This category was nominated for deletion on 2004 December 1. The result of the discussion was Keep.
This category was nominated for deletion on 2 February 2007. The result of the discussion was Keep.
This category was nominated for deletion on 29 October 2008. The result of the discussion was no consensus.
This category was nominated for deletion on 10 March 2010. The result of the discussion was rename Category:Jews to Category:Jewish people. Overturned/Relisted, 2010 May 3, DRV.
This category was nominated for deletion on 10 May 2010. The result of the discussion was rename Category:Jewish people to Category:Jews (i.e. Keep Category:Jews).
This category does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
This category is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
This category is within the scope of WikiProject Ethnic groups, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to ethnic groups, nationalities, and other cultural identities on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ethnic groupsWikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groupsTemplate:WikiProject Ethnic groupsEthnic groups
This category is within the scope of WikiProject Judaism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Judaism-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JudaismWikipedia:WikiProject JudaismTemplate:WikiProject JudaismJudaism
This category is within the scope of WikiProject Jewish history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Jewish history on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Jewish historyWikipedia:WikiProject Jewish historyTemplate:WikiProject Jewish historyJewish history-related
This category is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Israel on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IsraelWikipedia:WikiProject IsraelTemplate:WikiProject IsraelIsrael-related
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Majority to Keep: Voting began Dec 1, 2004. Closed Jan 10, 2005: 9 votes to Keep; 3 votes to Keep or rename; 2 votes to Rename; 2 votes to Delete. The proposal was to rename to Category:Jewish people which is now defeated. (See Wikipedia:Categories for deletion policies#Normal closure: "Wait at least 7 days after nomination. Make sure there is a clear consensus to keep.") There is thus a "clear consensus to keep" Category:Jews unchanged. IZAK 05:59, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Moved from Wikipedia:Categories for deletion
Note: The following is now placed here as per the instructions on Wikipedia:Categories for deletion policies#Normal closure: "Wait at least 7 days after nomination. Make sure there is a clear consensus to keep. Copy the discussion to the category's talk page. Link to precedent-setting conversations from /resolved.
Remove the {{cfd}} tag from the category page." Thank you. IZAK 06:16, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Category:Jews Rename to Category:Jewish people, to parallel our decision on moving "Christians" to "Christian people". This category also needs a clear charter, since people may be Jewish by religion, by ethnicity, by matriarchal decent, by culture, etc. (See Jew.) I assume this category mixes the various classes without distinction. -- Beland 08:35, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Keep: Hi Beland, I don't know if you have looked at all the TALK pages of the article on Jew so I don't know what you mean by "charter"? The category is all inclusive as you suppose. IZAK 11:59, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I would guess that what is meant is that the category description should explicitly state this, if this is to be the guiding principle. -Aranel ("Sarah") 20:25, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Aranel, it is a complex subject that is discussed within the Jew article where the various points of view are discussed. Have you read it yet? IZAK 09:25, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I started this change, and I support following through with it. --Gary D 23:00, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)
"Jews" or "Jewish people" what's the difference in any case, since a Jew is usually a member of the "Jewish people", which is NOT the case in Islam or Christianity. IZAK 09:25, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Delete. It is not easy to determine the "Jewishness" of the majority of famous Jewish people, any attempts to do so here will be inevitably POV, and it is both arbitrary and racist to group together people merely on the basis of their perceived ethnicity. Also, importantly, such a category violates the general guidelines at Wikipedia:Categorization of people. -- Simonides 10:58, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Actually, the ethnicity of Jews is usually quite easy to determine; generally the information is readily found in their biographies. Jayjg
Hi Simonides: Firstly, this is NOT just about "perceived ethnicity" as the Jews are ALL of an established religion (Judaism), people or nation, culture AND non-exclusive ethnicity. Secondly, can you explain EXACTLY which "guidelines" are being "violated" as you just leave it up in the air and expect people to swallow your non-reasoning by a mere "reference" (and please explain how you would reconcile what you claim with having the Category:Christian people which IS accepted by Wikipedia???) Thirdly, the "Jewishness" of many people is known and accepted, so what is wrong with that? Fourthly, in the article on Jew ALL the various ways of defining Jews and Jewish people are stated, to include religious, ethnic, and cultural definitions with long-standing historical roots and references. Finally, is this just another way of "doing away" with Jews on Wikipedia (how convenient for those who don't like them, isn't it?) And please remember... this is NOT an attempt to "delete" Jews from Wikipedia permanently. Thank you. IZAK 11:05, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
A typical factually-incapacitated, rambling, nonsensical reply from a well-known Wikipedia POV pusher. Firstly, no one is "deleting" Jews - the Jewish origins of famous people are mentioned in their biographical sections, but unless there is some direct relevance to the person's achievements/ career/ personality, or unless the person him/herself wished for it, there is no need to emphasize their Jewishness with a redundant category; and this has nothing to do with people who "dislike" Jews, because the same principle applies equally well to other such categories, like the one above, "Muslims", where exactly the same objection has been made. More importantly, it is gross and factually unsupportable POV to state that all people with some Jewish ancestry or Jewish beliefs "are ALL of an established religion (Judaism), people or nation, culture AND non-exclusive ethnicity" - such a broad generalisation is self-evidently rubbish; and finally, I have already linked the page which states the violated guidelines, and if you bother to read it, it is possible you will find the guidelines, but in case even that proves too difficult, here are more straightforward links at the same page (you have to click on them to read their contents): 1 , 2, 3 . -- Simonides 11:29, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Simonides I have NEVER encountered you or "crossed swords" with you on Wikipedia. I looked at all the links, and I don't see any violations at all! (Calling people "Jewish" is not insulting like calling them "Prostitutes" as one link says. And connecting people with their ETHNIC origins, especially in RUSSIA is done sionce they have hundreds of nationalities including a province that was set aside for Jews once.) You are only using those points to push YOUR own POV and make it sound like opposing it makes me into a "POV pusher" which I resent! So do me the courtesy of NOT insulting me or my intelligence! You cannot squeeze religions and ethnicities onto "business cards", but you can classify and categorize the OBVIOUS facts, and the Jewish origins and connections of many people can be done according to either ethnic or Judaism's standards. I know it's a contentious issue, but it cannot be avoided as everyone has an objection to all types of Jewish "categories" secular or religious. Have you seen Jew#Famous Jews and List of Jews and Category:Lists of Jews with all the types of people on them? Do you plan to get rid of all that too? What nonsense and denial of history that would be. Many Wikipedia Users/editors think it's all very viable, and now, late in the day, you come along with "objections" that have already been re-hashed a hundred times in the talk pages of the Jew article. Go read it (and ALL its Talk pages) please, won't you. IZAK 12:27, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Here is something [1] that "got lost" due to some faulty editing so I am re-posting it IZAK 13:42, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC):
"If you don't see any violations you might be 1) batty 2) not literate enough 3) simply very slow to understand things. As for POV, you state yourself that such categorisations can be made according to "ethnic or Judaism's standards", and refer further to an anti-Semitic decision by Russians to keep Jews in the same area, thus proving my point that your category is inherently POV; this is different from merely making a general list. No more information is needed. -- Simonides 12:41, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)" [2]
Again I ask that you NOT break the rules of Wikiquette by insulting me. To call someone (1) "batty", or (2) "not literate enough" or (3) "slow" definitely count as a Personal insult and attacks and grounds for a RfC and possible RfA, so please stop it now and talk facts. Please do not confuse the way Russian Anti-Semites "think" or "not think" with legitimate scholarly and Judaic ways of understanding and categorizing facts, people, and events logically and correctly. Thank you. P.S. And please try to be polite at all times on Wikipedia. IZAK 13:42, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
It seems to me that the semantic difference between "Jew" and "Jewish" is that the former denotes an identity; the latter, an attribute. As far as I can tell, Jewish people tend to prefer referring to themselves as "Jewish" rather than as "Jews," whereas antisemites tend to prefer referring to us as "Jews" rather than "Jewish." In dealing with the outside world, a person may be a plumber, and his/her Jewishness is entirely incidental. In a synagogue, we are a congregation of Jews. By what criteria you are Jewish will depend on the person describing himself/herself as such - some apply religious criteria, other ethnic, other cultural, etc. I vote for changing the category to Jewish because I think the attribute is more relevant than the identity. Issues of Jewish identity deserve their own article(s), but that's another discussion. --Leifern 12:47, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
As far as I know, Jews prefer to be called Jews, whereas non-Jews tend to use "Jewish people", because they think the term "Jew" is somehow a bad word, which is in itself offensive. See my comment below. Jayjg
Hi Leifern, I have no real objection to the renaming of the Category:Jews to the proposed Category:Jewish people. What Simonides is saying is far more radical, he would like to have no such category or any sub-category for a more acceptably named "Jewish people" category because he feels it's "racist" in essence, which is a very shallow argument since the fact of a person's Jewish identity, be it ethnic or religious, is important when considering the role of the Jews in history and in world events. We are talking about objective facts and obviously not anything related to "racist" POV opinions. It can be a fine line to deal with, but it should not be avoided on an encyclopedia that wants to include everything important. Thanks again. IZAK 13:10, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Rename. I find these categories useful. For example, note that Category:Christian people groups together Christian religious leaders, as well as articles about specific sub-groups. It's possible that some restructuring may be necessary, but I don't see anything wrong with having such categories. People who are known for being Jewish ought to be listed in some sort of category. I agree that people who were only sort of "incidentally" Jewish might be better categorized elsewhere, but that doesn't meant that the category itself is inappropriate. -Aranel ("Sarah") 15:17, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Note that most of the articles in this cateogry are not individual biographies, but entries that related to groups or lists of Jews. Juko 22:47, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Jewish people is a circumlocution, Jew is fine. In fact, avoiding the word "Jew" can be seen as offensive. As the American Heritage Dictionary points out in its Usage Note: It is widely recognized that the attributive use of the noun Jew, in phrases such as Jew lawyer or Jew ethics, is both vulgar and highly offensive. In such contexts Jewish is the only acceptable possibility. Some people, however, have become so wary of this construction that they have extended the stigma to any use of Jew as a noun, a practice that carries risks of its own. In a sentence such as There are now several Jews on the council, which is unobjectionable, the substitution of a circumlocution like Jewish people or persons of Jewish background may in itself cause offense for seeming to imply that Jew has a negative connotation when used as a noun. Jayjg 17:13, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Encyclopedia content should not be judged on what is “offensive”; everything is offensive to someone, and it is a quick way to let activists impose POV language on the project. Words that may be slurs should be judged on their POV content, and I fail to see any POV either in “Jews” or “Jewish people”. Susvolans(pigs can fly) 09:10, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Encyclopedia content is often tailored to avoid using terms that people find offensive. For example, the user of the term "Islamist" rather than "Muslim", to describe more extreme or traditional Muslim views. And in any event "Jewish people" is an unnecessary circumlocution. Jayjg 18:11, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Keep and do not rename. Adding "people" is unneccessary since there is nothing ambiguous about the term "Jew" that would indicate anything other than a categorization of people. --MPerel 17:45, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)
Keep and don't change. Don't add anything. Jews are not similar to christians and moslims, but to Druze and Sikhs which are also ethnicities with internal religions. Hence Sikhs in Manchester live in the Haredi enclave and Druze in Israel serve in the IDF. gidonb 11:22, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Leave this important (for history anyway) and complex category alone. Did I miss the discussion about Category:African Americans? ←Humus sapiens←Talk 05:07, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Keep at current name. Andre (talk) 01:41, Dec 19, 2004 (UTC)
Vote is now closed. This is a record of the original discussions and votes. Please do not edit.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Either way is ok I guess. Though I do think there is some sort of "cultural differentiation" at work. Somehow "Jewish Russians" is never commonly used (is the term "Jewish Russian" used at all by anyone?) and thus "Russian Jews" seems acceptable by default. On the other hand, "American Jews" may sound ok to Russians or non-Americans by birth but to Americans it may even be "offensive" because the word "Jewish" does not have any negative connotations within the USA so therefore "Jewish Americans" is better than "American Jews" within an American context even though it may seem like foolishness to a non-American. No-one said this was easy sailing... IZAK 12:46, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Yes, it does say something. One can be both a Russian Jew and a Jewish American. The first denotes an ethnicity and the second denotes a nationality. — Reinyday, 09:02, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Individuals in category?
I've been removing the handful of individuals listed in this category amid entries like Bukharan Jews, because it seems they have been added haphazardly and are only a tiny fraction of those on List of Jews, which seems like the place for this sort of info. Is this OK with those who are following this page?--Pharos 22:33, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
It is not OK, if you are not placing them in another jewish-related category. Quite often people simply don't know which exactly category from the whole hierarchy is applicable and use their best judgement, to be reclassified later by those who know better. Mikkalai 23:42, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
It seems to me like the categories are not really being fully used, and that the real comprehensive work is being done on the lists.--Pharos 00:19, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I agree with Pharos. Jayjg (talk) 01:28, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
The real comprehenive work with lists started well before the categories were introduced. Unlike other nations, Jews seem to care more about their people, therefore the Jewish lists are much more comprehensive than those of any other nation. But this fact in no way removes the necessity of categories. Ethnicity/nationality is a major "passport category" for a person. Therefore if you cannot replace Category:Jews with a more precise one, like category:Jewish American artists, you have no right to remove it from an article, since this is loss of information. Mikkalai 02:13, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I too think Pharos is basically correct. By comparison it would be ridiculous to place simply Category:Christian people alone into every article about someone who happens to be a Christian by birth or by religious practice. IZAK 09:37, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
IZAK, I thought you would knew better. Being a Jew is not simply a religious practice, like Christian. It is also ethnicity. Which is, I repeat, a passport category of a person. There is category:Russian people. Some time ago I tried to introduce category:Jewish people, but some smartasses argued that there already is category:Jews. This strange situation reminds me an old russian joke:
The teacher asks the class to produce a word that starts with the letter "A"; Vovochka happily raises his hand and says "Asshole!". The teacher, shocked, responds "There is no such word!" "How can it be," wonders Vovochka, "An asshole exists, but the word does not?"
Oy-vey, Jewish people exist, but they are not allowed a category? gewalt. Also, you are not reading what I say. Of course, using such a broad category is not good. That's what are subcategories for (I gave an example). But simply de-categorizing is an inadmissible editing by wikipedia rule, since this is loss of information, which is not a piece of trivia. Mikkalai 20:09, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Mikkalai: Firstly it is very difficult for me to take you seriously if you use profanity in such a serious discussion, as it shows that you are perhaps "playing games" rather then genuinely working to make the Wikipedia "Categories" a serious and workable feature.
To illustrate a point by a parable is in the best traditions of many cultures, including Jewish. Not all palabres are "politically correct". You will be probably shocked to read some 2000 year old Arabian tales. As for seriousness of a person, when in doubt I always look in the history of edits of the person in question.Mikkalai 17:48, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, "asshole" is not an acceptable "parable" for the language of an encyclopedia. And I don't much care for "2000 year old 'Arabian tales'", whatever that may or may not be. IZAK 07:18, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Back to the discussion: The problem with merely labelling someone "Jew" is that it is BOTH far TOO VAGUE (and hence both meaningless and useless) and it is also an unacceptable usage of the word "Jew" which is laden with very deep emotional meanings and conflicts for Jews themselves as well as for both Judaeophiles (i.e. "Jew-lovers") and for Anti-Semites. It is like throwing an unwelcome proverbial "hand grenade" ("stink-bomb"?) into an article! Category:Russian Jews is not perfect yet can be said to be validly tied in with both the Category:Ethnic groups of Russia and with Category:Jewish Russian and Soviet history which plain "Jew" could never achieve. One must proceed with great caution because of the sensitivity of this subject and not bandy it about and place "Jew"-labels in tens of thousands of articles that are about someone who may or may not be Jewish. There are also many divergent views of what or who a "Jew" is or is not, see Who is a Jew?, and in any case Category:Jews has as its sub-category: Category:Lists of Jews which contains multiple articles with lists of important Jews by region or country or subject, and Jew's names can go there as the "pro-list" people are saying above. So there is no need to create confusion and stirring up unfounded and suspicious debate. IZAK 07:48, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I understand your position. I am perfectly aware of situations, e.g., in Russia, when the person was labelled as "Jew" with the sole purpose to discredit his in the eyes of "patriots". I still don't see the problem with categorizing, when the article about a person says, e.g., that he/she is from Jewish family.
As for sensitivity, a devoted anti-Semite may as well be fueled exactly by non-usage of the category: "See? They are hiding their identities so that you coud not see their plot!"
Your language "labelling someone 'Jew'" is improper. If a person is a Jew, we are not "labeling" him. We are "categorizing" him. Are you inclined to think that this is like a yellow Star of David? I could understand this concern in articles about living persons, say, for security reasons.
Anyway, my sole point is consistent preservation of information. If you feel strongly about what we are discussing here, the proper solution is to have a proper charter of this category that specifies all whats and what nots.
Also, I am repeating, for the third time, if you feel that a category is too broad, the proper solution is to move an article into a narrower category, rather than decategorize.
I stated my points, but I will not further my opinion, with the exception of the charter issue, which I hope you'll find indisputable. Mikkalai 17:48, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Mikkalai: Thanks for your opinion/s. There is no "charter" for categories, as categories are constantly added then changed, removed, edited, deleted, and much more. It's a "work-of art-in-progress". But from the comments of some of the editors of "Jewish" articles, there is a consensus that individuals and their names should not be placed in the main Category:Jews and instead, all effort/s should be made to put famous Jewish individuals into the "Lists of Jews" first, and you will find plenty of them in Category:Lists of Jews which is itself a sub-category of Category:Jews, or into more specific categories such as Category:Russian Jews or Category:Jewish Americans which fit into the actual ethnic and religious minorities in those countries, or into broader, not narrower, categories that can validly include Jews of that country, such as Category:Jewish Polish history or Category:Jewish society. We don't need a "charter", and above all we need lots of good faith and common sense coupled with sensitivity to the subject. IZAK 07:18, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This consensus must be explicitely writen into the category:Jews , so that occasional people know about it. (The text into the category page that briefly states its purpose is called "charter" here; just in case if you thought something else when you wrote "we don't need charter".) And the charter itself may be "changed, edited, and much more".
And your repeated comments make me think that you still seem keep forgetting my main point, from what all this fuss started. Let me spell it for you on another example. Suppose I stumble upon an aricle "pneumoclacordialitis". I guess that it is a disease. But I am not a doctor. I have no idea what the heck it is: disorder, infectious isease, whatever. So I place it into category:diseases, hoping that an expert comes and places it into a better place. I not at all expect someone to come and revert my change.
Likewise here. If you see a miscategorized person, you put it in a proper place. If there is a consensus about other way dealing with the situation, it must be written in a noticeable place, so that you would not have to repeat this discussion with each new person individually. (But if you prefer individual explanations, fine with me. At this point I am satisfied with your explanations and agree with your position.) But, for the last time, it is not at all OK to simply revert me saying (or thinking) "you are wrong; I know better", even if you don't like my jokes. At the very top of this section user:Pharos wrote: "which seems like the place for this sort of info" (my boldfacing). Well; it turns out he guessed correctly and I did not. Do you prefer to leave it to be based on guessing by each and every newcomer? Mikkalai 16:38, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
IZAK, after some recent experience I now 100% see your point, and agree with it, even though basically I am right. Mikkalai 02:11, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Thank you... but as I said this is all "a work of art in progress" so there will invariably new things that come up for us to think about. IZAK 12:34, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
defining characteristic or related to their notability
Yes, but I thought it was important to be bold and believe that consistency and fairness in categorization is important. Andries17:19, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, now I know that you're pushing your point at two categories at the same time. Now, I suggest that you start this discussion at the relvant policy page. BeitOr17:38, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You mean this page? I already explained the reasons for my edits here. Now it is time for you to give a detailed rebuttal. 17:39, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
No, the relevant page is Wikipedia:Categorization. You should get a consensus there for your highly restrictive criterion if you want it to become a general requirement for categorization by ethnicity and religion. BeitOr17:53, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In addition, I think the burden of explanation is on you. Per common sense, as reflected in a Wikipedia guideline called WP:BRD, if you tried to make a change, you should explain why your changes are better than what all Wikipedia editors before have came up with. Debresser (talk) 08:07, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Because I fixed redirect, removed unnecessary parameters, sorted categories, added portal and replaced template with the one intended for categories.--Triggerhippie4 (talk) 11:33, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
After having a careful look I will undo my revert. The only strange thing was the non-alphabetic sorting of the categories, but that is not something I revert for. Sorry. Debresser (talk) 21:59, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Those are good points. I think maybe there should be separate categories for ethnic Jews and converted Jews, but that's a topic for another day.Evildoer187 (talk) 15:58, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Disagreement about versions
User:Debresser and I have different opinions about how the category's opening sentence should read. Therefore I'm bringing this to here so it can be solved properly: That's his version, and this is mine. Please say what you guys think. Thanks, Shalom11111 (talk) 21:28, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's a mix, I'd remove the "necessarily" - if someone identifies as a jew, they are in Jews, if not they are in Jewish descent. they shouldn't be in both. But the link to Who is a jew is useful and causes no problem.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:21, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea, that seems to be the best solution. The link to Who is a Jew is indeed helpful and relevant to here as it helps identify who belongs in this category, and the word "necessarily" is needless for the reason Obiwankenobi said. So we have a deal, Debresser? Shalom11111 (talk) 09:34, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that yet another attempt to dispute Jewish connections to the Middle East is taking place on this category. Per the criteria used to classify indigenous peoples on Wikipedia (see here), I see no reason to remove this category beyond the usual false chestnuts "it's just a religion" and "not all Jews". A preponderance of historical, genetic, cultural, etc evidence refutes both decisively. Converts do not comprise a large enough percentage of the population (historically or presently) to make a difference.The Human Trumpet Solo (talk) 11:01, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
See Category talk:People of Jewish descent. You took part in that discussion, so why do you continue an edit war on an issue that you know is controversial? Especially in view of the fact that this category was only recently added here by a suspicious IPv6 after it was removed sometime in 2013. Debresser (talk) 15:56, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Judaism has a clear connection the Middle East. The arguments about conversion are bogus - conversion to Judaism is rare, and most that convert (myself included) have a Jewish heritage, but not a Jewish mother. There is archaeological evidence for early Jewish connection to Israel. And there are over 6 million Jews living in the Middle East today. Bellezzasolo (talk) 14:11, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This has been discussed at length. There is no consensus for your edit. Just for argument's sake, there is no relevance to your last sentence regarding categorization of all Jews in the world who live outside Israel. Debresser (talk) 20:27, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Bellezzasolo, you are correct that Judaism has a clear connection to the Middle East. However, this category is about labeling Jews. Jews are not necessarily from the Middle East. They are from wherever they are from. I happen to be from the US, and would object to categorizing me from the Middle East, same with converts and Jews from all over the world. Sir Joseph(talk)20:32, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I do hope we are not re-opening this particular can of worms. See this section on my talkpage and the external link in it, which leads me to believe that some people outside Wikipedia might be trying to influence this issue. Debresser (talk) 20:42, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The Category is called Ethnic Groups In the Middle East, not From. I don't think that it's a particularly controversial categorization. The cateogry includes Arabs, and American Arabs might feel the same way as Sir Joseph suggests. However, with the word in, the meaning is different. Bellezzasolo (talk) 21:04, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
But I am not in the Middle East, and I am not from the Middle East, so my Wikipedia article should not have me in a category of in the Middle East. Sir Joseph(talk)21:44, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's not how categories work. If this was about the religion, that might work, but you can't categorize ALL Jews as being from the Middle East. Most Jews are not from the Middle East. Sir Joseph(talk)01:38, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's exactly how categories work. If something fits with the title, you put it in. Since Jews all have Jewish bloodlines (with the minor exception of first-generation converts), they are Middle Eastern. Musashiaharon (talk) 03:29, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for confirming why Wikipedia is not to be taken seriously. Do what you want. You are ruining the encyclopedia with your stupidity and that is fine. I don't need to get all worked up over it. Thanks again for ruining yet another article. Please don't respond to me. I'm taking this page off my watchlist. And for the record, I am not of Middle Eastern descent and it's ludicrous beyond belief that you think it's acceptable to pigeonhole EVERY Jew into that category. Sir Joseph(talk)04:26, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we even need get into the issue of the origin of Judaism. The category lists ethnic groups in the Middle East, and includes the category Arabs. The categorisation does not infer that all (or even the majority of) members of that ethnicity are from the Middle East. All that it seems to infer is that the ethnicity makes a significant minority in that region. Furthermore, the omission thereof may be inadvertent WP:BIAS as it seems to verify the most extreme Palestinian positions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bellezzasolo (talk • contribs) 09:18, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So if you would add a category like "Jews in Israel" or "Jews in Lebanon", that would be fine. But not the category for all Jews. Just like we have "Christian groups in the Middle East" here, but not the category "Christians" which is for all Christians. Debresser (talk) 17:05, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your PoV on this, and I agree that Christians shouldn't be in the category, but for a very different reason. Christians cannot be characterised as an ethnic group, hence their inclusion in the category would be wholly inappropriate. Hence the situation you describe. The situation with Jews is different - we qualify as an ethnic group.
To sunmarise my arguments:
Jews are an ethnic group
There is a sizeable minority of Jews in thr Middle East.
The category name is Ethnic Groups in the Middle East.
The category name does not infer all.
Other groups, like Arabs, are included (which has a subpage Arab Diaspora).
Origin of Jews is not an issue, as it subcategories several diaspora groups, and, even if it where, most Jews would still qualify.
Ommission gives appearance of bias by denying Jewish presence in the Middle East to the layperson.
I too am for a wider change to related categories, removing Middle east categories from all Jewish and Jewish descent categories where it doesn't belong. But that is for another time. In any case, regarding this specific category I think I conclusively refuted your "in" argument, with all due respect. Debresser (talk) 19:08, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the category structure is a bit of a mess. However, until a user or group thereof comes up with a better way of categorizing people, I suggest that we follow the established WP:CON of ethnic groups being included in the categories of the format Ethnic Groups in Region where the said group makes a significant minority. It would be wrong for this page to break this consensus - WP:CONLEVEL. As such, Category:Jews should be included in Category:Ethnic groups in the Middle East. Bellezzasolo (talk) 21:58, 22 February 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Thank you for admitting that. Some Jewish categories do have the Middle East category, others don't. Anyway, we should first let this WP:MEAT issue end, and then we can decide if we want to re-open this issue or not. Debresser (talk) 05:19, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
this category has nothing to do with ethnic groups. It had to do with people identifying as Jews. You can't apply middle east descent to everyone who is Jewish.Sir Joseph(talk)21:35, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Sir Joseph: if you payed more attention the the last two edits I made you would see that I was adding metadata, and not changing the actual page. I did so to discourage inexperienced editors from changing the page by pointing them here. I've never cited the RfC, which you alluded to in one of your reverts. Please pay closer attention to changes before reverting them!
I have to admit that I also fail to see the need to add the category commented out. Even worse I find the edit warring over such things. Debresser (talk) 18:16, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Debresser: When the ANI was closed saying "discuss on the article talk page" that means you also. If you want to cop an attitude and refuse to discuss. I'll open another thread myself. GMGtalk22:42, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Try as I may I can't even figure out what the dispute is about. Why doesn't somebody make an attempt to explain their version of what is in dispute? Bus stop (talk) 22:57, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently, it's whether the line beginning with "This page lists individuals who.." should be above or below the paragraph. Also a disagreement between Template:Category diffuse vs. Template:Container category. I side with switching the template (as there are 8 articles directly in the category) but leaving everything else alone. ElassintHi00:29, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Elassint's solution sounds good to me. And thanks for being the first to explain what your preferred version was and why. Maybe a lesson to the other 2 primary participants. Nil Einne (talk) 10:06, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
[3]: I used specifically designed templates {{Classification bar}} and {{Category explanation}} instead of giving the same information in longer raw code, and I fixed piped link [[Category:Tribes of Israel|Israelites]] reflecting the category's move to the new name.
[4]: I also updated description copying it from the lead of the article Jews. Current description was added the same way in 2015 and wasn't updated since then.
@GreenMeansGo I wanted to make a point: that Triggerhippie4 should be civil and not boss other editors around. He already has WP:OWN problems here.
First of all let me remind all here, that the current wording of the category page was the result of a very long and hard discussion in February 2017. It should therefore not be changed lightheartedly, and major edits like the ones Triggerhippie4 tried to make, should have been discussed beforehand.
My problems with his changes were the following:
Changing Template:Category diffuse to Template:Container category. Just check the text of these templates to understand the fundamental difference between them. I am not sure we want to decide that this category must contain only subcategories and no articles. At least that is something that should be discussed.
I am not sure we need the {{Classification bar|Semitic-speaking peoples|Canaanite people|Israelites|Jews}}. Apart from the issue, that I am not sure I agree that the Israelites were a Canaanite people, even though such seems to be the prevalent opinion, one of the main points of the discussion I referred to before was that the modern Jews are not a direct continuation of the Israelites. Also, I find the implied relation between the people and the language to be factually incorrect.
The definition of the Jewish people as a "nation" was crucial to the consensus on this page since 2016. Triggerhippie4 tried to take us back to a wording that was in use here before 2016, and doing so against the consensus that made this change in January 2016 is completely unacceptable. Debresser (talk) 22:46, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is just incredible. @Debresser:February 2017 discussion has absolutely nothing to do with my edits. It was only about whether this category should be included to such categories as "Indigenous peoples of Western Asia", "Ethnic groups in the Middle East" etc. Nothing I've changed was discussed before.
I've changed {{Container category}} to {{Category diffuse}} precisely because this category should contain not only subcategories but articles too: [6].
I didn't add the classification. It was in place before and remains so right now, after your reverts. I've changed its wikicode using convenient {{Classification bar}}: [7].
The definition of the Jewish people here was added in 2015, it hasn't been changed ever since and wasn't discussed. What I did is took current stable opening sentence from the article Jews and insert it here: [8]. My edit include changing from "ethno-cultural group" to "nation", reflecting consensus existing in the article for years. Here's the last time it was discussed: Talk:Jews/Archive 30#Reversion of nation.
I apologize. I must have mixed up your edits with the previous version. I agree with all three points, and you are right, I actually argued them for you. Again, I must have mixed up the two versions.
At the same time, you do have WP:OWN issues, run to WP:ANI for the wrong reasons, and are highly uncivil ("You should be barred from editing Wikipedia"??). Please apologize. Debresser (talk) 10:16, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Chill out Triggerhippie4. Discussion has everything to do with any edit any time you make a bold change and someone reverts you. You made a bold change. Someone reverted you. So it's up to you to build consensus for your preferred changes. This is usually more effective if done one at a time, rather than a half dozen at a time. But responding to a sour attitude with a sour attitude isn't going to help you build a consensus with anybody for anything.
Both of you should probably stop talking about each other all together and start talking about the suggested changes. If you can't, then you should go edit something else for a while and come back when you can, because this kind of back and forth isn't going to accomplish anything other than pissing everyone off equally. As it happens, having a bunch of pissed off editors doesn't actually benefit our readers one little bit. GMGtalk10:47, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
