This page 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
RfC: Peter Sellers article regarding the use of word "Jewish" of a character (1)
There's a Request for Comment occurring that seems relevant to this project. It's regarding the Peter Sellers article and the word "Jewish" to describe a conman character in several 1980 Barclay's Bank commercials. There is a heated discussion regarding the sources to support the content. Input can be very helpful to everyone involved, including me.
At the Peter Sellers article there is discussion of how to refer to a fictional character played by Peter Sellers in three advertisements that he made for Barclay's Bank. The 3 advertisements are available for viewing on YouTube. Rather than provide a direct link to the video containing those 3 advertisements, I will instead suggest that you use the search terms "Peter Sellers Barclays Commercials" at YouTube. The Peter Sellers article presently contains the following sentence: "Filmed in April 1980 in Ireland, he played a Jewish conman, Monty Casino." Extensive discussion can be found on the Talk page of the article. Please feel free to weigh in. Bus stop (talk) 05:47, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A request for comment on whether to describe a character as a Jewish con man (2)
An editor has moved Yissachar Dov Rokeach (I) to Yissachar Dov Rokeach I, and Yissachar Dov Rokeach (II) to Yissachar Dov Rokeach II. He is of the opinion that all such pages should be renamed this way. I pointed out that Judaism has no such concept as "the first," the "second," or even "senior" and "junior". Other editors are invited to comment at Talk:Yissachar Dov Rokeach I#Page rename. Thank you, Yoninah (talk) 18:44, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
I would wonder if it would not be more accurate to include the patrynimic (father's name). Jewish tradition, in the Western communities, is against naming someone after a living person. There would not be a Yissachar Dov Jr., as the father could not name his son the same name as his own. Even grandchildren might not get the name if the original YD was alive at the times of their births. YDR(I) might have been more accurately differentiated from YDR(II) by their having different father's names. In the Talmud, there are even those who are identified solely by the father's name, e.g Ben Nanas or Son of Nanas. Artstop (talk) 19:44, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Is Judaism a race/ethnicity or a religion? IP editor edits instances, making them say it is a religion
Only a religion- I personally know many Jews who share no common ethnic background. This is why it would be a mistake to, for example, say one is of "Jewish descent". Keep in mind, there are also lots of people who did not originally celebrate Judaism that convert to the religion later in life. If they all did share some common ethnic background, that would also mean all Christians share a common ethnic background as well (Christianity came from Judaism). Being Christian myself (Catholic to be specific), I know for a fact that many people of my religion have no common ethnic background as me. Many non-Christians also convert to the religion later in life. A few of my cousins are half-Jewish (two of my father's brothers married women who celebrate Judaism), and one of these cousins brought up at his Bar Mitzvah that the only thing that separates Judaism from Christianity is their disagreement over whether or not Jesus (a man who celebrated Judaism himself) was the Messiah/savior. Therefore, it is only a religion out of those three. 174.236.37.43 (talk) 14:00, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This has been forked off the main Yahweh article for some time now, with the lead:
Yahweh, prior to becoming Yahweh, the national god of Israel, and taking on monotheistic attributes in the 6th century BCE, was a part of the Canaanite pantheon in the period before the Babylonian captivity.
As those who are familiar with the subject will know the main piece of modern evidence for the Yahweh pre-Israel deity theory is
More recently, the damaged Ugaritic cuneiform text KTU 1.1:IV:14-15 is also included in the discussion:[6]
From KTU II:IV:13-14
tgr.il.bnh.tr [ ] wyn.lt[p]n il dp[id...][7] [J yp 'r] Sm bny yw 'ilt
My son [shall not be called] by the name of Yw, o goddess, [Jfc ym smh (?)] [but Ym shall be his name!]
There's slow ongoing discussion on whether to de-Fork and merge back to Yahweh, whether to leave separate, or what to do about improving provision of modern WP:RS and WP:NPOV sources. If there are any knowledgeable editors available... In ictu oculi (talk) 07:41, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Article on sexual abuse in Hasidic community in NYC
For the reason I mentioned twice in the editsummary: that it is nothing different from a bar and bat mitzvah. Moreover, I am not sure this article should exist, as it seems a fork of the regular article about bar and bat mitzvah. What is sure, is that an adult bar or bat mitzvah is not an integral part of Jewish life, for the obvious reason that normally one would have it in childhood. So here you have no less than three reasons. Debresser (talk) 01:14, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This article has every reason to exist. #1 it is clearly notable. There have been several books written solely on the topic specifically of adult bar/bat mitzvahs as opposed to regular ones. There have been articles on the topic in many newspapers and magazines. Altogether, these provide a mountain of notability. #2 The guidelines as to whether or not there should be an article on Wikipedia are not based on its normality in tradition. They are based on sources and coverage. Sure, the customary age for a bar/bat mitzvah is 12/13. But there are so many people who do it at an older age, and so much coverage to prove this, that it is a noted fact of life. #3 The amount of information that can be written can be lengthy enough to be a separate article. This article is not finished yet. I am still reading through more sources. That qualifies the topic for a separate article. Xyz7890 (talk) 04:54, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree the subject is notable, no problem here. The question is if it should be treated in a separate article from Bar and Bat Mitzvah. I think not. If the article would grow substantially, then perhaps. Still, all of this does not mean I agree it this article should be mentioned in the Jewish life template. Let's take this to WP:JUDAISM for further input. Debresser (talk) 19:16, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think "Adult Bar and Bat Mitzvah" should be merged back into the article "Bar and Bat Mitzvah". The distinctions between two are largely distinctions between ceremonial activities taking place at different points in life. I think these are of secondary importance. Bus stop (talk) 20:18, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note - this page is getting overspill from a WP:FRINGE theory that the Christian book of Matthew is based on a lost Hebrew original (scholars considered it a product of Hellenistic Judaism, written in Greek), primarily because a recurring cycle of edits over the past x years has been repeatedly rejected by editors on pages relevant to the subject. I realise the actual details of such a theory are not of interest to editors on Antisemitism, but it seems a WP:WEIGHT issue to have a fringe Christian/Messianic theory even be mentioned. This probably does not constitute a neutral notification, sorry, but the comment "recurring cycle of edits over the past x years has been repeatedly rejected by editors on pages relevant to the subject" is demonstrable from edit histories. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:47, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm posting this to gauge consensus for some categorization that's been/being done.
Solar-Wind argues that "every single "Jewish descent" category on Wikipedia lists Jews as being of Asian descent" and has categorized them as such.
I'm not sure about what is done in every case but I would think that Europeans of Jewish descent, unless they are recent immigrants, have only a distant genealogical relationship to Asia/Middle East and their families have probably lived on the European continent for centuries if not millennium.
I'd also argue that individuals of Jewish descent in Australia, South and North America also would not have thought of themselves as Asian but right now this question is limited to Europeans of Jewish descent. As an aside, most of the individuals assigned to these categories are from 17th-21st centuries.
I've seen this go back and forth; people add Jewish to Asian descent, others remove it. Ultimately, we're all of African descent, but it doesn't mean the categories should be parented that way. In addition, "descent" implies some genetic/blood relationship, which is not necessarily the case for jewish people - the actual blood connection to people from Asia having been diluted over many centuries. I'd thus say, we should not explicitly list Jewish under asian descent except in certain circumstances, where the relationship is closer.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:59, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that a blanket description of European Jews as being of Asian descent is inappropriate unless we have specific indications of, for example, Turkish, Syrian or Iranian ancestry of an individual. Jews have lived in Rome and Greece for well over two millenia, and it seems almost certain that all humans except sub-Saharan Africans have ancestors who lived in Asia at some time in the past. Cullen328Let's discuss it19:19, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
First, Evildoer187 is referring to genetic studies contributed to equally by dozens of researchers based in institutions like Johns Hopkins and Stanford. These studies found that Ashkenazim share more genes (mitochondrial DNA) with other Jewish groups than than they do with non-Jewish groups. These studies put to rest the hypothesis that Ashkenazim are not genetically linked to other groups of Middle Eastern descent.<http://www.ashg.org/2013meeting/abstracts/fulltext/f130123130.htm> Secondly, the paternal ancestors of the Ashkenazim left the Middle East as early as 70 AD and as late as the early Middle Ages. <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_history> So, an arguments against defining Ashkenazim as being of Asian descent that is based on an assertion that many of our pre-historic ancestors lived in Asia doesn't make much sense. The emigration from Asia that created the Ashkenazim is far from pre-historic. Garrettrutledge55 (talk) 06:21, 23 November 2013 (UTC)Garrettrutledge55[reply]
I've been part of this battle in the past, where some editors insist that all Jews are of Asian descent and others insist that they're not. This is happening now between User:Liz and User:Solar-Wind, where Liz is removing the laughable Category:Icelandic people of Asian descent from Category:Icelandic people of Jewish descent, where Solar-Wind had added it, or a corresponding slow speed edit war at the laugh-out-loud hilarious Category:Jamaican people of Jewish descent. As an Ashkenazi Jew myself (to make it clear that I have a potential conflict of interest) who lives in the United States, I certainly do not consider myself as belonging in Category:American people of Asian descent. While Jews do trace themselves back to origins in the portions of the Middle East in Southwest Asia, almost all Ashkenazi Jews would consider themselves as being of European origin and I can't think of any Ashkenazim who would posit an Asian origin for themselves (at least in the sense used here in the Wikipedia category structure). Obiwankenobi's observation that we are all genetically of African descent would ultimately seem to require by Solar-Wind's logic a categorization scheme that would be no more sensible than the claim that all Jews are of Asian origin. Liz was perfectly justified in removing these "of Asian origin" categories and they should stay removed. Alansohn (talk) 19:57, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Very well put. I'd say there is a mind boggling degree of license being taken in regard to the concept of ethnicity--a very contentious conceptual category itself--in such categorizations. I'd further venture to say that the current state of knowledge on ethnicity would be at odds with those categorizations, with the qualification that self-identification has been afforded some priority. The example of Ashkenazi Jews seems viable for illustrating the point that introducing genetics to antedate something back 1,000 years against any other determinants of 'ethnicity'.
A glance at the Wikpedia article shows a photo of three Han Chinese women, for example, and states that Han Chinese are probably the worlds largest ethnic group.
I don't know if the concept "multiethnic" is viable, and the Wikipedia article on ethno-religiousgroup contains WP:OR, while the primary emphasis and derivation relates to legal measures to prevent discrimination.
There are probably people that would classify the ethnicity of the Kaifeng Jews as 'multi-ethnic', but I would be inclined to say that they are ethnically Han Chinese that practice Judaism. I don't think that in Japan, for example, people that practice Buddhism are considered to be ethnically Indian, but I digress.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑02:53, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thought I should indicate that there is a related discussion regrading Bukharan Jews and Russian Jews immigrants (Ashkenazi) via which I arrived here indirectly. Though the analogies I made above are not fully symmetrical with the question, and though I agree that the concept of ethno-religious is applicable in various circumstances, the difficulty of the question of ethnicity can be seen to be demonstrated by the Bukharan Jewish immigrant to the USA that seeks to exclude the inclusion of Russian Jewish immigrants to Central Asia from the category "Bukharan Jews", while there are others that want to insist on "Bukharian Jews" instead of Bukharan Jews in the first place. Not only are questions such as genetics not addressed, but more basic cultural practices such as language are ignored. On the other hand, the article Talk page includes a discussion that basically features an accusation of bigotry against Ashkenazi immigrants for ridiculing the Bukharans for not speaking Yiddish. The text of the Background section of that article places a lot of (unsourced) emphasis on Middle Eastern heritage, without stating why. Meanwhile, the Talk page includes interesting information about the Tajiks as Persian-speaking Turks.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑13:00, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As a Jew, I am compelled to point out that persons who would deny that all Jews are of Asian descent are engaging in imperialistic thinking. Many Jews self-identify as being of Middle Eastern (Asian) descent. If certain Ashkenazi Jews appear more European than Asian, that is because they are multi-ethnic; having paternal ancestors who emigrated from the Middle East to the European continent where they married European women who themselves converted to their husbands' religion. Genetic studies of contemporary Ashkenazim prove that this was the case. Using the argument that "we all descend from Africa" to deny any ethnicity their right to identify their place of origin is ethically and anthropologically incorrect. Garrettrutledge55 (talk) 17:12, 22 November 2013 (UTC)Garrettrutledge55[reply]
I agree with you somewhat. I have some mixed Ashkenazi roots as well, but I don't identify as European, nor would I ever dream of doing so. However, it is also wrong to say all Jews identify as Middle Eastern/Asian. There are some who do, and some who don't.Evildoer187 (talk) 17:27, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There's also a broader issue of overcategorization - for example, look at Category:Mexican people of German-Jewish descent; if we take this scheme to it's full extent, we would literally have tens of thousands of categories, for all possible combinations. Given that most western europeans have a common ancestor from only ~1000 years ago (globally, perhaps 2 or 3k years?), we *all* literally share the same blood; but I think the point of these ethnic categories is not to tag everyone who once had some jewish ancestor back in time. I am starting to question the "jewish descent" categorization in general, but I won't go down that path further for now...--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:10, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for all of the participation in this question, I'm satisfied with the response and don't think this needs to move to an RFC. I did leave "of Asian descent" categories in geographically close cases such as Category:Egyptian people of Jewish descent and Category:Turkish people of Jewish descent that are close to the Middle East.
I can see why you decided to remove "Americans of Asian descent" from the "American Ashkenazi Jews" cat, but removing "Middle Eastern people" and whatnot from the main "Ashkenazi Jews" category is just....well, wrong. Ashkenazi Jews did arrive to Europe from Asia/the Middle East. It's equally absurd when Sephardi Jews and Roma have not been removed.Evildoer187 (talk) 23:44, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also, invoking the African origins of humanity is just weird, in this context. To my knowledge, most people (outside of Africa) do not define themselves as Africans in any way, don't adhere to African customs, don't practice African religion, and don't openly identify with any African nation or culture. The same cannot be said of Jews, in that not only is it often considered a nationality, but the Jewish community at large still identifies with it (that is, being Jewish, Hebrew, Israelite, or what have you), still adheres to Jewish customs, and many to this day speak Hebrew. It's not really a valid argument, in my opinion.Evildoer187 (talk) 23:57, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Evildoer187, Ashkenazi Jews left the Middle East centuries and centuries ago. It's inaccurate to claim that American or European or Australian Jews are "of Asian descent" and by reverting the changes I made based on the conversation here, you are editing against the consensus point of view. This is not ideological, it's genealogical and while it might be nice to think of oneself linked to ancestors from two millennium ago, that is way way beyond what is commonly viewed as descent.
Please revert the changes you made that claims that Ashkenazi Jews are Asian. This is not true unless they are living in the Middle East or have for several generations. It doesn't matter whether you think the argument is valid or not, it's what the WikiProject Judaism has judged to be the consensus point of view. Liz21:14, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's not consensus unless an agreement has been reached, whereas there are still people in here (myself included) who disagree. The idea is to work out a solution amongst all parties, not to gang up and shout down the minority opinion. And by this logic, why then are European Roma and Sephardic Jews included under Asian? Because if they continue to identify as Roma, for example, they are acknowledging they have South Asian origins. Ashkenazi Jews have origins in the Middle East, which should not be ignored. Also, you need to sign your name with four tildes.Evildoer187 (talk) 21:38, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
comment: "deny any ethnicity their right to identify their place of origin is ethically and anthropologically incorrect." Um, we're not denying anything here. This is the categorization system, this is not "Who do ethnicities identify with". The point of the top-level container categories is to collect continental groupings. In the case of most jews from Europe/NA, they should be placed in the Europe/NA container category, not the asian one as that is more distant. The goal here is simplicity, not adding additional complication which simply confuses and isn't always correct (in fact, it's often not correct)--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:41, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I did not know this had anything to do with distance. There are immigrants all over the West who have lived there for generations, but are still classified as being of such and such descent. Ashkenazi Jews are, by definition, of Middle Eastern descent. Or, at the very least, of Jewish descent which would logically be placed under "of Middle Eastern descent". That's not my ideology. That's simple fact.Evildoer187 (talk) 21:45, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument is ideology, not fact. Categorization is about efficient organization of articles, it's not done to prove some point. Descent goes back a few generations, not to 80 CE.
It is clear that you are not interested in considering opinions other than your own. So, you've made yours known. We need to hear from other people. LizRead!Talk!03:03, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You failed to answer my question. That is, why are Roma, Sephardic Jews, and other peoples who have been removed from their motherland for centuries still listed as being of Indian, Southwest Asian, etc descent, but not Ashkenazim? That's just not consistent at all. It has nothing to do with ideology. And I have considered the opinions on this page. If I didn't, I would not be here disagreeing with it. As for your second paragraph, the same thing could be said of you.Evildoer187 (talk) 15:49, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the most efficient solution for someone who is, say, of German-Jewish descent, would be to list them as being of European descent and of Middle Eastern descent.Evildoer187 (talk) 15:59, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose this ridiculous solution. All these categories should go under People of Jewish descent, and that's it. And saying that Jews are of Middle Eastern descent is also a bad idea, per the argument mentioned above that a ~2000 ancestry is not what is intended by the word "descent"; that is simply too far back. Debresser (talk) 16:53, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
People of Jewish descent is already under People of Middle Eastern descent, just as People of German descent is under People of European descent. And I see nobody wants to answer my question.Evildoer187 (talk) 18:25, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Evildoer187, first of all let me warn you: your unilateral changes to categories have to stop now that you see so many editors disagree with you. First establish consensus. If you would be able to get consensus for your opinions, then you could continue. Not stopping now may lead to administrative action.
Your complaint that "nobody wants to answer my question" is typical of editors who hold on to their minority point of view even after all reasonable arguments have been used by other editors. What is your question precisely? Debresser (talk) 22:55, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Your complaint that "nobody want to answer my question" is typical of editors who hold on to their minority point of view even after all reasonable arguments have been used by other editors. What is your question precisely?"
Here it is, for the third time now. Why are Roma, Sephardic Jews, and other peoples who have been removed from their motherland for centuries still listed as being of Indian, Southwest Asian, etc descent, but not Ashkenazim? That's just not consistent at all.Evildoer187 (talk) 23:13, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sephardi Jews is not in an Indian or Southwest Asian category. Neither is Romani people. So please don't bring false argument to the discussion. The Sephardi Jews article was however in Category:American Jews, which I removed, leaving the correct Category:Ethnic groups in the United States. Sephardi Jews are partly from countries like Iran or Iraq, so categorizing that article in a category like Jews of Middle Eastern descent would make sense. Indeed, the article carries such categories as Category:Ethnic groups in Turkey. Debresser (talk) 06:59, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Last I checked, they were in those categories (although admittedly, this was a few days ago). And Iranian and Iraqi Jews are NOT Sephardic. They are Mizrahi.Evildoer187 (talk) 18:38, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I needed to leave this conversation because I had made my opinion known and I was tired of repeating myself. I'm returning a week later to see if there was a consensus yet.
As to your all-important question, Evildoer187, changes haven't been made yet to all categories because edits on articles, templates, categories, etc. are not done simultaneously. There are probably a dozen or so Editors that focus their editing on categories and there are tens of thousands of categories (hundreds of thousands?) to work on. Personally, I was working my way through categories involving ethnic descent and would have gotten to reviewing other categories of Middle Eastern, Romani, Jewish, European, Oceanian, Asian, American, etc. descent. I even had categorized people who live in Argentina but come from the South Pacific. But I stopped organizing these descent categories while this discussion has been going on since it seemed like the consensus opinion was changing. It's just about organization of categories to me. Categories grow too large to be functional so they need to be divided up into smaller, identifiable categories that make logical sense and follow WP category guidelines like WP:EGRS.
So, expecting every categorization to be consistent is the same as expecting every article to be a GA because a few thousand are. There are probably many more stubs than GAs and, likewise, with categories, there is more a lot of work that needs to be done, enough to keep us all busy for decades. But if I can return to organizing categories of ethnic descent, I can promise that there will be more consistency in a week or two than there is right now. LizRead!Talk!20:51, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your response, Liz. I agree wholeheartedly that there should be more consistency. However, I also tend to agree with several other editors here that People of Jewish descent and Ashkenazi/Sephardi Jews specifically should be classified as of Middle Eastern or Southwest Asian descent (at least partly, alongside "People of European, Turkish, etc descent"), seeing as there is no statute of limitations on descent, in addition to the fact that the Jewish ethnos/nationality began in the Levant and that the overwhelming majority of today's Jews can trace their lineage back to the Middle East.
I wish to reiterate my opposition to the blanket categorization of all Jews as bring of Asian descent. There have been established Jewish comunities in Europe and North Africa for well over 2,000 years. Intermarriage and conversion have affected such communities. Given what we now know of human origins, all humans have African origins and all human communities other than sub-Saharan African communities have Asian origins. Possibly speaking Hebrew as evidence of Asian origin is absurd. Both of my sons speak some Hebrew but this is the result of American teaching not ancestors from 1500 years ago. If we have geneological information indicating specific ancestry of a specific person in a specific Asian community, then fine. But European Jews in general are no more "Asian" in origin than are Hungarians or Romanians or Maltese. Many Jews today are the product of conversion and I have non-Jewish Irish, English, Norwegian and Swedish ancestry. Back when the Ashkenazi ancestors left "Asia" for "Europe", the modern concept of the continents with the Ural Mountains neatly separating Europe from Asia wasn't universally accepted. And today, a notion of an "Asian" person that combines Turks with Japanese, while excluding Greeks and Egyptians on the basis of continental boundaries is simply absurd. This is tendentious editing if it continues. Cullen328Let's discuss it07:50, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The comparison to human origins in Africa is not valid, for the reasons I stated above. There are very few ethnic groups today who share a very specific cultural, linguistic, religious, and ethnic attachment to, as well as historical origins in Africa, the way Jews do to the Levant. I'd also like to reiterate the points garrettrutledge55 stated below, that living in Europe for centuries and admixing with the indigenous peoples does not erase their Middle Eastern/Asian origins. In addition, Ashkenazi Jews and Europeans, for the most part, do not even share the same ethnic identity, culture, history, customs, and in many cases, even language. You can't just ignore that, and thus far all I'm seeing is a bunch of absurd analogies to various groups who are really not comparable. If anything, Middle Eastern descent should be included alongside the European descent category. Evildoer187 (talk) 18:38, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[Your argument is ideology, not fact. Categorization is about efficient organization of articles, it's not done to prove some point. Descent goes back a few generations, not to 80 CE.]
This is incorrect. There is no statute of limitations on descent. At no time has an academic categorization of descent been based on recent history only. Descent is based on a group's place of origin as evidenced by origin of culture, genetics and known paths of emigration. This discussion has become non-academic. Until 50 years ago, Ashkenazim were regarded as emigrants to Europe and were never confused with groups of entirely European descent. The recent drive to categorize Ashkenazim as being of European descent began with the creation of the State of Israel in 1948. Many of the new state's founders were Ashkenazi Jews who based their claim to self-determination in Israel on being aboriginal to the Land of Israel formerly known as the British Mandate of Palestine. Since then, opponents of Jewish nationalism have been working hard to counter the argument for the Asian origin of Jews whose ancestors emigrated to all parts of the European continent from nations in the Middle East. When we counter this counter-argument and return Ashkenazim to the category of Persons of Asian Descent, we are, in fact, simplifying the method of categorization and eliminating the contradictions that arise from allowing politics to determine scientific methodology. Garrettrutledge55 (talk) 22:44, 24 November 2013 (UTC)garrettrutledge55[reply]
I respect your argument, Garrettrutledge55. At the same time, it becomes impossible to draw the line with such an approach, as the "African origin of humanity argument" above shows. And really, I doubt many Jew of German descent would seriously say they are of Middle Eastern descent. It may be correct scientifically that the Jewish people as a whole is of Middle Eastern descent, and no Jew would deny this, but at the same time, none would self-identify as such. That is a consideration that has to carry considerable weight as well. Debresser (talk) 00:11, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Debresser, As an Ashkenazi Jew, I am stating that Ashkenazim do, in fact, self-identify as being of Middle Eastern descent. We are multi-ethnic and, in some parts of Europe and North America, are more socially mainstreamed than any other Jewish group in the diaspora (all Jews living outside the Land of Israel). If asked to tick a box on an EOE form, we would almost certainly not mark 'Asian/Pacific Islander' due to the fact that the purpose of the form is to divide people according to their racial phenotype, not identify their continent of origin. I've known Latinos to tick the 'Caucasian' box because they are mestizo or bi-racial so appear as Caucasian as Ted Cruz. Does this mean they would not identify as Latino in some other milieu? Certainly not. If you were to ask ten Ashkenazi Jews where our paternal Jewish ancestors came from, nine would say, the Land of Israel. Those Jews would say, the Land of Israel because the thread connecting the past, which is our place of origin, to the present, which is wherever we find ourselves, is the basis of our culture. In that milieu, we always self-identify as being of Middle Eastern origin. I hope my explanation improves your cultural sensitivity to this issue. Garrettrutledge55 (talk) 19:08, 25 November 2013 (UTC)Garrettrutledge55 67.182.154.25 (talk) 07:55, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As an Ashkenazi Jew myself, I think my sensitivities are up to norm here. :)
I am sorry to say that your proof, namely how you yourself would self-identify, is not an acceptable proof.
Also please note that you call yourself "Ashkenazi Jew", rather than "Middle eastern expatriate", or something like that. To generalize: people usually will take one step back when self-identifying their ethnicity and descent, not two, three, or even more. And that is the main argument against here in this discussion.
Also please note that you say you would mention the Land of Israel as your root country. However the category you propose is "Middle Eastern descent", not "Land of Israel" descent. I think that is a huge difference. Debresser (talk) 11:23, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Debresser, The Land of Israel is found in the Middle East. In genealogical terms, descent refers to parentage or a single generation of a family. In ethnographical terms, descent refers to the absolute origin of an ethnic group or people. I did not use myself as a proof. Rather, I pointed out that all Jews point to the Land of Israel as their place of origin. If you are a Jew and you do not identify the Land of Israel as the absolute place of origin of the Jewish people, then your view is a deviation from the norm. Garrettrutledge55 (talk) 19:08, 25 November 2013 (UTC)garrettrutledge55 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Garrettrutledge55 (talk • contribs) 16:59, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. If someone identifies as a Romani-American from Hungary, for example, they are not only acknowledging that they are Hungarian, but that they are Romani. Romanis are an ethnic group/nationality of Indian descent, therefore including them under Asian descent alongside European descent would be reasonable. American people of Jewish descent would function in the same way, for the most part.Evildoer187 (talk) 18:04, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am somewhat concerned by the automatic assumption that the presence of lighter skin or different eye color automatically brands one as being more European or not. If one reads Thor Heyerdal's account of Easter Island, Aku Aku, he notes that early discoverers of this clearly remote and genetically isolated island were surprised to find a population that seemed to have both the expected darker colored Pacific Island native as well as lighter skinned, European looking, natives from within the same peoples. It is clearly not accurate to look at a population of people and therefore exclaim that the color of their skin is automatically proof of a high percentage of intermarriage. It is also reasonable to consider that of a population who moved from the Middle East to Europe that the lighter skinned people were seen as more attractive, which is shown to bring greater acceptance and even success (more attractive people are more successful or so studies suggest). While those forces may not have been as active 1,000 years ago, there may still have been a social pressure which brought marital success to those of the group who had more Europoid features, which would then slowly shift the coloring of the group as a whole.
Jews trace their heritage to the Middle East, culturally and genetically. An interesting study of the "priest" gene among Jewish communities found similarities among those who have that heritage, both among Sepharadi and Ashkenazi communities <http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1998/07/980714071409.htm>. Since the priest heritage is passed paternally, the presence of this gene even among Europoid looking Ashkenazi Jews gives us good reason to wonder about the amount of intermarriage which is required to create a certain appearance.Artstop (talk) 18:28, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to reiterate one of the points made in here earlier, that we need to be mindful of the possibility of inadvertently reinforcing or encouraging antisemitism or antisemitic politics. More specifically, the idea that modern Jews are really just ethnic Germans or Poles or whatever who converted to Judaism, and who don't have any real ties, roots, or connection to the Middle East, and thus do not "belong" there. Neglecting to mention or acknowledge the Middle Eastern origins and identity of Jews could prove to be dangerous, and might just end up complicating things further.Evildoer187 (talk) 19:11, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Jewish people may self identify as Ashkenazi or Sepharadi, but that is far more to do with identifying the form of prayers which they are using, and less (if anything) about their long-term ethnic heritage. For example, while Sepharadi initially refers to those Jews who went to Spain (Sepharad in Hebrew), it has come to refer to all the Jewish communities which remained in the East,in Egypt, Iraq, Libya, Lebanon, and even within the boundaries of what is now Israel. Both groups identify as "Jewish", which is tied to the common heritage that both share of coming from the Middle East. That some people may not identify themselves as such is more about their ignorance of their heritage than not. The proper classification for the descent of the Jews should be Middle Eastern. Artstop (talk) 19:27, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that we are Middle Eastern regardless of whether or not were Sephardi, Ashkenazi, Mizrahi, Beta Israel, Karaites etc. The only differences are the cultures our ancestors were raised around and how it influenced their Judaism. Hence why Jews can look different, act different and think differently from one another. I as an Ashkenazi don't have the same cultural similarities than that of a Jew from Ethiopia, Tunisia, India or Iran. But Ashkenazi Jews are also different from one another depending on the country they lived in at the time. French Jews are different than Russian Jews who are different than German Jews who are different than Danish Jews and so on. Although French Jewry is more Sephardi now, it was once mostly Ashkenazi which is the French Jewry I was raised in on my mothers side. But with all that said, we are still from the Middle East originally. It doesn't how far back our ancestry goes, we are still a Semitic people who originated from that area. Plus, you create a slippery slope when you start to begin questioning how far it should go before someone can be considered authentically middle eastern 2605:E000:5FC0:21:954:941D:1CC4:B51F (talk) 19:53, 25 November 2013 (UTC)JVBcynical85 (talk) 19:55, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
All Jews are Middle Eastern in origin regardless of where they live. Arabs living in Tunisia are still Middle Eastern even though they live in North Africa and not the Middle East. There is no genetic difference between an ethnic Arab and an ethnic Jew, and that goes for Ashkenazic as well as Sephardic.Camelbinky (talk) 23:23, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not only are many here ignoring the fact that the Romans allowed proselytization by Jews in the empire which reportedly resulted in substantial conversions (conversion hasn't been mentioned once in the entire discussion), as per
There had been some evidence of mass conversions, especially of women, to Judaism throughout the Mediterranean in the past, the authors wrote in the study. That resulted in about 6 million citizens, or a tenth of the Roman population, who were Jewish.Bloomberg
for example, but the DNA studies I linked to above are also being ignored. The numerous articlese.g. on the most recent study report that
"Another recent study, also based on [mtDNA], found that a mixture of European ancestries ranged from 30 percent to 60 percent among Ashkenazi and Sephardi populations, with Northern Italians showing the greatest [genetic] proximity to Jews of any living group."NYT
Or
The Ashkenazi are the most common Jewish ethnic division. Previous efforts to trace origins of Ashkenazi Jews have been spotty and controversial, the authors wrote. The latest research used a larger database than in previous attempts, allowing them to unravel the entire mitochondrial genomes.Bloomberg
Mind you, I agree with Cullen328 that a substantialist interpretation of descent based on loose claims (Y-chromosome based?) of genetics is not valid. If there is a political subterfuge here, it lies therein.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑02:18, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The explanation for the presence of European Y-chromosomes in Ashkenazi DNA is simple and supported by the sampling of a wide swath of Ashkenazi DNA that has been compared to samples taken from other Jewish groups. The explanation: Jewish men emigrated in substantial numbers to Europe from the Middle East. After reaching Europe, these men married and had children with European women. Those women became members of the communities they married into. Over time, those communities grew and evolved and now constitute a unique group known as Ashkenazi Jews. <http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/10/131008112539.htm> The findings of this and other studies put to rest the hypothesis that Ashkenazim descend from the Caucuses and were once citizens of some Eastern European kingdom now lost to antiquity. Garrettrutledge55 (talk) 04:32, 26 November 2013 (UTC)Garrettrutledge55[reply]
I tend to agree that Jews should be classified under Middle Eastern/Asian descent. Jewish identity certainly originates there, and while certain people will have more Middle Eastern/Asian descent than others, it's virtually impossible to know beyond a shadow of a doubt to what extent the ancestry of either individual Jews or entire Jewish groups (Ashkenazi, for example) originate in Asia, Europe or elsewhere. While of course there's many theories (based largely on circumstantial evidence), and DNA studies that support either the European or the Asian hypotheses, I think that since we'll never know the answers with complete confidence, it's fair to recognize what most Jewish people believe about their identities, since there's really not much in the way of compelling evidence to the contrary. Kitty (talk) 05:28, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Kitty1983, the evidence tells us that Ashkenazim are multi-ethnic, yet have more in common genetically with other Jewish groups than they do with non-Jewish groups. Roughly 40% of Ashkenazi DNA is of European origin while the remaining 60% is of Middle Eastern origin. Not acknowledging the Asian descent of Ashkenazi Jews makes zero sense. Garrettrutledge55 (talk) 06:40, 26 November 2013 (UTC)garrettrutledge55[reply]
Why do you keep citing erroneous genetics data, even after you post a link to an article that refutes those claims, as with the other articles related to the same study. That study reports that only 8% of mitochondrial DNA (maternal DNA) of Ashkenazi originates from the Middle East.
This comment belong to a sub-thread above, but because it contains new arguments, I choose to put it at the current bottom of this discussion. @Garrettrutledge55. Yes, the Land of Israel is in the Middle East. So? Category:People of German descent is in Category:People of European descent. That doesn't mean that all "German" categories and articles also receive a "European" one. Just the main German category. And there is one great difference: "Jewish" is not originated in geography like "German" e.g.! "Jewish" is an ethno-religious group, with proselytes from some 40 centuries of religious Jewish history! Those proselytes are not all from Israel, or even the Middle East. By the way, if anything, the Jewish people is originated in Egypt (The Exodus is cited in the Bible as the cradle of the Jewish people). And the first Jew was from Iraq. Still, which Jew calls himself Egyptian or Iraqi?! It just doesn't work that way. Debresser (talk) 08:40, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
comment Can we please stop with the silly DNA evidence? It is totally meaningless to our categorization system, which is based on proximate descent - not descent 20 generations back in time. The "middle eastern" and "asian" and "european" categories are simply meant as container categories to group people whose close ancestors came from countries in those regions - they are not meant as markers of who has mitochondrial DNA from those regions of the world!!! Seriously, the discussion above is ridiculous and bordering on problematic POV pushing. If you want to discuss the DNA of ashkenazi then to it in the article, the category structure is absolutely the wrong place to play this out.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:12, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Debresser, Did you just cite the bible as evidence? Did you just assert that a blood quantum nullifies the indigeny of ethnic Jews to the Land of Israel?
First, there is evidence which suggests that the Hebrew and Canaanite nations merged and that elements of Canaanite culture and religion mingled with Hebrew monotheism. It is believed that the Hebrew name for G-d, Yahweh or YHVH is of Canaanite origin. Secondly, racial purity has no place in a discussion about ethnicity or indigeny. Multi-ethnic or mestizo South American Natives are no less indigenous to the American continent than Natives living in closed communities who have no European ancestry. The same is true of multi-ethnic Jews. Please limit your arguments to what can be deemed scientific and/or rational. Garrettrutledge55 (talk) 17:16, 26 November 2013 (UTC)garrettrutledge55[reply]
FYI, the Bible is good evidence for billions of people on earth. Apart from that, no, I didn't try to bring the Bible as evidence. You must have misread my arguments. Debresser (talk) 19:12, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Can we stop talking about genetics please? Especially these discussions of racial purity as a determining factor for ethnicity and descent. That isn't what we're discussing at all. In any case, Jews belong in the Middle East/Asian because Jews are BY DEFINITION an ethnic/national group of Middle Eastern descent. This isn't rocket science.Evildoer187 (talk) 18:30, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That wasn't argument by assertion. Jews have been defined in this way for centuries, and still are. If you have any evidence that says otherwise, I'd love to see it.Evildoer187 (talk) 20:58, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Debresser, The bible is admissible as evidence in a discussion of theology or faith. We are discussing the descent of Ashkenazi Jewry. You argued that Jews, in general, originated in Egypt then cited the bible as evidence. Also, descent in ethnographical terms is not defined by "proximate descent", or where a group resided recently. Descent is defined by the place or places in which a group originated. If this were not true, then Latinos residing in the Americas could not claim European descent. I agree that we should set aside genetics for the time being. Let's get back to basics. Garrettrutledge55 (talk) 20:22, 26 November 2013 (UTC)garrettrutledge55[reply]
[If someone identifies as a Romani-American from Hungary, for example, they are not only acknowledging that they are Hungarian, but that they are Romani. Romanis are an ethnic group/nationality of Indian descent, therefore including them under Asian descent alongside European descent would be reasonable. American people of Jewish descent would function in the same way, for the most part.]
Here, Evildoer187 makes an ethnographically correct argument. If descent was determined in proximate terms only then the Romani would be barred from the category of Ethnic Groups of Asian Descent. Romani identity and culture originated in South Asia and has been maintained by the Romani in their diaspora. This makes the Romani an ethnicity that can claim a single place of origin regardless of where they emigrate to. This would cease to be true if emigration was followed by assimilation and a loss of Romani cultural identity. The same is true of Jews. Our identity and culture originated in the Middle East and has been maintained in our diaspora. Continuity of cultural identity is the primary determinant of ethnic origin, not proximate descent or racial purity. Jews define the Land of Israel as the birthplace of Jewish identity and culture. Therefore, Jews are ethnically Middle Eastern. All I am asking is that you apply the same standards of ethnic origin to Jews that you would apply to the Romani or any other ethnic group. Garrettrutledge55 (talk) 00:45, 27 November 2013 (UTC)garrettrutledge55[reply]
I agree that the IP editor is wrong. But actually, this just comes to prove regarding the discussion above, that the Middle east category is out of place there. Debresser (talk) 06:46, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to reiterate the point that a majority of Jews self-identify as being of Middle Eastern (Asian) descent. Identifying Ashkenazim as 'European Jews' does not nullify their Asian origins. Rather, this identifier merely places them within a sub-category of Asian Jewry. Despite their European appearance, Ashkenazi Jews share more genes with other Jewish groups than they do with non-Jewish groups. If I'm not mistaken, there are participants in this discussion who suggest that Ashkenazim be removed from the Asian category simply because they have longstanding residence in Europe. According to this logic, I can claim to be a Native American simply because my family has a longstanding residence in North America and be removed from any category other than 'Indigenous American'. Worse, there are some in this discussion who are arguing for a dissolution of separate racial categories due to the African origin of our common human ancestors. This logic is ethnographically incorrect. Please, come to your senses. Garrettrutledge55 (talk) 08:25, 24 November 2013 (UTC)garrettrutledge55[reply]
Garrettrutledge55, in conversations with hundreds of American Jews about ancestry, I have never once heard an Ashkenazi describe their ancestry as "Middle Eastern". My wife would say something like, "My dad's parents were Jews from Russia. My mom's parents were Jews from Hungary". Ashkenazi Jews may mention Poland or Germany or Lithuania. Sephardi Jews mention Turkey or Morocco or Egypt or Greece. And so on. Occasionally, someone mentions family lore about Spain over 500 years ago. But the "Middle East"? I've never heard that once. Cullen328Let's discuss it20:39, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I personally know many Jews who share no common ethnic background. This is why it would be incorrect to say one is of "Jewish descent". Keep in mind, there are also lots of people who did not originally celebrate Judaism that convert to the religion later in life. If they all did share some common ethnic background, that would also mean all Christians share a common ethnic background as well (Christianity came from Judaism). Being Christian myself (Catholic to be specific), I know for a fact that many people of my religion have no common ethnic background as me. Many non-Christians also convert to the religion later in life. A few of my cousins are half-Jewish (two of my father's brothers married women who celebrate Judaism), and one of these cousins brought up at his Bar Mitzvah that the only thing that separates Judaism from Christianity is their disagreement over whether or not Jesus (a man who celebrated Judaism himself) was the Messiah/savior. Therefore, it is only a religion. The religion may have started in the Middle East, but many non-Middle Easterns converted and left descendants who celebrate the religion. 174.236.37.43 (talk) 20:31, 24 November 2013 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.236.3.216 (talk) [reply]
Judaism combines elements of religion, ethnicity and national identity in ways that Christianity doesn't. Judaism can be understood, partially, as a genetic and ethnic group. Ethnicity is related to genetic ancestry but is not identical. Ethnicity is more malleable and flexible than ancestry. It combines elements of culture, self identification and personal choice in ways that geneology does not allow. Converts can consciously decide to affiliate with an "alien" ethnic group, and may be accepted fully, though they can't change the genetic ancestry embedded in their DNA. Cullen328Let's discuss it04:39, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@EvilDoer: It would actually be more like comparing guitars to banjos. The two religions have the same God, and the Old Testament has the same content (though translated) as the Torah. Though they celebrate different holidays and may have different customs, the religions have the same morals and core beliefs aside from whether or not Jesus was the Messiah.
@Cullen: I was referring to "genetic ancestry" or roots when talking about ethnicity. For example, if a man had Swedish ancestors on his mother's side and Hungarian ancestors on his father's side, he would ethnically be Hungarian and Swedish. I especially used the term in this way after seeing the methods of website EthniCelebs.com. For example, it says Ben Stiller's mother had Irish roots and was originally Catholic before converting to Judaism (Ben's father celebrates Judaism). Ben's father had Polish and Austrian ancestors. It lists Ben's ethnicity (referring to his roots) as Polish, Austrian, and Irish. Many Christians have ancestors who originally celebrated Judaism and later converted to Christianity. There are also people such as Elizabeth Taylor and Marilyn Monroe who were originally some division of Christianity who converted as adults to Judaism. There are also, of course, also people of other religions who convert to Judaism and/or Christianity. Because of there being many converts, not all Jews can trace their roots to the Middle East and not all Jews can trace their roots to the same general area(s). For example, a full-blooded German man who celebrates Judaism and a full-blooded Polish man who also celebrates Judaism have no common roots. The six major ethnic groups known are European, Hispanic, Middle Eastern, Native American (includes Native Canadians), African, and Asain. It is true that Judaism has throughout history been prominent in the Middle East (Jesus himself was Jewish and Middle Eastern). 174.226.1.204 (talk) 15:11, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Cullen, Take it from a Jewish Studies major, Judaism is a religion. Jews are an ethnicity. When a Jew falls away from the faith, he or she remains a Jew. A person can convert to Judaism, but does not become ethnically Jewish in the process. Every ethnic Jew can, in fact, trace their roots to the Middle East. In the case of Ashkenazim, we can trace our roots to both Europe and the Middle East; though the bulk of our genome is of Middle Eastern origin.
My advice to everyone: keep it simple. Good taxonomy (the science of classifying things and concepts) begins with simple questions. We can fuss over dubious histories and theories or we can examine facts. It is a fact that Ashkenazi Jews share more mitochondrial DNA with other Jewish groups than they do with non-Jewish groups. It is a fact that Ashkenazi Jews possess an oral history that traces their roots to the Land of Israel; which is to say, the Middle East. Good taxonomy demands that Ashkenazim be given the dual classification of being a people of both Asian and European descent. Garrettrutledge55 (talk) 16:45, 26 November 2013 (UTC)garrettrutledge55[reply]
"A person can convert to Judaism, but does not become ethnically Jewish in the process"???? Take it from a non-Jewish studies major. Ethnicity is not only determined by blood. Repeat after me. Ethnicity is not only determined by blood. Good, that wasn't so hard, was it? --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:16, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Obi-Wan, Allow me to clarify. Judaism is a religion. Jews are an ethnic group. Mere conversion to Judaism does not make one ethnically Jewish. If one converted to Judaism and married into the tribe, then a family tie would exist. One would then be ethnically Jewish if one was not so before marriage. Non-Jews often make assumptions about Jews and Judaism based on comparisons made between Christianity and Judaism. Non-Jews reason that If one becomes a Christian when one converts to Christianity then the same must be true of persons who convert to Judaism. When one converts to Judaism one joins a community of faith, but does not necessarily join the ethnic Jewish community. For Jews, ethnic bonds are determined by family , not religious affiliation. This is true of ethnicity in general. An ethnic group may even embrace more than one religion. I hope my explanation was helpful. Garrettrutledge55 (talk) 20:51, 26 November 2013 (UTC)garrettrutledge55[reply]
I understand the difference, but I think you are drawing a sharp line in the sand where none exists. Someone could convert to judaism, start hanging out with jewish friends, practicing jewish rituals, and over time they could become part of the "ethnicity" that considers itself to be "Jewish".--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:32, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Obi-Wan, This is a matter of Jewish culture and tradition, not personal judgement. Again, you're confusing rituals and beliefs with blood and family ties. We did not consider ourselves into being. We are either born or marry into the tribe. Because we are an ethnicity, a Jew can leave the faith or marry a non-Jew and remain as Jewish as the day he or she was mitzvahed. If you won't take my word for it, then ask a Rabbi or read this book: <http://www.amazon.com/Jewish-Literacy-Important-Religion-History/dp/0688085067> Garrettrutledge55 (talk) 01:07, 27 November 2013 (UTC)garrettrutledge55[reply]
Obi-Wan is not confused at all. You seem to forget the whole time that "Jewish" is an ethno-religious group. Read carefully please: ethno (of "ethnicity") and also religious (of "religion"). So both. Debresser (talk) 01:43, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is time to close both these two discussions: two editors disagree with the rest of the world. They should stop editing Wikipedia with edits that go against consensus. Debresser (talk) 01:45, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, there are more than 2 editors on here who believe that Jews should be classified as Middle Eastern (at least partly). Take a look again. Second, it's rather arrogant of you to tell me, or anyone else, that we shouldn't edit here just because you don't agree. I don't work for you. And third, Wikipedia is not a democracy. The goal is to reach consensus among all parties, not for one side to overwhelm the other in number. Even if it was, the consensus on the matter seems to be evenly split (or close to it) at the moment.Evildoer187 (talk) 01:55, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse you? Demanding that you do not edit against consensus is not arrogance, it is a Wikipedia policy, which - if necessary, will be enforced by any admin and editor. Just thought I'd clarify this small point. Debresser (talk) 13:03, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus is when a compromise is reached between all parties, not most. Again, this is not a WP:DEMOCRACY. Further, I have not touched any of the categories after being told to refrain until consensus was reached. So for you to come in here and brazenly demand that the discussion be closed down because there are still people who disagree is, yes, kind of arrogant.Evildoer187 (talk) 22:15, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Decision-making involves an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's norms." Taken from WP:Consensus. That seems to contradict your assertions that editing decisions are based on majority rule/vote. My concerns are both legitimate (although I'm sure you will disagree) and they respect Wiki norms. Evildoer187 (talk) 19:22, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Will never convince educated people and most here that Jews as a people and converts to Judaism should be classified as Middle Eastern. There was a time that people though that Japanese-Jewish where part of the ten lost tribes of Israel...but we have learned alot since then and have come to discover that not all Jews trace there heritage directly to the middle east. Need people to stop trying to put a genetic spin on all Jews and see that there is only a common religion not a common ancestor to all Jews. -- Moxy (talk) 00:18, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
First, the insults are not necessary. Second, please note that this is about people of Jewish DESCENT, as well as self-contained ethnic groups like Ashkenazi Jews and people of Ashkenazi descent. For instance, we do not have categories such as "People of Christian/Muslim/Hindu/etc descent". And while it is true that not all Jews can trace their descent to Israel (particularly recent converts), the overwhelmingly majority can, and that is enough. You claim that it's not about blood, but then you argue genetics? Which one is it?Evildoer187 (talk) 20:00, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Insults ?? - I am afraid your not understanding what was said. This seems to be a problem...will let others explain. -- Moxy (talk) 20:26, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You directly insinuated that I, and those of us who agree that Jews should be classified as Middle Eastern, are uneducated. That is about one step away from calling someone stupid. I understood perfectly well what you said.Evildoer187 (talk) 20:48, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[Will never convince educated people and most here that Jews as a people and converts to Judaism should be classified as Middle Eastern. There was a time that people though that Japanese-Jewish where part of the ten lost tribes of Israel...but we have learned alot since then and have come to discover that not all Jews trace there heritage directly to the middle east. Need people to stop trying to put a genetic spin on all Jews and see that there is only a common religion not a common ancestor to all Jews.]
Moxy, First, It is against Wikipedia policy to assert that an opposing opinion is uneducated. Secondly, the majority view (not in this discussion, but in the real world, obviously) is that Jews originated in the Land of Israel. Yes, people have converted to the faith in the diaspora, yet these persons make up only a part, not the whole of Jewish ancestry in the diaspora. Your assertion that Jews share a common religion, but no common Middle Eastern ancestors is not only factually incorrect, it is anti-Semitic. Allow me to explain why. Jewish identity is based, in part, on lineage. Some of us may self-identify as American or European Jews, but we trace our roots back to the Land of Israel. This was especially true of Russian Jews at the turn of the last century. Those Jews built shtetls (self-contained Jewish communities) and maintained traditions that can be traced to medieval Palestine. When you argue that Jews are not an ethnicity, you are attacking the belief that we are the descendants of Abraham, Isaac and the original tribes of Israel. Even if the story of Abraham and his offspring is not objectively true, it is objectively true that Jews began to appear in Europe during periods of Jewish mass exodus from the Land of Israel. Moreover, the argument that Jews are an invented people is only given by anti-Semites in an effort to accomplish through psychological warfare what they could not accomplish through murder and genocide. I am not calling you an anti-Semite, but am encouraging you to consider the source of the argument you've chosen. Garrettrutledge55 (talk) 20:29, 28 November 2013 (UTC)garrettrutledge55\[reply]
I see why this topic is such a problem here. Simply going to have to make this more clear. About 80% of Jewish males and only 50% of Jewish females trace their ancestry back to the Middle East. The rest entered the Jewish gene pool through conversion or intermarriage. So to classify all Jews as a Middle East people is simply ignoring the facts of history and genetic studies. Why would we here at Wikipedia dismissing half of the Jewish female population? Its discouraging to see the anti-Semite position being brought up every time this topic comes up and is why most geneticist like myself have generally disengaged from this topic. Its discouraging to see portions of any population being ignored. -- Moxy (talk) 21:10, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Moxy, A geneticist would not discount the ethnicity of a group or nullify ethnic origin based on occurrences of intermarriage or multi-ethnicity. Garrettrutledge55 (talk) 21:24, 28 November 2013 (UTC)garrettrutledge55[reply]
Never did - what is being said is its best not to talk in absolutes when it comes to genetics. Yes they are a ethnic group...but this does not mean all are genetically related. -- Moxy (talk) 21:27, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A taxonomist would simply classify a multi-ethnic group as having more than one point of geographic origin. I'm having a heckuvah time sussing out why this concept is so difficult for some to grasp. Taxonomy does not demand that every thing or concept be placed in a single category. This is the stuff of basic science. Garrettrutledge55 (talk) 21:31, 28 November 2013 (UTC)garrettrutledge55[reply]
You got it ...thus why we should not classify all Jews as genetically being from the Middle east. Why because like other groups there has been admixture - not as much as other groups but never the less it has happened. -- Moxy (talk) 21:34, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
From Wikipedia:
Paternal lineage, Y chromosome[edit]
In 1992 G. Lucotte and F. David were the first genetic researchers to have documented a common paternal genetic heritage between Sephardi and Ashkenazi Jews.[21][22] In 1993, A. S. Santachiara Benerecetti, et al. have suggested the Middle Eastern origin of Jewish paternal lineages.[23]
In 2000, M. Hammer, et al. conducted a study on 1371 men and definitively established that part of the paternal gene pool of Jewish communities in Europe, North Africa and Middle East came from a common Middle East ancestral population. They suggested that most Jewish communities in the Diaspora remained relatively isolated and endogamous compared to non-Jewish neighbor populations.[2][12][24] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_studies_on_Jews> Garrettrutledge55 (talk) 21:36, 28 November 2013 (UTC)Garrettrutledge55[reply]
European female ancestry is not being ignored. That ancestry does not nullify the Jewish male ancestry of Ashkenazim. Ashkenazi Jews are multi-ethnic. We are of both Middle Eastern and European descent. We belong under both categories of descent. Garrettrutledge55 (talk) 21:49, 28 November 2013 (UTC)garrettrutledge55[reply]
Agree - thus we should not be implying that Category:Middle Eastern people is relevant to all Jewish article without taking into account other relevant cats. As has been implied above - most people do understand that European Jews are a multi-ethnic group with a long and dynamic background. Yes there is a common link for many - but there are many other links as well within the communities. Attempts to classify all as Middle Eastern is simply a problem for many. Just think of the other side of the coin... many many non Jews display Jewish genetic heritage but would we classify them as Middle Eastern just because that have some genetic link? -- Moxy (talk) 22:34, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The argument for Ashkenazi Middle Eastern ancestry does not rely upon "some genetic link". Multiple studies suggest that Ashkenazim share more genes (or specific genetic mutations) with other Jewish groups than they do with non-Jewish groups. This has become a matter of scientific consensus. From Wikipedia: [Two studies by Nebel et al. in 2001 and 2005, based on Y chromosome polymorphic markers, showed that Ashkenazi Jews are more closely related to other Jewish and Middle Eastern groups than to their host populations in Europe (defined in the using Eastern European, German, and French Rhine Valley populations)]. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_studies_on_Jews> Garrettrutledge55 (talk) 18:44, 29 November 2013 (UTC)garrettrutledge55[reply]
Add to that the fact that Ashkenazi Jewish culture and the dominant religion among Ashkenazi Jews originated in the Middle East, not Europe or the Americas. Also, the mutations I mentioned earlier are passed from parent to child or from generation to generation within groups that share parentage. Hence their use to confirm ethnicity and lineage. Garrettrutledge55 (talk) 18:59, 29 November 2013 (UTC)garrettrutledge55[reply]
[...we should not be implying that Category:Middle Eastern people is relevant to all Jewish article without taking into account other relevant cats. As has been implied above - most people do understand that European Jews are a multi-ethnic group with a long and dynamic background. Yes there is a common link for many - but there are many other links as well within the communities.]
Moxy, It is not necessary to fit Ashkenazi to one category of descent or the other. Moreover, most ethnic groups contain persons who deviate from racial homogeny. Mestizos (persons of South American Native and Spanish descent) are categorized as Latino, a term nominally used to identify persons of Spanish descent living in Latin America. Latino is an explicitly ethnic category that includes persons of African, Native, Portuguese and Spanish descent. The inclusiveness of this category demonstrates that ethnicity and race are mutually exclusive (they are separate concepts). From Wikipedia: [Hispanic/Latino Americans are very racially diverse, and as a result form an ethnic category, rather than a race.[13][16][17][18]] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hispanic_and_Latino_Americans> Jews are ethnically Middle Eastern due to the fact that we have more in common with one another than we do with non-Jews regardless of where we live or to which Jewish sub-group we belong. More to the point, the genetics, culture, linguistics and religion Jews share originated in the Middle East. Again, Ashkenazim are ethnically Middle Eastern, but are categorizable as being of both Asian and European descent. It is ethnographically incorrect to remove Ashkenazim, or any Jewish sub-group, from the category of persons of Asian descent. Garrettrutledge55 (talk) 21:00, 29 November 2013 (UTC)garrettrutledge55[reply]
Moxy, you don't seem to understand how Y and mtDNA works, which casts your claim that you are a geneticist in doubt. Y and mtDNA are simply unbroken lines, unaffected by admixture, from the father and mother respectively. Autosomal DNA studies present a much fuller picture, and they reveal that your average Ashkenazi Jew is around 40-70 percent Levantine, each. Evildoer187 (talk) 21:25, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hehe. great example. Per that article, we would have to classify some indigenous tribes of the Americas as "People of European descent" or "People of Asian descent" and we'd have the genetic evidence to prove the point! It would be awesome to do this on a per-tribe basis, so each tribe we figure out which genes are predominant and then categorize them according to the "original" origins. That could add dozens of categories to each ethnic group. I can't wait!!! Actually, on second thought, lets NOT do that. Evildoer and Garret, you seem to want to use the category system for something it is not intended to do. The category system is a sledgehammer, not a scalpel, and questions of distant ethnic descent are really not well handled by it.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 05:42, 30 November
Moxy, I'm unsure which of my points you're using to support your assertion that Jews are not of Middle Eastern descent or an ethnicity, period. If you were a geneticist, then you would be aware of the genetic mutations diaspora Jewish populations share with populations residing continuously in the Middle East. Diaspora Jews share more of these mutations with one another than they do with non-Jews. This confirms that A) Jews are an ethnicity that share common, distant ancestors and B) that those common ancestors are of Middle Eastern descent. Genetics affirms that for Ashkenazim these ancestors were primarily, but not exclusively males of Middle Eastern origin. Please word your comments clearly if you'd like to be understood. Garrettrutledge55 (talk) 06:13, 1 December 2013 (UTC)garrettrutledge55[reply]
Debresser, The term, 'Native American' denotes pre-Colombian ancestry. That ancestry need not be singular and widely shared among a single group of Natives for the term to apply. Ethnic Jews are indigenous to a much smaller piece of real estate than Native Americans. So, it stands to reason that the genetic diversity of Native peoples would be much greater than that of the smaller Jewish nation. Comparing one to the other serves no purpose in this discussion. Garrettrutledge55 (talk) 06:13, 1 December 2013 (UTC)garrettrutledge55[reply]
Its concerning that the points being made are misunderstood - never said "assertion that Jews are not of Middle Eastern descent or an ethnicity, period". What is being said is that "Middle Eastern" is not the end all of the classification - not that simple - thus we should not be using the cats in that manner. Perhaps an article like Y-DNA haplogroups in indigenous peoples of the Americas for Jews would help people understand the diversity of the population better. -- Moxy (talk) 19:00, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Arbitrary Break
I came back a week later to see if there was any consensus so I could return to editing categories of descent and I see a majority of people (meaning over 50%) arguing that editors should not automatically classify any person "of Jewish descent" who lives in any country of the world as being "Asian". I should just remind people that, on Wikipedia, "of Jewish descent" is a separate category than "Jewish".
This is not about the Bible or religious identity or genes or where ones ancestors came from 2000 years ago. If this was true, Europe was sparsely populated and most modern Europeans came from intermixing with Asian groups who migrated West. Everyone should be defined as being Eurasian or African.
We can't base these categorical decisions on one (or two) person's perception of how "most people who are Jewish think of themselves". This is not about denying anyone their heritage or international politics. It's about organizing articles and where readers might look for articles on a particular subject. Try to not personalize this discussion.
Here's a case: Suppose, there is an article on a 21st century Argentine person of Jewish-German descent. As it is now, that individual would be classified (in addition to occupational categories) to be of Argentine descent, Jewish descent and German descent. I argue that they shouldn't also be categorized as of Asian descent. Or a Canadian of Polish-Jewish descent but whose family has lived in Canada for four generations. These are the kind of real-life examples I was working with.
And while I see appeals to religious identity, genetics, solidarity with Israel, etc. I don't see much mention of Wikipedia Categorization guidelines which should be guiding force here, not personal opinion. I refer you to WP:OVERCAT and WP:EGRS for some insight into why 1) ethnic descent categories are contentious and also 2) why an individual should not be over-categorized into 5 or 6 different ethnic categories (especially considering the dozen or so other categories that might apply to them). LizRead!Talk!21:23, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Liz, Outside of this discussion, there is nothing contentious about the standing categorization of Jews as being an ethnic group of Middle Easter descent. Wikipedia guidelines, as you cite them, do not determine reality. Wikipedia is an encyclopedic source of information. Like any encyclopedia, Wikipedia should and must not deviate from conceptual norms. Categorization or taxonomy should be guided by scientific principle and logic, not a need to trim the fat or create a purely Wikipedian system of categorization. Garrettrutledge55 (talk) 23:28, 29 November 2013 (UTC)garrettrutledge55[reply]
[Here's a case: Suppose, there is an article on a 21st century Argentine person of Jewish-German descent. As it is now, that individual would be classified (in addition to occupational categories) to be of Argentine descent, Jewish descent and German descent. I argue that they shouldn't also be categorized as of Asian descent. Or a Canadian of Polish-Jewish descent but whose family has lived in Canada for four generations. These are the kind of real-life examples I was working with.]
Liz, In the statement above you conflate nationality with descent. The person in question would be an Argentinian national of Jewish-German descent. The person in the second example would be a Canadian national of Polish-Jewish descent. Descent refers to the absolute origin or origins of persons in terms of ethnicity, culture and sometimes religion. Nationality refers to the country in which a person was born. Garrettrutledge55 (talk) 04:53, 30 November 2013 (UTC)GarrettRutledge55[reply]
Wait a minute there. WTF is "absolute origin"? Does that even have any meaning when considering ethnicity? Um, there is no such thing as "absolute" origin.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 05:01, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Garrett, you seem to be ignoring that we are not the outside world, and I disagree that we should follow other categorization systems - there is a logic to the system used here, and we value consistency. As I've mentioned before, Category:People of Middle Eastern descent is a purely geographical/sub-continental grouping, it is meant to bring together people proximately descended from people from countries currently in the middle east. It is not intended to bring together people who have some blood that is from the middle east many generations back. If we *were* to do so for the jewish people, we would, in order to be fair and neutral, have to do it for other groups of peoples too - so for example we'd have to start classifying most people from Latin America as being of European descent, since there are very few pure-blooded indigenous people left in places like Argentina. If we go down this route the result is madness. Please stop trying to use the category system to push a particular point of view about bloodlines and DNA of jewish people. The category system doesn't care, and it's not a neutral use of the system and the continental groupings we have set up. The DNA evidence is irrelevant. How people feel is irrelevant, irrelevant. The only thing that is relevant is, did the proximate ancestors of person X, as defined by category Y, come from a country which is currently in the region known as the middle east. That's what these subcategories have been set up to capture, and you're trying to use thencestorsm to make a different statement, which is not best made with the category system, but rather in an article.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 04:59, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Although I am in general agreement with Obiwankenobi's comment immediately above, I would go a bit further, and oppose any Asian categorization of any individual Jew unless reliable sources report specifically that the person has identifiable ancestors from Asia, in a form such as "his grandfather was born in Baghdad" or "her grandparents and parents emigrated from Iran following the fall of the Shah", or "a detailed genealogy confirms that several of his great-great grandparents left Uzbekistan in the late 18th century" or something similar. We have established that Jewish communities existed in Europe and North Africa well over 2000 years ago, and that all living humans may have African roots, perhaps as recently as 60,000 years ago. This kind of categorization of individual people ought to be strictly limited to what reliable sources say about that specific person's ancestry, not generalized assumptions based on a Jewish identification. I am an American Jew, and I am not an Asian-American nor an African-American. Cullen328Let's discuss it05:55, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Obi-wan, When you mentioned that categorizing Jews as persons of Middle Eastern would necessitate classifying Latinos as persons of European descent, you were confusing Latinos with Hispanics. Hispanics, like Jews, trace their origin to a specific place. Because Hispanics self-identify as being of Spanish descent they are categorized as such by the US Census Bureau. Please keep in mind, proximate descent plays no role in this categorization. Moreover, Latino is an ethnolinguistic category whereas Hispanic denotes national origin and ethnicity. Jews, like Hispanics, trace their origins to Israel and maintain a language, culture and religion consistent with that identified place of origin. Thus, Jew denotes Middle Eastern descent in the same way Hispanic denotes Spanish descent. Attaching categories of descent to ethnic groups based on proximate descent only is too exclusive to function properly as a method of categorization. I strongly suggest that editors not adopt methods of categorization that A) conflict with the ways ethnic groups self-identify and B) are inconsistent with norms of categorization. We're fast approaching a time when Wikipedia will cease to be relevant due to the bad practices of editors. Garrettrutledge55 (talk) 02:31, 1 December 2013 (UTC)garrettrutledge55[reply]
The logical outcome of your claim, Garrettrutledge55 is that a convert to Judaism is not a Jew, and that the children of two converts to Judaism are also not Jews, even if they were raised in an ethnically and religiously Jewish context. That is a very narrow definition of "who is a Jew?" Cullen328Let's discuss it03:01, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, Garrett, I was not confusing things. Hispanic in the US means "spanish-speaking" - it does not mean "My descendants came from spain"; there are millions of mexicans who identify more strongly with indigenous identities, but who would still be considered hispanic b/c spanish-speaking. Your proposed method of categorization is a nightmare waiting to happen, because it would surface all sorts of claims by all sorts of groups to use the categorization system to establish that group X really came from place Y. It's a waste of time to do so in category space, where we don't have sources (we can't "cite" categorization easily), and we don't have the subtlety of language - categories are black and white, and are poor at subtlety. I'm afraid you misunderstand what categorization is for, and especially, how categorization of ethnicities works here, and especially what is the purpose of the continental container categories. It is explicitly NOT meant to be used for establishing distant descent of various ethnic groups.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 03:24, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Cullen, As I've stated already, this is not my definitions of "who is a Jew". Rather, this is a Judeo-normative definition of who is a Jew. Converts to Judaism are a rarity, so the question of how the Jewish world should regard converts to the faith has never merited widespread discussion. I imagine converts are a rarity due to the fact that Jews don't proselytize. I've met one convert to the faith. He observed the high holidays, read Torah and went to shul, but continued to self-identify as an Irish-American, not as an ethnic Jew. Garrettrutledge55 (talk) 06:40, 1 December 2013 (UTC)garrettrutledge55[reply]
Again, Jews are an ethnicity. Judaism is a religion practiced by many, but not all ethnic Jews. The world's most famous atheist, Karl Marx was an ethnic Jew. This delineation is widely understood and accepted. Garrettrutledge55 (talk) 06:45, 1 December 2013 (UTC)garrettrutledge55[reply]
Most emphatically not: Jews is an ethno-religious group. This is well sources in our Wikipedia article, and it is one of several reason why you are wrong wanting to categorize Jews in all kinds of strange categories. Debresser (talk) 09:06, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Obi-wan, I would agree with you if Jewish descent were not explicitly Middle Eastern. My impression is that editors are constructing a system of categorization that meets a need for simplicity. If that system were or could be made compatible with norms of categorization and the ways groups self-identify then we would not be crossing swords. Garrettrutledge55 (talk) 07:02, 1 December 2013 (UTC)garrettrutledge55[reply]
According to Israeli government statistics reported here, there were 4239 conversions to Judaism in that country in 2011. I have seen estimates of 10,000 per year in the United States. There are roughly 20 converts who are members of my synagogue, who immerse themselves in Jewish ethnic practices. I don't think that "rarity" is accurate. And if you don't think that there has been widespread discussion of this phenomenon, then I suspect that you haven't been paying attention. Cullen328Let's discuss it07:23, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Cullen, By your own admission, the number of converts to Judaism is statistically small. It might interest you to know that ethnic Jews make up the bulk of persons converting to Judaism. When the State of Israel brings ethnic Jews to Israel, those Jews tend to convert as part of the Aliyah (coming to Israel) process if they were not observant already. These are the converts of which the State of Israel speaks. Allow me clarify my earlier statement. The conversion of non-Jews to Judaism is a rarity. Because these conversions are rare, the way in which an ethnic Jew should regard a non-Jew who has converted to Judaism has not been widely discussed among Jews. I qualify this statement by comparing the discussion of conversion among Jews to the discussion of inter-ethnic marriage among Jews. The latter occurs frequently due to a rise in secular attitudes among Jews and has been widely discussed. This is not to say that ethnic Jews do not welcome or recognize conversion to the faith. It is a fact that most US Jewish congregants do. This is to say the conversion of non-Jews to Judaism is not a fixture of Jewish life. If your shul has 20 persons who've undergone a formal conversion, then His hand must be upon you all. Well done. 67.182.154.25 (talk) 21:13, 1 December 2013 (UTC)garrettrutledge55[reply]
Roughly 15,000 per year in the U.S., Israel and the U.K. amounts to 1.5 million in a century if sustained. Do you really consider that "statistically small" in the context of Jewish demographics? What is your source for the claim that "ethnic Jews" comprise the "bulk" of Jewish converts in Israel? Do you consider the Falasha of Ethiopia to be "ethnic Jews"? And how can you assert that 15,000 per year is a "rarity"? Cullen328Let's discuss it08:02, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
67.182.154.25—please define your terms as you are using them. What are you referring to when you refer to "ethnic Jews"? Please explain what you mean by the term as you are using it. What are you intending it to refer to? And do you have a source to support a definition of the term as you are using it? Bus stop (talk) 21:27, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would be glad to define terms and clarify the contexts in which I am using them. The term 'ethnic Jew' refers to a Jew who is a member of any Jewish ethnic group. The major Jewish ethnic groups are the Sephardim, Mizrahim and Ashkenazim. However, there are many more. Each group traces their roots to Israel and shares genetic mutations that affirm a common ancestry. I use the term to underline the reality that Jews are joined by more than Torah. We are an ethnicity. It is a common mistake to define Jews foremost as a religious group and forget our ethnicity altogether. A Jew is a Jew regardless of whether he or she is observant. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_ethnic_divisions> 67.182.154.25 (talk)Gilad55 (formerly garrettrutledge55) —Preceding undated comment added 04:23, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[Most emphatically not: Jews is an ethno-religious group. This is well sources in our Wikipedia article, and it is one of several reason why you are wrong wanting to categorize Jews in all kinds of strange categories.]
Your argument is that Jews are not an ethnic group because we are also defined as an ethno-religious group?
Can we agree that descent and proximate descent are radically different terms? Descent refers to the origins of an ethnic group in terms of language, culture, ancestry and, in some, but not all cases, religion. Proximate descent refers to the place in which a prior generation resided and does not determine descent as a whole. For instance, I am an American Ashkenazi Jew. Ashkenazim paternally descend from the Middle East. As an American Jew, I am proximately descended from Jews living in North America. If you were categorizing on an individual basis, then you could correctly categorize me as a person of North American proximate descent. When categorizing my ethnicity as a whole, you could not correctly categorize my descent as anything other than Middle Eastern. If you did attempt to categorize the descent of ethnic groups according to proximate descent, you would then be required to break up the ethnic sub-group 'Ashkenazim' into a myriad of continental groupings. Does that sound simple to you? Again, you would also place that system of categorization in conflict with the ways in which many ethnic groups self-identify; which is ethnographically incorrect. Gilad55 (talk) 21:12, 2 December 2013 (UTC)Gilad55[reply]
It's not only the issue of self-identification. It is also identification of native European population towards Jews that plays a role. While I was born in the Soviet Union, I was never identified as "Russian". Even in a Soviet-issues passport I was identified as a "Jew". My grandparents who were born in Moldova and Ukraine also were never identified as native Europeans. They were always viewed as foreigners who came to Europe from Middle East - specifically Israel. Often throughout their lives they were told to "go back to Israel". This happened before the nation of Israel was even formed in 1948. While the span of time we are discussing is rather long, it does not matter for our current discussion, as the experience of Jews throughout European history is similar, and you can find it even in classical works from Shakespeare in Merchant of Venice to Walter Scott in Ivanhoe [1] - Jews were culturally and traditionally linked to the land of Israel. Jews were always identified as foreigners in Europe who migrated into Europe from Middle East (Israel more precisely).
§nublin2014 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nublin2014 (talk • contribs) 21:49, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Are there mailing lists or associated off-wiki places where we can look? there has clearly been off-wiki canvassing going on here. I think we should open up an RFC on this discussion, it's becoming ridiculous. Categorization should not be used in this POV way.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:57, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I sought out this Wiki project then joined this conversation believing I would encounter persons from whom I could learn something. Instead, I found this mishegoss. I'm unlikely to encounter this much misinformation about Jews and Judaism outside of davidduke.com. I'm no one's sock puppet nor have I been canvassed to this discussion. These are my arguments. Each is mined from my education in ethnology and objective study of the Jewish people. I invite you all to research and challenge my assertions rather cast doubt on my motives as an editor. Nothing I've "pushed" is POV. I'm arguing for the application of basic ethnology to this discussion of what determines descent. It's becoming clear that discussion alone won't sway you. Here forward, I'll be adding citations to my points. If any of us fails to cite a point and offers a rationalization in place of an academic argument, then such a comment will not merit a response. Gilad55 (talk) 04:16, 4 December 2013 (UTC)Gilad55[reply]
Personal attacks against those who disagree with you, calling their arguments "mishegoss" or comparing them to David Duke is very unlikely to be persuasive here. Neither is changing your username in the midst of a discussion. We await your citations to reliable sources that categorize Ashkenazi Jews as "Asian", and also those that claim that conversion is an insignificant factor in Ashkenazi Jewish ancestry, or the composition of modern Jewry. Cullen328Let's discuss it04:41, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to point out that those of you accusing myself and other editors of being canvassed to this discussion are in violation of Wikipedia's AGF (Assume Good Faith) rule. My reason for changing my username is not for public consumption. It's enough that I notified the group of the change and did not attempt to pose as multiple editors in a single discussion.
Jews in Western Europe are not traditionally linked to Israel? It would seem that the English term, 'Jew' literally means 'from Judea'. "The English word Jew continues Middle English Gyw, Iewe, a loan from Old French giu, earlier juieu, ultimately from Latin Iudaeum. The Latin Iudaeus simply means Judaean, "from the land of Judaea"." [2] Jews have a long, well documented history of being regarded as foreign in Western Europe. "The Jews in Medieval Europe were considered a foreign, unchristian element and lived under different conditions than the rest of the Christian population. The Jews were not allowed to posses land and could not became members of peasantry nor of nobility." [3] European Christians of antiquity regarded Jews as a single people who emigrated to Europe from Israel. These Christians would have regarded the Old Testament as a literal history of the Jewish people. As a rule, European Christians would have referred to the biblical Kingdom of Judah (famously ruled by King David) as the Jewish homeland. This belief served as the basis for restorationist theology which in turn gave rise to Christian Zionism. "Ezra Stiles at Yale was a prominent supporter of restoration of the Jews. In 1808, Asa McFarland, a Presbyterian, voiced the opinion of many that the fall of the Ottoman Empire was imminent and would bring about the restoration of the Jews. One David Austin of New Haven spent his fortune building docks and inns from which the Jews could embark to the Holy Land. In 1825 Mordecai Manuel Noah, a Jew who wanted to found a national home for the Jews on Grand Island in New York as a way station on the way to the holy land, won widespread Christian backing for his project. Likewise, restorationist theology was among the inspirations for the first American missionary activity in the Middle East.[citation needed] Many Christians believed that the return of the Jews to Judea, as prophesied in the Bible, was a necessary preliminary step towards the Second Coming, an attitude now known as Christian Zionism." [6][4] 07:51, 4 December 2013 (UTC)Gilad55
I appreciate your attempt to cite reliable sources, Gilad55 but it seems to me that you are raising diversionary points about links to Israel which no one disputes, instead of addressing the original issue of the categorization of the Askenazim as "Asian". Do these sources call Ashkenazi Jews "Asians" or did you infer that from the sources? Please cite a reliable source categorizing Ashkenazi Jews as "Asians" specifically. That is what this whole monumental debate is all about. Which reliable source calls them "Asians"? Please don't avoid this direct question. Thank you. Cullen328Let's discuss it07:51, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, I was under the impression that any group of Asian origins/heritage (and Ashkenazi Jews do have this, as you just said) should be classified as being of Asian descent. The Asian descent/heritage/origins are clearly there, so shouldn't it go without saying? We classify Russians as Asian and Egyptians as African even though they are not usually referred to as such. Furthermore, it is acknowledged (although not explicitly spelled out) in the links Gilad provided that Jews are of Middle Eastern descent. Evildoer187 (talk) 09:31, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Russians live in Asia only behind the Ural mountains. Egyptians live in Africa but not all people of Egyptian descent do. But let's say they left Egypt one or two generations ago, then they are still somehow connected to Egypt (yes, I generalize), at least in their own minds. But Jews left Israel some 100 generations ago, and that simply doesn't mean anything (outside of Zionism). And that is even ignoring converts. So you see there are several reasons that Jews is a whole different ballgame. Debresser (talk) 12:27, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ashkenazim self-identify as being of Middle Eastern descent and are identified as such by ethnographers. "Ashkenazi Jews, also known as Ashkenazic Jews or simply Ashkenazim (Hebrew: אַשְׁכְּנַזִּים, Ashkenazi Hebrew pronunciation: [ˌaʃkəˈnazim], singular: [ˌaʃkəˈnazi], Modern Hebrew: [aʃkenaˈzim], [aʃkenaˈzi]; also יְהוּדֵי אַשְׁכֲּנַז Y'hudey Ashkenaz, "The Jews of Germania"), are a Jewish ethnic division who trace their origins to the Israelite tribes of the Middle East,[10][11][12][13][14][15] sharing many common genes with other Jews since Biblical times.[16] " [5] The genetic mutations Ashkenazim share with Jews of the Levant affirms the shared descent of Ashkenazim and these Jewish ethnic sub-groups. " In August 2012, Dr. Harry Ostrer in his book Legacy: A Genetic History of the Jewish People, summarized his and other work in genetics of the last 20 years, and concluded that all major Jewish groups share a common Middle Eastern origin. Ostrer also claimed to have refuted any large-scale genetic contribution from the Turkic Khazars.[4][unreliable source?]Citing Autosomal DNA studies, Nicholas Wade estimates that "Ashkenazic and Sephardic Jews have roughly 30 percent European ancestry, with most of the rest from the Middle East." He further noticed that "The two communities seem very similar to each other genetically, which is unexpected because they have been separated for so long." Concerning this relationship he points to Atzmon conclusions that "the shared genetic elements suggest that members of any Jewish community are related to one another as closely as are fourth or fifth cousins in a large population, which is about 10 times higher than the relationship between two people chosen at random off the streets of New York City"[5] " [6]Gilad55 (talk) 18:15, 5 December 2013 (UTC)Gilad55[reply]
Debresser, It has been established that 'descent' and 'proximate descent' are wholly separate terms. One has nothing to do with the other. I will repeat the definition of each term for the benefit of any persons whose confusion on this point has not been resolved. 'Descent' refers to the origin of a people or kin group in terms of ancestry, language, culture and, in some, but all cases, religion. Here are two definitions of descent. Note that neither definition places a statute of limitations on descent: 1) "descent group - a kin group whose members are recruited by one of the principles of descent; e.g., matrilineal, patrilineal, etc. [7] 2) "2the origin or background of a person in terms of family or nationality:
American families of Hungarian descent" [8] 'Proximate descent' refers to where a previous generation resided and is a container for individuals and families, not ethnic groups who may reside in more than one country or continent. In the example, "American families of Hungarian descent", "American" is the proximate descent of the families. "Hungarian" is the descent of the families. So, you see, it would not matter if the forefathers of Ashkenazi Jews left Israel 1,000 generations ago. Ashkenazim retain their Middle Eastern descent so long as they retain their Jewish identity. This identity can be ethnic, religious or both. Again, it's time to stop substituting rationalizations for researched, academic arguments. Gilad55 (talk) 18:15, 5 December 2013 (UTC)Gilad55[reply]
It seems that "descent" as used in Wikipedia categorization is more like "proximate descent" as you define it. If we were to use these definitions. But, again, we should not use these definitions, at least not the definitions of descent, since by that definition we are all of African descent, and it has already been established in the discussion above via the argument of ad absurdum that we do not want to say so. Debresser (talk) 19:25, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also, @Gilad55 and Evildoer187, you have now been warned with a serious warning on your talkpages, that insisting on adding all kinds of categories to Category:Jews and related categories before you can show a clear consensus to that effect WILL lead to you being blocked from editing Wikipedia. This blatant disregard for the ongoing discussion here, and for your fellow editors involved in it, will not be tolerated. And, if I may say so, you seem to be far removed from obtained said consensus. Debresser (talk) 19:25, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[It seems that "descent" as used in Wikipedia categorization is more like "proximate descent" as you define it. If we were to use these definitions. But, again, we should not use these definitions, at least not the definitions of descent, since by that definition we are all of African descent,]
Again, you fail to grasp the meaning of the term 'descent'. Because Ashkenazim do not identify as African, speak an African language or practice an African culture, we are not of African descent. Again, you are arguing by assertion and substituted a rationalization for an academic argument. Perhaps you're confusing Ashkenazim with Ethiopian Jews? But again, Ethiopian Jews are of African proximate descent, not descent. Also, note that the examples I cited earlier were taken from Wikipedia. Wikipedia describes Jews as being of Middle Eastern descent. Gilad55 (talk) 21:35, 5 December 2013 (UTC)Gilad55[reply]
Wait a minute. Above you were arguing a genetic basis for descent; now you're arguing it is cultural. So would Indians, who speak English, play cricket, drink tea, and work in colonial-era bureaucracies be candidates for "english descent"? I think it's you who misunderstands how we're using descent here Gilad. Nobody cares about what customs jews perform, nor how genetically closely they are linked over 100 generations when we're talking about "of X descent" - it just doesn't matter. If they came from Poland, they are of European descent. If they came from Syria, they are of middle eastern descent. There's absolutely no need to demonstrate genetics or cultural affinity - these are continental container categories. You keep on misunderstanding that. I'm of a mind to delete all of these containers to get rid of this problem.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:49, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Obi-wan, No, Natives could not be categorized as European due to the fact that they self-identify as being indigenous to the Americas. A Native most definitely could play cricket, speak English, drink tea (a practice brought to Europe from Asia, mind you) and work in a colonial bureaucracy (which was the case among Natives living during the era of Westward expansion) and still be entirely Native so long as they self-identified as Native and retained their heritage or culture. If a Native American was born to parents living in Poland, then he or she would retain their Native descent, but could be described as being of European proximate descent. This is an important distinction because not basing descent on proximate descent safeguards the ways in which groups self identify. This distinction also prevents us from breaking up an ethnic group into unnecessary sub-categories. There are now no less than three generations of Ashkenazim living in Israel. If we were to base their descent on proximate descent only, then we would be forced to categorize these Ashkenazim as being of Middle Eastern descent, but not their brethren born to parents who themselves were born outside of the Middle East. Proximate descent can only be used to define where the previous generation of a family resided, not to define descent as a whole. In the term 'American of Armenian descent', 'American' denotes proximate descent whereas 'Armenian' denotes descent - the place in which a group's culture, language and perhaps their religion originated. Please, answer these questions: What is the purpose of attempting to place an ethnic group within a single continental container when that group resides in more than one continent? What does such a container have to do with the concept of descent? Why is it necessary to nullify the Middle Eastern descent of a Jew in order to place him or her in the container 'Jews of [insert nationality] proximate descent'? Gilad55 (talk) 00:11, 6 December 2013 (UTC)Gilad55[reply]
My argument would apply to persons indigenous to India as well. If they self-identified as Indian and retained their culture then no amount of biscuit eating would alter their descent. Gilad55 (talk) 00:34, 6 December 2013 (UTC)Gilad55[reply]
Another arbitrary break (21:59, 5 December 2013 (UTC))
Gosh, a lot of ink has been spilled on this!
Frankly, I would tend to agree with Debresser on this issue except for one thing: many anti-Israel activists, especially Palestinians, try to make the claim that most modern Jews, especially Ashkenazim, are not really descended from anyone having the right to the Land of Israel. And I'd frankly not like to encourage that line of thought. So I will proudly claim my distant heritage to the Middle East.
All that said, while much (most?) of the Middle East is in Asia, I'm not sure I care one way or the other about the Asian-ness of the Middle East; it is sufficient to me that I be identified as having Middle Eastern descent.
If people are identified as "of Jewish descent", why does it bother people for that category to roll up into "Asian"? The page itself doesn't include the top category, it only includes the immediate category. I just don't get why everyone is so worked up over this. StevenJ81 (talk) 21:59, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Because of the slippery slope and precedent. If we take "some set of behaviors and customs which some sources claim can be traced back to place X" + "some sort of genetic markers demonstrating linkages with peoples on continent Y" as a model, we might end up with many other groups coming and claiming distant ancestry to place X and demanding that their ethnic group be categorized underneath that. See for some examples of the mess it might cause - I'm sure you've read various debates about Aryan, etc. That's why it's better to nip this in the bud, at least from a categorization perspective. I think "of Jewish descent" should be parented by no continental categories, because none really apply to all below. I don't think we should get into what anti-Israel activists have to say, this has nothing to do with them.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:14, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What does "of Jewish descent" mean and why do we have a Category with that designation? What are the characteristics of a person that belongs in such a Category? Bus stop (talk) 23:56, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Gilad55 It is not that I "don't get it": I simply disagree with you. Repeating your point over and over will not help in having other editors accept it.
@Bus stop We have "of Jewish descent" to distinguish it from "Jewish". For example, for those whose fathers are Jewish, or apostates. @Obiwankenobi I agree with the things you said in this last post. Debresser (talk) 00:26, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This whole thread is all gibberish, because "of Jewish descent" simply means that one or both of one's parents are Jewish. The literal meaning should come first. You can't overlay a bunch of reasoning on top of the plain significance of the words. It doesn't matter what reliable sources anyone presents in support of their pet theories because these are three words with simple dictionary definitions. The encyclopedia should be intuitive. How would any reader know that we mean a whole bunch of other things in place of the plain meaning of the words "of Jewish descent"? Bus stop (talk) 00:42, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[@Bus stop We have "of Jewish descent" to distinguish it from "Jewish". For example, for those whose fathers are Jewish, or apostates.]
Debresser, Where does apostasy enter into a discussion of Jewish descent? The Orthodox definition of who is and who is not a Jew has no bearing on a secular discussion of Jewish descent. If I've misunderstood you, then please clarify. Gilad55 (talk) 01:25, 6 December 2013 (UTC)Gilad55[reply]
Bus stop, Editors are arguing that Jews born to parents who themselves were born outside the Middle East should be excluded from the category 'groups of Asian descent'. These editors are arguing that descent should be defined by where one's parents were born rather than by where one's culture and ethnic group originated. These editors are asserting that Ashkenazi Jews should not be described as being of Middle Eastern (Asian) descent because their Jewish forefathers left Israel and settled in Eastern and Western Europe. According to their logic, black Americans are not of African descent. Gilad55 (talk) 03:27, 6 December 2013 (UTC)Gilad55[reply]
Well, if they choose to self-identify as such, so let it be. I for one do not self-identify as of Middle eastern descent or of Asian descent. The Jewish identity is so much more than a deriviate of geography. Debresser (talk) 11:48, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Gilad makes a good point re: African-Americans, but my conclusion would be different - I think there would be a good case for removing Category:African-Americans from Category:American people of African descent, and keeping it as a "see also" instead, as african-americans have been in the US for several hundred years and don't really retain much customs/language/etc from Africa, so calling them "African descent" mixes them in with recent immigrants from Africa who form a different set of ethnic groups. Indeed, a Nigerian immigrant who gains US citizenship does not always become "African-American"--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 12:35, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[ The Jewish identity is so much more than a deriviate of geography.]
This statement is true only in the most subjective sense of the term 'Jewish identity'. Jewish identity is intimately linked to Israel in every other possible sense. "Jewish identity is firmly intertwined with Jewish ancestry dating back to the historical Kingdom of Israel, which was largely depopulated by the Roman Empire c. first century AD, leading to what is known as today as the Jewish Diaspora." [9] "For the past 3,000 years there was always a Jewish presence in the Holy Land. Israel is at the core of Jewish identity and peoplehood; the land shapes the Jews' self image and character as a community...." [10] A portion of the Jewish identity developed in the diaspora, but even then Eretz Yisrael was the focus of Jewish cultural and religious practices. Also, the largest single Jewish community today exists in Israel, so an assertion that Jewish identity and Israel are separable is certainly not a position I would choose to defend. Gilad55 (talk) 23:35, 6 December 2013 (UTC)Gilad55[reply]
Obi-Wan, By all means, remove African Americans from the category 'persons of African descent'. A swarm of African American Studies majors will descend on you as swiftly as a plague from Exodus. That discussion will make this one look like old friends talking over a few drinks. Gilad55 (talk) 23:43, 6 December 2013 (UTC)Gilad55[reply]
Obi-Wan, If a person traces their ancestry or kin group to Africa, then that person is of African descent. If a recent immigrant from Nigeria wishes to be identified first as a Nigerian American, then that identifier would not conflict in any way with a secondary identifier of 'African descent'. It's not up to Wikipedia to distinguish between the descendants of African slaves brought to the American colonies and the pre-American Civil War US and recent immigrants from Nigeria, the Sudan or Ethiopia. If such a distinction were made by one of these communities or a third party, then Wikipedia could fulfill its role as an encyclopedia and make an entry of the distinction. Gilad55 (talk) 00:19, 7 December 2013 (UTC)Gilad55[reply]
Jewish descent really just means being of Jewish lineage, the majority of which is directly traceable to Israel. This is how it is defined within the context of Jewish identity and culture. I mean, if you're just going to lump Jews in with the indigenous peoples of Poland, Germany, Iraq, Ethiopia, or what have you, then why even have a separate "Jewish descent" category in the first place? Just classify German Jews as Germans or whatever and be done with it. That said, seeing how Jewish identity does function as a nationality, I maintain it would be most appropriate to classify Jews as being of both Middle Eastern/Asian descent and, going by a case by case basis, of European, Iraqi, Russian, etc descent. This way, you cover all bases and avoid confusion.Evildoer187 (talk) 00:22, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We're discussing people of Jewish descent categories which pertain only to people with Jewish lineage. The categories you mention would include both recent converts and those with Jewish lineage. Although in hindsight, the wording in my post was somewhat fuzzy. I should have been clearer on that. Evildoer187 (talk) 07:02, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with StevenJ, in that the decision we make here could very well end up influencing or encouraging antisemitism, and I also agree (as I'm sure most here would) that Wikipedia should not be used for that purpose. Regarding the point brought up about Aryans, I don't think that's a very good analogy. Very few "Aryans" (those who would identify as such) today, if any at all, have a cultural or ethnic affinity for India. They are little more than largely forgotten tribes who have since been completely absorbed into larger nations and cultures. The same obviously cannot be said of Jews, as has been explained by myself and several others.Evildoer187 (talk) 00:48, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, proximate descent applies to individuals. Descent applies to groups. A German Jew is a person of German national proximate descent, yet, as a member of a Jewish ethnic group, he or she is also a person of Middle Eastern descent. There's no conflict between the two identifiers. Gilad55 (talk) 00:59, 7 December 2013 (UTC)Gilad55[reply]
Wow, what a mess. In any case I'd like to throw my hat in and agree that Jews should be classified as Middle Eastern. It makes the most sense to me.Salmonpate (talk) 02:04, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We're discussing People of Jewish descent which would, by definition, exclude converts. There already exists separate categories which encompass all Jews of a particular region, converted or otherwise.Evildoer187 (talk) 06:51, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That is going to be practically impossible. So now, you say, categories like "Jews", Ashkenazi Jews, etc. should no longer be classified as such? But then what with people who are descendant from converts? These are also of Jewish descent after all. Impossible and ridiculous, in short. Debresser (talk) 11:15, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Does every single member of an ethnicity or nation have to have the same blood in order for the group as a whole to be classified as being descended from a particular region? That's an absurd proposition, because you'd be hard-pressed to find any nation on Earth that isn't genetically diverse. As for people of Jewish descent (which is what we're discussing, not all encompassing categories like 'Jews'), the vast and overwhelming majority do have Middle Eastern roots (ranging from 40-70 percent, last I checked) and that is good enough for me.Evildoer187 (talk) 15:06, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A person can be Categorized as being of Middle Eastern descent but this has nothing to do with Jews. This has to do with the existence of reliable sources telling us that they and/or their forebears originated in the Middle East. I think rarely would good quality sources unambiguously make such an assertion because such information would likely not be known. In most instances the information on a multitude of generations is likely to contain gaps and in many instances it will contain mostly gaps, with just a smattering of information. Bus stop (talk) 18:34, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, ethnic Jews should be classified as a group or nation of Middle Eastern descent. Feel free to classify individuals who are not of Middle Eastern descent, but who convert to Judaism as not being of Middle Eastern descent. Ethnic Jews are, as the term 'ethnic Jew' suggests, an ethnic group. Judaism is a religion. An Irish Catholic who converts to Judaism would not cease to be a person of Western European descent. Conversely, an observant ethnic Jew who suddenly converts to Catholicism would remain an ethnic Jew and thus a person of Middle Eastern descent. Please, keep in mind that we are discussing ethnicity and descent, not religious affiliation. 67.182.154.25 (talk) 06:20, 10 December 2013 (UTC)Gilad55[reply]
Bus stop, The term 'ethnic Jew' refers to a person born to any one of several Jewish ethnic groups. "Jewish ethnic divisions refers to a number of distinctive communities within the world's ethnically Jewish population. Although considered one single self-identifying ethnicity, there are distinctive ethnic divisions among Jews, most of which are primarily the result of geographic branching from an originating Israelite population, and subsequent independent evolutions.[1]" [11]Gilad55 (talk) 04:57, 11 December 2013 (UTC)Gilad55[reply]
Gilad55—you are going on at length about "ethnic Jews". Wikipedia cannot be a source for itself. And even the quote from Wikipedia that you are providing is not using the term "ethnic Jew". Do you have a source for the term "ethnic Jew"? In this post you say:
"It might interest you to know that ethnic Jews make up the bulk of persons converting to Judaism."
"When the State of Israel brings ethnic Jews to Israel, those Jews tend to convert as part of the Aliyah (coming to Israel) process if they were not observant already."
"Because these conversions are rare, the way in which an ethnic Jew should regard a non-Jew who has converted to Judaism has not been widely discussed among Jews."
"This is not to say that ethnic Jews do not welcome or recognize conversion to the faith."
"Yes, ethnic Jews should be classified as a group or nation of Middle Eastern descent."
"Ethnic Jews are, as the term 'ethnic Jew' suggests, an ethnic group."
"Conversely, an observant ethnic Jew who suddenly converts to Catholicism would remain an ethnic Jew and thus a person of Middle Eastern descent."
I would be interested in seeing a source pertaining to the term "ethnic Jew". Wikipedia is not a source for itself and even the Wikipedia quote that you are providing is not using the term "ethnic Jew". Bus stop (talk) 06:06, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How would you refer to a Jew who is a member of an ethnic group? Ashkenazim, Mizrahim, Sephardim, etc. are all defined as ethnic sub-groups of the Jewish nation. If a Wikipedia article includes references then it is admissible as a source in this discussion. Are you denying there is such a thing as Jewish ethnicity? If you are, then you would be arguing by assertion. I use the term 'ethnic Jew' to differentiate between a person who is born into an ethnically Jewish family that traces its roots to Israel and a person who observes the Jewish faith, but has no Jewish blood and who was born into a family that traces its roots to some place other than Israel. I made the distinction for the benefit of those who appear to have difficulty separating the Jewish nation from Judaism; which is a religious faith open to non-Jews. This distinction is not controversial among Jews. Reform Judaism and similar modern Jewish religious movements would consider a person who converts to Judaism, but who was not Jewish according to Halachic law before their conversion, to be a Jew. However, an ethnographer would not lump a person with no Jewish ancestry into the same ethnic category as a Mizrahi Jew just because the two share a religious belief system. Jews are a people or nation first. This is why the bar for conversion is high (it takes an average of five years of study with a Rabbi to successfully convert). One does not simply show up to shul and call him or herself a Jew. Gilad55 (talk) 07:46, 11 December 2013 (UTC)Gilad55[reply]
Gilad55—"Ashkenazim, Mizrahim, Sephardim" are not called "ethnic Jews". I asked you for a source for the terminology "ethnic Jews" and you are still referring to a Wikipedia article. The Wikipedia article doesn't use the term "ethnic Jews". You say that the Wikipedia article includes references. Do the references use the term "ethnic Jew"? If so, can you please call our attention to such usage? Bus stop (talk) 13:42, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
When one is a member of an ethnic group, one can be referred to as 'ethnic'. "What, then, are the Jews? I’d argue they are an “ethnic community,” in the definition used by political scientists, sociologists, and anthropologists. Ethnicity is not about physical characteristics or genetic ancestry, though that can be part of it. Rather, it incorporates a shared history and experiences, common territorial affiliation, similar cultural traditions and practices, and so on—in short, a sense of belonging to one’s own group." [12] The following is the Oxford definition of 'ethnic group' (Ashkenazim, Sephardim, Mizrahim, etc. are defined as ethnic groups belonging to the Jewish nation): "of or relating to a population subgroup (within a larger or dominant national or cultural group) with a common national or cultural tradition:...of or relating to national and cultural origins:...denoting origin by birth or descent rather than by present nationality: ethnic Albanians in Kosovo" [13] A member of the ethnic Ashkenazi Jewish community can be referred to as 'ethnically Ashkenazi' or as an 'ethnic Ashkenazi Jew'. This is basic ethnographical parlance. 67.182.154.25 (talk) 18:28, 12 December 2013 (UTC)Gilad55[reply]
Please note that Oxford defines ethnicity and descent as being independent of present nationality. One's present nationality does not determine one's descent. Gilad55 (talk) 18:37, 12 December 2013 (UTC)Gilad55[reply]
Gilad55—you are using a term that has very little support in sources. By that I mean that it enjoys very little use. Of those few sources that employ the term, even fewer define the term; I have not encountered any sources that define the term. You provide two sources in your most recent post but neither source even includes the term "ethnic Jew". Bus stop (talk) 01:59, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Bus stop, Please, explain how your critique of the term pertains to the subject of this thread; which is A) whether Ashkenazim should be categorized as an ethnic group of Middle Eastern descent by Wikipedia and B) whether Wikipedia is justified in deviating from norms of categorizing descent. If you believe the term 'Jewish ethnicity' is more appropriate than 'ethnic Jew', then use the term you're most comfortable with. I'd rather not quibble. The outcome of our discussion of Jewish ethnicity will not determine the reality that every Jew is member of their respective ethnicity and the Jewish nation as a whole. The Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines anti-Semitism as "hostility toward or discrimination against Jews as a religious, ethnic, or racial group". Please, note the inclusion of "ethnic group" in the Merriam-Webster definition. It will be the last source I provide on the subject of whether Jews are considered an ethnicity. [14]Gilad55 (talk) 05:34, 13 December 2013 (UTC)Gilad55
Our roots are middle eastern so I beleive ethnic Jews belong there. Crystalfile (talk) 13:57, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with most of what you say Gilad, but I have two problems. 1) Jews who convert are considered fully Jewish, although they would (obviously) be excluded from "People of Jewish descent" or Jewish ethnic divisions like Ashkenazim and Sephardim. 2) You linked to a blog at Times of Israel. Blogs and partisan sources are not considered reliable sources here.Evildoer187 (talk) 14:26, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We are in agreement. Still, how does a discussion of Jewish ethnicity pertain to the subject of this thread? Have we run out of arguments?Gilad55 (talk) 14:48, 13 December 2013 (UTC)Gilad55[reply]
So, we are still at a stalemate, only some people have joined the conversation while others (like myself), have bowed out? Should this go to an RfC? I have a feeling the result might also be non-consensus.
I'd just like to remind the latecomers that the original question regarded whether people who "are of Jewish descent" should be identified as Asian. Examples would be individuals of German-Jewish descent (who are tagged with German descent and Jewish descent) and Mexican Jews (who would be categorized as being of Mexican descent and Jewish descent). It was not specifically about Ashkenazi Jews or the Middle East. It was about people, who identify not as "being Jewish" but as "being of Jewish descent" (which might be one great-grandfather), people who specifically who do not live in Southwest Asia that includes the Middle East. Should these individuals who see some family link to Judaism in their family past be placed in a "of Asian descent" category.
That is the only question. It's not about ethnic or religious identity because there is no question that all of these people are of Jewish descent. It's not "taking away" anything. It's not about who is Jewish or some political issue. It's simply that Wikipedia has to be careful about WP:OVERCAT and have to be selective about what categories we assign to people and groups. If we were to assign every single aspect of a profile to a category, articles would be laden with 20 or 30 categories. Ethnicity is just one aspect of a person, there are other categories that they belong to. LizRead!Talk!05:04, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We are not discussing "Middle Eastern" categorization, but an overly broad "Asian" categorization. The distinction between Europe and Asia is an artificial construct that did not exist in its current form in antiquity, when the ancestors of the Ashkenazim migrated northwest. There was no clear distinction between Europe, Africa and Asia at that time, and the region of the Jewish diaspora roughly corresponded with territories of Hellenistic and later Roman civilizations. The term "Levant" would be more accurate than "Asia". In contemporary terms, calling someone "Asian" varies from country to country. In the U.S., the term would usually be applied to the Chinese, Japanese, Koreans and Vietnamese. In the U.K., it would be applied most commonly, as I understand it, to Indians, Pakistanis and Sri Lankans. I see no indications in my research that any reliable sources anywhere categorize Ashkenazi Jews as either "Asian" or "of Asian descent". Extrapolating such categorization by inference or logic is in my opinion, original research, and not acceptable here. Cullen328Let's discuss it05:41, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you, Cullen328, and that was the consensus opinion when I first posted about this question last month. But there is a minority of editors who disagree. I have held off on working with these categories until a clear consensus emerged.
Right now, it seems like there is a stalemate and people who feel strongly on both sides. I had hoped for there to be a definitive consensus but it's never going to be 100% agreement. That's why I was wondering if we should go for a RfC or Third Opinion. The answer seems clear to me but not everyone sees it the same way.
I just wish that there could be some detachment and people recognize that categories serve to organize articles (by occupation, nationality, gender, series, date, company, etc.) and doesn't serve to define the contents of the articles. It's a tool for organization to help readers find articles, not a commentary with a political POV. LizRead!Talk!16:34, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
While I agree, Debresser, that this was an exhaustive conversation, "no consensus for change" is unsatisfactory as an answer as there is no consistency in stating people of Jewish descent are Asian...sometimes, this category is applied, other times, it isn't. So rather than a decision one way or another, we'll just have to live then with disorganization (and confusion when you look at categories of Asian descent and sometimes see Jewish individuals included and sometimes not). A "no consensus" basically is saying everyone should do what they want since nothing has been decided. 00:46, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"...when you look at categories of Asian descent and sometimes see Jewish individuals included"? Hmm... Category:People of Asian descent has no individuals included. Period. It doesn't even include Category:People of Middle Eastern descent. Is the Middle East considered as part of Asia? Category:People of Middle Eastern descent does include Category:People of Jewish descent, which currently includes 62 subcategories, which in turn should eventually include all individuals of Jewish descent. Now if people feel that the Middle East should be part of Asia, then I think they should be allowed to add Category:People of Middle Eastern descent to Category:People of Asian descent, which would imply that all individuals of Jewish descent are also of Asian descent. Wouldn't that take care of all the problems? ------01:40, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How do you propose to organize an ethnicity like Ashkenazi by nationality? First you were discussing descent and then nationality. My arguments have been factual, not political. There is no statute of limitations on descent. You can organize individuals by proximate descent, but not ethnic groups. This is basic ethnography. Deviating from norms of categorization invites contradiction. Gilad55 (talk) 20:15, 14 December 2013 (UTC)Gilad55[reply]
It is unclear what "of Jewish descent" means. What is being referred to, in our Categorization process, by the phrase "of Jewish descent"? Though I do not think we could Categorize a person as "Asian" or "Middle Eastern" in the absence of sources specifically supporting such Categorization on a case-by-case basis, a more basic question concerns the term "of Jewish descent". I don't think its significance is clear. Clearly an Orthodox Jew who is not a convert to Judaism is "of Jewish descent". It seems to me that we are misusing the phrase "of Jewish descent" in our Categorization system. I think we should eliminate the phrase "of Jewish descent" from our Categorization system. Bus stop (talk) 22:36, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why this preoccupation with converts to Judaism? Persons of Jewish descent are persons who belong to a Jewish ethnic group and who possess Jewish ancestry. We have an agreement between myself and Evildoer that descent and Judaism are unrelated. If an individual of Pacific Islander descent converted to Judaism, then he or she would remain a Pacific Island Native thereafter. Moreover, the category 'of Jewish descent' applies to groups, not individuals. The sentiment that Jews are an invented people who do not descend from Israel is entirely anti-Semitic. If Wikipedia eliminates the category 'of Jewish descent' or eliminates Jews from the category 'of Asian descent', then Wikipedia will have engaged in Merriam-Webster's definition of an anti-Semitic act by demonstrating hostility toward Jews as an ethnic group. Gilad55 (talk) 17:51, 15 December 2013 (UTC)Gilad55[reply]
The phrase "of Jewish descent" is almost pointless in our Categorization system because many more people belong in it. An Orthodox Jew, or any Jew, for that matter, who is not a convert to Judaism is "of Jewish descent". Are we going to include all of these additional people in Categories "of Jewish descent"? Bus stop (talk) 18:54, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Moreover, the category 'of Jewish descent' applies to groups, not individuals."
This might be true in your mind, Gilad55, but it is not true on Wikipedia. I suggest you familiarize yourself with category structure on Wikipedia, specifically Category:People by ethnic or national descent, Category:People of Jewish descent and [[::Category:People of Jewish descent by nationality]]. This categorization structure is true for all ethnic/nationality groups so you can't claim that this organization is somehow anti-Semitic simply because you don't like it or agree with it. LizRead!Talk!00:46, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Re-reading through the entire thread and all of the arbitrary breaks, it would seem that consensus is split down the middle. I am also opposed to deleting "People of Jewish descent" category. Just add it to the relevant categories and be done with it, imo. It's really rather comical how people are getting so upset over this.Evildoer187 (talk) 21:48, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Evildoer187—should a person that all reliable sources agree is Jewish and that all reliable sources agree is the offspring of two Jewish parents, be placed in a Category for people "of Jewish descent"? If not, why not? Bus stop (talk) 22:13, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, just add the relevant categories and be done with it. The convert argument is fallacious. It wrongly assumes that converts to Judaism exist in large numbers and constitute recognizable portions of the Jewish ethnic groups whose descent we are discussing. Wikipedia is either an encyclopedic source of knowledge whose editors record facts as agreed upon in other sources or it is an opinion page. It cannot be both. Gilad55 (talk) 22:22, 15 December 2013 (UTC)Gilad55[reply]
Gilad55—can you respond to the questions that I posed above: should a person that all reliable sources agree is Jewish and that all reliable sources agree is the offspring of two Jewish parents, be placed in a Category for people "of Jewish descent"? If not, why not? Bus stop (talk) 23:11, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Bus stop, If that person is a member of a Jewish ethnic group that traces its origins to the Levant, then yes, that person belongs in the category 'of Jewish descent'. Please, focus on the issue at hand. We are discussing the categorization of groups, not individuals. Gilad55 (talk) 07:26, 16 December 2013 (UTC)Gilad55[reply]
Gilad55—if a person is not a convert to Judaism, and if that person is Jewish according to reliable sources, then that person is "of Jewish descent". Bus stop (talk) 11:52, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Liz, If you review the thread, you will find editors discussing individuals and groups as if the two could be approached as a single subject. Editors argued that proximate descent (nationality) nullify descent and used this as a justification for removing Jews living outside the Levant from the category 'of Jewish descent'. Moreover, editors conflated descent and proximate descent. The two are separate terms that serve separate purposes. I'm amazed that persons who do not know this feel qualified to edit subjects related to ethnography. Gilad55 (talk) 07:32, 17 December 2013 (UTC)Gilad55[reply]
Bus stop, Yes, Jews are a nation. Judaism is a religion. One's identification with the Jewish faith does not determine one's ethnicity; though Judaism and Jewish ethnicity do co-occur. I sincerely congratulate you for understanding this. Gilad55 (talk) 07:41, 17 December 2013 (UTC)Gilad55[reply]
The attribute of identity of being Jewish can be acquired either by birth or conversion. A person is "of Jewish descent" if it is by birth that the individual has acquired this attribute of identity. A person is not "of Jewish descent" if it is by conversion that the individual has acquired this attribute of identity. Bus stop (talk) 14:33, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think "of Jewish descent" is generally meant to be applied only to people who don't currently profess the faith of Judaism. So, someone with jewish parents, who grew up in a jewish household, learning jewish customs, etc, but who in their adult life does not practice judaism or consider themselves of the jewish faith would be "of jewish descent". I don't think this category is meant to be applied to people who are Jews.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:12, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this is trivially true. However, the way the categories are defined is as follows --> "Note: Listed in the subcategories here are people with Jewish ancestry for whom reliable sources have not been found indicating self-identification as being Jewish (observant or nonobservant). For Jews (observant or nonobservant) see Category:Jews by country (And for more on this distinction, see the article Who is a Jew.)". So "of jewish descent" is specifically intended for people who don't identify as Jewish.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:10, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't come up with this scheme. I think the intent is to mirror other such ethnic-descent categories, where people come from one particular culture (e.g. Category:People of Chinese descent but don't really identify as Chinese b/c they grew up somewhere else. I find the whole "of X descent" categories problematic in general, but I don't this this jewish one is particularly different than the others.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:01, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps the problem originates elsewhere but I think it should be addressed. I would suggest renaming the Category or eliminating it. Bus stop (talk) 17:22, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Obiwankenobi. So "of jewish descent" is specifically intended for people who don't identify as religiously Jewish. That is what it means. In any case, I never really liked that text over there.Debresser (talk) 20:39, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's what the text seems to suggest - although I don't think it's actually only about religion, it's more about whether they identify, in any way, as Jewish. I actually think one could make a good argument to delete "of jewish descent" all together, as well as many other "of X descent" categories.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:48, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like I keep repeating myself in this thread which is why I walked away from it. I'll make this a generic comment: People of X descent refers to individuals, not groups. X descent doesn't mean the person is X, it means that their ancestry contains people of X ethnicity. It doesn't say how far back this goes (grandparents, great-great-grandparents or further). Furthermore, this X descent is self-identified, meaning that editors don't speculate on an individual's ancestry, any person falling into "of X descent" has identified their ancestry in some secondary source (most often an interview or memoir).
You may not like "of X descent" categories, you may think they are ill-defined but the point is that there are thousands of categories based on this taxonomy. No one editor or even a group of editors is going to change this unless you go over to the Village Pump or make a formal proposal. There are tens of thousands of biographies using these categories and it would be disruptive to eliminate them overnight.
It might help things if this stopped being an abstract conversation and those who are unfamiliar with the categorization scheme of Wikipedia actually looked at the contents of these categories (which I listed above) and noted who is and who isn't included. Deal with reality, deal with real people, not some abstract conversation about converted vs. natural or about identity. Categories are a tool to organize information and people are placed in different categories based on the content of the article which, presumably, is verified information. LizRead!Talk!23:10, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm inclined to agree with Gilad and the others. Recent converts fall outside the scope of this discussion, and the Middle Eastern descent of Jews is extensively documented. Except maybe a tiny minority that is, but it bears repeating that not all members of a nation or ethnic group necessarily share the same blood, but we don't make these distinctions in any other case.Ankh.Morpork18:04, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A person isn't "Middle Eastern" unless sources tell us that person is "Middle Eastern". What if one or more persons in a lineage are non-"Middle Eastern" converts to Judaism? Is there still "Middle Eastern" lineage? It would constitute original research for us to decide that someone is "Middle Eastern" in the absence of sources supporting that. Bus stop (talk) 19:12, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Bus stop here NO OR ...how the hell can we assume the genetic makeup of a person on our own with no sources. Are we to assume that unless we know they are recent converts that they have genetic markers for the Middle East evnnthough we have no sources? Just to be clear here someone like Peter Diamond would be of Middle Eastern decent even if we have no source for this because his Jewish? -- Moxy (talk) 23:20, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is precisely the absurd we have been bringing as the strongest argument against this. Together with the African origins of the human race argument, which makes us all "of African descent", and is also very well sourced. Debresser (talk) 23:38, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My point about genetics has been entirely ignored, which is unfortunate. Categorization is about ethnography, not genes. Are we to assume that every single person of British descent has Briton ancestry? Obviously not, but every British national living outside of the UK, even those of recent Asian origins, are classified under British descent here. Why are we bringing genetics into this?Ankh.Morpork14:59, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Debresser, We are discussing descent in terms of culture, religion and defined ancestry. The African origins argument is a very poor wedge. That ancestry is likely, yet theoretical. The Middle Eastern ancestry of Jews living outside the Levant is a matter of agreed upon histories, genetics, self-identification and the living culture of these Jews. In other words, the Middle Eastern ancestry of galut Jews is not theoretical. 67.182.154.25 (talk) 16:47, 18 December 2013 (UTC)Gilad55
67.182.154.25—in the absence of sourcing saying that a person is of Middle Eastern ancestry, we should consider an assertion to that effect to be original research. In the body of an article such an assertion could be removed if no source could be found to support it. I don't think greater leniency should be allowed for purposes of Categorization. Bus stop (talk) 17:23, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So long as the term 'descent' is used properly and not conflated with proximate descent, I would not be opposed to requiring a source. That source could be as simple as one in which an individual declares his or her ethnicity or refers to their culture. Gilad55 (talk) 17:43, 19 December 2013 (UTC)Gilad55[reply]
I'd like to remind everyone again of the definition of the term 'descent'. "the origin or background of a person in terms of family or nationality:
American families of Hungarian descent" [1] Please note that descent is not acquired through participation in a nation's culture or religion. Descent is a matter of lineage. The children of non-Jewish converts to Judaism would inherit the descent of their parents. If their parents are Pacific Islanders, then they would be born persons of Pacific Island descent regardless of their parents' religious faith. This is simple logic. Gilad55 (talk) 07:36, 21 December 2013 (UTC)Gilad55[reply]
Addendum: In the example I just provided, the children of these parents should be categorized as 'of Jewish descent' if their parents converted before their births and raised them in a Jewish household. Being Pacific Islanders, these children should not be included in the category 'of Middle Eastern descent'. I hope this is not too confusing for those of you who have difficulty separating Judaism from Jews as organized into ethnic groups (Mizrahi, Sephardi, Ashkenazi, etc.). Converts who were not Jewish before conversion are considered fully Jewish afterward. However, conversion does not confer Middle Eastern descent upon persons whose ancestors all come from elsewhere. Gilad55 (talk) 17:10, 21 December 2013 (UTC)Gilad55[reply]
Bus stop, There are many Jews who converted to Judaism after being raised in non-observant homes. In fact, many converts are ethnically Jewish. They convert as a means of connecting to their Jewish heritage. Gilad55 (talk) 19:36, 21 December 2013 (UTC)Gilad55[reply]
Bus stop, May I ask what your relationship to Judaism is? A Jew without any Jewish religious education must go through the same process as a non-Jew who wishes to convert. If you have been to shul (synagogue), then you will know that it is impossible to participate without an education in Hebrew, Jewish religious rituals, etc. That being said, you seem confused about what constitutes Jewishness. Have you read through this thread? A Jew is a Jew regardless of whether he or she is religious or secular. Jews are a nation. Judaism is a religion practiced by many, but not all Jews. Is this clear? Gilad55 (talk) 07:07, 23 December 2013 (UTC)Gilad55[reply]
Gilad55, this is most certainly not true. A Jew without religious education does not have to go through any process whatsoever to become a Jew who can e.g. receive an aliyah in a shul. No beit din, no mikveh, nothing. Debresser (talk) 09:47, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Gilad55—all converts to Judaism are non-Jews. Jews don't convert to Judaism. "[O]ne does not have to reaffirm their Jewishness or practice any of the laws of the Torah to be Jewish."[2] A nonobservant Jew is a Jew just as an observant Jew is a Jew. There is no distinction as concerns Jewishness. That attribute of identity is as applicable to the nonobservant Jew as it is to the observant Jew. And bear in mind that these are not absolutes. There are semi-observant Jews. Do they semi-convert? Bus stop (talk) 13:03, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, a Jew is a Jew regardless of whether or not he or she practices Judaism. Jews are an ethnicity and a nation. This is self-evident. If a Jew with no religious education (raised in a non-observant home, never attended Hebrew school, never underwent a bar or bat mitzvah, etc.) wished to begin practicing Judaism, then he or she must first seek out a Rabbi and place him or herself under the Rabbi's instruction. The Rabbi will instruct the person on what constitutes a "committed Jewish lifestyle", will recommend books, will refer the person to or enroll the person in Jewish adult education classes, invite the person to attend services, etc. If a Jewish man was circumcised, but not by a mohel, then he may choose to undergo a ritual that will bring him into the covenant of circumcision (Brit Milah). The process of conversion is very flexible, but usually takes several years. Once converted, a person's level of observance is entirely up to them. Gilad55 (talk) 17:02, 24 December 2013 (UTC)Gilad55[reply]
Debresser, How would one receive an Aliyah if one could not read Hebrew? A Jewish education is a precondition of participation in Jewish religious life. Gilad55 (talk) 17:02, 24 December 2013 (UTC)Gilad55[reply]
Another statement that is simply untrue. Gilad55, what do you know about Judaism, if anything? Perhaps all you know is the definition of "descent"? I can write you the blessing recited when receiving an aliyah in English, and that will be enough. No "education" needed. Debresser (talk) 17:19, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I will admit, education or acclimation are better words than conversion. Conversion implies no prior relationship to the Jewish nation. I stand by my statement, "education is a precondition of participation in Jewish religious life." Even if one only knows the Shema in Hebrew by heart, that is an example of the education to which I am referring. I never asserted that a person must be observant to be considered fully Jewish. Seems someone is creating a straw man. Gilad55 (talk) 02:48, 25 December 2013 (UTC)Gilad55[reply]
You said: "If we were to assign every single aspect of a profile to a category, articles would be laden with 20 or 30 categories." Just wondering why this would be a problem and to whom? XOttawahitech (talk) 14:22, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
All I can do is refer you to Wikipedia:Overcategorization in terms of categorization policy for reasons why this is undesirable.
But, for example, look at Mitt Romney, a BLP I came up with at random. He is placed in 46 categories. If you look at the bottom of his article page, it's just an enormous block of text and the categories range from generic, like Category:Living people, to ultra-specific, like Category:Cranbrook Educational Community alumni. The most important aspects of his life and persona are buried amid less relevant categories (in my opinion). But the tendency, on WP, is just to add more categories to articles, not remove them. So, I wouldn't be surprised if in the next few months, that number goes over 50. LizRead!Talk!01:42, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Categorization to any degree is inherently more problematic than writing prose for the body of an article. Categorization serves a purpose but we cannot expend endless hours debating issues of Categorization. I don't think this project has as its primary purpose the reducing of all information to Categories. Beyond a certain point we are wasting time that could more productively be used to write a sentence that is supported by sources. Ensuing arguments may only involve wording. Editors can debate how to express something found in a source. But there are far fewer options concerning Categorization. This thread could go on endlessly. Over-Categorization I think relates to the inherent difficulties of Categorization itself. Bus stop (talk) 02:45, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Bus stop. More to the point, efforts to recategorize Jews, whether individually or in groups, as persons of non-Middle Eastern descent demonstrates POV pushing that is not in keeping with Wikipedia's standards for editing articles. Reliable sources describe Jews as originating in the Levant. One could report other theories and provide citations for those theories, but one could not assert that the descent of Jews is considered as other than Middle Eastern by the world at large. Gilad55 (talk) 07:12, 21 December 2013 (UTC)Gilad55[reply]
Gilad55 You may not like to hear it, but there is no consensus for categorizing Jews as being of Middle Eastern descent. You may continue to post here if you wish, but so much is clear. You may call it names, like POV pushing, not up to standards, etc., but that's a fact. Now per WP:CONSENSUS, that means we're basically done here. Debresser (talk) 18:53, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Name calling? It is what it is. If Wikipedia were to remove Jews from the category 'of Middle Eastern descent', then Wikipedia would be at odds with every other reliable source of information on Jewish descent. Jews are indigenous to the Levant. Gilad55 (talk) 19:43, 21 December 2013 (UTC)Gilad55[reply]
You are about the only editor here who thinks so. In any case, your opinion does not have consensus. So, should I repeat my words from above? Debresser (talk) 21:37, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[ You are about the only editor here who thinks so.] Debresser, Your attention to what has been written by editors appears to be highly selective. There are several editors who agree that reliable sources state that Jews are indigenous to the Levant. At every point in this discussion, you offered opinions when sources were called for. Your best argument was that Jews are not of Middle Eastern descent because all of humanity descends from Africa. Also, you leaped into this discussion without an understanding of the term 'descent'. Perhaps you should consider editing/discussing subjects of which you are more knowledgeable. Gilad55 (talk) 17:54, 22 December 2013 (UTC)Gilad55[reply]
Gilad55 Now you are in violation of Wikipedia guideline WP:NPA. Who are you to say I "leaped" into a discussion? I happen to be involved in this discussion from the beginning, even if it took me a few days before I decided to post my first contribution to it. And who are you to say that I don't understand certain terms? Perhaps I do. Or perhaps I do now, after I read the posts above. See in this regard WP:AGF. And moreover, perhaps it is you who is trying to apply an unreasonable standard and/or interpretation of certain terms which is not suitable for Wikipedia and for which you do not have consensus. That is closer to the way I see things! In addition, I think, and so do others, that my "best argument" is good enough, and this is reason for me and those editors to disagree with you. In any case, the result stays the same: no consensus for what you propose. In addition, and on a sidenote, I object to your usage of the word "indigenous". That term includes both an element of origin and of factual habitat. That latter aspect has not been true for a large part of Jewish history. Debresser (talk) 19:29, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
repeat Gilad55 You may not like to hear it, but there is no consensus for categorizing Jews as being of Middle Eastern descent. You may continue to post here if you wish, but so much is clear. You may call it names, like POV pushing, not up to standards, etc., but that's a fact. Now per WP:CONSENSUS, that means we're basically done here. Debresser (talk) 18:53, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please, explain how I attacked you? Did I call you a name? Insult you somehow? I count several editors who agree that Jews belong in the category 'of Middle Eastern descent', yet you assert that I have no support. Thank you for your definition of the term 'indigenous'. What is your objection, though? The Jewish presence in the Levant has been continuous for millenia. Unlike Arab states outside the Arabian Peninsula, the State of Israel is an indigenous people's project. If you must continue to personalize this discussion, please know that I won't reciprocate. I have the truth and sources on my side. You have only your opinions. If we're done, then why are we still discussing the subject? If we had a consensus, then we would be done and Jews could be removed from the category in question. Gilad55 (talk) 07:37, 23 December 2013 (UTC)Gilad55[reply]
@Debresser, After reading through the entire discussion, it seems to me that more people support the inclusion of People of Jewish descent in the People of Middle East descent category than those who are opposed to it, so you are wrong on that one. And the definition of indigenous you just used applies to plants, not people. Indeed, this is the first time I've ever heard someone argue that indigenous status is nullified once they are removed from their land, even if they continue to identify with the indigenous people of that region.Ankh.Morpork15:42, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Help with Hebrew needed in an unlikely location....an Australian cicada...
Ok, I need help with hte derivation of Thoph in Thopha saccata. The 1843 source is French and gives it as "tambour", but tambour is a disambiguation - and leads to a stringed instrument (???). Can anyone familiar with Hebrew give a more accurate meaning (and it'd be great if we could stick the Hebrew letters in the article, which I am not sure I know how to do). Cheers, Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 19:52, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Casliber: on second thought, I am doubting my own translation.
I realized that I am used to the classical "school" translation of the Biblical tof as tambourine, but, as Debresser writes, in Modern Hebrewtof is used to mean "drum"—hence the two Hebrew Wikipedia articles תוף (Tof: "drum") and תוף מרים (Tof of Miriam: "tambourine").
Internet celebrity and reality TV personality Tila Tequila has been fairly vocally antisemitic in the last few years, though this isn't reflected in her article. Most of the sources are primary, though there are some secondary sources like this one from Animal. I considered that it could be some long and elaborate hoax (seeing as how she gave an interview a while back saying she'd converted to Judaism), but there are Nazi images uploaded to her Facebook, and now a song on her YouTube with lyrics clearly inline with this whole breakdown.
I am not the most tactful of editors and I'd prefer to avoid this type of BLP edit and any potential fallout. I'm hoping that someone can tell me if this info should even be in the article, and if so is there someone who would want to add it. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja07:02, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Our WP:BLP policy always comes first, JohnnyMrNinja, and thanks for asking rather than jumping into the fray. This is a young woman who has openly admitted that she suffers from several mental illnesses, and whose public behavior has grown increasingly bizarre over the years. Last year, she made a suicide attempt and also suffered a brain aneurysm. I have a sister who had a brain aneurysm a few years ago, and know in great detail how devasting such a brain trauma can be. So any discussion of her bizarre ravings has to be tempered by a compassionate understanding that we are talking about a person who appears not to be in control of her faculties. But for a genetic predisposition and a burst blood vessel, it could be you or I behaving in such a fashion. So let's be careful, cautious and always compassionate. Cullen328Let's discuss it06:05, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'v been working on article: Abimelech (Judges) for a while now, and I couldn't find any templates for the Biblical Judges. Will someone with knowledgeable insight on how to create templates please make one for the Judges — Thank you — ♣Jerm♣729—Preceding undated comment added 23:34, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pointing it out, Hasirpad. It's very important to track those who vandalize or twist the truth on Wikipedia, thus we must then warn and even block them if needed. I'll soon review some of this IP's recent edits, and will then decide what action to take. -Yambaram (talk) 08:30, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Can I assume that reverting these edits would be uncontroversial?
I've been wondering about this too. I have done my best on Haym Solomon and Ashkenazi Hebrew, I'm afraid I hadn't spotted the others. My approach has not been to revert this user's edits completely but to extract any factual nuggets there may be and discard the rest. But I don't want to spend a great deal of time on this. --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) (talk) 11:36, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not a part of this project, but I have been running into this IP users edits, would you like me to rollback their edits, or just allow you guys to do it? Maybe report them to you somehow? Bluefist talk04:29, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
One last thing, most of the articles you mentioned below are changed by the IP user again. Definitely should get an admin to do something. Bluefist talk04:40, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Bluefist: The IP has not answered any attempt at communication (though I admit my opening comments to them were somewhat bitey)—note the complete absence of talk-page edits and the paucity of edit summaries.
Their only attempt at explanation is their occasional citing of sources, but many of their edits are unsourced or cite sources that do not seem to support their claim; those that due give undue weight to their preferred views or present historical (if notable) opinions as facts. As far as I can tell, the only semi-constructive edits were made to Ashkenazi Hebrew, where Sirmylesnagopaleentheda has already rewritten the IP's contributions in a suitable tone and proper formatting.
Should transliterated Hebrew words be capitalized and/or italicized? So far, usage seems to be inconsistent, even within one article. For example, Kohen includes both "Kohanim" and "kohanim" in the lead. -- Ypnypn (talk) 18:07, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A word that has entered the vernacular should not be italicised. Within an article, there should be consistency for each use (so I would always italicise kohanim because it is not used in that form in English). JFW | T@lk19:22, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(cur | prev) 19:41, 24 December 2013 StAnselm (talk | contribs) m . . (46,380 bytes) (0) . . (StAnselm moved page Talk:Lot (Abrahamic person) to Talk:Lot (biblical person) over redirect: Reverted undiscussed move - please use WP:RM) (undo | thank)
(cur | prev) 19:40, 24 December 2013 Pass a Method (talk | contribs) m . . (46,380 bytes) (0) . . (Pass a Method moved page Talk:Lot (biblical person) to Talk:Lot (Abrahamic person) over redirect) (undo | thank)
(cur | prev) 10:27, 27 November 2013 StAnselm (talk | contribs) m . . (46,380 bytes) (0) . . (StAnselm moved page Talk:Lot (Abrahamic person) to Talk:Lot (biblical person) over redirect: Reverted strange and possibly POV move) (undo | thank)
(cur | prev) 09:35, 27 November 2013 Pass a Method (talk | contribs) m . . (46,380 bytes) (0) . . (Pass a Method moved page Talk:Lot (biblical person) to Talk:Lot (Abrahamic person)) (undo | thank)
The argument seems to be that Lot is mentioned in the Quran eg, so the dab should be "Abrahamic" to include Islam rather than "biblical" which is Jewish + Christian.
This, and similar edits on other articles, might benefit from broader input. I haven't posted this note at WP Islam or WP Christianity yet but will link to it. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:37, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'd lean toward the "biblical person" dab just on WP:UCN grounds, but also because it's not necessary. Despite being a former seminarian, I have to say "Abrahamic person" is not what I'd be searching for biblical names, and I'd probably scratch my head for a bit if I saw that on a disambiguation page before having an "oh...yeah...that could be it" reaction after a few other attempted searches. But as for disambiguation purposes, we already have Lot in Islam to discuss their rendering of Lot, called Lut, which makes the name change from Lot (biblical person) to include the Islamic tradition in the article name rather unnecessary, IMHO.--ColonelHenry (talk) 05:39, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
User:ColonelHenry, yes that would be my take too. However when I made the above comment I was only aware of the moves/titling issues, which now appears to be a small part of larger on-going context from edits to Hebrew Bible articles first raised with diffs linked at the beginning of Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive820#Editor_deleting_Islamic_content. Personally I'm sympathetic to increasing the Quranic content in "Hebrew Bible" articles, provided it is in keeping with WP:RS and WP:WEIGHT which to my mind means following the usual (1) in Tanakh, (1.1) in Talmud; (2) Christian; (3) in Islam chronological format. But that doesn't extend to edits such as e.g. the first diff above editing Russell Crowe's upcoming 2014 Noah film diff to say that the film is based on "surah Hud and Genesis" - which looks like WP:OR with no evidence that director Darren Aronofsky and writers Aronofsky and Ari Handel drew on the Quran before drawing on Genesis. Including Islamic/Quranic content into Hebrew Bible articles needs to be done sensitively and in line with the WP:WEIGHT and chronological relation described in WP:RS. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:22, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(1) I have no objection to including information in an article about a putatively Judeo-Christian figure about how Islam considers/adapts his story in the Qu'ran or the Hadith, etc--as you described (which I think is generally the norm as it is). Some of the expansive discussions about these persons in the Islamic and late Christian periods (especially in the Medieval traditions that emerge after the Crusades) reveal interesting contexts and symbolism to augment their story. However, in a case like this where we have Lot (biblical person) and a spin-off Lot in Islam, and the biblical person article is largely Judeo-Christian in scope there shouldn't be a need to start retitling articles just because someone thinks Muslims are being left out by calling it "biblical". Similarly, other figures that appear in both Biblical and Islamic traditions i.e. the many articles on Mary, Cain and Abel vs. Cain and Abel in Islam, we have Biblical figures in Islamic tradition and Biblical narratives and the Quran. Starting an edit-war over article names to include Muslims more when there already are sufficient spin-off articles is not in the project's best interests since it would promote antagonism and undermine the ease of finding these articles. It seems to swing the WP:UNDUE pendulum too far in favour of the Islamic tradition at the expense of the Christian and Jewish traditions in that latent reverse discrimination/PC way. Further, I'm not even sure that "Abrahamic" is correct in all contexts since most Muslim scholars do not use the word...(2) As for the behaviour of StAnselm and Pass a Method -- it is a troubling pattern on both sides, and if it continues (as inevitably I fear it will), they will be at least topic banned, at worse blocked. (3) As for the Russell Crowe/Aronofsky film, that claim does look like original research prima facie--I regret that I don't have much time to do any more on that topic than scratch the surface.--ColonelHenry (talk) 15:57, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, agree with those comments, though I don't think an editor repeatedly reverting is a person mentioned in the qur'anic sura Shura and the biblical Book of Genesis chapters 11–14 and 19 is as guilty as the editor repeatedly placing it. I think that's merely a function of some Hebrew Bible articles not being widely watchlisted and the reverting being left to small number of responsible watchdog editors. It's noteworthy that the edits occurred at Lot etc. which would be less prominent than adding "Moses .... in the Quran and the Hebrew Bible" or "Aaron... in the Quran and the Hebrew Bible.
It seems, from a brief look, that the main problem with the Islamic sections in Hebrew Bible character/event articles is WP:PSTS related - specifically the lack of good secondary sources, such as Stephen J. Vicchio Biblical Figures in the Islamic Faith (2008) or more specialist ones such as Marlies Ter Borg Bible Figures in Islamic Art (2012), Biblical Figures Outside the Bible ed Michael E. Stone, Theodore A. Bergren (2002). There are objective NPOV WP:RS sources to fill out Islam sections on Hebrew Bible characters, but too often editors are simply citing the Quran itself, counter WP:PSTS. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:45, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
