent on my side of the argument to provide WP:BURDEN. At no time have you, Nishidani or Liz provide any form of proof or verifiable source, so how can you claim you rely solely on facts? (3) Claiming you rely on "Wikipedia policies and guidelines" and then using those same policies and guidelines in an eisegetical manner is also disingenuous. This stance reads all too much like the discussion regarding Wikipedia:Assume good faith and Wikipedia:Assume the assumption of good faith. (Note: I am NOT claiming there is no assumption of good faith.]

Refusing/failing to account for provided and reliable sources, claiming responses are too long, attacking a person's veracity, suggesting a person is too emotional, and by using WP policies formed in such a way as to make the other person seem incompetent, or failing to meet WP policies, or failing to present valid arguments, etc., is beneath the dignity of this environment and adds nothing to the discussion.

"Sir Joseph agrees with me here, as did Nishidani and Liz in the discussion above": Is the resolution based on attrition? Then Yambaram, Gilad, ChronoFrog, Human Trumpet Solo, Evildoer, Jeffgr9, musashiaharon agree with me.--Bubbecraft (talk) 17:51, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Jeffgr9 Yes, Jews are somewhat like a clan. But you are still mixing up ethnicity with proven and relevant descent of individuals. Even if the "Jewish nation", so to say, comes from the Middle East, but the same is not necessarily true or relevant for every individual of Jewish descent.

"Jews are somewhat like a clan": argument by assertion

"still mixing up ethnicity with proven and relevant descent of individuals": a multitude of provided verifiable sources contradict this, therefore an argument by assertion

"but the same is not necessarily true or relevant for every individual of Jewish descent": contradicted by the Arabs and Romani peoples of descent currently not in dispute and available on WP, therefore an argument by assertion. --Bubbecraft (talk) 17:12, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In this connection I'd even dare to make a statement to the opposite, that Middle Eastern descent is more relevant to people who are Jewish (meaning by religion) than to people who are "only" of Jewish descent. Debresser (talk) 13:34, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"In this connection I'd even dare to make a statement to the opposite, that Middle Eastern descent is more relevant to people who are Jewish (meaning by religion) than to people who are 'only' of Jewish descent.": an indirect validation of the Arabs and Romani descent pages and therefore have provided an arguement for the inclusion of the Jewish people [not the religion] under the ME descent and also argument by assertion --Bubbecraft (talk) 17:12, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am glad you brought up religion, Debresser (talk), because it is written within Torah and other texts that people who join the Tribe and (as far as they know) did not descend from genetically/ethnically Jewish parents, always had a "Jewish spark" or were present in Spirit at Mt. Sinai when Moses gave the Commandments; and those who "convert out" always remain Jewish in various ways: [Example 1] [Example 2]. Even our Oppressors, from the Romans (with Fiscus Judaicus), to the Spanish/Portuguese Inquisitions (with Limpieza de sangre), to the Nazis [[with the Nuremburg Laws, have persecuted us based on our ancestry—particularly our Semitic/Middle Eastern ancestry—whether or not we believe in the "religion" of Judaism.

I am also glad you agree that we are a Nation—which is the definition for many groups (notably Native/Indigenous Americans) as "Tribe," "race," etc. We are much larger than a "clan,"] but if you meant "clan" in the way of "Tribe," then I understand what you mean. Jeffgr9 (talk) 16:35, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffgr9: Torah/bible not relevant if only because it is not a reliable source and, at a minimum, there is no one universal version therefore agreement could never be reached on it's contents. Moreover, those same contents are often contradictory. Similarly, religion is also irrelevant.--Bubbecraft (talk) 17:12, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bubbecraft (talk), I was pointing out that even Jews' "religion" among many and various opinions, dictates that we are one people/Tribe/Nation/"race"/etc. Jeffgr9 (talk) 19:37, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be impolitic of me, @Debresser, to state, in my opinion, you are failing to be WP:CONSISTENT, failing to provide WP:BURDEN, all while violating WP:BIAS, WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and WP:IDONTLIKEIT -- whether intended or not?

To clarify: WP:CONSISTENT, WP:BURDEN for your removal of the category: there has been no real justification beyond "so-and-so agrees with me" and fallacious arguments addressed and answered in depth which have been consistently ignored and suggests, in my opinion, an issue of WP:BIAS, WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and WP:IDONTLIKEIT.

Moreover, there seems to be a proclivity for ignoring and dodging relevant points while simultaneously treating me as a 2 year old (emotional, arguments by assertion, not following the policies/rules, etc.). As it currently stands, I have little reason to form a different opinion, no matter how hard I try. And I have tried to ignore the innuendos by, for example, suggesting we attempt a compromise.--Bubbecraft (talk) 17:51, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Bubbecraft, I think that would be incorrect and/or out of line. WP:BURDEN applies to you, as a proponent of inclusion of the Middle East category, not to me as its opponent. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is out of line, because who says I don't like it? I base my opposition on facts and Wikipedia policies/guidelines alone. WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT applies to you, because it is you who chooses to ignore Wikipedia policies or guidelines, as well as facts. You last post has no content, and its single purpose seems to be to violate WP:AGF. It would definitely be better to leave the discussion to other editors, instead of adding more long post or short posts without real arguments. Debresser (talk) 00:32, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Debresser stated: It would definitely be better to leave the discussion to other editors

While there is usually a policy or guide for every issue imaginable, no one is expected to know all of them!

@Bubbecraft stated: arguments addressed and answered in depth which have been consistently ignored and suggesting we attempt a compromise

Neutral point-of-view (or NPOV) means content is written objectively and without bias, merely presenting the facts and notable viewpoints of others.

Verifiability means that articles should only contain material that has been published by reliable sources.

When interacting with other editors, please be civil. This means assuming good faith on talk pages and trying to reach consensus over any disagreements in a respectful and considerate way, without ignoring the positions and conclusions of others.

@Bubbecraft stated: treating me as a 2 year old (emotional, arguments by assertion, not following the policies/rules, etc)

This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of obvious evidence to the contrary

Assuming good faith does not prohibit discussion and criticism

@Bubbecraft stated: in my opinion, whether intended or not and suggests, in my opinion

Rather, editors should not attribute the actions being criticized to malice unless there is specific evidence of such.

@Bubbecraft stated: Would it be impolitic of me, @Debresser, to state, in my opinion and suggesting we attempt a compromise

When disagreement occurs, try to the best of your ability to explain and resolve the problem, not cause more conflict, and so give others the opportunity to reply in kind. Consider whether a dispute stems from different perspectives, and look for ways to reach consensus.

@Bubbecraft stated: Would it be impolitic of me, @Debresser, to state, in my opinion and treating me as a 2 year old (emotional, arguments by assertion, not following the policies/rules, etc)'

If you wish to express doubts about the conduct of fellow Wikipedians, please substantiate those doubts with specific diffs and other relevant evidence, so that people can understand the basis for your concerns.

@Bubbecraft stated: And I have tried to ignore the innuendos by, for example, suggesting we attempt a compromise.

In addition to assuming good faith, encourage others to assume good faith by demonstrating your own good faith. You can do this by articulating your honest motives....

@Bubbecraft stated: there has been no real justification beyond "so-and-so agrees with me" and fallacious arguments addressed and answered in depth which have been consistently ignored

While bad faith is not strictly limited to vandalism, the key component of bad faith is the deliberate attempt to be unconstructive.

All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution. There are an excess of 45 sources cited on this page in support of maintaining the category. You wrote, I base my opposition on facts -- I ask for the nth time (I've lost count) to prove they are facts. You many not have to provide the burden of proof, but you do have to prove what you state is a verifiable fact and not just a supposition or opinion. WP:BURDEN does NOT exclude you. As I read the page, it reads like the legal definition, which states the requirement that the plaintiff (the party bringing a civil lawsuit) show by a "preponderance of evidence" or "weight of evidence" that all the facts necessary to win a judgment are presented and are probably true

Continuing to dispute your last comments are pointless and I think the examples provided above sufficiently exemplifies my desire to work with you and the other editors, within the guidelines, to the best of my ability and to work towards consensus.--Bubbecraft (talk) 02:23, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ironically, Debresser (talk), your repetition of statements without factual bases makes you guilty of some of the same accusations you are aspersing upon Bubbecraft (talk). Case in point: you have not disproved any of my arguments, and you have additionally not attempted to do so with facts. What is your goal here? Why do you not want Jews to be considered Middle Eastern? If I may ask, of what implications are you afraid to set by connecting these categories? Jeffgr9 (talk) 02:29, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You continue to mention things like "what implications are you afraid to set", "What is your goal here?", "Why do you not want Jews to be considered Middle Eastern?" You keep using real-life terms. I am not afraid, I have no "goal", and who says I do not want Jews to be considered Middle Eastern? All I says is that a Middle Eastern descent category can not be added to a Jewish descent category without violating Wikipedia rules and guidelines. Debresser (talk) 17:26, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A short summary of this RFC:

1. Debresser removes People of Middle Eastern descent as a parent cat of People of Jewish descent, following a long period of edit warring between himself and a multitude of editors (I lost count of the number of times Debresser has reverted, but it was well over the 3RR limit and the fact that he hasn't been sanctioned for it is a cause for concern), on the basis that A. Jews left the Middle East a long time ago (the statute of limitations argument), B. no Jew identifies as Middle Eastern simply because they are Jewish. This is obviously not true (I'm 100 percent Ashkenazi and I've identified as Middle Eastern my entire life, as have the majority of Jews that I've met), and even if it was, it has no relevance to categorization, and C. converts.

2. Other editors disagree with Debresser, (myself, Bubbecraft, Jeffgr9, musashiaharon, ChronoFrog), and one other editor (Sir Joseph, although for obvious reasons, Debresser has also made a habit out of citing the opinions of editors from the discussion that happened 2 years ago, even though he is currently in conflict with at least one of these editors) agrees with him. The disagreeing side responds by A. providing a wealth of reliable sources (which looks very similar to the one I gave in a previous RFC --- it was ignored in that discussion, and is largely being ignored here too) supporting the validity of the People of Middle Eastern descent category as a parent cat of People of Jewish descent, B. a critique of Debresser's statute of limitations as arbitrary, WP:INCONSISTENT (e.g. the Arab and Romani examples) --- there are probably many others, but those two are the most obvious), and unsupported by any known Wikipedia policy, C. correctly dismissing personalized self-identity as irrelevant, because we don't add or remove categories based on the strenuous proclamations of a few (or even many) individuals of Jewish descent who feel they are "not Middle Eastern" --- individuals can identify however the hell they want (if I wanted, I could call myself a cucumber), but that has little, if any, bearing on demonstrable, empirically proven facts D. pointing out that the overwhelming majority of Jews are not converts (who are not even included in this category to begin with, as it pertains exclusively to descent), and trace the lion's share of their ancestry/DNA back to the Levant (y'know, where Israel is). Ashkenazi, Sephardi, and Mizrahi Jews are, according to the studies provided, more than half Israelite on average. The other Jewish groups are more admixed, but still carry Israelite descent (Indian Jews are about half, African and East Asian Jews are mainly sub-Saharan/East Asian respectively but with partial Israelite descent, and South/Central American Jews are almost entirely Sephardic or Ashkenazi). In short, virtually all Jews (excluding recent converts who, as mentioned above, are a vanishingly small minority of the global Jewish population and aren't even included in this category) carry Levantine descent, thereby justifying the People of Middle Eastern descent category, E. even assuming, as one or two editors have alleged, that a significant portion of Jews worldwide have no Middle Eastern descent (which is false --- see D), removing the category would still violate WP:CONSISTENT. Going back to the Arab example, a vast chunk of the people we call "Arabs" today have no West Asian descent, but they're still categorized as such. Many are actually 100 percent Amazigh and are only classified as Arabs because of where they live, and may not even IDENTIFY as Arabs at all. Numerous other examples can be found worldwide, but I'll focus on what has already been offered. Examples: Romani, Arabs.

3. Debresser replies, but refuses to engage with most of the sources provided, instead quoting number 2 (selectively ignoring the part of that passage that doesn't support his view) to the exclusion of the other 20+ something sources used, while offering no sources of his own does not address provided sources, does not supply supporting sources. It is followed by some weird tangent about Abraham, and then Tangential discussion about Abraham follows, a dismissal of the Romani analogy with yet another appeal a claim to statute of limitations and nothing (no policies, no sources, nothing) to substantiate it and no supporting evidence. He then attacks the Arab analogy with a claim that Arabs maintained a continuous attachment to their homeland via empire which, for some unexplained reason, is somehow more valid than Jews maintaining a continuous attachment to their homeland via preserving their identity, culture, religion, language (to a degree, at least), and of course, genetics. Debresser states the Arab analogy is inapplicable because they maintained a continuous attachment to their homeland via preserving their identity, culture, religion, language even though Jews maintained a continuous attachment to their homeland via preserving their identity, culture, religion, language (to a degree, at least), and of course, genetics.

4. More critical replies follow, all of them harshly critical of Debresser (with the lone exception of Sir Joseph, whose reply to Bubbecraft can be summed up as "LOL IM NOT READING UR POST BUT IM STILL RIGHT ANYWAY PFLLLBT!" --- I rebuked him for this, and told him to go do something else if he has nothing constructive to add). Sir Joseph replies to Bubbecraft, "I didn't read your wall of text, but ... is factually incorrect." He is called out for (selectively) quoting one source while ignoring the rest (aka WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT), refusing to provide any sources or policies supporting the bizarre double standards and statute of limitations he is attempting to impose on ONLY this category (hence the accusations of WP:BIAS and WP:IDONTLIKEIT), and for his absurd justification for keeping Arabs under "West Asian" while removing Jews. Additional points are made by Jeffgr9 and Bubbecraft.

5. Tensions escalate. Debresser is hounded by the opposing camp (and in my opinion, justifiably so) for repeatedly ignoring the abundance of RS and counter-arguments offered while insisting that he has the facts and sources (despite providing a grand total of zero sources) (none provided) on his side. Additionally, he continues to cite WP:BURDEN, which feels more and more like a cop out since it is becoming increasingly obvious that he isn't going to budge on this topic, regardless of what anyone says stating he is under no obligation to provide supporting sources. Instead, he is waving WP:BURDEN around as a talisman to ward off opposing counter-arguments while obscuring the fact that he has none of his own. This sort of behavior impedes genuine consensus building.

Critical engagement is what is needed here, not constant appeals to authority (especially the repeated call outs to editors who are not even involved in this discussion, which comes off as subtle WP:CANVASSING --- to the point that if either of them ever do show up in here, it will look very suspicious) and the overall obstinate behavior you've exhibited thus far. I've made my own position on this clear (I think the category should stay), but my views are not set in stone. I am willing to reconsider my position if you have strong enough arguments and reliable sources to support them. That is what I am waiting for, but thus far all you've provided are very weak arguments (for the reasons I've outlined) and not a single source to back any of it up. The ball is in your court now, Debresser.The Human Trumpet Solo (talk) 18:18, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@The Human Trumpet Solo Your long post is a big display of bad faith, and I regret that your attempt to sway opinions that way, out of apparent lack of content-based arguments. Also notice please, that I informed all editors from the previous discussion, without any difference wether they agreed or disagreed with me. I repeat that this is not a new discussion, but a continuation of the previous one, the conclusion of which was clear enough. Debresser (talk) 17:28, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@The Human Trumpet Solo: I agree with having a review, but have serious issues with your inclusion of non-relevant and argumentative statements and accusations. @Debresser: I have struck through the issues I found inappropriate. If that is not acceptable, please let me know what is and I apologize in advance.Bubbecraft (talk) 18:11, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Debresser: would it be impolitic to suggest we bring in 3rd party opinon? Or some other dispute resolution mechanism?

In the meantime, would you mind returning with me to the RfC in question?

@Debresser: You have consistently stated WP:Burden applies only to those editors who want to include/add/restore the category, People of ME Descent, and the side which wants it removed is under no such obligation or requirement.

I responded, after reading WP:BURDEN, WP:ONUS, and WP:EXCEPTIONAL you were in fact required to support your claims. WP:REDFLAG specifically addresses this issue, particularly with regards to the following (quoted) points:

• surprising or apparently important claims not covered by multiple mainstream sources;
• challenged claims that are supported purely by primary or self-published sources or those with an apparent conflict of interest; and
• claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community.

Although I could find no specific mention of a definition Burden of Proof as it pertains to an RfC within WP, I supplied the legal definition of Burden of Proof. From WP, I also found the philosophic burden of proof[8] and resources[9].

An RfC dictates we have a converation, a dialogue, and therefore a debate ensues. This is intended, hopefully, to reach a consensus.

The burden of proof can shift[10]: "For this reason, each side will not only argue for their conclusion, but they will object to the arguments given by the opposing side. The opposing side then has a burden to reply to the objections (and they will continue to have a burden of proof until they reply to the objections)." (See also WP:Philosophic burden of proof, WP:Evidentialism, WP:Theory of justification "It has given up justification, but not yet adopted nonjustificational criticism. Instead of appealing to criteria and authorities, it attempts to describe and explicate them.")

The burden of proof (BoP) is a "philosophical concept which denotes the party responsible for providing evidence of their position(s)."[11] The BoP may be assigned to the person making the assertion or to both sides.

You have made a number of unsubstantiated claims to remove the category without providing any factual-based argument, seemingly depending on the argument of Fallibilism [12], "that no belief (theory, view, thesis, and so on) can ever be rationally supported or justified in a conclusive way" and that the implications of fallibilism can never be justified. Thus implying no beliefs are justified. Yet, "that is a wholly general skepticism about justification" and two opposing arguments are presented at great length.

What's wrong with your response?[13]: "When anyone makes a claim that a certain entity or relationship exists, they have the responsibility of supplying supporting evidence. Without such evidence, the claim is worthless."

Within the discussion of "The Brain in a Vat Argument" ] [14], contained within the "Significance of the Argument," an interesting and suggestive statement is made, to whit: "Someone of a Positivist bent might argue that if there is no empirical evidence to appeal to in order to establish whether we are brains in a vat or not, then the hypothesis is meaningless, in which case we do not need an argument to refute it."

In summary, your argument -- that you do not have to support your case with fact based sources -- creates an environment where no one can present a sufficient response to meet the bar for burden of proof. You have argued and maintained the fallacy of the burden of proof[15]. This tactic seemingly provides a means "to avoid supplying supporting evidence"[16]. You have tried "to convince [us] that the responsibility of supplying evidence lies [solely] with [us]."[17] Bubbecraft (talk) 18:43, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, I missed including this next part.

I would appreciate a response addressing why you feel it is not incumbent upon you to provide supporting evidence without just pointing me to WP:BURDEN -- because that article can be interpreted in at least 2 different ways, as I have demonstrated. Thank you. Bubbecraft (talk) 18:53, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Debresser: I am confused and would appreciate clarification. I found you contacted @Nishdani, @Liz, @Yambaram, @Gilad55, @Evildoer187, @PA Math Prof, @Yuvn86 (but not @Obiwankenobi, @Musashiaharon) on September 25, 2016 yet only today (October 1, 2016) informed this group you intended to. Don't you have to contact everyone from the prior RfC conversation? Can you explain why making those requests a week ago does not constitute WP:CANVASSING? Bubbecraft (talk) 19:53, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All I've done was summarize the conversation up to this point. Admittedly, my post was on the snarky side of things, but that's just how I am naturally. And I'd be lying if I said that you didn't appear to be very firmly entrenched in your views. AGF only lasts insofar as there is sufficient reason to maintain good faith. It's not something that either you or I are entitled to in perpetuity.

I already told you where I stand on this dispute, but I've also made it clear that I'm willing to reconsider my endorsement of this category IF there is a solid case against it. That's what I'm waiting for you to provide. There is a surplus of counter-arguments of reliable sources standing that you still have not addressed.

Lastly, what's the point of contacting Evildoer, Yambaram, Gilad, et al when they've all been inactive for well over a year, if not two years? One of them is topic banned. The only editors who are still active are, coincidentally, those who agreed with you two years ago. Am I wrong for being just a little suspicious?The Human Trumpet Solo (talk) 21:17, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I already quoted WP:BURDEN, and in my understanding it means that those who want to include the Middle East category need to prove that doing so is justified. I disagree with you that that guideline can be interpreted otherwise in this case. The arguments against inclusion of that category I and other editors have explained, based on Wikipedia policies and guidelines, over and over again, both in this thread as well as in the thread from 2.5 years ago.

I have already explained to you that your failure or unwillingness, and I mean no disrespect, to understand or agree with those explanations, does not mean that the burden of proof is now in your favor.

I have also explained that overly long posts that repeat the same thing again and again deter other editors from participating in a discussion, and I think, regrettably, that that happened in this case.

I have, to the best of my knowledge, informed all editors who partook in the discussion 2.5 years ago. That is standard good behavior on Wikipedia. If I missed anybody, then that was an oversight and nothing should be read into it. Debresser (talk) 21:24, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Debresser: Agreed, you repeatedly directed me to WP:BURDEN but "[your] understanding" of it's content and purpose is not proof your understanding is valid, definitive or even conclusive. So, we have an impasse which needs to be resolved. How does one go about resolving the interpretation of policies and guidelines?

No disprespect taken. But the problem remains the same and we need to find a way to reach a consensus on the interpretaion of WP:BURDEN before we can proceed. This clearly is a sticking point for some of us.

As for the length, as I've said before, when you attack me, you leave me no other option but to defend myself. I'm not accustomed to being attacked and am at a loss how to respond. In such a case, I try very hard to quote the rules and policies to explain my response rather than resort to useless and counter productive rhetoric. I'm sorry if you feel my responses deter other editors from contributing. I have no control over them and I'm not convinced it should be used as a legitimate criticism of my response style -- as repugnant as you seem to suggest it is. (As an aside, the existing extremely long length of this discussion did not deter me, so possibly your argument is not based in fact.)

Yes, you contacted most of the editors. But doesn't WP:CANVASSING clearly prohibit that? Near as I can determine, the only step you took was to contact the editors who were still active and available to contact. That particular sub-group supports your position so you haven't drawn from a "wider range of informed, but uninvolved, editors." Why not also post to the WP:Village pump or other relevant noticeboards? WP:CANVASSING states, "Note: It is good practice to leave a note at the discussion itself about notifications which have been made, particularly if made to individual users." -- why wait a week?

This situation is getting problematic on several levels. I'm open to useful suggestions.Bubbecraft (talk) 21:56, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I stand corrected -- partially. On September 25, you added the discussion to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/All. I think you put it in the incorrect sub-page: "Society, sports, and culture." I am assuming this is an honest error on your part. Would you be willing to correct it?

I'm searching the Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests archives and found the following answer under the section, Charlotte of Bourbon:

If you are able to come up with a second independent and reliable source which you can CITE in the article, that will probably be more than enough. The burden of proof would then be on the other party to provide verifiable, reliable, sources to refute information you acquired by standing on the shoulders of giants.. Bubbecraft (talk) 22:43, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Bubbecraft Would you stop looking for problems where there aren't any? I notified all editors who partook in the discussion a week ago. I did not mention that fact here, not then and not now. It is obvious that if a discussion is revived, somebody should notify all participants, and I didn't see the need to mention that here. Also, not I categorized the Rfc. Feel free to look in the page history who did so and ask him why he chose the categories he did. I am fine with his choices. Debresser (talk) 23:45, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Debresser (talk) May you please (adequately/thoughtfully) answer my questions/address my responses? These questions in particular: What is your goal here? Why do you not want Jews to be considered Middle Eastern? And, if I may ask, of what implications are you afraid to set by connecting these categories? Jeffgr9 (talk) 01:48, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Debresser: Which sources provided to date are you challenging, and on what grounds? Bubbecraft (talk) 02:13, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Jeffgr9 The three questions you ask all imply that I would have any motives that are not based in facts and Wikipedia policies and guidelines. That implication is hereby rejected and you are reminded of WP:AGF. I have stated my complete reasons in the discussions on this talkpage.

Again, Debresser (talk), you evade responding to my arguments/sources and you try to derail the conversation. I was not implying that you have any motives. I asked "What is your goal here?" As in, what is your overarching idea in arguing against the adding of "People of Middle Eastern descent" to "People of Jewish descent" category? The second question, "Why do you not want Jews to be considered Middle Eastern?" relates directly to what you have said in the past in relation to Diasporic Jews not being considered Middle Eastern. And then with "And, if I may ask, of what implications are you afraid to set by connecting these categories?" I was further asking about your intent in these discussions and allowing you the space to explain why you disagree with my and others' arguments. Jeffgr9 (talk) 23:50, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Bubbecraft Again? I am not challenging any sources at this stage (apart from the one source I challenged above). I am challenging your incorrect opinion that it follows from those sources that a Middle East category can be applied to "of Jewish descent" categories. Debresser (talk) 05:36, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please, Debresser, clarify how my conclusion (opinion?) isn't a logical progression. Bubbecraft (talk) 21:44, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Convenience break in "Middle East category Rfc"

Debresser: A review so you may address my prior question.

• I have been unable to find any verifiable source or fact based study showing Jews do not consider themselves to be of Middle Eastern descent. Nor regarding proselytes and admixture. I have found the opposite with most studies reporting a prevalence of Jews have Middle eastern ancestry.
• Heritage states people are sometimes categorized by ancestry or ethnicity and place of birth is rarely notable^[1].
• An ancestor has no statute of limitations, there is no limit on how far back one may go.^[2]
• Ethnicity is the common characteristics of a group of people^[3], including common ancestry^[4].
• An ethnic group represents people who identify with each other such as from ancestral experiences^[5]. Memberships tend to be defined by a shared cultural heritage or ancestry^[6] and/or history^[7].
• Assimilation and/or nationalism is not a valid argument against Ethnicity^[8] nor is transnational migration or colonial expansion^[9]

Another argument can be made regarding other groups (Romani, Arabs) which have sufficiently similar characteristics and are already contained within the Middle East category, thereby concluding consistency is relevant as well. Including a Middle East category of Jewish descent is logical.Bubbecraft (talk) 16:26, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Academia is not in agreement regarding conversions^{[10][11][12][13][14]} whereas DNA evidence supports Middle Eastern ancestry, downplaying the relevance of admixture and/or conversions:

Most Jews are more concerned with ancestry/ethnicity than religion:

1. A report about ethnicity among Diaspora Jewish youths showed pre-trip ethnic identification with Israel was strengthened^[15]
2. Of a reported 862,000 visitors to Israel, 55% were Jewish and of those, only 22% indicated leisure/sightseeing as a motive whereas 44% came for a mixture of religious, cultural and historical motivation^[16]
3. In a project report, "Ethnic and Racial Diversity: The Be'chol Lashon Initiative", Jews were not even considered "white" until well into the 1950's and early 1960's^[17] but black or oriental -- and definitely not European
4. A Pew Research Center Report (2013) states 62% of respondents reported being Jewish is mainly a matter of ancestry and/or culture and not religion^[18]
5. Ioannides (2006: 163) described global travel patterns to Isarel. Of the reported 862,000 visitors, 55% were Jewish and of those, only 22% indicated leisure/sightseeing as a motive whereas 44% came for a mixture of religious, cultural and historical motivation.^[19]Bubbecraft (talk) 00:00, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to recommend this RFC be withdrawn and reformulated because the RFC doesn't ask a question thereby encouraging lengthy argument. The original posts are too long, difficult to follow and may be construed as having something of the nature of a filibuster. Bubbecraft (talk) 06:08, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If anybody posted overly long posts here it is you. The Rfc proposes to endorse the removal of a category. You may see that as a question. Everything is clear. In short, forget about it! Debresser (talk) 13:04, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• FoCuSandLeArN—you say "being a Jew is not the same as being Jewish".[18] I couldn't disagree more. Being a Jew is synonymous with being Jewish. (I do agree with you that "this is one of the worst RfCs"[19] ever. It is hard to understand what is being discussed.) Bus stop (talk) 15:07, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Jeffgr9—you say "[m]embers who 'join the Tribe' are typically accepted as if they were present 'in Spirit' when Moses gave the Israelites the Commandments" and "[i]t is therefore racist, divisive, and illogical to deny these aspects for both new Jews and ethnically-born Jews"[20] but this does not make sense to me. The Categories are about real people, not spirits, and it cannot by any stretch of the imagination be considered racist to Categorize people by their actual place of origin. Bus stop (talk) 15:07, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You did not include my full statement: "Members who "join the Tribe" are typically accepted as if they were present "in Spirit" when Moses gave the Israelites the Commandments—as in, they are sociopolitically aligned/aligning themselves with a Middle Eastern Tribal community (e.g. the Abayudaya); most new members learn (at least somewhat), to speak a Semitic language, to make Middle Eastern cuisines, to engage in Middle Eastern politics, as well as to congregate and associate with Jews who were born of Middle Eastern ancestry, which comprises most Jews (via genes, experience, culture, etc.). It is therefore racist, divisive, and illogical to deny these aspects for both new Jews and ethnically-born Jews."

Bus stop (talk), your statement negates that new members Ethnoculturally/Tribally/sociopolitically/"racially"/etc. intersect with ethnic-Jews/Hebrews/Israelites. Jews/B'nei Y'Israel are a Semitic/Afro-Asiatic/Western Asian/Middle Eastern/etc. Tribe, Nation, Ethnocultural/Ethnoreligious group that have carried with them philosophies, languages, cuisines, art, sciences, etc. for at least 5,000 years while branching out and joining people into the Tribe. The majority of Jews are of Middle Eastern descent; those that join intersect their previous Ethnocultural/racial identity and Jews' own Semitic identity—they and their descendants are bound to the Tribe for life. Simple as that. Jeffgr9 (talk) 01:16, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffgr9—people of Jewish descent are not necessarily of Middle Eastern descent. Take for example a non-Jew in Europe who converts to Judaism. Their children are of Jewish descent, but their children are not of Middle Eastern descent. Their "philosophies, languages, cuisines, art, sciences"[21] are irrelevant. The Middle East is a place. You can't change your place of origin no matter what language you speak, cuisine you cook, art you make, science you develop, or philosophy you cultivate. These things do not have the ability to change your place of origin. Bus stop (talk) 02:20, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bus stop (talk), by "converting" to Judaism, or joining the Tribe, new members Tribally (and thus socioeconomically *and* ethnoculturally) affiliate themselves with a Semitic People and culture. Period. And no, the cultural aspects of Judaism are intertwined with the ethnic aspects (thus Ethnocultural/"Ethnoreligious groups") and are thus extremely relevant.

At their cultural inception——and in order to counteract the invading Arab-Muslims——Sikhs adopted some Arab-Muslim (and, ergo, some Southwest Asian Tribal/Ethnocultural elements) and integrated them into their Punjabi culture. Sikhs serve as an intersection between Arab-Muslims and Punjabi Hindus. Sikhs are indeed primarily their Punjabi identity, but tribally, they intersect.

Thus, those who "convert" to Judaism, or any Tribal group really, effectively "sign-up" to intersect with the host Tribe/People/sociopolitical affiliation they are joining. In short, non-Middle Eastern Peoples who join Jews or Islam, tribally become part Middle-Eastern. Jeffgr9 (talk) 06:05, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffgr9—you don't seem to understand—when converting, one doesn't change one's place of origin. The Middle East is a place. Europe is a place. North America is a place. You say "by 'converting' to Judaism, or joining the Tribe, new members Tribally (and thus socioeconomically *and* ethnoculturally) affiliate themselves with a Semitic People and culture. Period." Huh? Are you addressing the question? Or are you addressing a different question? If a person's origin is the Middle East, their origin is the Middle East forever. And if a person's origin is Europe, their origin is Europe—forever. You and others are piling on irrelevancies. You say "[t]hus, those who 'convert' to Judaism, or any Tribal group really, effectively 'sign-up' to intersect with the host Tribe/People/sociopolitical affiliation they are joining. In short, non-Middle Eastern Peoples who join Jews or Islam, tribally become part Middle-Eastern." That defies reality. "Middle Eastern descent" means deriving from the Middle East. If one has never set foot in the Middle East, why would they be Categorized as being of Middle Eastern descent? If all that we know about a person is that they and their progenitors resided in Europe they would properly be Categorized as being of European descent. What about conversion to Judaism changes the area of the world from which one derives? You seem to be arguing the the Middle East is a state of mind. Even if I were to accept that Jews are of a Middle Eastern state of mind—which I don't—we are not Categorizing by frames of mind. Even non-converts live their entire lives in for instance North America with their entire orientation to for instance the United States. They may be Jewish but their attention to the Middle East may be nonexistent for all intents and purposes. Bus stop (talk) 11:40, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bus stop (talk), although you seem to agree that a People's indigeneity never leaves their identity, you do not apply that same thought to ethnic-Jews. At the same time, you also do not seem to understand Intersectionality and its importance in understanding Diasporas especially among mixed-peoples/nations/and Tribes.

How many ways do I have to put it? Tribes may initiate outsiders and bind them with their People through all aspects of their culture/customs. Jewish customs/culture is primarily Semitic/Middle Eastern, and those who officially join the Tribe and practice Jewish ways of life customs, become bound to the Tribe. Their children join the Middle Eastern Nation known as B'Nei Y'Israel. Such people become an extension of the ethnic-Jews and intersection between their original Tribal designation and Jews' Nation.

And no, ethnic-Jews—the predominant population of Jews in general—are always of Middle Eastern descent whether or not they practice culture/customs. And those that do practice Pesach and other traditions are always discussing/affirming their connection to Eretz Y'Israel and Yerushalyim.

And what do you think Taglit-Birthright is?? Stop trying to arbitrarily divide us like our Oppressors have for thousands of years, and deny our Indigeneity to Israel. Jeffgr9 (talk) 17:07, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Taglit is a program to bring teens to Israel to reconnect with the Jewish homeland. It has nothing to do with ancestry. The Jewish homeland is Israel and Judaism has a connection to Israel, but individual Jews' ancestry is wherever they come from, Middle East or anywhere else. 🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 17:14, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Half-False, Sir Joseph——Taglit-Birthright does help reconnect Jews to the Jewish homeland because such Jews are predominantly ancestrally from that land, if not through Tribal re-affiliation. Jeffgr9 (talk) 17:24, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, it reconnects Jews to the Jewish homeland because it's important to the religion, not because every Jew is from there. 🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 17:28, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sir Joseph, Jews are a people first who created a culture and traditions (and religion)——not the other way around. Ethnic members derive their genes, culture, traditions, etc. from Israel, and new members/their descendants become of the People and derive their cultural traditions and spiritual/sociopolitical designations from Israel. Jeffgr9 (talk) 17:52, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffgr9—you say "Stop trying to arbitrarily divide us like our Oppressors have for thousands of years, and deny our Indigeneity to Israel." We are an encyclopedia. We are not here to right great wrongs. Bus stop (talk) 17:16, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bus stop (talk), Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and Jews are predominantly Middle Eastern, whether through genetics or Tribal designation. Jeffgr9 (talk) 17:24, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffgr9—how are Jews "predominantly Middle Eastern"? Would a nonobservant Jew in the United States who does not care about Israel be "predominantly Middle Eastern"? Bus stop (talk) 20:55, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bus stop (talk), Yes, Ethnic-Jews who "do not care about Israel" are Middle Eastern no matter what. They are certainly problematic, but they are still Semitic regardless. Ethnic-Jews do not retrospectively lose that heritage, even if they "convert out." (As I wrote above: "[Example 1] [Example 2]. Even our Oppressors, from the Romans (with Fiscus Judaicus), to the Spanish/Portuguese Inquisitions (with Limpieza de sangre), to the Nazis [[with the Nuremburg Laws, have persecuted us based on our ancestry—particularly our Semitic/Middle Eastern ancestry—whether or not we believe in the "religion" of Judaism.") I also included these sources above: [Example 3] and [Example 4]. Jeffgr9 (talk) 02:05, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffgr9—I didn't say anything about "convert[ing] out"[22]. You asserted that "Jews are predominantly Middle Eastern." I asked "Would a nonobservant Jew in the United States who does not care about Israel be 'predominantly Middle Eastern'?" Can you tell me if the hypothetical Jew in the United States who does not care about Israel would be predominantly Middle Eastern? If the answer is "yes", can you tell me why? Bus stop (talk) 04:08, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bus stop (talk), it does not seem like you have read any of the materials I posted. Yes, the hypothetical ethnic-Jew who does not care about Israel is predominantly Middle Eastern, because of their genes, ancestry/familial/Ethnocultural/Tribal ties, etc. In the case of Crypto-Jews, some do not learn of their Jewish ancestry until later in life, and yet, they feel like there was always something different about their identity/something was missing in their lives. Ancestry is very important to Jews—even as evidenced with the various genealogies in the Torah—while at the same time, cultural traditions/philosophies/attributes are also very important to Jews, hence, again, Jews are an Ethnocultural/Ethnoreligious group/Tribe. The example of ethnic-Jews who convert out, or even Crypto-Jews, was to show that such people, even if they do not care about or do not know their connection to Jewish issues/homeland/beliefs/etc., they are still Jews, or at the very least, still Semites, and thus, Middle Eastern. Jeffgr9 (talk) 07:31, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffgr9—what do you mean by an "ethnic-Jew", and do you have a source for the term "ethnic-Jew"? I obviously did not ask about an "ethnic-Jew". Bus stop (talk) 11:47, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bus stop (talk), "Ethnic-Jew" is a term commonly used to refer to anyone who is a Jew through ancestry—most especially those with ancient Israelite ancestry—and includes/may refer to "secular" or "non-observant Jews" (as to whom you referred).^[1][2] You may need to research more about Jewish ethnic divisions and Who is a Jew? to further understand what I and other editors are talking about in relation to the complexities of Jewish identity. Jeffgr9 (talk) 18:50, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffgr9—you refer me to the Who is a Jew? article. At that article I find: "The term 'ethnic Jew' does not specifically exclude practicing Jews." I asked you a question. In fact I asked you the same question twice. (On a sepatate note—I don't know why you can't provide sources other than Wikipedia. Do you know that Wikipedia is not a source for itself? See WP:WPNOTRS.) Twice I asked you "Would a nonobservant Jew in the United States who does not care about Israel be 'predominantly Middle Eastern'?" Of course, I asked you this after you asserted "Jews are predominantly Middle Eastern." Each time you responded to my question you substituted the term "ethnic Jew" for the word "nonobservant" in the question that I asked. In other words you were not responding to the question that I asked. This is because the Wikipedia article says "The term 'ethnic Jew' does not specifically exclude practicing Jews." My question, on the other hand, did specifically exclude practicing Jews. Do you see the distinction? Now, why not respond to the question asked? Bus stop (talk) 22:13, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bus stop (talk), I provided sources outside of Wikipedia, and you either cannot find them or have ignored them. Above, you will find various sources and examples I have provided that prove that "nonobservant Jews" are still considered Jews, or at the very least, Semitic/Middle Eastern. Also, the term "Ethnic Jew" includes nonobservant Jews, it does not exclude them, as it refers to the ancestry of the person in question. Jeffgr9 (talk) 23:32, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffgr9—you said that "Jews are predominantly Middle Eastern". I responded to that assertion by asking you "Would a nonobservant Jew in the United States who does not care about Israel be 'predominantly Middle Eastern'?" Can you respond to that question? I am now asking it for the third time. Bus stop (talk) 00:11, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bus stop (talk, I am now answering you for a third time: Yes, a non-observant Jew is predominantly Middle Eastern for all of the above reasons I have provided, both within and outside of Wikipedia. Please stop ignoring what I wrote/provided. Jeffgr9 (talk) 17:55, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffgr9—you say "for all of the above reasons I have provided". That is the equivalent of boilerplate. I'm trying to discuss this with you but you do not seem inclined to provide a reason that all Jews should be Categorized as "of Middle Eastern descent". That seems absurd to me, given the vast range of types of Jews in widely differing settings. There are Jews who rarely if ever contemplate their Jewishness. How can they be construed as being of Middle Eastern descent? Bus stop (talk) 03:24, 16 October 2016 (UTC) Bus stop (talk) 20:32, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bus stop (talk), I already have explained why any/all Jews should be Categorized as "of Middle Eastern descent"—both/either through ancestry/genetics and/or Tribal affiliation. The facts, many cited throughout this Talk page (you may search my name for some of the sources, and go down to the survey for others), all point to this conclusion. Your question sounds like, "If one closes their eyes, does the world disappear?" No, and similarly, just because some Ethnic Jews (as in they have Israelite ancestry) do not contemplate/consider/accept their Jewishness, does not mean that they are no longer Jews—they are always Jews, and thus always Middle Eastern. New members consciously think about their Judaism, and thus create an intersection between their original and their new Middle Eastern identity. Jeffgr9 (talk) 06:30, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffgr9—are saying that even if someone denies that they are Jewish we should Categorize them as being of Middle Eastern descent? Bus stop (talk) 14:08, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bus stop (talk), if nonobservant/Ethnic Jews deny they are Jews, we should should indeed (also) categorize them as being of Middle Eastern descent—they cannot change that part of them, as it is fact. Jeffgr9 (talk) 06:32, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffgr9—no, it is not a fact. Facts are things that are reliably sourced. The fact in that case is that they are not Jewish. Do you see the distinction? The original research in that case is that they are "of Middle Eastern descent". We require sources. We don't go around Categorizing people willy-nilly. Bus stop (talk) 13:09, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffgr9—you say 'nonobservant Jews' are still considered Jews. But of course I never said that nonobservant Jews were not considered Jews. I have mentioned nonobservant Jews because I think they are a good example of a group of Jews who could not possibly be considered "of Middle East descent". Bus stop (talk) 14:05, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bus stop (talk, Why would that be the case? What evidence do you have that "nonobservant Jews" would have that attribute? Did you know that many of the founders of Israel were "non-observant" or "secular?" Jeffgr9 (talk) 17:55, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffgr9—you say "many of the founders of Israel were non-observant or secular." This would be correct and such people would be Categorized as being "of Middle Eastern descent". But why should all Jews be Categorized as being "of Middle Eastern descent"? Are you perhaps opposed to differentiating between all and some? Bus stop (talk) 19:34, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bus stop (talk), I do not understand your question. Jews are One Tribe with many and intersecting branches—all connected and all deriving their ancestry/traditions from the same Middle Eastern core identity. Jeffgr9 (talk) 06:30, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffgr9—what "ancestry/traditions" do you refer to? A convert presumably does not have Jewish ancestry, at least in most cases, and a nonobservant Jew would not seem to have traditions. Bus stop (talk) 16:32, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bus stop (talk), my point was your question reversed: A new member/"convert" would observe traditions, and a nonobservant Jew would have the ancestry. Jeffgr9 (talk) 05:55, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffgr9—would you have sources that the convert would observe traditions and the nonobservant Jew would have the ancestry? No, you would not, or at least in most cases, you would not. Therefore, the question is: why should all Jews be Categorized as being "of Middle Eastern descent"? Shouldn't only those reliably sourced as being of Middle Eastern descent be Categorized as being of Middle Eastern descent? Bus stop (talk) 12:17, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bus stop (talk), there are sources for what I have described:

• New members of the Tribe learning Israelite customs/culture

&

• Secular Jews having/concerning themselves with Israelite ancestry

There are plenty of other examples of which you may look up yourself. Jeffgr9 (talk) 09:13, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffgr9—all members of a Category must be reliably sourced as belonging in that Category. In most cases you would not have sourcing to support that a Jewish person is "of Middle Eastern descent". You happen to have a collection of assumptions about Jews that either are false or are simply lacking a source supporting your contention that simply being Jewish equates with being "of Middle Eastern descent". Only in those cases in which sources actually support the contention that a Jewish person written about in the encyclopedia is "of Middle Eastern descent" should that person be included in the Category under discussion. The encyclopedia shouldn't be making blanket implications about all Jews in this regard. We know that this is patently false in some cases and in many other cases sourcing supporting the contention are nonexistent.

From WP:NOR:

• "Even with well-sourced material, if you use it out of context, or to reach or imply a conclusion not directly and explicitly supported by the source, you are engaging in original research..."
  
• "To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented."
  

From WP:VER:

• "Use sources that directly support the material presented in an article and are appropriate to the claims made."
  
• "Sources must support the material clearly and directly: drawing inferences from multiple sources to advance a novel position is prohibited by the NOR policy."

Why would we Categorize an individual Jewish person as being "of Middle Eastern descent" in those instances in which no sources exist for that person being "of Middle Eastern descent"? You have argued above that even if a person denies that they are Jewish we should Categorize them as being "of Middle Eastern descent" if sources merely support that they are Jewish. This makes no sense to me. And we know for a fact that most converts to Judaism are not "of Middle Eastern descent". I believe you are also arguing that converts that we know are not "of Middle Eastern descent" should be Categorized as if they were "of Middle Eastern descent". Again—this makes little sense to me. Please tell me why we shouldn't simply use Category:People of Middle Eastern descent in accordance with that which is supported by reliable sources? Are all Jewish people reliably sourced as being "of Middle Eastern descent"? Of course not. Bus stop (talk) 10:54, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Needless to say I agree with Bus stop in this conversation. Debresser (talk) 11:04, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffgr9—You are making very broad and very sweeping assumptions about all Jews that are definitely not supported by reliable sources in all instances. Therefore the proper way to proceed is to only include those Jews that are reliably sourced as being "of Middle Eastern descent" in that Category. This is a commonsensical approach to Categorization that takes into account only that which is reliably sourced and avoids overgeneralization. Bus stop (talk) 16:24, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bus stop (talk), All Jews are of "Middle Eastern" "descent" either/both through genetic-tribal relations and/or cultural-tribal relations. You seem to be either ignorant of general Jewish perspectives of these issues, or are deliberately acting obtuse to my reliably-sourced arguments, or both. You have not provided reliable sources for your arguments, and thus you are being a hypocrite and violating Wikipedia policy. I expect you to provide reliable sources that completely disprove my arguments (without a doubt) in your next response--otherwise, you prove yourself clearly unfit to participate in this discussion. Jeffgr9 (talk) 20:59, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffgr9—you say that you are bringing sources but you are not. You've brought this source and you've brought this source, neither of which support your contention that all Jews are of Middle Eastern descent. One is a source on the process of conversion to Judaism, the other is the Pew Research Center's report on American Jews. Neither mentions the Middle East. Neither one says anything about all Jews being of Middle Eastern descent. This is an RfC on the inclusion of all Jews in Category:People of Middle Eastern descent. Where is the source that supports the farfetched contention that all Jews are of Middle Eastern descent? The solution to the question posed in this RfC is obvious: include those Jews reliably sourced as being of Middle Eastern descent in Category:People of Middle Eastern descent, and do not include those Jews not reliably sourced as being of Middle Eastern descent in Category:People of Middle Eastern descent. Bus stop (talk) 11:34, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• In an only edit to Wikipedia an editor writes: "I am throwing my hat in with the keepers because I'm not convinced by the arguments in the remove section. All they really amount to is a repeated insistence that Jews are only a religious faith with no substantiation of any kind." A person who does not originate in the Middle East can convert to Judaism. As of that point they are a Jew. Are their offspring of Middle Eastern descent? Of course not. The person converting to Judaism and thereby becoming a Jew may be of European origin, or North American origin. By what reasoning would their offspring be of "Middle Eastern descent"? The Middle East is a location in the world just as Europe or North America are locations on the globe. Bus stop (talk) 21:50, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• The Human Trumpet Solo—you write "DNA studies consistently show that Jews worldwide are of Middle Eastern descent, so it is fair to conclude that any given Jewish individual is at least partially, if not predominantly, of Middle Eastern descent, specifically Levantine." You don't seem to realize that conversion to Judaism does not change one's DNA. The person in Europe with no connection to the Middle East who converts to Judaism does not get different DNA. In what sense would such a person be "of Middle Eastern descent"? Such a person belongs in Category:People of European descent. The offspring of a convert to Judaism who is of European descent would be of Jewish descent but they would not be of Middle Eastern descent. Bus stop (talk) 23:19, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• PA Math Prof—you say "While the converts themselves are not typically of Middle Eastern descent (except through serendipity), such converts typically marry into families that are Jewish by descent, and over the course of several generations, the descendants of those converts will display primarily Middle Eastern DNA." What is "Middle Eastern DNA"? You are misunderstanding the "decent" Categories. Anybody can be of Middle Eastern descent. The Middle East is a place. It is a location on the globe. If a person was born there or raised there or spent important, especially formative years of their life there—they can be Categorized as being "of Middle Eastern descent". Furthermore we are talking about Categorization. Your whole spiel about Jews being an "ethnoreligious" group is irrelevant. That information if well-sourced belongs in article space. The Categorization system is useful to the reader when it makes worthwhile distinctions. Your opinion that all Jews, no matter how distantly separated from the Middle East, are "of Middle Eastern descent" is not a worthwhile distinction. The reader does not benefit from such use of Categorization. It is a misuse of Categorization. Instituting that would greatly bloat one particular Category ("of Middle Eastern descent") for no useful purpose, except to allow editors to make a point. And it is utterly preposterous to Categorize by apocrypha shrouded in the mists of ancient history, not to mention generalizations that do not have real bearing on people's lives. We Categorize by sourced information, not presumptions and arguments by editors. That is called original research. In the case of the vast majority of Jews, you would have no source supporting the contention of Middle Eastern descent. And how would this differentiate between every Jew and those few who literally, factually, and according to reliable sources—are of Middle Eastern descent? You are taking a hunch that you have about all Jews and applying it to the Categorization system when such information should be worked up in article space—either in a preexisting article or an article of your creation. Bus stop (talk) 02:40, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: Bus stop, there is actually a hard and fast definition of Jewishness. We are defined under Jewish law (Halakhah), and by the preponderance of scholars, as a nation and ethnoreligious group. Wikipedia's own extensively sourced article on Jews reaffirms this. The Middle Eastern descent of Jews qua Jews isn't an assumption, but a hard fact substantiated by reams of WP:RS. The conception of Jews as "only a religious faith" is relatively novel, and is not supported by scholarship. Beyond that, I know of no other ethnic group on Wikipedia that is expected to "prove" that every single one of its members carries the same descent just to remain included under its respective parent cat; in fact, multiple examples to the contrary were provided. And we do know, from the sources provided, that Jews have maintained an ethnic/national identification with each other (irrespective of how far flung they are from each other in diaspora) and that the crushing majority of Jews have Middle Eastern descent, and it more often than not makes up the majority of their ancestral makeup. Applying the Middle Eastern descent parent cat to Jewish descent is perfectly consistent with how the rest of the descent categories are arranged, and that's good enough. ChronoFrog (talk) 08:37, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ChronoFrog—you say "Bus stop, there is actually a hard and fast definition of Jewishness. We are defined under Jewish law (Halakhah), and by the preponderance of scholars, as a nation and ethnoreligious group. Wikipedia's own extensively sourced article on Jews reaffirms this." Yes, the definition of a Jew is halachically defined as a person whose mother is Jewish or who has converted to Judaism. Wikipedia goes by reliable sources, however. Do you see the distinction? And by the way, do you notice that the halachic definition has nothing to do with the Middle East whatsoever? Our concern is the avoidance of original research. In those instances in which a Jewish person is sourced as being of Middle Eastern descent, we should Categorize them as being of Middle Eastern descent. But in those instances in which reliable sources are absent to support that a Jewish person is of Middle Eastern descent we should not Categorize that person as being of Middle Eastern descent, as that would be original research. Bus stop (talk) 11:29, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion about the discussion

See recent discussion at the Teahouse, where User:Bubbecraft came asking for an advisory opinion based on an abstract description of this RFC. The regular editors there declined to provide an abstract opinion, and I was deeply cynical that asking such questions is used to get an advisory opinion in order to wikilawyer. I agree that Bubbecraft's posts are too long, difficult to read, and they are what I characterized as a filibuster. However, because the RFC doesn't pose a question directly, it is being derailed. I suggest that either that the RFC be restarted or that a Survey section be added to it for !votes so that the opinions (with arguments) aren't drowned out by arguments. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:41, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Robert McClenon: Is there a time constraint on the survey? Is the survey limited to those editors who have contributed to this current RfC? Bubbecraft (talk) 16:07, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Survey is part of the RFC. (Notice that the Survey is one level below the RFC and not a separate section.) (It is, in my opinion, the most useful part of the RFC, because the discussion above is just back-and-forth discussion.) It is open until the RFC closes in late October and has the RFC tag pulled by the bot, and it will be closed and assessed when the RFC is closed. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:28, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Since this RFC didn’t have a Survey section, which is not required by the documentation on RFCs, but turns out to be essential to effective closure and assessment of consensus, I am adding one. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:25, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#RFC_Closure_review_Category_talk:People_of_Jewish_descent.23Survey for a closure review. 🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 21:24, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update: The Closure review above was closed on 7 February 2017 and was archived here. Musashiaharon (talk) 03:00, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yet more proof that Wikipedia is not to be used as a reliable source. A moronic close that was upheld is not an excuse for a horribly sourced and wrong categorization scheme. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 04:28, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I generally do see Wikipedia as a reliable source, but in this case completely agree with Sir Joseph. Debresser (talk) 19:03, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I want the DISPUTED tag added to the page. While there was an RFC, it was, IMO, closed incorrectly and took wrong information into account. This page is about people who are Jewish or of Jewish descent, not necessarily about Judaism. All Jews are not of Middle Eastern descent. Sammy Davis Jr, for example is not from the ME. Most Jews outside of Israel are not from the Middle East. This is a factual category of where is a specific Jew from. We can't label EVERY Jew as being from the Middle East. It is a ludicrous proposition and those editors proposing it are using longwinded arguments that are not on an individual person, but on the Jewish religion. Until the RFC is overturned, this page is factually incorrect. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:04, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Admin note: There was an RfC review and this blatant attempt by Sir Joseph to game our policies. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:11, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You need to AGF, and I ask you to read the full page and tell me if the RFC was closed correctly in your opinion. Is it factual to state that ALL Jews are from the Middle East? It is ludicrous and brings disrepute to Wikipedia. I am disputing the close and the current content of the Category, as such I request the tag be placed on the page. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:14, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's not my opinion that counts. It's the close of the RFC review. And yes, characterizing a content dispute as vandalism, reporting one side for edit warring, saying you are restoring the consensus version when that was plainly not the outcome of the RFC is gaming the system. It is also disruptive editing. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:21, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

When the people involved confused the Jewish people, Jews as a whole and Jews as an individual, it's clear the close was not correct. What we have now is a category that is factually incorrect. What do you propose is done to fix it? It is clear that you can't have all Jews in the world as being categorized under Wiki guidelines as being from the Middle East, it's not true. You say there is an RFC, fine. But we still have a false category. That should take precedence. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:28, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You plainly wish to continue the content dispute which triggered the first RFC. That's fine (up to point). But don't game our policies and procedures to achieve your goals. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:34, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can you just answer me then, in your opinion, are all Jews from the Middle East? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:39, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Are you serious? I haven't given that any thought to that in the past and will not be giving it much consideration in the future as I am acting as an admin here. It looks to me like a simple question with a much deeper meaning behind it and it would be completely inappropriate to state my either unresearched or well-researched opinion here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:50, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And that's one of my points, it's not a question with a deeper meaning. The Jewish religion is from the Middle East, so if there was a categories of religions from the ME, then put Judaism there. This category is identifying people who are Jewish, in other words it's an individual identification. That means it goes by the individual. So out of the 15 Million Jews worldwide, can we label ALL of them as being from the Middle East? It doesn't need much research, it's a simple question, are all Jews from the Middle East and we don't need to get all complicated with the answer. Regardless of how you answer, I don't know why you can't put the tag up, it is clear that there is a dispute regarding the factual accuracy of the categorization. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:00, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My rule of thumb is that if the tag is continuing the dispute discussed in a closed RFC, I will be unlikely to add it. However, I have no objection if another admin decides the tag should be added and does so. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:48, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The RFC is what an outcome is, it doesn't preclude a tag. I have to abide by the bad RFC, but I still dispute it. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:54, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just an example of people who converted and can clearly be seen as not being from the Middle East:

• Ivanka Trump
• Sammy Davis Jr.
• Asher Wade
• Ole Brunell
• Ahuva Gray
• See more at List_of_converts_to_Judaism, why should they and their children be listed as from the Middle East? Why should American Jews be labeled as from the Middle East? It is perfectly clear that while the RFC was closed, it is incorrect. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:20, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Sir Joseph. 1. The Rfc was evenly balanced, with 7:7. 2. One of the participants on the "keep" side is a blocked sock (User:ChronoFrog) 3. It was a first-time closure by a non-admin. 4. It was internally inconsistent, claiming at the same time to reach "keep" and also to keep a consensus version, where consensus version from 2013 was not to have the category. 5. In addition there is the WP:MEAT issue which was recently raised at WP:ANI in Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Category:Jews, which makes it very likely that part of the editors who partook in that Rfc were also trumped up: User:Bubbecraft never edited after that discussion, User:Musashiaharon made only 8 edits since that discussion to the recent WP:ANI issue, User:2603:3024:1818:3B00:CCF9:AFE5:1187:21BE was a one-edit account, User:PA Math Prof made no edits between that Rfc and the new WP:ANI issue, so 5 out of 7 are disqualified. Actually, and as I argued on WP:ANI, that is more than enough reason to overturn the closure. Debresser (talk) 17:42, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what benefit adding a tag will do, but I see that several editors do in good faith dispute the current situation so I have done so — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:26, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am thinking of a new RFC and the problem I saw with the old one was that it wasn't formulated correctly. I am proposing a simple question for the RFC, namely, "Can we label every individual Jew in the world as being of Middle Eastern descent?" I think it's a much simpler question. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:07, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No. It is literally the same discussion we just had, only phrased differently. From where I'm standing, both you and Debresser are throwing a childish temper tantrum because you didn't get what you wanted. It's time to move on.The Human Trumpet Solo (talk) 18:00, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Phrasing differently is exactly why a new RFC is required. You are either purposely confusing issues or trying to push a false fact, and others reading the RFC may not have seen the issue. There is a difference between the Jews as a group and religion and Jews as an individual people. You can't factually say that ALL Jews are from the Middle East, it really is quite simple as that. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:03, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, this is quite clearly the same discussion. You both need to WP:Let it go.The Human Trumpet Solo (talk) 18:21, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's clear that it's not the same discussion. I understand you have a bias to present, but look at the RFC above and how confusing it was even to some of the participants. A clear concise question is a step up, especially if overturns an obviously factually incorrect ruling. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:25, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Only stepping in as I've interacted in this area before and seeing flareups on the situation at ANI/elsewhere; if there is to be a new RFC, it should focus on defining how, without zero context, the phrase "Jewish descent" should be, recognizing two major issues or problems:

1. The most commonly understood use of the phrase "X descent" is where X is generally a strict geocentric ethnic group (eg "of Irish descent") with "descent" implying relation by bloodline to the native people of that geocentric group, and rarely applied to other qualities like religion (eg there's no such thing as "of Christian descent"). However, for the Jewish faith, they explicitly have considerations that one can be of "Jewish (faith) descent", where you may be related by bloodline to a person that is of the Jewish faith, but that they may have no connection to the geocentric ethnic group that had lived in the Middle East centuries ago. This is how it is argued that, for example, Sammy Davis Jr.'s children are of Jewish descent. In other words, compared to every other use of "X descent" in the world, this one application by the Jewish faith runs against that meaning, so that when take the term out of context (as would be for a category), you will get into conflicts. There thus needs to be a determination that if WP should fix one definition of "Jewish descent" or find alternative language to specifically differentiate from the bloodline-related term and the faith-based term. That thus then would affect how the application of the Middle East category applies to this set.
2. As brought up at a different discussion, there are some ethnic groups of Jews that are not bloodline-related to those from the Middle East outside of the faith such as the Ethiopian Jews. There are definitely people that are of "(Ethiopian) Jewish descent" (by bloodline) that would not be appropriate to classify as people from the Middle East. This throws a wrench at the simplification process, and how to deal with that category should also be discussed.

Of these points, #1 absolutely needs some type of resolve so that WP has a common point of language to use that avoid these types of problems. There needs to be a clear way to distinguish the use of the term "descent" from the normal, everyday use of "by bloodline", to the Jewish-specific use of "by faith". I don't have any answer, but if another RFC is to be run, I would focus on these points (and thus probably run at a more central location) to resolve the issue Wiki-wide. --MASEM (t) 18:45, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're unnecessarily complicating things. The issue is location, not Jews. This cat, and the RFC, is for a person who identifies as a Jew. Do we then say that person is of Middle Eastern descent. We are not getting into the question of identifying Jewishness or Jewish descent, that is taken care of when someone includes that person in the category. All we need to determine is if all people who identify as Jews are of Middle Eastern descent. And it's quite clear that out of the 15 million Jews, most are not from the Middle East. (It should be as simple as possible, that the average guy on the street understands. When someone says "I'm Jewish" is it safe to assume he's from the Middle East.) Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:49, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This category's page explicitly excludes Jews from it. "This page lists individuals who are of Jewish descent, but not Jewish. Please use the Category:Jews for those." The same problem still would exist for Jews. By common use of the term "descent" (by bloodline), it is possible to have Jews who are not of Jewish descent and who had Jewish parents, while that would be an empty set going by Jewish faith. --MASEM (t) 18:56, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's specifically this page, other Jews pages are for people identifying as Jews. What this means for this page is someone whose parents were Jewish but they themselves don't identify as such. But my point still stands, they are not ALL from the Middle East. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:15, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're making the assumption that "of Jewish descent" is 100% recognized by all editors and readers to be of the Jewish faith's allowances (eg: that regardless of the parents' heritage, if they are of Jewish faith, their children can be called of Jewish descent.) The problem is that 100% recognition is not there; out of any surrounding context, most people (and I would suspect, more likely if they are not of Jewish faith) would read "of Jewish descent" by the non-religious meaning that applies to every other geocentric ethnic group, and thus would assume they are descended by genetics from the people that once lived in the Middle East. I fully recognize the concern of people that are of "Jewish descent" by the Jewish faith meaning that take offense if they're being categorized as coming from the Middle East, but this all boils down to a term that has one widely accepted meaning, and a much more narrower and different meaning for a smaller subset of the world population. And we need to figure out how to resolve that conflict, whether it means establishing a new term to reflect the genetics case so that we respect the faith one (but potentially cause continued problems since people new to Wikipedia will assume the broader meaning) or find a term for the faith-based "descent" that makes that relationship clearer (perhaps being demeaning to those that consider themselves of Jewish descent in this manner but making life easier for the rest of Wikipedia). I don't know which way is best and hence an RFC to focus on that resolve. --MASEM (t) 20:10, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record, I think the category is misidentified. It clearly lists people who are Jewish and identify as Jewish. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 21:18, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am sure there are probably right, and that's due to the lack of clarity in the title of this category (see the points below). Hence an RFC on the terminology of whom so that the naming of these catagories eliminates the confusion between the various definitions, at hich point the question "should we catalog these under Perople from the Middle East" can be asked in a much clearer fashion. --MASEM (t) 21:39, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There aren't really "various definitions". If reliable sources say that someone is a Jew then we can dutifully pass that information along to the reader, in article space or by means of Categorization. Bus stop (talk) 22:08, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think the WP:MEAT issue will cause the Rfc to be overturned. Debresser (talk) 19:10, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As far as this proposal is concerned, if it will be necessary, I think that is a good idea. And I agree with the point raised by User:Masem that Jews and Jewish descent are indeed explicitly defined by different criteria, in the real world as well as on Wikipedia. That is a difference I have worked with for years here on Wikipedia, and am well familiar with. At the same time, the argument of User:Sir Joseph indeed does not depend on that differentiation at all. Debresser (talk) 19:12, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is pointed out that it says at the top of this Category's page that "This page lists individuals who are of Jewish descent, but not Jewish", therefore the title of this Category is incorrect. The title of this Category should not be "People of Jewish descent". The correct title of this Category should be "People of Jewish descent who are not Jewish". I think we should correct the title as the first order of business. (And we should remove from the top of the Category page the admonition that reads: "This page lists individuals who are of Jewish descent, but not Jewish. Please use the Category:Jews for those." That admonition becomes unnecessary once the Category is correctly titled.) Bus stop (talk) 19:27, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So far this was done by the explanation on the category page. But factually speaking you are correct, that Jewish and Jewish descent are not part of each other, in either direction. That would be a big change. By the way, it would still be advisable to keep the explanation, even after a rename, because not all editors are that sharp. Debresser (talk) 19:34, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The definition of the Category should be expressed by the title. The present title is ambiguous, misleading, and confusing. Bus stop (talk) 19:42, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would propose to wait till the WP:MEAT issue is resolved, and the status quo restored, and then make all proposals you want, and I for one will be happy to consider such a proposal. Debresser (talk) 19:51, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]