This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
In 2014 there was a very long discussion on this same talkpage, should Category:People of Middle Eastern descent be added to this category. Obviously nobody disagrees that the Middle East is the cradle of Judaism and the Jewish people, but that is not the same. The conclusion of that discussion, in which both sides had several proponents, was that there is no consensus for the "Middle East" category. The category, that was added originally in 2012, was not removed at after that discussion, for reasons that do not matter much at this moment. The arguments against its inclusion remain the same, and are basically two-fold:
The first point can benefit from some explanation. Jews who emigrated from Germany to, let's say, Israel or the United States, will call themselves German Jews. And the same for Jews from Syria, e.g., who call themselves Chalabi Jews wherever they are. But that is as far as it goes! Nobody knows in which countries their forefathers from more than a few generations ago lived, and nobody cares! Certainly, if you'd ask any Jew straightforward, if they are of Middle Eastern decent, nobody would say they are because of the mere fact of being a Jew alone.
To further illustrate this point I retold a known Jewish joke in the previous discussion, about two Jews, let's say both 100% Ashkenazic Jews, where one tells the other: "Do you know you are an Iraqi Jew?" and then when the other guy vehemently denies he says "All Jews are descended from Abraham who came from Ur which is in Iraq". A similar proof ad absurdum regards mankind as a whole: most scientific and genetic research agrees that man comes from Africa, and nevertheless, not all "of .. descent" categories are part of "People of African descent", and it would be ridiculous to impose that scientific fact on descent categories, and the same is true in this case. The more so that in this case, where it is not a sure fact at all, in view of the second point regarding proselytes.
I propose to reach a conclusion that there is no place for "Middle East" categories, and per the same token "West Asian" or "Asian" categories, on any of the "Jewish descent" categories. There is at present no conformity on this issue in all of the "Jewish descent" categories, and of the many "Jewish descent" categories, some have one or more of the above. This Rfc strives to reach a conclusion that would be binding for all of them, and in my opinion that conclusion should be that those categories are out of place on all "Jewish descent" categories. Debresser ( talk) 13:20, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
References |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
References
|
Having read through this entire discussion, I feel like I need to say something.
I am absolutely dumbfounded.
So, you are telling me that everything I believe in, everything I know, everything I've learned is a lie?
I was born in the US. I am both a 2nd and 3rd generation Jewish American. I was taught, both at home and in Hebrew school, we are all descended from the Middle East.
I had a DNA test done. It shows I am in fact genetically descended from the Middle East.
I refer to myself as a Jewish American -- but that is only because I was born here. It doesn't have any bearing on -- nor detract from -- my heritage.
I've traced my paternal grandmother's family to the former Turkish Ottoman Empire. Ergo, even if only 25% of my more recent ancestors lived in and are of Middle Eastern descent, it doesn't mean I am any less of Middle Eastern descent.
It would be like telling my racially mixed grandchildren one side of their heritage was non-existent since they are not 100% one or the other. Or telling Indian tribes they can not accept members who are not 100% Indian heritage.
The fact that many (if not most) people are unaware/ignorant of their ancestry doesn't alter the fact all Jews are of Middle Eastern descent, to one degree or another. And being ignorant of one's ancestry doesn't mean it doesn't in fact exist.
On to your points.
@Debresser
1a1. And what policy would that be? I am unaware of any rule suggesting that all members of a particular ethnic group must identify the same way, with no variation, to be included under a geographic category. As mentioned previously by another editor, this seems to be the only place where such arguments crop up, and it is not consistent. Categories are not decided that way, and I see no rule based or source based reason to make an exception here. Geographic categorization is determined by where that group's ethnic origins are, and for Jews that place is Israel.
Fun fact: Karl Marx, Heinrich Heine, Leon Trotsky, and many others are categorized as Jewish on here even though none of the above examples considered themselves Jewish. That is because facts and policy trump personal feelings.
1a3. Virtually all known Jewish liturgy, despite varying degrees of difference, emphasizes that we are Israelites aka the nation of Israel. That much has been remarkably consistent across geographic boundaries, and the reason for that should be obvious. The Reform movement is the only exception, and in this particular case, I refer you back to point 1a1.
1b1. Conversions did happen, even if the extent is often exaggerated. Throughout most of our history in diaspora, indigenous Europeans, Arabs, et al weren't exactly queueing up to convert to Judaism, and if contemporary science and DNA studies are any indication, that number was never large enough to dwarf or subsume non-proselyte Jews. Rather, it was the other way around. The chances of running into someone of Jewish descent whose ancestors were all non-Israelite converts are practically zero. As ChronoFrog correctly pointed out, Romanies, First Nations, Arabs, and many others have accepted outsiders over the centuries, but this has no bearing on geographic categorization. Romani are still listed under South Asian, North American Indians remain geographically categorized according to wherever their tribe is indigenous to, Arabs are listed under West Asian despite the significantly higher probability that North African Arabs have no West Asian descent. Why should Jews be treated any differently?
1b2. This point borders on nonsensical. Even if someone belongs to a Middle Eastern ethnic group and has proven genetic descent (ironic, since your case against inclusion up until now was largely premised on the idea that we're not genetically "pure".... which one is it?) from the Middle East, they still wouldn't qualify as being categorized under "Middle Eastern descent"? That is so self-evidently absurd that it warrants no further response.
2. I'll focus on your second point, because I don't think Abraham is relevant here. It is apparent that you either did not read the studies, or ignored their conclusions. For geneticists, our Levantine descent is not an issue of "maybe", it's an issue of "how much admixture was there, and what were the sources of this admixture?". Our origins and descent from the Levant is concrete, scientifically proven fact. If you reject that, then you are ignoring the overwhelming consensus of the scientific community. That is highly unencyclopedic.
3. That's because ethnicity and descent are interrelated.
4a. There were many genetic studies posted in here refuting your assertions
4b. If you're trying to enforce a statute of limitations on descent, then yes. A source would be absolutely necessary.
4c. Arabs retained without interruption a connection to a specific geographic homeland.....and the Jews didn't? How so? Both groups consist of millions who hadn't set foot in their natal land for centuries (if ever, in the Arab case). The only notable difference is that one expanded through colonial conquest, whereas the other was dispersed BY conquest.
5. See number 3.
6+7. I'm afraid it doesn't work that way. If source supported arguments are presented, it is incumbent upon you to either engage with them or concede. There is no reason why I (or Wikipedia as a whole) should hand-wave reliable sources for the sake of someone's personal or religious sensibilities. This is not a Torah studies group.
8. Actually, we would use a certain descent category after a person migrated more than once. And in fact, we do in every case except this one. That is the crux of the problem.
9. This was addressed earlier. Bubbecraft ( talk) 09:33, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
My apologies for delayed reply. As a retired grandparent raising granddaughters, I don't always have time to sit at a computer.
You wrote, "But not all Jews are of Middle Eastern descent, and not in the same measure" That is a blatant fallacy as already proven by my statement above, example of my racially mixed grand daughter and Indian tribal membership requirements, some requiring as little as 1/16th percentage. All Jews originated in the Levant, and regardless of how diluted they may have become over time, they are still of Middle Eastern descent. What does a quantitative measure have to do with it?
Ancestry.com recognizes the Middle Eastern descent in their DNA advertising. See https://dna.ancestry.com/ethnicity/european-jewish: European Jewish Ethnicity "People in this DNA ethnicity group may identify as: Polish, Belarusian, Ukrainian, Russian, Hungarian, Israeli, Ashkenazi"
You also wrote, "they simply don't really care." What relevance is that? Again, what if I hadn't spent almost 20 years reasearching my family and learning my family's roots, would that mean I no longer am of Middle Eastern descent? And by that standard, since most people don't care about [fill in the topic of your choice] -- does that mean that particular topic should not be included in WP?
Once again, you can't have it both ways. 1) Either I am of Middle Eastern descent, or I am not, and whether I know it or not, whether I care or not, does not change my DNA. 2) Either all topics are contained within WP or you begin the process of censoring furthering such abhorant process as found in Islamization, banning books by various religious groups, right to be forgotten, and so much more egregious redactions. For an example of the degree to which this type of logic can descend, I refer you to the book, "Victims Stories and the Advancement of Human Rights" by Dana T. Meyers. Refer to page 16 where she writes, "Before I outline my philosophical agenda in this book, I want to spotlight an additional issue bearing on victims and their stories that Slahi's work puts on unusally consipicuous, graphic display. There are black bars covering text and signaling redactions on almost every page of Guantanamo Diary. Many of the redactions protect the identities of the persons who abducted and torrured Slahi. Given that the US government refuses to to prosecute any of these individuals, it is unsurprising, though highly problematic, that we are prevented from learning who they are. Although the legitimacy of these name redactions is debatable, two other redactons are blatantly egregious. Slahi's entire description of his polygraph test -- material that presumably would exonerate him once and for all -- is redacted (2015, 301-307). Likewise, several pages that are preceded by 'One of my poems went' are blacked out (2015, 359-361). His poem -- presumably a deeply personal statement concerning subject matter of great importance to him -- has been censored." And if you're going to go down the path of censorship, I refer you to the following 3 articles: a) The Case Against Censorship, by Victoria Brownworth, http://www.lambdaliterary.org/features/11/20/the-case-against-censorship/ b) Gavin McInnes Makes a Great Argument Against Censorship, by Elizabegth N. Brown, http://reason.com/blog/2014/08/21/gavin-mcinnes-as-anti-censorship-argumen c) and most imporantly, Censorship, Violence & Press Freedom, by Article19,, https://www.article19.org/pages/en/censorship-violence-press-freedom-more.html where they begin with "Censorship in all its forms is often unjustifiable and is used simply to stop truths or ideas emerge which draw attention to powerful people or governments, or undermine ideology. This is inexcusable."
As for my DNA results, my Middle Eastern markers are stronger than my father's -- he is the direct descendant from the family from the known Middle East. Which means my Ashkenazi side provided MORE markers for the Levant, than my Sephardic side.
Refer to https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/judaica/ejud_0002_0007_0_07174.html Read, "Jewish Paternal Ancestry – View from the NRY Markers of the Y-Chromosome" and read where it states, "Taken together these results confirmed that the majority of NRY haplogroups found among contemporary Ashkenazi Jews originated in the Near East"
And also read the section, "Jewish Maternal Ancestry: View from Mitochondrial DNA" where the author wrote, "Similar to the observation for male ancestry based on Y-chromosome analysis in the Ashkenazi population, the mitochondrial DNA results also show that the various Ashkenazi communities throughout Central and Eastern Europe cannot be readily distinguished from each other, likely reflecting shared recent origins from a common small ancestral deme, followed by continuous migration among the Ashkenazi communities."
Whether a person knows/cares about ancestry, has absolutely NO bearing on the facts. And the matter of degree is of zero consequence or even relevance.
In other words, contrary to your statements, DNA testing has confirmed ALL Jews are descended from the Levant.
1a1 WP:Burden states the editor must ensure all content is verifiable from a valid source. How is that a reply? How does that address the question, "that all members of a particular ethnic group must identify the same way, with no variation." If you are suggesting, and I suspect you are, that not all Jews identify the same way, then you are partially correct. No group of people all identify in the same manner, and Jews are no exception. However, if you want a verifiable source that all Jews identify with Israel/Levant, then you need only look as far as the Passover Seder. Regardless of heritage, ethnicity, race, Ashkenazi, Sephardic, etc., each and every Jew always says, and with good reason, "Next Year in Jerusalem." And why is that? Because it is designed to remind us from where we all came from and the desire to return there. Every Jew knows it -- even if only subconsciously. (Have you ever seen a Jew not state it at a Passover Seder?)
1a1 + 1a3 +2 +3 +4a + 5: I am not mixing up the 2. As an agnostic American born Jew, I am quite clear about the differences. This is a an ethnic issue -- as well as an indigenous people and race issue. I refer you to http://www.diffen.com/difference/Ethnicity_vs_Race: "Race refers to a person's physical characteristics, such as bone structure and skin, hair, or eye color. Ethnicity, however, refers to cultural factors, including nationality, regional culture, ancestry, and language. " As Jews we have identifiably distinct racial characteristics (as well as ethnic characteristics) as proven by DNA testing. It's long been known there are diseases which are predominantly found in Ahkenazi Jews. I refer you to the Ahkenazi Jewish Genetic Panel ( http://www.webmd.com/children/tc/ashkenazi-jewish-genetic-panel-ajgp-what-are-ashkenazi-jewish-genetic-diseases) where you will find Bloom syndrome, Canavan disease, Cystic fibrosis, Familial dysautonomia, Fanconi anemia, Gaucher disease, Mucolipdosis IV, Niermann-Pick disease, Tay-Sachs and Torsiondystonia. Furthermore, if you read http://www.jpost.com/Enviro-Tech/Jews-A-religious-group-people-or-race, "The belief that Jews constitute a religious, rather than ethnic or racial group in the US and other Western countries is widespread. “Jewish” was never a category for race in the US Census, Ostrer notes, even though genetic studies 'would seem to refute this..." The fact that Jews have not been recognized as an ethnic group until now simply proves the point of ongoing ethnic and racial bias against us. It would seem you are attempting to eradicate our collective roots in the Middle East in a manner similar to the recent U.N.'s erasure of the Jewish connection to the Temple Mount.
1a1 + 1b1: Both of your explanations are flawed and, in the case of the Jewish-Arab analogy, nonsensical. One of the other editors explained this.
1b2. Consideration is not a factor as explained above. Example: my step-children are of Indian descent on their mother's side. My step-daughter followed through with the information and was able to obtain Indian membership in the appropriate tribe. My step-son didn't care and didn't do so. Does that make him any less of Indian descent? Moreover, whether the average person traces their lineage further back or not, is once again, irrelevant for the same reason as my step-children. As for Wikipedia: how would this would not be an imposition to say Jews originated in the Levant. My half-sister, who was rasied with no Jewish learning of even the most minal, considers herself a Jew and that all Jews originated in the Levant. (A conversation which came up at our last Passover Seder, and the first time she had ever attended one.) How can you speak for people as a whole, when it's clear you have no basis for that understanding. You have no imperical data supporting your statements. You have no polls. You have not met your own criteria for WP:BURDEN. You have nothing which suggests or even alludes to your point of view. And that's all you are doing, presenting a point of view which non-factual, unencylopedic, inconsistent, and above all, offensive.
4b: Same problem with your reply. Where is the statute of limitations in Wikipedia?
6 + 7: Unfortunately your replies are more often opinions than actual verifiable responses. You consistently fail to respond to the arguments presented. You dismiss out of hand, over and over again, that other points of view may have relevance. You do not engage the points being mentioned, instead dismissing them with references to WP:Burden which in no way actually addresses the issues mentioned. I am sorry you have taken offense. For the record, your lack of appropriate and engaged responses -- coupled with your apparent zeal in erasing this category -- have given offense to me as well.
8.1: As I read the prior conversation between you and another editor, I see you are attempting to set a statute of limitations with no sources or Wiki-polkcy based arguments to substantiate the position. Descent had no limitations.
8.2 + 8.3: Already addressed. To take it one step further, my former daughter-in-law refers to herself as an African American. Presumably, by your definition, she would be permitted to be a part of the African heritage. Never mind the fact I traced her family back to the 1760's -- and all American born. So far, I have been unable to answer her question when we started the quest: when did her ancestors come to the U.S.? There is NEVER any guarantee of ANY ONE individual of ANY descent to be of ANY particular heritage -- unless DNA is done. Your response is specious, without substance, merit or WP:BURDEN.
8.4: Come again? You want a verifiable source with specific genetic information to prove the claim of one individual? Would my DNA report meet that criteria? What about those reports from just about every Jewish genealogist I know who has taken DNA tests? Visit any DNA site (and there are MANY of them) and create a free account. View the DNA results of the Jews. They all, without exception, show Middle Eastern heritage. (1) Considering WP doesn't always meet that burden of proof on every subject contained, I find this hilarious. Refer to the pages for Joe Gold, my paternal grandfather's brother, /info/en/?search=Joe_Gold. Most of the details (particularly the dates) originated from me personally and they are NOT sourced. (2) In fact, the whole issue of verifiable sources, near as I can determine, on WP is absurd and non-sustainable. It depends on the ability to point to a URL. Given the internet is filled with controversial and often contradictory information on any single topic, that URLs come and go as quickly as changing the baby's diaper, how can another page on the internet be the (often) sole and primary basis for proving a point?
9: Refer to the extensive list of sources provided by other editor(s). You are zeroing in on source #2 even though it states, "In the broader sense of the term, a Jew is any person belonging to the worldwide group that constitutes, through descent or conversion, a continuation of the ancient Jewish peple, who were themselves descendants of the Hebrews of the Old Testament." You can not ignore the descent part which accounts for the vast majority of Jews worldwide -- not least of which is that Judaism not only discourages conversion but pursues with great zeal the refusal to convert -- most Jews are NOT converts. Sources 3 and 4 emphasize descent and nationhood as well.
Bubbecraft ( talk) 16:08, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Ivanka Trump and SDJ are not of Jewish descent. They are both converts, so they're not relevant here as this category does not include them in it. Jacques Derrida was very much a Frenchman, but we wouldn't list him under any French descent categories nor would we add/remove categories on that basis. Besides, the rest of her post makes it fairly obvious that she wasn't referring to converts when she said 'all Jews'. Probably just sloppy wording on her part.
Certain diseases are exclusive to Ashkenazim due to generations of endogamy, not because they are genetically distinct from other Jewish subdivisions (genetically, they are almost indistinguishable from Sephardim), although it does refute the idea that Ashkenazim are Europeans who converted to Judaism. As for your flippant remarks about not reading her "wall of text", if you're not going to engage someone's arguments fairly, maybe you'd be better off leaving this RfC and finding something else to do. The Human Trumpet Solo ( talk) 17:11, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
@Sir Joseph:
I wrote "All Jews originated in the Levant" and you replied, "Did Sammy Davis Jr. come from the ME? What about Ivanka Trump? ...".
Is there some reason you resort to eisegetical interpretation of the written word?
Let me rephrase it: The first and primary source of modern day Jewry originated in the Levant.
As for converts, they are far and few between and bear little or no relevance on the basic issue: are Jews, taken as a whole, to be considered of Middle Eastern descent, regardless of dilution and/or other considerations? And if you insist on returning to the issue of converts, let's also remember -- as found in most instances of conversion -- the resulting children still inherit the DNA from the Jewish parent (who wasn't the convert).
How can you be a fair and impartial participant in this topic if you aren't willing to read all information presented. Like the other editor who has engaged with me, you are presenting opinions only, you have no WP:BURDEN and refuse to consider it when presented -- as you so eloquently wrote, "I didn't read your wall of text."
I'm sorry you feel I've written too long a dialogue in response, but prior editors left me no choice but to address all the responses with meaningful and WP:BURDEN sources. I am not simply defending an opinion.
Let me also emphasis something you missed since you didn't read my "wall of text": the DNA tests I pointed to clearly state the MAJORITY of Ashkenazi Jews ARE of ME descent.
Therefore your counter-claim lacks sufficiency and WP:BURDEN.
If this were a moderated debate, as I understand the process (which doesn't say much), I believe you have failed to meet the burden of proof.
@Debresser
Yes, I repeat myself to some degree -- but you have left me no choice -- and include WP:BURDEN, per your request.
Emotional?
Why on earth would you ask this? Because I don't communicate like a professor of theology? Because I answer with a question?
If your question, comment, statement is superfluous, then expect my reply to be in the same vein.
I would counter your comment: Might I suggest you refrain from eisegetical interpretation and resume exegetical form?
Moreover, I would ask you to apply the same WP:BURDEN to your own statements and account for the ones having been presented here by the "other camp." Bubbecraft ( talk) 20:14, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Near the beginning of this discussion, Nishidani wrote, "We are discussing whether a cat insinuating Ashkenazi Jews are of Middle Eastern descent is appropriate."
Later, @Debresser wrote, "All these DNA stories are no[t] really relevant to the issue. Not because part of my blood can be traced to Spain (some of my ancestors were of Sephardic heritage) am I of Spanish descent. If this is how we categorize people, all of us would have a long list of descent categories."
The fact is that we, none of us here, have the ability to classify and categorize people in any meaningful, consistent and conclusive manner.
No matter what rules are established for any category or classification, there will always be an exception to the rule.
Let me instead refer you to: Different differences: The use of ‘genetic ancestry’ versus race in biomedical human genetic research https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3124377/
This article presents a number of concepts specific to disease related DNA research. The hurdles they faced are similar to the discussion taking place here.
If you only read the first few sections, you will learn very quickly that the geneticists themselves are in "agreement race categories do not correspond to genetic groupings." It goes on to explain that "although one can interpret genetic ancestry as a concept derived from population genetics technologies and race as a socio-cultural set of understandings, we show that the two are not so easily separated in scientific/cultural practices and discourses." Eventually, the author leads you to a description of a statistical modeling program, EIGENSTRAT, which divides sample groups into similar clusters on the basis of SNP variations which then build algorithms independent of a "priori of human evolution or historical migrations."
In other words, the medical research community has determined there is no single definitive manner in which to establish/define groups/classifications/categories for people.
Has it ever occurred to anyone here to reach a compromise? Bubbecraft ( talk) 00:03, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
Bubbecraft ( talk) 04:45, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
Seems Wikipedia has already weighed in on this topic: "Genetic studies indicate that modern Jews (Ashkenazi, Sephardic and Mizrahi specifically), Levantine Arabs, Assyrians, Samaritans, Syriacs-Arameans, Maronites, Druze, Mandaeans, and Mhallami, all have an ancient indigenous common Near Eastern heritage which can be genetically mapped back to the ancient Fertile Crescent, but often also display genetic profiles distinct from one another, indicating the different histories of these peoples"
/info/en/?search=Semitic_people Bubbecraft ( talk) 02:39, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
Sir Joseph, this category is one of many pages on my watchlist, and I would have commented earlier were it not for the fact that I'm, y'know, busy. Why is it that every time the tide of an argument or Request for Comment shifts in favor of the ostensibly "pro-Israel" side, people like you theorize that there is some sort of foul play or conspiracy involved?
Maybe people just disagree with you. The Human Trumpet Solo ( talk) 03:53, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
By the way, Ivanka Trump married an ethnic Jew, so her children will undoubtedly carry Middle Eastern descent. Converts are gradually absorbed into the Jewish (read: Middle Eastern) gene pool, making this entire discussion on converts moot anyway. The Human Trumpet Solo ( talk) 03:53, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
@Debresser, at one point did you maintain one reason for not including "Jewish" was because the subcategories for the category, "People of ME Descent" is grouped by geography -- and that's the reason Jewish should not be included? If so, then why is there a sub-category called "Semitic" (which is not a geographical definition, at least it no longer is by today's usage -- see links below). And if an argument can be made for Semitic being an acceptable geographical definition, then why doesn't that page contain "Jewish" which is by definition most definitely Semitic?
Semitic: /info/en/?search=Semitic
Antisemitism: /info/en/?search=Antisemitism The root word Semite gives the false impression that antisemitism is directed against all Semitic people. However, the compound word antisemite was popularized in Germany in 1879 as a scientific-sounding term for Judenhass "Jew-hatred", and that has been its common use since then. Bubbecraft ( talk) 02:46, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
I am in agreement with Bubbecraft ( talk), The Human Trumpet Solo ( talk), Musashiaharon ( talk), ChronoFrog ( talk), and Evildoer187 ( talk)——as I have stated many times before, Jews/Hebrews/Israelites are of one large family ( Tribe, "race," Ethnocultural/ Ethnoreligious group, etc.) with many and intersecting branches. Whether or both through Semitic genetics [1] [2] and/or Ethnocultural traditions/philosophies/religions/customs/etc. (e.g. the Abayudaya, who—since their founding—have passed down Jewish traditions as well as their sociopolitical identification of being Jews in Uganda, and have been treated as such), most Jews are more interrelated with one another than with any other group. Our closest core (in relation to being Jews) relatives outside of those who intersect with our communities are predominantly the other Middle Eastern groups (see above). There would not have been European pogroms, Holocaust, or Inquisitions of Jews had any little/possible genetic/cultural connections to Diasporic Jews in fact significantly mattered to Europeans in general——who, as I am sure most people here know, have often systematically succumbed to deadly bouts of racism over the past several millennia (from the Greeks, to the Visigoths, to the Romans, to the British, to the Germans, to the Poles, to the Turks, etc.). The bottom line is this: Jews are a Middle Eastern/Semitic/ West Asian/ Afro-Asiatic group, as per our genetic and cultural origins——so, please refrain from denying/trying to erase what is inherently true. Jeffgr9 ( talk) 03:06, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Let me try and summarize this as I understand it. Currently, the categories are delineated as follows:
People of ME
You want to remove the parent category, leaving only:
People of Jewish desc.
How can one disconnect the Jewish history from the Middle East -- regardless of whether it's 1 generation or 1,000 generatons ago? of DNA? of known/unknown heritage? geography?
I just realized that if I were researching the Middle East, with no personal connections or perceived conceptions, I would be surprised NOT to find Jewish people listed. Because it is an indisputable historical fact. It has nothing to do with an individual's direct connection to the ME, but rather the historical relevance.
@Debresser, I think you made some reference to people not caring. But they don't have to care on a personal level, but WP must care on an historical level and be as accurate as possible. Removing the parent category disenfranchises an unassailable historical fact. Bubbecraft ( talk) 04:11, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Neither Ashkenazi Jews nor the two Sephardic samples clustered with their former host populations (non-Jewish Eastern European, Iberian, and North African populations). This finding is supported by highly significant FST values (all FSTs >.12; P<.001) between Jews and their respective host populations [3] -- meaning extensive endogamy and very little to no admixture! Bubbecraft ( talk) 05:18, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
References |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
References
|
Would it be impolitic of me, @Debresser, to state, in my opinion, you are failing to be WP:CONSISTENT, failing to provide WP:BURDEN, all while violating WP:BIAS, WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and WP:IDONTLIKEIT -- whether intended or not?
To clarify: WP:CONSISTENT, WP:BURDEN for your removal of the category: there has been no real justification beyond "so-and-so agrees with me" and fallacious arguments addressed and answered in depth which have been consistently ignored and suggests, in my opinion, an issue of WP:BIAS, WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and WP:IDONTLIKEIT.
Moreover, there seems to be a proclivity for ignoring and dodging relevant points while simultaneously treating me as a 2 year old (emotional, arguments by assertion, not following the policies/rules, etc.). As it currently stands, I have little reason to form a different opinion, no matter how hard I try. And I have tried to ignore the innuendos by, for example, suggesting we attempt a compromise.-- Bubbecraft ( talk) 17:51, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
@Debresser stated: It would definitely be better to leave the discussion to other editors
@Bubbecraft stated: arguments addressed and answered in depth which have been consistently ignored and suggesting we attempt a compromise
@Bubbecraft stated: treating me as a 2 year old (emotional, arguments by assertion, not following the policies/rules, etc)
@Bubbecraft stated: in my opinion, whether intended or not and suggests, in my opinion
@Bubbecraft stated: Would it be impolitic of me, @Debresser, to state, in my opinion and suggesting we attempt a compromise
@Bubbecraft stated: Would it be impolitic of me, @Debresser, to state, in my opinion and treating me as a 2 year old (emotional, arguments by assertion, not following the policies/rules, etc)
@Bubbecraft stated: And I have tried to ignore the innuendos by, for example, suggesting we attempt a compromise.
@Bubbecraft stated: there has been no real justification beyond "so-and-so agrees with me" and fallacious arguments addressed and answered in depth which have been consistently ignored
All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution. There are an excess of 45 sources cited on this page in support of maintaining the category. You wrote, I base my opposition on facts -- I ask for the nth time (I've lost count) to prove they are facts. You many not have to provide the burden of proof, but you do have to prove what you state is a verifiable fact and not just a supposition or opinion. WP:BURDEN does NOT exclude you. As I read the page, it reads like the legal definition, which states the requirement that the plaintiff (the party bringing a civil lawsuit) show by a "preponderance of evidence" or "weight of evidence" that all the facts necessary to win a judgment are presented and are probably true
Continuing to dispute your last comments are pointless and I think the examples provided above sufficiently exemplifies my desire to work with you and the other editors, within the guidelines, to the best of my ability and to work towards consensus.-- Bubbecraft ( talk) 02:23, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
Ironically, Debresser ( talk), your repetition of statements without factual bases makes you guilty of some of the same accusations you are aspersing upon Bubbecraft ( talk). Case in point: you have not disproved any of my arguments, and you have additionally not attempted to do so with facts. What is your goal here? Why do you not want Jews to be considered Middle Eastern? If I may ask, of what implications are you afraid to set by connecting these categories? Jeffgr9 ( talk) 02:29, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
A short summary of this RFC:
1. Debresser removes
People of Middle Eastern descent as a parent cat of
People of Jewish descent, following a long period of edit warring between himself and a multitude of editors (I lost count of the number of times Debresser has reverted, but it was well over the 3RR limit and the fact that he hasn't been sanctioned for it is a cause for concern), on the basis that A. Jews left the Middle East a long time ago (the statute of limitations argument), B. no Jew identifies as Middle Eastern simply because they are Jewish. This is obviously not true (I'm 100 percent Ashkenazi and I've identified as Middle Eastern my entire life, as have the majority of Jews that I've met), and even if it was, it has no relevance to categorization, and C. converts.
2. Other editors disagree with Debresser, (myself, Bubbecraft, Jeffgr9, musashiaharon, ChronoFrog), and one other editor (Sir Joseph, although for obvious reasons, Debresser has also made a habit out of citing the opinions of editors from the discussion that happened 2 years ago, even though he is currently in conflict with at least one of these editors) agrees with him. The disagreeing side responds by A. providing a wealth of reliable sources (which looks very similar to the one I gave in a previous RFC --- it was ignored in that discussion, and is largely being ignored here too) supporting the validity of the
People of Middle Eastern descent category as a parent cat of
People of Jewish descent, B. a critique of Debresser's statute of limitations as arbitrary,
WP:INCONSISTENT (e.g. the Arab and Romani examples) --- there are probably many others, but those two are the most obvious), and unsupported by any known Wikipedia policy, C. correctly dismissing personalized self-identity as irrelevant, because we don't add or remove categories based on the strenuous proclamations of a few (or even many) individuals of Jewish descent who feel they are "not Middle Eastern" --- individuals can identify however the hell they want (if I wanted, I could call myself a cucumber), but that has little, if any, bearing on demonstrable, empirically proven facts D. pointing out that the overwhelming majority of Jews are not converts (who are not even included in this category to begin with, as it pertains exclusively to descent), and trace the lion's share of their ancestry/DNA back to the Levant (y'know, where Israel is). Ashkenazi, Sephardi, and Mizrahi Jews are, according to the studies provided, more than half Israelite on average. The other Jewish groups are more admixed, but still carry Israelite descent (Indian Jews are about half, African and East Asian Jews are mainly sub-Saharan/East Asian respectively but with partial Israelite descent, and South/Central American Jews are almost entirely Sephardic or Ashkenazi). In short, virtually all Jews (excluding recent converts who, as mentioned above, are a vanishingly small minority of the global Jewish population and aren't even included in this category) carry Levantine descent, thereby justifying the
People of Middle Eastern descent category, E. even assuming, as one or two editors have alleged, that a significant portion of Jews worldwide have no Middle Eastern descent (which is false --- see D), removing the category would still violate
WP:CONSISTENT. Going back to the Arab example, a vast chunk of the people we call "Arabs" today have no West Asian descent, but they're still categorized as such. Many are actually 100 percent Amazigh and are only classified as Arabs because of where they live, and may not even IDENTIFY as Arabs at all. Numerous other examples can be found worldwide, but I'll focus on what has already been offered. Examples: Romani, Arabs.
3. Debresser replies, but refuses to engage with most of the sources provided, instead quoting number 2 (selectively ignoring the part of that passage that doesn't support his view) to the exclusion of the other 20+ something sources used, while offering no sources of his own does not address provided sources, does not supply supporting sources. It is followed by some weird tangent about Abraham, and then Tangential discussion about Abraham follows, a dismissal of the Romani analogy with yet another appeal a claim to statute of limitations and nothing (no policies, no sources, nothing) to substantiate it and no supporting evidence. He then attacks the Arab analogy with a claim that Arabs maintained a continuous attachment to their homeland via empire which, for some unexplained reason, is somehow more valid than Jews maintaining a continuous attachment to their homeland via preserving their identity, culture, religion, language (to a degree, at least), and of course, genetics. Debresser states the Arab analogy is inapplicable because they maintained a continuous attachment to their homeland via preserving their identity, culture, religion, language even though Jews maintained a continuous attachment to their homeland via preserving their identity, culture, religion, language (to a degree, at least), and of course, genetics.
4. More critical replies follow, all of them harshly critical of Debresser (with the lone exception of Sir Joseph, whose reply to Bubbecraft can be summed up as "LOL IM NOT READING UR POST BUT IM STILL RIGHT ANYWAY PFLLLBT!" --- I rebuked him for this, and told him to go do something else if he has nothing constructive to add). Sir Joseph replies to Bubbecraft, "I didn't read your wall of text, but ... is factually incorrect." He is called out for (selectively) quoting one source while ignoring the rest (aka
WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT), refusing to provide any sources or policies supporting the bizarre double standards and statute of limitations he is attempting to impose on ONLY this category (hence the accusations of
WP:BIAS and
WP:IDONTLIKEIT), and for his absurd justification for keeping Arabs under "West Asian" while removing Jews. Additional points are made by Jeffgr9 and Bubbecraft.
5. Tensions escalate. Debresser is hounded by the opposing camp (and in my opinion, justifiably so) for repeatedly ignoring the abundance of RS and counter-arguments offered while insisting that he has the facts and sources (despite providing a grand total of zero sources) (none provided) on his side. Additionally, he continues to cite
WP:BURDEN, which feels more and more like a cop out since it is becoming increasingly obvious that he isn't going to budge on this topic, regardless of what anyone says stating he is under no obligation to provide supporting sources. Instead, he is waving
WP:BURDEN around as a talisman to ward off opposing counter-arguments while obscuring the fact that he has none of his own. This sort of behavior impedes genuine consensus building.
Critical engagement is what is needed here, not constant appeals to authority (especially the repeated call outs to editors who are not even involved in this discussion, which comes off as subtle WP:CANVASSING --- to the point that if either of them ever do show up in here, it will look very suspicious) and the overall obstinate behavior you've exhibited thus far. I've made my own position on this clear (I think the category should stay), but my views are not set in stone. I am willing to reconsider my position if you have strong enough arguments and reliable sources to support them. That is what I am waiting for, but thus far all you've provided are very weak arguments (for the reasons I've outlined) and not a single source to back any of it up. The ball is in your court now, Debresser. The Human Trumpet Solo ( talk) 18:18, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
@Debresser: would it be impolitic to suggest we bring in 3rd party opinon? Or some other dispute resolution mechanism?
In the meantime, would you mind returning with me to the RfC in question?
@Debresser: You have consistently stated WP:Burden applies only to those editors who want to include/add/restore the category, People of ME Descent, and the side which wants it removed is under no such obligation or requirement.
I responded, after reading WP:BURDEN, WP:ONUS, and WP:EXCEPTIONAL you were in fact required to support your claims. WP:REDFLAG specifically addresses this issue, particularly with regards to the following (quoted) points:
Although I could find no specific mention of a definition Burden of Proof as it pertains to an RfC within WP, I supplied the legal definition of Burden of Proof. From WP, I also found the philosophic burden of proof [1] and resources [2].
An RfC dictates we have a converation, a dialogue, and therefore a debate ensues. This is intended, hopefully, to reach a consensus.
The burden of proof can shift [3]: "For this reason, each side will not only argue for their conclusion, but they will object to the arguments given by the opposing side. The opposing side then has a burden to reply to the objections (and they will continue to have a burden of proof until they reply to the objections)." (See also WP:Philosophic burden of proof, WP:Evidentialism, WP:Theory of justification "It has given up justification, but not yet adopted nonjustificational criticism. Instead of appealing to criteria and authorities, it attempts to describe and explicate them.")
The burden of proof (BoP) is a "philosophical concept which denotes the party responsible for providing evidence of their position(s)." [4] The BoP may be assigned to the person making the assertion or to both sides.
You have made a number of unsubstantiated claims to remove the category without providing any factual-based argument, seemingly depending on the argument of Fallibilism [5], "that no belief (theory, view, thesis, and so on) can ever be rationally supported or justified in a conclusive way" and that the implications of fallibilism can never be justified. Thus implying no beliefs are justified. Yet, "that is a wholly general skepticism about justification" and two opposing arguments are presented at great length.
What's wrong with your response? [6]: "When anyone makes a claim that a certain entity or relationship exists, they have the responsibility of supplying supporting evidence. Without such evidence, the claim is worthless."
Within the discussion of "The Brain in a Vat Argument" ] [7], contained within the "Significance of the Argument," an interesting and suggestive statement is made, to whit: "Someone of a Positivist bent might argue that if there is no empirical evidence to appeal to in order to establish whether we are brains in a vat or not, then the hypothesis is meaningless, in which case we do not need an argument to refute it."
In summary, your argument -- that you do not have to support your case with fact based sources -- creates an environment where no one can present a sufficient response to meet the bar for burden of proof. You have argued and maintained the fallacy of the burden of proof [8]. This tactic seemingly provides a means "to avoid supplying supporting evidence" [9]. You have tried "to convince [us] that the responsibility of supplying evidence lies [solely] with [us]." [10] Bubbecraft ( talk) 18:43, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
My apologies, I missed including this next part.
I would appreciate a response addressing why you feel it is not incumbent upon you to provide supporting evidence without just pointing me to WP:BURDEN -- because that article can be interpreted in at least 2 different ways, as I have demonstrated. Thank you. Bubbecraft ( talk) 18:53, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
@Debresser: I am confused and would appreciate clarification. I found you contacted @Nishdani, @Liz, @Shalom11111, @Gilad55, @Evildoer187, @PA Math Prof, @Yuvn86 (but not @Obiwankenobi, @Musashiaharon) on September 25, 2016 yet only today (October 1, 2016) informed this group you intended to. Don't you have to contact everyone from the prior RfC conversation? Can you explain why making those requests a week ago does not constitute WP:CANVASSING? Bubbecraft ( talk) 19:53, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
All I've done was summarize the conversation up to this point. Admittedly, my post was on the snarky side of things, but that's just how I am naturally. And I'd be lying if I said that you didn't appear to be very firmly entrenched in your views. AGF only lasts insofar as there is sufficient reason to maintain good faith. It's not something that either you or I are entitled to in perpetuity.
I already told you where I stand on this dispute, but I've also made it clear that I'm willing to reconsider my endorsement of this category IF there is a solid case against it. That's what I'm waiting for you to provide. There is a surplus of counter-arguments of reliable sources standing that you still have not addressed.
Lastly, what's the point of contacting Evildoer, Shalom11111, Gilad, et al when they've all been inactive for well over a year, if not two years? One of them is topic banned. The only editors who are still active are, coincidentally, those who agreed with you two years ago. Am I wrong for being just a little suspicious? The Human Trumpet Solo ( talk) 21:17, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
Debresser: A review so you may address my prior question.
Another argument can be made regarding other groups (Romani, Arabs) which have sufficiently similar characteristics and are already contained within the Middle East category, thereby concluding consistency is relevant as well. Including a Middle East category of Jewish descent is logical. Bubbecraft ( talk) 16:26, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
Academia is not in agreement regarding conversions [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] whereas DNA evidence supports Middle Eastern ancestry, downplaying the relevance of admixture and/or conversions:
Most Jews are more concerned with ancestry/ethnicity than religion:
References |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
References
|
I would like to recommend this RFC be withdrawn and reformulated because the RFC doesn't ask a question thereby encouraging lengthy argument. The original posts are too long, difficult to follow and may be construed as having something of the nature of a filibuster. Bubbecraft ( talk) 06:08, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
Bus stop ( talk), I already have explained why any/all Jews should be Categorized as "of Middle Eastern descent"—both/either through ancestry/genetics and/or Tribal affiliation. The facts, many cited throughout this Talk page (you may search my name for some of the sources, and go down to the survey for others), all point to this conclusion. Your question sounds like, "If one closes their eyes, does the world disappear?" No, and similarly, just because some Ethnic Jews (as in they have Israelite ancestry) do not contemplate/consider/accept their Jewishness, does not mean that they are no longer Jews—they are always Jews, and thus always Middle Eastern. New members consciously think about their Judaism, and thus create an intersection between their original and their new Middle Eastern identity. Jeffgr9 ( talk) 06:30, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
Since this RFC didn’t have a Survey section, which is not required by the documentation on RFCs, but turns out to be essential to effective closure and assessment of consensus, I am adding one. Robert McClenon ( talk) 17:25, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
References |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
References
|
Please list your views (known as !votes because this is not a vote, because closing is based on strength of arguments) here as ‘’’Remove’’’ to remove all Middle Eastern, Asian, and similar geographical categories from all Jewish categories, or ‘’’Keep’’’ to keep them, or some other short explanation of what you propose. Do not engage in threaded discussion, which can go above. The purpose of this section is to make it easier for the closer to assess what the !votes are without having to wade through a lot of back-and-forth.
Sources
|
---|
References
|
______________________________________________________________________________________________________
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
In 2014 there was a very long discussion on this same talkpage, should Category:People of Middle Eastern descent be added to this category. Obviously nobody disagrees that the Middle East is the cradle of Judaism and the Jewish people, but that is not the same. The conclusion of that discussion, in which both sides had several proponents, was that there is no consensus for the "Middle East" category. The category, that was added originally in 2012, was not removed at after that discussion, for reasons that do not matter much at this moment. The arguments against its inclusion remain the same, and are basically two-fold:
The first point can benefit from some explanation. Jews who emigrated from Germany to, let's say, Israel or the United States, will call themselves German Jews. And the same for Jews from Syria, e.g., who call themselves Chalabi Jews wherever they are. But that is as far as it goes! Nobody knows in which countries their forefathers from more than a few generations ago lived, and nobody cares! Certainly, if you'd ask any Jew straightforward, if they are of Middle Eastern decent, nobody would say they are because of the mere fact of being a Jew alone.
To further illustrate this point I retold a known Jewish joke in the previous discussion, about two Jews, let's say both 100% Ashkenazic Jews, where one tells the other: "Do you know you are an Iraqi Jew?" and then when the other guy vehemently denies he says "All Jews are descended from Abraham who came from Ur which is in Iraq". A similar proof ad absurdum regards mankind as a whole: most scientific and genetic research agrees that man comes from Africa, and nevertheless, not all "of .. descent" categories are part of "People of African descent", and it would be ridiculous to impose that scientific fact on descent categories, and the same is true in this case. The more so that in this case, where it is not a sure fact at all, in view of the second point regarding proselytes.
I propose to reach a conclusion that there is no place for "Middle East" categories, and per the same token "West Asian" or "Asian" categories, on any of the "Jewish descent" categories. There is at present no conformity on this issue in all of the "Jewish descent" categories, and of the many "Jewish descent" categories, some have one or more of the above. This Rfc strives to reach a conclusion that would be binding for all of them, and in my opinion that conclusion should be that those categories are out of place on all "Jewish descent" categories. Debresser ( talk) 13:20, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
References |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
References
|
Having read through this entire discussion, I feel like I need to say something.
I am absolutely dumbfounded.
So, you are telling me that everything I believe in, everything I know, everything I've learned is a lie?
I was born in the US. I am both a 2nd and 3rd generation Jewish American. I was taught, both at home and in Hebrew school, we are all descended from the Middle East.
I had a DNA test done. It shows I am in fact genetically descended from the Middle East.
I refer to myself as a Jewish American -- but that is only because I was born here. It doesn't have any bearing on -- nor detract from -- my heritage.
I've traced my paternal grandmother's family to the former Turkish Ottoman Empire. Ergo, even if only 25% of my more recent ancestors lived in and are of Middle Eastern descent, it doesn't mean I am any less of Middle Eastern descent.
It would be like telling my racially mixed grandchildren one side of their heritage was non-existent since they are not 100% one or the other. Or telling Indian tribes they can not accept members who are not 100% Indian heritage.
The fact that many (if not most) people are unaware/ignorant of their ancestry doesn't alter the fact all Jews are of Middle Eastern descent, to one degree or another. And being ignorant of one's ancestry doesn't mean it doesn't in fact exist.
On to your points.
@Debresser
1a1. And what policy would that be? I am unaware of any rule suggesting that all members of a particular ethnic group must identify the same way, with no variation, to be included under a geographic category. As mentioned previously by another editor, this seems to be the only place where such arguments crop up, and it is not consistent. Categories are not decided that way, and I see no rule based or source based reason to make an exception here. Geographic categorization is determined by where that group's ethnic origins are, and for Jews that place is Israel.
Fun fact: Karl Marx, Heinrich Heine, Leon Trotsky, and many others are categorized as Jewish on here even though none of the above examples considered themselves Jewish. That is because facts and policy trump personal feelings.
1a3. Virtually all known Jewish liturgy, despite varying degrees of difference, emphasizes that we are Israelites aka the nation of Israel. That much has been remarkably consistent across geographic boundaries, and the reason for that should be obvious. The Reform movement is the only exception, and in this particular case, I refer you back to point 1a1.
1b1. Conversions did happen, even if the extent is often exaggerated. Throughout most of our history in diaspora, indigenous Europeans, Arabs, et al weren't exactly queueing up to convert to Judaism, and if contemporary science and DNA studies are any indication, that number was never large enough to dwarf or subsume non-proselyte Jews. Rather, it was the other way around. The chances of running into someone of Jewish descent whose ancestors were all non-Israelite converts are practically zero. As ChronoFrog correctly pointed out, Romanies, First Nations, Arabs, and many others have accepted outsiders over the centuries, but this has no bearing on geographic categorization. Romani are still listed under South Asian, North American Indians remain geographically categorized according to wherever their tribe is indigenous to, Arabs are listed under West Asian despite the significantly higher probability that North African Arabs have no West Asian descent. Why should Jews be treated any differently?
1b2. This point borders on nonsensical. Even if someone belongs to a Middle Eastern ethnic group and has proven genetic descent (ironic, since your case against inclusion up until now was largely premised on the idea that we're not genetically "pure".... which one is it?) from the Middle East, they still wouldn't qualify as being categorized under "Middle Eastern descent"? That is so self-evidently absurd that it warrants no further response.
2. I'll focus on your second point, because I don't think Abraham is relevant here. It is apparent that you either did not read the studies, or ignored their conclusions. For geneticists, our Levantine descent is not an issue of "maybe", it's an issue of "how much admixture was there, and what were the sources of this admixture?". Our origins and descent from the Levant is concrete, scientifically proven fact. If you reject that, then you are ignoring the overwhelming consensus of the scientific community. That is highly unencyclopedic.
3. That's because ethnicity and descent are interrelated.
4a. There were many genetic studies posted in here refuting your assertions
4b. If you're trying to enforce a statute of limitations on descent, then yes. A source would be absolutely necessary.
4c. Arabs retained without interruption a connection to a specific geographic homeland.....and the Jews didn't? How so? Both groups consist of millions who hadn't set foot in their natal land for centuries (if ever, in the Arab case). The only notable difference is that one expanded through colonial conquest, whereas the other was dispersed BY conquest.
5. See number 3.
6+7. I'm afraid it doesn't work that way. If source supported arguments are presented, it is incumbent upon you to either engage with them or concede. There is no reason why I (or Wikipedia as a whole) should hand-wave reliable sources for the sake of someone's personal or religious sensibilities. This is not a Torah studies group.
8. Actually, we would use a certain descent category after a person migrated more than once. And in fact, we do in every case except this one. That is the crux of the problem.
9. This was addressed earlier. Bubbecraft ( talk) 09:33, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
My apologies for delayed reply. As a retired grandparent raising granddaughters, I don't always have time to sit at a computer.
You wrote, "But not all Jews are of Middle Eastern descent, and not in the same measure" That is a blatant fallacy as already proven by my statement above, example of my racially mixed grand daughter and Indian tribal membership requirements, some requiring as little as 1/16th percentage. All Jews originated in the Levant, and regardless of how diluted they may have become over time, they are still of Middle Eastern descent. What does a quantitative measure have to do with it?
Ancestry.com recognizes the Middle Eastern descent in their DNA advertising. See https://dna.ancestry.com/ethnicity/european-jewish: European Jewish Ethnicity "People in this DNA ethnicity group may identify as: Polish, Belarusian, Ukrainian, Russian, Hungarian, Israeli, Ashkenazi"
You also wrote, "they simply don't really care." What relevance is that? Again, what if I hadn't spent almost 20 years reasearching my family and learning my family's roots, would that mean I no longer am of Middle Eastern descent? And by that standard, since most people don't care about [fill in the topic of your choice] -- does that mean that particular topic should not be included in WP?
Once again, you can't have it both ways. 1) Either I am of Middle Eastern descent, or I am not, and whether I know it or not, whether I care or not, does not change my DNA. 2) Either all topics are contained within WP or you begin the process of censoring furthering such abhorant process as found in Islamization, banning books by various religious groups, right to be forgotten, and so much more egregious redactions. For an example of the degree to which this type of logic can descend, I refer you to the book, "Victims Stories and the Advancement of Human Rights" by Dana T. Meyers. Refer to page 16 where she writes, "Before I outline my philosophical agenda in this book, I want to spotlight an additional issue bearing on victims and their stories that Slahi's work puts on unusally consipicuous, graphic display. There are black bars covering text and signaling redactions on almost every page of Guantanamo Diary. Many of the redactions protect the identities of the persons who abducted and torrured Slahi. Given that the US government refuses to to prosecute any of these individuals, it is unsurprising, though highly problematic, that we are prevented from learning who they are. Although the legitimacy of these name redactions is debatable, two other redactons are blatantly egregious. Slahi's entire description of his polygraph test -- material that presumably would exonerate him once and for all -- is redacted (2015, 301-307). Likewise, several pages that are preceded by 'One of my poems went' are blacked out (2015, 359-361). His poem -- presumably a deeply personal statement concerning subject matter of great importance to him -- has been censored." And if you're going to go down the path of censorship, I refer you to the following 3 articles: a) The Case Against Censorship, by Victoria Brownworth, http://www.lambdaliterary.org/features/11/20/the-case-against-censorship/ b) Gavin McInnes Makes a Great Argument Against Censorship, by Elizabegth N. Brown, http://reason.com/blog/2014/08/21/gavin-mcinnes-as-anti-censorship-argumen c) and most imporantly, Censorship, Violence & Press Freedom, by Article19,, https://www.article19.org/pages/en/censorship-violence-press-freedom-more.html where they begin with "Censorship in all its forms is often unjustifiable and is used simply to stop truths or ideas emerge which draw attention to powerful people or governments, or undermine ideology. This is inexcusable."
As for my DNA results, my Middle Eastern markers are stronger than my father's -- he is the direct descendant from the family from the known Middle East. Which means my Ashkenazi side provided MORE markers for the Levant, than my Sephardic side.
Refer to https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/judaica/ejud_0002_0007_0_07174.html Read, "Jewish Paternal Ancestry – View from the NRY Markers of the Y-Chromosome" and read where it states, "Taken together these results confirmed that the majority of NRY haplogroups found among contemporary Ashkenazi Jews originated in the Near East"
And also read the section, "Jewish Maternal Ancestry: View from Mitochondrial DNA" where the author wrote, "Similar to the observation for male ancestry based on Y-chromosome analysis in the Ashkenazi population, the mitochondrial DNA results also show that the various Ashkenazi communities throughout Central and Eastern Europe cannot be readily distinguished from each other, likely reflecting shared recent origins from a common small ancestral deme, followed by continuous migration among the Ashkenazi communities."
Whether a person knows/cares about ancestry, has absolutely NO bearing on the facts. And the matter of degree is of zero consequence or even relevance.
In other words, contrary to your statements, DNA testing has confirmed ALL Jews are descended from the Levant.
1a1 WP:Burden states the editor must ensure all content is verifiable from a valid source. How is that a reply? How does that address the question, "that all members of a particular ethnic group must identify the same way, with no variation." If you are suggesting, and I suspect you are, that not all Jews identify the same way, then you are partially correct. No group of people all identify in the same manner, and Jews are no exception. However, if you want a verifiable source that all Jews identify with Israel/Levant, then you need only look as far as the Passover Seder. Regardless of heritage, ethnicity, race, Ashkenazi, Sephardic, etc., each and every Jew always says, and with good reason, "Next Year in Jerusalem." And why is that? Because it is designed to remind us from where we all came from and the desire to return there. Every Jew knows it -- even if only subconsciously. (Have you ever seen a Jew not state it at a Passover Seder?)
1a1 + 1a3 +2 +3 +4a + 5: I am not mixing up the 2. As an agnostic American born Jew, I am quite clear about the differences. This is a an ethnic issue -- as well as an indigenous people and race issue. I refer you to http://www.diffen.com/difference/Ethnicity_vs_Race: "Race refers to a person's physical characteristics, such as bone structure and skin, hair, or eye color. Ethnicity, however, refers to cultural factors, including nationality, regional culture, ancestry, and language. " As Jews we have identifiably distinct racial characteristics (as well as ethnic characteristics) as proven by DNA testing. It's long been known there are diseases which are predominantly found in Ahkenazi Jews. I refer you to the Ahkenazi Jewish Genetic Panel ( http://www.webmd.com/children/tc/ashkenazi-jewish-genetic-panel-ajgp-what-are-ashkenazi-jewish-genetic-diseases) where you will find Bloom syndrome, Canavan disease, Cystic fibrosis, Familial dysautonomia, Fanconi anemia, Gaucher disease, Mucolipdosis IV, Niermann-Pick disease, Tay-Sachs and Torsiondystonia. Furthermore, if you read http://www.jpost.com/Enviro-Tech/Jews-A-religious-group-people-or-race, "The belief that Jews constitute a religious, rather than ethnic or racial group in the US and other Western countries is widespread. “Jewish” was never a category for race in the US Census, Ostrer notes, even though genetic studies 'would seem to refute this..." The fact that Jews have not been recognized as an ethnic group until now simply proves the point of ongoing ethnic and racial bias against us. It would seem you are attempting to eradicate our collective roots in the Middle East in a manner similar to the recent U.N.'s erasure of the Jewish connection to the Temple Mount.
1a1 + 1b1: Both of your explanations are flawed and, in the case of the Jewish-Arab analogy, nonsensical. One of the other editors explained this.
1b2. Consideration is not a factor as explained above. Example: my step-children are of Indian descent on their mother's side. My step-daughter followed through with the information and was able to obtain Indian membership in the appropriate tribe. My step-son didn't care and didn't do so. Does that make him any less of Indian descent? Moreover, whether the average person traces their lineage further back or not, is once again, irrelevant for the same reason as my step-children. As for Wikipedia: how would this would not be an imposition to say Jews originated in the Levant. My half-sister, who was rasied with no Jewish learning of even the most minal, considers herself a Jew and that all Jews originated in the Levant. (A conversation which came up at our last Passover Seder, and the first time she had ever attended one.) How can you speak for people as a whole, when it's clear you have no basis for that understanding. You have no imperical data supporting your statements. You have no polls. You have not met your own criteria for WP:BURDEN. You have nothing which suggests or even alludes to your point of view. And that's all you are doing, presenting a point of view which non-factual, unencylopedic, inconsistent, and above all, offensive.
4b: Same problem with your reply. Where is the statute of limitations in Wikipedia?
6 + 7: Unfortunately your replies are more often opinions than actual verifiable responses. You consistently fail to respond to the arguments presented. You dismiss out of hand, over and over again, that other points of view may have relevance. You do not engage the points being mentioned, instead dismissing them with references to WP:Burden which in no way actually addresses the issues mentioned. I am sorry you have taken offense. For the record, your lack of appropriate and engaged responses -- coupled with your apparent zeal in erasing this category -- have given offense to me as well.
8.1: As I read the prior conversation between you and another editor, I see you are attempting to set a statute of limitations with no sources or Wiki-polkcy based arguments to substantiate the position. Descent had no limitations.
8.2 + 8.3: Already addressed. To take it one step further, my former daughter-in-law refers to herself as an African American. Presumably, by your definition, she would be permitted to be a part of the African heritage. Never mind the fact I traced her family back to the 1760's -- and all American born. So far, I have been unable to answer her question when we started the quest: when did her ancestors come to the U.S.? There is NEVER any guarantee of ANY ONE individual of ANY descent to be of ANY particular heritage -- unless DNA is done. Your response is specious, without substance, merit or WP:BURDEN.
8.4: Come again? You want a verifiable source with specific genetic information to prove the claim of one individual? Would my DNA report meet that criteria? What about those reports from just about every Jewish genealogist I know who has taken DNA tests? Visit any DNA site (and there are MANY of them) and create a free account. View the DNA results of the Jews. They all, without exception, show Middle Eastern heritage. (1) Considering WP doesn't always meet that burden of proof on every subject contained, I find this hilarious. Refer to the pages for Joe Gold, my paternal grandfather's brother, /info/en/?search=Joe_Gold. Most of the details (particularly the dates) originated from me personally and they are NOT sourced. (2) In fact, the whole issue of verifiable sources, near as I can determine, on WP is absurd and non-sustainable. It depends on the ability to point to a URL. Given the internet is filled with controversial and often contradictory information on any single topic, that URLs come and go as quickly as changing the baby's diaper, how can another page on the internet be the (often) sole and primary basis for proving a point?
9: Refer to the extensive list of sources provided by other editor(s). You are zeroing in on source #2 even though it states, "In the broader sense of the term, a Jew is any person belonging to the worldwide group that constitutes, through descent or conversion, a continuation of the ancient Jewish peple, who were themselves descendants of the Hebrews of the Old Testament." You can not ignore the descent part which accounts for the vast majority of Jews worldwide -- not least of which is that Judaism not only discourages conversion but pursues with great zeal the refusal to convert -- most Jews are NOT converts. Sources 3 and 4 emphasize descent and nationhood as well.
Bubbecraft ( talk) 16:08, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Ivanka Trump and SDJ are not of Jewish descent. They are both converts, so they're not relevant here as this category does not include them in it. Jacques Derrida was very much a Frenchman, but we wouldn't list him under any French descent categories nor would we add/remove categories on that basis. Besides, the rest of her post makes it fairly obvious that she wasn't referring to converts when she said 'all Jews'. Probably just sloppy wording on her part.
Certain diseases are exclusive to Ashkenazim due to generations of endogamy, not because they are genetically distinct from other Jewish subdivisions (genetically, they are almost indistinguishable from Sephardim), although it does refute the idea that Ashkenazim are Europeans who converted to Judaism. As for your flippant remarks about not reading her "wall of text", if you're not going to engage someone's arguments fairly, maybe you'd be better off leaving this RfC and finding something else to do. The Human Trumpet Solo ( talk) 17:11, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
@Sir Joseph:
I wrote "All Jews originated in the Levant" and you replied, "Did Sammy Davis Jr. come from the ME? What about Ivanka Trump? ...".
Is there some reason you resort to eisegetical interpretation of the written word?
Let me rephrase it: The first and primary source of modern day Jewry originated in the Levant.
As for converts, they are far and few between and bear little or no relevance on the basic issue: are Jews, taken as a whole, to be considered of Middle Eastern descent, regardless of dilution and/or other considerations? And if you insist on returning to the issue of converts, let's also remember -- as found in most instances of conversion -- the resulting children still inherit the DNA from the Jewish parent (who wasn't the convert).
How can you be a fair and impartial participant in this topic if you aren't willing to read all information presented. Like the other editor who has engaged with me, you are presenting opinions only, you have no WP:BURDEN and refuse to consider it when presented -- as you so eloquently wrote, "I didn't read your wall of text."
I'm sorry you feel I've written too long a dialogue in response, but prior editors left me no choice but to address all the responses with meaningful and WP:BURDEN sources. I am not simply defending an opinion.
Let me also emphasis something you missed since you didn't read my "wall of text": the DNA tests I pointed to clearly state the MAJORITY of Ashkenazi Jews ARE of ME descent.
Therefore your counter-claim lacks sufficiency and WP:BURDEN.
If this were a moderated debate, as I understand the process (which doesn't say much), I believe you have failed to meet the burden of proof.
@Debresser
Yes, I repeat myself to some degree -- but you have left me no choice -- and include WP:BURDEN, per your request.
Emotional?
Why on earth would you ask this? Because I don't communicate like a professor of theology? Because I answer with a question?
If your question, comment, statement is superfluous, then expect my reply to be in the same vein.
I would counter your comment: Might I suggest you refrain from eisegetical interpretation and resume exegetical form?
Moreover, I would ask you to apply the same WP:BURDEN to your own statements and account for the ones having been presented here by the "other camp." Bubbecraft ( talk) 20:14, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Near the beginning of this discussion, Nishidani wrote, "We are discussing whether a cat insinuating Ashkenazi Jews are of Middle Eastern descent is appropriate."
Later, @Debresser wrote, "All these DNA stories are no[t] really relevant to the issue. Not because part of my blood can be traced to Spain (some of my ancestors were of Sephardic heritage) am I of Spanish descent. If this is how we categorize people, all of us would have a long list of descent categories."
The fact is that we, none of us here, have the ability to classify and categorize people in any meaningful, consistent and conclusive manner.
No matter what rules are established for any category or classification, there will always be an exception to the rule.
Let me instead refer you to: Different differences: The use of ‘genetic ancestry’ versus race in biomedical human genetic research https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3124377/
This article presents a number of concepts specific to disease related DNA research. The hurdles they faced are similar to the discussion taking place here.
If you only read the first few sections, you will learn very quickly that the geneticists themselves are in "agreement race categories do not correspond to genetic groupings." It goes on to explain that "although one can interpret genetic ancestry as a concept derived from population genetics technologies and race as a socio-cultural set of understandings, we show that the two are not so easily separated in scientific/cultural practices and discourses." Eventually, the author leads you to a description of a statistical modeling program, EIGENSTRAT, which divides sample groups into similar clusters on the basis of SNP variations which then build algorithms independent of a "priori of human evolution or historical migrations."
In other words, the medical research community has determined there is no single definitive manner in which to establish/define groups/classifications/categories for people.
Has it ever occurred to anyone here to reach a compromise? Bubbecraft ( talk) 00:03, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
Bubbecraft ( talk) 04:45, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
Seems Wikipedia has already weighed in on this topic: "Genetic studies indicate that modern Jews (Ashkenazi, Sephardic and Mizrahi specifically), Levantine Arabs, Assyrians, Samaritans, Syriacs-Arameans, Maronites, Druze, Mandaeans, and Mhallami, all have an ancient indigenous common Near Eastern heritage which can be genetically mapped back to the ancient Fertile Crescent, but often also display genetic profiles distinct from one another, indicating the different histories of these peoples"
/info/en/?search=Semitic_people Bubbecraft ( talk) 02:39, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
Sir Joseph, this category is one of many pages on my watchlist, and I would have commented earlier were it not for the fact that I'm, y'know, busy. Why is it that every time the tide of an argument or Request for Comment shifts in favor of the ostensibly "pro-Israel" side, people like you theorize that there is some sort of foul play or conspiracy involved?
Maybe people just disagree with you. The Human Trumpet Solo ( talk) 03:53, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
By the way, Ivanka Trump married an ethnic Jew, so her children will undoubtedly carry Middle Eastern descent. Converts are gradually absorbed into the Jewish (read: Middle Eastern) gene pool, making this entire discussion on converts moot anyway. The Human Trumpet Solo ( talk) 03:53, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
@Debresser, at one point did you maintain one reason for not including "Jewish" was because the subcategories for the category, "People of ME Descent" is grouped by geography -- and that's the reason Jewish should not be included? If so, then why is there a sub-category called "Semitic" (which is not a geographical definition, at least it no longer is by today's usage -- see links below). And if an argument can be made for Semitic being an acceptable geographical definition, then why doesn't that page contain "Jewish" which is by definition most definitely Semitic?
Semitic: /info/en/?search=Semitic
Antisemitism: /info/en/?search=Antisemitism The root word Semite gives the false impression that antisemitism is directed against all Semitic people. However, the compound word antisemite was popularized in Germany in 1879 as a scientific-sounding term for Judenhass "Jew-hatred", and that has been its common use since then. Bubbecraft ( talk) 02:46, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
I am in agreement with Bubbecraft ( talk), The Human Trumpet Solo ( talk), Musashiaharon ( talk), ChronoFrog ( talk), and Evildoer187 ( talk)——as I have stated many times before, Jews/Hebrews/Israelites are of one large family ( Tribe, "race," Ethnocultural/ Ethnoreligious group, etc.) with many and intersecting branches. Whether or both through Semitic genetics [1] [2] and/or Ethnocultural traditions/philosophies/religions/customs/etc. (e.g. the Abayudaya, who—since their founding—have passed down Jewish traditions as well as their sociopolitical identification of being Jews in Uganda, and have been treated as such), most Jews are more interrelated with one another than with any other group. Our closest core (in relation to being Jews) relatives outside of those who intersect with our communities are predominantly the other Middle Eastern groups (see above). There would not have been European pogroms, Holocaust, or Inquisitions of Jews had any little/possible genetic/cultural connections to Diasporic Jews in fact significantly mattered to Europeans in general——who, as I am sure most people here know, have often systematically succumbed to deadly bouts of racism over the past several millennia (from the Greeks, to the Visigoths, to the Romans, to the British, to the Germans, to the Poles, to the Turks, etc.). The bottom line is this: Jews are a Middle Eastern/Semitic/ West Asian/ Afro-Asiatic group, as per our genetic and cultural origins——so, please refrain from denying/trying to erase what is inherently true. Jeffgr9 ( talk) 03:06, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Let me try and summarize this as I understand it. Currently, the categories are delineated as follows:
People of ME
You want to remove the parent category, leaving only:
People of Jewish desc.
How can one disconnect the Jewish history from the Middle East -- regardless of whether it's 1 generation or 1,000 generatons ago? of DNA? of known/unknown heritage? geography?
I just realized that if I were researching the Middle East, with no personal connections or perceived conceptions, I would be surprised NOT to find Jewish people listed. Because it is an indisputable historical fact. It has nothing to do with an individual's direct connection to the ME, but rather the historical relevance.
@Debresser, I think you made some reference to people not caring. But they don't have to care on a personal level, but WP must care on an historical level and be as accurate as possible. Removing the parent category disenfranchises an unassailable historical fact. Bubbecraft ( talk) 04:11, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Neither Ashkenazi Jews nor the two Sephardic samples clustered with their former host populations (non-Jewish Eastern European, Iberian, and North African populations). This finding is supported by highly significant FST values (all FSTs >.12; P<.001) between Jews and their respective host populations [3] -- meaning extensive endogamy and very little to no admixture! Bubbecraft ( talk) 05:18, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
References |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
References
|
Would it be impolitic of me, @Debresser, to state, in my opinion, you are failing to be WP:CONSISTENT, failing to provide WP:BURDEN, all while violating WP:BIAS, WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and WP:IDONTLIKEIT -- whether intended or not?
To clarify: WP:CONSISTENT, WP:BURDEN for your removal of the category: there has been no real justification beyond "so-and-so agrees with me" and fallacious arguments addressed and answered in depth which have been consistently ignored and suggests, in my opinion, an issue of WP:BIAS, WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and WP:IDONTLIKEIT.
Moreover, there seems to be a proclivity for ignoring and dodging relevant points while simultaneously treating me as a 2 year old (emotional, arguments by assertion, not following the policies/rules, etc.). As it currently stands, I have little reason to form a different opinion, no matter how hard I try. And I have tried to ignore the innuendos by, for example, suggesting we attempt a compromise.-- Bubbecraft ( talk) 17:51, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
@Debresser stated: It would definitely be better to leave the discussion to other editors
@Bubbecraft stated: arguments addressed and answered in depth which have been consistently ignored and suggesting we attempt a compromise
@Bubbecraft stated: treating me as a 2 year old (emotional, arguments by assertion, not following the policies/rules, etc)
@Bubbecraft stated: in my opinion, whether intended or not and suggests, in my opinion
@Bubbecraft stated: Would it be impolitic of me, @Debresser, to state, in my opinion and suggesting we attempt a compromise
@Bubbecraft stated: Would it be impolitic of me, @Debresser, to state, in my opinion and treating me as a 2 year old (emotional, arguments by assertion, not following the policies/rules, etc)
@Bubbecraft stated: And I have tried to ignore the innuendos by, for example, suggesting we attempt a compromise.
@Bubbecraft stated: there has been no real justification beyond "so-and-so agrees with me" and fallacious arguments addressed and answered in depth which have been consistently ignored
All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution. There are an excess of 45 sources cited on this page in support of maintaining the category. You wrote, I base my opposition on facts -- I ask for the nth time (I've lost count) to prove they are facts. You many not have to provide the burden of proof, but you do have to prove what you state is a verifiable fact and not just a supposition or opinion. WP:BURDEN does NOT exclude you. As I read the page, it reads like the legal definition, which states the requirement that the plaintiff (the party bringing a civil lawsuit) show by a "preponderance of evidence" or "weight of evidence" that all the facts necessary to win a judgment are presented and are probably true
Continuing to dispute your last comments are pointless and I think the examples provided above sufficiently exemplifies my desire to work with you and the other editors, within the guidelines, to the best of my ability and to work towards consensus.-- Bubbecraft ( talk) 02:23, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
Ironically, Debresser ( talk), your repetition of statements without factual bases makes you guilty of some of the same accusations you are aspersing upon Bubbecraft ( talk). Case in point: you have not disproved any of my arguments, and you have additionally not attempted to do so with facts. What is your goal here? Why do you not want Jews to be considered Middle Eastern? If I may ask, of what implications are you afraid to set by connecting these categories? Jeffgr9 ( talk) 02:29, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
A short summary of this RFC:
1. Debresser removes
People of Middle Eastern descent as a parent cat of
People of Jewish descent, following a long period of edit warring between himself and a multitude of editors (I lost count of the number of times Debresser has reverted, but it was well over the 3RR limit and the fact that he hasn't been sanctioned for it is a cause for concern), on the basis that A. Jews left the Middle East a long time ago (the statute of limitations argument), B. no Jew identifies as Middle Eastern simply because they are Jewish. This is obviously not true (I'm 100 percent Ashkenazi and I've identified as Middle Eastern my entire life, as have the majority of Jews that I've met), and even if it was, it has no relevance to categorization, and C. converts.
2. Other editors disagree with Debresser, (myself, Bubbecraft, Jeffgr9, musashiaharon, ChronoFrog), and one other editor (Sir Joseph, although for obvious reasons, Debresser has also made a habit out of citing the opinions of editors from the discussion that happened 2 years ago, even though he is currently in conflict with at least one of these editors) agrees with him. The disagreeing side responds by A. providing a wealth of reliable sources (which looks very similar to the one I gave in a previous RFC --- it was ignored in that discussion, and is largely being ignored here too) supporting the validity of the
People of Middle Eastern descent category as a parent cat of
People of Jewish descent, B. a critique of Debresser's statute of limitations as arbitrary,
WP:INCONSISTENT (e.g. the Arab and Romani examples) --- there are probably many others, but those two are the most obvious), and unsupported by any known Wikipedia policy, C. correctly dismissing personalized self-identity as irrelevant, because we don't add or remove categories based on the strenuous proclamations of a few (or even many) individuals of Jewish descent who feel they are "not Middle Eastern" --- individuals can identify however the hell they want (if I wanted, I could call myself a cucumber), but that has little, if any, bearing on demonstrable, empirically proven facts D. pointing out that the overwhelming majority of Jews are not converts (who are not even included in this category to begin with, as it pertains exclusively to descent), and trace the lion's share of their ancestry/DNA back to the Levant (y'know, where Israel is). Ashkenazi, Sephardi, and Mizrahi Jews are, according to the studies provided, more than half Israelite on average. The other Jewish groups are more admixed, but still carry Israelite descent (Indian Jews are about half, African and East Asian Jews are mainly sub-Saharan/East Asian respectively but with partial Israelite descent, and South/Central American Jews are almost entirely Sephardic or Ashkenazi). In short, virtually all Jews (excluding recent converts who, as mentioned above, are a vanishingly small minority of the global Jewish population and aren't even included in this category) carry Levantine descent, thereby justifying the
People of Middle Eastern descent category, E. even assuming, as one or two editors have alleged, that a significant portion of Jews worldwide have no Middle Eastern descent (which is false --- see D), removing the category would still violate
WP:CONSISTENT. Going back to the Arab example, a vast chunk of the people we call "Arabs" today have no West Asian descent, but they're still categorized as such. Many are actually 100 percent Amazigh and are only classified as Arabs because of where they live, and may not even IDENTIFY as Arabs at all. Numerous other examples can be found worldwide, but I'll focus on what has already been offered. Examples: Romani, Arabs.
3. Debresser replies, but refuses to engage with most of the sources provided, instead quoting number 2 (selectively ignoring the part of that passage that doesn't support his view) to the exclusion of the other 20+ something sources used, while offering no sources of his own does not address provided sources, does not supply supporting sources. It is followed by some weird tangent about Abraham, and then Tangential discussion about Abraham follows, a dismissal of the Romani analogy with yet another appeal a claim to statute of limitations and nothing (no policies, no sources, nothing) to substantiate it and no supporting evidence. He then attacks the Arab analogy with a claim that Arabs maintained a continuous attachment to their homeland via empire which, for some unexplained reason, is somehow more valid than Jews maintaining a continuous attachment to their homeland via preserving their identity, culture, religion, language (to a degree, at least), and of course, genetics. Debresser states the Arab analogy is inapplicable because they maintained a continuous attachment to their homeland via preserving their identity, culture, religion, language even though Jews maintained a continuous attachment to their homeland via preserving their identity, culture, religion, language (to a degree, at least), and of course, genetics.
4. More critical replies follow, all of them harshly critical of Debresser (with the lone exception of Sir Joseph, whose reply to Bubbecraft can be summed up as "LOL IM NOT READING UR POST BUT IM STILL RIGHT ANYWAY PFLLLBT!" --- I rebuked him for this, and told him to go do something else if he has nothing constructive to add). Sir Joseph replies to Bubbecraft, "I didn't read your wall of text, but ... is factually incorrect." He is called out for (selectively) quoting one source while ignoring the rest (aka
WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT), refusing to provide any sources or policies supporting the bizarre double standards and statute of limitations he is attempting to impose on ONLY this category (hence the accusations of
WP:BIAS and
WP:IDONTLIKEIT), and for his absurd justification for keeping Arabs under "West Asian" while removing Jews. Additional points are made by Jeffgr9 and Bubbecraft.
5. Tensions escalate. Debresser is hounded by the opposing camp (and in my opinion, justifiably so) for repeatedly ignoring the abundance of RS and counter-arguments offered while insisting that he has the facts and sources (despite providing a grand total of zero sources) (none provided) on his side. Additionally, he continues to cite
WP:BURDEN, which feels more and more like a cop out since it is becoming increasingly obvious that he isn't going to budge on this topic, regardless of what anyone says stating he is under no obligation to provide supporting sources. Instead, he is waving
WP:BURDEN around as a talisman to ward off opposing counter-arguments while obscuring the fact that he has none of his own. This sort of behavior impedes genuine consensus building.
Critical engagement is what is needed here, not constant appeals to authority (especially the repeated call outs to editors who are not even involved in this discussion, which comes off as subtle WP:CANVASSING --- to the point that if either of them ever do show up in here, it will look very suspicious) and the overall obstinate behavior you've exhibited thus far. I've made my own position on this clear (I think the category should stay), but my views are not set in stone. I am willing to reconsider my position if you have strong enough arguments and reliable sources to support them. That is what I am waiting for, but thus far all you've provided are very weak arguments (for the reasons I've outlined) and not a single source to back any of it up. The ball is in your court now, Debresser. The Human Trumpet Solo ( talk) 18:18, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
@Debresser: would it be impolitic to suggest we bring in 3rd party opinon? Or some other dispute resolution mechanism?
In the meantime, would you mind returning with me to the RfC in question?
@Debresser: You have consistently stated WP:Burden applies only to those editors who want to include/add/restore the category, People of ME Descent, and the side which wants it removed is under no such obligation or requirement.
I responded, after reading WP:BURDEN, WP:ONUS, and WP:EXCEPTIONAL you were in fact required to support your claims. WP:REDFLAG specifically addresses this issue, particularly with regards to the following (quoted) points:
Although I could find no specific mention of a definition Burden of Proof as it pertains to an RfC within WP, I supplied the legal definition of Burden of Proof. From WP, I also found the philosophic burden of proof [1] and resources [2].
An RfC dictates we have a converation, a dialogue, and therefore a debate ensues. This is intended, hopefully, to reach a consensus.
The burden of proof can shift [3]: "For this reason, each side will not only argue for their conclusion, but they will object to the arguments given by the opposing side. The opposing side then has a burden to reply to the objections (and they will continue to have a burden of proof until they reply to the objections)." (See also WP:Philosophic burden of proof, WP:Evidentialism, WP:Theory of justification "It has given up justification, but not yet adopted nonjustificational criticism. Instead of appealing to criteria and authorities, it attempts to describe and explicate them.")
The burden of proof (BoP) is a "philosophical concept which denotes the party responsible for providing evidence of their position(s)." [4] The BoP may be assigned to the person making the assertion or to both sides.
You have made a number of unsubstantiated claims to remove the category without providing any factual-based argument, seemingly depending on the argument of Fallibilism [5], "that no belief (theory, view, thesis, and so on) can ever be rationally supported or justified in a conclusive way" and that the implications of fallibilism can never be justified. Thus implying no beliefs are justified. Yet, "that is a wholly general skepticism about justification" and two opposing arguments are presented at great length.
What's wrong with your response? [6]: "When anyone makes a claim that a certain entity or relationship exists, they have the responsibility of supplying supporting evidence. Without such evidence, the claim is worthless."
Within the discussion of "The Brain in a Vat Argument" ] [7], contained within the "Significance of the Argument," an interesting and suggestive statement is made, to whit: "Someone of a Positivist bent might argue that if there is no empirical evidence to appeal to in order to establish whether we are brains in a vat or not, then the hypothesis is meaningless, in which case we do not need an argument to refute it."
In summary, your argument -- that you do not have to support your case with fact based sources -- creates an environment where no one can present a sufficient response to meet the bar for burden of proof. You have argued and maintained the fallacy of the burden of proof [8]. This tactic seemingly provides a means "to avoid supplying supporting evidence" [9]. You have tried "to convince [us] that the responsibility of supplying evidence lies [solely] with [us]." [10] Bubbecraft ( talk) 18:43, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
My apologies, I missed including this next part.
I would appreciate a response addressing why you feel it is not incumbent upon you to provide supporting evidence without just pointing me to WP:BURDEN -- because that article can be interpreted in at least 2 different ways, as I have demonstrated. Thank you. Bubbecraft ( talk) 18:53, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
@Debresser: I am confused and would appreciate clarification. I found you contacted @Nishdani, @Liz, @Shalom11111, @Gilad55, @Evildoer187, @PA Math Prof, @Yuvn86 (but not @Obiwankenobi, @Musashiaharon) on September 25, 2016 yet only today (October 1, 2016) informed this group you intended to. Don't you have to contact everyone from the prior RfC conversation? Can you explain why making those requests a week ago does not constitute WP:CANVASSING? Bubbecraft ( talk) 19:53, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
All I've done was summarize the conversation up to this point. Admittedly, my post was on the snarky side of things, but that's just how I am naturally. And I'd be lying if I said that you didn't appear to be very firmly entrenched in your views. AGF only lasts insofar as there is sufficient reason to maintain good faith. It's not something that either you or I are entitled to in perpetuity.
I already told you where I stand on this dispute, but I've also made it clear that I'm willing to reconsider my endorsement of this category IF there is a solid case against it. That's what I'm waiting for you to provide. There is a surplus of counter-arguments of reliable sources standing that you still have not addressed.
Lastly, what's the point of contacting Evildoer, Shalom11111, Gilad, et al when they've all been inactive for well over a year, if not two years? One of them is topic banned. The only editors who are still active are, coincidentally, those who agreed with you two years ago. Am I wrong for being just a little suspicious? The Human Trumpet Solo ( talk) 21:17, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
Debresser: A review so you may address my prior question.
Another argument can be made regarding other groups (Romani, Arabs) which have sufficiently similar characteristics and are already contained within the Middle East category, thereby concluding consistency is relevant as well. Including a Middle East category of Jewish descent is logical. Bubbecraft ( talk) 16:26, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
Academia is not in agreement regarding conversions [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] whereas DNA evidence supports Middle Eastern ancestry, downplaying the relevance of admixture and/or conversions:
Most Jews are more concerned with ancestry/ethnicity than religion:
References |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
References
|
I would like to recommend this RFC be withdrawn and reformulated because the RFC doesn't ask a question thereby encouraging lengthy argument. The original posts are too long, difficult to follow and may be construed as having something of the nature of a filibuster. Bubbecraft ( talk) 06:08, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
Bus stop ( talk), I already have explained why any/all Jews should be Categorized as "of Middle Eastern descent"—both/either through ancestry/genetics and/or Tribal affiliation. The facts, many cited throughout this Talk page (you may search my name for some of the sources, and go down to the survey for others), all point to this conclusion. Your question sounds like, "If one closes their eyes, does the world disappear?" No, and similarly, just because some Ethnic Jews (as in they have Israelite ancestry) do not contemplate/consider/accept their Jewishness, does not mean that they are no longer Jews—they are always Jews, and thus always Middle Eastern. New members consciously think about their Judaism, and thus create an intersection between their original and their new Middle Eastern identity. Jeffgr9 ( talk) 06:30, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
Since this RFC didn’t have a Survey section, which is not required by the documentation on RFCs, but turns out to be essential to effective closure and assessment of consensus, I am adding one. Robert McClenon ( talk) 17:25, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
References |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
References
|
Please list your views (known as !votes because this is not a vote, because closing is based on strength of arguments) here as ‘’’Remove’’’ to remove all Middle Eastern, Asian, and similar geographical categories from all Jewish categories, or ‘’’Keep’’’ to keep them, or some other short explanation of what you propose. Do not engage in threaded discussion, which can go above. The purpose of this section is to make it easier for the closer to assess what the !votes are without having to wade through a lot of back-and-forth.
Sources
|
---|
References
|
______________________________________________________________________________________________________