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 5 | ← | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | → | Archive 15 |
The start of this article is
So it gives the impression that this article will also cover all people of jewish descent. Regardless of whether they were converted to other religions or not.
So why there isn't any information about jews who converted to other religions in this article.
Zain 21:19, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Well you gave the right example. I read it in the article 'who is jew' it says that
So people who converted willfully or forcefully can still be considered Jews. This information belongs somewhere in the article. Zain 22:04, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
At least we here agree that some will agree that they are jews. Now the only point that is left that does these some ideas have any right in the article.
Let me quote from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NPOV_tutorial . Section under heading Word ownership says
A common source of obstinacy in NPOV disputes is the belief that one group "owns" a word and has sole authority to define it:
In fact, many words have multiple meanings. And it's not just that one person sometimes uses "sun" to refer to the bright ball in the sky and sometimes the yellow circle in a child's drawing. Sometimes it means that different people mean different things when they say the same word.
Ancient Greek ideas about the sun aren't covered by any senses of the word provided in the dictionary. Neither are the traditional ideas of contemporary indigenous people. But in an encyclopedia, ideas that a lot of people believe or once believed deserve not only mention but respectful treatment.
So even if it is considered by some as jew still it has a place on wikipedia in relation to this word.
Zain 22:26, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I waited a lot for response earlier but there was no response so I went out.
Now about my discussion this discussion. If you see it was simply done by assumption, which usually Muslims don't like. I never said that I believe this work. I simply said if it is assumed. If you read that discussion carefully, I never issued a statement which endorses my point of views!. Even if the statement which you copied from my discussion, that also uses the world 'doubt'. Frankly speaking I don't know the statistics. I will like to know if there is any information regarding this.
About the agenda, I am not sure how to put it. I have sympathizes with Palestinian and Arabs. I am myself neither a Palestinian nor an Arab. May be from that 'extended' definition I might be considered a Jew, with a lot of Jewish blood!. If you see my contributions from very early days, they were not at all related to this conflict. I believe the first ever contribution which was to this topic is well known to you. Frankly speaking I even didn't know how to spell Israel or Palestine before that discussion. After that I started to do research among various sources various claims. It appeared to me that there are many possible flaws in Israeli claim to land. (Please note I am not stressing that these flaws are ought be there, they are simply my interpretations). Most of these apparent flaws become evident to me from reading pro-Israeli sources rather then reading pro-Palestinian sources. I don't think it is relevant here even if I have an 'agenda'. What matters is that, as long as I ask for something within the policy of wikipedia, my ideas ought to be considered. Please even if you see my discussion this discussion., I never insisted any where that this material should be placed 'anywhere' in the wikipedia as it is not according to the policy of wikipedia. So even when I believe some thing is probably true in my view, I don't insist putting it in the articles. Unless they are according to the policy. Please these two paragraphs I only wrote to clear your mind about my actions. This was not required in the context of this discussion. As suspicions of 'agenda' have nothing to do with what material needs to be mentioned in the article.
Now to the original issue. I think following two points are agreed and are NPOV.
Only thing which remains is that how to incorporate this in the article. So please make a positive approach and give this 'minor' opinion respectful treatment.
Zain 12:13, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Zain, two main points that should end the argument:
And two additional points to clarify:
Well it is very good that you gave example of Pakistan. Behari who were left in 'East Pakistan' are not considered as Pakistani by Pakistan, but they are considered Pakistani by Bangladesh!. It is an example where people outside the group impose the definition which is very accepted by a lot of people except the group itself.
Anyhow this is not relevant here because some jews consider people of jewish descend as jews even if they convert. And even if very few people believe in some thing wikipedia policy says it is worth respectful treatment. I am also not saying that this article should mention that who is Jew or who is not Jew. Only that people who might be considered as jew in 'who is jew' article, need some mentioning here. For example as history/stats of non-convert jews are given, converted jews might also be given some reasonable treatment.
May be you are taking me wrong. I am not asking for some major change in the article. I am just asking for some respectful mentioning of information about converted Jews too. Because this article does not say that it excludes converted-jews. By 'respectful treatment' I don't mean multi-paragraph detail but minor and respectful treatment.
Zain 18:43, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Thanks Jmabel to understand my position. Some people here misinterpretting that I want the whole article upside down or some thing like this. I don't intend this.
Following are our agreements (me and others who are on this article)
Now following are the agreements which are there but are accepted rather reluctantly.
Now I am talking about jews who might not consider them self jew or might not even know that they are of jewish descend. But they are considered by some jews as jews. I am not saying that they should be given a lot of coverage in this article as this view is considered by very minor segment.
What I am saying is this, as this article clears that this article is about jews, either who are jewish by descend or by religion. Similar clarification should be done about jews who are converted. That this article is not about those Jews who are converted and might be considered Jews by very small minority. (not this exact statement but any statement which you might chose with similar meaning).
Zain 22:52, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I think discussion is going overly hot. well problem is not how many pushtun think they are jews. problem is that how many jews think pushtuns are jews. These minorities were enough to be given a full paragraph in 'who is jew' article So they are worth a line here. I think we should stop posting. think in cool mind and then decide what should be done.
Zain 23:17, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I am not asking that in this article we should mention 'who is jew' and 'who is not jew' I said it earlier too. Only thing that I am asking that if that 'minor' definition is accepted. The statistics of population and other will change substantially. Other discussions don't impact the statistics and history that much. But this assumption makes a considerable impact. so the article should clear that it doesn't consider such 'minor' assumptions.
Please see we here are not disagreeing on facts or figures. Only disagreement is that whether that 'minor' claim has its place. Wikipedia policy is clear. It should have some place. Whether it is Paragraph/Sentence/Footnote or any other. Statistics and history in result of that opinion have their place. may be not in this article. But they do have their place. Problem is that some people might view that those statistics are part of this article. Because they see only descend as the definition of jew.
That minor claim has some place on wikipedia that is agreed. Now where is that place is only problem.
As far as how many [of the people who are generally accepted as] Jews consider Pashtuns Jews, the answer is "almost none". Ditto for quite a few Gentile nations in the Caucasus who also have traditions claiming descent from the lost tribes. Is is possible that there is some common ancestry 2000+ years ago? Yes, though far from proven. But by that standard, the English are Germans, all Slavs are one nation, and --taking it one step further -- all of us are African, anyway. As far as I know, we don't take up these matters in any detail in the articles on any ethnicity. Like all other ethnicities, being Jewish is largely (but not exclusively) a combination of self-identification and acceptance by the group. Like a few other ethnicities, Jews have some general (but not universal) agreement on how the ethnicity is defined. Speaking of the Pashtun, because their definition is almost entirely patrilineal, even granting the "lost tribe" premise and then using a strict Halakhic accounting that says the only way you cease to be a Jew is excommunication, there would be no reason to think that any particular Pushtun traced back matrilineally to the lost tribes. But this is getting into hairsplitting. No, almost no Jews consider the Pashtuns to be Jews. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:02, Dec 30, 2004 (UTC)
Let me quote my friend Goodoldpolonius2 here
So why it won't apply on pushtuns? http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/vjw/Afghanistan.html Second it is not only about pushtuns. There actual number is unknown. They might now call them self arabs etc etc. Actually I was intrested in finding statistics but I was not able to find authentic statistics, only bits and pieces of information. So I came back to this article. And my initial post was not to include it but was why it is not included. As u can see from this discussion. That mentioning other is not matter of right or wrong. it is matter that how many jews consider how many converted jews as jews. And where should we mention it.
Zain 00:13, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Well let me give you some interesting information. The most accepted descent among pushtons is Jewish Descent! I know it even personally. So I have reached some what at the bottom of the problem. So here are some agreed information.
The problem I have seen that the 'intersection set' between people who consider only descent (whether immediate or far) as condition of jew. And the people who consider pushtoon as descended of jews, is a negligible set.
Do you agree this is the point put but you? (which I explained in above paragraph)
This result in following problems. Is this 'negligible' 'intersection set' or 'common set' is worth any mention?
But following points were generally ignored by the responses I received.
Zain 11:48, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
MPerel You joined discussion a little late if you see my earlier posts. I tried to clear my self that I don't want any of pushtuns or alberite in this article. Only thing which I want that this article should tell they are not included. Simple. because as u pointed out they are very minor claims (both in the sense of ancestry and the claim that only ancestory is enought to call some body jew as stated in 'who is jew' article) In addition they are two numerous and difficult to confirm . I agree these are minor claims. Only condition when they should be mentioned is when this article doesn't clearify that this minor opinion is excluded in this article.
In simple. Should I add Albright in famous jews section? Zain 20:24, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
And this is not all. The link to 'main article' in famous jews, refers to List of Jews which includes Albright! This article should clearly mention that, people who might have jewish descent but are affiliated with religions other then judism, are not discussed in this article or this article may get POV banner. Zain 20:16, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I can't understand why my 'good faith' is again and again rejected here. I didn't even made a single edit! For further clarification please note that
I have only asked that this article should mention that, these people are not listed in this article and why (mary, christ etc). Zain 20:39, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
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 5 | ← | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | → | Archive 15 |
The start of this article is
So it gives the impression that this article will also cover all people of jewish descent. Regardless of whether they were converted to other religions or not.
So why there isn't any information about jews who converted to other religions in this article.
Zain 21:19, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Well you gave the right example. I read it in the article 'who is jew' it says that
So people who converted willfully or forcefully can still be considered Jews. This information belongs somewhere in the article. Zain 22:04, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
At least we here agree that some will agree that they are jews. Now the only point that is left that does these some ideas have any right in the article.
Let me quote from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NPOV_tutorial . Section under heading Word ownership says
A common source of obstinacy in NPOV disputes is the belief that one group "owns" a word and has sole authority to define it:
In fact, many words have multiple meanings. And it's not just that one person sometimes uses "sun" to refer to the bright ball in the sky and sometimes the yellow circle in a child's drawing. Sometimes it means that different people mean different things when they say the same word.
Ancient Greek ideas about the sun aren't covered by any senses of the word provided in the dictionary. Neither are the traditional ideas of contemporary indigenous people. But in an encyclopedia, ideas that a lot of people believe or once believed deserve not only mention but respectful treatment.
So even if it is considered by some as jew still it has a place on wikipedia in relation to this word.
Zain 22:26, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I waited a lot for response earlier but there was no response so I went out.
Now about my discussion this discussion. If you see it was simply done by assumption, which usually Muslims don't like. I never said that I believe this work. I simply said if it is assumed. If you read that discussion carefully, I never issued a statement which endorses my point of views!. Even if the statement which you copied from my discussion, that also uses the world 'doubt'. Frankly speaking I don't know the statistics. I will like to know if there is any information regarding this.
About the agenda, I am not sure how to put it. I have sympathizes with Palestinian and Arabs. I am myself neither a Palestinian nor an Arab. May be from that 'extended' definition I might be considered a Jew, with a lot of Jewish blood!. If you see my contributions from very early days, they were not at all related to this conflict. I believe the first ever contribution which was to this topic is well known to you. Frankly speaking I even didn't know how to spell Israel or Palestine before that discussion. After that I started to do research among various sources various claims. It appeared to me that there are many possible flaws in Israeli claim to land. (Please note I am not stressing that these flaws are ought be there, they are simply my interpretations). Most of these apparent flaws become evident to me from reading pro-Israeli sources rather then reading pro-Palestinian sources. I don't think it is relevant here even if I have an 'agenda'. What matters is that, as long as I ask for something within the policy of wikipedia, my ideas ought to be considered. Please even if you see my discussion this discussion., I never insisted any where that this material should be placed 'anywhere' in the wikipedia as it is not according to the policy of wikipedia. So even when I believe some thing is probably true in my view, I don't insist putting it in the articles. Unless they are according to the policy. Please these two paragraphs I only wrote to clear your mind about my actions. This was not required in the context of this discussion. As suspicions of 'agenda' have nothing to do with what material needs to be mentioned in the article.
Now to the original issue. I think following two points are agreed and are NPOV.
Only thing which remains is that how to incorporate this in the article. So please make a positive approach and give this 'minor' opinion respectful treatment.
Zain 12:13, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Zain, two main points that should end the argument:
And two additional points to clarify:
Well it is very good that you gave example of Pakistan. Behari who were left in 'East Pakistan' are not considered as Pakistani by Pakistan, but they are considered Pakistani by Bangladesh!. It is an example where people outside the group impose the definition which is very accepted by a lot of people except the group itself.
Anyhow this is not relevant here because some jews consider people of jewish descend as jews even if they convert. And even if very few people believe in some thing wikipedia policy says it is worth respectful treatment. I am also not saying that this article should mention that who is Jew or who is not Jew. Only that people who might be considered as jew in 'who is jew' article, need some mentioning here. For example as history/stats of non-convert jews are given, converted jews might also be given some reasonable treatment.
May be you are taking me wrong. I am not asking for some major change in the article. I am just asking for some respectful mentioning of information about converted Jews too. Because this article does not say that it excludes converted-jews. By 'respectful treatment' I don't mean multi-paragraph detail but minor and respectful treatment.
Zain 18:43, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Thanks Jmabel to understand my position. Some people here misinterpretting that I want the whole article upside down or some thing like this. I don't intend this.
Following are our agreements (me and others who are on this article)
Now following are the agreements which are there but are accepted rather reluctantly.
Now I am talking about jews who might not consider them self jew or might not even know that they are of jewish descend. But they are considered by some jews as jews. I am not saying that they should be given a lot of coverage in this article as this view is considered by very minor segment.
What I am saying is this, as this article clears that this article is about jews, either who are jewish by descend or by religion. Similar clarification should be done about jews who are converted. That this article is not about those Jews who are converted and might be considered Jews by very small minority. (not this exact statement but any statement which you might chose with similar meaning).
Zain 22:52, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I think discussion is going overly hot. well problem is not how many pushtun think they are jews. problem is that how many jews think pushtuns are jews. These minorities were enough to be given a full paragraph in 'who is jew' article So they are worth a line here. I think we should stop posting. think in cool mind and then decide what should be done.
Zain 23:17, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I am not asking that in this article we should mention 'who is jew' and 'who is not jew' I said it earlier too. Only thing that I am asking that if that 'minor' definition is accepted. The statistics of population and other will change substantially. Other discussions don't impact the statistics and history that much. But this assumption makes a considerable impact. so the article should clear that it doesn't consider such 'minor' assumptions.
Please see we here are not disagreeing on facts or figures. Only disagreement is that whether that 'minor' claim has its place. Wikipedia policy is clear. It should have some place. Whether it is Paragraph/Sentence/Footnote or any other. Statistics and history in result of that opinion have their place. may be not in this article. But they do have their place. Problem is that some people might view that those statistics are part of this article. Because they see only descend as the definition of jew.
That minor claim has some place on wikipedia that is agreed. Now where is that place is only problem.
As far as how many [of the people who are generally accepted as] Jews consider Pashtuns Jews, the answer is "almost none". Ditto for quite a few Gentile nations in the Caucasus who also have traditions claiming descent from the lost tribes. Is is possible that there is some common ancestry 2000+ years ago? Yes, though far from proven. But by that standard, the English are Germans, all Slavs are one nation, and --taking it one step further -- all of us are African, anyway. As far as I know, we don't take up these matters in any detail in the articles on any ethnicity. Like all other ethnicities, being Jewish is largely (but not exclusively) a combination of self-identification and acceptance by the group. Like a few other ethnicities, Jews have some general (but not universal) agreement on how the ethnicity is defined. Speaking of the Pashtun, because their definition is almost entirely patrilineal, even granting the "lost tribe" premise and then using a strict Halakhic accounting that says the only way you cease to be a Jew is excommunication, there would be no reason to think that any particular Pushtun traced back matrilineally to the lost tribes. But this is getting into hairsplitting. No, almost no Jews consider the Pashtuns to be Jews. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:02, Dec 30, 2004 (UTC)
Let me quote my friend Goodoldpolonius2 here
So why it won't apply on pushtuns? http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/vjw/Afghanistan.html Second it is not only about pushtuns. There actual number is unknown. They might now call them self arabs etc etc. Actually I was intrested in finding statistics but I was not able to find authentic statistics, only bits and pieces of information. So I came back to this article. And my initial post was not to include it but was why it is not included. As u can see from this discussion. That mentioning other is not matter of right or wrong. it is matter that how many jews consider how many converted jews as jews. And where should we mention it.
Zain 00:13, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Well let me give you some interesting information. The most accepted descent among pushtons is Jewish Descent! I know it even personally. So I have reached some what at the bottom of the problem. So here are some agreed information.
The problem I have seen that the 'intersection set' between people who consider only descent (whether immediate or far) as condition of jew. And the people who consider pushtoon as descended of jews, is a negligible set.
Do you agree this is the point put but you? (which I explained in above paragraph)
This result in following problems. Is this 'negligible' 'intersection set' or 'common set' is worth any mention?
But following points were generally ignored by the responses I received.
Zain 11:48, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
MPerel You joined discussion a little late if you see my earlier posts. I tried to clear my self that I don't want any of pushtuns or alberite in this article. Only thing which I want that this article should tell they are not included. Simple. because as u pointed out they are very minor claims (both in the sense of ancestry and the claim that only ancestory is enought to call some body jew as stated in 'who is jew' article) In addition they are two numerous and difficult to confirm . I agree these are minor claims. Only condition when they should be mentioned is when this article doesn't clearify that this minor opinion is excluded in this article.
In simple. Should I add Albright in famous jews section? Zain 20:24, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
And this is not all. The link to 'main article' in famous jews, refers to List of Jews which includes Albright! This article should clearly mention that, people who might have jewish descent but are affiliated with religions other then judism, are not discussed in this article or this article may get POV banner. Zain 20:16, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I can't understand why my 'good faith' is again and again rejected here. I didn't even made a single edit! For further clarification please note that
I have only asked that this article should mention that, these people are not listed in this article and why (mary, christ etc). Zain 20:39, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)