Category talk:People of Jewish descent/Archive 3

Protected edit request on 22 February 2017
I want the DISPUTED tag added to the page. While there was an RFC, it was, IMO, closed incorrectly and took wrong information into account. This page is about people who are Jewish or of Jewish descent, not necessarily about Judaism. All Jews are not of Middle Eastern descent. Sammy Davis Jr, for example is not from the ME. Most Jews outside of Israel are not from the Middle East. This is a factual category of where is a specific Jew from. We can't label EVERY Jew as being from the Middle East. It is a ludicrous proposition and those editors proposing it are using longwinded arguments that are not on an individual person, but on the Jewish religion. Until the RFC is overturned, this page is factually incorrect. Sir Joseph (talk) 15:04, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Admin note: There was an RfC review and this blatant attempt by Sir Joseph to game our policies. --Neil N  talk to me 15:11, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * You need to AGF, and I ask you to read the full page and tell me if the RFC was closed correctly in your opinion. Is it factual to state that ALL Jews are from the Middle East? It is ludicrous and brings disrepute to Wikipedia. I am disputing the close and the current content of the Category, as such I request the tag be placed on the page. Sir Joseph (talk) 15:14, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * It's not my opinion that counts. It's the close of the RFC review. And yes, characterizing a content dispute as vandalism, reporting one side for edit warring, saying you are restoring the consensus version when that was plainly not the outcome of the RFC is gaming the system. It is also disruptive editing. --Neil N  talk to me 15:21, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * When the people involved confused the Jewish people, Jews as a whole and Jews as an individual, it's clear the close was not correct. What we have now is a category that is factually incorrect. What do you propose is done to fix it? It is clear that you can't have all Jews in the world as being categorized under Wiki guidelines as being from the Middle East, it's not true. You say there is an RFC, fine. But we still have a false category. That should take precedence. Sir Joseph (talk) 15:28, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * You plainly wish to continue the content dispute which triggered the first RFC. That's fine (up to point). But don't game our policies and procedures to achieve your goals. --Neil N  talk to me 15:34, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Can you just answer me then, in your opinion, are all Jews from the Middle East? Sir Joseph (talk) 15:39, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Are you serious? I haven't given that any thought to that in the past and will not be giving it much consideration in the future as I am acting as an admin here. It looks to me like a simple question with a much deeper meaning behind it and it would be completely inappropriate to state my either unresearched or well-researched opinion here. --Neil N  talk to me 15:50, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * And that's one of my points, it's not a question with a deeper meaning. The Jewish religion is from the Middle East, so if there was a categories of religions from the ME, then put Judaism there. This category is identifying people who are Jewish, in other words it's an individual identification. That means it goes by the individual. So out of the 15 Million Jews worldwide, can we label ALL of them as being from the Middle East? It doesn't need much research, it's a simple question, are all Jews from the Middle East and we don't need to get all complicated with the answer. Regardless of how you answer, I don't know why you can't put the tag up, it is clear that there is a dispute regarding the factual accuracy of the categorization. Sir Joseph (talk) 16:00, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * My rule of thumb is that if the tag is continuing the dispute discussed in a closed RFC, I will be unlikely to add it. However, I have no objection if another admin decides the tag should be added and does so. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 16:48, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The RFC is what an outcome is, it doesn't preclude a tag. I have to abide by the bad RFC, but I still dispute it. Sir Joseph (talk) 16:54, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Just an example of people who converted and can clearly be seen as not being from the Middle East:
 * Ivanka Trump
 * Sammy Davis Jr.
 * Asher Wade
 * Ole Brunell
 * Ahuva Gray
 * See more at List_of_converts_to_Judaism, why should they and their children be listed as from the Middle East? Why should American Jews be labeled as from the Middle East? It is perfectly clear that while the RFC was closed, it is incorrect. Sir Joseph (talk) 15:20, 22 February 2017 (UTC)


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

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

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

No. It is literally the same discussion we just had, only phrased differently. From where I'm standing, both you and Debresser are throwing a childish temper tantrum because you didn't get what you wanted. It's time to move on.The Human Trumpet Solo (talk) 18:00, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Phrasing differently is exactly why a new RFC is required. You are either purposely confusing issues or trying to push a false fact, and others reading the RFC may not have seen the issue. There is a difference between the Jews as a group and religion and Jews as an individual people. You can't factually say that ALL Jews are from the Middle East, it really is quite simple as that. Sir Joseph (talk) 18:03, 22 February 2017 (UTC)


 * No, this is quite clearly the same discussion. You both need to WP:Let it go.The Human Trumpet Solo (talk) 18:21, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * It's clear that it's not the same discussion. I understand you have a bias to present, but look at the RFC above and how confusing it was even to some of the participants. A clear concise question is a step up, especially if overturns an obviously factually incorrect ruling. Sir Joseph (talk) 18:25, 22 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Only stepping in as I've interacted in this area before and seeing flareups on the situation at ANI/elsewhere; if there is to be a new RFC, it should focus on defining how, without zero context, the phrase "Jewish descent" should be, recognizing two major issues or problems:
 * The most commonly understood use of the phrase "X descent" is where X is generally a strict geocentric ethnic group (eg "of Irish descent") with "descent" implying relation by bloodline to the native people of that geocentric group, and rarely applied to other qualities like religion (eg there's no such thing as "of Christian descent"). However, for the Jewish faith, they explicitly have considerations that one can be of "Jewish (faith) descent", where you may be related by bloodline to a person that is of the Jewish faith, but that they may have no connection to the geocentric ethnic group that had lived in the Middle East centuries ago. This is how it is argued that, for example, Sammy Davis Jr.'s children are of Jewish descent. In other words, compared to every other use of "X descent" in the world, this one application by the Jewish faith runs against that meaning, so that when take the term out of context (as would be for a category), you will get into conflicts. There thus needs to be a determination that if WP should fix one definition of "Jewish descent" or find alternative language to specifically differentiate from the bloodline-related term and the faith-based term. That thus then would affect how the application of the Middle East category applies to this set.
 * As brought up at a different discussion, there are some ethnic groups of Jews that are not bloodline-related to those from the Middle East outside of the faith such as the Ethiopian Jews. There are definitely people that are of "(Ethiopian) Jewish descent" (by bloodline) that would not be appropriate to classify as people from the Middle East. This throws a wrench at the simplification process, and how to deal with that category should also be discussed.
 * Of these points, #1 absolutely needs some type of resolve so that WP has a common point of language to use that avoid these types of problems. There needs to be a clear way to distinguish the use of the term "descent" from the normal, everyday use of "by bloodline", to the Jewish-specific use of "by faith". I don't have any answer, but if another RFC is to be run, I would focus on these points (and thus probably run at a more central location) to resolve the issue Wiki-wide. --M ASEM (t) 18:45, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I think you're unnecessarily complicating things. The issue is location, not Jews. This cat, and the RFC, is for a person who identifies as a Jew. Do we then say that person is of Middle Eastern descent. We are not getting into the question of identifying Jewishness or Jewish descent, that is taken care of when someone includes that person in the category. All we need to determine is if all people who identify as Jews are of Middle Eastern descent. And it's quite clear that out of the 15 million Jews, most are not from the Middle East. (It should be as simple as possible, that the average guy on the street understands. When someone says "I'm Jewish" is it safe to assume he's from the Middle East.) Sir Joseph (talk) 18:49, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * This category's page explicitly excludes Jews from it. "This page lists individuals who are of Jewish descent, but not Jewish. Please use the Category:Jews for those." The same problem still would exist for Jews. By common use of the term "descent" (by bloodline), it is possible to have Jews who are not of Jewish descent and who had Jewish parents, while that would be an empty set going by Jewish faith. --M ASEM (t) 18:56, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * That's specifically this page, other Jews pages are for people identifying as Jews. What this means for this page is someone whose parents were Jewish but they themselves don't identify as such. But my point still stands, they are not ALL from the Middle East. Sir Joseph (talk) 19:15, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * You're making the assumption that "of Jewish descent" is 100% recognized by all editors and readers to be of the Jewish faith's allowances (eg: that regardless of the parents' heritage, if they are of Jewish faith, their children can be called of Jewish descent.) The problem is that 100% recognition is not there; out of any surrounding context, most people (and I would suspect, more likely if they are not of Jewish faith) would read "of Jewish descent" by the non-religious meaning that applies to every other geocentric ethnic group, and thus would assume they are descended by genetics from the people that once lived in the Middle East. I fully recognize the concern of people that are of "Jewish descent" by the Jewish faith meaning that take offense if they're being categorized as coming from the Middle East, but this all boils down to a term that has one widely accepted meaning, and a much more narrower and different meaning for a smaller subset of the world population. And we need to figure out how to resolve that conflict, whether it means establishing a new term to reflect the genetics case so that we respect the faith one (but potentially cause continued problems since people new to Wikipedia will assume the broader meaning) or find a term for the faith-based "descent" that makes that relationship clearer (perhaps being demeaning to those that consider themselves of Jewish descent in this manner but making life easier for the rest of Wikipedia). I don't know which way is best and hence an RFC to focus on that resolve. --M ASEM  (t) 20:10, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Just for the record, I think the category is misidentified. It clearly lists people who are Jewish and identify as Jewish. Sir Joseph (talk) 21:18, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I am sure there are probably right, and that's due to the lack of clarity in the title of this category (see the points below). Hence an RFC on the terminology of whom so that the naming of these catagories eliminates the confusion between the various definitions, at hich point the question "should we catalog these under Perople from the Middle East" can be asked in a much clearer fashion. --M ASEM  (t) 21:39, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * There aren't really "various definitions". If reliable sources say that someone is a Jew then we can dutifully pass that information along to the reader, in article space or by means of Categorization. Bus stop (talk) 22:08, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I think the WP:MEAT issue will cause the Rfc to be overturned. Debresser (talk) 19:10, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * As far as this proposal is concerned, if it will be necessary, I think that is a good idea. And I agree with the point raised by User:Masem that Jews and Jewish descent are indeed explicitly defined by different criteria, in the real world as well as on Wikipedia. That is a difference I have worked with for years here on Wikipedia, and am well familiar with. At the same time, the argument of User:Sir Joseph indeed does not depend on that differentiation at all. Debresser (talk) 19:12, 22 February 2017 (UTC)


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


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


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


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

1. Consensus can change, but reopening the discussion requires presenting new and previously unconsidered arguments to the table. What I see here are the same exact arguments presented in the Survey and RFC, only with slight tweaks.

2. "I understand you have a bias to present, but look at the RFC above and how confusing it was even to some of the participants. A clear concise question is a step up, especially if overturns an obviously factually incorrect ruling."

Here we have an AGF violation compounded by blatant dishonesty. The original RFC was started by Debresser, so if there was confusion, you need to take that up with him. The survey itself couldn't have been clearer, and reading over both disputes a second time, no one was confused as to what we were discussing. Certainly not in the survey wherein the final decision was made.The Human Trumpet Solo (talk) 20:38, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

On a related note, this category already does include Jews who are recognized under Halakha. This category presently functions as a repository for anyone of Jewish ancestry, Halakhic or not. The description should be changed to reflect that.The Human Trumpet Solo (talk) 20:42, 22 February 2017 (UTC)


 * You say "The description should be changed to reflect that". You mean you want to add more to the already existing "This page lists individuals who are of Jewish descent, but not Jewish. Please use the Category:Jews for those"? How would the version that you would suggest read in total? Bus stop (talk) 21:04, 22 February 2017 (UTC)


 * "This page lists individuals who are of Jewish descent." Simple as that.The Human Trumpet Solo (talk) 21:14, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Would that cover Jews who are now Bahais? Sir Joseph (talk) 21:36, 22 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi —you say it should simply read: "This page lists individuals who are of Jewish descent." Would the Category include for instance Menachem Mendel Schneerson? If not, why not? Bus stop (talk) 21:39, 22 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes, and yes. This is about DESCENT.The Human Trumpet Solo (talk) 21:59, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * So if it's about DESCENT, then how can in your opinion it be applied to regular Jews? Cat Jews would have Ivanka Trump in it, she is not of Middle Eastern descent by any stretch of the imagination. Sir Joseph (talk) 22:00, 22 February 2017 (UTC)


 * This category lists people of Jewish ancestry, whether they are Halakhic or not. Ivanka Trump is not included here because she is a convert. As for the rest of your arguments, they were addressed ad nauseum in the survey. Please refer back to that, because I'm not having this discussion again. The Human Trumpet Solo (talk) 21:22, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Ivanka's children would be listed in this category, yet they are not of ME descent. It really is quite simple as that. You are trying to take two separate things and you are either confused or just not competent in the area. The Jewish religion is from the ME, so if you want to have a category about descent of religions, then go for it. But this is a geography of people, people are wherever they are from. For you to label ALL JEWS as being of ME descent is factually incorrect. (I also don't know why someone who is not Jewish is so focused on this area.) Sir Joseph (talk) 21:25, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Again, I addressed these same points in the survey. Please refer back to that, and either answer the points I raised there, or drop it. You are clearly trying to re-kickstart the same argument all over again by baiting me back in, in the hopes of finding an audience that is more receptive to you. I'm not playing ball. That is my final response.The Human Trumpet Solo (talk) 20:15, 24 February 2017 (UTC)


 * —you say "This category lists people of Jewish ancestry, whether they are Halakhic or not" but in the context of Wikipedia this is incomprehensible because Wikipedia doesn't use Halacha to determine whether a person is Jewish or not. Bus stop (talk) 22:20, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * That is my point. What is yours?The Human Trumpet Solo (talk) 20:15, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
 * One point I am making is that a Category is improperly titled. At this page we find the statement: "This page lists individuals who are of Jewish descent, but not Jewish. Please use the Category:Jews for those," therefore the Category is improperly titled. The title of this Category should be: "People of Jewish descent who are not Jewish". Bus stop (talk) 12:49, 26 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I think no new Rfc is needed. After removing the WP:MEAT from the bones, the previous Rfc reached a clear conclusion of 7 against 2 editors to keep the status quo and not have the additional category. Debresser (talk) 16:26, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
 * In addition, this was premature. There is an WP:ANI discussion ongoing, and we should await its outcome. Debresser (talk) 16:32, 26 February 2017 (UTC)


 * As I posted in the ANI, Debresser, I just found out above only 1 editor has not been accounted for a later edit that you reverted for your claim of WP:MEAT (outside of the RfC/survey). That makes 8 out of 9 editors whom you mentioned in the ANI who agree to "keep" the category/categories of Middle Eastern people of Asian descent/Asian people of Middle Eastern descent, and not to "remove" it/them. Please do not violate Nothing is clear/Neutral point of view in this or any other forum. Thank you. Jeffgr9 (talk) 19:02, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

I do not think an RfC needs to be overturned, nor a new one generated; however, if the ANI finds the need to create a new RfC here, then it should be based on the findings of a survey, as above, so that the decision will be weighted toward the strengths of the arguments as opposed to just the number of !votes. Jeffgr9 (talk) 19:02, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Of course. At the same time, numbers also account for something. Debresser (talk) 19:12, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Note
The RFC was overturned at ANI. I have removed the full protection and semi-protected 2 weeks to prevent anonymous drive by edit warring. Registered editors should note that you do not have to break WP:3RR to be blocked for edit warring. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 19:58, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Not sure what part of "you do not have to break WP:3RR to be blocked for edit warring" wasn't clear. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 13:11, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
 * RFC was to Keep or Remove. Keep or no consensus means it stays in, remove means it gets removed. This is basic RFC closing here. However frankly I wont be participating in any subsequent RFC or discussion further as Sir Joseph's views on Jew ethnicity/religion have consistantly been found at the various noticeboards (feel free to browse the BLP/NPOV/RSN archives) to be idiosyncratic at best, and wildly incorrect at worst. Removing this from my watchlist. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:14, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
 * That I think Jews should be categorized as where they are from is wildly incorrect? I understand you have some sort of fetish for following me around, but I'm not Middle Eastern, Ivanka Trump is not Middle Eastern and I don't see how that is idiosyncratic. That you dislike me is no reason to try to push a POV that is incorrect. You also fail to understand the RFC and how it was worded. Sir Joseph (talk) 14:27, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Having an earlier opinion cited out of context on another admin's talk page let me clarify my view on what no consensus means as a third party who has no intent of getting dragged into the weeds of the actual content dispute: no consensus means that there was no consensus to include the material that had been challenged since the previously stable version did not have them. My previous quote was before it was pointed out to me that there had been a stable version TonyBallioni (talk) 14:18, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I appreciate you will no longer be participating here but for future reference, please look at WP:NOCON: "In discussions of proposals to add, modify or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit." --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 14:38, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
 * In this case the stable version was also the one without the disputed content. Debresser (talk) 17:32, 1 March 2017 (UTC)