Category talk:People of Jewish descent/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Middle Eastern/Southwest Asian descent

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Also, widespread conversion to Judaism is hotly contested.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It reads:-

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here are some genetic sources.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And one for women...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Shalom11111 (talk) 08:58, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Shalom11111, no need to start alluding to double standards. I, and others, hold that genetics has nothing to do with Wikipedia categorization. That's the short version. The long version I'll reserve for the Dispute Resolution. Debresser (talk) 19:49, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Shalom11111 did not allude to a double standard. Rather, Yambaran stated in plain terms that a removal of the cat would enforce a double standard. Also, genetics is one, but not the only pillar of the pro cat argument. Genetics is admissible as evidence supporting the concept of Jews as an ethnic group. This concept does not negate the concept of Jews as an ethno-religious group. In fact, the two are not mutually exclusive. Genetics affirms that Jewishness is as rooted in ancestry as it is in Judaism. Why else would a Jew who leaves the faith still be considered a Jew? Gilad55 (talk) 22:21, 5 March 2014 (UTC)Gilad55

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

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

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

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

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

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

So essentially, you are arguing for a statute of limitations, where none exists. If there is one, why are the Romani (whose history bears very many parallels to our own) classified as Asian? They haven't lived in India since the Middle Ages, and there are many within that group who have no Indian descent. In fact, there is even a well-documented custom of kidnapping local children and adopting them into their people, often as brides. And as Shalom11111 said, to remove these cats would require reshuffling all of the descent cats to meet the criteria you've laid out, i.e. "every single member of a nation group must be genetically homogenous, and anything short of that standard cancels out the rest of its members from that category".Evildoer187 (talk) 10:05, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Isn't that the same thing you are doing? What if Gilad, or Kitty, or Shalom11111, or AnkhMorpork (assuming all of the above are Jewish), or myself define ourselves as of SW Asian descent precisely because we have Jewish roots? Assuming I was of Ashkenazi descent, would it be ok for you to say "sorry, you're not Israelite/Middle Eastern anymore" because we spent the last 1,500+ years or so away from home (through no fault of our own, as history would attest), despite our own self-identity? If I recall correctly, there was one editor in the last thread who argued for inclusion, because removing them would threaten Jewish self-identity, and would also score political points for those who are currently attempting to erase or minimize Jewish history/ties to Israel (his arguments, not mine).Evildoer187 (talk) 10:05, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

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

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

I read the other day the following passage:-

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Just for starters.

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

Baron explains it by eight factors:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Beyond what I and numerous others have already provided? And revisiting Shalom11111's point for a moment, if not every person in Ireland is Celtic, then why do we include them under Celtic people? Why are Romani included under Indian people, when it is well known they have adopted many locals into their tribe, just as Jews have done? This is what I suspect Gilad means by double standards.Evildoer187 (talk) 16:31, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That's it, case closed, and ME cat stays. Thanks, Shalom11111 (talk) 15:52, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

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

• @Shalom11111 What you call in point 4. "rightly said" are things I and other disagree with completely. My conclusion is a lot shorter and easier to understand than yours: there is no consensus for Middle-East categories on Jewish category pages. Debresser (talk) 17:06, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

References

Dispute Resolution

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

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

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

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

Ugh

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

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

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

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

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

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

or

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

09/2016 Attempt to remove Middle Eastern cat

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Time to finish this

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

Now then, let's begin...

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

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

If a WP:RS exists supporting your belief that ethnic descent eventually evaporates or expires, please link to it and apply it consistently across the board. Otherwise, there is no reason to remove this category. The Jews/Israelites are of Middle Eastern descent (the reason we are called Jews in the first place is *because* of our Middle Eastern descent, particularly from what was historically known as Judea, in the Middle East ), as a people and a nation. Many reliable sources, including genetic studies (see the above passage for some non-genetic sources), exist supporting this fact.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Threats and ultimatums is not how Wikipedia works.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
References

Request for Comment

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

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

OK then, let's begin...

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

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

If a WP:RS exists supporting your belief that ethnic descent eventually evaporates or expires, please link to it and apply it consistently across the board. Otherwise, there is no reason to remove this category. The Jews/Israelites are of Middle Eastern descent (the reason we are called Jews in the first place is *because* of our Middle Eastern descent, particularly from what was historically known as Judea, in the Middle East ), as a people and a nation. Many reliable sources, including genetic studies (see the above passage for some non-genetic sources), exist supporting this fact.

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

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

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

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

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

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

References
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
References