Category talk:People of Jewish descent/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Middle East category Rfc

In 2014 there was a very long discussion on this same talkpage, should Category:People of Middle Eastern descent be added to this category. Obviously nobody disagrees that the Middle East is the cradle of Judaism and the Jewish people, but that is not the same. The conclusion of that discussion, in which both sides had several proponents, was that there is no consensus for the "Middle East" category. The category, that was added originally in 2012, was not removed at after that discussion, for reasons that do not matter much at this moment. The arguments against its inclusion remain the same, and are basically two-fold:

1. Jews do not consider themselves to be of Middle Eastern descent.
2. There have been many proselytes over the ages, making it doubtful (to a very high degree) that any person of Jewish descent is in fact of Middle Eastern descent.

The first point can benefit from some explanation. Jews who emigrated from Germany to, let's say, Israel or the United States, will call themselves German Jews. And the same for Jews from Syria, e.g., who call themselves Chalabi Jews wherever they are. But that is as far as it goes! Nobody knows in which countries their forefathers from more than a few generations ago lived, and nobody cares! Certainly, if you'd ask any Jew straightforward, if they are of Middle Eastern decent, nobody would say they are because of the mere fact of being a Jew alone.

To further illustrate this point I retold a known Jewish joke in the previous discussion, about two Jews, let's say both 100% Ashkenazic Jews, where one tells the other: "Do you know you are an Iraqi Jew?" and then when the other guy vehemently denies he says "All Jews are descended from Abraham who came from Ur which is in Iraq". A similar proof ad absurdum regards mankind as a whole: most scientific and genetic research agrees that man comes from Africa, and nevertheless, not all "of .. descent" categories are part of "People of African descent", and it would be ridiculous to impose that scientific fact on descent categories, and the same is true in this case. The more so that in this case, where it is not a sure fact at all, in view of the second point regarding proselytes.

I propose to reach a conclusion that there is no place for "Middle East" categories, and per the same token "West Asian" or "Asian" categories, on any of the "Jewish descent" categories. There is at present no conformity on this issue in all of the "Jewish descent" categories, and of the many "Jewish descent" categories, some have one or more of the above. This Rfc strives to reach a conclusion that would be binding for all of them, and in my opinion that conclusion should be that those categories are out of place on all "Jewish descent" categories. Debresser (talk) 13:20, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

A response to each of your points (ignoring your statement on what happened two years ago, for I was not involved in that).

The first point can benefit from some explanation. Jews who emigrated from Germany to, let's say, Israel or the United States, will call themselves German Jews. And the same for Jews from Syria, e.g., who call themselves Chalabi Jews wherever they are. But that is as far as it goes! Nobody knows in which countries their forefathers from more than a few generations ago lived, and nobody cares! Certainly, if you'd ask any Jew straightforward, if they are of Middle Eastern decent, nobody would say they are because of the mere fact of being a Jew alone.

This passage amounts to little more than unsourced conjecture. And while we're on that note, not only are there many Jews who would disagree, a few of them (the other editors in here arguing for inclusion seem to be Jews themselves, although they may feel free to correct me if I'm wrong) have challenged you directly on this point, including myself. Moreover, as even you acknowledged just a few sentences ago, the cradle of the Jewish people is in the Middle East, and there is a litany of RS (of which more anon; see below) affirming the common ancestral link between Jews (note that our very name means "of Judea", which is *surprise* located in historic Israel; so by identifying as Jews, we are essentially identifying as Middle Eastern) and historic Israel. There is a reason we are called "diaspora Jews" in every country except Israel. Why do you think that is?

To further illustrate this point I retold a known Jewish joke in the previous discussion, about two Jews, let's say both 100% Ashkenazic Jews, where one tells the other: "Do you know you are an Iraqi Jew?" and then when the other guy vehemently denies he says "All Jews are descended from Abraham who came from Ur which is in Iraq".

You know that this is a myth, right? From a historic perspective, Abraham was not much more than a patriarch and founding figure in Jewish culture. We don't all literally descend from Abraham. Even if it were true, it's not currently possible to establish. What can be established (and in fact, has been established repeatedly) is that the overwhelming majority of Jews worldwide trace much of their ancestry back to Israel (see the genetic studies I linked to, among other things). Jews as far flung as Poland, Russia, Iraq, France, Syria, Morocco, Africa, India, the United States, et al all possess a common ancestral descent (albeit to a lesser extent in the case of African, Indian, and Kaifeng Jews; a few of the DNA studies I linked to below deal with this directly and confirm what I am saying) from Israel. Hence, they are of Middle Eastern descent.

A similar proof ad absurdum regards mankind as a whole: most scientific and genetic research agrees that man comes from Africa, and nevertheless, not all "of .. descent" categories are part of "People of African descent", and it would be ridiculous to impose that scientific fact on descent categories, and the same is true in this case.

The human species originated in Africa, but most people we would recognize as non-African today are recognized as such because they do not belong to any ethnic groups or nationalities that originate in Africa. The same cannot be said of Jews vis a vis the Middle East. As a people, we originate from Israel, and we have maintained that ethnic identity up to the present. This is a standard application of the Indigenous Status checklist used here.

The more so that in this case, where it is not a sure fact at all, in view of the second point regarding proselytes.

This same argument could be applied to any nation or ethnic group. Do we stop categorizing Romanies as South Asian because they have accepted outsiders into their fold (as they have done for centuries)? What about indigenous tribes throughout the globe who have done the same thing? Do they lose their collective identification (or descent, in this case) with their natal land because they have absorbed and assimilated outsiders?

Also, the category is "People of Jewish descent", and it stresses that only people of Jewish descent who do not currently practice Judaism (thereby explicitly excluding converts) are qualified to be included here.

Now that that's out of the way, I will copy and paste my earlier rebuttal to another editor, because they sum up my case for inclusion well enough.

"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) 15:13, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

I was hoping we could avoid the overly long posts you posted above, mainly because they have the immediate and deplorable effect of stifling any discussion. Nobody is interested in reading through such long discussions. But since you replied at length, and with several points, I will have to address each point in turn. Debresser (talk) 15:38, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

That cannot be helped. What needs to be said, needs to be said. Go ahead and post a response. I'll look at it later on tonight. I am nevertheless happy that you are taking the time to address my points. That's all I was asking for.ChronoFrog (talk) 15:50, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Your first point actually consists of two arguments. a. that I bring no proof that Jews don't consider themselves to be of Middle Eastern descent. b. The link between Jews and the Middle East (Israel) is well-sourced. To answer these two arguments:

1a1. According to standing Wikipedia policy, the burden of proof is on those who argue for inclusion of the category.

1a2. You bring a few editors, yourself including, who consider themselves to be of Middle Eastern descent. On the other hand, I bring a few editors, myself including, who don't.

1a3. However, those who claim to consider themselves to be of Middle Eastern descent, do not do so in the same way as they consider themselves to be of German or Syrian descent, for example (to stick to the same two examples I gave above). And that I can prove easily. When they use a siddur (prayer-book), it will be a prayer-book according to the German or Syrian rite. There is no such thing as a prayer book according to the rite of the Land of Canaan. The so-called Palestinian rite (or Nusach Eretz Yisrael as it is better known in Jewish circles), has not been in continuous use since antiquity, a fact that strengthens my point, that there is no continuous feeling among Jews of being of Middle East/Land of Canaan/Land of Israel descent. Likewise, when they make congregations, often those congregations are based on the most recent country of origin preceding the present country of domicile, but there are no synagogues especially for all those who consider themselves to be of antique Middle Eastern descent (as opposed to modern Middle Eastern descent, roughly Mizrahim).

1b1. As has been stated ad nauseam in the original discussion, and repeated above in the Rfc post, the link between Jews and the Middle East is only for those Jews who are not descendant from proselytes. Over the millennia, there have been very many of them. Nishidani has here and elsewhere made a valid case (by which I mean with reliable sources) for the proposition that in the first centuries after the diaspora, there was widespread proselyting.

1b2. As has been stated as well, and argued with two arguments ad absurdum, the connection with the Middle East (in as far as it exists), is not in itself sufficient reason for the inclusion of a Middle East category. I will not repeat myself, but it has been adequately show to be a non-argument to say that a person's genetic connection (in as far as it exists) to a certain location, would be a reason to add a descent category to the article about that person. The same holds true for category pages.

2. Your second point mentions Abraham. For the sake of this discussion it does not make a big difference whether he literally was the first Jew, or whether he stood at the head of group of people who started the Jewish people. I would like to add that Jewish tradition maintains that Abraham made proselytes among the men and Sara among the women, so even in their day, the number of proselytes was far vaster than the number of Jews (which was 1 = Abraham or 2, plus Sara). That however does not change the discussion much, because they were still all from the Middle East, but it does lend additional weight to the claim that there are far more proselytes (and their descendants) in Judaism than most people are aware of.

There are many studies regarding the degree of admixture of non-Middle Eastern genetic material in the modern Jewish genome, making widely diverging claims. That in itself is good reason not to use the genetic argument. In addition, the genetic argument is not valid because, as has been argued above, it also leads to some absurd conclusions (like that all mankind should be in an "of African descent" category), and because people simply don't in actual life trace their descent back more than one country. I for example know that part of my forefathers lived in Holland since the expulsion from Spain, while part came from Poland. How they came to Spain and Poland, where they lived before, I don't know. Nor do I care. And that is true for all people who consider the issue of their descent (with the occasional exception confirming the rule). Simply put, the fact that there is maybe a certain degree of Middle Eastern descent, is not enough to justify to use the category. That is simply not how people use them in real life, nor how we use them on Wikipedia.

3. Your third point confuses ethnicity and descent. Nothing more to add to that, a simple confusion, so not a valid argument.

4. Your fourth point is correct, and it is the same as I am making: that after a certain point of admixture and dilution of a certain original descent, we stop using it. Add to that the earlier stated fact that the degree of admixture by proselyting (or pogroms and rape, although I have not seen that point made in discussions on Wikipedia so far) has at times been very high.

The first point of the "rebuttal" you add also consists of several arguments. 1. The categorization of Romani and Arabs supports your point of view. 2. You repeat that I should bring reliable sources that descent dissipates. 3. Repetition of the sources and genetics argument. I will not repeat myself, just address the first point under the name point 4.

The Romani trace their origin as a group back to the 6th-11th century. That is a lot later than Jews. I think there is a difference between Arabs and Jews, in that Arabs retained without interruption a connection to a specific geographic homeland, and even when their empire expanded in the Golden age of Islam, that expansion took place around a central homeland. Possibly Nishidani can add more reasons why the Romani and the Arabs are not the same as the Jews regarding the issue of categorizing them geographically.

5. The second point of the "rebuttal" states that "the Jewish people, as a nation and ethnic group, are indigenous to the Middle East". You simply repeat your mistake to confuse ethnicity (nationhood) and descent.

6. + 7. The following arguments and "rebuttals" I don't subscribe to, so let's skip them.

8. Your last "rebuttal" compares proselyting to migration. I completely agree with that, and use that very same argument to make my point. Just like we wouldn't use a certain descent category after a person migrated more than once, in general, and certainly not with the same force that we would use the most recent migration category of that person, likewise we should not go back to what for most Jews would be at best a very partial Middle Eastern ancestry after a very large amount of steps back though the history of the Jewish diaspora. Q.E.D.

9. I am not going to go over all of your references, but have a good look at ref #2 for example. It says that Jews are "a continuation of the ancient Jewish people". Now, why doesn't it simply say "descendants of the ancient Jewish people", like it says further in the same sentence "descendants of the Hebrews of the Old Testament"? Because the EB knows that Jews are "only" a continuation, but not descendants! I am pretty sure that a lot more of your references actually support the opposite point of view, if closely examined. Debresser (talk) 19:21, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Responding to your first few points at a time:

1a. If you actually look at the text of the siddur, you will find that the core sections are virtually identical, as is their overall structure and arrangement, no matter the rite. They all have the same morning blessings, they all have baruch she'amar, they all have the verses of praise, including Psalms 145-150 and the Song at the Sea, they all have Yishtabach, the blessings over the Shema (two before and one after in the morning, two before and and two after it in the evening), they all say Y'hei shmeih raba, which is the primary part of the Kaddish, they all have the same 19 blessings in the Standing Prayer or the Amidah, and they all have the Song of the Day, and they all have Aleinu. The differences you mention are slight changes in wording and ordering of the phrases, but really impresses any outsider reading these texts for the first time is that they are so similar. This is because the core structure of the prayers, as well as the sequencing of the sections, morning blessings before the Verses of Praise, then the Shema and then the Amidah, was instituted by a single body, the Men of the Great Assembly in the Holy Land. No matter where Jews dispersed, they retained this structure, and today, Jews of different rites can simply tell where the rest of the congregation is by listening for a few seconds before joining into the service. I myself have done this numerous times, joining in with the Edut haMizrah, several Ashkenaz rites, and even the Yemenite rite, all while myself using a chassidic siddur, al pi nusach HaArizal. Rather than point to essential differences, the deep similarity points to an essential unity among all Jews. None of them cite passages of, say the Shulchan Aruch, the Yad HaHazakah or the Mapah. Instead, they read from earlier sources, like the Palestinian Zohar when the Holy Ark is opened, and they recite passages from the Scripture, Mishnah and Talmud on reciting the blessings on the Torah during the morning blessings (Birkat HaShachar). These texts all point to a time when Jews lived together in their land under their own unified government. Far from the insinuation that the siddur divides us, it shows that we a single people with a common history.

1b. This list, People of Jewish descent, never included proselytes to begin with. The very title rules them out, as well as those descended entirely from converts. Every person in this list, in other words, has non-proselyte Jewish ancestors, otherwise, they would not qualify as being of Jewish descent. Naturally, this includes those who are not halachically Jewish, and excludes some who are halachically Jewish, but that's not the point of this category. It's a list of people of Jewish descent. Even though there were converts in the past it can hardly be imagined that their family remained purely of converts generation after generation. We must conclude that they were absorbed into the rest of the non-proselyte Jewish family, and their descendants could thus also claim Jewish descent.

2. Even though Abraham made many proselytes, the Jews are called the children of Israel, his grandson, and each of the 70 who descended to Egypt were children and grandchildren of the Jacob's twelve sons. Upon leaving Egypt, there were roughly 600,000 men of military age who still traced their lineage to these same ancestors. As for the Egyptians who converted and followed them out of Egypt, again, it can be assumed that after the third generation, as soon as the Torah permitted them, they intermixed with the other Jews, and after a generation or two, their descendants were also of Jewish descent. This is basically identical to the case of more recent converts.

There is more I could say, but this should be sufficient. Musashiaharon (talk) 20:36, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Replying to Musashiaharon.

1a. You are completely right. Which makes my point all the more poignant, that the underlying sameness notwithstanding, Jews all over the world are so meticulous about using only the rites of their actual descent. No Ashkenazi will ever pray in a Sephardi siddur or visa versa. Nor will somebody who uses Nusach HaAri, like you say you do, use either of these. That proves that people do not care about the underlying unity from Biblical or even Talmudic time, rather look at the last few generations only.

1b. + 2. Even proselytes who lost the proselyte character, and their children are now "of Jewish descent", but they will never ever be "of Middle Eastern descent"! They simply aren't. Which precisely proves my point, again.

So yes, you could say more, but you have made my points for me, and there really is no need. Debresser (talk) 21:25, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

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

Having read through this entire discussion, I feel like I need to say something.

I am absolutely dumbfounded.

So, you are telling me that everything I believe in, everything I know, everything I've learned is a lie?

I was born in the US. I am both a 2nd and 3rd generation Jewish American. I was taught, both at home and in Hebrew school, we are all descended from the Middle East.

I had a DNA test done. It shows I am in fact genetically descended from the Middle East.

I refer to myself as a Jewish American -- but that is only because I was born here. It doesn't have any bearing on -- nor detract from -- my heritage.

I've traced my paternal grandmother's family to the former Turkish Ottoman Empire. Ergo, even if only 25% of my more recent ancestors lived in and are of Middle Eastern descent, it doesn't mean I am any less of Middle Eastern descent.

It would be like telling my racially mixed grandchildren one side of their heritage was non-existent since they are not 100% one or the other. Or telling Indian tribes they can not accept members who are not 100% Indian heritage.

The fact that many (if not most) people are unaware/ignorant of their ancestry doesn't alter the fact all Jews are of Middle Eastern descent, to one degree or another. And being ignorant of one's ancestry doesn't mean it doesn't in fact exist.

On to your points.

@Debresser

1a1. And what policy would that be? I am unaware of any rule suggesting that all members of a particular ethnic group must identify the same way, with no variation, to be included under a geographic category. As mentioned previously by another editor, this seems to be the only place where such arguments crop up, and it is not consistent. Categories are not decided that way, and I see no rule based or source based reason to make an exception here. Geographic categorization is determined by where that group's ethnic origins are, and for Jews that place is Israel.

Fun fact: Karl Marx, Heinrich Heine, Leon Trotsky, and many others are categorized as Jewish on here even though none of the above examples considered themselves Jewish. That is because facts and policy trump personal feelings.

1a3. Virtually all known Jewish liturgy, despite varying degrees of difference, emphasizes that we are Israelites aka the nation of Israel. That much has been remarkably consistent across geographic boundaries, and the reason for that should be obvious. The Reform movement is the only exception, and in this particular case, I refer you back to point 1a1.

1b1. Conversions did happen, even if the extent is often exaggerated. Throughout most of our history in diaspora, indigenous Europeans, Arabs, et al weren't exactly queueing up to convert to Judaism, and if contemporary science and DNA studies are any indication, that number was never large enough to dwarf or subsume non-proselyte Jews. Rather, it was the other way around. The chances of running into someone of Jewish descent whose ancestors were all non-Israelite converts are practically zero. As ChronoFrog correctly pointed out, Romanies, First Nations, Arabs, and many others have accepted outsiders over the centuries, but this has no bearing on geographic categorization. Romani are still listed under South Asian, North American Indians remain geographically categorized according to wherever their tribe is indigenous to, Arabs are listed under West Asian despite the significantly higher probability that North African Arabs have no West Asian descent. Why should Jews be treated any differently?

1b2. This point borders on nonsensical. Even if someone belongs to a Middle Eastern ethnic group and has proven genetic descent (ironic, since your case against inclusion up until now was largely premised on the idea that we're not genetically "pure".... which one is it?) from the Middle East, they still wouldn't qualify as being categorized under "Middle Eastern descent"? That is so self-evidently absurd that it warrants no further response.

2. I'll focus on your second point, because I don't think Abraham is relevant here. It is apparent that you either did not read the studies, or ignored their conclusions. For geneticists, our Levantine descent is not an issue of "maybe", it's an issue of "how much admixture was there, and what were the sources of this admixture?". Our origins and descent from the Levant is concrete, scientifically proven fact. If you reject that, then you are ignoring the overwhelming consensus of the scientific community. That is highly unencyclopedic.

3. That's because ethnicity and descent are interrelated.

4a. There were many genetic studies posted in here refuting your assertions

4b. If you're trying to enforce a statute of limitations on descent, then yes. A source would be absolutely necessary.

4c. Arabs retained without interruption a connection to a specific geographic homeland.....and the Jews didn't? How so? Both groups consist of millions who hadn't set foot in their natal land for centuries (if ever, in the Arab case). The only notable difference is that one expanded through colonial conquest, whereas the other was dispersed BY conquest.

5. See number 3.

6+7. I'm afraid it doesn't work that way. If source supported arguments are presented, it is incumbent upon you to either engage with them or concede. There is no reason why I (or Wikipedia as a whole) should hand-wave reliable sources for the sake of someone's personal or religious sensibilities. This is not a Torah studies group.

8. Actually, we would use a certain descent category after a person migrated more than once. And in fact, we do in every case except this one. That is the crux of the problem.

9. This was addressed earlier.Bubbecraft (talk) 09:33, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

@Bubbecraft I have no doubt that you are of Middle Eastern descent, and please feel happy about that if you want to. But not all Jews are of Middle Eastern descent, and not in the same measure, or they simply don't really care, unlike you. I'd even say that most don't. These three things mean that we can not add a Middle Eastern or Asian descent category to all Jews as a rule. Let me now reply to your detailed objections.

1a1 That would be WP:BURDEN!

1a1. + 1a3. +2. +3. +4a. + 5. You too mix up ethnicity and religion with descent, very explicitly so even.

1a1. + 1b1. I already pointed to the differences between Romani and Arabs on the one hand, and Jews on the other.

1b2. To the contrary, this point is a major point, which I have shown with examples to be true. Descent, even if proven genetically, does not necessarily mean a person considers themselves to be of certain descent. People don't go back more than a few generations, and neither should Wikipedia try to impose this on people. Much like WP:CATGRS, by way of comparison.

4b. This is the second time you make this mistake. See WP:BURDEN again.

6. + 7. I take offense to your insinuation as though my opinion is based on my religious beliefs, rather than sound argument and Wikipedia policies and guidelines. I remind you of WP:NPA and would ask you to strike that line.

8. We do so only if there is verified information in reliable sources that a person migrated more than once. And in most cases we don't go back more than a few generations. In this case there are at least four serious problems with doing so: 1. you propose to go back about 100 generations! 2. the degree of Middle Eastern descent after so many generations is so small, that is becomes irrelevant for an encyclopedia 3. there is no guarantee regarding any specific person that they are indeed factually of Middle Eastern descent (unless they did a genetic test, and even then perhaps the source of the Middle Eastern genetic material is often not necessarily Jewish, but could be any non-Jewish Middle Eastern source as well) 4. all the sources you mention talk about the Jewish people, but not about any specific Jewish person, which means that you are left without any reliable source for your position! Now please notice that each of these is a valid reason not to include a Middle Eastern category, and you would need to disprove all of them in order to be able to include it.

9. Well, indulge me and repeat this, please, because I see prove in that source for the opposite of what you claim it shows. Debresser (talk) 10:18, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

• Just because some Jews are from Middle East descent does not mean that other Jews are not. Therefore you can't have the full category placed under Middle East descent. A Jew from Iraq is ME descent, so put the cat there, but a Jew from the US may or may not be from ME descent so you can't put the cat there. 🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 14:24, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

My apologies for delayed reply. As a retired grandparent raising granddaughters, I don't always have time to sit at a computer.

You wrote, "But not all Jews are of Middle Eastern descent, and not in the same measure" That is a blatant fallacy as already proven by my statement above, example of my racially mixed grand daughter and Indian tribal membership requirements, some requiring as little as 1/16th percentage. All Jews originated in the Levant, and regardless of how diluted they may have become over time, they are still of Middle Eastern descent. What does a quantitative measure have to do with it?

Ancestry.com recognizes the Middle Eastern descent in their DNA advertising. See https://dna.ancestry.com/ethnicity/european-jewish: European Jewish Ethnicity "People in this DNA ethnicity group may identify as: Polish, Belarusian, Ukrainian, Russian, Hungarian, Israeli, Ashkenazi"

You also wrote, "they simply don't really care." What relevance is that? Again, what if I hadn't spent almost 20 years reasearching my family and learning my family's roots, would that mean I no longer am of Middle Eastern descent? And by that standard, since most people don't care about [fill in the topic of your choice] -- does that mean that particular topic should not be included in WP?

Once again, you can't have it both ways. 1) Either I am of Middle Eastern descent, or I am not, and whether I know it or not, whether I care or not, does not change my DNA. 2) Either all topics are contained within WP or you begin the process of censoring furthering such abhorant process as found in Islamization, banning books by various religious groups, right to be forgotten, and so much more egregious redactions. For an example of the degree to which this type of logic can descend, I refer you to the book, "Victims Stories and the Advancement of Human Rights" by Dana T. Meyers. Refer to page 16 where she writes, "Before I outline my philosophical agenda in this book, I want to spotlight an additional issue bearing on victims and their stories that Slahi's work puts on unusally consipicuous, graphic display. There are black bars covering text and signaling redactions on almost every page of Guantanamo Diary. Many of the redactions protect the identities of the persons who abducted and torrured Slahi. Given that the US government refuses to to prosecute any of these individuals, it is unsurprising, though highly problematic, that we are prevented from learning who they are. Although the legitimacy of these name redactions is debatable, two other redactons are blatantly egregious. Slahi's entire description of his polygraph test -- material that presumably would exonerate him once and for all -- is redacted (2015, 301-307). Likewise, several pages that are preceded by 'One of my poems went' are blacked out (2015, 359-361). His poem -- presumably a deeply personal statement concerning subject matter of great importance to him -- has been censored." And if you're going to go down the path of censorship, I refer you to the following 3 articles: a) The Case Against Censorship, by Victoria Brownworth, http://www.lambdaliterary.org/features/11/20/the-case-against-censorship/ b) Gavin McInnes Makes a Great Argument Against Censorship, by Elizabegth N. Brown, http://reason.com/blog/2014/08/21/gavin-mcinnes-as-anti-censorship-argumen c) and most imporantly, Censorship, Violence & Press Freedom, by Article19,, https://www.article19.org/pages/en/censorship-violence-press-freedom-more.html where they begin with "Censorship in all its forms is often unjustifiable and is used simply to stop truths or ideas emerge which draw attention to powerful people or governments, or undermine ideology. This is inexcusable."

As for my DNA results, my Middle Eastern markers are stronger than my father's -- he is the direct descendant from the family from the known Middle East. Which means my Ashkenazi side provided MORE markers for the Levant, than my Sephardic side.

Refer to https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/judaica/ejud_0002_0007_0_07174.html Read, "Jewish Paternal Ancestry – View from the NRY Markers of the Y-Chromosome" and read where it states, "Taken together these results confirmed that the majority of NRY haplogroups found among contemporary Ashkenazi Jews originated in the Near East"

And also read the section, "Jewish Maternal Ancestry: View from Mitochondrial DNA" where the author wrote, "Similar to the observation for male ancestry based on Y-chromosome analysis in the Ashkenazi population, the mitochondrial DNA results also show that the various Ashkenazi communities throughout Central and Eastern Europe cannot be readily distinguished from each other, likely reflecting shared recent origins from a common small ancestral deme, followed by continuous migration among the Ashkenazi communities."

Whether a person knows/cares about ancestry, has absolutely NO bearing on the facts. And the matter of degree is of zero consequence or even relevance.

In other words, contrary to your statements, DNA testing has confirmed ALL Jews are descended from the Levant.

1a1 WP:Burden states the editor must ensure all content is verifiable from a valid source. How is that a reply? How does that address the question, "that all members of a particular ethnic group must identify the same way, with no variation." If you are suggesting, and I suspect you are, that not all Jews identify the same way, then you are partially correct. No group of people all identify in the same manner, and Jews are no exception. However, if you want a verifiable source that all Jews identify with Israel/Levant, then you need only look as far as the Passover Seder. Regardless of heritage, ethnicity, race, Ashkenazi, Sephardic, etc., each and every Jew always says, and with good reason, "Next Year in Jerusalem." And why is that? Because it is designed to remind us from where we all came from and the desire to return there. Every Jew knows it -- even if only subconsciously. (Have you ever seen a Jew not state it at a Passover Seder?)

1a1 + 1a3 +2 +3 +4a + 5: I am not mixing up the 2. As an agnostic American born Jew, I am quite clear about the differences. This is a an ethnic issue -- as well as an indigenous people and race issue. I refer you to http://www.diffen.com/difference/Ethnicity_vs_Race: "Race refers to a person's physical characteristics, such as bone structure and skin, hair, or eye color. Ethnicity, however, refers to cultural factors, including nationality, regional culture, ancestry, and language. " As Jews we have identifiably distinct racial characteristics (as well as ethnic characteristics) as proven by DNA testing. It's long been known there are diseases which are predominantly found in Ahkenazi Jews. I refer you to the Ahkenazi Jewish Genetic Panel (http://www.webmd.com/children/tc/ashkenazi-jewish-genetic-panel-ajgp-what-are-ashkenazi-jewish-genetic-diseases) where you will find Bloom syndrome, Canavan disease, Cystic fibrosis, Familial dysautonomia, Fanconi anemia, Gaucher disease, Mucolipdosis IV, Niermann-Pick disease, Tay-Sachs and Torsiondystonia. Furthermore, if you read http://www.jpost.com/Enviro-Tech/Jews-A-religious-group-people-or-race, "The belief that Jews constitute a religious, rather than ethnic or racial group in the US and other Western countries is widespread. “Jewish” was never a category for race in the US Census, Ostrer notes, even though genetic studies 'would seem to refute this..." The fact that Jews have not been recognized as an ethnic group until now simply proves the point of ongoing ethnic and racial bias against us. It would seem you are attempting to eradicate our collective roots in the Middle East in a manner similar to the recent U.N.'s erasure of the Jewish connection to the Temple Mount.

1a1 + 1b1: Both of your explanations are flawed and, in the case of the Jewish-Arab analogy, nonsensical. One of the other editors explained this.

1b2. Consideration is not a factor as explained above. Example: my step-children are of Indian descent on their mother's side. My step-daughter followed through with the information and was able to obtain Indian membership in the appropriate tribe. My step-son didn't care and didn't do so. Does that make him any less of Indian descent? Moreover, whether the average person traces their lineage further back or not, is once again, irrelevant for the same reason as my step-children. As for Wikipedia: how would this would not be an imposition to say Jews originated in the Levant. My half-sister, who was rasied with no Jewish learning of even the most minal, considers herself a Jew and that all Jews originated in the Levant. (A conversation which came up at our last Passover Seder, and the first time she had ever attended one.) How can you speak for people as a whole, when it's clear you have no basis for that understanding. You have no imperical data supporting your statements. You have no polls. You have not met your own criteria for WP:BURDEN. You have nothing which suggests or even alludes to your point of view. And that's all you are doing, presenting a point of view which non-factual, unencylopedic, inconsistent, and above all, offensive.

4b: Same problem with your reply. Where is the statute of limitations in Wikipedia?

6 + 7: Unfortunately your replies are more often opinions than actual verifiable responses. You consistently fail to respond to the arguments presented. You dismiss out of hand, over and over again, that other points of view may have relevance. You do not engage the points being mentioned, instead dismissing them with references to WP:Burden which in no way actually addresses the issues mentioned. I am sorry you have taken offense. For the record, your lack of appropriate and engaged responses -- coupled with your apparent zeal in erasing this category -- have given offense to me as well.

8.1: As I read the prior conversation between you and another editor, I see you are attempting to set a statute of limitations with no sources or Wiki-polkcy based arguments to substantiate the position. Descent had no limitations.

8.2 + 8.3: Already addressed. To take it one step further, my former daughter-in-law refers to herself as an African American. Presumably, by your definition, she would be permitted to be a part of the African heritage. Never mind the fact I traced her family back to the 1760's -- and all American born. So far, I have been unable to answer her question when we started the quest: when did her ancestors come to the U.S.? There is NEVER any guarantee of ANY ONE individual of ANY descent to be of ANY particular heritage -- unless DNA is done. Your response is specious, without substance, merit or WP:BURDEN.

8.4: Come again? You want a verifiable source with specific genetic information to prove the claim of one individual? Would my DNA report meet that criteria? What about those reports from just about every Jewish genealogist I know who has taken DNA tests? Visit any DNA site (and there are MANY of them) and create a free account. View the DNA results of the Jews. They all, without exception, show Middle Eastern heritage. (1) Considering WP doesn't always meet that burden of proof on every subject contained, I find this hilarious. Refer to the pages for Joe Gold, my paternal grandfather's brother, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Gold. Most of the details (particularly the dates) originated from me personally and they are NOT sourced. (2) In fact, the whole issue of verifiable sources, near as I can determine, on WP is absurd and non-sustainable. It depends on the ability to point to a URL. Given the internet is filled with controversial and often contradictory information on any single topic, that URLs come and go as quickly as changing the baby's diaper, how can another page on the internet be the (often) sole and primary basis for proving a point?

9: Refer to the extensive list of sources provided by other editor(s). You are zeroing in on source #2 even though it states, "In the broader sense of the term, a Jew is any person belonging to the worldwide group that constitutes, through descent or conversion, a continuation of the ancient Jewish peple, who were themselves descendants of the Hebrews of the Old Testament." You can not ignore the descent part which accounts for the vast majority of Jews worldwide -- not least of which is that Judaism not only discourages conversion but pursues with great zeal the refusal to convert -- most Jews are NOT converts. Sources 3 and 4 emphasize descent and nationhood as well.

Bubbecraft (talk) 16:08, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

I didn't read your wall of text, but you said that ALL Jews come from the Middle East. Did Sammy Davis Jr. come from the ME? What about Ivanka Trump? They're Jewish and yet have no ME ancestry, so your claim fails. If you want to add ME descent to Jews who are known to have come from ME, that is one thing, but to put a blanket cat on ALL Jews is factually incorrect. Also, your bringing up genetic diseases kind of proves my point, many diseases are not across all Jews, but only for Ashkenazic, or European Jews. If all Jews came from the ME, shouldn't these diseases be common across all Jews? 🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 16:18, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Ivanka Trump and SDJ are not of Jewish descent. They are both converts, so they're not relevant here as this category does not include them in it. Jacques Derrida was very much a Frenchman, but we wouldn't list him under any French descent categories nor would we add/remove categories on that basis. Besides, the rest of her post makes it fairly obvious that she wasn't referring to converts when she said 'all Jews'. Probably just sloppy wording on her part.

Certain diseases are exclusive to Ashkenazim due to generations of endogamy, not because they are genetically distinct from other Jewish subdivisions (genetically, they are almost indistinguishable from Sephardim), although it does refute the idea that Ashkenazim are Europeans who converted to Judaism. As for your flippant remarks about not reading her "wall of text", if you're not going to engage someone's arguments fairly, maybe you'd be better off leaving this RfC and finding something else to do.The Human Trumpet Solo (talk) 17:11, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Ivanka's children are of Jewish descent. They are not of Middle Eastern descent. Also, how did you find this page? Were you emailed or notified in any way to comment here? 🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 17:13, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

@Bubbecraft You basically repeat yourself, so I am not going to repeat the replies I already gave, which stand in full force. You seem altogether too emotional about this, as though I want to deny you your Middle Eastern descent, which I do not. Your words, that you are offended by the fact that I want to remove this category, prove that you are way too emotional about this. Just wanted to add that I agree with Sir Joseph, that the case of converts proves you wrong. Debresser (talk) 19:51, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

@Debresser: you wrote, "I take offense to your insinuation as though my opinion is based on my religious beliefs."

I replied in the same vein, "I am sorry you have taken offense. For the record, your lack of appropriate and engaged responses -- coupled with your apparent zeal in erasing this category -- have given offense to me as well."

And then you replied, "Your words, that you are offended by the fact that I want to remove this category, prove that you are way too emotional about this."

Why neglect the key phrase in my reply, "apparent zeal"? Did it hit too close to home? Are you actually sharing your own emotional stand by directing the accusation towards me?

I actually have no idea what you're talking about, so the answer is probably "no". :) Debresser (talk) 23:07, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Then I would suggest you re-read everything in context. I am eminently clear. You are accusing me of being emotional when in fact I simply restated the relevant portions of the dialogue and asked a rhetorical question to address your inappropriate accusation/assertion.--Bubbecraft (talk) 15:47, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

@Sir Joseph:

I wrote "All Jews originated in the Levant" and you replied, "Did Sammy Davis Jr. come from the ME? What about Ivanka Trump? ...".

Is there some reason you resort to eisegetical interpretation of the written word?

Let me rephrase it: The first and primary source of modern day Jewry originated in the Levant.

As for converts, they are far and few between and bear little or no relevance on the basic issue: are Jews, taken as a whole, to be considered of Middle Eastern descent, regardless of dilution and/or other considerations? And if you insist on returning to the issue of converts, let's also remember -- as found in most instances of conversion -- the resulting children still inherit the DNA from the Jewish parent (who wasn't the convert).

How can you be a fair and impartial participant in this topic if you aren't willing to read all information presented. Like the other editor who has engaged with me, you are presenting opinions only, you have no WP:BURDEN and refuse to consider it when presented -- as you so eloquently wrote, "I didn't read your wall of text."

I'm sorry you feel I've written too long a dialogue in response, but prior editors left me no choice but to address all the responses with meaningful and WP:BURDEN sources. I am not simply defending an opinion.

Let me also emphasis something you missed since you didn't read my "wall of text": the DNA tests I pointed to clearly state the MAJORITY of Ashkenazi Jews ARE of ME descent.

Therefore your counter-claim lacks sufficiency and WP:BURDEN.

If this were a moderated debate, as I understand the process (which doesn't say much), I believe you have failed to meet the burden of proof.

@Debresser

Yes, I repeat myself to some degree -- but you have left me no choice -- and include WP:BURDEN, per your request.

Emotional?

Why on earth would you ask this? Because I don't communicate like a professor of theology? Because I answer with a question?

If your question, comment, statement is superfluous, then expect my reply to be in the same vein.

I would counter your comment: Might I suggest you refrain from eisegetical interpretation and resume exegetical form?

Moreover, I would ask you to apply the same WP:BURDEN to your own statements and account for the ones having been presented here by the "other camp." Bubbecraft (talk) 20:14, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

You're basically saying Judaism comes from the Middle East. I agree. Same as Christianity. Are all Christians ME descent? Judaism comes from the ME, but Jews don't necessarily. I don't have ME ancestry, Ivanka Trump doesn't, Sammy Davis Jr. doesn't, most of the Jews living in the US don't, etc. 🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 20:48, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

@Sir Joseph: where did I say, or even imply, Judaism? I am referring to the Jews, as a nation/race/ethnic group/people, not Judaism as a religion. This is the 2nd time someone has accused me (albeit indirectly this time) of confusing the 2.

Please review WP:BURDEN. It say that the editor who wants to add or restore content has the burden of proof. I want to remove a category. Debresser (talk) 20:32, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

@Debresser: So, as I understand it, because you want to remove a category, you don't have to justify your action? But because others want to add/restore content, then they do? Then why ignore all the sources that have been presented? Multiple authors, writing far better than I, have presented a magnificent mountain of evidence. Yet it is continually discounted and dismissed based on opinion only. I fail to understand this process. What is the point of providing evidence if it won't be accounted for and therefore no "burden of proof" could ever be met.

Near the beginning of this discussion, Nishidani wrote, "We are discussing whether a cat insinuating Ashkenazi Jews are of Middle Eastern descent is appropriate."

Later, @Debresser wrote, "All these DNA stories are no[t] really relevant to the issue. Not because part of my blood can be traced to Spain (some of my ancestors were of Sephardic heritage) am I of Spanish descent. If this is how we categorize people, all of us would have a long list of descent categories."

The fact is that we, none of us here, have the ability to classify and categorize people in any meaningful, consistent and conclusive manner.

No matter what rules are established for any category or classification, there will always be an exception to the rule.

Let me instead refer you to: Different differences: The use of ‘genetic ancestry’ versus race in biomedical human genetic research https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3124377/

This article presents a number of concepts specific to disease related DNA research. The hurdles they faced are similar to the discussion taking place here.

If you only read the first few sections, you will learn very quickly that the geneticists themselves are in "agreement race categories do not correspond to genetic groupings." It goes on to explain that "although one can interpret genetic ancestry as a concept derived from population genetics technologies and race as a socio-cultural set of understandings, we show that the two are not so easily separated in scientific/cultural practices and discourses." Eventually, the author leads you to a description of a statistical modeling program, EIGENSTRAT, which divides sample groups into similar clusters on the basis of SNP variations which then build algorithms independent of a "priori of human evolution or historical migrations."

In other words, the medical research community has determined there is no single definitive manner in which to establish/define groups/classifications/categories for people.

Has it ever occurred to anyone here to reach a compromise? Bubbecraft (talk) 00:03, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Have you seen the following 2 pages on WP?

Category:People of Arab descent, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:People_of_Arab_descent

Category:People of Romani descent, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:People_of_Romani_descent

In both instances, there is the caveat, "This page lists individuals of partial [Romani|Arab] descent. For those of full descent see Category:[Romani|Arab]".

The Romani people hadn't been in Asia for centuries and they often adopted children from the surrounding population.

The Arab people also live in North Africa with no West Asian descent at all, yet they are included on the referenced page.

In both instances, those facts do not alter how they are categorized on WP. Why do you insist it's different for the Jewish people when it's clearly the same issue -- and let me absolutely clear, I am referring to the nation/people/race/etc -- not the religion.

In conclusion, there already exists two examples of a compromise and I recommend the same be applied here as well.

Bubbecraft (talk) 04:45, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Seems Wikipedia has already weighed in on this topic: "Genetic studies indicate that modern Jews (Ashkenazi, Sephardic and Mizrahi specifically), Levantine Arabs, Assyrians, Samaritans, Syriacs-Arameans, Maronites, Druze, Mandaeans, and Mhallami, all have an ancient indigenous common Near Eastern heritage which can be genetically mapped back to the ancient Fertile Crescent, but often also display genetic profiles distinct from one another, indicating the different histories of these peoples"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semitic_people Bubbecraft (talk) 02:39, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Sir Joseph, this category is one of many pages on my watchlist, and I would have commented earlier were it not for the fact that I'm, y'know, busy. Why is it that every time the tide of an argument or Request for Comment shifts in favor of the ostensibly "pro-Israel" side, people like you theorize that there is some sort of foul play or conspiracy involved?

Maybe people just disagree with you.The Human Trumpet Solo (talk) 03:53, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

By the way, Ivanka Trump married an ethnic Jew, so her children will undoubtedly carry Middle Eastern descent. Converts are gradually absorbed into the Jewish (read: Middle Eastern) gene pool, making this entire discussion on converts moot anyway.The Human Trumpet Solo (talk) 03:53, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

What does people like you mean? 🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 13:29, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

@Sir Joseph: I would hazard a guess that when you asked, "Also, how did you find this page? Were you emailed or notified in any way to comment here?" suggested you doubted his (The Human Trumpet Solo) veracity. Reading Hanlon's razor states, "Don't assume bad intentions over neglect and misunderstanding" -- seems to apply here. I'm still learning the rules -- but isn't this kind of conversation not only inapplicable, but also inappropriate? Shouldn't we stick to the RfC? Bubbecraft (talk) 14:53, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Interesting, @Bubbecraft, your last posts seem to recognize that there is a serious problem categorizing people by descent, when that descent is removed many generations. Then you start talking about compromise. Excuse me, but there is a Jewish saying "parve is treif". Why a compromise, when one of the alternatives is not good.

In any case, we too make the differentiation between "Jewish" and "of Jewish descent", and "of Jewish descent" indeed includes partial descent, as well as people who don't self-identify as Jewish. But there is a limit to how partial you can get, so to say. Debresser (talk) 23:22, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

@Debresser, I'm afraid you have read more into my comments than intended, but thank you for the compliment. My point is that there is already a compromise taking place on WP (Arabs, Romanies) so why not make the same compromise here as well? I don't see there is a "serious" problem of categorizing by descent, regardless of the number of generations, but rather, like one of my favorite hobbies, genealogy, sometimes things have to be cross classified into multiple groups. It's kind of like the links at the bottom of the WP pages on any given topic, where you find the various pages/groups that link to the topic being displayed. It's one of the most useful things I find about WP. I feel this is a good way to handle this issue as well. So, say for example, there were to be a page for me, I would be found under multiple group descents: Russian Jewish, Belorussian Jewish, Ukrainian Jewish, Turkish Jewish, Serbian Jewish, Macedonian Jewish, and also just "Jewish" - that confusing array is due in part to geographical name changes, but there is one thing all of those have in common: the Jewish part. And the Jewish part is Middle Eastern. That is why all of these disparate categories are Middle Eastern, because we are a West Asian diaspora. It's really no different than finding any given topic under multiple classifications/groups. As for why I thought of it at all, it's because there seemed to be a level of hostility building and I wanted to derail it. As for your suggestion that one of the alternatives is not good: I disagree. Question: do you want to remove ALL descent categories, or just this one? Because, I'll be frank with you, the descent categories are very helpful to me when I'm working on genealogy. Often times, I want to find out who came from a specific area. I will then research that particular person if the surname/region is of interest to me. This has been manifestly useful in locating new avenues of research. Removing this category will hurt my research and probably those of other genealogists as well. What do you mean by there is a limit to how partial you can get? Can you provide an example? In any case, how is that relevant to whether this category continues to exist or not? Bubbecraft (talk) 00:58, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm afraid that isn't very clear. Let me try this differently. From a genealogical research point of view, these categories, particularly those of "by descent", whether by partial or full descent -- which I don't believe exists in any context, whether geographical or otherwise -- is eminently useful. My favorite method, is to find a surname/region which matches my interest, I then research the family tree for that person. In this way, I have found cousins and many of these cousins have information which helps me break through brick walls in my research. The point is, that if there weren't all these lists, regardless of partial or full, I wouldn't be able to use this method. What I can't do, is depend on general WP searches, because names can be spelled a lot of different ways, never mind shortened. The only way I can determine if a name is useful is by seeing it, not searching for it. Maybe this example will make it more clear. My paternal grandmother's surname is Sarfatty. However, the name is sometimes spelled Sarfaty, Sarfatti, Sarfati, Tsarfati, Zarfaty and many, many more -- I have a list of 226 permutations! Another useful reason for this list is to collect surnames from a specific region, compare them to another region, looking for migration patterns of surnames. Once again, something I wouldn't be able to do if this list were removed. And keep in mind, I'm only doing this for Jewish genealogical research. I don't care if it's partial Jewish or full Jewish. It's the surname/region combinations that are helping me. Bubbecraft (talk) 01:18, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Also, @Debresser, let me clarify what I meant by compromise: 1) the Romani are included in their categories eventhough they had been removed from their lands for a long time. They also adopted children who are still considered Romani, eventhough they were not at the time of adoption. 2) the Arabs category includes the subcategory, Spanish People of Arab descent which contains a most interesting sub-sub-category, "Arabs in Spain" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arabs_in_Spain). The first sentence states, "There have been Arabs in Spain ... since the early 8th century ..." Not only does the Arab category reflect the difficulty and compromise I mentioned, but it goes on to show there is no limit to the number of generations distant that connection requires or that it matters if they left the country of origin, gone many generations and then returned or moved to another country altogether. Bubbecraft (talk) 02:22, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

@Debresser, at one point did you maintain one reason for not including "Jewish" was because the subcategories for the category, "People of ME Descent" is grouped by geography -- and that's the reason Jewish should not be included? If so, then why is there a sub-category called "Semitic" (which is not a geographical definition, at least it no longer is by today's usage -- see links below). And if an argument can be made for Semitic being an acceptable geographical definition, then why doesn't that page contain "Jewish" which is by definition most definitely Semitic?

Semitic: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semitic

Antisemitism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitism The root word Semite gives the false impression that antisemitism is directed against all Semitic people. However, the compound word antisemite was popularized in Germany in 1879 as a scientific-sounding term for Judenhass "Jew-hatred", and that has been its common use since then. Bubbecraft (talk) 02:46, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

I am in agreement with Bubbecraft (talk), The Human Trumpet Solo (talk), Musashiaharon (talk), ChronoFrog (talk), and Evildoer187 (talk)——as I have stated many times before, Jews/Hebrews/Israelites are of one large family (Tribe, "race," Ethnocultural/Ethnoreligious group, etc.) with many and intersecting branches. Whether or both through Semitic genetics and/or Ethnocultural traditions/philosophies/religions/customs/etc. (e.g. the Abayudaya, who—since their founding—have passed down Jewish traditions as well as their sociopolitical identification of being Jews in Uganda, and have been treated as such), most Jews are more interrelated with one another than with any other group. Our closest core (in relation to being Jews) relatives outside of those who intersect with our communities are predominantly the other Middle Eastern groups (see above). There would not have been European pogroms, Holocaust, or Inquisitions of Jews had any little/possible genetic/cultural connections to Diasporic Jews in fact significantly mattered to Europeans in general——who, as I am sure most people here know, have often systematically succumbed to deadly bouts of racism over the past several millennia (from the Greeks, to the Visigoths, to the Romans, to the British, to the Germans, to the Poles, to the Turks, etc.). The bottom line is this: Jews are a Middle Eastern/Semitic/West Asian/Afro-Asiatic group, as per our genetic and cultural origins——so, please refrain from denying/trying to erase what is inherently true. Jeffgr9 (talk) 03:06, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Let me try and summarize this as I understand it. Currently, the categories are delineated as follows:

People of ME

People of Jewish desc.

People of [country] Jewish desc.

You want to remove the parent category, leaving only:

People of Jewish desc.

People of [country] Jewish desc.

How can one disconnect the Jewish history from the Middle East -- regardless of whether it's 1 generation or 1,000 generatons ago? of DNA? of known/unknown heritage? geography?

I just realized that if I were researching the Middle East, with no personal connections or perceived conceptions, I would be surprised NOT to find Jewish people listed. Because it is an indisputable historical fact. It has nothing to do with an individual's direct connection to the ME, but rather the historical relevance.

@Debresser, I think you made some reference to people not caring. But they don't have to care on a personal level, but WP must care on an historical level and be as accurate as possible. Removing the parent category disenfranchises an unassailable historical fact. Bubbecraft (talk) 04:11, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Neither Ashkenazi Jews nor the two Sephardic samples clustered with their former host populations (non-Jewish Eastern European, Iberian, and North African populations). This finding is supported by highly significant FST values (all FSTs >.12; P<.001) between Jews and their respective host populations -- meaning extensive endogamy and very little to no admixture! Bubbecraft (talk) 05:18, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

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

@Bubbecraft, you are more and more resorting to arguments like "I would be surprised NOT to find Jewish people listed", "it is an indisputable historical fact", and other argument by assertion. While I rely on facts, both scientific and psychological, and Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Sir Joseph agrees with me here, as did Nishidani and Liz in the discussion above. The conclusion must be that there is no consensus for having the category, which means it stays gone. Posting these long repetitive posts every time somebody disagrees with you is not helpful.

@Debresser: (1) once again, you depend on eisegetical interpretation in order to change the intended meaning of my words and have it suit a bias. For example: when you claim the statement, "it [Jewish descent from the Middle East] is an indisputable fact" is an argument by assertion and then claim you rely solely on facts, you imply I have not (which I have) and that by default you, Nishidani and Liz have only done so. Do you therefore deny, and can you prove, there is no historical connection between people of Jewish descent (as a group, not for any specific individual) and the Middle East? (2) Making the claim you and the others have relied solely on "facts, both scientific and psychological" is disingenuous because I and the other camp have repeatedly asked you to provide proof, sources to substantiate your purported facts and each time your sole response has been that is only incumbent on my side of the argument to provide WP:BURDEN. At no time have you, Nishidani or Liz provide any form of proof or verifiable source, so how can you claim you rely solely on facts? (3) Claiming you rely on "Wikipedia policies and guidelines" and then using those same policies and guidelines in an eisegetical manner is also disingenuous. This stance reads all too much like the discussion regarding Wikipedia:Assume good faith and Wikipedia:Assume the assumption of good faith. (Note: I am NOT claiming there is no assumption of good faith.]

Refusing/failing to account for provided and reliable sources, claiming responses are too long, attacking a person's veracity, suggesting a person is too emotional, and by using WP policies formed in such a way as to make the other person seem incompetent, or failing to meet WP policies, or failing to present valid arguments, etc., is beneath the dignity of this environment and adds nothing to the discussion.

"Sir Joseph agrees with me here, as did Nishidani and Liz in the discussion above": Is the resolution based on attrition? Then Shalom11111, Gilad, ChronoFrog, Human Trumpet Solo, Evildoer, Jeffgr9, musashiaharon agree with me.--Bubbecraft (talk) 17:51, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

@Jeffgr9 Yes, Jews are somewhat like a clan. But you are still mixing up ethnicity with proven and relevant descent of individuals. Even if the "Jewish nation", so to say, comes from the Middle East, but the same is not necessarily true or relevant for every individual of Jewish descent.

"Jews are somewhat like a clan": argument by assertion

"still mixing up ethnicity with proven and relevant descent of individuals": a multitude of provided verifiable sources contradict this, therefore an argument by assertion

"but the same is not necessarily true or relevant for every individual of Jewish descent": contradicted by the Arabs and Romani peoples of descent currently not in dispute and available on WP, therefore an argument by assertion. --Bubbecraft (talk) 17:12, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

In this connection I'd even dare to make a statement to the opposite, that Middle Eastern descent is more relevant to people who are Jewish (meaning by religion) than to people who are "only" of Jewish descent. Debresser (talk) 13:34, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

"In this connection I'd even dare to make a statement to the opposite, that Middle Eastern descent is more relevant to people who are Jewish (meaning by religion) than to people who are 'only' of Jewish descent.": an indirect validation of the Arabs and Romani descent pages and therefore have provided an arguement for the inclusion of the Jewish people [not the religion] under the ME descent and also argument by assertion --Bubbecraft (talk) 17:12, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

I am glad you brought up religion, Debresser (talk), because it is written within Torah and other texts that people who join the Tribe and (as far as they know) did not descend from genetically/ethnically Jewish parents, always had a "Jewish spark" or were present in Spirit at Mt. Sinai when Moses gave the Commandments; and those who "convert out" always remain Jewish in various ways: [Example 1] [Example 2]. Even our Oppressors, from the Romans (with Fiscus Judaicus), to the Spanish/Portuguese Inquisitions (with Limpieza de sangre), to the Nazis [[with the Nuremburg Laws, have persecuted us based on our ancestry—particularly our Semitic/Middle Eastern ancestry—whether or not we believe in the "religion" of Judaism.

I am also glad you agree that we are a Nation—which is the definition for many groups (notably Native/Indigenous Americans) as "Tribe," "race," etc. We are much larger than a "clan,"] but if you meant "clan" in the way of "Tribe," then I understand what you mean. Jeffgr9 (talk) 16:35, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Jeffgr9: Torah/bible not relevant if only because it is not a reliable source and, at a minimum, there is no one universal version therefore agreement could never be reached on it's contents. Moreover, those same contents are often contradictory. Similarly, religion is also irrelevant.--Bubbecraft (talk) 17:12, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Bubbecraft (talk), I was pointing out that even Jews' "religion" among many and various opinions, dictates that we are one people/Tribe/Nation/"race"/etc. Jeffgr9 (talk) 19:37, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Would it be impolitic of me, @Debresser, to state, in my opinion, you are failing to be WP:CONSISTENT, failing to provide WP:BURDEN, all while violating WP:BIAS, WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and WP:IDONTLIKEIT -- whether intended or not?

To clarify: WP:CONSISTENT, WP:BURDEN for your removal of the category: there has been no real justification beyond "so-and-so agrees with me" and fallacious arguments addressed and answered in depth which have been consistently ignored and suggests, in my opinion, an issue of WP:BIAS, WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and WP:IDONTLIKEIT.

Moreover, there seems to be a proclivity for ignoring and dodging relevant points while simultaneously treating me as a 2 year old (emotional, arguments by assertion, not following the policies/rules, etc.). As it currently stands, I have little reason to form a different opinion, no matter how hard I try. And I have tried to ignore the innuendos by, for example, suggesting we attempt a compromise.--Bubbecraft (talk) 17:51, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, Bubbecraft, I think that would be incorrect and/or out of line. WP:BURDEN applies to you, as a proponent of inclusion of the Middle East category, not to me as its opponent. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is out of line, because who says I don't like it? I base my opposition on facts and Wikipedia policies/guidelines alone. WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT applies to you, because it is you who chooses to ignore Wikipedia policies or guidelines, as well as facts. You last post has no content, and its single purpose seems to be to violate WP:AGF. It would definitely be better to leave the discussion to other editors, instead of adding more long post or short posts without real arguments. Debresser (talk) 00:32, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

@Debresser stated: It would definitely be better to leave the discussion to other editors

While there is usually a policy or guide for every issue imaginable, no one is expected to know all of them!

@Bubbecraft stated: arguments addressed and answered in depth which have been consistently ignored and suggesting we attempt a compromise

Neutral point-of-view (or NPOV) means content is written objectively and without bias, merely presenting the facts and notable viewpoints of others.

Verifiability means that articles should only contain material that has been published by reliable sources.

When interacting with other editors, please be civil. This means assuming good faith on talk pages and trying to reach consensus over any disagreements in a respectful and considerate way, without ignoring the positions and conclusions of others.

@Bubbecraft stated: treating me as a 2 year old (emotional, arguments by assertion, not following the policies/rules, etc)

This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of obvious evidence to the contrary

Assuming good faith does not prohibit discussion and criticism

@Bubbecraft stated: in my opinion, whether intended or not and suggests, in my opinion

Rather, editors should not attribute the actions being criticized to malice unless there is specific evidence of such.

@Bubbecraft stated: Would it be impolitic of me, @Debresser, to state, in my opinion and suggesting we attempt a compromise

When disagreement occurs, try to the best of your ability to explain and resolve the problem, not cause more conflict, and so give others the opportunity to reply in kind. Consider whether a dispute stems from different perspectives, and look for ways to reach consensus.

@Bubbecraft stated: Would it be impolitic of me, @Debresser, to state, in my opinion and treating me as a 2 year old (emotional, arguments by assertion, not following the policies/rules, etc)

If you wish to express doubts about the conduct of fellow Wikipedians, please substantiate those doubts with specific diffs and other relevant evidence, so that people can understand the basis for your concerns.

@Bubbecraft stated: And I have tried to ignore the innuendos by, for example, suggesting we attempt a compromise.

In addition to assuming good faith, encourage others to assume good faith by demonstrating your own good faith. You can do this by articulating your honest motives....

@Bubbecraft stated: there has been no real justification beyond "so-and-so agrees with me" and fallacious arguments addressed and answered in depth which have been consistently ignored

While bad faith is not strictly limited to vandalism, the key component of bad faith is the deliberate attempt to be unconstructive.

All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution. There are an excess of 45 sources cited on this page in support of maintaining the category. You wrote, I base my opposition on facts -- I ask for the nth time (I've lost count) to prove they are facts. You many not have to provide the burden of proof, but you do have to prove what you state is a verifiable fact and not just a supposition or opinion. WP:BURDEN does NOT exclude you. As I read the page, it reads like the legal definition, which states the requirement that the plaintiff (the party bringing a civil lawsuit) show by a "preponderance of evidence" or "weight of evidence" that all the facts necessary to win a judgment are presented and are probably true

Continuing to dispute your last comments are pointless and I think the examples provided above sufficiently exemplifies my desire to work with you and the other editors, within the guidelines, to the best of my ability and to work towards consensus.--Bubbecraft (talk) 02:23, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Ironically, Debresser (talk), your repetition of statements without factual bases makes you guilty of some of the same accusations you are aspersing upon Bubbecraft (talk). Case in point: you have not disproved any of my arguments, and you have additionally not attempted to do so with facts. What is your goal here? Why do you not want Jews to be considered Middle Eastern? If I may ask, of what implications are you afraid to set by connecting these categories? Jeffgr9 (talk) 02:29, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

You continue to mention things like "what implications are you afraid to set", "What is your goal here?", "Why do you not want Jews to be considered Middle Eastern?" You keep using real-life terms. I am not afraid, I have no "goal", and who says I do not want Jews to be considered Middle Eastern? All I says is that a Middle Eastern descent category can not be added to a Jewish descent category without violating Wikipedia rules and guidelines. Debresser (talk) 17:26, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

A short summary of this RFC:

1. Debresser removes People of Middle Eastern descent as a parent cat of People of Jewish descent, following a long period of edit warring between himself and a multitude of editors (I lost count of the number of times Debresser has reverted, but it was well over the 3RR limit and the fact that he hasn't been sanctioned for it is a cause for concern), on the basis that A. Jews left the Middle East a long time ago (the statute of limitations argument), B. no Jew identifies as Middle Eastern simply because they are Jewish. This is obviously not true (I'm 100 percent Ashkenazi and I've identified as Middle Eastern my entire life, as have the majority of Jews that I've met), and even if it was, it has no relevance to categorization, and C. converts.

2. Other editors disagree with Debresser, (myself, Bubbecraft, Jeffgr9, musashiaharon, ChronoFrog), and one other editor (Sir Joseph, although for obvious reasons, Debresser has also made a habit out of citing the opinions of editors from the discussion that happened 2 years ago, even though he is currently in conflict with at least one of these editors) agrees with him. The disagreeing side responds by A. providing a wealth of reliable sources (which looks very similar to the one I gave in a previous RFC --- it was ignored in that discussion, and is largely being ignored here too) supporting the validity of the People of Middle Eastern descent category as a parent cat of People of Jewish descent, B. a critique of Debresser's statute of limitations as arbitrary, WP:INCONSISTENT (e.g. the Arab and Romani examples) --- there are probably many others, but those two are the most obvious), and unsupported by any known Wikipedia policy, C. correctly dismissing personalized self-identity as irrelevant, because we don't add or remove categories based on the strenuous proclamations of a few (or even many) individuals of Jewish descent who feel they are "not Middle Eastern" --- individuals can identify however the hell they want (if I wanted, I could call myself a cucumber), but that has little, if any, bearing on demonstrable, empirically proven facts D. pointing out that the overwhelming majority of Jews are not converts (who are not even included in this category to begin with, as it pertains exclusively to descent), and trace the lion's share of their ancestry/DNA back to the Levant (y'know, where Israel is). Ashkenazi, Sephardi, and Mizrahi Jews are, according to the studies provided, more than half Israelite on average. The other Jewish groups are more admixed, but still carry Israelite descent (Indian Jews are about half, African and East Asian Jews are mainly sub-Saharan/East Asian respectively but with partial Israelite descent, and South/Central American Jews are almost entirely Sephardic or Ashkenazi). In short, virtually all Jews (excluding recent converts who, as mentioned above, are a vanishingly small minority of the global Jewish population and aren't even included in this category) carry Levantine descent, thereby justifying the People of Middle Eastern descent category, E. even assuming, as one or two editors have alleged, that a significant portion of Jews worldwide have no Middle Eastern descent (which is false --- see D), removing the category would still violate WP:CONSISTENT. Going back to the Arab example, a vast chunk of the people we call "Arabs" today have no West Asian descent, but they're still categorized as such. Many are actually 100 percent Amazigh and are only classified as Arabs because of where they live, and may not even IDENTIFY as Arabs at all. Numerous other examples can be found worldwide, but I'll focus on what has already been offered. Examples: Romani, Arabs.

3. Debresser replies, but refuses to engage with most of the sources provided, instead quoting number 2 (selectively ignoring the part of that passage that doesn't support his view) to the exclusion of the other 20+ something sources used, while offering no sources of his own does not address provided sources, does not supply supporting sources. It is followed by some weird tangent about Abraham, and then Tangential discussion about Abraham follows, a dismissal of the Romani analogy with yet another appeal a claim to statute of limitations and nothing (no policies, no sources, nothing) to substantiate it and no supporting evidence. He then attacks the Arab analogy with a claim that Arabs maintained a continuous attachment to their homeland via empire which, for some unexplained reason, is somehow more valid than Jews maintaining a continuous attachment to their homeland via preserving their identity, culture, religion, language (to a degree, at least), and of course, genetics. Debresser states the Arab analogy is inapplicable because they maintained a continuous attachment to their homeland via preserving their identity, culture, religion, language even though Jews maintained a continuous attachment to their homeland via preserving their identity, culture, religion, language (to a degree, at least), and of course, genetics.

4. More critical replies follow, all of them harshly critical of Debresser (with the lone exception of Sir Joseph, whose reply to Bubbecraft can be summed up as "LOL IM NOT READING UR POST BUT IM STILL RIGHT ANYWAY PFLLLBT!" --- I rebuked him for this, and told him to go do something else if he has nothing constructive to add). Sir Joseph replies to Bubbecraft, "I didn't read your wall of text, but ... is factually incorrect." He is called out for (selectively) quoting one source while ignoring the rest (aka WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT), refusing to provide any sources or policies supporting the bizarre double standards and statute of limitations he is attempting to impose on ONLY this category (hence the accusations of WP:BIAS and WP:IDONTLIKEIT), and for his absurd justification for keeping Arabs under "West Asian" while removing Jews. Additional points are made by Jeffgr9 and Bubbecraft.

5. Tensions escalate. Debresser is hounded by the opposing camp (and in my opinion, justifiably so) for repeatedly ignoring the abundance of RS and counter-arguments offered while insisting that he has the facts and sources (despite providing a grand total of zero sources) (none provided) on his side. Additionally, he continues to cite WP:BURDEN, which feels more and more like a cop out since it is becoming increasingly obvious that he isn't going to budge on this topic, regardless of what anyone says stating he is under no obligation to provide supporting sources. Instead, he is waving WP:BURDEN around as a talisman to ward off opposing counter-arguments while obscuring the fact that he has none of his own. This sort of behavior impedes genuine consensus building.

Critical engagement is what is needed here, not constant appeals to authority (especially the repeated call outs to editors who are not even involved in this discussion, which comes off as subtle WP:CANVASSING --- to the point that if either of them ever do show up in here, it will look very suspicious) and the overall obstinate behavior you've exhibited thus far. I've made my own position on this clear (I think the category should stay), but my views are not set in stone. I am willing to reconsider my position if you have strong enough arguments and reliable sources to support them. That is what I am waiting for, but thus far all you've provided are very weak arguments (for the reasons I've outlined) and not a single source to back any of it up. The ball is in your court now, Debresser.The Human Trumpet Solo (talk) 18:18, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

@The Human Trumpet Solo Your long post is a big display of bad faith, and I regret that your attempt to sway opinions that way, out of apparent lack of content-based arguments. Also notice please, that I informed all editors from the previous discussion, without any difference wether they agreed or disagreed with me. I repeat that this is not a new discussion, but a continuation of the previous one, the conclusion of which was clear enough. Debresser (talk) 17:28, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

@The Human Trumpet Solo: I agree with having a review, but have serious issues with your inclusion of non-relevant and argumentative statements and accusations. @Debresser: I have struck through the issues I found inappropriate. If that is not acceptable, please let me know what is and I apologize in advance.Bubbecraft (talk) 18:11, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

@Debresser: would it be impolitic to suggest we bring in 3rd party opinon? Or some other dispute resolution mechanism?

In the meantime, would you mind returning with me to the RfC in question?

@Debresser: You have consistently stated WP:Burden applies only to those editors who want to include/add/restore the category, People of ME Descent, and the side which wants it removed is under no such obligation or requirement.

I responded, after reading WP:BURDEN, WP:ONUS, and WP:EXCEPTIONAL you were in fact required to support your claims. WP:REDFLAG specifically addresses this issue, particularly with regards to the following (quoted) points:

• surprising or apparently important claims not covered by multiple mainstream sources;
• challenged claims that are supported purely by primary or self-published sources or those with an apparent conflict of interest; and
• claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community.

Although I could find no specific mention of a definition Burden of Proof as it pertains to an RfC within WP, I supplied the legal definition of Burden of Proof. From WP, I also found the philosophic burden of proof[1] and resources[2].

An RfC dictates we have a converation, a dialogue, and therefore a debate ensues. This is intended, hopefully, to reach a consensus.

The burden of proof can shift[3]: "For this reason, each side will not only argue for their conclusion, but they will object to the arguments given by the opposing side. The opposing side then has a burden to reply to the objections (and they will continue to have a burden of proof until they reply to the objections)." (See also WP:Philosophic burden of proof, WP:Evidentialism, WP:Theory of justification "It has given up justification, but not yet adopted nonjustificational criticism. Instead of appealing to criteria and authorities, it attempts to describe and explicate them.")

The burden of proof (BoP) is a "philosophical concept which denotes the party responsible for providing evidence of their position(s)."[4] The BoP may be assigned to the person making the assertion or to both sides.

You have made a number of unsubstantiated claims to remove the category without providing any factual-based argument, seemingly depending on the argument of Fallibilism [5], "that no belief (theory, view, thesis, and so on) can ever be rationally supported or justified in a conclusive way" and that the implications of fallibilism can never be justified. Thus implying no beliefs are justified. Yet, "that is a wholly general skepticism about justification" and two opposing arguments are presented at great length.

What's wrong with your response?[6]: "When anyone makes a claim that a certain entity or relationship exists, they have the responsibility of supplying supporting evidence. Without such evidence, the claim is worthless."

Within the discussion of "The Brain in a Vat Argument" ] [7], contained within the "Significance of the Argument," an interesting and suggestive statement is made, to whit: "Someone of a Positivist bent might argue that if there is no empirical evidence to appeal to in order to establish whether we are brains in a vat or not, then the hypothesis is meaningless, in which case we do not need an argument to refute it."

In summary, your argument -- that you do not have to support your case with fact based sources -- creates an environment where no one can present a sufficient response to meet the bar for burden of proof. You have argued and maintained the fallacy of the burden of proof[8]. This tactic seemingly provides a means "to avoid supplying supporting evidence"[9]. You have tried "to convince [us] that the responsibility of supplying evidence lies [solely] with [us]."[10] Bubbecraft (talk) 18:43, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

My apologies, I missed including this next part.

I would appreciate a response addressing why you feel it is not incumbent upon you to provide supporting evidence without just pointing me to WP:BURDEN -- because that article can be interpreted in at least 2 different ways, as I have demonstrated. Thank you. Bubbecraft (talk) 18:53, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

@Debresser: I am confused and would appreciate clarification. I found you contacted @Nishdani, @Liz, @Shalom11111, @Gilad55, @Evildoer187, @PA Math Prof, @Yuvn86 (but not @Obiwankenobi, @Musashiaharon) on September 25, 2016 yet only today (October 1, 2016) informed this group you intended to. Don't you have to contact everyone from the prior RfC conversation? Can you explain why making those requests a week ago does not constitute WP:CANVASSING? Bubbecraft (talk) 19:53, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

All I've done was summarize the conversation up to this point. Admittedly, my post was on the snarky side of things, but that's just how I am naturally. And I'd be lying if I said that you didn't appear to be very firmly entrenched in your views. AGF only lasts insofar as there is sufficient reason to maintain good faith. It's not something that either you or I are entitled to in perpetuity.

I already told you where I stand on this dispute, but I've also made it clear that I'm willing to reconsider my endorsement of this category IF there is a solid case against it. That's what I'm waiting for you to provide. There is a surplus of counter-arguments of reliable sources standing that you still have not addressed.

Lastly, what's the point of contacting Evildoer, Shalom11111, Gilad, et al when they've all been inactive for well over a year, if not two years? One of them is topic banned. The only editors who are still active are, coincidentally, those who agreed with you two years ago. Am I wrong for being just a little suspicious?The Human Trumpet Solo (talk) 21:17, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

I already quoted WP:BURDEN, and in my understanding it means that those who want to include the Middle East category need to prove that doing so is justified. I disagree with you that that guideline can be interpreted otherwise in this case. The arguments against inclusion of that category I and other editors have explained, based on Wikipedia policies and guidelines, over and over again, both in this thread as well as in the thread from 2.5 years ago.

I have already explained to you that your failure or unwillingness, and I mean no disrespect, to understand or agree with those explanations, does not mean that the burden of proof is now in your favor.

I have also explained that overly long posts that repeat the same thing again and again deter other editors from participating in a discussion, and I think, regrettably, that that happened in this case.

I have, to the best of my knowledge, informed all editors who partook in the discussion 2.5 years ago. That is standard good behavior on Wikipedia. If I missed anybody, then that was an oversight and nothing should be read into it. Debresser (talk) 21:24, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

@Debresser: Agreed, you repeatedly directed me to WP:BURDEN but "[your] understanding" of it's content and purpose is not proof your understanding is valid, definitive or even conclusive. So, we have an impasse which needs to be resolved. How does one go about resolving the interpretation of policies and guidelines?

No disprespect taken. But the problem remains the same and we need to find a way to reach a consensus on the interpretaion of WP:BURDEN before we can proceed. This clearly is a sticking point for some of us.

As for the length, as I've said before, when you attack me, you leave me no other option but to defend myself. I'm not accustomed to being attacked and am at a loss how to respond. In such a case, I try very hard to quote the rules and policies to explain my response rather than resort to useless and counter productive rhetoric. I'm sorry if you feel my responses deter other editors from contributing. I have no control over them and I'm not convinced it should be used as a legitimate criticism of my response style -- as repugnant as you seem to suggest it is. (As an aside, the existing extremely long length of this discussion did not deter me, so possibly your argument is not based in fact.)

Yes, you contacted most of the editors. But doesn't WP:CANVASSING clearly prohibit that? Near as I can determine, the only step you took was to contact the editors who were still active and available to contact. That particular sub-group supports your position so you haven't drawn from a "wider range of informed, but uninvolved, editors." Why not also post to the WP:Village pump or other relevant noticeboards? WP:CANVASSING states, "Note: It is good practice to leave a note at the discussion itself about notifications which have been made, particularly if made to individual users." -- why wait a week?

This situation is getting problematic on several levels. I'm open to useful suggestions.Bubbecraft (talk) 21:56, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

I stand corrected -- partially. On September 25, you added the discussion to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/All. I think you put it in the incorrect sub-page: "Society, sports, and culture." I am assuming this is an honest error on your part. Would you be willing to correct it?

I'm searching the Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests archives and found the following answer under the section, Charlotte of Bourbon:

If you are able to come up with a second independent and reliable source which you can CITE in the article, that will probably be more than enough. The burden of proof would then be on the other party to provide verifiable, reliable, sources to refute information you acquired by standing on the shoulders of giants.. Bubbecraft (talk) 22:43, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

@Bubbecraft Would you stop looking for problems where there aren't any? I notified all editors who partook in the discussion a week ago. I did not mention that fact here, not then and not now. It is obvious that if a discussion is revived, somebody should notify all participants, and I didn't see the need to mention that here. Also, not I categorized the Rfc. Feel free to look in the page history who did so and ask him why he chose the categories he did. I am fine with his choices. Debresser (talk) 23:45, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

@Debresser (talk) May you please (adequately/thoughtfully) answer my questions/address my responses? These questions in particular: What is your goal here? Why do you not want Jews to be considered Middle Eastern? And, if I may ask, of what implications are you afraid to set by connecting these categories? Jeffgr9 (talk) 01:48, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

@Debresser: Which sources provided to date are you challenging, and on what grounds? Bubbecraft (talk) 02:13, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

@Jeffgr9 The three questions you ask all imply that I would have any motives that are not based in facts and Wikipedia policies and guidelines. That implication is hereby rejected and you are reminded of WP:AGF. I have stated my complete reasons in the discussions on this talkpage.

Again, Debresser (talk), you evade responding to my arguments/sources and you try to derail the conversation. I was not implying that you have any motives. I asked "What is your goal here?" As in, what is your overarching idea in arguing against the adding of "People of Middle Eastern descent" to "People of Jewish descent" category? The second question, "Why do you not want Jews to be considered Middle Eastern?" relates directly to what you have said in the past in relation to Diasporic Jews not being considered Middle Eastern. And then with "And, if I may ask, of what implications are you afraid to set by connecting these categories?" I was further asking about your intent in these discussions and allowing you the space to explain why you disagree with my and others' arguments. Jeffgr9 (talk) 23:50, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

@Bubbecraft Again? I am not challenging any sources at this stage (apart from the one source I challenged above). I am challenging your incorrect opinion that it follows from those sources that a Middle East category can be applied to "of Jewish descent" categories. Debresser (talk) 05:36, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Please, Debresser, clarify how my conclusion (opinion?) isn't a logical progression. Bubbecraft (talk) 21:44, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Convenience break in "Middle East category Rfc"

Debresser: A review so you may address my prior question.

• I have been unable to find any verifiable source or fact based study showing Jews do not consider themselves to be of Middle Eastern descent. Nor regarding proselytes and admixture. I have found the opposite with most studies reporting a prevalence of Jews have Middle eastern ancestry.
• Heritage states people are sometimes categorized by ancestry or ethnicity and place of birth is rarely notable.
• An ancestor has no statute of limitations, there is no limit on how far back one may go.
• Ethnicity is the common characteristics of a group of people, including common ancestry.
• An ethnic group represents people who identify with each other such as from ancestral experiences. Memberships tend to be defined by a shared cultural heritage or ancestry and/or history.
• Assimilation and/or nationalism is not a valid argument against Ethnicity nor is transnational migration or colonial expansion

Another argument can be made regarding other groups (Romani, Arabs) which have sufficiently similar characteristics and are already contained within the Middle East category, thereby concluding consistency is relevant as well. Including a Middle East category of Jewish descent is logical.Bubbecraft (talk) 16:26, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Academia is not in agreement regarding conversions whereas DNA evidence supports Middle Eastern ancestry, downplaying the relevance of admixture and/or conversions:

Most Jews are more concerned with ancestry/ethnicity than religion:

1. A report about ethnicity among Diaspora Jewish youths showed pre-trip ethnic identification with Israel was strengthened
2. Of a reported 862,000 visitors to Israel, 55% were Jewish and of those, only 22% indicated leisure/sightseeing as a motive whereas 44% came for a mixture of religious, cultural and historical motivation
3. In a project report, "Ethnic and Racial Diversity: The Be'chol Lashon Initiative", Jews were not even considered "white" until well into the 1950's and early 1960's but black or oriental -- and definitely not European
4. A Pew Research Center Report (2013) states 62% of respondents reported being Jewish is mainly a matter of ancestry and/or culture and not religion
5. Ioannides (2006: 163) described global travel patterns to Isarel. Of the reported 862,000 visitors, 55% were Jewish and of those, only 22% indicated leisure/sightseeing as a motive whereas 44% came for a mixture of religious, cultural and historical motivation.Bubbecraft (talk) 00:00, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

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

I would like to recommend this RFC be withdrawn and reformulated because the RFC doesn't ask a question thereby encouraging lengthy argument. The original posts are too long, difficult to follow and may be construed as having something of the nature of a filibuster. Bubbecraft (talk) 06:08, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

If anybody posted overly long posts here it is you. The Rfc proposes to endorse the removal of a category. You may see that as a question. Everything is clear. In short, forget about it! Debresser (talk) 13:04, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

• FoCuSandLeArN—you say "being a Jew is not the same as being Jewish".[11] I couldn't disagree more. Being a Jew is synonymous with being Jewish. (I do agree with you that "this is one of the worst RfCs"[12] ever. It is hard to understand what is being discussed.) Bus stop (talk) 15:07, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

• Jeffgr9—you say "[m]embers who 'join the Tribe' are typically accepted as if they were present 'in Spirit' when Moses gave the Israelites the Commandments" and "[i]t is therefore racist, divisive, and illogical to deny these aspects for both new Jews and ethnically-born Jews"[13] but this does not make sense to me. The Categories are about real people, not spirits, and it cannot by any stretch of the imagination be considered racist to Categorize people by their actual place of origin. Bus stop (talk) 15:07, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

You did not include my full statement: "Members who "join the Tribe" are typically accepted as if they were present "in Spirit" when Moses gave the Israelites the Commandments—as in, they are sociopolitically aligned/aligning themselves with a Middle Eastern Tribal community (e.g. the Abayudaya); most new members learn (at least somewhat), to speak a Semitic language, to make Middle Eastern cuisines, to engage in Middle Eastern politics, as well as to congregate and associate with Jews who were born of Middle Eastern ancestry, which comprises most Jews (via genes, experience, culture, etc.). It is therefore racist, divisive, and illogical to deny these aspects for both new Jews and ethnically-born Jews."

Bus stop (talk), your statement negates that new members Ethnoculturally/Tribally/sociopolitically/"racially"/etc. intersect with ethnic-Jews/Hebrews/Israelites. Jews/B'nei Y'Israel are a Semitic/Afro-Asiatic/Western Asian/Middle Eastern/etc. Tribe, Nation, Ethnocultural/Ethnoreligious group that have carried with them philosophies, languages, cuisines, art, sciences, etc. for at least 5,000 years while branching out and joining people into the Tribe. The majority of Jews are of Middle Eastern descent; those that join intersect their previous Ethnocultural/racial identity and Jews' own Semitic identity—they and their descendants are bound to the Tribe for life. Simple as that. Jeffgr9 (talk) 01:16, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Jeffgr9—people of Jewish descent are not necessarily of Middle Eastern descent. Take for example a non-Jew in Europe who converts to Judaism. Their children are of Jewish descent, but their children are not of Middle Eastern descent. Their "philosophies, languages, cuisines, art, sciences"[14] are irrelevant. The Middle East is a place. You can't change your place of origin no matter what language you speak, cuisine you cook, art you make, science you develop, or philosophy you cultivate. These things do not have the ability to change your place of origin. Bus stop (talk) 02:20, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Bus stop (talk), by "converting" to Judaism, or joining the Tribe, new members Tribally (and thus socioeconomically *and* ethnoculturally) affiliate themselves with a Semitic People and culture. Period. And no, the cultural aspects of Judaism are intertwined with the ethnic aspects (thus Ethnocultural/"Ethnoreligious groups") and are thus extremely relevant.

At their cultural inception——and in order to counteract the invading Arab-Muslims——Sikhs adopted some Arab-Muslim (and, ergo, some Southwest Asian Tribal/Ethnocultural elements) and integrated them into their Punjabi culture. Sikhs serve as an intersection between Arab-Muslims and Punjabi Hindus. Sikhs are indeed primarily their Punjabi identity, but tribally, they intersect.

Thus, those who "convert" to Judaism, or any Tribal group really, effectively "sign-up" to intersect with the host Tribe/People/sociopolitical affiliation they are joining. In short, non-Middle Eastern Peoples who join Jews or Islam, tribally become part Middle-Eastern. Jeffgr9 (talk) 06:05, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Jeffgr9—you don't seem to understand—when converting, one doesn't change one's place of origin. The Middle East is a place. Europe is a place. North America is a place. You say "by 'converting' to Judaism, or joining the Tribe, new members Tribally (and thus socioeconomically *and* ethnoculturally) affiliate themselves with a Semitic People and culture. Period." Huh? Are you addressing the question? Or are you addressing a different question? If a person's origin is the Middle East, their origin is the Middle East forever. And if a person's origin is Europe, their origin is Europe—forever. You and others are piling on irrelevancies. You say "[t]hus, those who 'convert' to Judaism, or any Tribal group really, effectively 'sign-up' to intersect with the host Tribe/People/sociopolitical affiliation they are joining. In short, non-Middle Eastern Peoples who join Jews or Islam, tribally become part Middle-Eastern." That defies reality. "Middle Eastern descent" means deriving from the Middle East. If one has never set foot in the Middle East, why would they be Categorized as being of Middle Eastern descent? If all that we know about a person is that they and their progenitors resided in Europe they would properly be Categorized as being of European descent. What about conversion to Judaism changes the area of the world from which one derives? You seem to be arguing the the Middle East is a state of mind. Even if I were to accept that Jews are of a Middle Eastern state of mind—which I don't—we are not Categorizing by frames of mind. Even non-converts live their entire lives in for instance North America with their entire orientation to for instance the United States. They may be Jewish but their attention to the Middle East may be nonexistent for all intents and purposes. Bus stop (talk) 11:40, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Bus stop (talk), although you seem to agree that a People's indigeneity never leaves their identity, you do not apply that same thought to ethnic-Jews. At the same time, you also do not seem to understand Intersectionality and its importance in understanding Diasporas especially among mixed-peoples/nations/and Tribes.

How many ways do I have to put it? Tribes may initiate outsiders and bind them with their People through all aspects of their culture/customs. Jewish customs/culture is primarily Semitic/Middle Eastern, and those who officially join the Tribe and practice Jewish ways of life customs, become bound to the Tribe. Their children join the Middle Eastern Nation known as B'Nei Y'Israel. Such people become an extension of the ethnic-Jews and intersection between their original Tribal designation and Jews' Nation.

And no, ethnic-Jews—the predominant population of Jews in general—are always of Middle Eastern descent whether or not they practice culture/customs. And those that do practice Pesach and other traditions are always discussing/affirming their connection to Eretz Y'Israel and Yerushalyim.

And what do you think Taglit-Birthright is?? Stop trying to arbitrarily divide us like our Oppressors have for thousands of years, and deny our Indigeneity to Israel. Jeffgr9 (talk) 17:07, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Taglit is a program to bring teens to Israel to reconnect with the Jewish homeland. It has nothing to do with ancestry. The Jewish homeland is Israel and Judaism has a connection to Israel, but individual Jews' ancestry is wherever they come from, Middle East or anywhere else. 🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 17:14, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Half-False, Sir Joseph——Taglit-Birthright does help reconnect Jews to the Jewish homeland because such Jews are predominantly ancestrally from that land, if not through Tribal re-affiliation. Jeffgr9 (talk) 17:24, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

No, it reconnects Jews to the Jewish homeland because it's important to the religion, not because every Jew is from there. 🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 17:28, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Sir Joseph, Jews are a people first who created a culture and traditions (and religion)——not the other way around. Ethnic members derive their genes, culture, traditions, etc. from Israel, and new members/their descendants become of the People and derive their cultural traditions and spiritual/sociopolitical designations from Israel. Jeffgr9 (talk) 17:52, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Jeffgr9—you say "Stop trying to arbitrarily divide us like our Oppressors have for thousands of years, and deny our Indigeneity to Israel." We are an encyclopedia. We are not here to right great wrongs. Bus stop (talk) 17:16, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Bus stop (talk), Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and Jews are predominantly Middle Eastern, whether through genetics or Tribal designation. Jeffgr9 (talk) 17:24, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Jeffgr9—how are Jews "predominantly Middle Eastern"? Would a nonobservant Jew in the United States who does not care about Israel be "predominantly Middle Eastern"? Bus stop (talk) 20:55, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Bus stop (talk), Yes, Ethnic-Jews who "do not care about Israel" are Middle Eastern no matter what. They are certainly problematic, but they are still Semitic regardless. Ethnic-Jews do not retrospectively lose that heritage, even if they "convert out." (As I wrote above: "[Example 1] [Example 2]. Even our Oppressors, from the Romans (with Fiscus Judaicus), to the Spanish/Portuguese Inquisitions (with Limpieza de sangre), to the Nazis [[with the Nuremburg Laws, have persecuted us based on our ancestry—particularly our Semitic/Middle Eastern ancestry—whether or not we believe in the "religion" of Judaism.") I also included these sources above: [Example 3] and [Example 4]. Jeffgr9 (talk) 02:05, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Jeffgr9—I didn't say anything about "convert[ing] out"[15]. You asserted that "Jews are predominantly Middle Eastern." I asked "Would a nonobservant Jew in the United States who does not care about Israel be 'predominantly Middle Eastern'?" Can you tell me if the hypothetical Jew in the United States who does not care about Israel would be predominantly Middle Eastern? If the answer is "yes", can you tell me why? Bus stop (talk) 04:08, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Bus stop (talk), it does not seem like you have read any of the materials I posted. Yes, the hypothetical ethnic-Jew who does not care about Israel is predominantly Middle Eastern, because of their genes, ancestry/familial/Ethnocultural/Tribal ties, etc. In the case of Crypto-Jews, some do not learn of their Jewish ancestry until later in life, and yet, they feel like there was always something different about their identity/something was missing in their lives. Ancestry is very important to Jews—even as evidenced with the various genealogies in the Torah—while at the same time, cultural traditions/philosophies/attributes are also very important to Jews, hence, again, Jews are an Ethnocultural/Ethnoreligious group/Tribe. The example of ethnic-Jews who convert out, or even Crypto-Jews, was to show that such people, even if they do not care about or do not know their connection to Jewish issues/homeland/beliefs/etc., they are still Jews, or at the very least, still Semites, and thus, Middle Eastern. Jeffgr9 (talk) 07:31, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Jeffgr9—what do you mean by an "ethnic-Jew", and do you have a source for the term "ethnic-Jew"? I obviously did not ask about an "ethnic-Jew". Bus stop (talk) 11:47, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Bus stop (talk), "Ethnic-Jew" is a term commonly used to refer to anyone who is a Jew through ancestry—most especially those with ancient Israelite ancestry—and includes/may refer to "secular" or "non-observant Jews" (as to whom you referred). You may need to research more about Jewish ethnic divisions and Who is a Jew? to further understand what I and other editors are talking about in relation to the complexities of Jewish identity. Jeffgr9 (talk) 18:50, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Jeffgr9—you refer me to the Who is a Jew? article. At that article I find: "The term 'ethnic Jew' does not specifically exclude practicing Jews." I asked you a question. In fact I asked you the same question twice. (On a sepatate note—I don't know why you can't provide sources other than Wikipedia. Do you know that Wikipedia is not a source for itself? See WP:WPNOTRS.) Twice I asked you "Would a nonobservant Jew in the United States who does not care about Israel be 'predominantly Middle Eastern'?" Of course, I asked you this after you asserted "Jews are predominantly Middle Eastern." Each time you responded to my question you substituted the term "ethnic Jew" for the word "nonobservant" in the question that I asked. In other words you were not responding to the question that I asked. This is because the Wikipedia article says "The term 'ethnic Jew' does not specifically exclude practicing Jews." My question, on the other hand, did specifically exclude practicing Jews. Do you see the distinction? Now, why not respond to the question asked? Bus stop (talk) 22:13, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Bus stop (talk), I provided sources outside of Wikipedia, and you either cannot find them or have ignored them. Above, you will find various sources and examples I have provided that prove that "nonobservant Jews" are still considered Jews, or at the very least, Semitic/Middle Eastern. Also, the term "Ethnic Jew" includes nonobservant Jews, it does not exclude them, as it refers to the ancestry of the person in question. Jeffgr9 (talk) 23:32, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Jeffgr9—you said that "Jews are predominantly Middle Eastern". I responded to that assertion by asking you "Would a nonobservant Jew in the United States who does not care about Israel be 'predominantly Middle Eastern'?" Can you respond to that question? I am now asking it for the third time. Bus stop (talk) 00:11, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Bus stop (talk, I am now answering you for a third time: Yes, a non-observant Jew is predominantly Middle Eastern for all of the above reasons I have provided, both within and outside of Wikipedia. Please stop ignoring what I wrote/provided. Jeffgr9 (talk) 17:55, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Jeffgr9—you say "for all of the above reasons I have provided". That is the equivalent of boilerplate. I'm trying to discuss this with you but you do not seem inclined to provide a reason that all Jews should be Categorized as "of Middle Eastern descent". That seems absurd to me, given the vast range of types of Jews in widely differing settings. There are Jews who rarely if ever contemplate their Jewishness. How can they be construed as being of Middle Eastern descent? Bus stop (talk) 03:24, 16 October 2016 (UTC) Bus stop (talk) 20:32, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Bus stop (talk), I already have explained why any/all Jews should be Categorized as "of Middle Eastern descent"—both/either through ancestry/genetics and/or Tribal affiliation. The facts, many cited throughout this Talk page (you may search my name for some of the sources, and go down to the survey for others), all point to this conclusion. Your question sounds like, "If one closes their eyes, does the world disappear?" No, and similarly, just because some Ethnic Jews (as in they have Israelite ancestry) do not contemplate/consider/accept their Jewishness, does not mean that they are no longer Jews—they are always Jews, and thus always Middle Eastern. New members consciously think about their Judaism, and thus create an intersection between their original and their new Middle Eastern identity. Jeffgr9 (talk) 06:30, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Jeffgr9—are saying that even if someone denies that they are Jewish we should Categorize them as being of Middle Eastern descent? Bus stop (talk) 14:08, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Bus stop (talk), if nonobservant/Ethnic Jews deny they are Jews, we should should indeed (also) categorize them as being of Middle Eastern descent—they cannot change that part of them, as it is fact. Jeffgr9 (talk) 06:32, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Jeffgr9—no, it is not a fact. Facts are things that are reliably sourced. The fact in that case is that they are not Jewish. Do you see the distinction? The original research in that case is that they are "of Middle Eastern descent". We require sources. We don't go around Categorizing people willy-nilly. Bus stop (talk) 13:09, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Jeffgr9—you say 'nonobservant Jews' are still considered Jews. But of course I never said that nonobservant Jews were not considered Jews. I have mentioned nonobservant Jews because I think they are a good example of a group of Jews who could not possibly be considered "of Middle East descent". Bus stop (talk) 14:05, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Bus stop (talk, Why would that be the case? What evidence do you have that "nonobservant Jews" would have that attribute? Did you know that many of the founders of Israel were "non-observant" or "secular?" Jeffgr9 (talk) 17:55, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Jeffgr9—you say "many of the founders of Israel were non-observant or secular." This would be correct and such people would be Categorized as being "of Middle Eastern descent". But why should all Jews be Categorized as being "of Middle Eastern descent"? Are you perhaps opposed to differentiating between all and some? Bus stop (talk) 19:34, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Bus stop (talk), I do not understand your question. Jews are One Tribe with many and intersecting branches—all connected and all deriving their ancestry/traditions from the same Middle Eastern core identity. Jeffgr9 (talk) 06:30, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Jeffgr9—what "ancestry/traditions" do you refer to? A convert presumably does not have Jewish ancestry, at least in most cases, and a nonobservant Jew would not seem to have traditions. Bus stop (talk) 16:32, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Bus stop (talk), my point was your question reversed: A new member/"convert" would observe traditions, and a nonobservant Jew would have the ancestry. Jeffgr9 (talk) 05:55, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Jeffgr9—would you have sources that the convert would observe traditions and the nonobservant Jew would have the ancestry? No, you would not, or at least in most cases, you would not. Therefore, the question is: why should all Jews be Categorized as being "of Middle Eastern descent"? Shouldn't only those reliably sourced as being of Middle Eastern descent be Categorized as being of Middle Eastern descent? Bus stop (talk) 12:17, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Bus stop (talk), there are sources for what I have described:

• New members of the Tribe learning Israelite customs/culture

&

• Secular Jews having/concerning themselves with Israelite ancestry

There are plenty of other examples of which you may look up yourself. Jeffgr9 (talk) 09:13, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Jeffgr9—all members of a Category must be reliably sourced as belonging in that Category. In most cases you would not have sourcing to support that a Jewish person is "of Middle Eastern descent". You happen to have a collection of assumptions about Jews that either are false or are simply lacking a source supporting your contention that simply being Jewish equates with being "of Middle Eastern descent". Only in those cases in which sources actually support the contention that a Jewish person written about in the encyclopedia is "of Middle Eastern descent" should that person be included in the Category under discussion. The encyclopedia shouldn't be making blanket implications about all Jews in this regard. We know that this is patently false in some cases and in many other cases sourcing supporting the contention are nonexistent.

From WP:NOR:

• "Even with well-sourced material, if you use it out of context, or to reach or imply a conclusion not directly and explicitly supported by the source, you are engaging in original research..."
  
• "To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented."
  

From WP:VER:

• "Use sources that directly support the material presented in an article and are appropriate to the claims made."
  
• "Sources must support the material clearly and directly: drawing inferences from multiple sources to advance a novel position is prohibited by the NOR policy."

Why would we Categorize an individual Jewish person as being "of Middle Eastern descent" in those instances in which no sources exist for that person being "of Middle Eastern descent"? You have argued above that even if a person denies that they are Jewish we should Categorize them as being "of Middle Eastern descent" if sources merely support that they are Jewish. This makes no sense to me. And we know for a fact that most converts to Judaism are not "of Middle Eastern descent". I believe you are also arguing that converts that we know are not "of Middle Eastern descent" should be Categorized as if they were "of Middle Eastern descent". Again—this makes little sense to me. Please tell me why we shouldn't simply use Category:People of Middle Eastern descent in accordance with that which is supported by reliable sources? Are all Jewish people reliably sourced as being "of Middle Eastern descent"? Of course not. Bus stop (talk) 10:54, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Needless to say I agree with Bus stop in this conversation. Debresser (talk) 11:04, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Jeffgr9—You are making very broad and very sweeping assumptions about all Jews that are definitely not supported by reliable sources in all instances. Therefore the proper way to proceed is to only include those Jews that are reliably sourced as being "of Middle Eastern descent" in that Category. This is a commonsensical approach to Categorization that takes into account only that which is reliably sourced and avoids overgeneralization. Bus stop (talk) 16:24, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Bus stop (talk), All Jews are of "Middle Eastern" "descent" either/both through genetic-tribal relations and/or cultural-tribal relations. You seem to be either ignorant of general Jewish perspectives of these issues, or are deliberately acting obtuse to my reliably-sourced arguments, or both. You have not provided reliable sources for your arguments, and thus you are being a hypocrite and violating Wikipedia policy. I expect you to provide reliable sources that completely disprove my arguments (without a doubt) in your next response--otherwise, you prove yourself clearly unfit to participate in this discussion. Jeffgr9 (talk) 20:59, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Jeffgr9—you say that you are bringing sources but you are not. You've brought this source and you've brought this source, neither of which support your contention that all Jews are of Middle Eastern descent. One is a source on the process of conversion to Judaism, the other is the Pew Research Center's report on American Jews. Neither mentions the Middle East. Neither one says anything about all Jews being of Middle Eastern descent. This is an RfC on the inclusion of all Jews in Category:People of Middle Eastern descent. Where is the source that supports the farfetched contention that all Jews are of Middle Eastern descent? The solution to the question posed in this RfC is obvious: include those Jews reliably sourced as being of Middle Eastern descent in Category:People of Middle Eastern descent, and do not include those Jews not reliably sourced as being of Middle Eastern descent in Category:People of Middle Eastern descent. Bus stop (talk) 11:34, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

• In an only edit to Wikipedia an editor writes: "I am throwing my hat in with the keepers because I'm not convinced by the arguments in the remove section. All they really amount to is a repeated insistence that Jews are only a religious faith with no substantiation of any kind." A person who does not originate in the Middle East can convert to Judaism. As of that point they are a Jew. Are their offspring of Middle Eastern descent? Of course not. The person converting to Judaism and thereby becoming a Jew may be of European origin, or North American origin. By what reasoning would their offspring be of "Middle Eastern descent"? The Middle East is a location in the world just as Europe or North America are locations on the globe. Bus stop (talk) 21:50, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
• The Human Trumpet Solo—you write "DNA studies consistently show that Jews worldwide are of Middle Eastern descent, so it is fair to conclude that any given Jewish individual is at least partially, if not predominantly, of Middle Eastern descent, specifically Levantine." You don't seem to realize that conversion to Judaism does not change one's DNA. The person in Europe with no connection to the Middle East who converts to Judaism does not get different DNA. In what sense would such a person be "of Middle Eastern descent"? Such a person belongs in Category:People of European descent. The offspring of a convert to Judaism who is of European descent would be of Jewish descent but they would not be of Middle Eastern descent. Bus stop (talk) 23:19, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
• PA Math Prof—you say "While the converts themselves are not typically of Middle Eastern descent (except through serendipity), such converts typically marry into families that are Jewish by descent, and over the course of several generations, the descendants of those converts will display primarily Middle Eastern DNA." What is "Middle Eastern DNA"? You are misunderstanding the "decent" Categories. Anybody can be of Middle Eastern descent. The Middle East is a place. It is a location on the globe. If a person was born there or raised there or spent important, especially formative years of their life there—they can be Categorized as being "of Middle Eastern descent". Furthermore we are talking about Categorization. Your whole spiel about Jews being an "ethnoreligious" group is irrelevant. That information if well-sourced belongs in article space. The Categorization system is useful to the reader when it makes worthwhile distinctions. Your opinion that all Jews, no matter how distantly separated from the Middle East, are "of Middle Eastern descent" is not a worthwhile distinction. The reader does not benefit from such use of Categorization. It is a misuse of Categorization. Instituting that would greatly bloat one particular Category ("of Middle Eastern descent") for no useful purpose, except to allow editors to make a point. And it is utterly preposterous to Categorize by apocrypha shrouded in the mists of ancient history, not to mention generalizations that do not have real bearing on people's lives. We Categorize by sourced information, not presumptions and arguments by editors. That is called original research. In the case of the vast majority of Jews, you would have no source supporting the contention of Middle Eastern descent. And how would this differentiate between every Jew and those few who literally, factually, and according to reliable sources—are of Middle Eastern descent? You are taking a hunch that you have about all Jews and applying it to the Categorization system when such information should be worked up in article space—either in a preexisting article or an article of your creation. Bus stop (talk) 02:40, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Edit: Bus stop, there is actually a hard and fast definition of Jewishness. We are defined under Jewish law (Halakhah), and by the preponderance of scholars, as a nation and ethnoreligious group. Wikipedia's own extensively sourced article on Jews reaffirms this. The Middle Eastern descent of Jews qua Jews isn't an assumption, but a hard fact substantiated by reams of WP:RS. The conception of Jews as "only a religious faith" is relatively novel, and is not supported by scholarship. Beyond that, I know of no other ethnic group on Wikipedia that is expected to "prove" that every single one of its members carries the same descent just to remain included under its respective parent cat; in fact, multiple examples to the contrary were provided. And we do know, from the sources provided, that Jews have maintained an ethnic/national identification with each other (irrespective of how far flung they are from each other in diaspora) and that the crushing majority of Jews have Middle Eastern descent, and it more often than not makes up the majority of their ancestral makeup. Applying the Middle Eastern descent parent cat to Jewish descent is perfectly consistent with how the rest of the descent categories are arranged, and that's good enough. ChronoFrog (talk) 08:37, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

ChronoFrog—you say "Bus stop, there is actually a hard and fast definition of Jewishness. We are defined under Jewish law (Halakhah), and by the preponderance of scholars, as a nation and ethnoreligious group. Wikipedia's own extensively sourced article on Jews reaffirms this." Yes, the definition of a Jew is halachically defined as a person whose mother is Jewish or who has converted to Judaism. Wikipedia goes by reliable sources, however. Do you see the distinction? And by the way, do you notice that the halachic definition has nothing to do with the Middle East whatsoever? Our concern is the avoidance of original research. In those instances in which a Jewish person is sourced as being of Middle Eastern descent, we should Categorize them as being of Middle Eastern descent. But in those instances in which reliable sources are absent to support that a Jewish person is of Middle Eastern descent we should not Categorize that person as being of Middle Eastern descent, as that would be original research. Bus stop (talk) 11:29, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Discussion about the discussion

See recent discussion at the Teahouse, where User:Bubbecraft came asking for an advisory opinion based on an abstract description of this RFC. The regular editors there declined to provide an abstract opinion, and I was deeply cynical that asking such questions is used to get an advisory opinion in order to wikilawyer. I agree that Bubbecraft's posts are too long, difficult to read, and they are what I characterized as a filibuster. However, because the RFC doesn't pose a question directly, it is being derailed. I suggest that either that the RFC be restarted or that a Survey section be added to it for !votes so that the opinions (with arguments) aren't drowned out by arguments. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:41, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Robert McClenon: Is there a time constraint on the survey? Is the survey limited to those editors who have contributed to this current RfC? Bubbecraft (talk) 16:07, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

The Survey is part of the RFC. (Notice that the Survey is one level below the RFC and not a separate section.) (It is, in my opinion, the most useful part of the RFC, because the discussion above is just back-and-forth discussion.) It is open until the RFC closes in late October and has the RFC tag pulled by the bot, and it will be closed and assessed when the RFC is closed. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:28, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Since this RFC didn’t have a Survey section, which is not required by the documentation on RFCs, but turns out to be essential to effective closure and assessment of consensus, I am adding one. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:25, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

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

Survey

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Re-closed as no consensus, due to issues the closer was unaware of but that nonetheless invalidate the closure. Namely, that there were too many participants on the keep side who appear to be SPAs with very few other contributions (including one banned sock). The discussion between the two sides was already really close before this was made evident. Therefore, erring on the side of consensus not having been reached seems like the logical resolution to this drawn-out saga. El_C 12:35, 27 February 2017 (UTC) Closed as Keep. While the divide in opinion is split almost evenly between Keep and Remove !votes, the strength of reference sources and policy-based arguments leans towards Keep. After more than 90 days with little additional input in the last two months, it's time to close this towards a supported status quo. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:57, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

---

Introduction to survey

Please list your views (known as !votes because this is not a vote, because closing is based on strength of arguments) here as ‘’’Remove’’’ to remove all Middle Eastern, Asian, and similar geographical categories from all Jewish categories, or ‘’’Keep’’’ to keep them, or some other short explanation of what you propose. Do not engage in threaded discussion, which can go above. The purpose of this section is to make it easier for the closer to assess what the !votes are without having to wade through a lot of back-and-forth.

Keep

• Keep(1) There is no known comprehensive or universal consensus of how any given Jew may consider his/her heritage genetic ancestry. While it is mostly common to refer to oneself based on the country from which one is born, or to which one immigrated, most Jews acknowledge their Middle Eastern ancestry at the Passover Seder when they conclude with "Next Year in Jerusalem", refer to their Judean (Middle Eastern) roots when speaking in an historical context, etc. (2) Recent DNA studies have shown Jewish ancestry is endogamous for the majority of Jews, including Ashkenazi, linking them to the Middle East and therefore minimal impact from conversions and admixture. Bubbecraft (talk) 05:11, 3 October 2016 (UTC) (minor edit Bubbecraft (talk) 21:04, 3 October 2016 (UTC))
• Keep 1. From a purely anthropological point of view, it is impossible to divorce Jewish identity from its faith-based foundations, since the defining features that distinguish Jews as a people are derived precisely from that faith. In fact, as a whole, no other aspect of Jewish culture has had a greater influence on their history than their faith. A simple bibliographical search on Jewish history and Jewish literature over the millennia will prove this point. Though in academic circles it is common to dispute the authorship of and precise historicity of that tradition, the influence of that tradition on the Jewish people cannot be denied.

2. Regarding geographical origins, the other great religious movements today, Christianity and Islam, both record and agree that the Jews came to their land by divine mandate, in agreement with Jewish tradition, which identifies a particular land between the Nile and Euphrates rivers, along the banks of the Jordan river, as the Jewish homeland. Archaeology as well has verified that Jews established a nation in that area at least 3000 years ago (Tel Hazor, Jericho, Temple Mount sifting project, etc.)

(Edit: 3a. To Debresser #5, the choice of synagogue is a matter of preference. If there is no other synagogue in easy reach besides one of a different rite, Code of Jewish Law (Shulchan Aruch) still rules that one must make a certain effort to attend the prayer quorum, and in such a case, the rite is not a factor. In fact, nearly every synagogue keeps a few prayerbooks of rites besides their own precisely to accommodate Jews of other rites. Rite is only legally significant when someone leads the service, in which case the leader is to follow the congregation's rite, even if his own rite is different. That Jews identify as, say, Polish Jews, Persian Jews or Yemeni Jews is only because it is self-understood to them that they are all Jews connected to Israel, and to that audience, saying Middle Eastern Jew in the sense of indigeneity to Israel is needless and redundant. (Other points, and Parkette and Joseph, already addressed in 5 and 6.))

3. In traditional liturgy shared among all Jews worldwide, specifically the Musaf service of all Sabbaths, New Moon celebrations and holidays, there is a paragraph expressing a desire to return to the native Jewish land, and resume the Temple service in Jerususalem. Here is one version, but the motif is repeated in every traditional rite: "Gather our dispersed from among the nations, and assemble our scattered from the ends of the earth. Bring us with song to Zion Your city, and with everlasting joy to Jerusalem Your sanctuary. There we will offer to You our obligatory sacrifices..."

4. Being that this tradition is the oldest extant claim to the tribal lands of the Jews in historical Judah and Israel, by far predating any other claim today, Jews should be classified as an indigenous Middle Eastern people.

5. There is no expiration date on indigeneity, especially not for a people who explicitly maintain their link to their land like this.

6. In no generation has it ever been recorded that converts formed the majority of the people. As such, Jewish ancestry would have been shared to any descendants via intermarriage over just one or two generations. In practice, a Jew of two generations can be assumed to be of Jewish descent, and capable of conferring that status on their descendants. That's good enough for this list of "People of Jewish descent." Even a single such known ancestor is sufficient for this purpose. Musashiaharon (talk) 06:33, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

• Keep 1. No sources or policies exist wherein all individuals contained within Romani, Arab, or other descent categories are also individuals of their respective parent descent categories. Further examples: (i) Romani have not lived in South Asia since the early Middle Ages, but they are all categorized under South Asian; (ii) not all Irish people are Celtic, but Irish people are categorized as Celtic; (iii) Arabs are categorized as West Asian, even though millions of them are black Sudanese or North African Amazigh with no West Asian descent at all, let alone recent descent; (iv) not all Scottish people are Gaels, but Scottish people are all listed under Gaels; (v) Citizens of Poland, Russia, Serbia, Czechoslovakia, Bulgaria, etc are all categorized under Slavic peoples, but not all of them are ethnic Slavs. I could go on with this for hours, but I want to keep this as short as possible so I'll stop there. The point being made here is that descent categories were not, and are not, arranged with a set statute of limitations or totalization (i.e. "blood purity") test in mind. There is no reason to make an exception here. See WP:CONSISTENT

2. DNA studies consistently show that Jews worldwide are of Middle Eastern descent, so it is fair to conclude that any given Jewish individual is at least partially, if not predominantly, of Middle Eastern descent, specifically Levantine. All Jews tested have shown West Asian ancestry. Converts have been invoked repeatedly in response to this point, but as this is a descent category, they are not included here and are thus irrelevant. Moreover, the overwhelming majority of Jews alive today are not converts, and Jews were never a "religious faith" like Christianity, Islam, or Hinduism. The fact that millions of atheists, along with Jews who observe other faiths, are recognized as Jewish is testament to that.

3. An allusion was made to academic studies (none of them were sourced, let alone verified) positing that certain periods had higher rates of conversion than is commonly accepted. Not only are there competing views on the rate of conversion during the early split of Christianity and Judaism, the number was never large enough to supplant or outnumber the base Israelite population. DNA studies refute that idea directly. There is no definitive information for the Middle Ages either.

4. Claiming that all of mankind originated in Africa ignores the fact that it is a paleoanthropological term, not ethnic. It is an ad absurdum fallacy.

5. "Jews as a rule do not consider themselves as being of Middle Eastern descent"

No evidence was found, or provided, supporting this opinion.

6. "Jews consider themselves to belong to descent-defined groups based on the country of origin ..."

This is also an unsupported opinion, and fails to account for multiple competing factors (historical separation, and the fact that all Jewish divisions worldwide share one thing in common: identification as Israelites, a Middle Eastern nation and ethnic group originating in Israel --- this is evidenced by the fact that we say "next year in Jerusalem" every Passover, not "next year in Warsaw" or "next year in Kiev"). In contrast, there is evidence that Jews, people of Jewish descent, as a rule consider ancestry and ethnicity to be important, and not just in an "academic sense". This can be seen by the maintenance of identification with Israel among most diaspora Jews and most American Jews surveyed are on record as stating that being Jewish is mainly a matter of ancestry and/or culture, according to one Pew report. http://www.pewforum.org/2013/10/01/jewish-american-beliefs-attitudes-culture-survey/ .

7. WP:BURDEN states that the burden, the onus, or the preponderance of evidence is upon the editors proposing adding the category. However, when that onus has been met and the evidence/sources are not challenged, the onus shifts. It then becomes incumbent on the editors who are proposing the removal of the category to support their positions with appropriate evidence/sources. The group proposing removal cannot avoid the shift by the simple expedient of stating the evidence does not convince them and therefore the burden of proof has not been met. If the group proposing the removal is permitted to discount any evidence based on a whim, then it can never be possible to provide sufficient burden, nor can consensus ever be met since the one side is never going to accept any argument or evidence.

Edit: Just so nobody is confused, all seven of my points are drawn from the sources cited above in the RfC, particularly ChronoFrog's list and Bubbecraft's later contributions. I added one more source of my own, but that's because it is a new source that wasn't already cited in the previous discussion.

Edit 2 (10/12/16): It appears as though none of the contributors in the remove section have bothered to read the arguments presented here, especially numbers 1, 2, 3, and 4 which directly address their arguments. Either that or they just do not care (see number 7), because I can't think of anything else that would explain the continuous invocation of converts and repeated declarations that "Jews are only a religion" in attempting to remove this category, because both of these points have been answered multiple times, with sources to boot.

Sources
Sources, in no particular order: The Human Trumpet Solo (talk) 00:59, 6 October 2016 (UTC) References

• Keep 1. Members who "join the Tribe" are typically accepted as if they were present "in Spirit" when Moses gave the Israelites the Commandments—as in, they are sociopolitically aligned/aligning themselves with a Middle Eastern Tribal community (e.g. the Abayudaya); most new members learn (at least somewhat), to speak a Semitic language, to make Middle Eastern cuisines, to engage in Middle Eastern politics, as well as to congregate and associate with Jews who were born of Middle Eastern ancestry, which comprises most Jews (via genes, experience, culture, etc.). It is therefore racist, divisive, and illogical to deny these aspects for both new Jews and ethnically-born Jews. Jeffgr9 (talk) 17:54, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
• Keep I am throwing my hat in with the keepers because I'm not convinced by the arguments in the remove section. All they really amount to is a repeated insistence that Jews are only a religious faith with no substantiation of any kind. They didn't even provide sources or refute any of the keep sides arguments. Jews are also not a religious group, see; Ethnic minorities in English law – Google Books. Books.google.co.uk. Retrieved on 2010-12-23. Edgar Litt (1961). "Jewish Ethno-Religious Involvement and Political Liberalism". Social Forces. 39 (4): 328–332. doi:10.2307/2573430. JSTOR 2573430. Craig R. Prentiss (1 June 2003). Religion and the Creation of Race and Ethnicity: An Introduction. NYU Press. pp. 85–. ISBN 978-0-8147-6701-6. The Avraham Harman Institute of Contemporary Jewry The Hebrew University of Jerusalem Eli Lederhendler Stephen S. Wise Professor of American Jewish History and Institutions (30 November 2001). Studies in Contemporary Jewry : Volume XVII: Who Owns Judaism? Public Religion and Private Faith in America and Israel: Volume XVII: Who Owns Judaism? Public Religion and Private Faith in America and Israel. Oxford University Press, USA. pp. 101–. ISBN 978-0-19-534896-5. Ernest Krausz; Gitta Tulea. Jewish Survival: The Identity Problem at the Close of the Twentieth Century ; [... International Workshop at Bar-Ilan University on the 18th and 19th of March, 1997]. Transaction Publishers. pp. 90–. ISBN 978-1-4128-2689-1. John A. Shoup III (17 October 2011). Ethnic Groups of Africa and the Middle East: An Encyclopedia: An Encyclopedia. ABC-CLIO. p. 133. ISBN 978-1-59884-363-7. Tet-Lim N. Yee (10 March 2005). Jews, Gentiles and Ethnic Reconciliation: Paul's Jewish identity and Ephesians. Cambridge University Press. pp. 102–. ISBN 978-1-139-44411-8.

And to the person who mentioned Uruguayans: I am from Uruguay. I looked for our category and as far as I can tell we're classified the same way as other latinos.

P.S. English isn't my first language so forgive me if that wasn't clearly understood2603:3024:1818:3B00:CCF9:AFE5:1187:21BE (talk) 20:49, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

• Keep (1) As stated quite clearly, in numerous sources, Jews are an ethnoreligious group, not simply a religion. Judaism is the tribal religion of the Jewish people, but there are members of the tribe who follow some other religious practices, or none at all, and are still members of the tribe. (2) Throughout the ages, outsiders who convert to the Jewish faith are also formally adopted into the tribe. They are given a new name, and for their parentage, they are considered a child Abraham and Sarah, the biblical founders of the Jewish tribe. This is similar to the way that outsiders were sometimes adopted into Native American tribes. While the converts themselves are not typically of Middle Eastern descent (except through serendipity), such converts typically marry into families that are Jewish by descent, and over the course of several generations, the descendants of those converts will display primarily Middle Eastern DNA. (3) There is no statute of limitations on tribal/ethnic identity, as long as that identity is preserved, and passed down to new generations, as the Jewish people have done, throughout the diaspora. PA Math Prof (talk) 00:35, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

• Keep It would be extremely disheartening if Wikipedia were to do what UNESCO just did on a global scale: erase Jewish identity and origins in the Middle East. This is an encyclopedia. The sources are all there, consistency favors including the category, and none of the responses from the opposition have proffered anything that substantively rebuts the arguments presented above. Instead, they are rehashing the same chestnuts over and over ("Jews are just a religion", "converts", "they've been away for too long") although those arguments had been addressed repeatedly with virtually nothing in the way of counterargument. ChronoFrog (talk) 08:37, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Remove

• Remove (1) Sources state that the Jewish people originates in the Middle East. There are no sources that the individuals who are categorized as being of Jewish descent are also individuals of Middle Eastern descent. (2) Not all Jews are of Middle Eastern descent. There are and have always been many converts. Academic studies claim that during certain periods the rate of conversion was much higher than commonly accepted. (3) Even if some Jews would technically be of Middle Eastern descent, that is so far in the past (generally some 2000 years, which is some 100 generations), that it is not relevant anymore, both because of the time passed and because of the low degree of Middle Eastern admixture remaining in any individual's descent by now. (4) As an illustration I would bring the argument ad absurdum that since all of mankind originates, according to popular academic theories, from a primordeal man/woman in Africa, we should all be "of African descent". (5) Jews as a rule do not consider themselves as being of Middle Eastern descent, except in the academic sense. To the contrary, Jews consider themselves to belong to descent-defined groups based on the country of origin most closely preceding the current country of residence. This is expressed in which rite they use and which synagogues they frequent. (6) The same holds true for all descent categories of all people, both in real life, as well as in the way descent categories are commonly implemented on Wikipedia. (7) This was discussed 2.5 years ago, and in my opinion the conclusion was clear, that there is a lack of consensus to add this category, and this Rfc was opened as a continuation of that discussion. Many editors who are now absent from the discussion opposed the addition of the category then, and their voices should be counted. (Especially in view of the fact that the long posts by Bubbecraft have possibly had a deterring effect on editors who would otherwise expressed an opinion here.) (8) Per WP:BURDEN, the burden of proof is on those who want to argue that the category should be added, and they have not been able to do so, not in the strength of their arguments and not in view of the fact that they have not garnered a clear consensus for their mistaken opinion. Debresser (talk) 17:51, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
• Remove As per Debresser. I think there's a confusion between the spiritual origins of the Jewish people and the literal origins of each and every Jew. Judaism is a religion and accepts converts and there are and have historically been many Jews who have no actual genetic link to ancient Israel but who under halacha are fully Jewish. McArthur Parkette (talk) 20:31, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Addendum Many Jews are not of Middle Eastern descent just as many Buddhists are not of Indian descent (Buddhism originated in India). McArthur Parkette (talk) 16:25, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
• Remove the Jewish religion originates in the Middle East, Jewish people, including converts, originates wherever they originate from, which may or may not be the Middle East. 🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 14:15, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
• Remove, per above. This is a complex issue for the simple reason that Judaism is a religion, and any attempt to categorise it demographically, as is being done now, will bring about the glaring contradiction of religion vs ancestry. This has been widely discussed culturally, and it is common knowledge that Jews have such problems with religious and ethnical identity. For this reason we cannot just stamp a wide-encompassing category into this one, the same way we wouldn't categorise people born in Uruguay as Latino, given about 98% of the population there is of European heritage (and obviously these "heritages" all go back to Africa anyway). In other words, being a Jew is not the same as being Jewish, nor do they all come from the Middle East, ergo this would be a false presumption. PS: this is one of the worst RfCs I've ever seen; I was summoned by the bot and was quite annoyed to see this survey preceded by an incomprehensible tirade. Best, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 22:15, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
• Remove per others. We do not have adequate evidence that all or most people of Jewish descent are of Middle Eastern descent, so the category is not appropriate. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:30, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
• Remove. The argument here is a silly one. There is a difference between figurative and literal. I think the Category People of Middle Eastern descent is basically a literal Category of those of Middle Eastern descent. There can be some unclarity about how literal one's decent must be while still qualifying for inclusion in this Category. But the argument that all Jews are of Middle Eastern descent is beyond credulity. It cannot by any stretch of the imagination be considered that when a convert to Judaism derives from an area of the globe that is nowhere near the Middle East, that they are somehow of Middle Eastern descent. Does the Middle East cover the entire globe? And additionally there are Jews with the most tenuous connection to Judaism. Are they of Middle Eastern descent? I don't think so. The argument is that they are "culturally Jewish". In some cases they are. In other cases they are not. Furthermore the presumed "chain of Jewish ancestry" is not good enough for Categorizing all Jews as being of Middle Eastern descent. We need reliable sources. To be of encyclopedic value the Category:People of Middle Eastern descent has to be based on something more substantial than figurative notions. This is not a Category of wishful thinking. It is a Category based on sourced connection to a geographic location. Inclusion in the Category must be based on sources, just as the rest of the encyclopedia is based on sources. Therefore those Jewish people reliably sourced as being of Middle Eastern descent should be in Category:People of Middle Eastern descent but those lacking sources should not. Bus stop (talk) 13:06, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
• Remove. Categories tend to be "all or none" propositions, and that's not really how the world works in many cases. I can see both sides of the argument, but on balance, given the diversity in the worldwide Jewish population, I think it's better to just avoid the suggestion that all people of Jewish descent are of Middle Eastern descent, since it's patently not true in many cases. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:14, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

______________________________________________________________________________________________________

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

• See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#RFC_Closure_review_Category_talk:People_of_Jewish_descent.23Survey for a closure review. 🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 21:24, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Update: The Closure review above was closed on 7 February 2017 and was archived here. Musashiaharon (talk) 03:00, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
    • Yet more proof that Wikipedia is not to be used as a reliable source. A moronic close that was upheld is not an excuse for a horribly sourced and wrong categorization scheme. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 04:28, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

I generally do see Wikipedia as a reliable source, but in this case completely agree with Sir Joseph. Debresser (talk) 19:03, 21 February 2017 (UTC)